G.R. No. L-68053 May 7, 1990 LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ, vs. !E !

ONORA"LE #N ERMED#A E A$ELLA E %OUR and &E'U' YANE', E' EL# A YANE', AN ON#O YANE', RO'AR#O YANE', and #LUM#NADO YANE', . This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of: (a) the decision of the Fourth Civil Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated August !" !#$ in AC%&.'. C( )o. *++,+ entitled -.esus /anes et al. v. Dr. 'odolfo 0iason et al.- affirming the decision dated .ul1 $" !#23 of the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental insofar as it ordered the petitioners to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 the private respondents the sum of 6,7"777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots )os. 22 %A and 22 %9 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia" )egros 4ccidental and reversing the su;5ect decision insofar as it awarded the sums of 6,"777.77" 6*"777.77 and 6,"777.77 as actual damages" moral damages and attorne1<s fees" respectivel1 and (;) the resolution of said appellate court dated :a1 7" !#$3" den1ing the motion for reconsideration of its decision. The real properties involved are two parcels of land identified as 8ot 22 %A and 8ot 22 %9 which were originall1 known as 8ot 22 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia" )egros 4ccidental. 8ot 22 " with an area of !*+"*3# s=uare meters" was registered in the name of the heirs of Aniceto /anes under 4riginal Certificate of Title )o. '4%3$*$ ($$73) issued on 4cto;er #" !#!2 ;1 the 'egister of Deeds of 4ccidental )egros (>?h. A). Aniceto /anes was survived ;1 his children" 'ufino" Felipe and Teodora. @erein private respondents" >stelita" Iluminado and .esus" are the children of 'ufino who died in !#+, while the other private respondents" Antonio and 'osario /anes" are children of Felipe. Teodora was survived ;1 her child" .ovita (.ovito) Ali;. 1 It is not clear wh1 the latter is not included as a part1 in this case. Aniceto left his children 8ots 22 and $, . Teodora cultivated onl1 three hectares of 8ot $, as she could not attend to the other portions of the two lots which had a total area of around twent1%four hectares. The record does not show whether the children of Felipe also cultivated some portions of the lots ;ut it is esta;lished that 'ufino and his children left the province to settle in other places as a result of the out;reak of Aorld Aar II. According to >stelita" from the -.apanese time up to peace time-" the1 did not visit the parcels of land in =uestion ;ut -after li;eration-" when her ;rother went there to get their share of the sugar produced therein" he was informed that Fortunato 0antiago" Fuente;ella (6uentevella) and AlvareB were in possession of 8ot 22 . ( It is on record that on :a1 !#" !# $" Fortunato D. 0antiago was issued Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 'F ,+#3 (,#2#2) covering 8ot 22 %A with an area of 2"$!$ s=uare meters. 3 TCT )o. 'F ,+#3 descri;es 8ot 22 %A as a portion of 8ot 22 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia and as originall1 registered under 4CT )o. $$73. The ;igger portion of 8ot 22 with an area of !!$"$ ! s=uare meters was also registered in the name of Fortunato D. 0antiago on 0eptem;er +" !# $ Cnder TCT )o. 'T%,+#* (,$!#, ). ) 0aid transfer certificate of title also contains a certification to the effect that 8ot 22 %9 was originall1 registered under 4CT )o. $$73. 4n :a1 7" !#**" 0antiago sold 8ots 22 %A and 22 %9 to :onico 9. Fuente;ella" .r. in consideration of the sum of 62"777.77. 5 Conse=uentl1" on Fe;ruar1 ,7" !#*+" TCT )os. T%!#,#! and T%!#,#, were issued in Fuente;ella<s name. 6 After Fuente;ella<s death and during the settlement of his estate" the administratri? thereof (Arsenia '. (da. de Fuente;ella" his wife) filed in 0pecial 6roceedings )o. 3 2 in the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental" a motion re=uesting authorit1 to sell 8ots 22 %A and 22 %9. 7 91 virtue of a court order granting said motion" 8 on :arch ,3" !#*$" Arsenia (da. de Fuente;ella sold said lots for 6+"777.77 to

'osendo AlvareB. 9 @ence" on April !" !#*$ TCT )os. T%, !+* and T%, !++ covering 8ots 22 %A and 22 %9 were respectivel1 issued to 'osendo AlvareB. 10 Two 1ears later or on :a1 ,+" !#+7" Teodora /anes and the children of her ;rother 'ufino" namel1" >stelita" Iluminado and .esus" filed in the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental a complaint against Fortunato 0antiago" Arsenia (da. de Fuente;ella" AlvareB and the 'egister of Deeds of )egros 4ccidental for the -return- of the ownership and possession of 8ots 22 and $, . The1 also pra1ed that an accounting of the produce of the land from !#33 up to the filing of the complaint ;e made ;1 the defendants" that after court approval of said accounting" the share or mone1 e=uivalent due the plaintiffs ;e delivered to them" and that defendants ;e ordered to pa1 plaintiffs 6*77.77 as damages in the form of attorne1<s fees. 11 During the pendenc1 in court of said case or on )ovem;er ! " !#+!" AlvareB sold 8ots 22 %A" 22 %9 and another lot for 6,*"777.77 to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason. 1( Accordingl1" TCT )os. 7#!# and 7#,7 were issued to 0iason" 13 who thereafter" declared the two lots in his name for assessment purposes. 1) :eanwhile" on )ovem;er +" !#+," .esus /anes" in his own ;ehalf and in ;ehalf of the other plaintiffs" and assisted ;1 their counsel" filed a manifestation in Civil Case )o. *7,, stating that the therein plaintiffs -renounce" forfeit and =uitclaims (sic) an1 claim" monetar1 or otherwise" against the defendant Arsenia (da. de Fuente;ella in connection with the a;ove%entitled case.- 15 4n 4cto;er !!" !#+ " a decision was rendered ;1 the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental in Civil Case )o. *7,," the dispositive portion of which reads: A@>'>F4'>" 5udgment is rendered" ordering the defendant 'osendo AlvareB to reconve1 to the plaintiffs lots )os. 22 and $, of the Cadastral 0urve1 of :urcia" )egros 4ccidental" now covered ;1 Transfer Certificates of Title )os. T%, !+* and T% , !++ in the name of said defendant" and thereafter to deliver the possession of said lots to the plaintiffs. )o special pronouncement as to costs. 04 4'D>'>D. 16 It will ;e noted that the a;ove%mentioned manifestation of .esus /anes was not mentioned in the aforesaid decision. @owever" e?ecution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to 8ot 22 . In his return of service dated 4cto;er ,7" !#+*" the sheriff stated that he discovered that 8ot 22 had ;een su;divided into 8ots 22 %A and 22 %9D that the1 were -in the name- of 'odolfo 0iason who had purchased them from AlvareB" and that 8ot 22 could not ;e delivered to the plaintiffs as 0iason was -not a part1 per writ of e?ecution.17

The e?ecution of the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, having met a hindrance" herein private respondents (the /aneses) filed on .ul1 !" !#+*" in the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a declaration of nullit1 of TCT )os. T%, !+* and T%, !++ issued to 'osendo AlvareB. 18 Thereafter" the court re=uired 'odolfo 0iason to produce the certificates of title covering 8ots 22 and $, . >?pectedl1" 0iason filed a manifestation stating that he purchased 8ots 22 %A" 22 %9 and +*$" not 8ots 22 and $, " -in good faith and for a valua;le consideration without an1 knowledge of an1 lien or encum;rances against said properties-D that the decision in the cadastral proceeding 19 could not ;e enforced against him as he was not a part1 theretoD and that the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, could neither ;e enforced against him not onl1 ;ecause he was not a part1%litigant therein ;ut also ;ecause it had long ;ecome final and e?ecutor1. (0 Finding said manifestation to ;e well%founded" the cadastral

court" in its order of 0eptem;er 3" !#+*" nullified its previous order re=uiring 0iason to surrender the certificates of title mentioned therein. (1 In !#+$" the /aneses filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of e?ecution in Civil Case )o. *7,,. 0iason opposed it. (( In its order of 0eptem;er ,$" !#+$ in Civil Case )o. *7,," the lower court" noting that the /aneses had instituted another action for the recover1 of the land in =uestion" ruled that at the 5udgment therein could not ;e enforced against 0iason as he was not a part1 in the case. (3 The action filed ;1 the /aneses on Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#+$ was for recover1 of real propert1 with damages. () )amed defendants therein were Dr. 'odolfo 0iason" 8aura AlvareB" Flora AlvareB" 'a1mundo AlvareB and the 'egister of Deeds of )egros 4ccidental. The /aneses pra1ed for the cancellation of TCT )os. T% !#,#! and !#,#, issued to 0iason (sic) for ;eing null and voidD the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of the /aneses -in accordance with the sheriffs return of service dated 4cto;er ,7" !#+*D0iason<s deliver1 of possession of 8ot 22 to the /anesesD and if" deliver1 thereof could not ;e effected" or" if the issuance of a new title could not ;e made" that the AlvareB and 0iason 5ointl1 and severall1 pa1 the /aneses the sum of 63*"777.77. The1 also pra1ed that 0iason render an accounting of the fruits of 8ot 22 from )ovem;er ! " !#+! until the filing of the complaintD and that the defendants 5ointl1 and severall1 pa1 the /aneses moral damages of 6,7"777.77 and e?emplar1 damages of 6!7"777.77 plus attorne1<s fees of 63" 777.77. (5 In his answer to the complaint" 0iason alleged that the validit1 of his titles to 8ots 22 %A and 22 %9" having ;een passed upon ;1 the court in its order of 0eptem;er 3" !#+*" had ;ecome res judicata and the /aneses were estopped from =uestioning said order. (6 4n their part" the AlvareB stated in their answer that the /aneses< cause of action had ;een -;arred ;1 res judicata" statute of limitation and estoppel.- (7 In its decision of .ul1 $" !#23" the lower court found that 'odolfo 0iason" who purchased the properties in =uestion thru an agent as he was then in :e?ico pursuing further medical studies" was a ;u1er in good faith for a valua;le consideration. Although the /aneses were negligent in their failure to place a notice of lis pendens -;efore the 'egister of Deeds of )egros 4ccidental in order to protect their rights over the propert1 in =uestion- in Civil Case )o. *7,," e=uit1 demanded that the1 recover the actual value of the land ;ecause the sale thereof e?ecuted ;etween AlvareB and 0iason was without court approval. (8 The dispositive portion of the decision states: I) (I>A 4F T@> F4'>&4I)& C4)0ID>'ATI4)" 5udgment is here;1 rendered in the following manner: A. The case against the defendant Dr. 'odolfo 0iason and the 'egister of Deeds are (sic) here;1 dismmissed" 9. The defendants" 8aura" Flora and 'a1mundo" all surnamed AlvareB ;eing the legitimate children of the deceased 'osendo AlvareB are here;1 ordered to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 the plaintiffs the sum of 6,7"777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots )os. 22 %A and 22 %9 of :urcia Cadastre" )egros 4ccidentalD the sum of 6,"777.77 as actual damages suffered ;1 the plaintiffD the sum of 6*"777.77 representing moral damages and the sum of 6,.777 as attorne1<s fees" all with legal rate of interest from date of the filing of this complaint up to final pa1ment. C. The cross%claim filed ;1 the defendant Dr. 'odolfo 0iason against the defendants" 8aura" Flora and 'a1mundo" all surnamed AlvareB is here;1 dismissed. D. Defendants" 8aura" Flora and 'a1mundo" all surnamed AlvareB are here;1 ordered to pa1 the costs of this suit.

04 4'D>'>D. (9 The AlvareB appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which in its decision of August !" !#$ 30 affirmed the lower court<s decision -insofar as it ordered defendants%appellants to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 the plaintiffs%appellees the sum of 6,7"777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots )os. 22 %A and 22 % 9 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia" )egros 4ccidental" and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of 6,"777.77" 6*"777.77 and 6,"777.77 as actual damages" moral damages and attorne1<s fees" respectivel1.- 31 The dispositive portion of said decision reads: A@>'>F4'>" the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it ordered defendants% appellants to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 the plaintiffs% appellees the sum of 6,7"777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots )os. 22 %A and 22 %9 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia" )egros 4ccidental" and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of 6,"777.77" 6*"777.77 and 6,"777.77 as actual damages" moral damages and attorne1<s fees" respectivel1. )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D. 3( Finding no cogent reason to grant appellants motion for reconsideration" said appellate court denied the same. @ence" the instant petition. ln their memorandum petitioners raised the following issues: !. Ahethere or not the defense of prescription and estoppel had ;een timel1 and properl1 invoked and raised ;1 the petitioners in the lower court. ,. Ahether or not the cause andEor causes of action of the private respondents" if ever there are an1" as alleged in their complaint dated Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#+$ which has ;een docketed in the trial court as Civil Case )o. $323 supra" are forever ;arred ;1 statute of limitation andEor prescription of action and estoppel. . Ahether or not the late 'osendo AlvareB" a defendant in Civil Case )o. *7,," supra and father of the petitioners ;ecome a priv1 andEor part1 to the waiver (>?hi;it 3% defendant 0iason) in Civil Case )o. $323" supra where the private respondents had un=ualifiedl1 and a;solutel1 waived" renounced and =uitclaimed all their alleged rights and interests" if ever there is an1" on 8ots )os. 22 %A and 22 %9 of :urcia Cadastre as appearing in their written manifestation dated )ovem;er +" !#+, (>?hi;its -3- 0iason) which had not ;een controverted or even impliedl1 or indirectl1 denied ;1 them. 3. Ahether or not the lia;ilit1 or lia;ilities of 'osendo AlvareB arising from the sale of 8ots )os. 22 %A and 22 %9 of :urcia Cadastre to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason" if ever there is an1" could ;e legall1 passed or transmitted ;1 operations ( sic) of law to the petitioners without violation of law and due process . 33 The petition is devoid of merit. As correctl1 ruled ;1 the Court of Appeals" it is powerless and for that matter so is the 0upreme Court" to review the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, ordering AlvareB to reconve1 the lots in dispute to herein private respondents. 0aid decision had long ;ecome final and e?ecutor1 and with the possi;le e?ception of Dr. 0iason" who was not a part1 to said case" the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, is the law of the case ;etween the parties thereto. It ended when AlvareB or his heirs failed to appeal the decision against them.
3)

Thus" it is a?iomatic that when a right or fact has ;een 5udiciall1 tried and determined ;1 a court of competent 5urisdiction" so long as it remains unreversed" it should ;e conclusive upon the parties and those in privit1 with them in law or estate. 35 As consistentl1 ruled ;1 this Court" ever1 litigation must come to an end. Access to the court is guaranteed. 9ut there must ;e a limit to it. 4nce a litigant<s right has ;een ad5udicated in a valid final 5udgment of a competent court" he should not ;e granted an un;ridled license to return for another tr1. The prevailing part1 should not ;e harassed ;1 su;se=uent suits. For" if endless litigation were to ;e allowed" unscrupulous litigations will multipl1 in num;er to the detriment of the administration of 5ustice. 36 There is no dispute that the rights of the /aneses to the properties in =uestion have ;een finall1 ad5udicated in Civil Case )o. *7,,. As found ;1 the lower court" from the uncontroverted evidence presented" the /aneses have ;een illegall1 deprived of ownership and possession of the lots in =uestion. 37 In fact" Civil Case )o. $323 now under review" arose from the failure to e?ecute Civil Case )o. *7,," as su;5ect lots can no longer ;e reconve1ed to private respondents /aneses" the same having ;een sold during the pendenc1 of the case ;1 the petitioners< father to Dr. 0iason who did not know a;out the controvers1" there ;eing no lis pendens annotated on the titles. @ence" it was also settled ;e1ond =uestion that Dr. 0iason is a purchaser in good faith. Cnder the circumstances" the trial court did not annul the sale e?ecuted ;1 AlvareB in favor of Dr. 0iason on )ovem;er !!" !#+! ;ut in fact sustained it. The trial court ordered the heirs of 'osendo AlvareB who lost in Civil Case )o. *7,, to pa1 the plaintiffs (private respondents herein) the amount of 6,7"777.77 representing the actual value of the su;divided lots in dispute. It did not order defendant 0iason to pa1 said amount. 38 As to the propriet1 of the present case" it has long ;een esta;lished that the sole remed1 of the landowner whose propert1 has ;een wrongfull1 or erroneousl1 registered in another<s name is to ;ring an ordinar1 action in the ordinar1 court of 5ustice for reconve1ance or" if the propert1 has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value" for damages. 39 -It is one thing to protect an innocent third part1D it is entirel1 a different matter and one devoid of 5ustification if deceit would ;e rewarded ;1 allowing the perpetrator to en5o1 the fruits of his nefarious decided As clearl1 revealed ;1 the undeviating line of decisions coming from this Court" such an undesira;le eventualit1 is precisel1 sought to ;e guarded against.- )0 The issue on the right to the properties in litigation having ;een finall1 ad5udicated in Civil Case )o. *7,, in favor of private respondents" it cannot now ;e reopened in the instant case on the prete?t that the defenses of prescription and estoppel have not ;een properl1 considered ;1 the lower court. 6etitioners could have appealed in the former case ;ut the1 did not. The1 have therefore foreclosed their rights" if an1" and the1 cannot now ;e heard to complain in another case in order to defeat the enforcement of a 5udgment which has longing ;ecome final and e?ecutor1. 6etitioners further contend that the lia;ilit1 arising from the sale of 8ots )o. 22 %A and 22 %9 made ;1 'osendo AlvareB to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason should ;e the sole lia;ilit1 of the late 'osendo AlvareB or of his estate" after his death. 0uch contention is untena;le for it overlooks the doctrine o;taining in this 5urisdiction on the general transmissi;ilit1 of the rights and o;ligations of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs. Thus" the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state: Art. 223. 0uccession is a mode of ac=uisition ;1 virtue of which the propert1" rights and o;ligations to the e?tent of the value of the inheritance" of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either ;1 his will or ;1 operation of law. Art. 22+. The inheritance includes all the propert1" rights and o;ligations of a person which are not e?tinguished ;1 his death.

Art. ! !!. Contract stake effect onl1 ;etween the parties" their assigns and heirs e?cept in case where the rights and o;ligations arising from the contract are not transmissi;le ;1 their nature" or ;1 stipulation or ;1 provision of law. The heir is not lia;le ;e1ond the value of the propert1 received from the decedent. As e?plained ;1 this Court through Associate .ustice ..9.8. 'e1es in the case of Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. )1 The ;inding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased part1 is not altered ;1 the provision of our 'ules of Court that mone1 de;ts of a deceased must ;e li=uidated and paid from his estate ;efore the residue is distri;uted among said heirs ('ule $#). The reason is that whatever pa1ment is thus made from the state is ultimatel1 a pa1ment ;1 the heirs or distri;utees" since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have ;een entitled to receive. Cnder our law" therefore. the general rule is that a part1<s contractual rights and o;ligations are transmissi;le to the successors. The rule is a conse=uence of the progressive -depersonaliBation- of patrimonial rights and duties that" as o;served ;1 (ictorio 6olacco has characteriBed the histor1 of these institutions. From the 'oman concept of a relation from person to person" the o;ligation has evolved into a relation from patrimon1 to patrimon1 with the persons occup1ing onl1 a representative position" ;arring those rare cases where the o;ligation is strictl1 personal" i.e." is contracted intuitu personae" in consideration of its performance ;1 a specific person and ;1 no other. ??? ??? ??? 6etitioners ;eing the heirs of the late 'osendo AlvareB" the1 cannot escape the legal conse=uences of their father<s transaction" which gave rise to the present claim for damages. That petitioners did not inherit the propert1 involved herein is of no moment ;ecause ;1 legal fiction" the monetar1 e=uivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their father<s hereditar1 estate" and we have ruled that the hereditar1 assets are alwa1s lia;le in their totalit1 for the pa1ment of the de;ts of the estate. )( It must" however" ;e made clear that petitioners are lia;le onl1 to the e?tent of the value of their inheritance. Aith this clarification and considering petitioners< admission that there are other properties left ;1 the deceased which are sufficient to cover the amount ad5udged in favor of private respondents" we see no cogent reason to distur; the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. A@>'>F4'>" su;5ect to the clarification herein a;ove stated" the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is here;1 AFFI':>D. Costs against petitioners. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No*. 89(()-(5 &an+a,y (3, 199( MAUR#%#O 'AY'ON, RO'AR#O 'AY'ON-MALONDA, "A'#L#'A 'AY'ON-L#R#O, REMED#O' 'AY'ON-REYE' and &UANA %. "AU #' A, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL', DEL#A 'AY'ON, a**-*./d 0y 1/, 1+*0and, %#R#LO %EDO, &R., EDMUNDO 'AY'ON AND DOR#"EL 'AY'ON,.

At issue in this case is the status of the private respondents and their capacit1 to inherit from their alleged parents and grandparents. The petitioners den1 them that right" asserting if for themselves to the e?clusion of all others. The relevant genealogical facts are as follows. >leno and 'afaela 0a1son ;egot five children" namel1" :auricio" 'osario" 9asilisa" 'emedios and Teodoro. >leno died on )ovem;er !7" !#*," and 'afaela on :a1 !*" !#2+. Teodoro" who had married Isa;el 9autista" died on :arch , " !#2,. @is wife died nine 1ears later" on :arch ,+" !#$!. Their properties were left in the possession of Delia" >dmundo" and Dori;el" all surnamed 0a1son" who claim to ;e their children. 4n April ,*" !#$ " :auricio" 'osario" 9asilisa" and 'emedios" together with .uana C. 9autista" Isa;el<s mother" filed a complaint for partition and accounting of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isa;el 0a1son. It was docketed as Civil Case )o. !7 7 in 9ranch ! of the 'egional Trial Court of Al;a1. The action was resisted ;1 Delia" >dmundo and Dori;el 0a1son" who alleged successional rights to the disputed estate as the decedents< lawful descendants. 4n .ul1 !!" !#$ " Delia" >dmundo and Dori;el filed their own complaint" this time for the accounting and partition of the intestate estate of >leno and 'afaela 0a1son" against the couple<s four surviving children. This was docketed as Civil Case )o. !73, in the 'egional Trial Court of Al;a1" 9ranch !,. The complainants asserted the defense the1 raised in Civil Case )o. !7 7" to wit" that Delia and >dmundo were the adopted children and Dori;el was the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and Isa;el. As such" the1 were entitled to inherit Teodoro<s share in his parents< estate ;1 right of representation. 9oth cases were decided in favor of the herein private respondents on the ;asis of practicall1 the same evidence. .udge 'afael 6. 0antelices declared in his decision dated :a1 ,+" !#$+" 1 that Delia and >dmundo were the legall1 adopted children of Teodoro and Isa;el 0a1son ;1 virtue of the decree of adoption dated :arch #" !#+2. ( Dori;el was their legitimate daughter as evidenced ;1 her ;irth certificate dated Fe;ruar1 ,2" !#+2. 3 Conse=uentl1" the three children were entitled to inherit from >leno and 'afaela ;1 right of representation. In his decision dated 0eptem;er 7" !#$+" ) .udge .ose 0. 0aFeB dismissed Civil Case )o. !7 7" holding that the defendants" ;eing the legitimate heirs of Teodoro and Isa;el as esta;lished ;1 the aforementioned evidence" e?cluded the plaintiffs from sharing in their estate. 9oth cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals" where the1 were consolidated. In its own decision dated Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#$#" 5 the respondent court disposed as follows: A@>'>F4'>" in Civil Case )o. !7 7 (CA%&.'. )o. !!*3!)" the appealed decision is here;1 AFFI':>D. In Civil case )o. !73, (CA%&.'. )o. !, +3)" the appealed decision is :4DIFI>D in that Delia and >dmundo 0a1son are dis=ualified from inheriting from the estate of the deceased spouses >leno and 'afaela 0a1son" ;ut is affirmed in all other respects. 04 4'D>'>D. That 5udgment is now ;efore us in this petition for review ;1 certiorari. 'eversal of the respondent court is sought on the ground that it disregarded the evidence of the petitioners and misapplied the pertinent law and 5urisprudence when it declared the private respondents as the e?clusive heirs of Teodoro and Isa;el 0a1son.

The contention of the petitioners is that Delia and >dmundo were not legall1 adopted ;ecause Dori;el had alread1 ;een ;orn on Fe;ruar1 ,2" !#+2" when the decree of adoption was issued on :arch #" !#+2. The ;irth of Dori;el dis=ualified her parents from adopting. The pertinent provision is Article * of the Civil Code" naming among those who cannot adopt -(!) Those who have legitimate" legitimated" acknowledged natural children" or natural children ;1 legal fiction.Curiousl1 enough" the petitioners also argue that Dori;el herself is not the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and Isa;el ;ut was in fact ;orn to one >dita A;ila" who manifested in a petition for guardianship of the child that she was her natural mother. 6 The inconsistenc1 of this position is immediatel1 apparent. The petitioners seek to annul the adoption of Delia and >dmundo on the ground that Teodoro and Isa;el alread1 had a legitimate daughter at the time ;ut in the same ;reath tr1 to demolish this argument ;1 den1ing that Dori;el was ;orn to the couple. 4n top of this" there is the vital =uestion of timeliness. It is too late now to challenge the decree of adoption" 1ears after it ;ecame final and e?ecutor1. That was wa1 ;ack in !#+2. 7 Assuming the the petitioners were proper parties" what the1 should have done was seasona;l1 appeal the decree of adoption" pointing to the ;irth of Dori;el that dis=ualified Teodoro and Isa;el from adopting Delia and >dmundo. The1 did not. In fact" the1 should have done this earlier" ;efore the decree of adoption was issued. The1 did not" although :auricio claimed he had personal knowledge of such ;irth. As the respondent court correctl1 o;served: Ahen Dori;el was ;orn on Fe;ruar1 ,2" !#+2" or a;out T>) (!7) da1s ;efore the issuance of the 4rder of Adoption" the petitioners could have notified the court a;out the fact of ;irth of D4'I9>8 and perhaps withdrew the petition or perhaps petitioners could have filed a petition for the revocation or rescission of the adoption (although the ;irth of a child is not one of those provided ;1 law for the revocation or rescission of an adoption). The court is of the considered opinion that the adoption of the plaintiffs D>8IA and >D:C)D4 0A/04) is valid" outstanding and ;inding to the present" the same not having ;een revoked or rescinded. )ot having an1 information of Dori;el<s ;irth to Teodoro and Isa;el 0a1son" the trial 5udge cannot ;e faulted for granting the petition for adoption on the finding inter alia that the adopting parents were not dis=ualified. A no less important argument against the petitioners is that their challenge to the validit1 of the adoption cannot ;e made collaterall1" as in their action for partition" ;ut in a direct proceeding frontall1 addressing the issue. The settled rule is that a finding that the re=uisite 5urisdictional facts e?ists" whether erroneous or not" cannot e !uestioned in a collateral proceeding " for a presumption arises in such cases where the validit1 of the 5udgment is thus attacked that the necessar1 5urisdictional facts were proven GFreeman on .udgments" (ol. I" 0ec. *7" pp. 2!#%2,7H. (>mphasis supplied.) In the case of Santos v. "ranzanso" 8 this Court declared: Anent this point" the rulings are summed up in , American .urisprudence" ,nd 0eries" Adoption" 0ec. 2*" p. #,," thus: An adoption order implies the finding of the necessar1 facts and the ;urden of proof is on the part1 attacking itD it cannot ;e considered void

merel1 ;ecause the fact needed to show statutor1 compliance is o;scure. Ahile a 5udicial determination of some particular fact" such as the a;andonment of his ne?t of kin to the adoption" ma1 ;e essential to the e?ercise of 5urisdiction to enter the order of adoption" this does not make it essential to the 5urisdictional validit1 of the decree that the fact ;e determined upon proper evidence" or necessaril1 in accordance with the truthD a mere error cannot affect the 5urisdiction" and the determination must stand until reversed on appeal" and hence cannot e collaterally attac#ed. If this were not the rule" the status of adopted children would alwa1s ;e uncertain" since the evidence might not ;e the same at all investigations" and might ;e regarded with different effect ;1 different tri;unals" and the adoption might ;e held ;1 one court to have ;een valid" while another court would hold it to have ;een of no avail. (>mphasis supplied.) 4n the =uestion of Dori;el<s legitimac1" we hold that the findings of the trial courts as affirmed ;1 the respondent court must ;e sustained. Dori;el<s ;irth certificate is a formida;le piece of evidence. It is one of the prescri;ed means of recognition under Article ,+* of the Civil Code and Article !2, of the Famil1 Code. It is true" as the petitioners stress" that the ;irth certificate offers onl1 prima facie evidence 9 of filiation and ma1 ;e refuted ;1 contrar1 evidence. @owever" such evidence is lacking in the case at ;ar. :auricio<s testimon1 that he was present when Dori;el was ;orn to >dita A;ila was understand;l1 suspect" coming as it did from an interested part1. The affidavit of A;ila 10 den1ing her earlier statement in the petition for the guardianship of Dori;el is of course hearsa1" let alone the fact that it was never offered in evidence in the lower courts. >ven without it" however" the ;irth certificate must ;e upheld in line with Legaspi v. Court of "ppeals" 11 where we ruled that -the evidentiar1 nature of pu;lic documents must ;e sustained in the a;sence of strong" complete and conclusive proof of its falsit1 or nullit1.Another reason wh1 the petitioners< challenge must fail is the impropriet1 of the present proceedings for that purpose. Dori;el<s legitimac1 cannot ;e =uestioned in a complaint for partition and accounting ;ut in a direct action seasona;l1 filed ;1 the proper part1. The presumption of legitimac1 in the Civil Code . . . does not have this purel1 evidential character. It serves a more fundamental purpose. It actuall1 fi?es a civil status for the child ;orn in wedlock" and that civil status cannot e attac#ed collaterally. The legitimac1 of the child can e impugned only in a direct action roug$t for t$at purpose " ;1 the proper parties" and within the period limited ;1 law. The legitimac1 of the child cannot e contested y %ay of defense or as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose. . . . 1( (>mphasis supplied.) In conse=uence of the a;ove o;servations" we hold that Dori;el" as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and Isa;el 0a1son" and Delia and >dmundo" as their adopted children" are the e?clusive heirs to the intestate estate of the deceased couple" conforma;l1 to the following Article #2# of the Civil Code: Art. #2#. 8egitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants" without distinction as to se? or age" and even if the1 should come from different marriages. An adopted child succeeds to the propert1 of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child. The philosoph1 underl1ing this article is that a person<s love descends first to his children and grandchildren ;efore it ascends to his parents and thereafter spreads among his collateral relatives. It is

also supposed that one of his purposes in ac=uiring properties is to leave them eventuall1 to his children as a token of his love for them and as a provision for their continued care even after he is gone from this earth. Coming now to the right of representation" we stress first the following pertinent provisions of the Civil Code: Art. #27. 'epresentation is a right created ;1 fiction of law" ;1 virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented" and ac=uires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited. Art. #2!. The representative is called to the succession ;1 the law and not ;1 the person represented. The representative does not succeed the person represented ;ut the one who the person represented would have succeeded. Art. #$!. 0hould children of the deceased and descendants of other children who are dead" survive" the former shall inherit in their own right" and the latter ;1 right of representation. There is no =uestion that as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and thus the granddaughter of >leno and 'afaela" Dori;el has a right to represent her deceased father in the distri;ution of the intestate estate of her grandparents. Cnder Article #$!" =uoted a;ove" she is entitled to the share her father would have directl1 inherited had he survived" which shall ;e e=ual to the shares of her grandparents< other children.
13

9ut a different conclusion must ;e reached in the case of Delia and >dmundo" to whom the grandparents were total strangers. Ahile it is true that the adopted child shall ;e deemed to ;e a legitimate child and have the same right as the latter" these rights do not include the right of representation. The relationship created ;1 the adoption is ;etween onl1 the adopting parents and the adopted child and does not e?tend to the ;lood relatives of either part1. 1) In sum" we agree with the lower courts that Delia and >dmundo as the adopted children and Dori;el as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro 0a1son and Isa;el 9autista" are their e?clusive heirs and are under no o;ligation to share the estate of their parents with the petitioners. The Court of Appeals was correct" however" in holding that onl1 Dori;el has the right of representation in the inheritance of her grandparents< intestate estate" the other private respondents ;eing onl1 the adoptive children of the deceased Teodoro. A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D" and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFI':>D in toto" with costs against the petitioners. G.R. No. 77867 F/0,+a,y 6, 1990 #'A"EL DE LA $UER A, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL' and %ARMEL# A DE LA $UER A, The ;asic issue involved in this case is the filiation of private respondent Carmelita de la 6uerta" who claims successional lights to the estate of her alleged grandmother. Dominga 'evuelta died on .ul1 " !#++" at the age of #," with a will leaving her properties to her three surviving children" namel1" Alfredo" (icente and Isa;el" all surnamed de la 6uerta. Isa;el was given the free portion in addition to her legitime and was appointed e?ecutri? of the will. 1

The petition for the pro;ate of the will filed ;1 Isa;el was opposed ;1 her ;rothers" who averred that their mother was alread1 senile at the time of the e?ecution of the will and did not full1 comprehend its meaning. :oreover" some of the properties listed in the inventor1 of her estate ;elonged to them e?clusivel1. ( :eantime" Isa;el was appointed special administratri? ;1 the pro;ate court. 3 Alfredo su;se=uentl1 died" leaving (icente the lone oppositor. ) 4n August !" !#23" (icente de la 6uerta filed with the Court of First Instance of IueBon a petition to adopt Carmelita de la 6uerta. After hearing" the petition was granted. 5 @owever" the decision was appealed ;1 Isa;el to the Court of Appeals. During the pendenc1 of the appeal" (icente died" prompting her to move for the dismissal of the case 6 4n )ovem;er ,7" !#$!" Carmelita" having ;een allowed to intervene in the pro;ate proceedings" filed a motion for the pa1ment to her of a monthl1 allowance as the acknowledged natural child of (icente de la 6uerta. 7 At the hearing on her motion" Carmelita presented evidence to prove her claimed status to which Isa;el was allowed to su;mit counter%evidence. 4n )ovem;er !,"!#$," the pro;ate court granted the motion" declaring that it was satisfied from the evidence at hand that Carmelita was a natural child of (icente de la 6uerta and was entitled to the amounts claimed for her support. The court added that -the evidence presented ;1 the petitioner against it (was) too weak to discredit the same. 8 4n appeal" the order of the lower court was affirmed ;1 the respondent court" 9 which is now in turn ;eing challenged in this petition ;efore us. The petitioner<s main argument is that Carmelita was not the natural child of (icente de la 6uerta" who was married to &enoveva de la 6uerta in !# $ and remained his wife until his death in !#2$. Carmelita<s real parents are .uanita Austrial and &loria .ordan. Invoking the presumption of legitimac1" she argues that Carmelita was the legitimate child of .uanita Austrial and &loria .ordan" who were legall1 or presuma;l1 married. :oreover" Carmelita could not have ;een a natural child of (icente de la 6uerta ;ecause he was alread1 married at the time of her ;irth in !#+,. To prove her point" Isa;el presented Amado :agpanta1" who testified that he was a neigh;or of Austrial and .ordan. According to him" the two were living as hus;and and wife and had three children" including a girl named -6uti"- presuma;l1 Carmelita. @e said though that he was not sure if the couple was legall1 married. 10 Another witness" &enoveva de la 6uerta" Identified herself as (icente de la 6uerta<s wife ;ut said the1 separated two 1ears after their marriage in !# $ and were never reconciled. In !#+," &loria .ordan started living with (icente de la 6uerta in his house" which was onl1 five or si? houses awa1 from where she herself was sta1ing. &enoveva said that the relationship ;etween her hus;and and &loria was well known in the communit1. 11 In finding for Carmelita" the lower court declared that: . . . 91 her evidence" it was shown to the satisfaction of the Court that she was ;orn on Decem;er !$" !#+, per her ;irth certificate (>?h. A)D that her father was (icente de la 6uerta and her mother is &loria .ordan who were living as common law hus;and and wife until his death on .une !3" !#2$D that (icente de la 6uerta was married to" ;ut was separated from" his legal wife &enoveva de la 6uertaD that upon the death of (icente de

la 6uerta on .une !3" !#2$ without leaving a last will and testament" she was the onl1 child who survived him together with his spouse &enoveva de la 6uerta with whom he did not ;eget an1 childD that she was treated ;1 (icente de la 6uerta as a true child from the time of her ;irth until his father diedD that the fact that she was treated as a child of (icente de la 6uerta is shown ;1 the famil1 pictures showing movant with (icente de la 6uerta (>?hs. D" D%! and D%,) and school records wherein he signed the report cards as her parent (>?h. > and >%!)D that during the hearing of her adoption case in 0pecial 6roceeding )o. 773! in 9ranch ( of this Court at :au;an" IueBon" (icente de la 6uerta categoricall1 stated in court that Carmelita de la 6uerta is his daughter with &loria .ordan (>?hs. 9 and 9%!)D that it was (icente de la 6uerta during his lifetime who spent for her su;sistence" support and educationD . . . 1( This is a factual finding that we do not see fit to distur;" a;sent an1 of those circumstances we have laid down in a long line of decisions that will 5ustif1 reversal. 13 Among these circumstances are: (!) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel1 on speculation" surmise and con5ectureD (,) the inference made is manifestl1 mistakenD ( ) there is grave a;use of discretionD (3) the 5udgment is ;ased on a misapprehension of factsD (*) the findings of fact are conflictingD (+) the Court of Appeals went ;e1ond the issues of the case and its findings are contrar1 to the admissions of ;oth appellant and appelleesD (2) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrar1 to those of the trial courtD ($) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which the1 are ;asedD (#) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner<s main and repl1 ;riefs are not disputed ;1 the respondentsD and (!7) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed a;sence of evidence and contradicted ;1 the evidence on record. The petitioner insists on the application of the following provisions of the Civil Code to support her thesis that Carmelita is not the natural child of (icente de la 6uerta ;ut the legitimate child of .uanito Austrial and &loria .ordan: Art. ,**. Children ;orn after one hundred and eight1 da1s following the cele;ration of the marriage" and ;efore three hundred da1s following its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall ;e presumed to ;e legitimate. Against this presumption no evidence shall ;e admitted other than that of the ph1sical impossi;ilit1 of the hus;and<s having access to his wife within the first one hundred and twent1 da1s of the three hundred which preceded the ;irth of the child. This ph1sical impossi;ilit1 ma1 ;e caused: (!) 91 the impotence of the hus;andD (,) 91 the fact that the hus;and and wife were living separatel1 in such a wa1 that access was not possi;leD ( ) 91 the serious illness of the hus;and. Art. ,*+. The child shall ;e presumed legitimate" although the mother ma1 have declared against its legitimac1 or ma1 have ;een sentenced as an adulteress. These rules are in turn ;ased on the presumption that .uanito and &loria were married at the time of Carmelita<s ;irth in !#+," pursuant to 'ule ! !" 0ec. *(;;) of the 'ules of Court" providing that: 0ec. *. &isputa le presumptions.JThe following presumptions are satisfactor1 if uncontradicted" ;ut ma1 ;e contradicted and overcome ;1 other evidence:

??? ??? ??? (;;) That a man and woman deporting themselves as hus;and and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriageD 9ut this last%=uoted presumption is merel1 disputa;le and ma1 ;e refuted with evidence to the contrar1. As the Court sees it" such evidence has ;een sufficientl1 esta;lished in the case at ;ar. The cases 1) cited ;1 the petitioner are not e?actl1 in point ;ecause the1 involve situations where the couples lived continuousl1 as hus;and and wife and so could ;e reasona;l1 presumed to ;e married. In the case ;efore us" there was testimon1 from (icente<s own wife that her hus;and and &loria lived together as a married couple" there;1 re;utting the presumption that &loria was herself the lawful wife of .uanita Austrial. 0uch testimon1 would for one thing show that .uanito and &loria did not continuousl1 live together as a married couple. :oreover" it is not e?plained wh1" if he was reall1 married to her" .uanito did not o;5ect when &loria left the con5ugal home and started openl1 consorting with (icente" and in the same neigh;orhood at that. That was unnatural" to sa1 the least. It was different with &enoveva for she herself swore that she had separated from (icente two 1ears after their marriage and had long lost interest in her hus;and. In fact" she even renounced in open court an1 claim to (icente<s estate. 15 The presumption of marriage ;etween .uanito and &loria having ;een destro1ed" it ;ecame necessar1 for the petitioner to su;mit additional proof to show that the two were legall1 married. 0he did not. Turning now to the evidence re=uired to prove the private respondent<s filiation" we re5ect the petitioner<s contention that Article ,2$ of the Civil Code is not availa;le to Carmelita. It is error to contend that as she is not a natural child ;ut a spurious child (if at all) she cannot prove her status ;1 the record of ;irth" a will" a statement ;efore a court of record" or an1 authentic writing. 4n the contrar1" it has long ;een settled that: The so%called spurious children or illegitimate children other than natural children" commonl1 known as ;astards" include adulterous children or those ;orn out of wedlock to a married woman coha;iting with a man other than her hus;and or to a married man coha;iting with a woman other than his wife. The1 are entitled to support and successional rights (Art. ,$2" CC). 9ut their filiation must ;e dul1 proven.( I id" Art. $$2) @ow should their filiation ;e provenK Article ,$# of the Civil Code allows the investigation of the paternit1 or maternit1 of spurious children under the circumstances specified in Articles ,$ and ,$3 of the Civil Code. The implication is that the rules on compulsor1 recognition of natural children are applica;le to spurious children. 0purious children should not ;e in a ;etter position than natural children. The rules on proof of filiation of natural children or the rule on voluntar1 and compulsor1 acknowledgment for natural children ma1 ;e applied to spurious children. 16 This ;eing so" we need not rule now on the admissi;ilit1 of the private respondent<s certificate of ;irth as proof of her filiation. That status was sufficientl1 esta;lished ;1 the sworn testimon1 of (icente de la 6uerta at the hearing of the petition for adoption on 0eptem;er +" !#2+" where he categoricall1 declared as follows: I Ahat relation if an1 do 1ou have with Carmelita de la 6uertaK A 0he is m1 daughter. 17

Finall1" we move to the most crucial =uestion" to wit: :a1 Carmelita de la 6uerta claim support and successional rights to the estate of Dominga 'evueltaK According to Article #27 of the Civil Code: Art. #27. 'epresentation is a right created ;1 fiction of law" ;1 virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented" and ac=uires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited. The answer to the =uestion posed must ;e in the negative. The first reason is that (icente de la 6uerta did not predecease his motherD and the second is that Carmelita is a spurious child. It is settled that J In testamentar1 succession" the right of representation can take place onl1 in the following cases: first" when the person represented dies ;efore the testatorD second" when the person represented is incapa;le of succeeding the testatorD and third" when the person represented is disinherited ;1 the testator. In all of these cases" since there is a vacanc1 in the inheritance" the law calls the children or descendants of the person represented to succeed ;1 right of representation. 18 ??? ??? ??? The law is clear that there is representation onl1 when relatives of a deceased person tr1 to succeed him in his rights which he would have had if still living. In the present case" however" said deceased had alread1 succeeded his aunt" the testatri? herein. . . . It is a fact that at the time of the death of the testatri?" 'e1naldo Cuison was still alive. @e died two months after her (testatri?<s) death. And upon his death" he transmitted to his heirs" the petitioners herein >lisa Cuison et al." the legac1 or the right to succeed to the legac1. . . . In other words" the herein petitioners%appellants are not tr1ing to succeed to the right to the propert1 of the testatri?" ;ut rather to the right of the legatee 'e1naldo Cuison in said propert1. 19 )ot having predeceased Dominga 'evuelta" her son (icente had the right to inherit from her directl1 or in his own right. )o right of representation was involved" nor could it ;e invoked ;1 Carmelita upon her father<s death" which came after his own mother<s death. It would have ;een different if (icente was alread1 dead when Dominga 'evuelta died. Carmelita could then have inherited from her in representation of her father (icente" assuming the private respondent was a lawful heir. 9ut herein lies the cru?" for she is not. As a spurious child of (icente" Carmelita is ;arred from inheriting from Dominga ;ecause of Article ##, of the Civil Code" which la1s down the ;arrier ;etween the legitimate and illegitimate families. This article provides =uite clearl1: Art. ##,. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit a intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or motherD nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. Appl1ing this rule in Leonardo v. Court of "ppeals" (0 this Court declared: . . . even if it is true that petitioner is the child of 0otero 8eonardo" still he cannot" ;1 right of representation" claim a share of the estate left ;1 the deceased Francisca 'e1es considering that" as found again ;1 the Court of Appeals" he was ;orn outside wedlock

as shown ;1 the fact that when he was ;orn" his alleged putative father and mother were not 1et married" and what is more" his alleged father<s first marriage was still su;sisting. At most" petitioner would ;e an illegitimate child who has no right to inherit a intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father" like the deceased Francisca 'e1es. The reason for this rule was e?plained in the recent case of &iaz v. Intermediate "ppellate Court" (1 thus: Article ##, of the )ew Civil Code provides a ;arrier or iron curtain in that it prohi;its a;solutel1 a succession a intestato ;etween the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. The1 ma1 have a natural tie of ;lood" ;ut this is not recogniBed ;1 law for the purpose of Article ##,. 9etween the legitimate famil1 and the illegitimate famil1 there is presumed to ;e an intervening antagonism and incompati;ilit1. The illegitimate child is disgracefull1 looked down upon ;1 the legitimate famil1D the famil1 is in turn" hated ;1 the illegitimate child the latter considers the privileged condition of the former" and the resources of which it is there;1 deprivedD the former in turn sees in the illegitimate child nothing ;ut the product of sin" palpa;le evidence of a ;lemish ;roken in lifeD the law does no more than recogniBe this truth" ;1 avoiding further ground of resentment. (( Indeed" even as an adopted child" Carmelita would still ;e ;arred from inheriting from Dominga 'evuelta for there would ;e no natural kindred ties ;etween them and conse=uentl1" no legal ties to ;ind them either. As aptl1 pointed out ;1 Dr. Arturo :. Tolentino: If the adopting parent should die ;efore the adopted child" the latter cannot represent the former in the inheritance from the parents or ascendants of the adopter. The adopted child is not related to the deceased in that case" ;ecause the filiation created ;1 fiction of law is e?clusivel1 ;etween the adopter and the adopted. -91 adoption" the adopters can make for themselves an heir" ;ut the1 cannot thus make one for their kindred. (3 The result is that Carmelita" as the spurious daughter of (icente de la 6uerta" has successional rights to the intestate estate of her father ;ut not to the estate of Dominga 'evuelta. @er claims for support and inheritance should therefore ;e filed in the proceedings for the settlement of her own father<s estate () and cannot ;e considered in the pro;ate of Dominga 'evuelta<s Aill. A@>'>F4'>" the petition is &'A)T>D and the appealed decision is here;1 '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" with costs against the private respondent. It is so ordered. G.R. No. 118()8 A2,-3 5, (000 D4% !OLD#NG' %OR$ORA #ON, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', V#% OR U. "AR OLOME and REG#' ER OF DEED' FOR ME RO MAN#LA, D#' R#% ###, This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Decem;er *" !##3 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. 37$3# entitled -DLC @oldings Corporation vs. (ictor C. 9artolome" et al.-" 1 affirming in toto the .anuar1 3" !## Decision of the 'egional Trial Court of (alenBuela" 9ranch !2," ( which dismissed Civil Case )o. 2%(%#7 and ordered petitioner to pa1 6 7"777.77 as attorne1<s fees. The su;5ect of the controvers1 is a !3"7,! s=uare meter parcel of land located in :alinta" (alenBuela" :etro :anila which was originall1 owned ;1 private respondent (ictor C. 9artolome<s deceased mother" >ncarnacion 9artolome" under Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 9% 2+!* of the 'egister of Deeds of :etro :anila" District III. This lot was in front of one of the te?tile plants of petitioner and" as such" was seen ;1 the latter as a potential warehouse site.

4n :arch !+" !#$$" petitioner entered into a Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1 with >ncarnacion 9artolome" where;1 petitioner was given the option to lease or lease with purchase the su;5ect land" which option must ;e e?ercised within a period of two 1ears counted from the signing of the Contract. In turn" petitioner undertook to pa1 6 "777.77 a month as consideration for the reservation of its option. Aithin the two%1ear period" petitioner shall serve formal written notice upon the lessor >ncarnacion 9artolome of its desire to e?ercise its option. The contract also provided that in case petitioner chose to lease the propert1" it ma1 take actual possession of the premises. In such an event" the lease shall ;e for a period of si? 1ears" renewa;le for another si? 1ears" and the monthl1 rental fee shall ;e 6!*"777.77 for the first si? 1ears and 6!$"777.77 for the ne?t si? 1ears" in case of renewal. 6etitioner regularl1 paid the monthl1 6 "777.77 provided for ;1 the Contract to >ncarnacion until her death in .anuar1 !##7. Thereafter" petitioner coursed its pa1ment to private respondent (ictor 9artolome" ;eing the sole heir of >ncarnacion. (ictor" however" refused to accept these pa1ments. :eanwhile" on .anuar1 !7" !##7" (ictor e?ecuted an Affidavit of 0elf%Ad5udication over all the properties of >ncarnacion" including the su;5ect lot. Accordingl1" respondent 'egister of Deeds cancelled Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 9% 2+!* and issued Transfer Certificate of Title )o. (%!3,3# in the name of (ictor 9artolome. 4n :arch !3" !##7" petitioner served upon (ictor" via registered mail" notice that it was e?ercising its option to lease the propert1" tendering the amount of 6!*"777.77 as rent for the month of :arch. Again" (ictor refused to accept the tendered rental fee and to surrender possession of the propert1 to petitioner. 6etitioner thus opened 0avings Account )o. !%73%7,**$%I%! with the China 9anking Corporation" Cu;ao 9ranch" in the name of (ictor 9artolome and deposited therein the 6!*"777.77 rental fee for :arch as well as 6+"777.77 reservation fees for the months of Fe;ruar1 and :arch. 6etitioner also tried to register and annotate the Contract on the title of (ictor to the propert1. Although respondent 'egister of Deeds accepted the re=uired fees" he nevertheless refused to register or annotate the same or even enter it in the da1 ;ook or primar1 register. '(%p$i'.n)t Thus" on April , " !##7" petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against (ictor and the 'egister of Deeds" 3 docketed as Civil Case )o. 2%(%#7 which was raffled off to 9ranch !2! of the 'egional Trial Court of (alenBuela. 6etitioner pra1ed for the surrender and deliver1 of possession of the su;5ect land in accordance with the Contract termsD the surrender of title for registration and annotation thereon of the ContractD and the pa1ment of 6*77"777.77 as actual damages" 6*77"777.77 as moral damages" 6*77"777.77 as e?emplar1 damages and 6 77"777.77 as attorne1<s fees. :eanwhile" on :a1 $" !##7" a :otion for Intervention with :otion to Dismiss ) was filed ;1 one Andres 8anoBo" who claimed that he was and has ;een a tenant%tiller of the su;5ect propert1" which was agricultural riceland" for fort1%five 1ears. @e =uestioned the 5urisdiction of the lower court over the propert1 and invoked the Comprehensive Agrarian 'eform 8aw to protect his rights that would ;e affected ;1 the dispute ;etween the original parties to the case. 4n :a1 !$" !##7" the lower court issued an 4rder 5 referring the case to the Department of Agrarian 'eform for preliminar1 determination and certification as to whether it was proper for trial ;1 said court. 4n .ul1 3" !##7" the lower court issued another 4rder 6 referring the case to 9ranch !2, of the 'TC of (alenBuela which was designated to hear cases involving agrarian land" after the Department of Agrarian 'eform issued a letter%certification stating that referral to it for preliminar1 determination is no longer re=uired. 4n .ul1 !+" !##7" the lower court issued an 4rder den1ing the :otion to Intervene" 7 holding that 8anoBo<s rights ma1 well ;e ventilated in another proceeding in due time.

After trial on the merits" the 'TC of (alenBuela" 9ranch !2, rendered its Decision on .anuar1 3" !## " dismissing the Complaint and ordering petitioner to pa1 (ictor 6 7"777.77 as attorne1<s fees. 4n appeal to the CA" the Decision was affirmed in toto. @ence" the instant 6etition assigning the following errors: (A) FI'0T A00I&):>)T 4F >''4' T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT T@> 6'4(I0I4) 4) T@> )4TIC> T4 >M>'CI0> 46TI4) AA0 )4T T'A)0:I00I98>. (9) 0>C4)D A00I&):>)T 4F >''4' T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT T@> )4TIC> 4F 46TI4) :C0T 9> 0>'(>D 9/ DLC C64) >)CA')ACI4) 9A'T484:> 6>'04)A88/. (C) T@I'D A00I&):>)T 4F >''4' T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT T@> C4)T'ACT AA0 4)>%0ID>D A)D 4)>'4C0 I) FA(4' 4F DLC. (D) F4C'T@ A00I&):>)T 4F >''4' T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT T@> >MI0T>)C> 4F A '>&I0T>'>D T>)A)C/ AA0 FATA8 T4 T@> (A8IDIT/ 4F T@> C4)T'ACT. (>) FIFT@ A00I&):>)T 4F >''4' T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT 68AI)TIFF% A66>88A)T AA0 8IA98> T4 D>F>)DA)T%A66>88>> F4' ATT4')>/<0 F>>0. 8 The issue to ;e resolved in this case is whether or not the Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1 entered into ;1 the late >ncarnacion 9artolome with petitioner was terminated upon her death or whether it ;inds her sole heir" (ictor" even after her demise. 9oth the lower court and the Court of Appeals held that the said contract was terminated upon the death of >ncarnacion 9artolome and did not ;ind (ictor ;ecause he was not a part1 thereto. Art. ! !! of the Civil Code provides" as follows J

Art. ! !!. Contracts take effect onl1 ;etween the parties" their assigns and heirs" e?cept in case where the rights and o;ligations arising from the contract are not transmissi;le ;1 their nature" or ;1 stipulation or ;1 provision of law. The heir is not lia;le ;e1ond the value of the propert1 he received from the decedent. ??? ??? ??? The general rule" therefore" is that heirs are ;ound ;1 contracts entered into ;1 their predecessors%in% interest e?cept when the rights and o;ligations arising therefrom are not transmissi;le ;1 (!) their nature" (,) stipulation or ( ) provision of law. In the case at ;ar" there is neither contractual stipulation nor legal provision making the rights and o;ligations under the contract intransmissi;le. :ore importantl1" the nature of the rights and o;ligations therein are" ;1 their nature" transmissi;le. The nature of intransmissi;le rights as e?plained ;1 Arturo Tolentino" an eminent civilist" is as follows: Among contracts which are intransmissi;le are those which are purel1 personal" either ;1 provision of law" such as in cases of partnerships and agenc1" or ;1 the ver1 nature of the o;ligations arising therefrom" such as those re=uiring special personal =ualifications of the o;ligor. It ma1 also ;e stated that contracts for the pa1ment of mone1 de;ts are not transmitted to the heirs of a part1" ;ut constitute a charge against his estate. Thus" where the client in a contract for professional services of a law1er died" leaving minor heirs" and the law1er" instead of presenting his claim for professional services under the contract to the pro;ate court" su;stituted the minors as parties for his client" it was held that the contract could not ;e enforced against the minorsD the law1er was limited to a recover1 on the ;asis of !uantum meruit. 9 In American 5urisprudence" -(A)here acts stipulated in a contract re=uire the e?ercise of special knowledge" genius" skill" taste" a;ilit1" e?perience" 5udgment" discretion" integrit1" or other personal =ualification of one or ;oth parties" the agreement is of a personal nature" and terminates on the death of the part1 who is re=uired to render such service.- 10 It has also ;een held that a good measure for determining whether a contract terminates upon the death of one of the parties is whether it is of such a character that it ma1 ;e performed ;1 the promissor<s personal representative. Contracts to perform personal acts which cannot ;e as well performed ;1 others are discharged ;1 the death of the promissor. Conversel1" where the service or act is of such a character that it ma1 as well ;e performed ;1 another" or where the contract" ;1 its terms" shows that performance ;1 others was contemplated" death does not terminate the contract or e?cuse nonperformance. 11 In the case at ;ar" there is no personal act re=uired from the late >ncarnacion 9artolome. 'ather" the o;ligation of >ncarnacion in the contract to deliver possession of the su;5ect propert1 to petitioner upon the e?ercise ;1 the latter of its option to lease the same ma1 ver1 well ;e performed ;1 her heir (ictor. As earl1 as !#7 " it was held that -(@)e who contracts does so for himself and his heirs.- 1( In !#*," it was ruled that if the predecessor was dut1%;ound to reconve1 land to another" and at his death the reconve1ance had not ;een made" the heirs can ;e compelled to e?ecute the proper deed for reconve1ance. This was grounded upon the principle that heirs cannot escape the legal conse=uence of a transaction entered into ;1 their predecessor%in%interest ;ecause the1 have inherited the propert1 su;5ect to the lia;ilit1 affecting their common ancestor. 13 It is futile for (ictor to insist that he is not a part1 to the contract ;ecause of the clear provision of Article ! !! of the Civil Code. Indeed" ;eing an heir of >ncarnacion" there is privit1 of interest ;etween him and his deceased mother. @e onl1 succeeds to what rights his mother had and what is valid and ;inding

against her is also valid and ;inding as against him. 1) This is clear from *ara+a!ue ,ings Enterprises vs. Court of "ppeals" 15 where this Court re5ected a similar defense J Aith respect to the contention of respondent 'a1mundo that he is not priv1 to the lease contract" not ;eing the lessor nor the lessee referred to therein" he could thus not have violated its provisions" ;ut he is nevertheless a proper part1. Clearl1" he stepped into the shoes of the owner%lessor of the land as" ;1 virtue of his purchase" he assumed all the o;ligations of the lessor under the lease contract. :oreover" he received ;enefits in the form of rental pa1ments. Furthermore" the complaint" as well as the petition" pra1ed for the annulment of the sale of the properties to him. 9oth pleadings also alleged collusion ;etween him and respondent 0antos which defeated the e?ercise ;1 petitioner of its right of first refusal. In order then to accord complete relief to petitioner" respondent 'a1mundo was a necessar1" if not indispensa;le" part1 to the case. A favora;le 5udgment for the petitioner will necessaril1 affect the rights of respondent 'a1mundo as the ;u1er of the propert1 over which petitioner would like to assert its right of first option to ;u1. In the case at ;ar" the su;5ect matter of the contract is likewise a lease" which is a propert1 right. The death of a part1 does not e?cuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a propert1 right" and the rights and o;ligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. 0imilarl1" nonperformance is not e?cused ;1 the death of the part1 when the other part1 has a propert1 interest in the su;5ect matter of the contract. 16 Cnder ;oth Article ! !! of the Civil Code and 5urisprudence" therefore" (ictor is ;ound ;1 the su;5ect Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1. That ;eing resolved" we now rule on the issue of whether petitioner had complied with its o;ligations under the contract and with the re=uisites to e?ercise its option. The pa1ment ;1 petitioner of the reservation fees during the two%1ear period within which it had the option to lease or purchase the propert1 is not disputed. In fact" the pa1ment of such reservation fees" e?cept those for Fe;ruar1 and :arch" !##7 were admitted ;1 (ictor. 17 This is clear from the transcripts" to wit J ATT/. :4.AD4: 4ne re=uest" /our @onor. The last pa1ment which was allegedl1 made in .anuar1 !##7 5ust indicate in that stipulation that it was issued )ovem;er of !#$# and postdated .anuar1 !##7 and then we will admit all. C4C'T: All reservation feeK ATT/. :4.AD4: /es" /our @onor. C4C'T: All as part of the leaseK ATT/. :4.AD4:

'eservation fee" /our @onor. There was no pa1ment with respect to pa1ment of rentals. 18 6etitioner also paid the 6!*"777.77 monthl1 rental fee on the su;5ect propert1 ;1 depositing the same in China 9ank 0avings Account )o. !%73%7,**$%I%!" in the name of (ictor as the sole heir of >ncarnacion 9artolome" 19 for the months of :arch to .ul1 7" !##7" or a total of five (*) months" despite the refusal of (ictor to turn over the su;5ect propert1. (0 8ikewise" petitioner complied with its dut1 to inform the other part1 of its intention to e?ercise its option to lease through its letter dated :atch !," !##7" (1 well within the two%1ear period for it to e?ercise its option. Considering that at that time >ncarnacion 9artolome had alread1 passed awa1" it was legitimate for petitioner to have addressed its letter to her heir. It appears" therefore" that the e?ercise ;1 petitioner of its option to lease the su;5ect propert1 was made in accordance with the contractual provisions. Concomitantl1" private respondent (ictor 9artolome has the o;ligation to surrender possession of and lease the premises to petitioner for a period of si? (+) 1ears" pursuant to the Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1. Coming now to the issue of tenanc1" we find that this is not for this Court to pass upon in the present petition. Ae note that the :otion to Intervene and to Dismiss of the alleged tenant" Andres 8anoBo" was denied ;1 the lower court and that such denial was never made the su;5ect of an appeal. As the lower court stated in its 4rder" the alleged right of the tenant ma1 well ;e ventilated in another proceeding in due time. A@>'>F4'>" in view of the foregoing" the instant 6etition for 'eview is &'A)T>D. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. 37$3# and that of the 'egional Trial Court of (alenBuela in Civil Case )o. 2%(%#7 are ;oth 0>T A0ID> and a new one rendered ordering private respondent (ictor 9artolome to: (a) surrender and deliver possession of that parcel of land covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. (%!3,3# ;1 wa1 of lease to petitioner and to perform all o;ligations of his predecessor%in%interest" >ncarnacion 9artolome" under the su;5ect Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1D (;) surrender and deliver his cop1 of Transfer Certificate of Title )o. (% !3,3# to respondent 'egister of Deeds for registration and annotation thereon of the su;5ect Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1D (c) pa1 costs of suit. 'espondent 'egister of Deeds is" accordingl1" ordered to register and annotate the su;5ect Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1 at the ;ack of Transfer Certificate of Title )o. (%!3,3# upon su;mission ;1 petitioner of a cop1 thereof to his office. 04 4'D>'>D.'(%p$i'.n)t G.R. No. 770(9 A+5+*. 30, 1990 "#ENVEN#DO, E' EL# A, MA%AR#O, LU#', ADELA#DE, ENR#6U# A and %LAUD#O, a33 *+,na7/d, GEVERO, vs. #N ERMED#A E A$$ELLA E %OUR and DEL MON E DEVELO$MEN %OR$ORA #ON,

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the :arch ,7" !#$$ decision 1 of the then Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in AC%&' C( )o. +#,+3" entitled Del :onte Development Corporation vs. >nri=ue A;a;a" et al." etc. affirming the decision ( of the then Court of First Instance (now 'egional Trial Court) of :isamis 4riental declaring the plaintiff corporation as the true and a;solute owner of that portion of 8ot 32+ of the Caga1an Cadastre" particularl1 8ot )o. ,32+%D of the su;division plan (8'C) 6sd%$73*7" containing an area of 0even Thousand >ight @undred 0event1 >ight (2"$2$) s=uare meters more or less. As found ;1 the Appellate Court" the facts are as follows: The parcel of land under litigation is 8ot )o. ,32+ of the 0u;division 6lan 6sd% 2 +* containing an area of ,7"!!# s=uare meters and situated at &usa" Caga1an de 4ro Cit1. 0aid lot was ac=uired ;1 purchase from the late 8uis 8ancero on 0eptem;er !*" !#+3 as per Deed of A;solute 0ale e?ecuted in favor of plaintiff and ;1 virtue of which Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 3 ,7 was issued to plaintiff (D>8C4' for ;revit1). 8uis 8ancero" in turn ac=uired the same parcel from 'icardo &evero on Fe;ruar1 *" !#*, per deed of sale e?ecuted ;1 'icardo &evero which was dul1 annotated as entr1 )o. !!,$ at the ;ack of 4riginal Certificate of Title )o. 2+!7 covering the mother lot identified as 8ot )o. ,32+ in the names of Teodorica 9a;angha J !E, share and her children: :ariaD 'estituto" >lena" 'icardo" >usta=uio and Crsula" all surnamed surnamed &evero" !E, undivided share of the whole area containing 3$"!,, s=uare meters. Teodorica 9a;angha died long ;efore Aorld Aar II and was survived ;1 her si? children aforementioned. The heirs of Teodorica 9a;angha on 4cto;er !2"!#++ e?ecuted an >?tra%.udicial 0ettlement and 6artition of the estate of Teodorica 9a;angha" consisting of two lots" among them was lot ,32+. 91 virtue of the e?tra%5udicial settlement and partition e?ecuted ;1 the said heirs of Teodorica 9a;angha" 8ot ,32+%A to 8ot ,32+%I" inclusive" under su;division plan (8'C) 6sd%$73*7 dul1 approved ;1 the 8and 'egistration Commission" 8ot ,32+%D" among others" was ad5udicated to 'icardo &evero who was then alive at the time of e?tra%5udicial settlement and partition in !#++. 6laintiff (private respondent herein) filed an action with the CFI (now 'TC) of :isamis 4riental to =uiet title andEor annul the partition made ;1 the heirs of Teodorica 9a;angha insofar as the same pre5udices the land which it ac=uired a portion of lot ,32+. 6laintiff now seeks to =uiet title andEor annul the partition made ;1 the heirs of Teodorica 9a;angha insofar as the same pre5udices the land which it ac=uired" a portion of 8ot ,32+. 6laintiff proved that ;efore purchasing 8ot ,32+%A it first investigated and checked the title of 8uis 8ancero and found the same to ;e intact in the office of the 'egister of Deeds of Caga1an de 4ro Cit1. The same with the su;division plan (>?h. -9-)" the corresponding technical description (>?h. -6-) and the Deed of 0ale e?ecuted ;1 'icardo &evero J all of which were found to ;e un=uestiona;le. 91 reason of all these" plaintiff claims to have ;ought the land in good faith and for value" occup1ing the land since the sale and taking over from 8ancero<s possession until :a1 !#+#" when the defendants A;adas forci;l1 entered the propert1. (-ollo" p. , ) After trial the court a !uo on .ul1 !$" !#22 rendered 5udgment" the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: A@>'>F4'>" premises considered" 5udgment is here;1 rendered declaring the plaintiff corporation as the true and a;solute owner of that portion of 8ot )o. ,32+ of the Caga1an Cadastre" particularl1 8ot )o. ,32+%D of the su;division plan (8'C) 6sd%$73*7" containing an area of 0>(>) T@4C0A)D >I&@T @C)D'>D 0>(>)T/ >I&@T (2"$2$) s=uare meters" more or less. The other portions of 8ot )o. ,32+ are here;1 ad5udicated as follows:

8ot )o. ,32+ N 9 N to the heirs of >lena &everoD 8ot )o. ,32+ N C N to the heirs of 'estituto &everoD 8ot )o. ,32+ N > N to the defendant spouses >nri=ue C. Torres and Francisca A=uinoD 8ot )o. ,32+ N F N to the defendant spouses >duard 'umohr and >milia :erida 'umohf D 8ot )os. ,32+%@" ,32+%I and ,32+ J & J to defendant spouses >nri=ue A;ada and 8ilia AlvareB A;ada. )o ad5udication can ;e made with respect to 8ot )o. ,32+%A considering that the said lot is the su;5ect of a civil case ;etween the @eirs of :aria &evero on one hand and the spouses Daniel 9orkingkito and Crsula &evero on the other hand" which case is now pending appeal ;efore the Court of Appeals. )o pronouncement as to costs" 04 4'D>'>D. (Decision" 'ecord on Appeal" p. ,7 D -ollo" pp. ,!%,,) From said decision" defendant heirs of 'icardo &evero (petitioners herein) appealed to the IAC (now Court of Appeals) which su;se=uentl1" on :arch ,7" !#$+" affirmed the decision appealed from. 6etitioners" on :arch !" !#$+" filed a motion for reconsideration ( -ollo" p. ,$) ;ut was denied on April ,!" !#$+. @ence" the present petition. This petition is devoid of merit. 9asicall1" the issues to ;e resolved in the instant case are: !) whether or not the deed of sale e?ecuted ;1 'icardo &evero to 8uis 8ancero is validD ,) in the affirmative" whether or not the !E, share of interest of Teodorica 9a;angha in one of the litigated lots" lot no. ,32+ under 4CT )o. 2+!7 is included in the deed of saleD and ) whether or not the private respondents< action is ;arred ;1 laches. 6etitioners maintain that the deed of sale is entirel1 invalid citing alleged flaws thereto" such as that: !) the signature of 'icardo was forged without his knowledge of such factD ,) 8ancero had recogniBed the fatal defect of the !#*, deed of sale when he signed the document in !#+$ entitled -0ettlement to Avoid the 8itigation-D ) 'icardo<s children remained in the propert1 notwithstanding the sale to 8anceroD 3) the designated 8ot )o. is ,327 instead of the correct num;er ;eing 8ot )o. ,32+D *) the deed of sale included the share of >usta=uio &evero without his authorit1D +) T.C.T. )o. !!$ of 8ancero segregated the area of ,7"!!# s=uare meters from the ;igger area (4CT )o. 2+!+) without the consent of the other co% ownersD 2) 8ancero caused the !#*, 0u;division surve1 without the consent of the &everos< to ;ring a;out the segregation of the ,7"!!# s=uare meters lot from the mother lot ,32+ which ;rought a;out the issuance of his title T%!!$ and to D>8C4'<s title T3 ,7" ;oth of which were illegall1 issuedD and $) the area sold as per document is ,7"+3# s=uare meters whereas the segregated area covered ;1 TCT )o. T% !!$ of 8ancero turned out to ;e ,7"!!# s=uare meters (6etitioners :emorandum" pp. +,%2$). As to petitioners< claim that the signature of 'icardo in the !#*, deed of sale in favor of 8ancero was forged without 'icardo<s knowledge of such fact (-ollo" p. 2!) it will ;e o;served that the deed of sale in =uestion was e?ecuted with all the legal formalities of a pu;lic document. The !#*, deed was dul1 acknowledged ;1 ;oth parties ;efore the notar1 pu;lic" 1et petitioners did not ;other to re;ut the legal presumption of the regularit1 of the notariBed document (D1 v. 0aca1" !+* 0C'A 32 G!#$$H)D )uguid v.

C.A." &.'. )o. 223, " :arch ! " !#$#). In fact it has long ;een settled that a pu;lic document e?ecuted and attested through the intervention of the notar1 pu;lic is evidence of the facts in clear" une=uivocal manner therein e?pressed. It has the presumption of regularit1 and to contradict all these" evidence must ;e clear" convincing and more than merel1 preponderant ('e;uleda v. I.A.C." !** 0C'A *,7%*,! G!#$2H). Forger1 cannot ;e presumed" it must ;e proven (0iasat v. IAC" )o. +2$$#" 4cto;er !7" !#$*). 8ikewise" petitioners allegation of a;sence of consideration of the deed was not su;stantiated. Cnder Art. ! *3 of the Civil Code" consideration is presumed unless the contrar1 is proven. As to petitioners< contention that 8ancero had recogniBed the fatal defect of the !#*, deed when he signed the document in !#+$ entitled -0ettlement to Avoid 8itigation- ( -ollo" p. 2!)" it is a ;asic rule of evidence that the right of a part1 cannot ;e pre5udiced ;1 an act" declaration" or omission of another (0ec. ,$. 'ule ! 7" 'ules of Court). This particular rule is em;odied in the ma?im .res inter alios acta alteri nocere non de et.- Cnder 0ection !" 'ule ! 7" 'ules of Court -where one derives title to propert1 from another" the act" declaration" or omission of the latter" while holding the title" in relation to the propert1 is evidence against the former.- It is however stressed that the admission of the former owner of a propert1 must have ;een made while he was the owner thereof in order that such admission ma1 ;e ;inding upon the present owner (Cit1 of :anila v. del 'osario" * 6hil. ,,2 G!#7*HD :edel v. Avecilla" !* 6hil. 3+* G!#!7H). @ence" 8anceros< declaration or acts of e?ecuting the !#+$ document have no ;inding effect on D>8C4'" the ownership of the land having passed to D>8C4' in !#+3. 6etitioners< claim that the1 remained in the propert1" notwithstanding the alleged sale ;1 'icardo to 8ancero (-ollo" p. 2!) involves a =uestion of fact alread1 raised and passed upon ;1 ;oth the trial and appellate courts. 0aid the Court of Appeals: Contrar1 to the allegations of the appellants" the trial court found that 8uis 8ancero had taken possession of the land upon proper investigation ;1 plaintiff the latter learned that it was indeed 8uis 8ancero who was the owner and possessor of 8ot ,32+ D. . . . (Decision" C.A." p. +). As a finding of fact" it is ;inding upon this Court (De &ola%0ison v. :analo" $ 0C'A *#* G!#+ HD &aduco vs. C.A." !3 0C'A ,$, G!#+*HD 'amos v. 6epsi%Cola" !# 0C'A ,$# G!#+2HD Tan v. C.A." ,7 0C'A *3 G!#+2HD 'amireB Tel. Co. v. 9ank of America" 0C'A 2 2 G!#27HD 8ucero v. 8oot" ,* 0C'A +$2 G!#+$HD &uerrero v. C.A." !3, 0C'A ! 7 G!#$+H). 0uffice it to sa1 that the other flaws claimed ;1 the petitioners which allegedl1 invalidated the !#*, deed of sale have not ;een raised ;efore the trial court nor ;efore the appellate court. It is settled 5urisprudence that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court ;elow cannot ;e raised for the first time on appeal as it would ;e offensive to the ;asic rules of fair pla1" 5ustice and due process. (:atienBo v. 0ervidad" !72 0C'A ,2+ G!#$!HD Dela 0anta v. C.A." !37 0C'A 33 G!#$*HD Dihiansan v. C.A." !*2 0C'A 3 3 G!#$2HD Anchuelo v. IAC" !32 0C'A 3 3 G!#$2HD Dulos 'ealt1 and Development Corporation v. C.A." !*2 0C'A G!#$$HD Lamos v. IAC" &.'. )o. 2$,$," .ul1 *" !#$#). 6etitioners aver that the !E, share of interest of Teodorica (mother of 'icardo) in 8ot ,32+ under 4CT )o. 2+!7 was not included in the deed of sale as it was intended to limit solel1 to 'icardos< proportionate share out of the undivided !E, of the area pertaining to the si? (+) ;rothers and sisters listed in the Title and that the Deed did not include the share of 'icardo" as inheritance from Teodorica" ;ecause the Deed did not recite that she was deceased at the time it was e?ecuted ( -ollo" pp. +2%+$). The hereditar1 share in a decedents< estate is transmitted or vested immediatel1 from the moment of the death of the -causante- or predecessor in interest (Civil Code of the 6hilippines" Art. 222)" and there is no legal ;ar to a successor (with re=uisite contracting capacit1) disposing of his hereditar1 share immediatel1 after such death" even if the actual e?tent of such share is not determined until the su;se=uent li=uidation of the estate (De 9or5a v. (da. de 9or5a" 3+ 0C'A *22 G!#2,H).

Teodorica 9a;angha died long ;efore Aorld Aar II" hence" the rights to the succession were transmitted from the moment of her death. It is therefore incorrect to state that it was onl1 in !#++" the date of e?tra5udicial partition" when 'icardo received his share in the lot as inheritance from his mother Teodorica. Thus" when 'icardo sold his share over lot ,32+ that share which he inherited from Teodorica was also included unless e?pressl1 e?cluded in the deed of sale. 6etitioners contend that 'icardo<s share from Teodorica was e?cluded in the sale considering that a paragraph of the aforementioned deed refers merel1 to the shares of 'icardo and >usta=uio ( -ollo" p. +2% +$). It is well settled that laws and contracts shall ;e so construed as to harmoniBe and give effect to the different provisions thereof ('eparations Commission v. )orthern 8ines" Inc." 3 0C'A ,7 G!#27H)" to ascertain the meaning of the provisions of a contract" its entiret1 must ;e taken into account ('uiB v. 0heriff of :anila" 3 0C'A $ G!#27H). The interpretation insisted upon ;1 the petitioners" ;1 citing onl1 one paragraph of the deed of sale" would not onl1 create contradictions ;ut also" render meaningless and set at naught the entire provisions thereof. 6etitioners claim that D>8C4'<s action is ;arred ;1 laches considering that the petitioners have remained in the actual" open" uninterrupted and adverse possession thereof until at present ( -ollo" p. !2). An instrument notariBed ;1 a notar1 pu;lic as in the case at ;ar is a pu;lic instrument (>acnio v. 9aens" * 6hil. 23,). The e?ecution of a pu;lic instrument is e=uivalent to the deliver1 of the thing (Art. !3#$" !st 6ar." Civil Code) and is deemed legal deliver1. @ence" its e?ecution was considered a sufficient deliver1 of the propert1 (9uencamino v. (iceo" ! 6hil. #2D G!#7+HD 6uato v. :endoBa" +3 6hil. 3*2 G!# 2HD (da. de 0armiento v. 8esaca" !7$ 6hil. #77 G!#+7HD 6hil. 0u;ur;an Development Corp. v. Auditor &en." + 0C'A #2 (!#2*H). 9esides" the propert1 sold is a registered land. It is the act of registration that transfers the ownership of the land sold. (&0I0 v. C.A." &.'. )o. 3,,2$" .anuar1 ,7" !#$#). If the propert1 is a registered land" the purchaser in good" faith has a right to rel1 on the certificate of title and is under no dut1 to go ;ehind it to look for flaws (:allorca v. De 4campo" )o. 8%,+$*," :arch ,*" !#27D Cnchuan v. C.A." !+! 0C'A 2!7 G!#$$HD )uguid v. CA%&.'. )o. 223,2" :arch ! " !#$#). Cnder the esta;lished principles of land registration law" the person dealing with registered land ma1 generall1 rel1 on the correctness of its certificate of title and the law will in no wa1 o;lige him to go ;ehind the certificate to determine the condition of the propert1 (Tiongco v. de la :erced" 8%,33+" .ul1 ,*" !#23D 8opeB vs. CA." &.'. )o. 3#2 #" .anuar1 ,7" !#$#D Davao &rains Inc. vs. IAC" !2! 0C'A +!, G!#$#H). This notwithstanding" D>8C4' did more than that. It did not onl1 rel1 on the certificate of title. The Court of Appeals found that it had first investigated and checked the title (T.C.T. )o. T%!!$ ) in the name of 8uis 8ancero. It likewise in=uired into the 0u;division 6lan" the corresponding technical description and the deed of sale e?ecuted ;1 'icardo &evero in favor of 8uis 8ancero and found ever1thing in order. It even went to the premises and found 8uis 8ancero to ;e in possession of the land to the e?clusion of an1 other person. D>8C4' had therefore acted in good faith in purchasing the land in =uestion. Conse=uentl1" D>8C4'<s action is not ;arred ;1 laches. The main issues having ;een disposed of" discussion of the other issues appear unnecessar1. 6'>:I0>0 C4)0ID>'>D" the instant petition is here;1 DI0:I00>D and the decision of the Court of Appeals is here;1 AFFI':>D. 04 4'D>'>D.

G.R. No. L-)636) A2,-3 6, 1990 'UL$#%#A &#MENEZ and OR#"#O MA #A', vs. V#%EN E FERNANDEZ a3-a* !O'$#%#O FERNANDEZ and EODORA GRADO, 9efore Cs is a petition for review on certiorari of the following Decision 1 and 'esolution ( of the @onora;le Court of Appeals: (!) Decision" dated :arch !" !#22 in C.A.%&.'. )o. 3#!2$%' entitled -0ulpicia .imeneB" et al." v. (icente FernandeB" et al.- affirming in toto the 5udgment of the Court of First Instance of 6angasinan" Third .udicial District in Civil Case )o. !3$7,%I ;etween the same parties and (,) 'esolution dated .une " !#22 den1ing plaintiffs%appellants< motion for reconsideration. As gathered from the records" the factual ;ackground of this case is as follows: The land in =uestion is the >astern portion with an area of Four @undred Thirt1 0i? (3 +) s=uare meters of that parcel of residential land situated in 9arrio Dulig (now :agsa1sa1)" :unicipalit1 of 8a;rador" 6angasinan actuall1 covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. $,,2* (>?hi;it A) issued in the name of 0ulpicia .imeneB. The entire parcel of land with an area of ,"# , s=uare meters" formerl1 ;elonged to Fermin .imeneB. Fermin .imeneB has two (,) sons named Fortunato and Carlos .imeneB. This Fortunato .imeneB who predeceased his father has onl1 one child" the petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB. After the death of Fermin .imeneB" the entire parcel of land was registered under Act 3#+ in the name of Carlos .imeneB and 0ulpicia .imeneB (uncle and niece) in e=ual shares pro%indiviso. As a result of the registration case 4riginal Certificate of Title )o. *7# (>?hi;it $) was issued on Fe;ruar1 ,$" !# " in the names of Carlos .imeneB and 0ulpicia .imeneB" in e=ual shares pro%indiviso. Carlos .imeneB died on .ul1 #" !# + and his illegitimate daughter" :elecia Ca1a;1a;" also known as :elecia .imeneB" took possession of the eastern portion of the propert1 consisting of 3 + s=uare meters. 4n .anuar1 ,7" !#33" :elecia .imeneB sold said 3 + s=uare meter%portion of the propert1 to >dil;erto Cagampan and defendant Teodora &rado e?ecuted a contract entitled ->?change of 'eal 6ropertieswhere;1 the former transferred said 3 + s=uare meter%portion to the latter" who has ;een in occupation since. 4n August ,#" !#+#" plaintiff 0ulpicia .imeneB e?ecuted an affidavit ad5udicating unto herself the other half of the propert1 appertaining to Carlos .imeneB" upon manifestation that she is the onl1 heir of her deceased uncle. Conse=uentl1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. $,,2* was issued on 4cto;er !" !#+# in petitioner<s name alone over the entire ,"# , s=uare meter propert1. 4n April !" !#27" 0ulpicia .imeneB" 5oined ;1 her hus;and" instituted the present action for the recover1 of the eastern portion of the propert1 consisting of 3 + s=uare meters occupied ;1 defendant Teodora &rado and her son. After trial on the merits" the lower court rendered 5udgment" the dispositive portion of which reads: A@>'>F4'>" decision is here;1 rendered dismissing the complaint and holding the defendant" Teodora &rado" the a;solute owner of the land in =uestionD ordering the plaintiffs to pa1 to the defendant the amount of 6*77.77 as damages" as attorne1<s fees" and to pa1 the costs of suit. 04 4'D>'>D. (-ollo" p. ,7)

6etitioner appealed the a;ove 5udgment to the respondent Court of Appeals and on :arch !" !#22" respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the same in toto. 0aid decision was rendered ;1 a special division of five (*) 5ustices" with the @on. 8ourdes 0an Diego" dissenting. 6etitioners within the reglementar1 period granted ;1 the @onora;le Court of Appeals" filed therewith a motion for reconsideration. 9ut said motion for reconsideration was denied ;1 the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated .une " !#22. In their appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals from the afore=uoted decision of the trial court" herein petitioner raised the following assignments of error to wit: A00I&):>)T0 4F >''4' I T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT :>8>CIA CA/A9/A9" A804 L)4A) A0 :>8>CIA .I:>)>O" I0 )4T T@> DAC&@T>' 4F CA'840 .I:>)>O. II T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT :>8>CIA CA/A9/A9" A804 L)4A) A0 :>8>CIA .I:>)>O" @A0 )4 'I&@T T4 0>88 T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) T4 >DI89>'T4 CA&A:6A). III T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT >DI89>'T4 CA&A:6A) DID )4T 9>C4:> T@> 4A)>' 4F T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) 9/ (I'TC> 4F T@> D>>D 4F 0A8> (>M@. -!-) >M>CCT>D 9/ :>8>CIA CA/A9/A9" A8IA0 :>8>CIA .I:>)>O" I) @I0 FA(4'. I( T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT T>4D4'A &'AD4 DID )4T 9>C4:> T@> 4A)>' 4F T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) 9/ (I'TC> 4F T@> D>>D 4F >MC@A)&> (>M@. -2-) >M>CCT>D 9/ @>' A)D >DI89>'T4 CA&A:6A). ( T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT T@> TIT8> 4F A66>88A)T 0C86ICIA .I:>)>O 4(>' T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) CA) )4T 9> D>F>AT>D 9/ T@> AD(>'0> 46>) A)D )4T4'I4C0 6400>00I4) 4F A66>88>> T>4D4'A &'AD4. (I T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) D>C8A'I)& T@AT T@> A66>88>> T>4D4'A &'AD4 I0 T@> A9048CT> 4A)>' 4F T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) I) T@> 8I&@T 4F T@> D>CI0I4) 4F T@> 0C6'>:> C4C'T I) T@> CA0> 4F 84C'D>0 A'CCI)4" >T A8." (. 'CFI)A A6A'I0 A)D CA0IA)4 6C'A/" &.'. )4. 8%, 3,3" 6'4:C8&AT>D .A)CA'/ !" !#+$" A@IC@ CA0> I0 )4T A668ICA98> T4 T@> CA0> AT 9A'.

(II T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) DI0:I00I)& T@> C4:68AI)T A)D 4'D>'I)& T@> A66>88A)T0 T4 6A/ T@> A66>88>>0 T@> 0C: 4F 6*77.77 A0 ATT4')>/0 F>>0 68C0 T@> C40T0. From the foregoing" this petition for review was filed. Ae find merit in the petition. From the start the respondent court erred in not declaring that :elecia .imeneB Ca1a;1a; also known as :elecia .imeneB" is not the daughter of Carlos .imeneB and therefore" had no right over the propert1 in =uestion. 'espondents failed to present concrete evidence to prove that :elecia Ca1a;1a; was reall1 the daughter of Carlos .imeneB. )onetheless" assuming for the sake of argument that :elecia Ca1a;1a; was the illegitimate daughter of Carlos .imeneB there can ;e no =uestion that :elecia Ca1a;1a; had no right to succeed to the estate of Carlos .imeneB and could not have validl1 ac=uired" nor legall1 transferred to >dil;erto Cagampan that portion of the propert1 su;5ect of this petition. It is well%settled in this 5urisdiction that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent (Art. 222" Civil Code). :oreover" Art. ,,+ of the Civil Code provides as follows: 'ights to the inheritance of a person who died with or without a will" ;efore the effectivit1 of this Code" shall ;e governed ;1 the Civil Code of !$$#" ;1 other previous laws" and ;1 the 'ules of Court . . . (-ollo" p. !2) Thus" since Carlos .imeneB" owner of one%half pro%indiviso portion of that parcel of land then covered ;1 4riginal Certificate of title )o. *7# " died on .ul1 #" !# + (>?hi;it -F-) wa1 ;efore the effectivit1 of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines" the successional rights pertaining to his estate must ;e determined in accordance with the Civil Code of !$$#. Citing the case of Cid v. 9urnaman (,3 0C'A 3 3) wherein this Court categoricall1 held that: To ;e an heir under the rules of Civil Code of !$$# (which was the law in force when Carlos .imeneB died and which should ;e the governing law in so far as the right to inherit from his estate was concerned)" a child must ;e either a child legitimate" legitimated" or adopted" or else an acknowledged natural child J for illegitimate not natural are dis=ualified to inherit. (Civil Code of !$$#" Art. $72" # *) >ven assuming that :elecia Ca1a;1a; was ;orn out of the common%law%relationship ;etween her mother (:aria Ca1a;1a;) and Carlos .imeneB" she could not even ;e considered an acknowledged natural child ;ecause Carlos .imeneB was then legall1 married to 0usana A;alos and therefore not =ualified to marr1 :aria Ca1a;1a; and conse=uentl1 :elecia Ca1a;1a; was an illegitimate spurious child and not entitled to an1 successional rights in so far as the estate of Carlos .imeneB was concerned. :elecia Ca1a;1a; in the a;sence of an1 voluntar1 conve1ance to her ;1 Carlos .imeneB or 0ulpicia .imeneB of the litigated portion of the land could not even legall1 transfer the parcel of land to >dil;erto Cagampan who accordingl1" could not also legall1 transfer the same to herein private respondents. Anal1Bing the case ;efore Cs in this manner" Ae can immediatel1 discern another error in the decision of the respondent court" which is that the said court sustained and made applica;le to the case at ;ar the ruling in the case of Arcuino" et al." v. Aparis and 6ura1" )o. 8%, 3,3" .anuar1 !" !#+$" ,, 0C'A 372" wherein Ae held that:

. . . it is true that the lands registered under the Torrens 01stem ma1 not ;e ac=uired ;1 prescription ;ut plaintiffs herein are not the registered owners. The1 merel1 claim to have ac=uired ;1 succession" their alleged title or interest in lot )o. **. At an1 rate plaintiffs herein are guilt1 of laches. The respondent court rel1ing on the Arcuino case" concluded that respondents had ac=uired the propert1 under litigation ;1 prescription. Ae cannot agree with such conclusion" ;ecause there is one ver1 marked and important difference ;etween the case at ;ar and that of the Arcuino case" and that is" that since !# petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB was a title $older" the propert1 then ;eing registered in her and her uncle Carlos .imeneB< name. In the Arcuino case" this 0upreme Court held. -(I)t is true that lands registered under the Torrens 01stem ma1 not ;e ac=uired ;1 prescription ;ut plaintiffs herein are not the registered owners.- (-ollo" p. $) >ven in the said cited case the principle of imprescripti;ilit1 of Torrens Titles was respected. :elecia Ca1a;1a;<s possession or of her predecessors%in%interest would ;e unavailing against the petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB who was the holder pro%indiviso with Carlos .imeneB of the Torrens Certificate of Title covering a tract of land which includes the portion now in =uestion" from Fe;ruar1 ,$" !# " when the 4riginal Certificate of Title )o. *7# (>?hi;it $) was issued. )o possession ;1 an1 person of an1 portion of the land covered ;1 said original certificate of titles" could defeat the title of the registered owner of the land covered ;1 the certificate of title. (9enin v. Tuason" 8% ,+!,2" .une ,$" !#23" *2 0C'A * !) 0ulpicia<s title over her one%half undivided propert1 remained good and continued to ;e good when she segregated it into a new title (T.C.T )o. $,,2*" >?hi;it -A-) in !#+#. 0ulpicia<s ownership over her one% half of the land and which is the land in dispute was alwa1s covered ;1 a /orrens title, and therefore" no amount of possession thereof ;1 the respondents" could ever defeat her proprietar1 rights thereon. It is apparent" that the right of plaintiff (now petitioner) to institute this action to recover possession of the portion of the land in =uestion ;ased on the Torrens Title of 0ulpicia .imeneB" T.C.T. )o. $,,2* (>?hi;it -A-) is imprescripti;le and not ;arred under the doctrine of laches. (..:. Tuason P Co. v. :acalindong" 8% !* #$" Decem;er ,#" !#+," Francisco v. CruB" et al." 3 4.&. *!7*) -ollo" p. #) The respondent Court of Appeals declared the petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB guilt1 of laches and citing the ruling in the case of @eirs of 8acamen v. @eirs of 8aruan (+* 0C'A +7*)" held that" since petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB e?ecuted her Affidavit of 0elf%Ad5udication onl1 in !#+#" she lost the right to recover possession of the parcel of land su;5ect of the litigation. In this instance" again Ae rule for the petitioner. There is no a;solute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demandD each case is to ;e determined according to its particular circumstances. The =uestion of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and since laches is an e=uita;le doctrine" its application is controlled ;1 e=uita;le considerations. It cannot ;e worked to defeat 5ustice or to perpetrate fraud and in5ustice. It would ;e rank in5ustice and patentl1 ine=uitous to deprive the lawful heirs of their rightful inheritance. 6etitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB is entitled to the relief pra1ed for" declaring her to ;e the sole and a;solute owner of the land in =uestion with right to its possession and en5o1ment. 0ince her uncle Carlos .imeneB died in !# +" his pro%indiviso share in the properties then owned in co%ownership with his niece 0ulpicia descended ;1 intestac1 to 0ulpicia .imeneB alone ;ecause Carlos died without an1 issue or other heirs. After all" the professed o;5ective of Act )o. 3#+" otherwise known as the 8and 'egistration Act or the law which esta;lished the Torrens 01stem of 8and 'egistration in the 6hilippines is that the sta;ilit1 of the landholding s1stem in the 6hilippines depends on the confidence of the people in the titles covering the properties. And to this end" this Court has invaria;l1 upheld the indefeasi;ilit1 of the Torrens Title and in" among others" ..:. Tuason and Co." Inc. v. :acalindong (+ 0C'A # $)" held that -the right of the

appellee to file an action to recover possession ;ased on its Torrens Title is imprescripti le and not arred under t$e doctrine of lac$es. A@>'>F4'>" the 6etition for 'eview is here;1 &'A)T>D. The Decision and 'esolution dated :arch !" !#22 and .une " !#22 in CA &.'. )o. 8%3#!2$%' are 0>T A0ID>. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 1(6950 &+3y (, 1999 NEL'ON NUFA"LE, '#LMOR NUFA"LE and A6U#L#NA NUFA"LE, vs. GENERO'A NUFA"LE, V#LFOR NUFA"LE, MAR%ELO NUFA"LE, and .1/ %OUR OF A$$EAL', This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision dated )ovem;er ,*" !##* of the Fifth Division 1 of the Court of Appeals for allegedl1 ;eing contrar1 to law. The following facts as found ;1 the Court of Appeals are undisputed: >dras )ufa;le owned at 6o;lacion" :an5u1od" )egros 4riental" consisting of #3$ s=uare meters" more or less. @e died on August #" !#+* and was survived ;1 his children" namel1: Angel Custodio" &enerosa" (ilfor and :arcelo" all surnamed )ufa;le. Cpon petition for pro;ate filed ;1 said heirs and after due pu;lication and hearing" the then Court of First Instance of )egros 4riental (9ranch II) issued an 4rder dated :arch 7" !#++ admitting to pro;ate the last will and testament e?ecuted ;1 the deceased >dras )ufa;le (>?hs. 9" C and C%!). 4n .une +" !#++ the same court issued an 4rder approving the 0ettlement of >state su;mitted ;1 the heirs of the late >0dras )ufa;le" portions of which read: L)4A A88 :>) 9/ T@>0> 6'>0>)T0: Ae" A)&>8 CC0T4DI4 )CFA98>" &>)>'40A )CFA98>" (I8F4' )CFA98> and :A'C>84 )CFA98>" all of legal ages (sic)" Filipinos" and with residence and postal address at :an5u1od" )egros 4riental" 6hilippines" J @>'>9/ D>C8A'> A)D :AL> :A)IF>0T J !. That on August #" !#+*" 'ev. Fr. >sdras )ufa;le died leaving (a) 8ast Aill and Testament (marked >?h. &) disposing (of) his properties or estate in favor of his four legitimate children" namel1: Angel Custodio )ufa;le" &enerosa )ufa;le" (ilfor )ufa;le and :arcelo )ufa;leD ,. That on :arch 7" !#++ the said 8ast Aill and Testament was pro;ated ;1 the @onora;le Court" Court of First Instance of )egros 4riental" and is em;odied in the same order appointing an Administratri?" &enerosa )ufa;le" ;ut to =ualif1 onl1 if she put up a necessar1 ;ond of 6!"777.77D . That herein legitimate children prefer not to appoint an Administratri?" as agreed upon (;1) all the heirs" ;ecause the1 have no o;5ection as to the manner of disposition of their share made ;1 the testator" the

e?penses of the proceedings and that the1 have alread1 taken possession of their respective shares in accordance with the willD 3. That the herein heirs agreed" as the1 here;1 agree to settle the estate in accordance with the terms and condition of the will in the following manner" to wit: a) That the parcel of land situated in 6o;lacion :an5u1od" )egros 4riental remains undivided for communit1 ownership ;ut respecting conditions imposed therein (sic) in the willD ??? ??? ??? (>?hs. ->- and ->%!-) Two months earlier" or on :arch !*" !#++" spouses Angel Custodio and A=uilina )ufa;le mortgaged the entire propert1 located at :an5u1od to the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines GD96H (6re%trial 4rder" dated .anuar1 2" !##," p. !7 " 4riginal 'ecords). 0aid mortgagors ;ecame delin=uent for which reason the mortgaged propert1 was foreclosed ;1 D96 on Fe;ruar1 ,+" !#2 (id.). 4n .anuar1 !!" !#$7" )elson )ufa;le" the son of Angel Custodio )ufa;le (who died on August ,#" !#2$ GT0)" Testimon1 of )elson )ufa;le" @earing of August !$" !##," p. !2H)" purchased said propert1 from D96 (>?h. -!-). &enerosa" (ilfor and :arcelo" all surnamed )ufa;le filed with the lower court a complaint dated .ul1 ,*" !#$* -To Annul Fraudulent Transactions" to Iuiet Title and To 'ecover Damages< against )elson )ufa;le" and wife" 0ilmor )ufa;le and his mother A=uilina )ufa;le. 6laintiffs pra1: A@>'>F4'>" plaintiffs pra1 this @onora;le Court that after trial 5udgment ;e rendered ordering: (a) That the said Deed of 0ale (Anne? -C-) e?ecuted ;1 the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines in favor of the defendants ;e declared null and void as far as the three fourths ( E3) rights which ;elongs ( sic) to the plaintiffs are concernedD (;) That the said three fourths ( E3) rights over the a;ove parcel in =uestion ;e declared as ;elonging to the plaintiffs at one fourth right to each of themD (c) To order the defendants to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 to the plaintiffs ;1 wa1 of actual and moral damages the amount of 6!7"777.77 and another 6*"777.77 as Attorne1<s fees" and to pa1 the costs. (d) 6lus an1 other amount which this Court ma1 deem 5ust and e=uita;le. (p. +" 4riginal 'ecords) In their Answer" defendants contend: 3. 6aragraph 3 is denied" the truth ;eing that the late Angel )ufa;le was the e?clusive owner of said propert1" that as such owner he mortgaged

the same to the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines on :arch !*" !#++" that said mortgage was foreclosed and the D96 ;ecame the successful ;idder at the auction sale" that ownership was consolidated in the name of the D96" and that defendant )elson )ufa;le ;ought said propert1 from the D96 thereafter. During this period" the plaintiffs never =uestioned the transactions which were pu;lic" never filed an1 third part1 claim nor attempted to redeem said propert1 as redemptioners" and that said Deed of 0ale" Anne? -9- to the complaint" is fictitious" not ;eing supported ;1 an1 considerationD (pp. ,7%,!" id.) The Deed of 0ale (Anne? -9-)" referred to ;1 the parties is a notariBed Deed of 0ale" dated .ul1 !," !#++ (marked as >?hi;it -@-) ;1 virtue of which" spouses Angel and A=uilina )ufa;le" as vendors" sold E3 portion of the su;5ect propert1 to herein plaintiffs for and in consideration of 6!"777.77 (>?h. -*-). ( 4n )ovem;er ,#" !##*" the Court of Appeals rendered 5udgment" the dispositive portion 3 of which reads: A@>'>F4'>" the appealed decision of the lower court is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>. A new 5udgment is here;1 entered declaring plaintiffs%appellants as the rightful co%owners of the su;5ect propert1 and entitled to possession of E3 southern portion thereofD and defendant%appellee )elson )ufa;le to !E3 portion. )o award on damages. )o costs. Defendants%appellees< :otion for 'econsideration was denied for lack of merit in the 'esolution of the Court of Appeals ) dated 4cto;er ," !##+. @ence" the present petition. 6etitioners raise the following grounds for the petition: !. @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in considering as controlling the pro;ate of the 8ast Aill and Testament of >sdras )ufa;le" the pro;ate thereof not ;eing an issue in this caseD ,. The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in not considering the fact that the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines ;ecame a;solute" e?clusive" legal and rightful owner of the land in =uestion" from whom petitioner )elson )ufa;le ac=uired the same ;1 purchase and that" therefore" no award can ;e made in favor of private respondent unless and until the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines< title thereto is first declared null and void ;1 the court. The Court of Appeals" in its decision" stated that the trial court failed to take into consideration the pro;ated will of the late >sdras )ufa;le ;e=ueathing the su;5ect propert1 to all his four children. 5 In the present petition" petitioner present the issue of whether or not the 8ast Aill and Testament of >sdras )ufa;le and its su;se=uent pro;ate are pertinent and material to the =uestion of the right of ownership of petitioner )elson )ufa;le who purchased the land in =uestion from" and as ac=uired propert1 of" the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines (D96" for short). The1 contend that the pro;ate of the 8ast Aill Testament and of >sdras )ufa;le did not determine the ownership of the land in =uestion as against third parties.'(%p$i'.n)t As a general rule" courts in pro;ate proceedings are limited onl1 to passing upon the e?trinsic validit1 of the will sought to ;e pro;ated" the due e?ecution thereof" the testator<s testamentar1 capacit1 and the

compliance with the re=uisites or solemnities prescri;es ;1 law. 0aid court at this stage of the proceedings is not called to rule on the rule on the intrinsic validit1 or efficac1 of the will. 6 The =uestion of the intrinsic validit1 of a will normall1 comes onl1 after the court has declared that the will has ;een dul1 authenticated. The records show that upon petition for pro;ate filed ;1 the heirs of the late >sdras )ufa;le" an 4rder dated :arch 7" !#++ was issued ;1 then Court of First Instance of )egros 4riental" 9ranch II" admitting to pro;ate the last will and testament e?ecuted ;1 the decedent. 7 Thereafter" on .une +" !#++" the same court approved the 0ettlement of >state su;mitted ;1 the heirs of the late >sdras )ufa;le wherein the1 agreed -(T)hat the parcel land situated in 6o;lacion :an5u1od" )egros 4riental remains undivided for communit1 ownership ;ut respecting conditions imposed therein ( sic) in the will.- 8 In paragraph thereof" the1 stated that -the1 have no o;5ection as to the manner of disposition of their share made ;1 the testator" the e?penses of the proceeding and that the1 have alread1 taken possession of their respective shares in accordance with the will.- (eril1" it was the heirs of the late >sdras )ufa;le who agreed among themselves on the disposition of their shares. The pro;ate court simpl1 approved the agreement among the heirs which approval was necessar1 for the validit1 of an1 disposition of the decedent<s estate. 9 It should likewise ;e noted that the late >sdras )ufa;le died on August #" !#+*. Ahen the entire propert1 located at :an5u1od was mortgaged on :arch !*" !#++ ;1 his son Angel Custodio with D96" the other heirs of >sdras J namel1: &enerosa" (ilfor and :arcelo J had alread1 ac=uired successional rights over the said propert1. This is so ;ecause of the principle contained in Article 222 of the Civil Code to the effect that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Accordingl1" for the purpose of transmission of rights" it does not matter whether the 8ast Aill and Testament of the late >sdras )ufa;le was admitted on :arch 7" !#++ or thereafter or that the 0ettlement of >state was approved on .une +" !#++ or months later. It is to ;e noted that the pro;ated will of the late >sdras )ufa;le specificall1 referred to the su;5ect propert1 in stating that -the land situated in the 6o;lacion" :an5u1od" )egros 4riental" should not ;e divided ;ecause this must remain in common for them" ;ut it is necessar1 to allow an1one of them ;rothers and sisters to construct a house therein.- 10 It was therefor the will of the decedent that the su;5ect propert1 should undivided" although the restriction should not e?ceed twent1 (,7) 1ears pursuant to Article $27 11 of the Civil Code. Thus" when Angel )ufa;le and his spouses mortgaged the su;5ect propert1 to D96 on :arch !*" !#++" the1 had no right to mortgage the entire propert1. Angel<s right over the su;5ect propert1 was limited onl1 to !E3 pro indiviso share. As co%owner of the su;5ect propert1" Angel<s right to sell" assign or mortgage is limited to that portion that ma1 ;e allotted to him upon termination of the co%ownership. Aell%entrenched is the rule that a co%owner can onl1 alienate his pro indiviso share in the co%owned propert1. 1( The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Angel Custodio )ufa;le -had no right to mortgage the su;5ect propert1 in its entiret1. @is right to encum;er said propert1 was limited onl1 to !E3 pro indiviso share of the propert1 in =uestion.- 13 Article 3# of the Civil Code spells out the rights or co%owners over a co%owned propert1. 6ursuant to said Article" a co%owner shall have full ownership of his part and of the fruits and ;enefits pertaining thereto. @e has the right to alienate" assign or mortgage it" and even su;stitute another person in its en5o1ment. As a mere part owner" he cannot alienate the shares of the other co%owners. The prohi;ition is premised on the elementar1 rule that -no one can give what he does not have.- 1) :oreover" respondents stipulated that the1 were not aware of the mortgage ;1 petitioners of the su;5ect propert1. 15 This ;eing the case" a co%owner does not lose his part ownership of a co%owned propert1 when his share is mortgaged ;1 another co%owner without the former<s knowledge and consent 16 as in the case at ;ar. It has likewise ;een ruled that the mortgage of the inherited propert1 is not ;inding against co%heirs who never ;enefitted. 17 Furthermore" the Deed of 0ale dated .une !2" !#++ marked as >?hi;it -@- e?ecuted ;1 spouses Angel and A=uilina )ufa;le in favor of respondents &enerosa" (ilfor and :arcelo wherein the former sold" ceded and transferred ;ack to the latter the E3 portion of the su;5ect propert1 ;olsters respondents< claim

that there was co%ownership. 6etitioner )elson himself claimed that he was aware of the aforesaid Deed of 0ale. 18 Anent the second ground of the petition" petitioners allege that the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines ac=uired ownership of the land in =uestion through foreclosure" purchase and consolidation of ownership. 6etitioners argue that if petitioner )elson )ufa;le had not ;ought said land from the D96" private respondents" in order to ac=uire said propert1" must sue said ;ank for the recover1 thereof" and in so doing" must allege grounds for the annulment of documents evidencing the ;ank<s ownership thereof. 6etitioners contend that since petitioner )elson )ufa;le simpl1 ;ought the whole land from the ;ank" the1 cannot ;e deprived of the ownership of E3 without making an1 pronouncement as to the legalit1 or illegalit1 of the ;ank<s ownership of said land. It is argued that there was no evidence to warrant declaration of nullit1 of the ;ank<s ac=uisition of said landD and that neither was there a finding ;1 the court that the ;ank illegall1 ac=uired the said propert1. As adverted to a;ove" when the su;5ect propert1 was mortgaged ;1 Angel Custodio" he had no right to mortgage the entire propert1 ;ut onl1 with respect to his !E3 pro indiviso share as the propert1 was su;5ect to the successional rights of the other heirs of the late >sdras. :oreover" in case of foreclosureD a sale would result in the transmission of title to the ;u1er which is feasi;le onl1 if the seller can ;e in a position to conve1 ownership of the things sold. 19 And in one case" (0 it was held that a foreclosure would ;e ineffective unless the mortgagor has title to the propert1 to ;e foreclosed. Therefore" as regards the remaining E3 pro indiviso share" the same was held in trust for the part1 rightfull1 entitled thereto" (1 who are the private respondents herein. 6ursuant to Article !3*! of the Civil Code" when land passes ;1 succession to an1 person and he causes the legal title to ;e put in the name of another" a trust is esta;lished ;1 implication of law for the ;enefit of the true owner. 8ikewise" under Article !3*+ of the same Code" if propert1 is ac=uired through mistake or fraud" the person o;taining it is" ;1 force of law" considered a trustee of an implied trust for the ;enefit of the person from whom the propert1 comes. In the case of 0oel vs. Court of "ppeals" (( this Court held that -a ;u1er of a parcel of land at a pu;lic auction to satisf1 a 5udgment against a widow ac=uired onl1 one%half interest on the land corresponding to the share of the widow and the other half ;elonging to the heirs of her hus;and ;ecame impressed with a constructive trust in ;ehalf of said heirs.)either does the fact that D96 succeeded in consolidating ownership over the su;5ect propert1 in its name terminate the e?isting co%ownership. 'egistration of propert1 is not a means of ac=uiring ownership. (3 Ahen the su;5ect propert1 was sold to and consolidated in the name of D96" it ;eing the winning ;idder in the pu;lic auction" D96 merel1 held the E3 portion in trust for the private respondents. Ahen petitioner )elson purchased the said propert1" he merel1 stepped into the shoes of D96 and ac=uired whatever rights and o;ligations appertain thereto. This ;rings us to the issue of whether or not the D96 should have ;een impleaded as part1%defendant in the case at ;ar. 6etitioners contend that D96 was never impleaded and that due process re=uires that D96 ;e impleaded so that it can defend its sale to petitioner )elson )ufa;leD and that it was the dut1 of private respondents" and not of petitioner )elson" to implead the ;ank and ask for the annulment of documents evidencing the ;ank<s ownership of the disputed land. In the 'e5oinder to the 'epl1" private respondents that the non%inclusion of D96 as a -necessar1 part1was not =uestioned ;1 petitioners from the time the Complaint was filed until the case was -finished.- It was onl1 after the adverse decision ;1 the respondent Court of Appeals that petitioners raised the issue. At the outset" it should ;e stated petitioners never raised this issue in their Answers and pursuant to 0ection ," 'ule # of the 'ules of Court" defenses and o;5ections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.

)onetheless" the rule is that indispensa;le parties" i.e." parties in interest without whom no final determination can ;e had of an action" shall ;e 5oined either as plaintiffs or defendantsD the inclusion as a part1" i.e." persons who are not indispensa;le ;ut ought to ;e parties if complete relief is to ;e accorded as ;etween those alread1 parties" the court ma1" in its discretion" proceed in the action without making such persons parties" and the 5udgment rendered therein shall ;e without pre5udice to the rights of such persons. (5 6roper parties" therefore" have ;een descri;ed as parties whose presence in necessar1 in order to ad5udicate the whole controvers1" ;ut whose interests are so far separa;le that a final decree can ;e made in their a;sence without affecting them. (6 An1 claim against a part1 ma1 ;e severed and proceeded with separatel1. (7 The pivotal issue to ;e determined is whether D96 is an indispensa;le part1 in this case. 6rivate respondents do not =uestion the legalit1 of the foreclosure of the mortgaged propert1 and the su;se=uent sale of the same to D96. The su;5ect propert1 was alread1 purchased ;1 petitioner )elson from D96 and latter" ;1 such sale" transferred its rights and o;ligations to the former. Clearl1" petitioners< interest in the controvers1 is distinct and separa;le from the interest of D96 and a final determination can ;e had of the action despite the non%inclusion of D96 as part1%defendant. @ence" D96" not ;eing an indispensa;le part1" did not have to ;e impleaded in this case. A@>'>F4'>" there ;eing no reversi;le error in the decision appealed from" the petition for review on certiorari is here;1 D>)I>D.'(%p$i'.n)t 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 89783 F/0,+a,y 19, 199( MAR#ANO ". LO%'#N, &UL#AN &. LO%'#N, &O'E ". LO%'#N, AUREA ". LO%'#N, MA #LDE L. %ORDERO, 'ALVADOR ". LO%'#N and MANUEL V. DEL RO'AR#O, vs. !E !ON. %OUR OF A$$EAL', &O'E &AU%#AN, FLOREN #NO &AU%#AN, MER%EDE' &AU%#AN AR"OLEDA, !E#R' OF &O'EF#NA &. "OR&A, !E#R' OF EDUARDO &AU%#AN and !E#R' OF V#%EN E &AU%#AN, 'eversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. )o. C(%!!!$+ J affirming with modification the 5udgment of the 'egional Trial Court of Al;a1 in favor of the plaintiffs in Civil Case )o. 2!*, entitled -.ose .aucian" et al. v. :ariano 9. 8ocsin" et al."- an action for recover1 of real propert1 with damages J is sought. in these proceedings initiated ;1 petition for review on certiorari in accordance with 'ule 3* of the 'ules of Court. The petition was initiall1 denied due course and dismissed ;1 this Court. It was however reinstated upon a second motion for reconsideration filed ;1 the petitioners" and the respondents were re=uired to comment thereon. The petition was thereafter given due course and the parties were directed to su;mit their memorandums. These" together with the evidence" having ;een carefull1 considered" the Court now decides the case. First" the facts as the Court sees them in light of the evidence on record: The late &etulio 8ocsin had three children named :ariano" .ulian and :agdalena" all surnamed 8ocsin. @e owned e?tensive residential and agricultural properties in the provinces of Al;a1 and 0orsogon. After his death" his estate was divided among his three ( ) children as follows: (a) the coconut lands of some 277 hectares in 9ual" 6ilar" 0orsogon" were ad5udicated to his daughter" :agdalena 8ocsinD

(;) !7+ hectares of coconut lands were given to .ulian 8ocsin" father of the petitioners .ulian" :ariano" .ose" 0alvador" :atilde" and Aurea" all surnamed 8ocsinD (c) more than fort1 (37) hectares of coconut lands in 9ogtong" eighteen (!$) hectares of riceland in Daraga" and the residential lots in Daraga" Al;a1 and in 8egaBpi Cit1 went to his son :ariano" which :ariano ;rought into his marriage to Catalina .aucian in !#7$. Catalina" for her part" ;rought into the marriage untitled properties which she had inherited from her parents" 9al;ino .aucian and 0imona Anson. These were augmented ;1 other properties ac=uired ;1 the spouses in the course of their union" 1 which however was not ;lessed with children. >ventuall1" the properties of :ariano and Catalina were ;rought under the Torrens 01stem. Those that :ariano inherited from his father" &etulio 8ocsin" were surve1ed cadastrall1 and registered in the name of -:ariano 8ocsin" married to Catalina .aucian.<< ( :ariano 8ocsin e?ecuted a 8ast Aill and Testament instituting his wife" Catalina" as the sole and universal heir of all his properties. 3 The will was drawn up ;1 his wife<s nephew and trusted legal adviser" Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1es. Attorne1 8ora1es disclosed that the spouses ;eing childless" the1 had agreed that their properties" after ;oth of them shall have died should revert to their respective sides of the famil1" i.e., :ariano<s properties would go to his -8ocsin relatives- (i.e., ;rothers and sisters or nephews and nieces)" and those of Catalina to her -.aucian relatives.- ) Don :ariano 8ocsin died of cancer on 0eptem;er !3" !#3$ after a lingering illness. In due time" his will was pro;ated in 0pecial 6roceedings )o. ! $" CFI of Al;a1 without an1 opposition from ;oth sides of the famil1. As directed in his will" DoFa Catalina was appointed e?ecutri? of his estate. @er law1er in the pro;ate proceeding was Attorne1 8ora1es. In the inventor1 of her hus;and<s estate 5 which she su;mitted to the pro;ate court for approval" 6 Catalina declared that -all items mentioned from )os. ! to are the private properties of the deceased and form part of his capital at the time of the marriage with the surviving spouse" while items )os. 3 to 3, are con5ugal.- 7 Among her own and Don :ariano<s relatives" DoFa Catalina was closest to her nephew" Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1es" her nieces" >lena .aucian" :aria 8ora1es%Cornelio and :aria 4l;es%(elasco" and the hus;ands of the last two: @ostilio Cornelio and Fernando (elasco. 8 @er trust in @ostilio Cornelio was such that she made him custodian of all the titles of her propertiesD and ;efore she disposed of an1 of them" she unfailingl1 consulted her law1er%nephew" Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1es. It was Att1. 8ora1es who prepared the legal documents and" more often than not" the witnesses to the transactions were her niece >lena .aucian" :aria 8ora1es%Cornelio" :aria 4l;es%(elasco" or their hus;ands. @er niece" >lena .aucian" was her life%long companion in her house. Don :ariano relied on DoFa Catalina to carr1 out the terms of their compact" hence" nine (#) 1ears after his death" as if in o;edience to his voice from the grave" and full1 cogniBant that she was also advancing in 1ears" DoFa Catalina ;egan transferring" ;1 sale" donation or assignment" Don :ariano<s as well as her own" properties to their respective nephews and nieces. 0he made the following sales and donation of properties which she had received from her hus;and<s estate" to his 8ocsin nephews and nieces: E1HI2I/ &"/E *"-/IC3L"-S "-E"4S5.6. *-ICE 7I/0ESSES , .an. ,+" !#*2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in #+, 6 3$! favor of :ariano 8ocsin !%.'8 Apr. 2" !#++ Deed of 0ale in favor of 3 7",7 6 ,7"777 .ose '. 8ocsin !%..8 :ar. ,," !#+2 Deed of 0ale in favor of *"777 6 !"777 @ostilio Cornello .ulian 8ocsin (8ot ,7,7) @elen :. .aucian

! )ov. ,#" !#23 Deed of Donation in ,+"*7# favor Aurea 8ocsin" :atilde 8. Cordero and 0alvador 8ocsin , Fe;. 3" !#2* Deed of Donation in 3"73* favor Aurea 8ocsin" :atilde 8. Cordero and 0alvador 8ocsin 0ept. #" !#2* Deed of Donation in (8ot ,7*#) favor Aurea 8ocsin" :atilde 8. Cordero and 0alvador 8ocsin 3 .ul1 !*" !#23 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !"3,3 @ostilio Cornelio favor of Aurea 9. 8ocsin Fernando (elasco * .ul1 !*" !#23 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !"3*+ 6 *"2*7 @ostilio Cornelio favor of Aurea 9. 8ocsin >lena .aucian + .ul1 !*" !#23 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !", 2 6 *"2,7 % ditto % favor of Aurea 9. 8ocsin 2 .ul1 !*" !#23 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !"373 6 3"7*7 % ditto % favor of Aurea 9. 8ocsin !* )ov. ,+" !#2* Deed of 0ale in favor of ,+! 6 3"# 7 % ditto % Aurea 8ocsin !+ 4ct. !2" !#2* Deed of 0ale in favor of * Aurea 8ocsin :. Aca;ado 6 ,"777 Delfina Anson

!2 )ov. ,+" !#2* Deed of 0ale in favor of 2 6 !"777 8eonor 0atuito Aurea 8ocsin :ariano 9. 8ocsin !# 0ept. !" !#2* Conditional Donation in !"! 7 6 "777 % ditto % favor of :ariano 8ocsin !%:('. Dec. ,#" !#2, Deed of 'econve1ance !"*!!7.++ 6 !"777 Delfina Anson in favor of :anuel (. del (8ot ,!**) Antonio Illegi;le 'osario whose maternal grandfather was &etulio 8ocsin ,%:('. .une 7" !#2 Deed of 'econve1ance !#. 3 6 *77 Antonio Illegi;le in favor of :anuel (. del (8ot ,!**) 0alvador )ical 'osario ;ut the rentals from ;igger portion of 8ot ,!** leased to Filoil 'efiner1 were assigned to :aria .aucian 8ora1es Cornelio

4f her own properties" DoFa Catalina conve1ed the following to her own nephews and nieces and others: E1HI2I/ &"/E *"-/IC3L"-S "-E"4S5.6. *-ICE ,%..8 .ul1 !+" !#+3 Deed of 0ale in favor *"777 6 !"777 (icente .aucian (lot ,7,7) (+"$,* s=m. when resurve1ed) ,3 Fe;. !," !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale !77 6 !"777 in favor of Francisco :. :a=uiniana ,+ .ul1 !*" !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in ! 7 6 !" 77 favor of Francisco :a=uiniana ,2 :a1 " !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !77 6 !"777 favor of Ireneo :amia ,$ :a1 " !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in 2* 6 2*7 favor of Oenaida 9uiBa ,# :a1 " !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !*7 6 !"*77 favor of Felisa :or5ella 7 Apr. " !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in ! 6 !"777 favor of Inocentes :otocinos ! Fe;. !," !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !*7 6 !"*77 favor of Casimiro :ondevil , :ar. !" !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !!, 6 !",77 favor of .uan 0a;alla ,* Dec. ,$" !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in ,*7 6 ,"*77 of 'ogelio :articio DoFa Catalina died on .ul1 +" !#22. Four 1ears ;efore her death" she had made a will on 4cto;er ,," !#2 affirming and ratif1ing the transfers she had made during her lifetime in favor of her hus;and<s" and her own" relatives. After the reading of her will" all the relatives agreed that there was no need to su;mit it to the court for pro;ate ;ecause the properties devised to them under the will had alread1 ;een conve1ed to them ;1 the deceased when she was still alive" e?cept some legacies which the e?ecutor of her will or estate" Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1es" proceeded to distri;ute. In !#$#" or si? (+) 1ears after DoFa Catalina<s demise" some of her .aucian nephews and nieces who had alread1 received their legacies and hereditar1 shares from her estate" filed action in the 'egional Trial Court of 8egaspi Cit1 (9ranch (III" Civil Case )o. 2!*,) to recover the properties which she had conve1ed to the 8ocsins during her lifetime" alleging that the conve1ances were inofficious" without consideration" and intended solel1 to circumvent the laws on succession. Those who were closest to DoFa Catalina did not 5oin the action.

After the trial" 5udgment was rendered on .ul1 $" l#$* in favor of the plaintiffs (.aucian)" and against the 8ocsin defendants" the dispositive part of which reads: A@>'>F4'>" this Court renders 5udgment for the plaintiffs and against the defendants: (!) declaring the" plaintiffs" e?cept the heirs of .osefina .. 9or5a and >duardo .aucian" who withdrew" the rightful heirs and entitled to the entire estate" in e=ual portions" of Catalina .aucian (da. de 8ocsin" ;eing the nearest collateral heirs ;1 right of representation of .uan and &regorio" ;oth surnamed .aucian" and full%;lood ;rothers of CatalinaD (,) declaring the deeds of sale" donations" reconve1ance and e?change and all other instruments conve1ing an1 part of the estate of Catalina .. (da. de 8ocsin including" ;ut not limited to those in the inventor1 of known properties (Anne? 9 of the complaint) as null and void a -initioD ( ) ordering the 'egister of Deeds of Al;a1 andEor 8egaBpi Cit1 to cancel all certificates of title and other transfers of the real properties" su;5ect of this case" in the name of defendants" and derivatives therefrom" and issue new ones to the plaintiffsD (3) ordering the defendants" 5ointl1 and severall1" to reconve1 ownership and possession of all such properties to the plaintiffs" together with all muniments of title properl1 endorsed and delivered" and all the fruits and incomes received ;1 the defendants from the estate of Catalina" with legal interest from the filing of this actionD and where reconve1ance and deliver1 cannot ;e effected for reasons that might have intervened and prevent the same" defendants shall pa1 for the value of such properties" fruits and incomes received ;1 them" also with legal interest from the filing" of this case (*) ordering each of the defendants to pa1 the plaintiffs the amount of 6 7"777.77 as e?emplar1 damagesD and the further sum of 6,7"777.77 each as moral damagesD and (+) ordering the defendants to pa1 the plaintiffs attorne1<s fees and litigation e?penses" in the amount of 6 7"777.77 without pre5udice to an1 contract ;etween plaintiffs and counsel. Costs against the defendants. 9 The 8ocsins appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA%&.'. )o. C(%!!!$+) which rendered its now appealed 5udgment on :arch !3" !#$#" affirming the trial court<s decision. The petition has merit and should ;e granted. The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the private respondents" nephews and nieces of DoFa Catalina .. (da. de 8ocsin" entitled to inherit the properties which she had alread1 disposed of more than ten (!7) 1ears ;efore her death. For those properties did not form part of her hereditar1 estate" i.e., -the propert1 and transmissi;le rights and o;ligations existing at t$e time of 8t$e decedent9s: deat$ and those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession.- 10 The rights to a person<s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death" and do not vest in his heirs until such time. 11 6ropert1 which DoFa Catalina had transferred or conve1ed to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs ma1 la1 claim. @ad she died intestate" onl1 the propert1 that remained in her estate at the time of her death devolved to her legal heirsD and even if those transfers were" one and all" treated as donations" the right arising under certain circumstances to

impugn and compel the reduction or revocation of a decedent<s gifts inter vivos does not inure to the respondents since neither the1 nor the donees are compulsor1 (or forced) heirs. 1( There is thus no ;asis for assuming an intention on the part of DoFa Catalina" in transferring the properties she had received from her late hus;and to his nephews and nieces" an intent to circumvent the law in violation of the private respondents< rights to her succession. 0aid respondents are not her compulsor1 heirs" and it is not pretended that she had an1 such" hence there were no legitimes that could conceiva;l1 ;e impaired ;1 an1 transfer of her propert1 during her lifetime. All that the respondents had was an expectancy that in nowise restricted her freedom to dispose of even her entire estate su;5ect onl1 to the limitation set forth in Art. 2*7" Civil Code which" even if it were ;reached" the respondents ma1 not invoke: Art. 2*7. The donation ma1 comprehend all the present propert1 of the donor or part thereof" provided he reserves" in full ownership or in usufruct" sufficient means for the support of himself" and of all relatives who" at the time of the acceptance of the donation" are ;1 law entitled to ;e supported ;1 the donor. Aithout such reservation" the donation shall ;e reduced on petition of an1 person affected. (+ 3a) The lower court capitaliBed on the fact that DoFa Catalina was alread1 #7 1ears old when she died on .ul1 +" !#22. It insinuated that ;ecause of her advanced 1ears she ma1 have ;een imposed upon" or undul1 influenced and morall1 pressured ;1 her hus;and<s nephews and nieces (the petitioners) to transfer to them the properties which she had inherited from Don :ariano<s estate. The records do not support that con5ecture. For as earl1 as ';<=" or twent1%eight (,$) 1ears ;efore her death" DoFa Catalina had alread1 ;egun transferring to her 8ocsin nephews and nieces the properties which she received from Don :ariano. 0he sold a #+,%s=.m. lot on .anuar1 ,+" !#*2 to his nephew and namesake :ariano 8ocsin II. 13 4n April 2" !#++" or !# 1ears ;efore she passed awa1" she also sold a 3 hectare land to another 8ocsin nephew" .ose '. 8ocsin. 1) The ne?t 1ear" or on :arch ,," !#+2" she sold a *"777%s=.m. portion of 8ot ,7,7 to .ulian 8ocsin. 15 4n :arch ,2" !#+2" 8ot ,7,7 16 was partitioned ;1 and among DoFa Catalina" .ulian 8ocsin" (icente .aucian and Agapito 8orete. 17 At least (icente .aucian" among the other respondents in this case" is estopped from assailing the genuineness and due e?ecution of the sale of portions of 8ot ,7,7 to himself" .ulian 8ocsin" and Agapito 8orete" and the partition agreement that he ((icente) concluded with the other co%owners of 8ot ,7,7. Among DoFa" Catalina<s last transactions ;efore she died in !#22 were the sales of propert1 which she made in favor of Aurea 8ocsin and :ariano 8ocsin in !#2*. 18 There is not the slightest suggestion in the record that DoFa Catalina was mentall1 incompetent when she made those dispositions. Indeed" how can an1 such suggestion ;e made in light of the fact that even as she was transferring properties to the 8ocsins" she was also contemporaneousl1 disposing of her other properties in favor of the .auciansK 0he sold to her nephew" (icente .aucian" on .ul1 !+" !#+3 (,! 1ears ;efore her death) one%half (or *"777 s=.m.) of 8ot ,7,7. Three 1ears later" or on :arch ,," !#+2" she sold another *777 s=.m. of the same lot to .ulian 8ocsin. 19 From !#2, to !#2 she made several other transfers of her properties to her relatives and other persons" namel1: Francisco :a=uiniana" Ireneo :amia" Oenaida 9uiBa" FeliBa :or5ella" Inocentes :otocinos" Casimiro :ondevil" .uan 0a;alla and 'ogelio :articio. (0 )one of those transactions was impugned ;1 the private respondents. In !#2*" or two 1ears ;efore her death" DoFa Catalina sold some lots not onl1 to Don :ariano<s niece" Aurea 8ocsin" and his nephew" :ariano 8ocsin

II" (1 ;ut also to her niece" :ercedes .aucian Ar;oleda. (( If she was competent to make that conve1ance to :ercedes" how can there ;e an1 dou;t that she was e=uall1 competent to transfer her other pieces of propert1 to Aurea and :ariano IIK The trial court<s ;elief that Don :ariano 8ocsin ;e=ueathed his entire estate to his wife" from a -consciousness of its real origin- which carries the implication that said estate consisted of properties which his wife had inherited from her parents" flies in the teeth of DoFa Catalina<s admission in her inventor1 of that estate" that -items ! to are the private properties of the deceased (Don :ariano) and forms (sic) part of his capital at the time of the marriage with the surviving spouse" while items 3 to 3, are conjugal properties" ac=uired during the marriage.- 0he would have known ;etter than an1one else whether the listing included an1 of her paraphernal propert1 so it is safe to assume that none was in fact included. The inventor1 was signed ;1 her under oath" and was approved ;1 the pro;ate court in 0pecial 6roceeding )o. ! $ of the Court of First Instance of Al;a1. It was prepared with the assistance of her own nephew and counsel" Att1. 0alvador 8ora1es" who surel1 would not have prepared a false inventor1 that would have ;een pre5udicial to his aunt<s interest and to his own" since he stood to inherit from her eventuall1. This Court finds no reason to dis;elieve Attorne1 8ora1es< testimon1 that ;efore Don :ariano died" he and his wife (DoFa Catalina)" ;eing childless" had agreed that their respective properties should eventuall1 revert to their respective lineal relatives. As the trusted legal adviser of the spouses and a full% ;lood nephew of DoFa Catalina" he would not have spun a tale out of thin air that would also pre5udice his own interest. 8ittle significance" it seems" has ;een attached to the fact that among DoFa Catalina<s nephews and nieces" those closest to her: (a) her law1er%nephew Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1esD (;) her niece and companion >lena .aucian: (c) her nieces :aria 4l;es%(elasco and :aria 8ora1es%Cornelio and their respective hus;ands" Fernando (elasco and @ostilio Cornelio" did not join t$e suit to annul and undo the dispositions of propert1 which she made in favor of the 8ocsins" although it would have ;een to their advantage to do so. Their desistance persuasivel1 demonstrates that DoFa Catalina acted as a completel1 free agent when she made the conve1ances in favor of the petitioners. In fact" considering their closeness to DoFa Catalina it would have ;een well%nigh impossi;le for the petitioners to emplo1 -fraud" undue pressure" and su;tle manipulations- on her to make her sell or donate her properties to them. DoFa Catalina<s niece" >lena .aucian" daughter of her ;rother" >duardo .aucian" lived with her in her house. @er nephew%in%law" @ostilio Cornelio" was the custodian of the titles of her properties. The sales and donations which she signed in favor of the petitioners were prepared ;1 her trusted legal adviser and nephew" Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1es. The (!) deed of donation dated )ovem;er !#" !#23 (3 in favor of Aurea 8ocsin" (,) another deed of donation dated Fe;ruar1 3" !#2* () in favor of :atilde Cordero" and ( ) still another deed dated 0eptem;er #" !#2* (5 in favor of 0alvador 8ora1es" were all witnessed ;1 @ostilio Cornelio (who is married to DoFa Catalina<s niece" :aria 8ora1es) and Fernando (elasco who is married to another niece" :aria 4l;es. (6 The sales which she made in favor of Aurea 8ocsin on .ul1 !*" !#23 (7 were witnessed ;1 @ostilio Cornelio and >lena .aucian. &iven those circumstances" said transactions could not have ;een an1thing ;ut free and voluntar1 acts on her part. Apart from the foregoing considerations" the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing this action for annulment and reconve1ance on the ground of prescription. Commenced decades after the transactions had ;een consummated" and si? (+) 1ears after DoFa Catalina<s death" it prescri;ed four (3) 1ears after the su;5ect transactions were recorded in the 'egistr1 of 6ropert1" (8 whether considered an action ;ased on fraud" or one to redress an in5ur1 to the rights of the plaintiffs. The private respondents ma1 not feign ignorance of said transactions ;ecause the registration of the deeds was constructive notice thereof to them and the whole world. (9 A@>'>F4'>" the petition for review is granted. The decision dated :arch !3" !#$# of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. !!!$+ is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>. The private respondents< complaint for annulment of contracts and reconve1ance of properties in Civil Case )o. 2!*, of the 'egional Trial

Court" 9ranch (III of 8egaBpi Cit1" is DI0:I00>D" with costs against the private respondents" plaintiffs therein. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 1(5835 &+3y 30, 1998 NA AL#A %AR$ENA O$ULEN%#A, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', ALAD#N '#MUNDA% and M#GUEL OL#VAN, Is a contract to sell a real propert1 involved in restate proceedings valid and ;inding without the approval of the pro;ate courtK Statement of t$e Case This is the main =uestion raised in this petition for review ;efore us" assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals ( in CA%&' C( )o. 3!##3 promulgated on Fe;ruar1 +" !##+ and its 'esolution 3 dated .ul1 !#" !##+. The challenged Decision disposed as follows: A@>'>F4'>" premises considered" the order of the lower court dismissing the complaint is 0>T A0ID> and 5udgment is here;1 rendered declaring the C4)T'ACT T4 0>88 e?ecuted ;1 appellee in favor of appellants as valid and ;inding" su;5ect to the result of the administration proceedings of the testate >state of Demetrio Carpena. 04 4'D>'>D. ) 6etitioner<s :otion for 'econsideration was denied in the challenged 'esolution. /$e >acts The antecedent facts" as succinctl1 narrated ;1 'espondent Court of Appeals" are: In a complaint for specific performance filed with the court a !uo Gherein private respondentsH Aladin 0imundac and :iguel 4liven alleged that Gherein petitionerH )atalia Carpena 4pulencia e?ecuted in their favor a -C4)T'ACT T4 0>88- 8ot ,!,* of the 0ta. 'osa >state" consisting of , "2++ s=uare meters located in 0ta. 'osa" 8aguna at 6!*7.77 per s=uare meterD that plaintiffs paid a downpa1ment of 6 77"777.77 ;ut defendant" despite demands" failed to compl1 with her o;ligations under the contract. G6rivate respondentsH therefore pra1ed that GpetitionerH ;e ordered to perform her contractual o;ligations and to further pa1 damages" attorne1<s fee and litigation e?penses. In her traverse" GpetitionerH admitted the e?ecution of the contract in favor of plaintiffs and receipt of 6 77"777.77 as downpa1ment. @owever" she put forward the following affirmative defenses: that the propert1 su;5ect of the contract formed part of the >state of Demetrio Carpena (petitioner<s father)" in respect of which a petition for pro;ate was filed with the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch ,3" 9iFan" 8agunaD that at the time the contract was e?ecuted" the parties were aware of the pendenc1 of the pro;ate proceedingD that the contract to sell was not approved ;1 the pro;ate courtD that realiBing the nullit1 of the contract GpetitionerH had offered to return the downpa1ment received from Gprivate respondentsH" ;ut the latter refused to accept itD that Gprivate respondentsH further failed to provide funds for the tenant who demanded 6!*7"77.77 in pa1ment of his tenanc1 rights on the landD that GpetitionerH had chosen to rescind the contract.
5

At the pre%trial conference the parties stipulated on G sicH the following facts: !. That on Fe;ruar1 " !#$#" Gprivate respondentsH and GpetitionerH entered into a contract to sell involving a parcel of land situated in 0ta. 'osa" 8aguna" otherwise known as 8ot )o. ,!,* of the 0ta. 'osa >state. ,. That the price or consideration of the said sell G sicH is 6!*7.77 per s=uare metersD . That the amount of 6 77"777.77 had alread1 ;een received ;1 GpetitionerHD 3. That the parties have knowledge that the propert1 su;5ect of the contract to sell is su;5ect of the pro;ate proceedingsD *. That GasH of this time" the pro;ate Court has not 1et issued an order either approving or den1ing the said sale. (p. " appealed 4rder of 0eptem;er !*" !##," pp. !7#%!!," record). G6rivate respondentsH su;mitted their evidence in support of the material allegations of the complaint. In addition to testimonies of witnesses" Gprivate respondentsH presented the following documentar1 evidences: (!) Contract to 0ell (>?h A)D (,) machine cop1 of the last will and testament of Demetrio Carpena (defendant<s father) to show that the propert1 sold ;1 defendant was one of those devised to her in said will (>?h 9)D ( ) receipts signed ;1 defendant for the downpa1ment in the total amount of 6 77"777.77 (>?hs C" D P >)D and (3) demand letters sent to defendant (>?hs F P &). It appears that GpetitionerH" instead of su;mitting her evidence" filed a Demurrer to >vidence. In essence" defendant maintained that the contract to sell was null and void for want of approval ;1 the pro;ate court. 0he further argued that the contract was su;5ect to a suspensive condition" which was the pro;ate of the will of defendant<s father Demetrio Carpena. An 4pposition was filed ;1 Gprivate respondentsH. It appears further that in an 4rder dated Decem;er !*" !##, the court a !uo granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the complaint. It 5ustified its action in dismissing the complaint in the following manner: It is noteworth1 that when the contract to sell was consummated" no petition was filed in the Court with notice to the heirs of the time and place of hearing" to show that the sale is necessar1 and ;eneficial. A sale of properties of an estate as ;eneficial to the interested parties must compl1 with the re=uisites provided ;1 law" (0ec. 2" 'ule $#" 'ules of Court) which are mandator1" and without them" the authorit1 to sell" the sale itself" and the order approving it" would ;e null and void a initio. (Arcilla vs. David" 22 6hil. 2!$" &a;riel" et al." vs. >ncarnacion" et al." 8%+2 +" :a1 3" !#*3D 9onaga vs. 0oler" , 6hil. 2**) 9esides" it is a?iomatic that where the estate of a deceased person is alread1 the su;5ect of a testate or intestate proceeding" the administrator cannot enter into an1 transaction involving it without prior approval of the pro;ate Court. (>state of 4;ave" vs. 'e1es" !, 0C'A 2+2). As held ;1 the 0upreme Court" a decedent<s representative (administrator) is not estopped from =uestioning the validit1 of his own void deed purporting to conve1 land. (9ona vs. 0oler" , 6hil" 2**). In the case at ;ar" the Gpetitioner"H realiBing the illegalit1 of the transactionG"H has interposed the nullit1 of the contract as her defense" there ;eing no approval from the pro;ate Court" and" in good faith offers to return the mone1 she received from the Gprivate respondentsH. Certainl1" the administratri? is not estopGpedH

from doing so and the action to declare the ine?istence of contracts do not prescri;e. This is what precipitated the filing of Gpetitioner<sH demurrer to evidence. 6 The trial court<s order of dismissal was elevated to the Court of Appeals ;1 private respondents who alleged: !. The lower court erred in concluding that the contract to sell is null and void" there ;eing no approval of the pro;ate court. ,. The lower court erred in concluding that GpetitionerH in good faith offers to return the mone1 to Gprivate respondentsH. . The lower court erred in concluding that GpetitionerH is not under estoppel to =uestion the validit1 of the contract to sell. 3. The lower court erred in not ruling on the consideration of the contract to sell which is tantamount to plain un5ust enrichment of GpetitionerH at the e?pense of Gprivate respondentsH. 7 *u lic -espondent9s -uling Declaring the Contract to 0ell valid" su;5ect to the outcome of the testate proceedings on Demetrio Carpena<s estate" the appellate court set aside the trial court<s dismissal of the complaint and correctl1 ruled as follows: It is apparent from the appealed order that the lower court treated the contract to sell e?ecuted ;1 appellee as one made ;1 the administratri? of the >state of Demetrio Carpena for the ;enefit of the estate. @ence" its main reason for voiding the contract in =uestion was the a;sence of the pro;ate court<s approval. 6resuma;l1" what the lower court had in mind was the sale of the estate or part thereof made ;1 the administrator for the ;enefit of the estate" as authoriBed under 'ule $# of the 'evised 'ules of Court" which re=uires the approval of the pro;ate court upon application therefor with notice to the heirs" devisees and legatees. @owever" as adverted to ;1 appellants in their ;rief" the contract to sell in =uestion is not covered ;1 'ule $# of the 'evised 'ules of Court since it was made ;1 appellee in her capacit1 as an heir" of a propert1 that was devised to her under the will sought to ;e pro;ated. Thus" while the document inadvertentl1 stated that appellee e?ecuted the contract in her capacit1 as -e?ecutri? and administratri?- of the estate" a cursor1 reading of the entire te?t of the contract would unerringl1 show that what she undertook to sell to appellants was one of the -other properties given to her ;1 her late father"- and more importantl1" it was not made for the ;enefit of the estate ;ut for her own needs. To illustrate this point" it is apropos to refer to the pream;ular or preliminar1 portion of the document" which reads: A@>'>A0" t$e SELLE- is t$e la%ful o%ner of a certain parcel of land" which is more particularl1 descri;ed as follows: ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

A@>'>A0" the 0>88>' suffers difficulties in her living and has forced to offer the sale of the a;ove%descri;ed propert1" -which propert1 was onl1 one among the other properties given to her ;1 her late father"- to an1one who can wait for complete clearance of the court on the 8ast Aill Testament of her father. A@>'>A0" the 0>88>' in order to meet her need of cash" has offered for sale the said propert1 at 4)> @C)D'>D FIFT/ 6>040 (!*7.77) 6hilippine Currenc1" per s=uare meter unto the 9C/>'0" and with this offer" the latter has accepted to ;u1 andEor purchase the same" less the area for the road and other easements indicated at the ;ack of Transfer Certificate of Title )o. ,!,* dul1 confirmed after the surve1 to ;e conducted ;1 the 9C/>'<s 8icensed &eodetic >ngineer" and whatever area GisH left. (>mphasis added). To emphasiBe" it is evident from the foregoing clauses of the contract that appellee sold 8ot ,!,* not in her capacit1 as e?ecutri? of the will or administratri? of the estate of her father" ;ut as an heir and more importantl1 as owner of said lot which" along with other properties" was devised to her under the will sought to ;e pro;ated. That ;eing so" the re=uisites stipulated in 'ule $# of the 'evised 'ules of Court which refer to a sale made ;1 the administrator for the ;enefit of the estate do not appl1. ??? ??? ??? It is noteworth1 that in a :anifestation filed with this court ;1 appellants" which is not controverted ;1 appellee" it is mentioned that the last will and testament of Demetrio Carpena was approved in a final 5udgment rendered in 0pecial 6roceeding )o. 9%#2# ;1 the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch ,3 9iFan" 8aguna. 9ut of course such approval does not terminate the proceedingGsH since the settlement of the estate will ensue. 0uch proceedings will consist" among others" in the issuance ;1 the court of a notice to creditors ('ule $+)" hearing of mone1 claims and pa1ment of ta?es and estate de;ts ('ule $$) and distri;ution of the residue to the heirs or persons entitled thereto ('ule #7). In effect" the final e?ecution of the deed of sale itself upon appellants< pa1ment of the ;alance of the purchase price will have to wait for the settlement or termination of the administration proceedings of the >state of Demetrio Carpena. Cnder the foregoing premises" what the trial court should have done with the complaint was not to dismiss it ;ut to simpl1 put on hold further proceedings until such time that the estate or its residue will ;e distri;uted in accordance with the approved will. The rule is that when a demurrer to the evidence is granted ;1 the trial court ;ut reversed on appeal" defendant loses the right to adduce his evidence. In such a case" the appellate court will decide the controvers1 on the ;asis of plaintiff<s evidence. In the case at ;ench" while we find the contract to sell valid and ;inding ;etween the parties" we cannot as 1et order appellee to perform her o;ligations under the contract ;ecause the result of the administration proceedings of the testate >state of Demetrio Carpena has to ;e awaited. @ence" we shall confine our ad5udication to merel1 declaring the validit1 of the =uestioned Contract to 0ell. @ence" this appeal. 8 /$e Issue 6etitioner raises onl1 one issue:

Ahether or not the Contract to 0ell dated 7 Fe;ruar1 !#$# e?ecuted ;1 the GpHetitioner and GpHrivate GrHespondentGsH without the re=uisite pro;ate court approval is valid. /$e Court9s -uling The petition has no merit. Contract to Sell ?alid In a nutshell" petitioner contends that -where the estate of the deceased person is alread1 the su;5ect of a testate or intestate proceeding" the administrator cannot enter into an1 transaction involving it without prior approval of the 6ro;ate Court.- 9 0he maintains that the Contract to 0ell is void ;ecause it was not approved ;1 the pro;ate court" as re=uired ;1 0ection 2" 'ule $# of the 'ules of Court: 0ec. 2. 'egulations for granting authorit1 to sell" mortgage" or otherwise encum;er estate. J The court having 5urisdiction of the estate of the deceased ma1 authoriBe the e?ecutor or administrator to sell" mortgage" or otherwise encum;er real estate" in cases provided ;1 these rules and when it appears necessar1 or ;eneficial" under the following regulations: ??? ??? ??? Insisting that the a;ove rule should appl1 to this case" petitioner argues that the stipulations in the Contract to 0ell re=uire her to act in her capacit1 as an e?ecutri? or administratri?. 0he avers that her o;ligation to e5ect tenants pertains to the administratri? or e?ecutri?" the estate ;eing the landlord of the said tenants. 10 8ikewise demonstrating that she entered into the contract in her capacit1 as e?ecutor is the stipulation that she must effect the conversion of su;5ect land from irrigated rice land to residential land and secure the necessar1 clearances from government offices. 6etitioner alleges that these o;ligations can ;e undertaken onl1 ;1 an e?ecutor or administrator of an estate" and not ;1 an heir. 11 The Court is not persuaded. As correctl1 ruled ;1 the Court of Appeals" 0ection 2 of 'ule $# of the 'ules of Court is not applica;le" ;ecause petitioner entered into the Contract to 0ell in her capacit1 as an heiress" not as an e?ecutri? or administratri? of the estate. In the contract" she represented herself as the -lawful owner- and seller of the su;5ect parcel of land. 1( 0he also e?plained the reason for the sale to ;e -difficulties in her living- conditions and conse=uent -need of cash.- 13 These representations clearl1 evince that she was not acting on ;ehalf of the estate under pro;ate when she entered into the Contract to 0ell. Accordingl1" the 5urisprudence cited ;1 petitioners has no application to the instant case. Ae emphasiBe that hereditar1 rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the decedent<s death. 1) 6etitioner" therefore" ;ecame the owner of her hereditar1 share the moment her father died. Thus" the lack of 5udicial approval does not invalidate the Contract to 0ell" ;ecause the petitioner has the su;stantive right to sell the whole or a part of her share in the estate of her late father. 15 Thus" in @a#osalem vs. -afols" 16 the Court resolved an identical issue under the old Civil Code and held: Art. 337 of the Civil Code provides that -the possession of hereditar1 propert1 is deemed to ;e transmitted to the heir without interruption from the instant of the death of the decedent" in case the inheritance ;e accepted.- And :anresa with reason states that upon the death of a person" each of his heirs -;ecomes the undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the part or portion which might ;e ad5udicated to him" a communit1 of ownership ;eing thus formed among the coowners of the estate while it remains undivided.- . . . And according to article ## of the Civil Code" ever1 part owner ma1 assign or mortgage his part in the common propert1" and the effect of such assignment or mortgage shall ;e limited to the portion which ma1 ;e allotted him in the partition upon the dissolution of the communit1. @ence" where some of the heirs" without

the concurrence of the others" sold a propert1 left ;1 their deceased father" this Court" speaking thru its then Chief .ustice Ca1etano Arellano" said that the sale was valid" ;ut that the effect thereof was limited to the share which ma1 ;e allotted to the vendors upon the partition of the estate. "dministration of t$e Estate 0ot *rejudiced y t$e Contract to Sell 6etitioner further contends that -GtHo sanction the sale at this stage would ;ring a;out a partial distri;ution of the decedent<s estate pending the final termination of the testate proceedings.- 17 This ;ecomes all the more significant in the light of the trial court<s finding" as stated in its 4rder dated August ,7" !##2" that -the legitimate of one of the heirs has ;een impaired.- 18 6etitioner<s contention is not convincing. The Contract to 0ell stipulates that petitioner<s offer to sell is contingent on the -complete clearance of the court on the 8ast Aill Testament of her father.- 19 Conse=uentl1" although the Contract to 0ell was perfected ;etween the petitioner and private respondents during the pendenc1 of the pro;ate proceedings" the consummation of the sale or the transfer of ownership over the parcel of land to the private respondents is su;5ect to the full pa1ment of the purchase price and to the termination and outcome of the testate proceedings. Therefore" there is no ;asis for petitioner<s apprehension that the Contract to 0ell ma1 result in a premature partition and distri;ution of the properties of the estate. Indeed" it is settled that -the sale made ;1 an heir of his share in an inheritance" su;5ect to the pending administration" in no wise stands in the wa1 of such administration.- (0 Estoppel Finall1" petitioner is estopped from ;acking out of her representations in her valid Contract to 0ell with private respondents" from whom she had alread1 received 6 77"777 as initial pa1ment of the purchase price. 6etitioner ma1 not renege on her own acts and representations" to the pre5udice of the private respondents who have relied on them. (1 .urisprudence teaches us that neither the law nor the courts will e?tricate a part1 from an unwise or undesira;le contract he or she entered into with all the re=uired formalities and with full awareness of its conse=uences. (( A@>'>F4'>" the petition is here;1 D>)I>D and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFI':>D. Costs against petitioner. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 1(633) No8/70/, (3, (001

EM#L#O EMNA%E, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', E' A E OF V#%EN E A"ANAO, '!ER9#N A"ANAO, V#%EN E 9#LL#AM A"ANAO, &ANE E A"ANAO DE$O'OY, V#%EN A MAY A"ANAO VARELA, RO'ELA A"ANAO and V#N%EN A"ANAO, 6etitioner >milio >mnace" (icente Ta;anao and .acinto Divinagracia were partners in a ;usiness concern known as :a. )elma Fishing Industr1. 0ometime in .anuar1 of !#$+" the1 decided to dissolve their partnership and e?ecuted an agreement of partition and distri;ution of the partnership properties among them" conse=uent to .acinto Divinagracia<s withdrawal from the partnership. ! Among the assets to ;e distri;uted were five (*) fishing ;oats" si? (+) vehicles" two (,) parcels of land located at 0to. )iFo and Talisa1" )egros 4ccidental" and cash deposits in the local ;ranches of the 9ank of the 6hilippine Islands and 6rudential 9ank.

Throughout the e?istence of the partnership" and even after (icente Ta;anao<s untimel1 demise in !##3" petitioner failed to su;mit to Ta;anao<s heirs an1 statement of assets and lia;ilities of the partnership" and to render an accounting of the partnership<s finances. 6etitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over to Ta;anao<s heirs the deceased<s !E share in the total assets of the partnership" amounting to 6 7"777"777.77" or the sum of 6!7"777"777.77" despite formal demand for pa1ment thereof. , Conse=uentl1" Ta;anao< s heirs" respondents herein" filed against petitioner an action for accounting" pa1ment of shares" division of assets and damages. In their complaint" respondents pra1ed as follows: !. Defendant ;e ordered to render the proper accounting of all the assets and lia;ilities of the partnership at ;arD and ,. After due notice and hearing defendant ;e ordered to pa1EremitEdeliverEsurrenderE1ield to the plaintiffs the following: A. )o less than 4ne Third (!E ) of the assets" properties" dividends" cash" land(s)" fishing vessels" trucks" motor vehicles" and other forms and su;stance of treasures which ;elong andEor should ;elong" had accrued andEor must accrue to the partnershipD 9. )o less than Two @undred Thousand 6esos (6,77"777.77) as moral damagesD C. Attorne1<s fees e=uivalent to Thirt1 6ercent ( 7Q) of the entire shareEamountEaward which the @onora;le Court ma1 resolve the plaintiffs as entitled to plus 6!"777.77 for ever1 appearance in court.3 6etitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue" lack of 5urisdiction over the nature of the action or suit" and lack of capacit1 of the estate of Ta;anao to sue. * 4n August 7" !##3" the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that venue was properl1 laid ;ecause" while realties were involved" the action was directed against a particular person on the ;asis of his personal lia;ilit1D hence" the action is not onl1 a personal action ;ut also an action in personam. As regards petitioner<s argument of lack of 5urisdiction over the action ;ecause the prescri;ed docket fee was not paid considering the huge amount involved in the claim" the trial court noted that a re=uest for accounting was made in order that the e?act value of the partnership ma1 ;e ascertained and" thus" the correct docket fee ma1 ;e paid. Finall1" the trial court held that the heirs of Ta;anao had aright to sue in their own names" in view of the provision of Article 222 of the Civil Code" which states that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. + The following da1" respondents filed an amended complaint" 2 incorporating the additional pra1er that petitioner ;e ordered to -sell all (the partnership<s) assets and thereafter pa1EremitEdeliverEsurrenderE1ield to the plaintiffs- their corresponding share in the proceeds thereof. In due time" petitioner filed a manifestation and motion to dismiss"$ arguing that the trial court did not ac=uire 5urisdiction over the case due to the plaintiffs< failure to pa1 the proper docket fees. Further" in a supplement to his motion to dismiss"# petitioner also raised prescription as an additional ground warranting the outright dismissal of the complaint. 4n .une !*" !##*" the trial court issued an 4rder" !7 den1ing the motion to dismiss inasmuch as the grounds raised therein were ;asicall1 the same as the earlier motion to dismiss which has ;een denied. Anent the issue of prescription" the trial court ruled that prescription ;egins to run onl1 upon the dissolution of the partnership when the final accounting is done. @ence" prescription has not set in the a;sence of a final accounting. :oreover" an action ;ased on a written contract prescri;es in ten 1ears from the time the right of action accrues. 6etitioner filed a petition for certiorari ;efore the Court of Appeals" !! raising the following issues:

I. Ahether or not respondent .udge acted without 5urisdiction or with grave a;use of discretion in taking cogniBance of a case despite the failure to pa1 the re=uired docket feeD II. Ahether or not respondent .udge acted without 5urisdiction or with grave a;use of discretion in insisting to tr1 the case which involve (sic) a parcel of land situated outside of its territorial 5urisdictionD III. Ahether or not respondent .udge acted without 5urisdiction or with grave a;use of discretion in allowing the estate of the deceased to appear as part1 plaintiff" when there is no intestate case and filed ;1 one who was never appointed ;1 the court as administratri? of the estatesD and I(. Ahether or not respondent .udge acted without 5urisdiction or with grave a;use of discretion in not dismissing the case on the ground of prescription. 4n August $" !##+" the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision" !, dismissing the petition for certiorari" upon a finding that no grave a;use of discretion amounting to lack or e?cess of 5urisdiction was committed ;1 the trial court in issuing the =uestioned orders den1ing petitioner<s motions to dismiss. )ot satisfied" petitioner filed the instant petition for review" raising the same issues resolved ;1 the Court of Appeals" namel1: I. Failure to pa1 the proper docket feeD

II. 6arcel of land su;5ect of the case pending ;efore the trial court is outside the said court<s territorial 5urisdictionD III. I(. 8ack of capacit1 to sue on the part of plaintiff heirs of (icente Ta;anaoD and 6rescription of the plaintiff heirs< cause of action.

It can ;e readil1 seen that respondents< primar1 and ultimate o;5ective in instituting the action ;elow was to recover the decedent<s !E share in the partnership< s assets. Ahile the1 ask for an accounting of the partnership< s assets and finances" what the1 are actuall1 asking is for the trial court to compel petitioner to pa1 and turn over their share" or the e=uivalent value thereof" from the proceeds of the sale of the partnership assets. The1 also assert that until and unless a proper accounting is done" the e?act value of the partnership< s assets" as well as their corresponding share therein" cannot ;e ascertained. Conse=uentl1" the1 feel 5ustified in not having paid the commensurate docket fee as re=uired ;1 the 'ules of Court.'(%p$i'.n)t Ae do not agree. The trial court does not have to emplo1 guesswork in ascertaining the estimated value of the partnership<s assets" for respondents themselves voluntaril1 pegged the worth thereof at Thirt1 :illion 6esos (6 7"777"777.77). @ence" this case is one which is reall1 not ;e1ond pecuniar1 estimation" ;ut rather partakes of the nature of a simple collection case where the value of the su;5ect assets or amount demanded is pecuniaril1 determina;le.! Ahile it is true that the e?act value of the partnership<s total assets cannot ;e shown with certaint1 at the time of filing" respondents can and must ascertain" through informed and practical estimation" the amount the1 e?pect to collect from the partnership" particularl1 from petitioner" in order to determine the proper amount of docket and other fees. !3 It is thus imperative for respondents to pa1 the corresponding docket fees in order that the trial court ma1 ac=uire 5urisdiction over the action.!* )evertheless" unlike in the case of 6anc$ester &evelopment Corp. v. Court of "ppeals,!+ where there was clearl1 an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to pa1 the correct docket fees" we see no

attempt to cheat the courts on the part of respondents. In fact" the lower courts have noted their e?pressed desire to remit to the court -an1 pa1a;le ;alance or lien on whatever award which the @onora;le Court ma1 grant them in this case should there ;e an1 deficienc1 in the pa1ment of the docket fees to ;e computed ;1 the Clerk of Court.-!2 There is evident willingness to pa1" and the fact that the docket fee paid so far is inade=uate is not an indication that the1 are tr1ing to avoid pa1ing the re=uired amount" ;ut ma1 simpl1 ;e due to an ina;ilit1 to pa1 at the time of filing. This consideration ma1 have moved the trial court and the Court of Appeals to declare that the unpaid docket fees shall ;e considered a lien on the 5udgment award. 6etitioner" however" argues that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in condoning the non% pa1ment of the proper legal fees and in allowing the same to ;ecome a lien on the monetar1 or propert1 5udgment that ma1 ;e rendered in favor of respondents. There is merit in petitioner<s assertion. The third paragraph of 0ection !+" 'ule !3! of the 'ules of Court states that: The legal fees shall ;e a lien on the monetar1 or propert1 5udgment in favor of the pauper%litigant. 'espondents cannot invoke the a;ove provision in their favor ;ecause it specificall1 applies to pauper% litigants. )owhere in the records does it appear that respondents are litigating as paupers" and as such are e?empted from the pa1ment of court fees.!$ The rule applica;le to the case at ;ar is 0ection *(a) of 'ule !3! of the 'ules of Court" which defines the two kinds of claims as: (!) those which are immediatel1 ascertaina;leD and (,) those which cannot ;e immediatel1 ascertained as to the e?act amount. This second class of claims" where the e?act amount still has to ;e finall1 determined ;1 the courts ;ased on evidence presented" falls s=uarel1 under the third paragraph of said 0ection *(a)" which provides: In case the value of the propert1 or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in accordance with the appraisal of the court" the difference of fee shall ;e refunded or paid as the case ma1 ;e. (Cnderscoring ours) In *ilipinas S$ell *etroleum Corporation v. Court of "ppeals, !# this Court pronounced that the a;ove% =uoted provision -clearl1 contemplates an Initial pa1ment of the filing fees corresponding to the estimated amount of the claim su;5ect to ad5ustment as to what later ma1 ;e proved.- ,7 :oreover" we reiterated therein the principle that the pa1ment of filing fees cannot ;e made contingent or dependent on the result of the case. Thus" an initial pa1ment of the docket fees ;ased on an estimated amount must ;e paid simultaneous with the filing of the complaint. 4therwise" the court would stand to lose the filing fees should the 5udgment later turn out to ;e adverse to an1 claim of the respondent heirs. The matter of pa1ment of docket fees is not a mere trivialit1. These fees are necessar1 to defra1 court e?penses in the handling of cases. Conse=uentl1" in order to avoid tremendous losses to the 5udiciar1" and to the government as well" the pa1ment of docket fees cannot ;e made dependent on the outcome of the case" e?cept when the claimant is a pauper%litigant. Applied to the instant case" respondents have a specific claim % !E of the value of all the partnership assets % ;ut the1 did not allege a specific amount. The1 did" however" estimate the partnership<s total assets to ;e worth Thirt1 :illion 6esos (6 7"777"777.77)" in a letter ,! addressed to petitioner. 'espondents cannot now sa1 that the1 are una;le to make an estimate" for the said letter and the admissions therein form part of the records of this case. The1 cannot avoid pa1ing the initial docket fees ;1 convenientl1 omitting the said amount in their amended complaint. This estimate can ;e made the ;asis for the initial docket fees that respondents should pa1. >ven if it were later esta;lished that the amount proved was less or more than the amount alleged or estimated" 'ule !3!" 0ection *(a) of the 'ules of Court specificall1 provides that the court ma1 refund the <e?cess or e?act additional fees should the initial pa1ment ;e insufficient. It is clear that it is onl1 the difference ;etween the amount finall1

awarded and the fees paid upon filing of this complaint that is su;5ect to ad5ustment and which ma1 ;e su;5ected to alien. In the oft%=uoted case of Sun Insurance Affice, Ltd. v. Hon. 6aximiano "suncion, ,, this Court held that when the specific claim -has ;een left for the determination ;1 the court" the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the 5udgment and it shall ;e the responsi;ilit1 of the Clerk of Court or his dul1 authoriBed deput1 to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.- Clearl1" the rules and 5urisprudence contemplate the initial pa1ment of filing and docket fees ;ased on the estimated claims of the plaintiff" and it is onl1 when there is a deficienc1 that a lien ma1 ;e constituted on the 5udgment award until such additional fee is collected. 9ased on the foregoing" the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint outright despite their failure to pa1 the proper docket fees. )evertheless" as in other procedural rules" it ma1 ;e li;erall1 construed in certain cases if onl1 to secure a 5ust and speed1 disposition of an action. Ahile the rule is that the pa1ment of the docket fee in the proper amount should ;e adhered to" there are certain e?ceptions which must ;e strictl1 construed., In recent rulings" this Court has rela?ed the strict adherence to the 6anc$ester doctrine" allowing the plaintiff to pa1 the proper docket fees within a reasona;le time ;efore the e?piration of the applica;le prescriptive or reglementar1 period.,3 In the recent case of 0ational Steel Corp. v. Court of "ppeals,,* this Court held that: The court ac=uires 5urisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiator1 pleading is accompanied ;1 the pa1ment of the re=uisite fees" or" if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading" as of the time of full pa1ment of the fees within such reasona;le time as the court ma1 grant" unless" of course" prescription has set in the meantime. It does not follow" however" that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint for failure of private respondent to pa1 the correct amount of docket fees. Although the pa1ment of the proper docket fees is a 5urisdictional re=uirement" the trial court ma1 allow the plaintiff in an action to pa1 the same within a reasona;le time ;efore the e?piration of the applica;le prescriptive or reglementar1 period. If the plaintiff fails to compl1 within this re=uirement" the defendant should timel1 raise the issue of 5urisdiction or else he would ;e considered in estoppel. In the latter case" the ;alance ;etween the appropriate docket fees and the amount actuall1 paid ;1 the plaintiff will ;e considered a lien or an1 award he ma1 o;tain in his favor. (Cnderscoring ours) Accordingl1" the trial court in the case at ;ar should determine the proper docket fee ;ased on the estimated amount that respondents seek to collect from petitioner" and direct them to pa1 the same within a reasona;le time" provided the applica;le prescriptive or reglementar1 period has not 1et e?pired" Failure to compl1 therewith" and upon motion ;1 petitioner" the immediate dismissal of the complaint shall issue on 5urisdictional grounds. 4n the matter of improper venue" we find no error on the part of the trial court and the Court of Appeals in holding that the case ;elow is a personal action which" under the 'ules" ma1 ;e commenced and tried where the defendant resides or ma1 ;e found" or where the plaintiffs reside" at the election of the latter. ,+ 6etitioner" however" insists that venue was improperl1 laid since the action is a real action involving a parcel of land that is located outside the territorial 5urisdiction of the court a !uo. This contention is not well%taken. The records indu;ita;l1 show that respondents are asking that the assets of the partnership ;e accounted for" sold and distri;uted according to the agreement of the partners. The fact that two of the assets of the partnership are parcels of land does not materiall1 change the nature of the action. It is an action in personam ;ecause it is an action against a person" namel1" petitioner" on the ;asis of his personal lia;ilit1. It is not an action in rem where the action is against the thing itself instead of against the

person.,2 Furthermore" there is no showing that the parcels of land involved in this case are ;eing disputed. In fact" it is onl1 incidental that part of the assets of the partnership under li=uidation happen to ;e parcels of land. The time%tested case of Claridades v. 6ercader, et al.,,$ settled this issue thus: The fact that plaintiff pra1s for the sale of the assets of the partnership" including the fishpond in =uestion" did not change the nature or character of the action" such sale ;eing merel1 a necessar1 incident of the li=uidation of the partnership" which should precede andEor is part of its process of dissolution. The action filed ;1 respondents not onl1 seeks redress against petitioner. It also seeks the enforcement of" and petitioner<s compliance with" the contract that the partners e?ecuted to formaliBe the partnership<s dissolution" as well as to implement the li=uidation and partition of the partnership<s assets. Clearl1" it is a personal action that" in effect" claims a de;t from petitioner and seeks the performance of a personal dut1 on his part.,# In fine" respondents< complaint seeking the li=uidation and partition of the assets of the partnership with damages is a personal action which ma1 ;e filed in the proper court where an1 of the parties reside. 7 9esides" venue has nothing to do with 5urisdiction for venue touches more upon the su;stance or merits of the case. ! As it is" venue in this case was properl1 laid and the trial court correctl1 ruled so. 4n the third issue" petitioner asserts that the surviving spouse of (icente Ta;anao has no legal capacit1 to sue since she was never appointed as administratri? or e?ecutri? of his estate. 6etitioner<s o;5ection in this regard is misplaced. The surviving spouse does not need to ;e appointed as e?ecutri? or administratri? of the estate ;efore she can file the action. 0he and her children are complainants in their own right as successors of (icente Ta;anao. From the ver1 moment of (icente Ta;anao< s death" his rights insofar as the partnership was concerned were transmitted to his heirs" for rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. , Ahatever claims and rights (icente Ta;anao had against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to respondents ;1 operation of law" more particularl1 ;1 succession" which is a mode of ac=uisition ;1 virtue of which the propert1" rights and o;ligations to the e?tent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted. :oreover" respondents ;ecame owners of their respective hereditar1 shares from the moment (icente Ta;anao died. 3 A prior settlement of the estate" or even the appointment of 0alvacion Ta;anao as e?ecutri? or administratri?" is not necessar1 for an1 of the heirs to ac=uire legal capacit1 to sue. As successors who stepped into the shoes of their decedent upon his death" the1 can commence an1 action originall1 pertaining to the decedent. * From the moment of his death" his rights as a partner and to demand fulfillment of petitioner<s o;ligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement were transmitted to respondents. The1" therefore" had the capacit1 to sue and seek the court<s intervention to compel petitioner to fulfill his o;ligations. Finall1" petitioner contends that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription" arguing that respondents< action prescri;ed four (3) 1ears after it accrued in !#$+. The trial court and the Court of Appeals gave scant consideration to petitioner<s hollow arguments" and rightl1 so. The three ( ) final stages of a partnership are: (!) dissolutionD (,) winding%upD and ( ) termination. + The partnership" although dissolved" continues to e?ist and its legal personalit1 is retained" at which time it completes the winding up of its affairs" including the partitioning and distri;ution of the net partnership assets to the partners. 2 For as long as the partnership e?ists" an1 of the partners ma1 demand an accounting of the partnership<s ;usiness. 6rescription of the said right starts to run onl1 upon the dissolution of the partnership when the final accounting is done. $

Contrar1 to petitioner<s protestations that respondents< right to in=uire into the ;usiness affairs of the partnership accrued in !#$+" prescri;ing four (3) 1ears thereafter" prescription had not even ;egun to run in the a;sence of a final accounting. Article !$3, of the Civil Code provides: The right to an account of his interest shall accrue to an1 partner" or his legal representative as against the winding up partners or the surviving partners or the person or partnership continuing the ;usiness" at the date of dissolution" in the a;sence of an1 agreement to the contrar1. Applied in relation to Articles !$72 and !$7#" which also deal with the dut1 to account" the a;ove%cited provision states that the right to demand an accounting accrues at the date of dissolution in the a;sence of an1 agreement to the contrar1. Ahen a final accounting is made" it is onl1 then that prescription ;egins to run. In the case at ;ar" no final accounting has ;een made" and that is precisel1 what respondents are seeking in their action ;efore the trial court" since petitioner has failed or refused to render an accounting of the partnership<s ;usiness and assets. @ence" the said action is not ;arred ;1 prescription. In fine" the trial court neither erred nor a;used its discretion when it denied petitioner<s motions to dismiss. 8ikewise" the Court of Appeals did not commit reversi;le error in upholding the trial court<s orders. 6recious time has ;een lost 5ust to settle this preliminar1 issue" with petitioner resurrecting the ver1 same arguments from the trial court all the wa1 up to the 0upreme Court. The litigation of the merits and su;stantial issues of this controvers1 is now long overdue and must proceed without further dela1. 9!EREFORE, in view of all the foregoing" the instant petition is DEN#ED for lack of merit" and the case is REMANDED to the 'egional Trial Court of CadiB Cit1" 9ranch +7" which is ORDERED to determine the proper docket fee ;ased on the estimated amount that plaintiffs therein seek to collect" and direct said plaintiffs to pa1 the same within a reasona;le time" provided the applica;le prescriptive or reglementar1 period has not 1et e?pired. Thereafter" the trial court is ORDERED to conduct the appropriate proceedings in Civil Case )o. 3!+%C. Costs against petitioner.'(%p$i'.n)t 'O ORDERED. :G.R. No. 1137(5. &+n/ (9, (000; &O!NNY '. RA"AD#LLA, , vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL' AND MAR#A MARLENA %O'%OLUELLA Y "ELLEZA V#LLA%ARLO', This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals" dated Decem;er , " !## " in CA%&.'. )o. C(% ****" which set aside the decision of 9ranch *, of the 'egional Trial Court in 9acolod Cit1" and ordered the defendants%appellees 8including $erein petitioner:, as heirs of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" to reconve1 title over 8ot )o. ! #," together with its fruits and interests" to the estate of Ale5a 9elleBa. The antecedent facts are as follows: In a Codicil appended to the 8ast Aill and Testament of testatri? Ale5a 9elleBa" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" predecessor%in%interest of the herein petitioner" .ohnn1 0. 'a;adilla" was instituted as a devisee of *!!" $** s=uare meters of that parcel of land surve1ed as 8ot )o. ! #, of the 9acolod Cadastre. The said Codicil" which was dul1 pro;ated and admitted in 0pecial 6roceedings )o. 373+ ;efore the then Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental" contained the following provisions: -FI'0T

I give" leave and ;e=ueath the following propert1 owned ;1 me to Dr. .orge 'a;adilla resident of !3! 6. (illanueva" 6asa1 Cit1: (a) 8ot )o. ! #, of the 9acolod Cadastre" covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 'T% 377, (!7#3,)" which is registered in m1 name according to the records of the 'egister of Deeds of )egros 4ccidental. (;) That should .orge 'a;adilla die ahead of me" the aforementioned propert1 and the rights which I shall set forth herein;elow" shall ;e inherited and acknowledged ;1 the children and spouse of .orge 'a;adilla. ??? F4C'T@ (a)....It is also m1 command" in this m1 addition (Codicil)" that should I die and .orge 'a;adilla shall have alread1 received the ownership of the said 8ot )o. ! #, of the 9acolod Cadastre" covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 'T%377, (!7#3,)" and also at the time that the lease of 9al;inito &. &uanBon of the said lot shall e?pire" .orge 'a;adilla shall have the o;ligation until he dies" ever1 1ear to give to :aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa" 0event1 (2*) (sic) piculs of >?port sugar and Twent1 Five (,*) piculs of Domestic sugar" until the said :aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa dies. FIFT@ (a) 0hould .orge 'a;adilla die" his heir to whom he shall give 8ot )o. ! #, of the 9acolod Cadastre" covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 'T%377, (!73#,)" shall have the o;ligation to still give 1earl1" the sugar as specified in the Fourth paragraph of his testament" to :aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa on the month of Decem;er of each 1ear. 0IMT@ I command" in this m1 addition (Codicil) that the 8ot )o. ! #," in the event that the one to whom I have left and ;e=ueathed" and his heir shall later sell" lease" mortgage this said 8ot" the ;u1er" lessee" mortgagee" shall have also the o;ligation to respect and deliver 1earl1 4)> @C)D'>D (!77) piculs of sugar to :aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa" on each month of Decem;er" 0>(>)T/ FI(> (2*) piculs of >?port and TA>)T/ FI(> (,*) piculs of Domestic" until :aria :arlina shall die" lastl1 should the ;u1er" lessee or the mortgagee of this lot" not have respected m1 command in this m1 addition (Codicil)" :aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa" shall immediatel1 seiBe this 8ot )o. ! #, from m1 heir and the latter<s heirs" and shall turn it over to m1 near desendants" (sic) and the latter shall then have the o;ligation to give the 4)> @C)D'>D (!77) piculs of sugar until :aria :arlina shall die. I further command in this m1 addition (Codicil) that m1 heir and his heirs of this 8ot )o. ! #," that the1 will o;e1 and follow that should the1 decide to sell" lease" mortgage" the1 cannot negotiate with others than m1 near descendants and m1 sister.6ursuant to the same Codicil" 8ot )o. ! #, was transferred to the deceased" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" and Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 333#$ thereto issued in his name. Dr. .orge 'a;adilla died in !#$ and was survived ;1 his wife 'ufina and children .ohnn1 (petitioner)" Aurora" 4felia and Oenaida" all surnamed 'a;adilla.

4n August ,!" !#$#" :aria :arlena Coscolluela 1 9elleBa (illacarlos ;rought a complaint" docketed as Civil Case )o. **$$" ;efore 9ranch *, of the 'egional Trial Court in 9acolod Cit1" against the a;ove%mentioned heirs of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" to enforce the provisions of su;5ect Codicil. The Complaint alleged that the defendant%heirs violated the conditions of the Codicil" in that: !. 8ot )o. ! #, was mortgaged to the 6hilippine )ational 9ank and the 'epu;lic 6lanters 9ank in disregard of the testatri?<s specific instruction to sell" lease" or mortgage onl1 to the near descendants and sister of the testatri?. ,. Defendant%heirs failed to compl1 with their o;ligation to deliver one hundred (!77) piculs of sugar (2* piculs e?port sugar and ,* piculs domestic sugar) to plaintiff :aria :arlena Coscolluela 1 9elleBa from sugar crop 1ears !#$* up to the filing of the complaint as mandated ;1 the Codicil" despite repeated demands for compliance. . The ;anks failed to compl1 with the +th paragraph of the Codicil which provided that in case of the sale" lease" or mortgage of the propert1" the ;u1er" lessee" or mortgagee shall likewise have the o;ligation to deliver !77 piculs of sugar per crop 1ear to herein private respondent. The plaintiff then pra1ed that 5udgment ;e rendered ordering defendant%heirs to reconve1Ereturn% 8ot )o. ! #, to the surviving heirs of the late Ale5a 9elleBa" the cancellation of TCT )o. 333#$ in the name of the deceased" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the names of the surviving heirs of the late Ale5a 9elleBa. 4n Fe;ruar1 ,+" !##7" the defendant%heirs were declared in default ;ut on :arch ,$" !##7 the 4rder of Default was lifted" with respect to defendant .ohnn1 0. 'a;adilla" who filed his Answer" accordingl1. During the pre%trial" the parties admitted that: 4n )ovem;er !*" !##$" the plaintiff 8private respondent: and a certain Alan ABurin" son%in%law of the herein petitioner who was lessee of the propert1 and acting as attorne1%in%fact of defendant% heirs" arrived at an amica;le settlement and entered into a :emorandum of Agreement on the o;ligation to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar" to the following effect: -That for crop 1ear !#$$%$#" the annuit1 mentioned in >ntr1 )o. 3#723 of TCT )o. 333$# will ;e delivered not later than .anuar1 of !#$#" more specificall1" to wit: 2* piculs of <A< sugar" and ,* piculs of <9< sugar" or then e?isting in an1 of our names" :ar1 'ose 'a;adilla 1 ABurin or Alan ABurin" during Decem;er of each sugar crop 1ear" in ABucar 0ugar CentralD and" this is considered compliance of the annuit1 as mentioned" and in the same manner will compliance of the annuit1 ;e in the ne?t succeeding crop 1ears. That the annuit1 a;ove stated for crop 1ear !#$*%$+" !#$+%$2" and !#$2%$$" will ;e complied in cash e=uivalent of the num;er of piculs as mentioned therein and which is as herein agreed upon" taking into consideration the composite price of sugar during each sugar crop 1ear" which is in the total amount of 4)> @C)D'>D FI(> T@4C0A)D 6>040 (6!7*"777.77).

That the a;ove%mentioned amount will ;e paid or delivered on a staggered cash installment" pa1a;le on or ;efore the end of Decem;er of ever1 sugar crop 1ear" to wit: For !#$*%$+" TA>)T/ 0IM T@4C0A)D TA4 @C)D'>D FIFT/ (6,+",*7.77) 6esos" pa1a;le on or ;efore Decem;er of crop 1ear !#$$%$#D For !#$+%$2" TA>)T/ 0IM T@4C0A)D TA4 @C)D'>D FIFT/ (6,+",*7.77) 6esos" pa1a;le on or ;efore Decem;er of crop 1ear !#$#%#7D For !#$2%$$" TA>)T/ 0IM T@4C0A)D TA4 @C)D'>D FIFT/ (6,+",*7.77) 6esos" pa1a;le on or ;efore Decem;er of crop 1ear !##7%#!D and For !#$$%$#" TA>)T/ 0IM T@4C0A)D TA4 @C)D'>D FIFT/ (6,+",*7.77) 6esos" pa1a;le on or ;efore Decem;er of crop 1ear !##!%#,.@owever" there was no compliance with the aforesaid :emorandum of Agreement e?cept for a partial deliver1 of *7.$7 piculs of sugar corresponding to sugar crop 1ear !#$$ %!#$#. 4n .ul1 ,," !##!" the 'egional Trial Court came out with a decision" dismissing the complaint and disposing as follows: -A@>'>F4'>" in the light of the aforegoing findings" the Court finds that the action is prematurel1 filed as no cause of action against the defendants has as 1et arose in favor of plaintiff. Ahile there ma1;e the non%performance of the command as mandated e?action from them simpl1 ;ecause the1 are the children of .orge 'a;adilla" the title holderEowner of the lot in =uestion" does not warrant the filing of the present complaint. The remed1 at ;ar must fall. Incidentall1" ;eing in the categor1 as creditor of the left estate" it is opined that plaintiff ma1 initiate the intestate proceedings" if onl1 to esta;lish the heirs of .orge 'a;adilla and in order to give full meaning and sem;lance to her claim under the Codicil. In the light of the aforegoing findings" the Complaint ;eing prematurel1 filed is DI0:I00>D without pre5udice. 04 4'D>'>D.4n appeal ;1 plaintiff" the First Division of the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial courtD ratiocinating and ordering thus: -Therefore" the evidence on record having esta;lished plaintiff%appellant<s right to receive !77 piculs of sugar annuall1 out of the produce of 8ot )o. ! #,D defendants%appellee<s o;ligation under Ale5a 9elleBa<s codicil" as heirs of the modal heir" .orge 'a;adilla" to deliver such amount of sugar to plaintiff%appellantD defendants%appellee<s admitted non% compliance with said o;ligation since !#$*D and" the punitive conse=uences en5oined ;1 ;oth the codicil and the Civil Code" of seiBure of 8ot )o. ! #, and its reversion to the estate of Ale5a 9elleBa in case of such non%compliance" this Court deems it proper to order the reconve1ance of title over 8ot )o. ! #, from the estates of .orge 'a;adilla to the estate of Ale5a 9elleBa. @owever" plaintiff%appellant must institute separate proceedings to re%open Ale5a 9elleBa<s estate" secure the appointment of an administrator" and distri;ute 8ot )o. ! #, to Ale5a 9elleBa<s legal heirs in order to enforce her right" reserved to her ;1 the codicil" to receive her legac1 of !77 piculs of sugar per 1ear out of the produce of 8ot )o. ! #, until she dies.

Accordingl1" the decision appealed from is 0>T A0ID> and another one entered ordering defendants%appellees" as heirs of .orge 'a;adilla" to reconve1 title over 8ot )o. ! #," together with its fruits and interests" to the estate of Ale5a 9elleBa. 04 4'D>'>D.Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition ;1 the Court of Appeals" petitioner found his wa1 to this Court via the present petition" contending that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reversion of 8ot ! #, to the estate of the testatri? Ale5a 9elleBa on the ;asis of paragraph + of the Codicil" and in ruling that the testamentar1 institution of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla is a modal institution within the purview of Article $$, of the )ew Civil Code. The petition is not impressed with merit. 6etitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the appeal in accordance with Article $$, of the )ew Civil Code on modal institutions and in deviating from the sole issue raised which is the a;sence or prematurit1 of the cause of action. 6etitioner maintains that Article $$, does not find application as there was no modal institution and the testatri? intended a mere simple su;stitution % i.e. the instituted heir" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" was to ;e su;stituted ;1 the testatri?<s -near descendants- should the o;ligation to deliver the fruits to herein private respondent ;e not complied with. And since the testatri? died single and without issue" there can ;e no valid su;stitution and such testamentar1 provision cannot ;e given an1 effect. The petitioner theoriBes further that there can ;e no valid su;stitution for the reason that the su;stituted heirs are not definite" as the su;stituted heirs are merel1 referred to as -near descendants- without a definite identit1 or reference as to who are the -near descendants- and therefore" under Articles $3 and $3* of the )ew Civil Code" the su;stitution should ;e deemed as not written. The contentions of petitioner are untena;le. Contrar1 to his supposition that the Court of Appeals deviated from the issue posed ;efore it" which was the propriet1 of the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prematurit1 of cause of action" there was no such deviation. The Court of Appeals found that the private respondent had a cause of action against the petitioner. The dis=uisition made on modal institution was" precisel1" to stress that the private respondent had a legall1 demanda;le right against the petitioner pursuant to su;5ect CodicilD on which issue the Court of Appeals ruled in accordance with law. It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent and compulsor1 heirs are called to succeed ;1 operation of law. The legitimate children and descendants" in relation to their legitimate parents" and the widow or widower" are compulsor1 heirs. Thus" the petitioner" his mother and sisters" as compulsor1 heirs of the instituted heir" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" succeeded the latter ;1 operation of law" without need of further proceedings" and the successional rights were transmitted to them from the moment of death of the decedent" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla. Cnder Article 22+ of the )ew Civil Code" inheritance includes all the propert1" rights and o;ligations of a person" not e?tinguished ;1 his death. Conforma;l1" whatever rights Dr. .orge 'a;adilla had ;1 virtue of su;5ect Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs" at the time of his death. And since o;ligations not e?tinguished ;1 death also form part of the estate of the decedentD corollaril1" the o;ligations imposed ;1 the Codicil on the deceased Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" were likewise transmitted to his compulsor1 heirs upon his death. In the said Codicil" testatri? Ale5a 9elleBa devised 8ot )o. ! #, to Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" su;5ect to the condition that the usufruct thereof would ;e delivered to the herein private respondent ever1

1ear. Cpon the death of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" his compulsor1 heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said propert1" and the1 also assumed his (decedent<s) o;ligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved to herein private respondent. 0uch o;ligation of the instituted heir reciprocall1 corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct" the fulfillment or performance of which is now ;eing demanded ;1 the latter through the institution of the case at ;ar. Therefore" private respondent has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint ;elow. 6etitioner also theoriBes that Article $$, of the )ew Civil Code on modal institutions is not applica;le ;ecause what the testatri? intended was a su;stitution % Dr. .orge 'a;adilla was to ;e su;stituted ;1 the testatri?<s near descendants should there ;e noncompliance with the o;ligation to deliver the piculs of sugar to private respondent. Again" the contention is without merit. 0u;stitution is the designation ;1 the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir or heirs first instituted. Cnder su;stitutions in general" the testator ma1 either (!) provide for the designation of another heir to whom the propert1 shall pass in case the original heir should die ;efore himEher" renounce the inheritance or ;e incapacitated to inherit" as in a simple su;stitution" or (,) leave hisEher propert1 to one person with the e?press charge that it ;e transmitted su;se=uentl1 to another or others" as in a fideicommissar1 su;stitution. The Codicil sued upon contemplates neither of the two. In simple su;stitutions" the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir ;1 reason of incapacit1" predecease or renunciation. In the case under consideration" the provisions of su;5ect Codicil do not provide that should Dr. .orge 'a;adilla default due to predecease" incapacit1 or renunciation" the testatri?<s near descendants would su;stitute him. Ahat the Codicil provides is that" should Dr. .orge 'a;adilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil" the propert1 referred to shall ;e seiBed and turned over to the testatri?<s near descendants. )either is there a fideicommissar1 su;stitution here and on this point" petitioner is correct. In a fideicommissar1 su;stitution" the first heir is strictl1 mandated to preserve the 2,o2/,.y and .o .,an*7-. the same later to the second heir. In the case under consideration" the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil to alienate the propert1 provided the negotiation is with the near descendants or the sister of the testatri?. Thus" a ver1 important element of a fideicommissar1 su;stitution is lackingD the o;ligation clearl1 imposing upon the first heir the preservation of the propert1 and its transmission to the second heir. -Aithout this o;ligation to preserve clearl1 imposed ;1 the testator in his will" there is no fideicommissar1 su;stitution.- Also" the near descendants< right to inherit from the testatri? is not definite. The propert1 will onl1 pass to them should Dr. .orge 'a;adilla or his heirs not fulfill the o;ligation to deliver part of the usufruct to private respondent. Another important element of a fideicommissar1 su;stitution is also missing here. Cnder Article $+ " the second heir or the fideicommissar1 to whom the propert1 is transmitted must not ;e ;e1ond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciar1. A fideicommissar1 su;stitution is therefore" void if the first heir is not related ;1 first degree to the second heir. In the case under scrutin1" the near descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla. The Court of Appeals erred not in ruling that the institution of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla under su;5ect Codicil is in the nature of a modal institution and therefore" Article $$, of the )ew Civil Code is the provision of law in point. Articles $$, and $$ of the )ew Civil Code provide:

Art. $$,. The statement of the o;5ect of the institution or the application of the propert1 left ;1 the testator" or the charge imposed on him" shall not ;e considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention. That which has ;een left in this manner ma1 ;e claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give securit1 for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of an1thing he or the1 ma1 receive" together with its fruits and interests" if he or the1 should disregard this o;ligation. Art. $$ . Ahen without the fault of the heir" an institution referred to in the preceding article cannot take effect in the e?act manner stated ;1 the testator" it shall ;e complied with in a manner most analogous to and in conformit1 with his wishes. The institution of an heir in the manner prescri;ed in Article $$, is what is known in the law of succession as an institucion su modo or a modal institution. In a modal institution" the testator states (!) the o;5ect of the institution" (,) the purpose or application of the propert1 left ;1 the testator" or ( ) the charge imposed ;1 the testator upon the heir. A -mode- imposes an o;ligation upon the heir or legatee ;ut it does not affect the efficac1 of his rights to the succession. 4n the other hand" in a conditional testamentar1 disposition" the condition must happen or ;e fulfilled in order for the heir to ;e entitled to succeed the testator. The condition suspends ;ut does not o;ligateD and the mode o;ligates ;ut does not suspend. To some e?tent" it is similar to a resolutor1 condition. From the provisions of the Codicil litigated upon" it can ;e gleaned unerringl1 that the testatri? intended that su;5ect propert1 ;e inherited ;1 Dr. .orge 'a;adilla. It is likewise clearl1 worded that the testatri? imposed an o;ligation on the said instituted heir and his successors%in%interest to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar to the herein private respondent" :arlena Coscolluela 9elleBa" during the lifetime of the latter. @owever" the testatri? did not make Dr. .orge 'a;adilla<s inheritance and the effectivit1 of his institution as a devisee" dependent on the performance of the said o;ligation. It is clear" though" that should the o;ligation ;e not complied with" the propert1 shall ;e turned over to the testatri?<s near descendants. The manner of institution of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla under su;5ect Codicil is evidentl1 modal in nature ;ecause it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without" however" affecting the efficac1 of such institution. Then too" since testamentar1 dispositions are generall1 acts of li;eralit1" an o;ligation imposed upon the heir should not ;e considered a condition unless it clearl1 appears from the Aill itself that such was the intention of the testator. In case of dou;t" the institution should ;e considered as modal and not conditional. )either is there tena;ilit1 in the other contention of petitioner that the private respondent has onl1 a right of usufruct ;ut not the right to seiBe the propert1 itself from the instituted heir ;ecause the right to seiBe was e?pressl1 limited to violations ;1 the ;u1er" lessee or mortgagee. In the interpretation of Aills" when an uncertaint1 arises on the face of the Aill" as to the application of an1 of its provisions" the testator<s intention is to ;e ascertained from the words of the Aill" taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. 0uch construction as will sustain and uphold the Aill in all its parts must ;e adopted. 0u;5ect Codicil provides that the instituted heir is under o;ligation to deliver 4ne @undred (!77) piculs of sugar 1earl1 to :arlena 9elleBa Coscuella. 0uch o;ligation is imposed on the instituted heir" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" his heirs" and their ;u1er" lessee" or mortgagee should the1 sell" lease" mortgage or otherwise negotiate the propert1 involved. The Codicil further provides that in the event that the o;ligation to deliver the sugar is not respected" :arlena 9elleBa Coscuella shall seiBe the propert1 and turn it over to the testatri?<s near descendants. The non%performance of

the said o;ligation is thus with the sanction of seiBure of the propert1 and reversion thereof to the testatri?<s near descendants. 0ince the said o;ligation is clearl1 imposed ;1 the testatri?" not onl1 on the instituted heir ;ut also on his successors%in%interest" the sanction imposed ;1 the testatri? in case of non%fulfillment of said o;ligation should e=uall1 appl1 to the instituted heir and his successors%in%interest. 0imilarl1 unsustaina;le is petitioner<s su;mission that ;1 virtue of the amica;le settlement" the said o;ligation imposed ;1 the Codicil has ;een assumed ;1 the lessee" and whatever o;ligation petitioner had ;ecome the o;ligation of the lesseeD that petitioner is deemed to have made a su;stantial and constructive compliance of his o;ligation through the consummated settlement ;etween the lessee and the private respondent" and having consummated a settlement with the petitioner" the recourse of the private respondent is the fulfillment of the o;ligation under the amica;le settlement and not the seiBure of su;5ect propert1. 0uffice it to state that a Aill is a personal" solemn" revoca;le and free act ;1 which a person disposes of his propert1" to take effect after his death. 0ince the Aill e?presses the manner in which a person intends how his properties ;e disposed" the wishes and desires of the testator must ;e strictl1 followed. Thus" a Aill cannot ;e the su;5ect of a compromise agreement which would there;1 defeat the ver1 purpose of making a Aill. 9!EREFORE, the petition is here;1 DI0:I00>D and the decision of the Court of Appeals" dated Decem;er , " !## " in CA%&.'. )o. C(% **** AFFI':>D. )o pronouncement as to costs 'O ORDERED. G.R. No. 10))8( &an+a,y ((, 1996

"EL#NDA A<EDO, =o, 1/,*/3= and -n ,/2,/*/n.a.-on o= 1/, 0,o.1/,* and *-*./,*, and EOF#LA %OR$UZ A<EDO, ,/2,/*/n.-n5 1/, 7-no, da+51./, VERNA A<EDO, vs. !E %OUR OF A$$EAL', '$OU'E' R#%ARDO M. A<EDO AND ERE'# A "ARERA A<EDO, Is a sale of future inheritance validK In multiple sales of the same real propert1" who has preference in ownershipK Ahat is the pro;ative value of the lower court<s finding of good faith in registration of such sales in the registr1 of propert1K These are the main =uestions raised in this 6etition for review on certiorari under 'ule 3* of the 'ules of Court to set aside and reverse the Decision ! of the Court of Appeals, in CA%&.'. C( )4. ,3#$2 promulgated on 0eptem;er ,+" !##! affirming the decision of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch + " Third .udicial 'egion" Tarlac" Tarlac in Civil Case )o. + ,$" and its 'esolution den1ing reconsideration thereof" promulgated on :a1 ,2" !##,. 91 the Court<s 'esolution on 4cto;er ,*" !##*" this case (along with several others) was transferred from the First to the Third Division and after due deli;eration" the Court assigned it to the undersigned ponente for the writing of this Decision. /$e >acts 4n 4cto;er ,7" !#+," 8aBardo TaFedo e?ecuted a notariBed deed of a;solute sale in favor of his eldest ;rother" 'icardo TaFedo" and the latter<s wife" Teresita 9arera" private respondents herein" where;1 he conve1ed to the latter in consideration of 6!"*77.77" -one hectare of whatever share I shall have over 8ot )o. !#! of the cadastral surve1 of &erona" 6rovince of Tarlac and covered ;1 Title T%! $,# of the 'egister of Deeds of Tarlac-" the said propert1 ;eing his -future inheritance- from his parents (>?h. !). Cpon the death of his father :atias" 8aBaro e?ecuted an -Affidavit of Conformit1- dated Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#$7 (>?h. ) to -re%affirm" respect" acknowledge and validate the sale I made in !#+,.- 4n .anuar1 ! " !#$!" 8aBaro e?ecuted another notariBed deed of sale in favor of private respondents covering his -undivided 4)> TA>8(> (!E!,) of a parcel of land known as 8ot !#! . . . - (>?h. 3). @e acknowledged

therein his receipt of 6!7"777.77 as consideration therefor. In Fe;ruar1 !#$!" 'icardo learned that 8aBaro sold the same propert1 to his children" petitioners herein" through a deed of sale dated Decem;er ,#" !#$7 (>?h. >). 4n .une 2" !#$," private respondents recorded the Deed of 0ale (>?h. 3) in their favor in the 'egistr1 of Deeds and the corresponding entr1 was made in Transfer Certificate of Title )o. !++3*! (>?h. *). 6etitioners on .ul1 !+" !#$, filed a complaint for rescission (plus damages) of the deeds of sale e?ecuted ;1 8aBaro in favor of private respondents covering the propert1 inherited ;1 8aBaro from his father. 6etitioners claimed that their father" 8aBaro" e?ecuted an -A;solute Deed of 0ale- dated Decem;er ,#" !#$7 (>?it. >). Conve1ing to his ten children his allotted portion tinder the e?tra5udicial partition e?ecuted ;1 the heirs of :atias" which deed included the land in litigation (8ot !#!). 6etitioners also presented in evidence: (!) a private writing purportedl1 prepared and signed ;1 :atias dated Decem;er ,$" !#2$" stating that it was his desire that whatever inheritance 8aBaro would receive from him should ;e given to his (8aBaro<s) children (>?h. A)D (,) a t1pewritten document dated :arch !7" !#2# signed ;1 8aBaro in the presence of two witnesses" wherein he confirmed that he would voluntaril1 a;ide ;1 the wishes of his father" :atias" to give to his (8aBaro<s) children all the propert1 he would inherit from the latter (>?h. 9)D and ( ) a letter dated .anuar1 !" !#$7 of 8aBaro to his daughter" Carmela" stating that his share in the e?tra5udicial settlement of the estate of his father was intended for his children" petitioners herein (>?h. C). 6rivate respondents" however presented in evidence a -Deed of 'evocation of a Deed of 0ale- dated :arch !," !#$! (>?h. +)" wherein 8aBaro revoked the sale in favor of petitioners for the reason that it was -simulated or fictitious without an1 consideration whatsoever-. 0hortl1 after the case a !uo was filed" 8aBaro e?ecuted a sworn statement (>?h. &) which virtuall1 repudiated the contents of the Deed of 'evocation of a Deed of 0ale (>?h. +) and the Deed of 0ale (>?h. 3) in favor of private respondents. @owever" 8aBaro testified that he sold the propert1 to 'icardo" and that it was a law1er who induced him to e?ecute a deed of sale in favor of his children after giving him five pesos (6*.77) to ;u1 a -drink- (T0) 0eptem;er !$" !#$*" pp. ,73%,7*). The trial court decided in favor of private respondents" holding that petitioners failed -to adduce a proponderance of evidence to support (their) claim.- 4n appeal" the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court" ruling that the Deed of 0ale dated .anuar1 ! " !#$! (>?h. #) was valid and that its registration in good faith vested title in said respondents. /$e Issues 6etitioners raised the following -errors- in the respondent Court" which the1 also now allege in the instant 6etition: I. The trial court erred in concluding that the Contract of 0ale of 4cto;er ,7" !#+, (>?hi;it 2" Answer) is merel1 voida;le or annula;le and not void a initio pursuant to paragraph , of Article ! 32 of the )ew Civil Code involving as it does a -future inheritance-. II. The trial court erred in holding that defendants%appellees acted in good faith in registering the deed of sale of .anuar1 ! " !#$! (>?hi;it #) with the 'egister of Deeds of Tarlac and therefore ownership of the land in =uestion passed on to defendants%appellees. III. The trial court erred in ignoring and failing to consider the testimonial and documentar1 evidence of plaintiffs%appellants which clearl1 esta;lished ;1 preponderance of evidence that the1 are indeed the legitimate and lawful owners of the propert1 in =uestion.

I(. The decision is contrar1 to law and the facts of the case and the conclusions drawn from the esta;lished facts are illogical and off%tangent. From the foregoing" the issues ma1 ;e restated as follows: !. Is the sale of a future inheritance validK ,. Aas the su;se=uent e?ecution on .anuar1 ! " !#$! (and registration with the 'egistr1 of 6ropert1) of a deed of sale covering the same propert1 to the same ;u1ers validK . :a1 this Court review the findings of the respondent Court (a) holding that the ;u1ers acted in good faith in registering the said su;se=uent deed of sale and (;) in -failing to consider petitioners< evidence-K Are the conclusions of the respondent Court -illogical and off%tangent-K /$e Court9s -uling At the outset" let it ;e clear that the -errors- which are reviewa;le ;1 this Court in this petition for review on certiorari are onl1 those allegedl1 committed ;1 the respondent Court of Appeals and not directl1 those of the trial court" which is not a part1 here. The -assignment of errors- in the petition =uoted a;ove are therefore totall1 misplaced" and for that reason" the petition should ;e dismissed. 9ut in order to give the parties su;stantial 5ustice we have decided to delve into the issues as a;ove re%stated. The errors attri;uted ;1 petitioners to the latter (trial) court will ;e discussed onl1 insofar as the1 are relevant to the appellate court<s assailed Decision and 'esolution. The sale made in !#+, involving future inheritance is not reall1 at issue here. In conte?t" the assailed Decision conceded -it ma1 ;e legall1 correct that a contract of sale of anticipated future inheritance is null and void.9ut to remove all dou;ts" we here;1 categoricall1 rule that" pursuant to Article ! 32 of the Civil Code" -(n)o contract ma1 ;e entered into upon a future inheritance e?cept in cases e?pressl1 authoriBed ;1 law.Conse=uentl1" said contract made in !#+, is not valid and cannot ;e the source of an1 right nor the creator of an1 o;ligation ;etween the parties. @ence" the -affidavit of conformit1- dated Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#$7" insofar as it sought to validate or ratif1 the !#+, sale" is also useless and" in the words of the respondent Court" -suffers from the same infirmit1.>ven private respondents in their memorandum 3 concede this. @owever" the documents that are critical to the resolution of this case are: (a) the deed of sale of .anuar1 ! " !#$! in favor of private respondents covering 8aBaro<s undivided inheritance of one%twelfth (!E!,) share in 8ot )o. !#!" which was su;se=uentl1 registered on .une 2" !#$,D and (;) the deed of sale dated Decem;er ,#" !#$7 in favor of petitioners covering the same propert1. These two documents were e?ecuted after the death of :atias (and his spouse) and after a deed of e?tra%5udicial settlement of his (:atias<) estate was e?ecuted" thus vesting in 8aBaro actual title over said propert1. In other words" these dispositions" though conflicting" were no longer infected with the infirmities of the !#+, sale. 6etitioners contend that what was sold on .anuar1 ! " !#$! was onl1 one%half hectare out of 8ot )o. !#!" citing as authorit1 the trial court<s decision. As earlier pointed out" what is on review in these proceedings ;1 this Court is the Court of Appeals< decision J which correctl1 identified the su;5ect matter of the .anuar1 ! " !#$! sale to ;e the entire undivided !E!, share of 8aBaro in 8ot )o. !#! and which is the same propert1 disposed of on Decem;er ,#" !#$7 in favor of petitioners.

Critical in determining which of these two deeds should ;e given effect is the registration of the sale in favor of private respondents with the register of deeds on .une 2" !#$,. Article !*33 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees in cases of multiple sales" as follows: Art. !*33. If the same thing should have ;een sold to different vendees" the ownership shall ;e transferred to the person who ma1 have first taken possession thereof in good faith" if it should ;e mova;le propert1. 0hould it ;e immova;le propert1" the ownership shall ;elong to the person ac=uiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the 'egistr1 of 6ropert1. 0hould there ;e no inscription" the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possessionD and" in the a;sence thereof" to the person who presents the oldest title" provided there is good faith. The propert1 in =uestion is land" an immova;le" and following the a;ove%=uoted law" ownership shall ;elong to the ;u1er who in good faith registers it first in the registr1 of propert1. Thus" although the deed of sale in favor of private respondents was later than the one in favor of petitioners" ownership would vest in the former ;ecause of the undisputed fact of registration. 4n the other hand" petitioners have not registered the sale to them at all. 6etitioners contend that the1 were in possession of the propert1 and that private respondents never took possession thereof. As ;etween two purchasers" the one who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title" even if the latter is in actual possession of the immova;le propert1.* As to third issue" while petitioners conceded the fact of registration" the1 nevertheless contended that it was done in ;ad faith. 4n this issue" the respondent Court ruledD Cnder the second assignment of error" plaintiffs%appellants contend that defendants%appellees acted in ;ad faith when the1 registered the Deed of 0ale in their favor as appellee 'icardo alread1 knew of the e?ecution of the deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffsD appellants cite the testimon1 of plaintiff 9elinda TaFedo to the effect that defendant 'icardo TaFedo called her up on .anuar1 3 or *" !#$! to tell her that he was alread1 the owner of the land in =uestion -;ut the contract of sale ;etween our father and us were (sic) alread1 consumated- (pp. #%!7" tsn" .anuar1 +" !#$3). This testimon1 is o;viousl1 self%serving" and ;ecause it was a telephone conversation" the deed of sale dated Decem;er ,#" !#$7 was not shownD 9elinda merel1 told her uncle that there was alread1 a document showing that plaintiffs are the owners (p. $7). 'icardo TaFedo controverted this and testified that he learned for the first time of the deed of sale e?ecuted ;1 8aBaro in favor of his children -a;out a month or sometime in Fe;ruar1 !#$!- (p. !!!" tsn" )ov. ,$" !#$3). . . .+ The respondent Court" reviewing the trial court<s findings" refused to overturn the latter<s assessment of the testimonial evidence" as followsD Ae are not prepared to set aside the finding of the lower court upholding 'icardo TaFedo<s testimon1" as it involves a matter of credi;ilit1 of witnesses which the trial 5udge" who presided at the hearing" was in a ;etter position to resolve. (Court of Appeals< Decision" p. +.) In this connection" we note the tenacious allegations made ;1 petitioners" ;oth in their ;asic petition and in their memorandum" as follows:

!. The respondent Court allegedl1 ignored the claimed fact that respondent 'icardo -;1 fraud and deceit and with foreknowledge- that the propert1 in =uestion had alread1 ;een sold to petitioners" made 8aBaro e?ecute the deed of .anuar1 ! " !#$!D ,. There is allegedl1 ade=uate evidence to show that onl1 !E, of the purchase price of 6!7"777.77 was paid at the time of the e?ecution of the deed of sale" contrar1 to the written acknowledgment" thus showing ;ad faithD . There is allegedl1 sufficient evidence showing that the deed of revocation of the sale in favor of petitioners -was tainted with fraud or deceit.3. There is allegedl1 enough evidence to show that private respondents -took undue advantage over the weakness and unschooled and pitiful situation of 8aBaro TaFedo . . .- and that respondent 'icardo TaFedo -e?ercised moral ascendanc1 over his 1ounger ;rother he ;eing the eldest ;rother and who reached fourth 1ear college of law and at one time a former (ice% &overnor of Tarlac" while his 1ounger ;rother onl1 attained first 1ear high school . . . D *. The respondent Court erred in not giving credence to petitioners< evidence" especiall1 8aBaro TaFedo<s Sinumpaang Salaysay dated .ul1 ,2" !#$, stating that 'icardo TaFedo deceived the former in e?ecuting the deed of sale in favor of private respondents. To ;e sure" there are indeed man1 conflicting documents and testimonies as well as arguments over their pro;ative value and significance. 0uffice it to sa1" however" that all the a;ove contentions involve =uestions of fact" appreciation of evidence and credi;ilit1 of witnesses" which are not proper in this review. It is well%settled that the 0upreme Court is not a trier of facts. In petitions for review under 'ule 3* of the 'evised 'ules of Court" onl1 =uestions of law ma1 ;e raised and passed upon. A;sent an1 whimsical or capricious e?ercise of 5udgment" and unless the lack of an1 ;asis for the conclusions made ;1 the lower courts ;e ampl1 demonstrated" the 0upreme Court will not distur; their findings. At most" it appears that petitioners have shown that their evidence was not ;elieved ;1 ;oth the trial and the appellate courts" and that the said courts tended to give more credence to the evidence presented ;1 private respondents. 9ut this in itself is not a reason for setting aside such findings. Ae are far from convinced that ;oth courts gravel1 a;used their respective authorities and 5udicial prerogatives. As held in the recent case of C$ua /iong /ay vs. Court of "ppeals and Boldroc# Construction and &evelopment Corp.2 The Court has consistentl1 held that the factual findings of the trial court" as well as the Court of Appeals" are final and conclusive and ma1 not ;e reviewed on appeal. Among the e?ceptional circumstances where a reassessment of facts found ;1 the lower courts is allowed are when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel1 on speculation" surmises or con5ecturesD when the inference made is manifestl1 a;surd" mistaken or impossi;leD when there is grave a;use of discretion in the appreciation of factsD when the 5udgment is premised on a misapprehension of factsD when the findings went ;e1ond the issues of the case and the same are contrar1 to the admissions of ;oth appellant and appellee. After a careful stud1 of the case at ;ench" we find none of the a;ove grounds present to 5ustif1 the re%evaluation of the findings of fact made ;1 the courts ;elow. In the same vein" the ruling in the recent case of Sout$ Sea Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of "ppeals, et al.$ is e=uall1 applica;le to the present case: Ae see no valid reason to discard the factual conclusions of the appellate court. . . . (I)t is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence" testimonial and documentar1" adduced ;1 the parties" particularl1 where" such as here" the findings of ;oth the trial court and the appellate court on the matter coincide. (emphasis supplied)

A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFI':>D. )o Costs. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. L-)(75 Ma,>1 (3, 1909

$AULA %ONDE vs. ROMAN A"AYA From the hearing of the appeal interposed ;1 'oman A;a1a in the special proceedings ;rought in the Court of First Instance of 8a 8aguna for the settlement of the intestate estate and the distri;ution of the propert1 of Casiano A;a1a it appears: I. As antecedents: that Casiano A;a1a" unmarried" the son of 'omualdo A;a1a and 0a;rina 8a;adia" died on the +th of April" !$##D that 6aula Conde" as the mother of the natural children .ose and Teopista Conde" whom the states she had ;1 Casiano A;a1a" on the +th of )ovem;er" !#7*" moved the settlement of the said intestate successionD that an administrator having ;een appointed for the said estate on the ,*th of )ovem;er" !#7*" 'oman A;a1a" a son of the said 'omualdo A;a1a and 0a;rina 8a;adia" the parents of the late Casiano A;a1a" came forward and opposed said appointment and claimed it for himself as ;eing the nearest relative of the deceasedD that this was granted ;1 the court ;elow on the #th of .anuar1" !#7+D that on the !2th of )ovem;er" !#7+" 'oman A;a1a moved that" after due process of law" the court declare him to ;e the sole heir of Casiano A;a1a" to the e?clusion of all other persons" especiall1 of 6aula Conde" and to ;e therefore entitled to take possession of all the propert1 of said estate" and that it ;e ad5udicated to himD and that on )ovem;er ,," !#7+" the court ordered the pu;lication of notices for the declaration of heirs and distri;ution of the propert1 of the estate. II. That on the ,$th of )ovem;er" !#7+" 6aula Conde" in repl1ing to the foregoing motion of 'oman A;a1a" filed a petition wherein she stated that she acknowledged the relationship alleged ;1 'oman A;a1a" ;ut that she considered that her right was superior to his and moved for a hearing of the matter" and" in conse=uence of the evidence that she intended to present she pra1ed that she ;e declared to have preferential rights to the propert1 left ;1 Casiano A;a1a" and that the same ;e ad5udicated to her together with the corresponding products thereof. III. That the trial was held" ;oth parties presenting documentar1 and oral evidence" and the court ;elow entered the following 5udgment: That the administrator of the estate of Casiano A;a1a should recogniBe Teopista and .ose Conde as ;eing natural children of Casiano A;a1aD that the petitioner 6aula Conde should succeed to the hereditar1 rights of her children with respect to the inheritance of their deceased natural father Casiano A;a1aD and therefore" it is here;1 declared that she is the onl1 heir to the propert1 of the said intestate estate" to the e?clusion of the administrator" 'oman A;a1a. I(. That 'oman A;a1a e?cepted to the foregoing 5udgment" appealed to this court" and presented the following statement of errors: !. The fact that the court ;elow found that an ordinar1 action for the acknowledgment of natural children under articles ! * and ! 2 of the Civil Code" might ;e ;rought in special pro;ate proceedings. ,. The finding that after the death of a person claimed to ;e an unacknowledged natural child" the mother of such presumed natural child" as heir to the latter" ma1 ;ring an action to enforce the acknowledgment of her deceased child in accordance with articles ! * and ! 2 of the Civil Code.

. The finding in the 5udgment that the alleged continuos possession of the deceased children of 6aula Conde of the status of natural children of the late Casiano A;a1a" has ;een full1 proven in these proceedingsD and 3. 4n the h1pothesis that it was proper to ad5udicate the propert1 of this intestate estate to 6aula Conde" as improperl1 found ;1 the court ;elow" the court erred in not having declared that said propert1 should ;e reserved in favor of relatives of Casiano A;a1a to the third degree" and in not having previousl1 demanded securities from 6aula Conde to guarantee the transmission of the propert1 to those who might fall within the reservation. As to the first error assigned" the =uestion is set up as to whether in special proceedings for the administration and distri;ution of an intestate estate" an action might ;e ;rought to enforce the acknowledgment of the natural child of the person from whom the inheritance is derived" that is to sa1" whether one might appear as heir on the ground that he is a recogniBed natural child of the deceased" not having ;een so recogniBed ;1 the deceased either voluntaril1 or compulsoril1 ;1 reason of a pree?isting 5udicial decision" ;ut asking at the same time that" in the special proceeding itself" he ;e recogniBed ;1 the presumed legitimate heirs of the deceased who claim to ;e entitled to the succession opened in the special proceeding. According to section 2$, of the Code of Civil 6rocedure J If there shall ;e a controvers1 ;efore the Court of First Instance as to who the lawful heirs of the deceased person are" or as to the distri;utive share to which each person is entitled under the law" the testimon1 as to such controvers1 shall ;e taken in writing ;1 the 5udge" under oath" and signed ;1 the witness. An1 part1 in interest whose distri;utive share is affected ;1 the determination of such controvers1" ma1 appeal from the 5udgment of the Court of First Instance determining such controvers1 to the 0upreme Court" within the time and in the manner provided in the last preceding section. This court has decided the present =uestion in the manner shown in the case of @uana *imentel vs. Engracio *alanca (* 6hil. 'ep." 3 +.) The main =uestion with regard to the second error assigned" is whether or not the mother of a natural child now deceased" ;ut who survived the person who" it is claimed" was his natural father" also deceased" ma1 ;ring an action for the acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor of such child in order to appear in his ;ehalf to receive the inheritance from the person who is supposed to ;e his natural father. In order to decide in the affirmative the court ;elow has assigned the following as the onl1 foundation: In resolving a similar =uestion :anresa sa1s: -An acknowledgment can onl1 ;e demanded ;1 the natural child and his descendants whom it shall ;enefit" and should the1 ;e minors or otherwise incapacitated" such person as legall1 represents themD the mother ma1 ask it in ;ehalf of her child so long as he is under her authorit1.- 4n this point no positive declaration has ;een made" undou;tedl1 ;ecause it was not considered necessar1. A private action is in =uestion and the general rule must ;e followed. >lsewhere the same author adds: -It ma1 so happen that the child dies ;efore four 1ears have e?pired after attaining ma5orit1" or that the document supporting his petition for acknowledgment is discovered after his death" such death perhaps occurring after his parents had died" as is supposed ;1 article ! 2" or during their lifetime. In an1 case such right of action shall pertain to the descendants of the child whom the acknowledgment ma1 interest.(0ee Commentaries to arts. ! * and ! 2" Civil Code" (ol. I.)

The a;ove doctrine" advanced ;1 one of the most eminent commentators of the Civil Code" lacks legal and doctrinal foundation. The power to transmit the right of such action ;1 the natural child to his descendants can not ;e sustained under the law" and still less to his mother. It is without an1 support in law ;ecause the rule laid down in the code is most positive" limiting in form" when esta;lishing the e?ception for the e?ercise of such right of action after the death of the presumed parents" as is shown hereafter. It is not supported ;1 an1 doctrine" ;ecause up to the present time no argument has ;een presented" upon which even an appro?imate conclusion could ;e ;ased. Although the Civil Code considera;l1 improved the condition of recogniBed natural children" granting them rights and actions that the1 did not possess under the former laws" the1 were not" however" placed upon the same place as legitimate ones. The difference that separates these two classes of children is still great" as proven ;1 so man1 articles dealing with the rights of the famil1 and the succession in relation to the mem;ers thereof. It ma1 ;e laid down as legal ma?im" that whatever the code does not grant to the legitimate children" or in connection with their rights" must still less ;e understood as granted to recogniBed natural children or in connection with their rights. There is not a single e?ception in its provisions. If legitimac1 is the attri;ute that constitutes the ;asis of the a;solute famil1 rights of the child" the acknowledgment of the natural child is" among illegitimate ones" that which unites him to the famil1 of the father or the mother who recogniBed him" and affords him a participation in the rights of the famil1" relativel1 advantageous according to whether the1 are alone or whether the1 concur with other individuals of the famil1 of his purel1 natural father or mother. Thus" in order to consider the spirit of the Civil Code" nothing is more logical than to esta;lish a comparison ;etween an action to claim the legitimac1" and one to enforce acknowledgment. A'T. !!$. The action to claim its legitimac1 ma1 ;e ;rought ;1 the child at an1 time of its lifetime and shall ;e transmitted to its heirs" should it die during minorit1 or in a state of insanit1. In such cases the heirs shall ;e allowed a period of five 1ears in which to institute the action. The action alread1 instituted ;1 the child is transmitted ;1 its death to the heirs" if it has not lapsed ;efore then. A'T. ! 2. The actions for the acknowledgment of natural children can ;e instituted only during the life of the presumed parents" e?cept in the following cases: !. If the father or mother died during the maturit1 of the child" in which case t$e latter ma1 institute the action ;efore the e?piration of the first four 1ears of its maturit1. ,. If" after the death of the father or mother" some instrument" ;efore unknown" should ;e discovered in which the child is e?pressl1 acknowledged. In this case the action must ;e instituted with the si? months following the discover1 of such instrument. 4n this supposition the first difference that results ;etween one action and the other consists in that the right of action for legitimac1 lasts during the whole lifetime of the child" that is" it can alwa1s ;e ;rought against the presumed parents or their heirs ;1 the child itself" while the right of action for the acknowledgment of a natural child does not last his whole lifetime" and" as a general rule" it can not ;e instituted against the heirs of the presumed parents" inasmuch as it can ;e e?ercised only during the life of the presumed parents.

Aith regard to the =uestion at issue" that is" the transmission to the heirs of the presumed parents of the o;ligation to admit the legitimate filiation" or to recogniBe the natural filiation" there e?ists the most radical difference in that the former continues during the life of the child who claims to ;e legitimate" and he ma1 demand it either directl1 and primaril1 from the said presumed parents" or indirectl1 and secondaril1 from the heirs of the latterD while the second does not endure for lifeD as a general rule" it only lasts during the life of the presumed parents. @ence the other difference" derived as a conse=uence" that an action for legitimac1 is alwa1s ;rought against the heirs of the presumed parents in case of the death of the latter" while the action for acknowledgment is not ;rought against the heirs of such parents" with the e?ception of the two cases prescri;ed ;1 article ! 2 transcri;ed a;ove. 0o much for the passive transmission of the o;ligation to admit the legitimate filiation" or to acknowledge the natural filiation. As to the transmission to the heirs of the child of the latter9s action to claim his legitimac1" or to o;tain the acknowledgment of his natural filiation" it is seen that the code grants it in the first case" ;ut not in the second. It contains provisions for the transmission of the right of action which" for the purpose claiming his legitimac1 inheres in the child" ;ut it does not sa1 a word with regard to the transmission of the right to o;tain the acknowledgment of the natural filiation. Therefore" the respective corollar1 of each of the two a;ove%cited articles is: (!) That the right of action which devolves upon the child to claim his legitimac1 under article !!$" ma1 ;e transmitted to his heirs in certain cases designated in the said articleD (,) That the right of action for the acknowledgment of natural children to which article ! 2 refers" can never ;e transmitted" for the reason that the code makes no mention of it in an1 case" not even as an e?ception. It is most illogical and contrar1 to ever1 rule of correct interpretation" that the right of action to secure acknowledgment ;1 the natural child should ;e presumed to ;e transmitted" independentl1" as a rule" to his heirs" while the right of action to claim legitimac1 from his predecessor is not e?pressl1" independentl1" or" as a general rule" conceded to the heirs of the legitimate child" ;ut onl1 relativel1 and as an e?ception. Conse=uentl1" the pretension that the right of action on the part of the child to o;tain the acknowledgment of his natural filiation is transmitted to his descendants is altogether unfounded. )o legal provision e?ists to sustain such pretension" nor can an argument of presumption ;e ;ased on the lesser claim when there is no ;asis for the greater one" and when it is onl1 given as an e?ception in well%defined cases. It is placing the heirs of the natural child on a ;etter footing than the heirs of the legitimate one" when" as a matter of fact" the position of a natural child is no ;etter than" no even e=ual to" that of a legitimate child. From the e?press and precise precepts of the code the following conclusions are derived: The right of action that devolves upon the child to claim his legitimac1 lasts during his whole life" while the right to claim the acknowledgment of a natural child lasts onl1 during the life of his presumed parents. Inasmuch as the right of action accruing to the child to claim his legitimac1 lasts during his whole life" he ma1 e?ercise it either against the presumed parents" or their heirsD while the right of action to secure the acknowledgment of a natural child" since it does not last during his whole life" ;ut depends on that of the presumed parents" as a general rule can onl1 ;e e?ercised against the latter. Csuall1 the right of action for legitimac1 devolving upon the child is of a personal character and pertains e?clusivel1 to him" onl1 the child ma1 e?ercise it at an1 time during his lifetime. As an e?ception" and in three cases onl1" it ma1 ;e transmitted to the heirs of the child" to wit" if he died during his minorit1" or while insane" or after action had ;een alread1 instituted. An action for the acknowledgment of a natural child ma1" as an e?ception" ;e e?ercised against the heirs of the presumed parents in two cases: first" in the event of the death of the latter during the minorit1 of the

child" and second" upon the discover1 of some instrument of e?press acknowledgment of the child" e?ecuted ;1 the father or mother" the e?istence of which was unknown during the life of the latter. 9ut such action for the acknowledgment of a natural child can onl1 ;e e?ercised ;1 $im. It can not ;e transmitted to his descendants" or his ascendants. In support of the foregoing the following authorities ma1 ;e cited: 0ancheB 'oman" in his Treatise of Civil 8aw" propounds the =uestion as to whether said action should ;e considered transmissive to the heirs or descendants of the natural child" whether he had or had not e?ercised it up to the time of his death" and decides it as follows: There is an entire a;sence of legal provisions" and at most" it might ;e deemed admissi;le as a solution" that the right of action to claim the acknowledgment of a natural child is transmitted ;1 the analog1 to his heirs on the same conditions and terms that it is transmitted to the descendants of a legitimate child" to claim his legitimac1" under article !!$" ;ut nothing moreD ;ecause on this point nothing warrants placing the heirs of a natural child on a ;etter footing than those of the legitimate child" and even to compare them %ould not fail to e a strained and !uestiona le matter" and one of great difficulty for decision ;1 the courts" for the simple reason that for the heirs of the legitimate child" the said article !!$ e?ists" while for those of the natural child" as we have said" there is no provision in the code authoriBing the same" although on the other hand there is none that prohi;its it. ((ol. (.) DiaB &ui5arro and :artineB 'uiB in their work on -The Civil Code as construed ;1 the supreme court of 0pain"- commenting upon article ! 2" sa1: Article !!$" taking into account the privileges due to the legitimac1 of children" grants them the right to claim said legitimac1 during their lifetime" and even authoriBes the transmission of said right for the space of five 1ears to the heirs thereof" if the child die during his minorit1 or in a state of insanit1. 9ut as article ! 2 is ;ased on the consideration that in the case of a natural child" ties are less strong and sacred in the e1es of the law" it does not fi? such a long and indefinite period for the e?ercise of the actionD it limits it to the life of the parents" e?cepting in the two cases mentioned in said articleD and it does not allo%" as does article !!$" the action to pass on to the heirs" inasmuch as" although it does not prohi;it it" and for that reason it might ;e deemed on general principles of law to consent to it" suc$ a supposition is inadmissi le for the reason that a comparison of ;oth articles shows that the silence of the law in the latter case is not" nor it can ;e" an omission" ;ut a deli;erate intent to esta;lish a wide difference ;etween the advantages granted to a legitimate child and to a natural one. (I id." (ol. II" !2!.) )avarro Amandi (Cuestionario del CCdigo Civil) raises the =uestion: -Can the heirs of a natural child claim the acknowledgment in those cases wherein the father or mother are under o;ligation to acknowledge-K And sa1s: 4pinions are widel1 divergent. The court of 'ennes held (on April ! " !$33) that the right of investigation forms a part of the estate of the child" and along with his patrimon1 is transmitted to his heirs. The affirmation is altogether too categorical to ;e admissi;le. If it were correct the same thing would happen as when the legitimac1 of a child is claimed" and as alread1 seen" the right of action to demand the legitimac1 is not transmitted to the heirs in ever1 case and as an a;solute right" ;ut under certain limitations and circumstances. )ow" were we to admit the doctrine of the court of 'ennes" the result would ;e that the claim for natural filiation would ;e more favored than one for legitimate filiation. This would ;e a;surd" ;ecause it can not ;e conceived that the legislator should have granted a right of action to the heirs of the natural child" which is onl1

granted under great limitations and in ver1 few cases to those of a legitimate one. 0ome persons insist that the same rules that govern legitimate filiation appl1 ;1 analog1 to natural child are entitled to claim it in the cases prescri;ed ;1 the article !!$. The ma5orit1" however" are inclined to consider the right to claim acknowledgment as a personal right" and conse=uentl1" not transmissive to the heirs. 'eall1 there are no legal grounds to warrant the transmission. ((ol. ," ,,#.) In a decision like the present one it is impossi;le to ;ring forward the argument of analog1 for the purpose of considering that the heirs of the natural child are entitled to the right of action which article !!$ concedes to the heirs of the legitimate child. The e?istence of a provision for the one case and the a;sence thereof for the other is a conclusive argument that inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" and it can not ;e understood that the provision of law should ;e the same when the same reason does not hold in the one case as in the other. The theor1 of law of transmission is also entirel1 inapplica;le in this case. This theor1" which in the 'oman 8aw e?pressed the general rule than an heir who did not accept an inheritance during his lifetime was incapacitated from transmitting it to his own heirs" included at the same time the idea that if the inheritance was not transmitted ;ecause the heir did not possess it" there were" however" certain things which the heir held and could transmit. 0uch was the law and the right to accept the inheritance" for the e?isting reason that all rights" ;oth real and personal" shall pass to the heirD !uia $aeres representat defunctum in omni us et per omnia. According to the article +*# of the Civil Code" -the inheritance includes all the propert1" rights" and o;ligations of a person" which are not e?tinguished ;1 his death.- If the mother is the heir of her natural child" and the latter" among other rights during his lifetime was entitled to e?ercise an action of his acknowledgment against his father" during the life of the latter" if after his death in some of the e?cepting cases of article ! 2" such right" which is a portion of his inheritance" is transmitted to his mother as ;eing his heir" and it was so understood ;1 the court of 'ennes when it considered the right in =uestion" not as a personal and e?clusive right of the child which is e?tinguished ;1 his death" ;ut a an1 other right which might ;e transmitted after his death. This right of supposed transmission is even less tena;le than that sought to ;e sustained ;1 the argument of analog1. The right of action pertaining to the child to claim his legitimac1 is in all respects superior to that of the child who claims acknowledgment as a natural child. And it is evident that the right of action to claim his legitimac1 is not one of those rights which the legitimate child ma1 transmit ;1 inheritance to his heirsD it forms no part of the component rights of his inheritance. If it were so" there would have ;een no necessit1 to esta;lish its transmissi;ilit1 to heirs as an e?ception in the terms and conditions of article !!$ of the code. 0o that" in order that it ma1 constitute a portion of the child<s inheritance" it is necessar1 that the conditions and the terms contained in article !!$ shall ;e present" since without them" the right that the child held during his lifetime" ;eing personal and e?clusive in principle" and therefore" as a general rule not suscepti;le of transmission" would and should have ;een e?tinguished ;1 his death. Therefore" where no e?press provision like that of article !!$ e?ists" the right of action for the acknowledgment of a natural child is" in principle and without e?ception" e?tinguished ;1 his death" and can not ;e transmitted as a portion of the inheritance of the deceased child. 4n the other hand" if said right of action formed a part of the child<s inheritance" it would ;e necessar1 to esta;lish the doctrine that the right to claim such an acknowledgment from the presumed natural father and from his heirs is an a;solute right of the heirs of the child" not limited ;1 certain circumstances as in the case of the heirs of a natural child with a legitimate one to place the heirs of a natural child and his inheritance on a ;etter footing than those of a legitimate child would not onl1 ;e unreasona;le" ;ut" as stated in one of the a;ove citations" most a;surd and illegal in the present state of the law and in accordance with the general principles thereof. For all of the foregoing reasons we here;1 reverse the 5udgment appealed from in all its parts" without an1 special ruling as to the costs of this instance. 6apa, @o$nson, Carson, and 7illard, @@., concur.

G.R. No. L-33187 Ma,>1 31, 1980 %ORNEL#O $AM$LONA a3-a* GEM#N#ANO $AM$LONA and A$OLON#A ON E, vs. V#VEN%#O MORE O, V#% OR MORE O, EL#G#O MORE O, MAR%ELO MORE O, $AUL#NA MORE O, RO'AR#O MORE O, MAR A MORE O, 'EVER#NA MENDOZA, $A"LO MENDOZA, LAZARO MENDOZA, V#% OR#A U#ZA, &O'EF#NA MORE O, LEANDRO MORE O and LORENZO MENDOZA, This is a petition for certiorari ;1 wa1 of appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA%&.'. )o. *#+,%'" entitled -?ivencio 6oreto, et al." 6laintiff%Appellees vs. Cornelio *amplona, et al." Defendants% Appellants"- affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of 8aguna" 9ranch I at 9iFan. The facts" as stated in the decision appealed from" show that: Flaviano :oreto and :onica :aniega were hus;and and wife. During their marriage" the1 ac=uired ad5acent lots )os. !3#*" 3*3*" and !3#+ of the Calam;a Friar 8and >state" situated in Calam;a" 8aguna" containing 2$!%*33 and !"7,! s=uare meters respectivel1 and covered ;1 certificates of title issued in the name of -Flaviano :oreto" married to :onica :aniega.The spouses Flaviano :oreto and :onica :aniega ;egot during their marriage si? (+) children" namel1" Crsulo" :arta" 8a 6aB" Alipio" 6a;lo" and 8eandro" all surnamed :oreto. Crsulo :oreto died intestate on :a1 ,3" !#*# leaving as his heirs herein plaintiffs (ivencio" :arcelo" 'osario" (ictor" 6aulina" :arta and >ligio" all surnamed :oreto. :arta :oreto died also intestate on April 7" !# $ leaving as her heir plaintiff (ictoria TuiBa. 8a 6aB :oreto died intestate on .ul1 !2" !#*3 leaving the following heirs" namel1" herein plaintiffs 6a;lo" 0everina" 8aBaro" and 8orenBo" all surnamed :endoBa. Alipio :oreto died intestate on .une 7" !#3 leaving as his heir herein plaintiff .osefina :oreto. 6a;lo :oreto died intestate on April ,*" !#3, leaving no issue and as his heirs his ;rother plaintiff 8eandro :oreto and the other plaintiffs herein. 4n :a1 +" !#3+" :onica :aniega died intestate in Calam;a" 8aguna. 4n .ul1 7" !#*," or more than si? (+) 1ears after the death of his wife :onica :aniega" Flaviano :oreto" without the consent of the heirs of his said deceased wife :onica" and ;efore an1 li=uidation of the con5ugal partnership of :onica and Flaviano could ;e effected" e?ecuted in favor of &eminiano 6amplona" married to defendant Apolonia 4nte" the deed of a;solute sale (>?h. -!-) covering lot )o. !3#* for 6#77.77. The deed of sale (>?h. -!-) contained a description of lot )o. !3#* as having an area of 2$! s=uare meters and covered ;1 transfer certificate of title )o. !3*27 issued in the name of Flaviano :oreto" married to :onica :aniega" although the lot was ac=uired during their marriage. As a result of the sale" the said certificate of title was cancelled and a new transfer certificate of title )o. T%*+2! was issued in the name of &eminiano 6amplona married to Apolonia 4nte (>?h. -A-). After the e?ecution of the a;ove%mentioned deed of sale (>?h. -!-)" the spouses &eminiano 6amplona and Apolonia 4nte constructed their house on the eastern part of lot !3#+ as Flaviano :oreto" at the time of the sale" pointed to it as the land which he sold to &eminiano 6amplona. 0hortl1 thereafter" 'afael 6amplona" son of the spouses &eminiano 6amplona and Apolonia 4nte" also ;uilt his house within lot !3#+ a;out one meter from its ;oundar1 with the ad5oining lot. The vendor Flaviano :oreto and the vendee &eminiano 6amplona thought all the time that the portion of 2$! s=uare meters which was the

su;5ect matter of their sale transaction was )o. !3#* and so lot )o. !3#* appears to ;e the su;5ect matter in the deed of sale (>?h. -!-) although the fact is that the said portion sold thought of ;1 the parties to ;e lot )o. !3#* is a part of lot )o. !3#+. From !#*+ to !#+7" the spouses &eminiano 6amplona and Apolonio 4nte enlarged their house and the1 even constructed a pigger1 corral at the ;ack of their said house a;out one and one%half meters from the eastern ;oundar1 of lot !3#+. 4n August !," !#*+" Flaviano :oreto died intestate. In !#+!" the plaintiffs demanded on the defendants to vacate the premises where the1 had their house and pigger1 on the ground that Flaviano :oreto had no right to sell the lot which he sold to &eminiano 6amplona as the same ;elongs to the con5ugal partnership of Flaviano and his deceased wife and the latter was alread1 dead when the sale was e?ecuted without the consent of the plaintiffs who are the heirs of :onica. The spouses &eminiano 6amplona and Apolonia 4nte refused to vacate the premises occupied ;1 them and hence" this suit was instituted ;1 the heirs of :onica :aniega seeking for the declaration of the nullit1 of the deed of sale of .ul1 7" !#*, a;ove%mentioned as regards one%half of the propert1 su;5ect matter of said deedD to declare the plaintiffs as the rightful owners of the other half of said lotD to allow the plaintiffs to redeem the one%half portion thereof sold to the defendants. -After pa1ment of the other half of the purchase price-D to order the defendants to vacate the portions occupied ;1 themD to order the defendants to pa1 actual and moral damages and attorne1<s fees to the plaintiffsD to order the defendants to pa1 plaintiffs 6!,7.77 a 1ear from August !#*$ until the1 have vacated the premises occupied ;1 them for the use and occupanc1 of the same. The defendants claim that the sale made ;1 Flaviano :oreto in their favor is valid as the lot sold is registered in the name of Flaviano :oreto and the1 are purchasers ;elieving in good faith that the vendor was the sole owner of the lot sold. After a relocation of lots !3#*" !3#+ and 3*3* made ;1 agreement of the parties" it was found out that there was mutual error ;etween Flaviano :oreto and the defendants in the e?ecution of the deed of sale ;ecause while the said deed recited that the lot sold is lot )o. !3#*" the real intention of the parties is that it was a portion consisting of 2$! s=uare meters of lot )o. !3#+ which was the su;5ect matter of their sale transaction. After trial" the lower court rendered 5udgment" the dispositive part thereof ;eing as follows: A@>'>F4'>" 5udgment is here;1 rendered for the plaintiffs declaring the deed of a;solute sale dated .ul1 7" !#*, pertaining to the eastern portion of 8ot !3#+ covering an area of 2$! s=uare meters null and void as regards the #7.* s=uare meters of which plaintiffs are here;1 declared the rightful owners and entitled to its possession. The sale is ordered valid with respect to the eastern one%half (!E,) of !2$! s=uare meters of 8ot !3#+ measuring #7.* s=uare meters of which defendants are declared lawful owners and entitled to its possession. After proper surve1 segregating the eastern one%half portion with an area of #7.* s=uare meters of 8ot !3#+" the defendants shall ;e entitled to a certificate of title covering said portion and Transfer Certificate of Title )o. #$3 of the office of the 'egister of Deeds of 8aguna shall ;e cancelled accordingl1 and new titles issued to the plaintiffs and to the defendants covering their respective portions. Transfer Certificate of Title )o. *+2! of the office of the 'egister of Deeds of 8aguna covering 8ot )o. !3#* and registered in the name of Cornelio 6amplona" married to Apolonia 4nte" is ;1 virtue of this decision ordered cancelled. The defendants are ordered to surrender to the office of the 'egister of Deeds of 8aguna the owner<s

duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title )o. *+2! within thirt1 ( 7) da1s after this decision shall have ;ecome final for cancellation in accordance with this decision. 8et cop1 of this decision ;e furnished the 'egister of Deeds for the province of 8aguna for his information and guidance. Aith costs against the defendants.
(

The defendants%appellants" not ;eing satisfied with said 5udgment" appealed to the Court of Appeals" which affirmed the 5udgment" hence the1 now come to this Court. The fundamental and crucial issue in the case at ;ar is whether under the facts and circumstances dul1 esta;lished ;1 the evidence" petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the propert1 in litigation" or onl1 one%half of the same. There is no =uestion that when the petitioners purchased the propert1 on .ul1 7" !#*, from Flaviano :oreto for the price of 6#77.77" his wife :onica :aniega had alread1 ;een dead si? 1ears ;efore" :onica having died on :a1 +" !#3+. @ence" the con5ugal partnership of the spouses Flaviano :oreto and :onica :aniega had alread1 ;een dissolved. (Article !2*" (!) )ew Civil CodeD Article !3!2" 4ld Civil Code). The records show that the con5ugal estate had not ;een inventoried" li=uidated" settled and divided ;1 the heirs thereto in accordance with law. The necessar1 proceedings for the li=uidation of the con5ugal partnership were not instituted ;1 the heirs either in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse pursuant to Act !2+ amending 0ection +$* of Act !#7. )either was there an e?tra% 5udicial partition ;etween the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse nor was an ordinar1 action for partition ;rought for the purpose. Accordingl1" the estate ;ecame the propert1 of a communit1 ;etween the surviving hus;and" Flaviano :oreto" and his children with the deceased :onica :aniega in the concept of a co%ownership. The communit1 propert1 of the marriage" at the dissolution of this ;ond ;1 the death of one of the spouses" ceases to ;elong to the legal partnership and ;ecomes the propert1 of a communit1" ;1 operation of law" ;etween the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse" or the e?clusive propert1 of the widower or the widow" it he or she ;e the heir of the deceased spouse. >ver1 co%owner shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and ;enefits derived therefrom" and he therefore ma1 alienate" assign or mortgage it" and even su;stitute another person in its en5o1ment" unless personal rights are in =uestion. (:arigsa vs. :aca;untoc" !2 6hil. !72) In 2orja vs. "ddision" 33 6hil. $#*" #7+" the 0upreme Court said that -(t)here is no reason in law wh1 the heirs of the deceased wife ma1 not form a partnership with the surviving hus;and for the management and control of the communit1 propert1 of the marriage and conceiva;l1 such a partnership" or rather communit1 of propert1" ;etween the heirs and the surviving hus;and might ;e formed without a written agreement.- In *rades vs. /ecson" 3# 6hil. , 7" the 0upreme Court held that -(a)lthough" when the wife dies" the surviving hus;and" as administrator of the communit1 propert1" has authorit1 to sell the propert1 withut the concurrence of the children of the marriage" nevertheless this power can ;e waived in favor of the children" with the result of ;ringing a;out a conventional ownership in common ;etween the father and children as to such propert1D and an1 one purchasing with knowledge of the changed status of the propert1 will ac=uire onl1 the undivided interest of those mem;ers of the famil1 who 5oin in the act of conve1ance. It is also not disputed that immediatel1 after the e?ecution of the sale in !#*," the vendees constructed their house on the eastern part of 8ot !3#+ which the vendor pointed out to them as the area sold" and two weeks thereafter" 'afael who is a son of the vendees" also ;uilt his house within 8ot !3#+. 0u;se=uentl1" a cemented pigger1 coral was constructed ;1 the vendees at the ;ack of their house a;out one and one%half meters from the eastern ;oundar1 of 8ot !3#+. 9oth vendor and vendees ;elieved all

the time that the area of 2$! s=. meters su;5ect of the sale was 8ot )o. !3#* which according to its title (T.C.T. )o. !3*27) contains an area of 2$! s=. meters so that the deed of sale ;etween the parties Identified and descri;ed the land sold as 8ot !3#*. 9ut actuall1" as verified later ;1 a surve1or upon agreement of the parties during the proceedings of the case ;elow" the area sold was within 8ot !3#+. Again" there is no dispute that the houses of the spouses Cornelio 6amplona and Apolonia 4nte as well as that of their son 'afael 6amplona" including the concrete pigger1 coral ad5acent thereto" stood on the land from !#*, up to the filing of the complaint ;1 the private respondents on .ul1 ,*" !#+!" or a period of over nine (#) 1ears. And during said period" the private respondents who are the heirs of :onica :aniega as well as of Flaviano :oreto who also died intestate on August !," !#*+" lived as neigh;ors to the petitioner%vendees" 1et lifted no finger to =uestion the occupation" possession and ownership of the land purchased ;1 the 6amplonas" so that Ae are persuaded and convinced to rule that private respondents are in estoppel ;1 laches to claim half of the propert1" in dispute as null and void. >stoppel ;1 laches is a rule of e=uit1 which ;ars a claimant from presenting his claim when" ;1 reason of a;andonment and negligence" he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same. (International 9anking Corporation vs. /ared" *# 6hil. #,) Ae have ruled that at the time of the sale in !#*," the con5ugal partnership was alread1 dissolved si? 1ears ;efore and therefore" the estate ;ecame a co%ownership ;etween Flaviano :oreto" the surviving hus;and" and the heirs of his deceased wife" :onica :aniega. Article 3# of the )ew Civil Code is applica;le and it provides a follows: Art. 3# . >ach co%owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and ;enefits pertaining thereto" and he ma1 therefore alienate" assign or mortgage it" and even su;stitute another person in its en5o1ment" e?cept when personal rights are involve. 9ut the effect of the alienation or the mortgage" with respect to the co%owners" shall ;e limited to the portion which ma1 ;e allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co%ownership. Ae agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of the co%ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano :oreto pointed out the area and location of the 2$! s=. meters sold ;1 him to the petitioners%vendees on which the latter ;uilt their house and also that whereon 'afael" the son of petitioners likewise erected his house and an ad5acent coral for pigger1. 6etitioners point to the fact that spouses Flaviano :oreto and :onica :aniega owned three parcels of land denominated as 8ot !3#* having an area of 2$! s=. meters" 8ot !3#+ with an area of !"7,! s=. meters" and 8ot 3*3* with an area of *33 s=. meters. The three lots have a total area of ," 3+ s=. meters. These three parcels of lots are contiguous with one another as each is ;ounded on one side ;1 the other" thus: 8ot 3*3* is ;ounded on the northeast ;1 8ot !3#* and on the southeast ;1 8ot !3#+. 8ot !3#* is ;ounded on the west ;1 8ot 3*3*. 8ot !3#+ is ;ounded on the west ;1 8ot 3*3*. It is therefore" clear that the three lots constitute one ;ig land. The1 are not separate properties located in different places ;ut the1 a;ut each other. This is not disputed ;1 private respondents. @ence" at the time of the sale" the co% ownership constituted or covered these three lots ad5acent to each other. And since Flaviano :oreto was entitled to one%half pro%indiviso of the entire land area or !"!2 s=. meters as his share" he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 2$! s=. meters of his share to the 6amplona spouses. Indeed" there was still a remainder of some #, s=. meters ;elonging to him at the time of the sale. Ae re5ect respondent Court<s ruling that the sale was valid as to one%half and invalid as to the other half for the ver1 simple reason that Flaviano :oreto" the vendor" had the legal right to more than 2$! s=. meters of the communal estate" a title which he could dispose" alienate in favor of the vendees% petitioners. The title ma1 ;e pro%indiviso or inchoate ;ut the moment the co%owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the ;oundaries over which the fences were to ;e erectd without o;5ection" protest or complaint ;1 the other co%owners" on the contrar1 the1 ac=uiesced and tolerated such alienation" occupation and possession" Ae rule that a factual partition or termination of the co%ownership" although partial" was created" and ;arred not onl1 the vendor" Flaviano :oreto" ;ut also his heirs" the

private respondents herein from asserting as against the vendees%petitioners an1 right or title in derogation of the deed of sale e?ecuted ;1 said vendor Flaiano :oreto. >=uit1 commands that the private respondents" the successors of ;oth the deceased spouses" Flaviano :oreto and :onica :aniega ;e not allowed to impugn the sale e?ecuted ;1 Flaviano :oreto who indisputa;l1 received the consideration of 6#77.77 and which he" including his children" ;enefitted from the same. :oreover" as the heirs of ;oth :onica :aniega and Flaviano :oreto" private respondents are dut1%;ound to compl1 with the provisions of Articles !3*$ and !3#*" Civil Code" which is the o;ligation of the vendor of the propert1 of delivering and transfering the ownership of the whole propert1 sold" which is transmitted on his death to his heirs" the herein private respondents. The articles cited provide" thus: Art. !3*$. 91 the contract of sale one of the contracting parties o;ligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing" and the other part to pa1 therefore a price certain in mone1 or its e=uivalent. A contract of sale ma1 ;e a;solute or conditionial. Art. !3#*. The vendor is ;ound to transfer the ownership of and deliver" as well as warrant the thing which is the o;5ect of the sale. Cnder Article 22+" )ew Civil Code" the inheritance which private respondents received from their deceased parents andEor predecessors%in%interest included all the propert1 rights and o;ligations which were not e?tinguished ;1 their parents< death. And under Art. ! !!" paragraph !" )ew Civil Code" the contract of sale e?ecuted ;1 the deceased Flaviano :oreto took effect ;etween the parties" their assigns and heirs" who are the private respondents herein. Accordingl1" to the private respondents is transmitted the o;ligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 2$! s=. meters to the petitioners (which was the original o;ligation of their predecessor Flaviano :oreto) and not onl1 one%half thereof. 6rivate respondents must compl1 with said o;ligation. The records reveal that the area of 2$! s=. meters sold to and occupied ;1 petitioners for more than # 1ears alread1 as of the filing of the complaint in !#+! had ;een re%surve1ed ;1 private land surve1or Daniel Aranas. 6etitioners are entitled to a segregation of the area from Transfer Certificate of Title )o. T% #$3 covering 8ot !3#+ and the1 are also entitled to the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in their name ;ased on the relocation surve1. A@>'>F4'>" I) (I>A 4F T@> F4'>&4I)&" the 5udgment appealed from is here;1 AFFI':>D with modification in the sense that the sale made and e?ecuted ;1 Flaviano :oreto in favor of the petitioners% vendees is here;1 declared legal and valid in its entirel1. 6etitioners are here;1 declared owners in full ownership of the 2$! s=. meters at the eastern portion of 8ot !3#+ now occupied ;1 said petitioners and whereon their houses and pigger1 coral stand. The 'egister of Deeds of 8aguna is here;1 ordered to segregate the area of 2$! s=. meters from Certificate of Title )o. #$3 and to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the petitioners covering the segregated area of 2$! s=. meters. )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. L-33365 D/>/70/, (0, 1930

E*.a./ o= .1/ d/>/a*/d $a+3-no D-an>-n. EO$#' A DOLAR, proponent%appellant" vs. F#DEL D#AN%#N, E AL., oppositors%appellees. The will of the deceased 6aulino Diancin was denied pro;ate in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on the sole ground that the thum;marks appearing thereon were not the thum;marks of the testator. Disregarding the other errors assigned ;1 the proponent of the will" we would direct attention to the third error which challenges s=uarel1 the correctness of this finding. The will in =uestion is alleged to have ;een e?ecuted ;1 6aulino Diancin at Dumangas" Iloilo" on )ovem;er ! " !#,2. A thum;mark appears at the end of the will and on the left hand margin of each of its pages in the following manner: -6aulino Diancin" 0u 0igno" 6or 6edro Diamante.- The witnesses to the will were the same 6edro Diamante" Inocentes Deocampo" and .uan Dominado. The will is detailed in nature" and disposes of an estate amounting appro?imatel1 to 6*7"777. For comparative purposes" >?hi;it $" a document of sale containing an admittedl1 genuine thum;mark of 6aulino Diancin" was presented. 6hotographs of the thum;marks on the will and of the thum;mark on >?hi;it $ were also offered in evidence. 4ne" Carlos .. .aena" attempted to =ualif1 as an -e?pert"- and thereafter gave as his opinion that the thum;marks had not ;een made ;1 the same person .4ne" .ose &. (illanueva" likewise attempted to =ualif1 as were authentic. The petition of the proponent of the will to permit the will to ;e sent to :anila to ;e e?amined ;1 an e?pert was denied. 4n one fact onl1 were the opposing witnesses agreed" and this was that the ink used to make the thum;marks on the will was of the ordinar1 t1pe which ;lurred the characteristics of the marks" whereas the thum;mark on >?hi;it $ was formed clearl1 ;1 the use of the special ink re=uired for this purpose. The trial 5udge e?pressed his personal view as ;eing that great differences e?isted ;etween the =uestioned marks and the genuine mar.la%p$i'Dnet The re=uirement of the statute that the will shall ;e -signed- is satisfied not onl1 the customar1 written signature ;ut also ;1 the testator<s or testatri?< thum;mark .>?pert testimon1 as to the identit1 of thum;marks or fingerprints is of course admissi;le. The method of identification of fingerprints is a science re=uiring close stud1 .Ahere thum; impressions are ;lurred and man1 of the characteristic marks far from clear" thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated ;1 e?perts as showing the identit1 or lack of identit1 of the impressions" the court is 5ustified in refusing to accept the opinions of alleged e?perts and in su;stituting its own opinion that a distinct similarit1 in some respects ;etween the admittedl1 genuine thum;mark and the =uestioned thum;marks" is evident .This we do here. (>mperor vs. A;dul @amid G!#7*H" , Indian 8. 'ep." 2*#" cited in Cham;erla1ne on the :odern 8aw of >vidence" sec. ,*+!" notes .) There is another means of approach to the =uestion and an o;vious one. The three instrumental witnesses united in testif1ing concerning the circumstances surrounding the e?ecution of the will. It was stated that in addition to the testator and themselves" on other person" Diosdado Dominado" was present. This latter individual was called as a witness ;1 the oppositors to the will to identif1 >?hi;it $. @e was later placed on the witness stand ;1 the proponent on re;uttal" and thereupon declared positivel1 that he was the one who prepared the will for the signature of 6aulino DiancinD that the thum;marks appearing on the will were those of 6aulino Diancin" and that he saw 6aulino Diancin make these impressions. The testimon1 of a witness called ;1 ;oth parties is worth1 of credit. Ae reach the ver1 definite conclusion that the document presented for pro;ate as the last will of the deceased 6aulino Diancin was" in truth" his will" and that the thum;marks appearing thereon were the thum;marks of the testator .Accordingl1" error is found" which means that the 5udgment appealed from must ;e" as it is here;1" reversed" and the will ordered admitted to pro;ate" without special finding as to costs in this instance. "vance+a, C.@., @o$nson, Street, ?illamor, Astand, @o$ns, -omualdez and ?illa--eal, @@., concur.

G.R. No. 68)5

'/2./70/, 1, 191)

YA$ UA, petitioner%appellee" vs. YA$ %A 4UAN and YA$ %A 4UAN, o;5ectors%appellants. It appears from the record that on the , d da1 of August" !#7#" one 6erfecto &a;riel" representing the petitioner" /ap Tua" presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the cit1 of :anila" asking that the will of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong ;e admitted to pro;ate" as the last will and testament of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" deceased. It appears that the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong died in the cit1 of :anila on the !!th da1 of August" !#7#. Accompan1ing said petition and attached thereto was the alleged will of the deceased. It appears that the will was signed ;1 the deceased" as well as Anselmo Oacarias" 0evero Ta;ora" and Timoteo 6aeB. 0aid petition" after due notice was given" was ;rought on for hearing on the !$th da1 of 0eptem;er" !#7#. Timoteo 6aeB declared that he was 3$ 1ears of ageD that he had known the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap CaongD that she had died on the !!th da1 of August" !#7#D that ;efore her death she had e?ecuted a last will and testamentD that he was present at the time of the e?ecution of the sameD that he had signed the will as a witnessD that Anselmo Oacarias and 0evero Ta;ora had also signed said will as witnesses and that the1 had signed the will in the presence of the deceased. 6a;lo Agustin also declared as a witness and said that he was 37 1ears of ageD that he knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong during her lifetimeD that she died on the !!th da1 of August" !#7#" in the cit1 of :anilaD that ;efore her death she had e?ecuted a last will and testamentD that he was present at the time said last will was e?ecutedD that there were also present Timoteo 6aeB and 0evero Ta;ora and a person called AnselmoD that the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong signed the will in the presence of the witnessesD that he had seen her sign the will with his own e1esD that the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong and in the presence of each otherD that the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong signed the will voluntaril1" and in his 5udgment" she was in the possession of her facultiesD that there were no threats or intimidation used to induce her to sign the willD that she signed it voluntaril1. )o further witnesses were called and there was no further opposition presented to the legaliBation of the said will. After hearing the foregoing witnesses" the @onora;le A. 0. Crossfield" 5udge" on the ,#th da1 of 0eptem;er" !#7#" ordered that the last will and testament of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong ;e allowed and admitted to pro;ate. The will was attached to the record and marked >?hi;it A. The court further ordered that one /ap Tua ;e appointed as e?ecutor of the will" upon the giving of a ;ond" the amount of which was to ;e fi?ed later. From the record it appears that no further proceedings were had until the ,$th of Fe;ruar1" !#!7" when /ap Ca Luan and /ap Ca 8lu appeared and presented a petition" alleging that the1 were interested in the matters of the said will and desired to intervene and asked that a guardian ad litem ;e appointed to represent them in the cause. 4n the !st da1 of :arch" !#!7" the court appointed &a;riel 8a 4 as guardian ad litem of said parties. &a;riel 8a 4 accepted said appointment" took the oath of office and entered upon the performance of his duties as guardian ad litem of said parties. 4n the ,d da1 of :arch" !#!7" the said &a;riel 8a 4 appeared in court and presented a motion in which he alleged" in su;stance: First. That the will dated the !!th da1 of August" !#7#" and admitted to pro;ate ;1 order of the court on the ,#th da1 of 0eptem;er" !#7#" was null" for the following reasons: (a) 9ecause the same had not ;een authoriBed nor signed ;1 the witnesses as the law prescri;es.

(;) 9ecause at the time of the e?ecution of the will" the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong was not then mentall1 capacitated to e?ecute the same" due to her sickness. (c) 9ecause her signature to the will had ;een o;tained through fraud and illegal influence upon the part of persons who were to receive a ;enefit from the same" and ;ecause the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong had no intention of e?ecuting the same. 0econd. That ;efore the e?ecution of the said will" which the1 alleged to ;e null" the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong had e?ecuted another will" with all the formalities re=uired ;1 law" upon the +th da1 of August" !#7#. Third. That the said /ap Ca Luan and /ap Ca 8lu were minors and that" even though the1 had ;een negligent in presenting their opposition to the legaliBation of the will" said negligence was e?cusa;le" on account of their age. Cpon the foregoing facts the court was re=uested to annul and set aside the order of the ,#th da1 of 0eptem;er" !#7#" and to grant to said minors an opportunit1 to present new proof relating to the due e?ecution of said will. 0aid petition was ;ased upon the provisions of section !! of the Code of 6rocedure in Civil Actions. Ahile it is not clear from the record" apparentl1 the said minors in their petition for a new trial" attached to said petition the alleged will of August +" !#7#" of the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" and the affidavits of 0evero Ta;ora" Clotilde and Cornelia 0errano. Cpon the !7th da1 of :arch" !#!7" upon the hearing of said motion for a rehearing" the @onora;le A. 0. Crossfield" 5udge" granted said motion and ordered that the rehearing should take place upon the !$th da1 of :arch" !#!7" and directed that notice should ;e given to the petitioners of said rehearing and to all other persons interested in the will. At the rehearing a num;er of witnesses were e?amined. It will ;e remem;ered that one of the grounds upon which the new trial was re=uested was that the deceased" Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" had not signed the will (>?hi;it A) of the !!th of August" !#7#D that in support of that allegation" the protestants" during the rehearing" presented a witness called Tomas 6uBon. 6uBon testified that he was a professor and an e?pert in handwriting" and upon ;eing shown the will (of August !!" !#7#) >?hi;it A" testified that the name and surname on >?hi;it A" in his 5udgment were written ;1 two different hands" though the given name is the same as that upon >?hi;it ! (the will of August +" !#7#)" ;ecause he found in the name -Tomasa- on >?hi;it A a similarit1 in the tracing to the -Tomasa- in >?hi;it !D that comparing the surname on >?hi;it A with the surname on >?hi;it ! he found that the character of the writing was thoroughl1 distinguished and different ;1 the tracing and ;1 the direction of the letters in the said two e?hi;itsD that from his e?perience and o;servation he ;elieved that the name -Tomasa- and -/ap Caong"- appearing in the signature on >?hi;it A were written ;1 different person. 6uBon" ;eing cross%e?amined with reference to his capacit1 as an e?pert in handwriting" testified that while he was a student in the Ateneo de :anila" he had studied penmanshipD that he could not tell e?actl1 when that was" e?cept that he had concluded his course in the 1ear !$$,D that since that time he had ;een a telegraph operator for seventeen 1ears and that he had acted as an e?pert in hand% writing in the courts in the provinces. &a;riel 8a 4 was called as a witness during the rehearing and testified that he had drawn the will of the +th of August" !#7#" at the re=uest of Tomasa >liBaga /ap CaongD that it was drawn in accordance with her re=uest and under her directionsD that she had signed itD that the same had ;een signed ;1 three witnesses in her presence and in the presence of each otherD that the will was written in her houseD that she was sick and was l1ing in her ;ed" ;ut that she sat up to sign the willD that she signed the will with great difficult1D that she was signed in her right mind.

The said 0evero Ta;ora was also called as a witness again during the rehearing. @e testified that he knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong during her lifetimeD that she was deadD that his signature as a witness to >?hi;it A (the will of August !!" !#7#) was placed there ;1 himD that the deceased" Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" ;ecame familiar with the contents of the will ;ecause she signed it ;efore he (the witness) didD that he did not know whether an1;od1 there told her to sign the will or notD that he signed two ;illsD that he did not know 8a 4D that he did not ;elieve that Tomasa had signed the will (>?hi;it A) ;efore he arrived at the houseD that he was not sure that he had seen Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong sign >?hi;it A ;ecause there were man1 people and there was a screen at the door and he could not seeD that he was called a a witness to sign the second will and was told ;1 the people there that it was the same as the firstD that the will (>?hi;it A) was on a ta;le" far from the patient" in the house ;ut outside the room where the patient wasD that the will was signed ;1 6aeB and himselfD that Anselmo Oacarias was thereD that he was not sure whether Anselmo Oacarias signed the will or notD that he was not sure whether Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong could see the ta;le on which the will was written at the time it was signed or notD that there were man1 people in the houseD that he remem;ered the names of 6edro and 8orenBoD that he could not remem;er the names of an1 othersD that the will remained on the ta;le after he signed itD that after he signed the will he went to the room where Tomasa was l1ingD that the will was left on the ta;le outsideD that Tomasa was ver1 illD that he heard the people asking Tomasa to sign the will after he was (the witness) had signed itD that he saw 6aeB sign the will" that he could not remem;er whether Anselmo Oacarias had signed the will" ;ecause immediatel1 after he and 6aeB signed it" he left ;ecause he was hungr1D that the place where the ta;le was located was in the same house" on the floor" a;out two steps down from the floor on which Tomasa was. 'ufino '. 6apa" was called as a witness for the purpose of supporting the allegation that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong was mentall1 incapacitated to make the will dated August !!" !#7# (>?hi;it A). 6apa declared that he was a ph1sicianD that he knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap CaongD that he had treated her in the month of AugustD that he visited her first on the $th da1 of AugustD that he visited her again on the #th and !7th da1s of AugustD that on the first visit he found the sick woman completel1 weak J ver1 weak from her sickness" in the third stage of tu;erculosisD that she was l1ing in ;edD that on the first visit he found her with ;ut little sense" the second da1 also" and on the third da1 she had lost all her intelligenceD that she died on the !!th of AugustD tat he was re=uested to issue the death certificateD that when he asked her (Tomasa) whether she was feeling an1 pain or an1thing of that kind" she did not answer at allD that she was in a condition of stupor" induced" as he ;elieved" ;1 the stage of uraemia from which she was suffering. Anselmo Oacarias" who had signed the will of August !!" !#7#" was also called as a witnesses during the rehearing. @e testified that he had known Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong since he was a childD that Tomasa was deadD that he had written the will e?hi;it AD that it was all in his writing e?cept the last part" which was written ;1 Carlos 0o;acoD that he had written the will >?hi;it A at the re=uest of the uncle of TomasaD that 8orenBo" the ;rother of the deceased" was the one who had instructed him as to the terms of the will D that the deceased had not spoken to him concerning the terms of the willD that the will was written in the dining room of the residence of the deceasedD that Tomasa was in another room different from that in which the will was writtenD that the will was not written in the presence of TomasaD that he signed the will as a witness in the room where Tomasa was l1ingD that the other witnesses signed the will in the same room that when he went into the room where the sick woman was (Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong) 8orenBo had the will in his handsD that when 8orenBo came to the ;ed he showed the will to his sister (Tomasa) and re=uested her to sign itD that she was l1ing stretched out on the ;ed and two women" who were taking care of her" helped her to sit up" supporting her ;1 lacing their hands at her ;ackD that when she started to write her name" he withdrew from the ;ed on account of the ;est inside the roomD when he came ;ack again to the sick ;ed the will was signed and was again in the hands of 8orenBoD that he did not see Tomasa sign the will ;ecause he withdrew from the roomD that he did not know whether Tomasa had ;een informed of the contents of the will or notD he supposed she must have read it ;ecause 8orenBo turned the will over to herD that when 8orenBo asked her to sign the will" he did not know what she said J he could not hear her voiceD that he did not know whether the sick woman was him sign the will or notD that he ;elieved that Tomasa died the ne?t da1 after the will had ;een signedD that the other two witnesses" Timoteo 6aeB and 0evero Ta;ora" had signed the will in the room with the sick womanD that

he saw them sign the will and that the1 saw him sign itD that he was not sure whether the testatri? could have seen them at the time the1 signed the will or notD that there was a screen ;efore the ;edD that he did not think that 8orenBo had ;een giving instructions as to the contents of the willD that a;out ten or fifteen minutes elapsed from the time 8orenBo handed the will to Tomasa ;efore she started to sign itD that the pen with which she signed the will as given to her and she held it. Clotilde :ariano testified that he was a cigarette makerD that he knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong and that she was deadD that she had made two willsD that the first one was written ;1 8a 4 and the second ;1 OacariasD that he was present at the time Oacarias wrote the second oneD that he was present when the second will was taken to Tomasa for signatureD that 8orenBo had told Tomasa that the second will was e?actl1 like the firstD that Tomasa said she could not sign it. 4n cross e?amination he testified that there was a lot of visitors thereD that Oacarias was not thereD that 6aeB and Ta;ora were thereD that he had told Tomasa that the second will was e?actl1 like the first. During the rehearing Cornelia 0errano and 6edro Francisco were also e?amined as witnesses. There is nothing in their testimon1" however" which in our opinion is important. In re;uttal .ulia e la CruB was called as a witness. 0he testified that she was !# 1ears of ageD that she knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong during her lifetimeD that she lived in the house of Tomasa during the last week of her illnessD that Tomasa had made two willsD that she was present when the second one was e?ecutedD that a law1er had drawn the will in the dining room and after it had ;een drawn and ever1thing finished " it was taken to where DoFa Tomasa was" for her signatureD that it was taken to her ;1 Anselmo OacariasD that she was present at the time Tomasa signed the will that there were man1 other people present alsoD that she did not see Timoteo 6aeB thereD that she saw 0evero Ta;oraD that Anselmo Oacarias was presentD that she did not hear Clotilde :ariano ask Tomasa to sign the willD that she did not hear 8orenBo sa1 to Tomasa that the second will was the same sa the firstD that Tomasa asked her to help her to sit up and to put a pillow to her ;ack when Oacarias gave her some paper or document and asked her to sign itD that she saw Tomasa take hold of the pen and tr1 to sign it ;ut she did not see the place she signed the document" for the reason that she left the roomD that she saw Tomasa sign the document ;ut did not see on what place on the document she signedD and that a notar1 pu;lic came the ne?t morningD that Tomasa was a;le to move a;out in the ;edD that she had seen Tomasa in the act of starting to write her signature when she told her to get her some water. /ap Cao Iuiang was also called as a witness in re;uttal. @e testified that he knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong and knew that she had made a willD that he saw the will at the time it was writtenD that he saw Tomasa sign it on her headD that he did not hear 8orenBo ask Tomasa to sign the willD that 8orenBo had handed the will to Tomasa to signD that he saw the witnesses sign the will on a ta;le near the ;edD that the ta;le was outside the curtain or screen and near the entrance to the room where Tomasa was l1ing. 8orenBo /ap Caong testified as a witness on re;uttal. @e said that he knew Anselmo Oacarias and that Oacarias wrote the will of Tomasa >liBaga /ap CaongD that Tomasa had given him instructionsD that Tomasa had said that she sign the willD that the will was on a ta;le near the ;ed of TomasaD that Tomasa" from where she was l1ing in the ;ed" could seethe ta;le where the witnesses had signed the will. During the rehearing certain other witnesses were also e?aminedD in our opinion" however" it is necessar1 to =uote from them for the reason that their testimon1 in no wa1 affects the preponderance of proof a;ove =uoted. At the close of the rehearing the @onora;le A. 0. Crossfield" 5udge" in an e?tended opinion" reached the conclusion that the last will and testament of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" which was attached to the record and marked >?hi;it A was the last will and testament of the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong and admitted it to pro;ate and ordered that the administrator therefore appointed should continue as such

administrator. From that order the protestants appealed to this court" and made the following assignments of error: I. The court erred in declaring that the will" >?hi;it A" was e?ecuted ;1 the deceased Tomasa /ap Caong" without the intervention of an1 e?ternal influence on the part of other persons. II. The court erred in declaring that the testator had clear knowledge and knew what she was doing at the time of signing the will. III. The court erred in declaring that the signature of the deceased Tomasa /ap Caong in the first will" >?hi;it !" is identical with that which appears in the second will" >?hi;it A. I(. The court erred in declaring that the will" >?hi;it A" was e?ecuted in accordance with the law. Aith reference to the first assignment of error" to wit" that undue influence was ;rought to ;ear upon Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong in the e?ecution of her will of August !!th" !#7# (>?hi;it A)" the lower court found that no undue influence had ;een e?ercised over the mind of the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong. Ahile it is true that some of the witnesses testified that the ;rother of Tomasa" one 8orenBo" had attempted to undul1 influence her mind in the e?ecution of he will" upon the other hand" there were several witnesses who testified that 8orenBo did not attempt" at the time of the e?ecution of the will" to influence her mind in an1 wa1. The lower court having had an opportunit1 to see" to hear" and to note the witnesses during their e?amination reached the conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence showed that no undue influence had ;een used. we find no good reason in the record for reversing his conclusions upon that =uestion. Aith reference to the second assignment of error to wit" that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong was not of sound mind and memor1 at the time of the e?ecution of the will" we find the same conflict in the declarations of the witnesses which we found with reference to the undue influence. Ahile the testimon1 of Dr. 6apa is ver1 strong relating to the mental condition of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" 1et" nevertheless" his testimon1 related to a time perhaps twent1%four hours ;efore the e?ecution of the will in =uestion (>?hi;it A). 0everal witnesses testified that at the time the will was presented to her for her signature" she was of sound mind and memor1 and asked for a pen and ink and kept the will in her possession for ten or fifteen minutes and finall1 signed it. The lower court found that there was a preponderance of evidence sustaining the conclusion that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong was of sound mind and memor1 and in the possession of her faculties at the time she signed this will. In view of the conflict in the testimon1 of the witnesses and the finding of the lower court" we do not feel 5ustified in reversing his conclusions upon that =uestion. Aith reference to the third assignment of error" to wit" that the lower court committed an error in declaring that the signature of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" on her first will (August +" !#7#" >?hi;it !)" is identical with that which appears in the second will (August !!" !#7#" >?hi;it A)" it ma1 ;e said: First. That whether or not Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong e?ecuted the will of August +" !#7# (>?hi;it !)" was not the =uestion presented to the court. The =uestion presented was whether or not she had dul1 e?ecuted the will of August !!" !#7# (>?hi;it A). 0econd. There appears to ;e ;ut little dou;t that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong did e?ecute the will of August +" !#7#. 0everal witnesses testified to that fact. The mere fact" however" that she e?ecuted a former will is no proof that she did not e?ecute a later will. 0he had a perfect right" ;1 will" to dispose of her propert1" in accordance with the provisions of law" up to the ver1 last of moment her life. 0he had a perfect right to change" alter" modif1 or revoke an1 and all of her former wills and to make a new one. )either will the fact that the new will fails to e?pressl1 revoke all former wills" in an1 wa1 sustain the charge that she did not make the new will.

Third. In said third assignment of error there is involved in the statement that -The signature of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" in her first will (>?hi;it !) was not identical with that which appears in her second will (>?hi;it A)- the inference that she had not signed the second will and all the argument of the appellants relating to said third assignment of error is ;ased upon the alleged fact that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong did not sign >?hi;it A. 0everal witnesses testified that the1 saw her write the name -Tomasa.- 4ne of the witnesses testified that she had written her full name. Ae are of the opinion" and we think the law sustains our conclusion" that if Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong signed an1 portion of her name tot he will" with the intention to sign the same" that the will amount to a signature. It has ;een held time and time again that one who makes a will ma1 sign the same ;1 using a mark" the name having ;een written ;1 others. If writing a mark simpl1 upon a will is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make and e?ecute a will" then certainl1 the writing of a portion or all of her name ought to ;e accepted as a clear indication of her intention to e?ecute the will. (-e &oods of 0avor1" !* .ur." !73,D Add1 vs. &ri?" $ (es. .r." *73D 9aker vs. Dening" $ Ad. and >l." #3 8ong vs. Oook" ! 6enn." 377D (ernon vs. Lirk" 7 6enn." ,!$D CoBBen<s Aill" +! 6enn." !#+D -e &oods of >merson" 8. '. # Ir." 33 D :ain vs. '1der" $3 6enn." ,!2.) Ae find a ver1 interesting case reported in ! ! 6enns1lvania 0tate" ,,7 (+ 8. '. A." * )" and cited ;1 the appellees" which was known as -Lno?<s Appeal.- In this case one @arriett 0. Lno? died ver1 suddenl1 on the !2th of 4cto;er" !$$$" at the residence of her father. After her death a paper was found in her room" wholl1 in her handwriting" written with a lead pencil" upon three sides of an ordinar1 folded sheet of note paper and ;earing the signature simpl1 of -@arriett.- In this paper the deceased attempted to make certain disposition of her propert1. The will was presented for pro;ate. The pro;ation was opposed upon the ground that the same did not contain the signature of the deceased. That was the onl1 =uestion presented to the court" whether the signature" in the form a;ove indicated" was a sufficient signature to constitute said paper the last will and testament of @arriett 0. Lno?. It was admitted that the entire paper was in the handwriting of the deceased. In deciding that =uestion" .ustice :itchell said: The precise case of a signature y t$e first name only" does not appear to have arisen either in >ngland or the Cnited 0tatesD ;ut the principle on which the decisions alread1 referred to were ;ased" especiall1 those in regard to signing ;1 initials onl1" are e=uall1 applica;le to the present case" and additional force is given to them ;1 the decisions as to what constitutes a ;inding signature to a contract. (6almer vs. 0tephens" ! Denio" 32$D 0an;orne vs. Flager" # Alle" 323D Aeston vs. :1ers" Ill." 3,3D 0almon Falls" etc. Co. vs. &oddard" !3 @ow. (C. 0.)" 33+.) The man who cannot write and who is o;liged to make his mark simpl1 therefor" upon the will" is held to -sign- as effectuall1 as if he had written his initials or his full name. It would seem to ;e sufficient" under the law re=uiring a signature ;1 the person making a will" to make his mark" to place his initials or all or an1 part of his name thereon. In the present case we think the proof shows" ;1 a large preponderance" that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" if she did not sign her full name" did at least sign her given name -Tomasa"- and that is sufficient to satisf1 the statute. Aith reference to the fourth assignment of error" it ma1 ;e said that the argument which was preceded is sufficient to answer it also. During the trial of the cause the protestants made a strong effort to show that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong did not sign her name in the presence of the witnesses and that the1 did not sign their names in their presence nor in the presence of each other. Cpon that =uestion there is considera;le conflict of proof. An effort was made to show that the will was signed ;1 the witnesses in one room and ;1 Tomasa in another. A plan of the room or rooms in which the will was signed was presented as proof and it was shown that there was ;ut one roomD that one part of the room was one or two steps ;elow the floor of the otherD that the ta;le on which the witnesses signed the will was located upon the lower floor of the room. It was also shown that from the ;ed in which Tomasa was l1ing" it was possi;le for her to see the ta;le on which the witnesses signed the will. Ahile the rule is a;solute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the presence of the witnesses and that the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other" as well as in the presence of the one making the will" 1et" nevertheless" the actual seeing of the signatures made is not

necessar1. It is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possi;le for each of the necessar1 parties" if the1 desire to see" ma1 see the signatures placed upon the will. In cases like the present where there is so much conflict in the proof" it is ver1 difficult for the courts to reach conclusions that are a;solutel1 free from dou;t. &reat weight must ;e given ;1 appellate courts who do not see or hear the witnesses" to the conclusions of the trial courts who had that opportunit1. Cpon a full consideration of the record" we find that a preponderance of the proof shows that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong did e?ecute" freel1 and voluntaril1" while she was in the right use of all her faculties" the will dated August !!" !#7# (>?hi;it A). Therefore the 5udgment of the lower court admitting said will to pro;ate is here;1 affirmed with costs. "rellano, C. @., /orres, Carson, 6oreland and "raullo, @@., concur. G.R. No. 15566 '/2./70/, 1), 19(1

EU #6U#A AVERA, vs. MAR#NO GAR%#A, and &UAN RODR#GUEZ, a* 5+a,d-an o= .1/ 7-no,* %/*a, Ga,>-a and &o*/ Ga,>-a, In proceedings in the court ;elow" instituted ;1 >uti=uia Avera for pro;ate of the will of one >ste;an &arcia" contest was made ;1 :arino &arcia and .uan 'odrigueB" the latter in the capacit1 of guardian for the minors .ose &arcia and Cesar &arcia. Cpon the date appointed for the hearing" the proponent of the will introduced one of the three attesting witnesses who testified J with details not necessar1 to ;e here specified J that the will was e?ecuted with all necessar1 e?ternal formalities" and that the testator was at the time in full possession of disposing faculties. Cpon the latter point the witness was corro;orated ;1 the person who wrote the will at the re=uest of the testator. Two of the attesting witnesses were not introduced" nor was their a;sence accounted for ;1 the proponent of the will. Ahen the proponent rested the attorne1 for the opposition introduced a single witness whose testimon1 tended to show in a vague and indecisive manner that at the time the will was made the testator was so de;ilitated as to ;e una;le to comprehend what he was a;out. After the cause had ;een su;mitted for determination upon the proof thus presented" the trial 5udge found that the testator at the time of the making of the will was of sound mind and disposing memor1 and that the will had ;een properl1 e?ecuted. @e accordingl1 admitted the will to pro;ate. From this 5udgment an appeal was taken in ;ehalf of the persons contesting the will" and the onl1 errors here assigned have reference to the two following points" namel1" first" whether a will can ;e admitted to pro;ate" where opposition is made" upon the proof of a single attesting witness" without producing or accounting for the a;sence of the other twoD and" secondl1" whether the will in =uestion is rendered invalid ;1 reason of the fact that the signature of the testator and of the three attesting witnesses are written on the right margin of each page of the will instead of the left margin. Cpon the first point" while it is undou;tedl1 true that an uncontested will ;a1 ;e proved ;1 the testimon1 of onl1 one of the three attesting witnesses" nevertheless in Ca;ang vs. Delfinado ( 3 6hil." ,#!)" this court declared after an ela;orate e?amination of the American and >nglish authorities that when a contest is instituted" all of the attesting witnesses must ;e e?amined" if alive and within reach of the process of the court. In the present case no e?planation was made at the trial as to wh1 all three of the attesting witnesses were not produced" ;ut the pro;a;le reason is found in the fact that" although the petition for the pro;ate of this will had ;een pending from Decem;er ,!" !#!2" until the date set for the hearing" which was April *" !#!#" no formal contest was entered until the ver1 da1 set for the hearingD and it is pro;a;le that the

attorne1 for the proponent" ;elieving in good faith the pro;ate would not ;e contested" repaired to the court with onl1 one of the three attesting witnesses at hand" and upon finding that the will was contested" incautiousl1 permitted the case to go to proof without asking for a postponement of the trial in order that he might produce all the attesting witnesses. Although this circumstance ma1 e?plain wh1 the three witnesses were not produced" it does not in itself suppl1 an1 ;asis for changing the rule e?pounded in the case a;ove referred toD and were it not for a fact now to ;e mentioned" this court would pro;a;l1 ;e compelled to reverse this case on the ground that the e?ecution of the will had not ;een proved ;1 a sufficient num;er of attesting witnesses. It appears" however" that this point was not raised ;1 the appellant in the lower court either upon the su;mission of the cause for determination in that court or upon the occasion of the filing of the motion for a new trial. Accordingl1 it is insisted for the appellee that this =uestion cannot now ;e raised for the first time in this court. Ae ;elieve this point is well taken" and the first assignment of error must ;e declared not ;e well taken. This e?act =uestion has ;een decided ;1 the 0upreme Court of California adversel1 to the contention of the appellant" and we see no reason wh1 the same rule of practice should not ;e o;served ;1 us. (>state of :cCart1" *$ Cal." *" 2.) There are at least two reason wh1 the appellate tri;unals are disinclined to permit certain =uestions to ;e raised for the first time in the second instance. In the first place it eliminates the 5udicial criterion of the Court of First Instance upon the point there presented and makes the appellate court in effect a court of first instance with reference to that point" unless the case is remanded for a new trial. In the second place" it permits" if it does not encourage" attorne1s to trifle with the administration of 5ustice ;1 concealing from the trial court and from their opponent the actual point upon which reliance is placed" while the1 are engaged in other discussions more simulated than real. These considerations are" we think" decisive. In ruling upon the point a;ove presented we do not wish to ;e understood as la1ing down an1 hard and fast rule that would prove an em;arrassment to this court in the administration of 5ustice in the future. In one wa1 or another we are constantl1 here considering aspects of cases and appl1ing doctrines which have escaped the attention of all persons concerned in the litigation ;elowD and this is necessar1 if this court is to contri;ute the part due from it in the correct decision of the cases ;rought ;efore it. Ahat we mean to declare is that when we ;elieve that su;stantial 5ustice has ;een done in the Court of First Instance" and the point relied on for reversal in this court appears to ;e one which ought properl1 to have ;een presented in that court" we will in the e?ercise of a sound discretion ignore such =uestion relates a defect which might have ;een cured in the Court of First Instance if attention had ;een called to it there. In the present case" if the appellant had raised this =uestion in the lower court" either at the hearing or upon a motion for a new trial" that court would have had the power" and it would have ;een is dut1" considering the tard1 institution of the contest" to have granted a new trial in order that all the witnesses to the will might ;e ;rought into court. 9ut instead of thus calling the error to the attention of the court and his adversar1" the point is first raised ;1 the appellant in this court. Ae hold that this is too late. 6roperl1 understood" the case of Ca;ang vs. Delfinado" supra" contains nothing inconsistent with the ruling we now make" for it appears from the opinion in that case that the proponent of the will had o;tained an order for a repu;lication and new trial for the avowed purpose of presenting the two additional attesting witnesses who had not ;een previousl1 e?amined" ;ut nevertheless su;se=uentl1 failed without an1 apparent reason to take their testimon1. 9oth parties in that case were therefore full1 apprised that the =uestion of the num;er of witnesses necessar1 to prove the will was in issue in the lower court. The second point involved in this case is whether" under section +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" as amended ;1 Act )o. ,+3*" it is essential to the validit1 of a will in this 5urisdiction that the names of the testator and the instrumental witnesses should ;e written on the left margin of each page" as re=uired in said Act" and not upon the right margin" as in the will now ;efore usD and upon this we are of the opinion that the will in =uestion is valid. It is true that the statute sa1s that the testator and the instrumental witnesses shall sign their names on the left margin of each and ever1 pageD and it is undenia;le that the

general doctrine is to the effect that all statutor1 re=uirements as to the e?ecution of wills must ;e full1 complied with. The same doctrine is also deduci;le from cases heretofore decided ;1 this court. 0till some details at times creep into legislative enactments which are so trivial it would ;e a;surd to suppose that the 8egislature could have attached an1 decisive importance to them. The provision to the effect that the signatures of the testator and witnesses shall ;e written on the left margin of each page J rather than on the right margin J seems to ;e this character. 0o far as concerns the authentication of the will" and of ever1 part thereof" it can make no possi;le difference whether the names appear on the left or no the right margin" provided the1 are on one or the other. In Caraig vs. Tatlonghari ('. &. )o. !,**$" decided :arch , " !#!$" not reported)" this court declared a will void which was totall1 lacking in the signatures re=uired to ;e written on its several pagesD and in the case of 'e estate of 0aguinsin (3! 6hil." $2*)" a will was likewise declared void which contained the necessar1 signatures on the margin of each leaf ( folio)" ;ut not in the margin of each page containing written matter. The instrument now ;efore us contains the necessar1 signatures on ever1 page" and the onl1 point of deviation from the re=uirement of the statute is that these signatures appear in the right margin instead of the left. 91 the mode of signing adopted ever1 page and provision of the will is authenticated and guarded from possi;le alteration in e?actl1 the same degree that it would have ;een protected ;1 ;eing signed in the left marginD and the resources of casuistr1 could ;e e?hausted without discovering the slightest difference ;etween the conse=uences of affi?ing the signatures in one margin or the other. The same could not ;e said of a case like that of >state of 0aguinsin" supra" where onl1 the leaves" or alternate pages" were signed and not each written pageD for as o;served in that case ;1 our late lamented Chief .ustice" it was possi;le that in the will as there originall1 e?ecuted ;1 the testratri? onl1 the alternative pages had ;een used" leaving ;lanks on the reverse sides" which conceiva;l1 might have ;een filled in su;se=uentl1. The controlling considerations on the point now ;efore us were well stated In -e will of A;angan (37 6hil." 32+" 32#)" where the court" speaking through :r. .ustice AvanceFa" in a case where the signatures were placed at the ;ottom of the page and not in the margin" said: The o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of wills is to close the door against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution o will and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticit1. Therefore the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in such a wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. 9ut" on the other hand" also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise of the right to make a will. 0o when an interpretation alread1 given assures such ends" an1 other interpretation whatsoever" that adds nothing ;ut demands more re=uisites entirel1 unnecessar1" useless and frustrative of the testator<s last will" must ;e disregarded. In the case ;efore us" where ingenuit1 could not suggest an1 possi;le pre5udice to an1 person" as attendant upon the actual deviation from the letter of the law" such deviation must ;e considered too trivial to invalidate the instrument. It results that the legal errors assigned are not sustaina;le" and the 5udgment appealed from will ;e affirmed. It is so ordered" with costs against the appellants. @o$nson, "raullo, "vance+a and ?illamor, @@., concur. G.R. No. L-(1755 D/>/70/, (9, 19()

#n .1/ 7a../, o= .1/ ./*.a./ /*.a./ o= An.on-o Mo?a3, d/>/a*/d. F#LOMENA NAYVE, vs. LEONA MO&AL and LU%#ANA AGU#LAR, opponents%appellants.

This is a proceeding for the pro;ate of the will of the deceased Antonio :o5al instituted ;1 his surviving spouse" Filomena )a1ve. The pro;ate is opposed ;1 8eona :o5al and 8uciana Aguilar" sister and niece" respectivel1" of the deceased. The Court of First Instance of Al;a1" which tried the case" overruled the o;5ections to the will" and ordered the pro;ate thereof" holding that the document in controvers1 was the last will and testament of Antonio :o5al" e?ecuted in accordance with law. From this 5udgment the opponents appeal" assigning error to the decree of the court allowing the will to pro;ate and overruling their opposition. The will in =uestion" >?hi;it A" is composed of four sheets with written matter on onl1 side of each" that is" four pages written on four sheets. The four sides or pages containing written matter are paged -6ag. !"-6ag. ,"- -6ag. "- -6ag. 3"- successivel1. >ach of the first two sides or pages" which was issued" was signed ;1 the testator and the three witnesses on the margin" left side of the reader. 4n the third page actuall1 used" the signatures of the three witnesses appear also on the margin" left side of the reader" ;ut the signature of the testator is not on the margin" ;ut a;out the middle of the page" at the end of the will and ;efore the attestation clause. 4n the fourth page" the signatures of the witnesses do not appear on the margin" ;ut at the ;ottom of the attestation clause" it ;eing the signature of the testator that is on the margin" left side of the reader. The defects attri;uted to the will are: (a) The fact of not having ;een signed ;1 the testator and the witnesses on each and ever1 sheet on the left marginD ( ) the fact of the sheets of the document not ;eing paged with lettersD ( c) the fact that the attestation clause does not state the num;er of sheets or pages actuall1 used of the willD and ( d) the fact that the testator does not appear to have signed all the sheets in the presence of the three witnesses" and the latter to have attested and signed all the sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other. As to the signatures on the margin" it is true" as a;ove stated" that the third page actuall1 used was signed ;1 the testator" not on the left margin" as it was ;1 the witnesses" ;ut a;out the middle of the page and the end of the willD and that the fourth page was signed ;1 the witnesses" not on the left margin" as it was ;1 the testator" ;ut a;out the middle of the page and at the end of the attestation clause. In this respect the holding of this court in the case of "vera vs. Barcia and -odriguez (3, 6hil." !3*)" is applica;le" wherein the will in =uestion was signed ;1 the testator and the witnesses" not on the left" ;ut right" margin. The rule laid down in that case is that the document contained the necessar1 signatures on each page" where;1 each page of the will was authenticated and safeguarded against an1 possi;le alteration. In that case" the validit1 of the will was sustained" and conse=uentl1 it was allowed to pro;ate. Appl1ing that doctrine to the instant case" we hold that" as each and ever1 page used of the will ;ears the signatures of the testator and the witnesses" the fact that said signatures do not all appear on the left margin of each page does not detract from the validit1 of the will. la%p$i'.net Turning to the second defect alleged" that is to sa1" the fact that the sheets of the document are not paged with letters" suffice it to cite the case of 3nson vs. " ella (3 6hil." 3#3)" where this court held that paging with Ara;ic numerals and not with letters" as in the case ;efore us" is within the spirit of the law and is 5ust as valid as paging with letters. As to the proposition that the attestation clause does not state the num;er of sheets or pages of the will" which is the third defect assigned" it must ;e noted that the last paragraph of the will here in =uestion and the attestation clause" coming ne?t to it" are of the following tenor: In witness whereof" I set m1 hand unto this will here in the town of Camalig" Al;a1" 6hilippine Islands" this ,+th da1 of )ovem;er" nineteen hundred and eighteen" composed of four sheets" including the ne?t:

A)T4)I4 :4.A8 (0igned and declared ;1 the testator Don Antonio :o5al to ;e his last will and testament in the presence of each of us" and at the re=uest of said testator Don Antonio :o5al" we signed this will in the presence of each other and of the testator.) 6>D'4 CA'4 0I8(>'I4 :4'C4 O4I84 :A0I)A0 As ma1 ;e seen" the num;er of sheets is stated in said last paragraph of the will. It is true that in the case of 3y Co!ue vs. 0avas L. Sioca (3 6hil." 37*)" it was held that the attestation clause must state the num;er of sheets or pages composing the willD ;ut when" as in the case ;efore us" such fact" while it is not stated in the attestation clause" appears at the end of the will proper" so that no proof aliunde is necessar1 of the num;er of the sheets of the will" then there can ;e no dou;t that it complies with the intention of the law that the num;er of sheets of which the will is composed ;e shown ;1 the document itself" to prevent the num;er of the sheets of the will from ;eing undul1 increased or decreased. Aith regard to the last defect pointed out" namel1" that the testator does not appear to have signed on all the sheets of the will in the presence of the three witnesses" and the latter to have attested and signed on all the sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other" it must ;e noted that in the attestation clause a;ove set out it is said that the testator signed the will .in t$e presence of eac$ of t$e %itnesses. and the latter signed .in t$e presence of eac$ ot$er and of t$e testator.. 0o that" as to whether the testator and the attesting witnesses saw each other sign the will" such a re=uirement was clearl1 and sufficientl1 complied with. Ahat is not stated in this clause is whether the testator and the witnesses signed all the sheets of the will. The act of the testator and the witnesses seeing reciprocall1 the signing of the will is one which cannot ;e proven ;1 the mere e?hi;ition of the will unless it is stated in the document. And this fact is e?pressl1 stated in the attestation clause now ;efore us. 9ut the fact of the testator and the witnesses having signed all the sheets of the will ma1 ;e proven ;1 the mere e?amination of the document" although it does not sa1 an1thing a;out this" and if that is the fact" as it is in the instant case" the danger of fraud in this respect" which is what the law tries to avoid" does not e?ist. Therefore" as in the instant case the fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and ever1 page of the will is proven ;1 the mere e?amination of the signatures in the will" the omission to e?pressl1 state such evident fact does not invalidate the will nor prevent its pro;ate. The order appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the appellants. 0o ordered. @o$nson, 6alcolm, and ?illamor, @@., concur. G.R. No. 1)71)5 &an+a,y 31, (005

E' A E E' A E OF !E LA E AL#$#O A"ADA, "EL#NDA %A$ONONG-NO"LE, vs. AL#$#O A"A&A and NOEL A"ELLAR, The Case 9efore the Court is a petition for review! assailing the Decision, of the Court of Appeals of !, .anuar1 ,77! in CA%&.'. C( )o. 32+33. The Court of Appeals sustained the 'esolution of the 'egional Trial

Court of La;ankalan" )egros 4ccidental" 9ranch +! (-'TC%La;ankalan-)" admitting to pro;ate the last will and testament of Alipio A;ada (-A;ada-). The Antecedent Facts A;ada died sometime in :a1 !#37.3 @is widow 6aula Tora1 (-Tora1-) died sometime in 0eptem;er !#3 . 9oth died without legitimate children. 4n ! 0eptem;er !#+$" Alipio C. A;a5a (-Alipio-) filed with the then Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental (now 'TC%La;ankalan) a petition"* docketed as 06 )o. 727 ( ! %$++$)" for the pro;ate of the last will and testament (-will-) of A;ada. A;ada allegedl1 named as his testamentar1 heirs his natural children >ulogio A;a5a (->ulogio-) and 'osario Cordova. Alipio is the son of >ulogio. )icanor Caponong (-Caponong-) opposed the petition on the ground that A;ada left no will when he died in !#37. Caponong further alleged that the will" if A;ada reall1 e?ecuted it" should ;e disallowed for the following reasons: (!) it was not e?ecuted and attested as re=uired ;1 lawD (,) it was not intended as the last will of the testatorD and ( ) it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the ;eneficiaries. Citing the same grounds invoked ;1 Caponong" the alleged intestate heirs of A;ada" namel1" .oel" .ulian" 6aB" >vangeline" &eronimo" @um;erto" Teodora and >lena A;ada (-.oel A;ada" et al.-)" and 8evi" 8eandro" Antonio" Florian" @ernani and Carmela Tronco (-8evi Tronco" et al.-)" also opposed the petition. The oppositors are the nephews" nieces and grandchildren of A;ada and Tora1. 4n ! 0eptem;er !#+$" Alipio filed another petition + ;efore the 'TC%La;ankalan" docketed as 06 )o. 72! ( !,%$++#)" for the pro;ate of the last will and testament of Tora1. Caponong" .oel A;ada" et al." and 8evi Tronco" et al. opposed the petition on the same grounds the1 cited in 06 )o. 727 ( ! %$++$). 4n ,7 0eptem;er !#+$" Caponong filed a petition 2 ;efore the 'TC%La;ankalan" docketed as 06 )o. 7+# ( 7#)" pra1ing for the issuance in his name of letters of administration of the intestate estate of A;ada and Tora1. In an 4rder dated !3 August !#$!" the 'TC%La;ankalan admitted to pro;ate the will of Tora1. 0ince the oppositors did not file an1 motion for reconsideration" the order allowing the pro;ate of Tora1Rs will ;ecame final and e?ecutor1.$ In an order dated , )ovem;er !##7" the 'TC%La;ankalan designated 9elinda Caponong%)o;le (-Caponong%)o;le-) 0pecial Administratri? of the estate of A;ada and Tora1. # Caponong%)o;le moved for the dismissal of the petition for pro;ate of the will of A;ada. The 'TC%La;ankalan denied the motion in an 4rder dated ,7 August !##!.!7 0ometime in !## " during the proceedings" 6residing .udge 'odolfo 0. 8a1umas discovered that in an 4rder dated !+ :arch !##," former 6residing .udge >dgardo Catilo had alread1 su;mitted the case for decision. Thus" the 'TC%La;ankalan rendered a 'esolution dated ,, .une !##3" as follows: There having ;een sufficient notice to the heirs as re=uired ;1 lawD that there is su;stantial compliance with the formalities of a Aill as the law directs and that the petitioner through his testimon1 and the deposition of Feli? &allinero was a;le to esta;lish the regularit1 of the e?ecution of the said Aill and further" there ;eing no evidence of ;ad faith and fraud" or su;stitution of the said Aill" the 8ast Aill and Testament of Alipio A;ada dated .une 3" !# , is admitted and allowed pro;ate. As pra1ed for ;1 counsel" )oel A;;ellar!! is appointed administrator of the estate of 6aula Tora1 who shall discharge his duties as such after letters of administration shall have ;een issued in his favor and after taking his oath and filing a ;ond in the amount of Ten Thousand (6!7"777.77) 6esos.

:rs. 9elinda C. )o;le" the present administratri? of the estate of Alipio A;ada shall continue discharging her duties as such until further orders from this Court. 04 4'D>'>D.!, The 'TC%La;ankalan ruled on the onl1 issue raised ;1 the oppositors in their motions to dismiss the petition for pro;ate" that is" whether the will of A;ada has an attestation clause as re=uired ;1 law. The 'TC%La;ankalan further held that the failure of the oppositors to raise an1 other matter forecloses all other issues. )ot satisfied with the 'esolution" Caponong%)o;le filed a notice of appeal. In a Decision promulgated on !, .anuar1 ,77!" the Court of Appeals affirmed the 'esolution of the 'TC% La;ankalan. The appellate court found that the 'TC%La;ankalan properl1 admitted to pro;ate the will of A;ada. @ence" the present recourse ;1 Caponong%)o;le. The Issues The petition raises the following issues: !. Ahat laws appl1 to the pro;ate of the last will of A;adaD ,. Ahether the will of A;ada re=uires acknowledgment ;efore a notar1 pu;licD ! . Ahether the will must e?pressl1 state that it is written in a language or dialect known to the testatorD 3. Ahether the will of A;ada has an attestation clause" and if so" whether the attestation clause complies with the re=uirements of the applica;le lawsD *. Ahether Caponong%)o;le is precluded from raising the issue of whether the will of A;ada is written in a language known to A;adaD +. Ahether evidence aliunde ma1 ;e resorted to in the pro;ate of the will of A;ada. The 'uling of the Court The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the 'TC%La;ankalan in admitting to pro;ate the will of A;ada. /$e "pplica le La% A;ada e?ecuted his will on 3 .une !# ,. The laws in force at that time are the Civil Code of !$$# or the 4ld Civil Code" and Act )o. !#7 or the Code of Civil 6rocedure !3 which governed the e?ecution of wills ;efore the enactment of the )ew Civil Code. The matter in dispute in the present case is the a../*.a.-on >3a+*/ in the will of A;ada. 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" as amended ;1 Act )o. ,+3*" !* governs the form of the attestation clause of A;adaRs will.!+ 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" as amended" provides:

0>C. +!$. -e!uisites of %ill. N )o will" e?cept as provided in the preceding section" !2 shall ;e valid to pass an1 estate" real or personal" nor charge or affect the same" unless it ;e written in the language or dialect known ;1 the testator and signed ;1 him" or ;1 the testatorRs name written ;1 some other person in his presence" and ;1 his e?press direction" and attested and su;scri;ed ;1 three or more credi;le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The testator or the person re=uested ;1 him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will" shall also sign" as aforesaid" each and ever1 page thereof" on the left margin" and said pages shall ;e num;ered correlativel1 in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet. The attestation shall state the num;er of sheets or pages used" upon which the will is written" and the fact that the testator signed the will and ever1 page thereof" or caused some other person to write his name" under his e?press direction" in the presence of three witnesses" and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. -e!uisites of a 7ill under t$e Code of Civil *rocedure Cnder 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" the re=uisites of a will are the following: (!) The will must ;e written in the language or dialect known ;1 the testatorD (,) The will must ;e signed ;1 the testator" or ;1 the testatorRs name written ;1 some other person in his presence" and ;1 his e?press directionD ( ) The will must ;e attested and su;scri;ed ;1 three or more credi;le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each otherD (3) The testator or the person re=uested ;1 him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will must sign each and ever1 page of the will on the left marginD (*) The pages of the will must ;e num;ered correlativel1 in letters placed on the upper part of each sheetD (+) The attestation shall state the num;er of sheets or pages used" upon which the will is written" and the fact that the testator signed the will and ever1 page of the will" or caused some other person to write his name" under his e?press direction" in the presence of three witnesses" and the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all pages of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. Caponong%)o;le asserts that the will of A;ada does not indicate that it is written in a language or dialect known to the testator. Further" she maintains that the will is not acknowledged ;efore a notar1 pu;lic. 0he cites in particular Articles $73 and $7* of the 4ld Civil Code" thus: Art. $73. >ver1 will must ;e in writing and e?ecuted in GaH language or dialect known to the testator. Art. $7+. >ver1 will must ;e acknowledged ;efore a notar1 pu;lic ;1 the testator and the witnesses. ??? !$ Caponong%)o;le actuall1 cited Articles $73 and $7+ of the N/@ Civil Code.!# Article $73 of the 4ld Civil Code is a;out the rights and o;ligations of administrators of the propert1 of an a;sentee" while Article $7+ of the 4ld Civil Code defines a legitime. Articles $73 and $7+ of the )ew Civil Code are new provisions. Article $73 of the )ew Civil Code is taken from 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure.,7 Article $7+ of the )ew Civil Code is taken from Article +$* of the 4ld Civil Code,! which provides:

Art. +$*. The notar1 and two of the witnesses who authenticate the will must ;e ac=uainted with the testator" or" should the1 not know him" he shall ;e identified ;1 two witnesses who are ac=uainted with him and are known to the notar1 and to the attesting witnesses. The notar1 and the witnesses shall also endeavor to assure themselves that the testator has" in their 5udgment" the legal capacit1 re=uired to make a will. Aitnesses authenticating a will without the attendance of a notar1" in cases falling under Articles 277 and 27!" are also re=uired to know the testator. @owever" the Code of Civil 6rocedure,, repealed Article +$* of the 4ld Civil Code. Cnder the Code of Civil 6rocedure" the intervention of a notar1 is not necessar1 in the e?ecution of any will., Therefore" A;adaRs will does not re=uire acknowledgment ;efore a notar1 pu;lic. 'a%p$i'.nEt Caponong%)o;le points out that nowhere in the will can one discern that A;ada knew the 0panish language. 0he alleges that such defect is fatal and must result in the disallowance of the will. 4n this issue" the Court of Appeals held that the matter was not raised in the motion to dismiss" and that it is now too late to raise the issue on appeal. Ae agree with Caponong%)o;le that the doctrine of estoppel does not appl1 in pro;ate proceedings.,3 In addition" the language used in the will is part of the re=uisites under 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure and the Court deems it proper to pass upon this issue. )evertheless" Caponong%)o;leRs contention must still fail. There is no statutor1 re=uirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the will. ,* This is a matter that a part1 ma1 esta;lish ;1 proof aliunde.,+ Caponong%)o;le further argues that Alipio" in his testimon1" has failed" among others" to show that A;ada knew or understood the contents of the will and the 0panish language used in the will. @owever" Alipio testified that A;ada used to gather 0panish%speaking people in their place. In these gatherings" A;ada and his companions would talk in the 0panish language. ,2 This sufficientl1 proves that A;ada speaks the 0panish language. /$e "ttestation Clause of " adaFs 7ill A scrutin1 of A;adaRs will shows that it has an attestation clause. The attestation clause of A;adaRs will reads: 0uscrito 1 declarado por el testador Alipio A;ada como su ultima voluntad 1 testamento en presencia de nosotros" ha;iendo tam;ien el testador firmado en nuestra presencia en el margen iB=uierdo de todas 1 cada una de las ho5as del mismo. / en testimonio de ello" cada uno de nosotros lo firmamos en presencia de nosotros 1 del testador al pie de este documento 1 en el margen iB=uierdo de todas 1 cada una de las dos ho5as de =ue esta compuesto el mismo" las cuales estan paginadas correlativamente con las letras -C)4- 1 -D40R en la parte superior de la carrilla. ,$ Caponong%)o;le proceeds to point out several defects in the attestation clause. Caponong%)o;le alleges that the attestation clause fails to state the num;er of pages on which the will is written. The allegation has no merit. The phrase -en el margen iz!uierdo de todas y cada una de las dos $ojas de !ue esta compuesto el mismo - which means -in the left margin of each and ever1 one of the two pages consisting of the same- shows that the will consists of two pages. The pages are num;ered correlativel1 with the letters -4)>- and -TA4- as can ;e gleaned from the phrase - las cuales estan paginadas correlativamente con las letras .30A. y .&AS.Caponong%)o;le further alleges that the attestation clause fails to state e?pressl1 that the testator signed the will and its ever1 page in the presence of three witnesses. 0he then faults the Court of Appeals for appl1ing to the present case the rule on su;stantial compliance found in Article $7# of the )ew Civil Code.,#

The first sentence of the attestation clause reads: -Suscrito y declarado por el testador "lipio " ada como su ultima voluntad y testamento en presencia de nosotros, $a iendo tam ien el testador firmado en nuestra presencia en el margen iz!uierdo de todas y cada una de las $ojas del mismo .- The >nglish translation is: -0u;scri;ed and professed ;1 the testator Alipio A;ada as his last will and testament in our presence" the testator having also signed it in our presence on the left margin of each and ever1 one of the pages of the same.- The attestation clause clearl1 states that A;ada signed the will and its ever1 page in the presence of the witnesses. @owever" Caponong%)o;le is correct in sa1ing that the attestation clause does not indicate the num;er of witnesses. 4n this point" the Court agrees with the appellate court in appl1ing the rule on su;stantial compliance in determining the num;er of witnesses. Ahile the attestation clause does not state the num;er of witnesses" a close inspection of the will shows that three witnesses signed it. This Court has applied the rule on su;stantial compliance even ;efore the effectivit1 of the )ew Civil Code. In Dichoso de Ticson v. De Gorostiza" 7 the Court recogniBed that there are two divergent tendencies in the law on wills" one ;eing ;ased on strict construction and the other on li;eral construction. In Dichoso" the Court noted that " angan v. " angan" ! the ;asic case on the li;eral construction" is cited with approval in later decisions of the Court. In Adeva vda. De Leynez v. Leynez" , the petitioner" arguing for li;eral construction of applica;le laws" enumerated a long line of cases to support her argument while the respondent" contending that the rule on strict construction should appl1" also cited a long series of cases to support his view. The Court" after e?amining the cases invoked ;1 the parties" held: ? ? ? It is" of course" not possi;le to la1 down a general rule" rigid and infle?i;le" which would ;e applica;le to all cases. :ore than an1thing else" the facts and circumstances of record are to ;e considered in the application of an1 given rule. If the surrounding circumstances point to a regular e?ecution of the will" and the instrument appears to have ;een e?ecuted su;stantiall1 in accordance with the re=uirements of the law" the inclination should" in the a;sence of an1 suggestion of ;ad faith" forger1 or fraud" lean towards its admission to pro;ate" although the document ma1 suffer from some imperfection of language" or other non%essential defect. ? ? ?. An attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving" in permanent form" a record of the facts attending the e?ecution of the will" so that in case of failure of the memor1 of the su;scri;ing witnesses" or other casualt1" the1 ma1 still ;e proved. (Thompson on Aills" ,d ed." sec. ! ,.) A will" therefore" should not ;e re5ected where its attestation clause serves the purpose of the law. ? ? ? 'aGH4p$i'.net Ae rule to appl1 the li;eral construction in the pro;ate of A;adaRs will. A;adaRs will clearl1 shows four signatures: that of A;ada and of three other persons. It is reasona;le to conclude that there are three witnesses to the will. The =uestion on the num;er of the witnesses is answered ;1 an e?amination of the will itself and without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde. The Court e?plained the e?tent and limits of the rule on li;eral construction" thus: GTHhe so%called li;eral rule does not offer an1 puBBle or difficult1" nor does it open the door to serious conse=uences. The later decisions do tell us when and where to stopD the1 draw the dividing line with precision. 1/y do no. a33o@ /8-d/n>/ aliunde .o =-33 a 8o-d -n any 2a,. o= .1/ do>+7/n. o, *+223y 7-**-n5 d/.a-3* .1a. *1o+3d a22/a, -n .1/ @-33 -.*/3=. l^vvphi1.net 1/y on3y 2/,7-. a 2,o0/ -n.o .1/ @-33, an /A23o,a.-on @-.1-n -.* >on=-n/*, .o a*>/,.a-n -.* 7/an-n5 o, .o d/./,7-n/ .1/ /A-*./n>/ o, a0*/n>/ o= .1/ ,/B+-*-./ =o,7a3-.-/* o= 3a@. This clear" sharp limitation eliminates uncertaint1 and ought to ;anish an1 fear of dire results. 3 (>mphasis supplied) The phrase -en presencia de nosotros- or -in our presence- coupled with the signatures appearing on the will itself and after the attestation clause could onl1 mean that: (!) A;ada su;scri;ed to and professed

;efore the three witnesses that the document was his last will" and (,) A;ada signed the will and the left margin of each page of the will in the presence of these three witnesses. Finall1" Caponong%)o;le alleges that the attestation clause does not e?pressl1 state the circumstances that the witnesses @-.n/**/d and signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the testator and of each other. This Court has ruled: 6recision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is desira;le. @owever" it is not imperative that a parrot%like cop1 of the words of the statute ;e made. It is sufficient if from the language emplo1ed it can reasona;l1 ;e deduced that the attestation clause fulfills what the law e?pects of it. * The last part of the attestation clause states - en testimonio de ello, cada uno de nosotros lo firmamos en presencia de nosotros y del testador.- In >nglish" this means -in its witness" ever1 one of us also signed in our presence and of the testator.- This clearl1 shows that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing of the will of the testator" and that each witness signed the will in the presence of one another and of the testator. 9!EREFORE" we AFFI': the Decision of the Court of Appeals of !, .anuar1 ,77! in CA%&.'. C( )o. 32+33. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 10355) May (8, 1993 EODORO %ANEDA, LORENZA %ANEDA, ERE'A %ANEDA, &UAN %A"ALLERO, AUREA %A"ALLERO, O'%AR LARO'A, !ELEN %A"ALLERO, 'AN O' %A"ALLERO, $A"LO %A"ALLERO, V#% OR RAGA, MAUR#%#A RAGA, 6U#R#%A RAGA, RU$ER O A"A$O, ,/2,/*/n./d 1/,/-n 0y 1-* A..o,n/y--n-Fa>., ARM' #%#A C A"A$O VELANO, and %ON'E'O %ANEDA, ,/2,/*/n./d 1/,/-n 0y 1-* 1/-,*, &E'U' %ANEDA, NA #V#DAD %ANEDA and AR URO %ANEDA, vs. !ON. %OUR OF A$$EAL' and 9#LL#AM %A"RERA, a* '2/>-a3 Ad7-n-*.,a.o, o= .1/ E*.a./ o= Ma./o %a0a33/,o, 6resented for resolution ;1 this Court in the present petition for review on certiorari is the issue of whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and testament of the late :ateo Ca;allero complies with the re=uirements of Article $7*" in relation to Article $7#" of the Civil Code. The records show that on Decem;er *" !#2$" :ateo Ca;allero" a widower without an1 children and alread1 in the twilight 1ears of his life" e?ecuted a last will and testament at his residence in Talisa1" Ce;u ;efore three attesting witnesses" namel1" Cipriano 8a;uca" &regorio Ca;ando and Flaviano Toregosa. The said testator was dul1 assisted ;1 his law1er" Att1. >milio 8umontad" and a notar1 pu;lic" Att1. Filoteo :anigos" in the preparation of that last will. 1 It was declared therein" among other things" that the testator was leaving ;1 wa1 of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to 6resentacion &aviola" Angel A;ata1o" 'ogelio A;ata1o" Isa;elito A;ata1o" 9enoni &. Ca;rera and :arcosa Alcantara" all of whom do not appear to ;e related to the testator. ( Four months later" or on April 3" !#2#" :ateo Ca;allero himself filed a petition docketed as 0pecial 6roceeding )o. $##%' ;efore 9ranch II of the then Court of First Instance of Ce;u seeking the pro;ate of his last will and testament. The pro;ate court set the petition for hearing on August ,7" !#2# ;ut the same and su;se=uent scheduled hearings were postponed for one reason to another. 4n :a1 ,#" !#$7" the testator passed awa1 ;efore his petition could finall1 ;e heard ;1 the pro;ate court. 3 4n Fe;ruar1 ,*" !#$!" 9enoni Ca;rera" on of the legatees named in the will" sough his appointment as special administrator of the testator<s estate" the estimated value of which was 6,3"777.77" and he was so appointed ;1 the pro;ate court in its order of :arch +" !#$!. )

Thereafter" herein petitioners" claiming to ;e nephews and nieces of the testator" instituted a second petition" entitled -In the :atter of the Intestate >state of :ateo Ca;allero- and docketed as 0pecial 6roceeding )o. #+*%'" ;efore 9ranch IM of the aforesaid Court of First Instance of Ce;u. 4n 4cto;er !$" !#$," herein petitioners had their said petition intestate proceeding consolidated with 0pecial 6roceeding )o. $##%' in 9ranch II of the Court of First Instance of Ce;u and opposed thereat the pro;ate of the Testator<s will and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate. 5 9enoni Ca;rera died on Fe;ruar1 $" !#$, hence the pro;ate court" now known as 9ranch M( of the 'egional Trial Court of Ce;u" appointed Ailliam Ca;rera as special administrator on .une ,!" !#$ . Thereafter" on .ul1 ,7" !#$ " it issued an order for the return of the records of 0pecial 6roceeding )o. #+*%' to the archives since the testate proceeding for the pro;ate of the will had to ;e heard and resolved first. 4n :arch ,+" !#$3 the case was reraffled and eventuall1 assigned to 9ranch MII of the 'egional Trial Court of Ce;u where it remained until the conclusion of the pro;ate proceedings. 6 In the course of the hearing in 0pecial 6roceeding )o. $##%'" herein petitioners appeared as oppositors and o;5ected to the allowance of the testator<s will on the ground that on the alleged date of its e?ecution" the testator was alread1 in the poor state of health such that he could not have possi;l1 e?ecuted the same. 6etitioners likewise reiterated the issue as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator therein. 7 4n the other hand" one of the attesting witnesses" Cipriano 8a;uca" and the notar1 pu;lic Att1. Filoteo :anigos" testified that the testator e?ecuted the will in =uestion in their presence while he was of sound and disposing mind and that" contrar1 to the assertions of the oppositors" :ateo Ca;allero was in good health and was not undul1 influenced in an1 wa1 in the e?ecution of his will. 8a;uca also testified that he and the other witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The other two attesting witnesses were not presented in the pro;ate hearing as the had died ;1 then. 8 4n April *" !#$$" the pro;ate court rendered a decision declaring the will in =uestion as the last will and testament of the late :ateo Ca;allero" on the ratiocination that: . . . The self%serving testimon1 of the two witnesses of the oppositors cannot overcome the positive testimonies of Att1. Filoteo :anigos and Cipriano 8a;uca who clearl1 told the Court that indeed :ateo Ca;allero e?ecuted the 8ast Aill and Testament now marked >?hi;it -C- on Decem;er *" !#2$. :oreover" the fact that it was :ateo Ca;allero who initiated the pro;ate of his Aill during his lifetime when he caused the filing of the original petition now marked >?hi;it -D- clearl1 underscores the fact that this was indeed his 8ast Aill. At the start" counsel for the oppositors manifested that he would want the signature of :ateo Ca;allero in >?hi;it -C- e?amined ;1 a handwriting e?pert of the )9I ;ut it would seem that despite their avowal and intention for the e?amination of this signature of :ateo Ca;allero in >?hi;it -C-" nothing came out of it ;ecause the1 a;andoned the idea and instead presented Aurea Ca;allero and @elen Ca;allero Campo as witnesses for the oppositors. All told" it is the finding of this Court that >?hi;it -C- is the 8ast Aill and Testament of :ateo Ca;allero and that it was e?ecuted in accordance with all the re=uisites of the law.
9

Cndaunted ;1 the said 5udgment of the pro;ate court" petitioners elevated the case in the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. !#++#. The1 asserted therein that the will in =uestion is null and void for the reason that its attestation clause is fatall1 defective since it fails to specificall1 state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that the1 also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

4n 4cto;er !*" !##!" respondent court promulgated its decision 10 affirming that of the trial court" and ruling that the attestation clause in the last will of :ateo Ca;allero su;stantiall1 complies with Article $7* of the Civil Code" thus: The =uestion therefore is whether the attestation clause in =uestion ma1 ;e considered as having su;stantial1 complied with the re=uirements of Art. $7* of the Civil Code. Ahat appears in the attestation clause which the oppositors claim to ;e defective is -we do certif1 that the testament was read ;1 him and the attestator" :ateo Ca;allero" has pu;lished unto us the foregoing will consisting of T@'>> 6A&>0" including the acknowledgment" each page num;ered correlativel1 in letters of the upper part of each page" as his 8ast Aill and Testament" and $e $as signed t$e same and every page t$ereof, on t$e spaces provided for $is signature and on t$e left $and margin in t$e presence of t$e said testator and in t$e presence of eac$ and all of us (emphasis supplied). To our thinking" this is sufficient compliance and no evidence need ;e presented to indicate the meaning that the said will was signed ;1 the testator and ;1 them (the witnesses) in the presence of all of them and of one another. 4r as the language of the law would have it that the testator signed the will -in the presence of the instrumental witnesses" and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.- If not completel1 or ideall1 perfect in accordance with the wordings of Art. $7* ;ut (sic) the phrase as formulated is in su;stantial compliance with the re=uirement of the law.- 11 6etitioners moved for the reconsideration of the said ruling of respondent court" ;ut the same was denied in the latter<s resolution of .anuar1 !3" !##," 1( hence this appeal now ;efore us. 6etitioners assert that respondent court has ruled upon said issue in a manner not in accord with the law and settled 5urisprudence on the matter and are now =uestioning once more" on the same ground as that raised ;efore respondent court" the validit1 of the attestation clause in the last will of :ateo Ca;allero. Ae find the present petition to ;e meritorious" as we shall shortl1 hereafter" after some prefator1 o;servations which we feel should ;e made in aid of the rationale for our resolution of the controvers1. !. A will has ;een defined as a species of conve1ance where;1 a person is permitted" with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law" to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate after his death. 13 Cnder the Civil Code" there are two kinds of wills which a testator ma1 e?ecute. 1) the first kind is the ordinar1 or attested will" the e?ecution of which is governed ;1 Articles $73 to $7# of the Code. Article $7* re=uires that: Art. $7*. >ver1 will" other than a holographic will" must ;e su;scri;ed at the end thereof ;1 the testator himself or ;1 the testator<s name written ;1 some other person in his presence" and ;1 his e?press direction" and attested and su;scri;ed ;1 three or more credi;le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The testator or the person re=uested ;1 him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will" shall also sign" as aforesaid" each and ever1 page thereof" e?cept the last" on the left margin" and all the pages shall ;e num;ered correlativel1 in letters placed on the upper part of each page. The attestation should state the num;er of pages used upon which the will is written" and the fact that the testator signed the will and ever1 page thereof" or caused some other person to write his name" under his e?press direction" in the presence of the instrumental witnesses" and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witness" it shall ;e interpreted to them. In addition" the ordinar1 will must ;e acknowledged ;efore a notar1 pu;lic ;1 a testator and the attesting witness. 15 hence it is likewise known as notarial will. Ahere the attestator is deaf or deaf%mute" Article $72 re=uires that he must personall1 read the will" if a;le to do so. 4therwise" he should designate two persons who would read the will and communicate its contents to him in a practica;le manner. 4n the other hand" if the testator is ;lind" the will should ;e read to him twiceD once" ;1 an1one of the witnesses thereto" and then again" ;1 the notar1 pu;lic ;efore whom it is acknowledged. 16 The other kind of will is the holographic will" which Article $!7 defines as one that is entirel1 written" dated" and signed ;1 the testator himself. This kind of will" unlike the ordinar1 t1pe" re=uires no attestation ;1 witnesses. A common re=uirement in ;oth kinds of will is that the1 should ;e in writing and must have ;een e?ecuted in a language or dialect known to the testator. 17 @owever" in the case of an ordinar1 or attested will" its attestation clause need not ;e written in a language or dialect known to the testator since it does not form part of the testamentar1 disposition. Furthermore" the language used in the attestation clause likewise need not even ;e known to the attesting witnesses. 18 The last paragraph of Article $7* merel1 re=uires that" in such a case" the attestation clause shall ;e interpreted to said witnesses. An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinar1 will where;1 the attesting witnesses certif1 that the instrument has ;een e?ecuted ;efore them and to the manner of the e?ecution the same. 19 It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of e?ecution and once signed ;1 the witnesses" it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities re=uired ;1 law has ;een o;served. (0 It is made for the purpose of preserving in a permanent form a record of the facts that attended the e?ecution of a particular will" so that in case of failure of the memor1 of the attesting witnesses" or other casualt1" such facts ma1 still ;e proved. (1 Cnder the third paragraph of Article $7*" such a clause" the complete lack of which would result in the invalidit1 of the will" (( should state (!) t$e num er of t$e pages used upon which the will is writtenD (,) that the testator signed" or e?pressl1 caused another to sign" the will and ever1 page thereof in t$e presence of t$e attesting %itnessesD and ( ) that the attesting %itnesses %itnessed t$e signing y t$e testator of t$e %ill and all its pages" and that said %itnesses also signed t$e %ill and ever1 page thereof in t$e presence of t$e testator and of one anot$er. The purpose of the law in re=uiring the clause to state the num;er of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against possi;le interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent an1 increase or decrease in the pagesD (3 whereas the su;scription of the signature of the testator and the attesting witnesses is made for the purpose of authentication and identification" and thus indicates that the will is the ver1 same instrument e?ecuted ;1 the testator and attested to ;1 the witnesses. () Further" ;1 attesting and su;scri;ing to the will" the witnesses there;1 declare the due e?ecution of the will as em;odied in the attestation clause. (5 The attestation clause" therefore" provide strong legal guaranties for the due e?ecution of a will and to insure the authenticit1 thereof. (6 As it appertains onl1 to the witnesses and not to the testator" it need ;e signed onl1 ;1 them. (7 Ahere it is left unsigned" it would result in the invalidation of the will as it would ;e possi;le and eas1 to add the clause on a su;se=uent occasion in the a;sence of the testator and its witnesses. (8 In its report" the Code Commission commented on the reasons of the law for re=uiring the formalities to ;e followed in the e?ecution of wills" in the following manner: The underl1ing and fundamental o;5ectives permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this 6ro5ect consists in the li;eraliBation of the manner of their e?ecution with the end in

view of giving the testator more freedom in e?pressing his last wishes" ;ut with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the e?ercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This o;5ective is in accord with the modern tendenc1 with respect to the formalities in the e?ecution of wills. . . . (9 ,. An e?amination of the last will and testament of :ateo Ca;allero shows that it is comprised of three sheets all of which have ;een num;ered correlativel1" with the left margin of each page thereof ;earing the respective signatures of the testator and the three attesting witnesses. The part of the will containing the testamentar1 dispositions is e?pressed in the Ce;uano%(isa1an dialect and is signed at the foot thereof ;1 the testator. The attestation clause in =uestion" on the other hand" is recited in the >nglish language and is likewise signed at the end thereof ;1 the three attesting witnesses hereto. 30 0ince it is the prover;ial ;one of contention" we reproduce it again for facilit1 of reference: Ae" the undersigned attesting Aitnesses" whose 'esidences and postal addresses appear on the 4pposite of our respective names" we do here;1 certif1 that the Testament was read ;1 him and the testator" :AT>4 CA9A88>'4D has pu;lished unto us the foregoing Aill consisting of T@'>> 6A&>0" including the Acknowledgment" each page num;ered correlativel1 in the letters on the upper part of each page" as his 8ast Aill and Testament and he has the same and ever1 page thereof" on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin" in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of us. It will ;e noted that Article $7* re=uires that the witness should ;oth attest and su;scri;e to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another. -Attestation- and -su;scription- differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of senses" while su;scription is the act of the hand. The former is mental" the latter mechanical" and to attest a will is to know that it was pu;lished as such" and to certif1 the facts re=uired to constitute an actual and legal pu;licationD ;ut to su;scri;e a paper pu;lished as a will is onl1 to write on the same paper the names of the witnesses" for the sole purpose of identification. 31 In /a oada vs. -izal" 3( we clarified that attestation consists in witnessing the testator<s e?ecution of the will in order to see and take note mentall1 that those things are done which the statute re=uires for the e?ecution of a will and that the signature of the testator e?ists as a fact. 4n the other hand" su;scription is the signing of the witnesses< names upon the same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was e?ecuted ;1 the testator. As it involves a mental act" there would ;e no means" therefore" of ascertaining ;1 a ph1sical e?amination of the will whether the witnesses had indeed signed in the presence of the testator and of each other unless this is su;stantiall1 e?pressed in the attestation. It is contended ;1 petitioners that the afore=uoted attestation clause" in contravention of the e?press re=uirements of the third paragraph of Article $7* of the Civil Code for attestation clauses" fails to specificall1 state the fact that the attesting witnesses the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that the1" the witnesses" likewise signed the will and ever1 page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. Ae agree. Ahat is fairl1 apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact 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 num;er of pages that were used" the same does not e?pressl1 state therein the circumstance that said witnesses su;scri;ed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The phrase -and he has signed the same and ever1 page thereof" on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin"- o;viousl1 refers to the testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediatel1 preceded ;1 the words -as his 8ast Aill and Testament.- 4n the other hand" although

the words -in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of us- ma1" at first ;lush" appear to likewise signif1 and refer to the witnesses" it must" however" ;e interpreted as referring onl1 to the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since said phrase immediatel1 follows the words - $e has signed the same and ever1 page thereof" on the spaces provided for $is signature and on the left hand margin.- Ahat is then clearl1 lacking" in the final logical anal1sis " is t$e statement t$at t$e %itnesses signed t$e %ill and every page t$ereof in t$e presence of t$e testator and of one anot$er . It is our considered view that the a;sence of that statement re=uired ;1 law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessaril1 result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to ;e admitted to pro;ate. 6etitioners are correct in pointing out that the aforestated defect in the attestation clause o;viousl1 cannot ;e characteriBed as merel1 involving the form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the application of the su;stantial compliance rule" as contemplated in the pertinent provision thereon in the Civil Code" to wit: Art. $7#. In the a;sence of ;ad faith" forger1" or fraud" or undue and improper pressure and influence" defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in t$e language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact e?ecuted and attested in su;stantial compliance with all the re=uirements of article $7*(>mphasis supplied.) Ahile it ma1 ;e true that the attestation clause is indeed su;scri;ed at the end thereof and at the left margin of each page ;1 the three attesting witnesses" it certainl1 cannot ;e conclusivel1 inferred therefrom that the said witness affi?ed their respective signatures in the presence of the testator and of each other since" as petitioners correctl1 o;served" the presence of said signatures onl1 esta;lishes the fact that it was indeed signed" ;ut it does not prove that the attesting witnesses did su;scri;e to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The e?ecution of a will is supposed to ;e one act so that where the testator and the witnesses sign on various da1s or occasions and in various com;inations" the will cannot ;e stamped with the imprimatur of effectivit1. 33 Ae ;elieve that the further comment of former .ustice ..9.8. 'e1es 3) regarding Article $7#" wherein he urged caution in the application of the su;stantial compliance rule therein" is correct and should ;e applied in the case under consideration" as well as to future cases with similar =uestions: . . . The rule must ;e limited to disregarding those defects that can ;e supplied ;1 an e?amination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutivel1 num;eredD whether the signatures appear in each and ever1 pageD whether the su;scri;ing witnesses are three or the will was notariBed. All theses are facts that the will itself can reveal" and defects or even omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can ;e safel1 disregarded. 9ut the total num;er of pages" and %$et$er all persons re!uired to sign did so in t$e presence of eac$ ot$er must su stantially appear in t$e attestation clause, eing t$e only c$ec# against perjury in t$e pro ate proceedings . (>mphasis ours.) . Ae stress once more that under Article $7#" the defects and imperfections must onl1 ;e with respect to the form of the attestation or the language emplo1ed therein. 0uch defects or imperfections would not render a will invalid should it ;e proved that the will was reall1 e?ecuted and attested in compliance with Article $7*. In this regard" however" the manner of proving the due e?ecution and attestation has ;een held to ;e limited to merel1 an e?amination of the will itself without resorting to evidence aliunde" whether oral or written. The foregoing considerations do not appl1 where the attestation clause totall1 omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and ever1 page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. 35 In such a situation" the defect is not onl1 in the form or language of the attestation clause ;ut the total a;sence of a specific element re=uired ;1 Article $7* to ;e specificall1 stated in the attestation clause of a will. That is precisel1 the defect complained of in the present case since there is no plausi;le

wa1 ;1 which we can read into the =uestioned attestation clause statement" or an implication thereof" that the attesting witness did actuall1 ;ear witness to the signing ;1 the testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instrumental witnesses also signed the will and ever1 page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. Furthermore" the rule on su;stantial compliance in Article $7# cannot ;e revoked or relied on ;1 respondents since it presupposes that the defects in the attestation clause can ;e cured or supplied ;1 the te?t of the will or a consideration of matters apparent therefrom which would provide the data not e?pressed in the attestation clause or from which it ma1 necessaril1 ;e gleaned or clearl1 inferred that the acts not stated in the omitted te?tual re=uirements were actuall1 complied within the e?ecution of the will. In other words" defects must ;e remedied ;1 intrinsic evidence supplied ;1 the will itself. In the case at ;ar" contraril1" proof of the acts re=uired to have ;een performed ;1 the attesting witnesses can ;e supplied ;1 onl1 e?trinsic evidence thereof" since an overall appreciation of the contents of the will 1ields no ;asis whatsoever from with such facts ma1 ;e plausi;l1 deduced. Ahat private respondent insists on are the testimonies of his witnesses alleging that the1 saw the compliance with such re=uirements ;1 the instrumental witnesses" o;livious of the fact that he is there;1 resorting to e?trinsic evidence to prove the same and would accordingl1 ;e doing ;1 the indirection what in law he cannot do directl1. 3. 6rior to the advent of the Civil Code on August 7" !#*7" there was a divergence of views as to which manner of interpretation should ;e followed in resolving issues centering on compliance with the legal formalities re=uired in the e?ecution of wills. The formal re=uirements were at that time em;odied primaril1 in 0ection +!$ of Act )o. !#7" the Code of Civil 6rocedure. 0aid section was later amended ;1 Act )o. ,+3*" ;ut the provisions respecting said formalities found in Act. )o. !#7 and the amendment thereto were practicall1 reproduced and adopted in the Civil Code. 4ne view advance the li;eral or su;stantial compliance rule. This was first laid down in the case of " angan vs. " angan" 36 where it was held that the o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of wills is to close the door against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticit1. Therefore" the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in such a wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. )onetheless" it was also emphasiBed that one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise of the right to make a will" hence when an interpretation alread1 given assures such ends" an1 other interpretation whatsoever that adds nothing ;ut demands more re=uisites entirel1 unnecessar1" useless and frustrative of the testator<s last will" must ;e disregarded. The su;se=uent cases of "vera vs. Barcia" 37 "lda a vs. -o!ue" 38 3nson vs. " ella" 39 *ecson vs. Coronel" )0 >ernandez vs. ?ergel de &ios, et al." )1 and 0ayve vs. 6ojal, et al. )( all adhered to this position. The other view which advocated the rule that statutes which prescri;e the formalities that should ;e o;served in the e?ecution of wills are mandator1 in nature and are to ;e strictl1 construed was followed in the su;se=uent cases of In t$e 6atter of t$e Estate of Saguinsin" )3 In re 7ill of "ndrada" )) 3y Co!ue vs. Sioca" )5 In re Estate of 0eumar#" )6 and Sano vs. 5uintana. )7 Bum an vs. Borec$o, et al." )8 provided the Court with the occasion to clarif1 the seemingl1 conflicting decisions in the aforementioned cases. In said case of Bum an" the attestation clause had failed to state that the witnesses signed the will and each and ever1 page thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator. The will in =uestion was disallowed" with these reasons therefor: In support of their argument on the assignment of error a;ove%mentioned" appellants rel1 on a series of cases of this court ;eginning with (I)n the :atter of the (>)state of 0aguinsin (G!#,7H" 3! 6hil." $2*)" continuing with In re Aill of Andrada G!#,!H" 3, 6hil." !$7)" C1 Co=ue vs. )avas 8. 0ioca G!#,,H" 3 6hil." 37*)" and In re >state of )eumark (G!#, H" 3+ 6hil." $3!)" and ending with Sano vs. 5uintana (G!#,*H" 3$ 6hil." *7+).

Appellee counters with the citation of a series of cases ;eginning with " angan vs. " angan (G!#!#H" 37 6hil." 32+)" continuing through "lda a vs. -o!ue (G!#,,H" 3 6hil." 2$)" and >ernandez vs. ?ergel de &ios (G!#,3H" 3+ 6hil." #,,)" and culminating in 0ayve vs. 6ojal and "guilar (G!#,3H" 32 6hil." !*,). In its last anal1sis" our task is to contrast and" if possi;le" conciliate the last two decisions cited ;1 opposing counsel" namel1" those of Sano vs. 5uintana" supra" and 0ayve vs. 6ojal and "guilar" supra. In the case of Sano vs. 5uintana" supra" it was decided that an attestation clause which does not recite that the witnesses signed the will and each and ever1 page thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator is defective" and such a defect annuls the will. The case of 3y Co!ue vs. Sioca" supra" was cited" ;ut the case of 0ayve vs. 6ojal and "guilar" supra" was not mentioned. In contrast" is the decision in 0ayve vs. 6ojal and "guilar" supra" wherein it was held that the attestation clause must estate the fact that the testator and the witnesses reciprocall1 saw the signing of the will" for such an act cannot ;e proved ;1 the mere e?hi;ition of the will" if it is not stated therein. It was also held that the fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and ever1 page of the will can ;e proved also ;1 the mere e?amination of the signatures appearing on the document itself" and the omission to state such evident facts does not invalidate the will. It is a ha;it of courts to reaffirm or distinguish previous casesD seldom do the1 admit inconsistenc1 in doctrine. /et here" unless aided impossi;le to reconcile the :o5al and Iuintana decisions. The1 are fundamentall1 at variance. If we rel1 on one" we affirm. If we rel1 on the other" we reverse. In resolving this puBBling =uestion of authorit1" three outstanding points ma1 ;e mentioned. In the first place" the :o5al" decision was concurred in ;1 onl1 four mem;ers of the court" less than a ma5orit1" with two strong dissenting opinionsD the Iuintana decision was concurred in ;1 seven mem;ers of the court" a clear ma5orit1" with one formal dissent. In the second place" the :o5al decision was promulgated in Decem;er" !#,3" while the Iuintana decision was promulgated in Decem;er" !#,*D the Iuintana decision was thus su;se=uent in point of time. And in the third place" the Iuintana decision is ;elieved more nearl1 to conform to the applica;le provisions of the law. The right to dispose of propert1 ;1 will is governed entirel1 ;1 statute. The law of the case is here found in section +! of the Code of Civil 6rocedure as amended ;1 Act )o. ,+3*" and in section + 3 of the same Code" as unamended. It is in part provided in section +!" as amended that -)o %ill . . . s$all e valid . . . unless . . ..- It is further provided in the same section that -The attestation s$all state the num;er of sheets or pages used" upon which the will is written" and the fact that the testator signed the will and ever1 page thereof" or caused some other person to write his name" under his e?press direction" in the presence of three witnesses" and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.- Codal section + 3 provides that -The will s$all ;e disallowed in either of the following case: !. If not e?ecuted and attested as in this Act provided.- The law not alone carefull1 makes use of the imperative" ;ut cautiousl1 goes further and makes use of the negative" to enforce legislative intention. It is not within the province of the courts to disregard the legislative purpose so emphaticall1 and clearl1 e?pressed. Ae adopt and reaffirm the decision in the case of Sano vs. 5uintana" supra" and" to the e?tent necessar1" modif1 the decision in the case of 0ayve vs. 6ojal and "guilar" supra. (>mphases in the original te?t). 9ut after the Bum an clarificator1 pronouncement" there were decisions of the Court that once more appeared to revive the seeming diversit1 of views that was earlier threshed out therein. The cases of 5uinto vs. 6orata" )9 -odriguez vs. "lcala" 50 Enc$evarria vs. Sarmiento" 51 and /estate Estate of /oray 5(

went the wa1 of the ruling as restated in Bum an. 9ut &e Bala vs. Bonzales, et al." 53 -ey vs. Cartagena" 5) &e /icson vs. &e Borostiza" 55 Se astian vs. *angani an" 56 -odriguez vs. Iap" 57 Brey vs. >a ia" 58 Leynez vs. Leynez" 59 6artir vs. 6artir" 60 "lcala vs. &e ?illa" 61 Sa ado vs. >ernandez" 6( 6endoza vs. *ilapil" 63 and Lopez vs. Li oro" 6) veered awa1 from the strict interpretation rule and esta;lished a trend toward an application of the li;eral view. The Code Commission" cogniBant of such a conflicting welter of views and of the undenia;le inclination towards a li;eral construction" recommended the codification of the su;stantial compliance rule" as it ;elieved this rule to ;e in accord with the modern tendenc1 to give a li;eral approach to the interpretation of wills. 0aid rule thus ;ecame what is now Article $7# of the Civil Code" with this e?planation of the Code Commission: The present law provides for onl1 one form of e?ecuting a will" and that is" in accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure as amended ;1 Act )o. ,+3*. The 0upreme Court of the 6hilippines had previousl1 upheld the strict compliance with the legal formalities and had even said that the provisions of 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" as amended regarding the contents of the attestation clause were mandator1" and non%compliance therewith invalidated the will (C1 Co=ue vs. 0ioca" 3 6hil. 37*). These decisions necessaril1 restrained the freedom of the testator in disposing of his propert1. @owever" in recent 1ears the 0upreme Court changed its attitude and has ;ecome more li;eral in the interpretation of the formalities in the e?ecution of wills. This li;eral view is enunciated in the cases of -odriguez vs. Iap" &.'. )o. 3*#,3" :a1 !$" !# #D Leynez vs. Leynez" &.'. )o. 3+7#2" 4cto;er !$" !# #D 6artir vs. 6artir" &.'. )o. 3+##*" .une ,!" !#37D and "lcala vs. ?illa" &.'. )o. 32 *!" April !$" !#3!. In the a;ove mentioned decisions of our 0upreme Court" it has practicall1 gone ;ack to the original provisions of 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure ;efore its amendment ;1 Act )o. ,+3* in the 1ear !#!+. To turn this attitude into a legislative declaration and to attain the main o;5ective of the proposed Code in the li;eraliBation of the manner of e?ecuting wills" article $,# of the 6ro5ect is recommended" which reads: -Art. $,#. In the a;sence of ;ad faith" forger1" or fraud" or undue and improper pressure and influence" defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact e?ecuted and attested in su;stantial compliance with all the re=uirements of article $,#.- 65 The so%called li;eral rule" the Court said in Bil vs. 6urciano" 66 -does not offer an1 puBBle or difficult1" nor does it open the door to serious conse=uences. The later decisions do tell us when and where to stopD the1 draw the dividing line with precision. The1 do not allow evidence aliunde to fill a void in an1 part of the document or suppl1 missing details that should appear in the will itself. The1 onl1 permit a pro;e into the will" an e?ploration into its confines" to ascertain its meaning or to determine the e?istence or a;sence of the re=uisite formalities of law. This clear" sharp limitation eliminates uncertaint1 and ought to ;anish an1 fear of dire results.It ma1 thus ;e stated that the rule" as it now stands" is that omissions which can ;e supplied ;1 an e?amination of the will itself" without the need of resorting to e?trinsic evidence" will not ;e fatal and" correspondingl1" would not o;struct the allowance to pro;ate of the will ;eing assailed. @owever" those omissions which cannot ;e supplied e?cept ;1 evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimatel1" of the will itself. 67

A@>'>F4'>" the petition is here;1 &'A)T>D and the impugned decision of respondent court is here;1 '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>. The court a !uo is accordingl1 directed to forthwith DI0:I00 its 0pecial 6roceeding )o. $##%' (6etition for the 6ro;ate of the 8ast Aill and Testament of :ateo Ca;allero) and to '>(I(> 0pecial 6roceeding )o. #+*%' (In the matter of the Intestate >state of :ateo Ca;allero) as an active case and thereafter dul1 proceed with the settlement of the estate of the said decedent. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 1(3)86 A+5+*. 1(, 1999

EUGEN#A RAMONAL %ODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, vs. EVANGEL#NE R. %ALUGAY, &O'E$!#NE 'AL%EDO, and UEFEM#A $A #GA', 9efore us is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals ! and its resolution den1ing reconsideration" ruling: Cpon the unre;utted testimon1 of appellant >vangeline Caluga1 and witness :atilde 'amonal 9inana1" the authenticit1 of testators holographic will has ;een esta;lished and the handwriting and signature therein (e?hi;it 0) are hers" enough to pro;ate said will. 'eversal of the 5udgment appealed from and the pro;ate of the holographic will in =uestion ;e called for. The rule is that after plaintiff has completed presentation of his evidence and the defendant files a motion for 5udgment on demurrer to evidence on the ground that upon the facts and the law plaintiff has shown no right to relief" if the motion is granted and the order to dismissal is reversed on appeal" the movant loses his right to present evidence in his ;ehalf (0ec" ! 'ule * 'evised 'ules of Court). .udgment ma1" therefore" ;e rendered for appellant in the instant case. Aherefore" the order appealed from is '>(>'0>D and 5udgment rendered allowing the pro;ate of the holographic will of the testator :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal. , The facts are as follows: 4n April +" !##7" >vangeline Caluga1" .osephine 0alcedo and >ufemia 6atigas" devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" filed with the 'egional Trial Court" :isamis 4riental" 9ranch !$" a petition for pro;ate of the holographic will of the deceased" who died on .anuar1 !+" !##7. In the petition" respondents claimed that the deceased :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" was of sound and disposing mind when she e?ecuted the will on August 7" !#2$" that there was no fraud" undue influence" and duress emplo1ed in the person of the testator" and will was written voluntaril1. The assessed value of the decedent<s propert1" including all real and personal propert1 was a;out 6377"777.77" at the time of her death.3 4n .une ,$" !##7" >ugenia 'amonal Codo1 and :anuel 'amonal filed an opposition * to the petition for pro;ate" alleging that the holographic will was a forger1 and that the same is even illegi;le. This gives an impression that a -third hand- of an interested part1 other than the -true hand- of :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal e?ecuted the holographic will. 6etitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearing on will after ever1 disposition is out of the ordinar1. If the deceased was the one who e?ecuted the will" and was not forced" the dates and the signature should appear at the ;ottom after the dispositions" as regularl1 done and not after ever1 disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of the deceased" it was procured

;1 undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the ;eneficiaries" or through fraud and tricker1.'(%p$i'.n)t 'espondents presented si? (+) witnesses and various documentar1 evidence. 6etitioners instead of presenting their evidence" filed a demurrer+ to evidence" claiming that respondents failed to esta;lish sufficient factual and legal ;asis for the pro;ate of the holographic will of the deceased :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal. 4n )ovem;er ,+" !##7" the lower Court issued an order" the dispositive portion of which reads: A@>'>F4'>" in view of the foregoing consideration" the Demurrer to >vidence having ;eing well taken" same is granted" and the petition for pro;ate of the document (>?hi;it -0-) on the purported @olographic Aill of the late :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" is denied for insufficienc1 of evidence and lack of merits.2 4n Decem;er !," !##7" respondents filed a notice of appeal" $ and in support of their appeal" the respondents once again reiterated the testimon1 of the following witnesses" namel1: (!) Augusto )eriD (,) &enerosa 0enonD ( ) :atilde 'amonal 9inana1D (3) Teresita (edadD (*) Fiscal 'odolfo AagaD and (+) >vangeline Caluga1. To have a clear understanding of the testimonies of the witnesses" we recite an account of their testimonies. "ugusto 0eri" Clerk of Court" Court of First Instance of :isamis 4riental" where the special proceedings for the pro;ate of the holographic will of the deceased was filed. @e produced and identified the records of the case. The documents presented ;ear the signature of the deceased" :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" for the purpose of la1ing the ;asis for comparison of the handwriting of the testatri?" with the writing treated or admitted as genuine ;1 the part1 against whom the evidence is offered. Benerosa Senon" election registrar of Caga1an de 4ro" was presented to produced and identif1 the voter<s affidavit of the decedent. @owever" the voters< affidavit was not produced for the same was alread1 destro1ed and no longer availa;le. 6atilde -amonal 2inanay" testified that the deceased :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal was her aunt" and that after the death of :atilde<s hus;and" the latter lived with her in her parent<s house for eleven (!!) 1ears from !#*$ to !#+#. During those eleven (!!) 1ears of close association the deceased" she ac=uired familiarit1 with her signature and handwriting as she used to accompan1 her (deceased :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal) in collecting rentals from her various tenants of commercial ;uildings" and deceased alwa1s issued receipts. In addition to this" she (witness :atilde 9inana1) assisted the deceased in posting the records of the accounts" and carried personal letters of the deceased to her creditors. 6atilde -amonal 2inanay further testified that at the time of the death of :atilde (da. de 'amonal" she left a holographic will dated August 7" !#2$" which was personall1 and entirel1 written" dated and signed" ;1 the deceased and that all the dispositions therein" the dates" and the signatures in said will" were that of the deceased. >iscal -odolfo 7aga testified that ;efore he was appointed Cit1 Fiscal of Caga1an de 4ro" he was a practicing law1er" and handled all the pleadings and documents signed ;1 the deceased in connection with the proceedings of her late hus;and" as a result of which he is familiar with the handwriting of the latter. @e testified that the signature appearing in the holographic will was similar to that of the deceased" :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" ;ut he can not ;e sure.

The fifth witness presented was 6rs. /eresita ?edad" an emplo1ee of the Department of >nvironment and )atural 'esources" 'egion !7. 0he testified that she processed the application of the deceased for pasture permit and was familiar with the signature of the deceased" since the signed documents in her presence" when the latter was appl1ing for pasture permit. Finall1" Evangeline Calugay" one of the respondents" testified that she had lived with the deceased since ;irth" and was in fact adopted ;1 the latter. That after a long period of time she ;ecame familiar with the signature of the deceased. 0he testified that the signature appearing in the holographic will is the true and genuine signature of :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal. The holographic will which was written in (isa1an" is translated in >nglish as follows: Instruction August 7" !#2$ !. :1 share at Cogon" 'aminal 0treet" for >vangeline Caluga1. (0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal August 7" !#2$ ,. .osefina 0alcedo must ;e given !"*77 s=uare meters at 6inikan 0treet. (0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal August 7" !#2$ . :1 5ewelr1<s shall ;e divided among: !. >ufemia 6atigas ,. .osefina 0alcedo . >vangeline Caluga1 (0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal August 7" !#2$ 3. I ;e=ueath m1 one (!) hectare land at :andumol" Indahag to >vangeline '. Caluga1 (0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal August 7" !#2$ *. &ive the ,"*77 0=uare :eters at 0ta. CruB 'amonal (illage in favor of >vangeline '. Caluga1" @elen must continue with the 0ta. CruB" once I am no longer around. (0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal

August 7" !#2$ +. 9ur1 me where m1 hus;and .usto is ever ;uried. (0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal August 7" !#2$ &ene and :anuel: Follow m1 instruction in order that I will rest peacefull1. :ama :atilde (da de 'amonal 4n 4cto;er #" !##*" the Court of Appeals" rendered decision # ruling that the appeal was meritorious. Citing the decision in the case of "zaola vs. Singson" !7# 6hil. !7," penned ;1 :r. .ustice .. 9. 8. 'e1es" a recogniBed authorit1 in civil law" the Court of Appeals held: . . . even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested" we are of the opinion that Article $!! of our present civil code can not ;e interpreted as to re=uire the compulsor1 presentation of three witnesses to identif1 the handwriting of the testator" under penalt1 of having the pro;ate denied. 0ince no witness ma1 have ;een present at the e?ecution of the holographic will" none ;eing re=uired ;1 law (art. $!7" new civil code)" it ;ecomes o;vious that the e?istence of witnesses possessing the re=uisite =ualifications is a matter ;e1ond the control of the proponent. For it is not merel1 a =uestion of finding and producing an1 three witnessesD the1 must ;e witnesses -who know the handwriting and signature of the testator- and who can declare (truthfull1" of course" even if the law does not e?press) -that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator.- There ma1 ;e no availa;le witness ac=uainted with the testator<s handD or even if so familiariBed" the witness ma1;e unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph ! of article $!! ma1 thus ;ecome an impossi;ilit1. That is evidentl1 the reason wh1 the second paragraph of article $!! prescri;es that J in the a;sence of an1 competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph" and if the court deems it necessar1" e?pert testimon1 ma1 ;e resorted to. As can ;e see" the law foresees" the possi;ilit1 that no =ualified witness ma ;e found (or what amounts to the same thing" that no competent witness ma1 ;e willing to testif1 to the authenticit1 of the will)" and provides for resort to e?pert evidence to suppl1 the deficienc1. It ma1 ;e true that the rule of this article (re=uiring that three witnesses ;e presented if the will is contested and onl1 one if no contest is had) was derived from the rule esta;lished for ordinar1 testaments (CF Ca;ang vs. Delfianado" 3* 6@I8 ,#!D Tolentino v. Francisco" *2 6@I8 23,). 9ut it can not ;e ignored that the re=uirement can ;e considered mandator1 onl1 in case of ordinar1 testaments" precisel1 ;ecause the presence of at least three witnesses at the e?ecution of ordinar1 wills is made ;1 law essential to their validit1 (Art. $7*). Ahere the will is holographic" no witness need ;e present (art. !7)" and the rule re=uiring production of three witnesses must ;e deemed merel1 permissive if a;surd results are to ;e avoided. Again" under Art. $!!" the resort to e?pert evidence is conditioned ;1 the words -if the court deem it necessar1-" which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the court should ;e convinced of the will<s authenticit1. Ahere the prescri;ed num;er of witnesses is produced and

the court is convinced ;1 their testimon1 that the will is genuine" it ma1 consider it unnecessar1 to call for e?pert evidence. 4n the other hand" if no competent witness is availa;le" or none of those produced is convincing" the court ma1 still" and in fact it should resort to handwriting e?perts. The dut1 of the court" in fine" is to e?haust all availa;le lines of in=uir1" for the state is as much interested as the proponent that the true intention of the testator ;e carried into effect. 6araphrasing "zaola vs. Singson" even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested" Article $!! of the civil code cannot ;e interpreted as to re=uire the compulsor1 presentation of three witnesses to identif1 the handwriting of the testator" under penalt1 of the having the pro;ate denied. )o witness need ;e present in the e?ecution of the holographic will. And the rule re=uiring the production of three witnesses is merel1 permissive. Ahat the law deems essential is that the court is convinced of the authenticit1 of the will. Its dut1 is to e?haust all availa;le lines of in=uir1" for the state is as much interested in the proponent that the true intention of the testator ;e carried into effect. And ;ecause the law leaves it to the trial court to decide if e?perts are still needed" no unfavora;le inference can ;e drawn from a part1<s failure to offer e?pert evidence" until and unless the court e?presses dissatisfaction with the testimon1 of the la1 witnesses. !7 According to the Court of Appeals" >vangeline Caluga1" :atilde 'amonal 9inana1 and other witnesses definitel1 and in no uncertain terms testified that the handwriting and signature in the holographic will were those of the testator herself. Thus" upon the unre;utted testimon1 of appellant >vangeline Caluga1 and witness :atilde 'amonal 9inana1" the Court of Appeals sustained the authenticit1 of the holographic will and the handwriting and signature therein" and allowed the will to pro;ate. @ence" this petition. The petitioners raise the following issues: (!) Ahether or not the ruling of the case of "zaola vs. Singson" !7# 6hil. !7," relied upon ;1 the respondent Court of Appeals" was applica;le to the case. (,) Ahether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that private respondents had ;een a;le to present credi;le evidence to that the date" te?t" and signature on the holographic will written entirel1 in the hand of the testatri?. ( ) Ahether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not anal1Bing the signatures in the holographic will of :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal. In this petition" the petitioners ask whether the provisions of Article $!! of the Civil Code are permissive or mandator1. The article provides" as a re=uirement for the pro;ate of a contested holographic will" that at least three witnesses e?plicitl1 declare that the signature in the will is the genuine signature of the testator.'(%p$i'.n)t Ae are convinced" ;ased on the language used" that Article $!! of the Civil Code is mandator1. The word -shall- connotes a mandator1 order. Ae have ruled that -shall- in a statute commonl1 denotes an imperative o;ligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word -shall"- when used in a statute is mandator1. !! 8aws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide against an evil or mischief that aims to prevent. In the case at ;ar" the goal to achieve is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and the evil to ;e prevented is the possi;ilit1 that unscrupulous individuals who for their ;enefit will emplo1 means to defeat the wishes of the testator.

0o" we ;elieve that the paramount consideration in the present petition is to determine the true intent of the deceased. An e?haustive and o;5ective consideration of the evidence is imperative to esta;lish the true intent of the testator. It will ;e noted that not all the witnesses presented ;1 the respondents testified e?plicitl1 that the1 were familiar with the handwriting of testator. In the case of Augusto )eri" clerk of court" Court of First Instance" :isamis 4riental" he merel1 identified the record of 0pecial 6roceedings )o. 3,2 ;efore said court. @e was not presented to declare e?plicitl1 that the signature appearing in the holographic was that of the deceased. Benerosa E. Senon" the election registrar of Caga1an de 4ro Cit1" was presented to identif1 the signature of the deceased in the voter<s affidavit" which was not even produced as it was no longer availa;le. 6atilde -amonal 2inanay" on the other hand" testified that: I. And 1ou said for eleven (!!) 1ears :atilde (da de 'amonal resided with 1our parents at 6inikitan" Caga1an de 4ro Cit1. Aould 1ou tell the court what was 1our occupation or how did :atilde (da de 'amonal keep herself ;us1 that timeK A. Collecting rentals. I. From whereK A. From the land rentals and commercial ;uildings at 6a;a1o%&omeB streets. !, ??? I. Aho sometime accompan1 herK A. I sometimes accompan1 her. I. In collecting rentals does she issue receiptsK A. /es" sir.! ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

I. 0howing to 1ou the receipt dated , 4cto;er !#2#" is this the one 1ou are referring to as one of the receipts which she issued to themK A. /es" sir. I. )ow there is that signature of :atilde vda. De 'amonal" whose signature is that :rs. 9inana1K A. :atilde vda. De 'amonal. I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 that is the signature of :atilde (da. De 'amonalK A. I am familiar with her signature.

I. )ow" 1ou tell the court :rs. 9inana1" whether 1ou know :atilde vda de 'amonal kept records of the accounts of her tenantsK A. /es" sir. I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 soK A. 9ecause we sometimes post a record of accounts in ;ehalf of :atilde (da. De 'amonal. I. @ow is this record of accounts madeK @ow is this reflectedK A. In handwritten.!3 ??? ??? ???

I. In addition to collection of rentals" posting records of accounts of tenants and deed of sale which 1ou said what else did 1ou do to ac=uire familiarit1 of the signature of :atilde (da De 'amonalK A. 6osting records. I. Aside from thatK A. Carr1ing letters. I. 8etters of whomK A. :atilde. I. To whomK A. To her creditors.!* ??? ??? ???

I. /ou testified that at time of her death she left a will. I am showing to 1ou a document with its title -tugon- is this the document 1ou are referring toK A. /es" sir. I. 0howing to 1ou this e?hi;it -0-" there is that handwritten -tugon-" whose handwriting is thisK A. :1 Aunt. I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 this is the handwriting of 1our auntK A. 9ecause I am familiar with her signature.!+ Ahat :s. 9inana1 saw were pre%prepared receipts and letters of the deceased" which she either mailed or gave to her tenants. 0he did not declare that she saw the deceased sign a document or write a note.

Further" during the cross%e?amination" the counsel for petitioners elicited the fact that the will was not found in the personal ;elongings of the deceased ;ut was in the possession of :s. 9inana1. 0he testified that: I. :rs. 9inana1" when 1ou were asked ;1 counsel for the petitioners if the late :atilde 0eno vda de 'amonal left a will 1ou said" 1esK A. /es" sir. I. Aho was in possession of that willK A. I. I. 0ince when did 1ou have the possession of the willK A. It was in m1 mother<s possession. I. 0o" it was not in 1our possessionK A. 0orr1" 1es. I. And when did 1ou come into possession since as 1ou said this was originall1 in the possession of 1our motherK A. !#$*.!2 ??? ??? ???

I. )ow" :rs. 9inana1 was there an1 particular reason wh1 1our mother left that will to 1ou and therefore 1ou have that in 1our possessionK A. It was not given to me ;1 m1 mother" I took that in the aparador when she died. I. After taking that document 1ou kept it with 1ouK A. I presented it to the fiscal. I. For what purposeK A. .ust to seek advice. I. Advice of whatK A. A;out the will.!$ In her testimon1 it was also evident that :s. 9inana1 kept the fact a;out the will from petitioners" the legall1 adopted children of the deceased. 0uch actions put in issue her motive of keeping the will a secret to petitioners and revealing it onl1 after the death of :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal. In the testimon1 of :s. 9inana1" the following were esta;lished:

I. )ow" in !#2$ :atilde 0eno (da de 'amonal was not 1et a sickl1 person is that correctK A. /es" sir. I. 0he was up and a;out and was still uprightl1 and she could walk agilel1 and she could go to her ;uilding to collect rentals" is that correctK A. /es" sir.!# ??? ??? ???

I. )ow" let us go to the third signature of :atilde 'amonal. Do 1ou know that there are retracings in the word (da.K A. /es" a little. The letter 8 is continuous. I. And also in :atilde the letter 8 is continued to letter DK A. /es" sir. I. Again the third signature of :atilde (da de 'amonal the letter 8 in :atilde is continued towards letter D. A. /es" sir. I. And there is a retracing in the word (da.K A. /es" sir.,7 ??? ??? ???

I. )ow" that was !#2#" remem;er one 1ear after the alleged holographic will. )ow" 1ou identified a document marked as >?hi;it '. This is dated .anuar1 $" !#2$ which is onl1 a;out eight months from August 7" !#2$. Do 1ou notice that the signature :atilde (da de 'amonal is ;eautifull1 written and legi;leK A. /es" sir the handwriting shows that she was ver1 e?hausted. I. /ou 5ust sa1 that she was ver1 e?hausted while that in !#2$ she was health1 was not sickl1 and she was agile. )ow" 1ou said she was e?haustedK A. In writing. I. @ow did 1ou know that she was e?hausted when 1ou were not present and 1ou 5ust tried to e?plain 1ourself out ;ecause of the apparent inconsistenciesK A. That was I think. (sic). I. )ow" 1ou alread1 o;served this signature dated !#2$" the same 1ear as the alleged holographic will. In e?hi;it I" 1ou will notice that there is no retracingD there is no hesitanc1 and the signature was written on a fluid movement. . . . And in fact" the name >ufemia '. 6atigas here refers to one of the petitionersK

A. /es" sir. I. /ou will also notice :rs. 9inana1 that it is not onl1 with the =uestioned signature appearing in the alleged holographic will marked as >?hi;it M ;ut in the handwriting themselves" here 1ou will notice the hesitanc1 and tremors" do 1ou notice thatK A. /es" sir.,! >vangeline Caluga1 declared that the holographic will was written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testator. 0he testified that: I. /ou testified that 1ou sta1ed with the house of the spouses :atilde and .usto 'amonal for the period of ,, 1ears. Could 1ou tell the court the services if an1 which 1ou rendered to :atilde 'amonalK A. During m1 sta1 I used to go with her to the church" to market and then to her transactions. I. Ahat elseK Ahat services that 1ou renderedK A. After m1 college da1s I assisted her in going to the ;ank" pa1ing ta?es and to her law1er. I. Ahat was 1our purpose of going to her law1erK A. I used to ;e her personal driver. I. In the course of 1our sta1 for ,, 1ears did 1ou ac=uire familiarit1 of the handwriting of :atilde (da de 'amonalK A. /es" sir. I. @ow come that 1ou ac=uired familiarit1K A. 9ecause I lived with her since ;irth.,, ??? ??? ???

I. )ow" I am showing to 1ou >?hi;it 0 which is captioned -tugon- dated Agosto 7" !#2$ there is a signature here ;elow item )o. !" will 1ou tell this court whose signature is thisK A. /es" sir" that is her signature. I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 that is her signatureK A. I am familiar with her signature., 0o" the onl1 reason that >vangeline can give as to wh1 she was familiar with the handwriting of the deceased was ;ecause she lived with her since ;irth. 0he never declared that she saw the deceased write a note or sign a document. The former law1er of the deceased" Fiscal Aaga" testified that:

I. Do 1ou know :atilde (da de 'amonalK A. /es" sir I know her ;ecause she is m1 godmother the hus;and is m1 godfather. Actuall1 I am related to the hus;and ;1 consanguinit1. I. Can 1ou tell the name of the hus;andK A. The late hus;and is .usto 'amonal.,3 ??? ??? ???

I. Can 1ou tell this court whether the spouses .usto 'amonal and :atilde 'amonal have legitimate childrenK A. As far as I know the1 have no legitimate children.,* ??? ??? ???

I. /ou said after ;ecoming a law1er 1ou practice 1our professionK AhereK A. @ere in Caga1an de 4ro Cit1. I. Do 1ou have services rendered with the deceased :atilde vda de 'amonalK A. I assisted her in terminating the partition" of properties. I. Ahen 1ou said assisted" 1ou acted as her counselK An1 sort of counsel as in what case is that" FiscalK A. It is a;out the pro5ect partition to terminate the propert1" which was under the court ;efore. ,+ ??? ??? ???

I. Appearing in special proceeding no. 3,2 is the amended inventor1 which is marked as e?hi;it ) of the estate of .usto 'amonal and there appears a signature over the t1pe written word :atilde vda de 'amonal" whose signature is thisK A. That is the signature of :atilde (da de 'amonal. I. Also in e?hi;it n% " whose signature is thisK A. This one here that is the signature of :rs. :atilde vda de 'amonal. ,2 ??? ??? ???

I. Aside from attending as counsel in that 0pecial 6roceeding Case )o. 3,2 what were the other assistance wherein 1ou were rendering professional service to the deceased :atilde (da de 'amonalK A. I can not remem;er if I have assisted her in other matters ;ut if there are documents to show that I have assisted then I can recall. ,$

???

???

???

I. )ow" I am showing to 1ou e?hi;it 0 which is titled -tugon-" kindl1 go over this document" Fiscal Aaga and tell the court whether 1ou are familiar with the handwriting contained in that document marked as e?hi;it -0-K A. I am not familiar with the handwriting. I. This one" :atilde (da de 'amonal" whose signature is thisK A. I think this signature here it seems to ;e the signature of :rs. :atilde vda de 'amonal. I. )ow" in item )o. , there is that signature here of :atilde (da de 'amonal" can 1ou tell the court whose signature is thisK A. Aell" that is similar to that signature appearing in the pro5ect of partition. I. Also in item no. there is that signature :atilde (da de 'amonal" can 1ou tell the court whose signature is thatK A. As I said" this signature also seems to ;e the signature of :atilde vda de 'amonal. I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 thatK A. 9ecause there is a similarit1 in the wa1 it is ;eing written. I. @ow a;out this signature in item no. 3" can 1ou tell the court whose signature is thisK A. The same is true with the signature in item no. 3. It seems that the1 are similar. ,# ??? ??? ???

I. :r. 6rosecutor" I heard 1ou when 1ou said that the signature of :atilde (da de 'amonal Appearing in e?hi;it 0 seems to ;e the signature of :atilde vda de 'amonalK A. /es" it is similar to the pro5ect of partition. I. 0o 1ou are not definite that this is the signature of :atilde vda de 'amonal. /ou are merel1 supposing that it seems to ;e her signature ;ecause it is similar to the signature of the pro5ect of partition which 1ou have madeK A. That is true.
7

From the testimonies of these witnesses" the Court of Appeals allowed the will to pro;ate and disregard the re=uirement of three witnesses in case of contested holographic will" citing the decision in "zaola vs. Singson" ! ruling that the re=uirement is merel1 director1 and not mandator1. In the case of "jero vs. Court of "ppeals" , we said that -the o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of wills is to close the door against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution of wills and testaments and to guarant1 their truth and authenticit1. Therefore" the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in such a wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. 9ut on the other hand" also one must not

lose sight of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise of the right to make a will. @owever" we cannot eliminate the possi;ilit1 of a false document ;eing ad5udged as the will of the testator" which is wh1 if the holographic will is contested" that law re=uires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased. The will was found not in the personal ;elongings of the deceased ;ut with one of the respondents" who kept it even ;efore the death of the deceased. In the testimon1 of :s. 9inana1" she revealed that the will was in her possession as earl1 as !#$*" or five 1ears ;efore the death of the deceased. There was no opportunit1 for an e?pert to compare the signature and the handwriting of the deceased with other documents signed and e?ecuted ;1 her during her lifetime. The onl1 chance at comparison was during the cross%e?amination of :s. 9inana1 when the law1er of petitioners asked :s. 9inana1 to compare the documents which contained the signature of the deceased with that of the holographic will and she is not a handwriting e?pert. >ven the former law1er of the deceased e?pressed dou;ts as to the authenticit1 of the signature in the holographic will. A visual e?amination of the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when compared with other documents written ;1 the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the disposition is not reada;le. There were uneven strokes" retracing and erasures on the will. Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated August 7" !#2$" and the signatures in several documents such as the application letter for pasture permit dated Decem;er 7" !#$7" 3 and a letter dated .une !+" !#2$" * the strokes are different. In the letters" there are continuous flows of the strokes" evidencing that there is no hesitation in writing unlike that of the holographic will. Ae" therefore" cannot ;e certain that ruling holographic will was in the handwriting ;1 the deceased. I) (I>A A@>'>4F" the decision appealed from is 0>T A0ID>. The records are ordered remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their opposition to the pro;ate of the holographic will of the deceased :atilde 0eFo vda. de 'amonal. '(%p$i'.n)t )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 1067(0 '/2./70/, 15, 199) '$OU'E' RO"ER O AND !ELMA A&ERO, vs. !E %OUR OF A$$EAL' AND %LEMEN E 'AND, This is an appeal ;1 certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA%&.'. C( )o. ,,$37" dated :arch 7" !##," the dispositive portion of which readsD 6'>:I0>0 C4)0ID>'>D" the =uestioned decision of )ovem;er !#" !#$$ of the trial court is here;1 '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" and the petition for pro;ate is here;1 DI0:I00>D. )o costs. The earlier Decision was rendered ;1 the 'TC of IueBon Cit1" 9ranch #3" ( in 0p. 6roc. )o. I% 2!2!" and the instrument su;mitted for pro;ate is the holographic will of the late Annie 0and" who died on )ovem;er ,*" !#$,.

In the will" decedent named as devisees" the following: petitioners 'o;erto and Thelma A5ero" private respondent Clemente 0and" :eriam 0. Arong" 8eah 0and" 8ilia 0and" >dgar 0and" Fe 0and" 8isa 0. 0and" and Dr. .ose A5ero" 0r." and their children. 4n .anuar1 ,7" !#$ " petitioners instituted 0p. 6roc. )o. I% 2!2!" for allowance of decedent<s holographic will. The1 alleged that at the time of its e?ecution" she was of sound and disposing mind" not acting under duress" fraud or undue influence" and was in ever1 respect capacitated to dispose of her estate ;1 will. 6rivate respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament<s ;od1 nor the signature therein was in decedent<s handwritingD it contained alterations and corrections which were not dul1 signed ;1 decedentD and" the will was procured ;1 petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence. The petition was likewise opposed ;1 Dr. .ose A5ero. @e contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan Del )orte. @e claimed that said propert1 could not ;e conve1ed ;1 decedent in its entiret1" as she was not its sole owner. )otwithstanding the oppositions" the trial court admitted the decedent<s holographic will to pro;ate. It found" inter alia: Considering then that the pro;ate proceedings herein must decide onl1 the =uestion of identit1 of the will" its due e?ecution and the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri?" this pro;ate court finds no reason at all for the disallowance of the will for its failure to compl1 with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law nor for lack of testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri?. For one" no evidence was presented to show that the will in =uestion is different from the will actuall1 e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. The onl1 o;5ections raised ;1 the oppositors . . . are that the will was not written in the handwriting of the testatri? which properl1 refers to the =uestion of its due e?ecution" and not to the =uestion of identit1 of will. )o other will was alleged to have ;een e?ecuted ;1 the testatri? other than the will herein presented. @ence" in the light of the evidence adduced" the identit1 of the will presented for pro;ate must ;e accepted" i.e." the will su;mitted in Court must ;e deemed to ;e the will actuall1 e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. ??? ??? ??? Ahile the fact that it was entirel1 written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatri? has ;een disputed" the petitioners" however" have satisfactoril1 shown in Court that the holographic will in =uestion was indeed written entirel1" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatri?. Three ( ) witnesses who have convincingl1 shown knowledge of the handwriting of the testatri? have ;een presented and have e?plicitl1 and categoricall1 identified the handwriting with which the holographic will in =uestion was written to ;e the genuine handwriting and signature of the testatri?. &iven then the aforesaid evidence" the re=uirement of the law that the holographic will ;e entirel1 written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatri? has ;een complied with. ??? ??? ??? As to the =uestion of the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testrati?" (private respondent) Clemente 0and himself has testified in Court that the testatri? was completel1 in her sound mind when he visited her during her ;irthda1 cele;ration in !#$!" at or around which time the holographic will in =uestion was e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. To ;e of sound mind" it is sufficient that the testatri?" at the time of making the will" knew the value of the estate to ;e disposed of" the proper o ject of her ;ount1" and the c$aracter of the testamentar1 act . . . The will itself shows that the testatri? even had detailed knowledge

of the nature of her estate. 0he even identified the lot num;er and s=uare meters of the lots she had conve1ed ;1 will. The o;5ects of her ;ount1 were likewise identified e?plicitl1. And considering that she had even written a nursing ;ook which contained the law and 5urisprudence on will and succession" there is more than sufficient showing that she knows the character of the testamentar1 act. In this wise" the =uestion of identit1 of the will" its due e?ecution and the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri? has to ;e resolved in favor of the allowance of pro;ate of the will su;mitted herein. 8ikewise" no evidence was presented to show sufficient reason for the disallowance of herein holographic will. Ahile it was alleged that the said will was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the ;eneficiar1 or of some other person" the evidence adduced have not shown an1 instance where improper pressure or influence was e?erted on the testatri?. (6rivate respondent) Clemente 0and has testified that the testatri? was still alert at the time of the e?ecution of the will" i.e." at or around the time of her ;irth anniversar1 cele;ration in !#$!. It was also esta;lished that she is a ver1 intelligent person and has a mind of her own. @er independence of character and to some e?tent" her sense of superiorit1" which has ;een testified to in Court" all show the unlikelihood of her ;eing undul1 influenced or improperl1 pressured to make the aforesaid will. It must ;e noted that the undue influence or improper pressure in =uestion herein onl1 refer to the making of a will and not as to the specific testamentar1 provisions therein which is the proper su;5ect of another proceeding. @ence" under the circumstances" this Court cannot find convincing reason for the disallowance of the will herein. Considering then that it is a well%esta;lished doctrine in the law on succession that in case of dou;t" testate succession should ;e preferred over intestate succession" and the fact that no convincing grounds were presented and proven for the disallowance of the holographic will of the late Annie 0and" the aforesaid will su;mitted herein must ;e admitted to pro;ate. 3 (Citations omitted.) 4n appeal" said Decision was reversed" and the petition for pro;ate of decedent<s will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that" -the holographic will fails to meet the re=uirements for its validit1.- ) It held that the decedent did not compl1 with Articles $! and $!3 of the )ew Civil Code" which read" as follows: Art. $! : Ahen a num;er of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without ;eing dated" and the last disposition has a signature and date" such date validates the dispositions preceding it" whatever ;e the time of prior dispositions. Art. $!3: In case of insertion" cancellation" erasure or alteration in a holographic will" the testator must authenticate the same ;1 his full signature. It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated" or signed ;ut not dated. It also found that the erasures" alterations and cancellations made thereon had not ;een authenticated ;1 decedent. Thus" this appeal which is impressed with merit. 0ection #" 'ule 2+ of the 'ules of Court provides that will shall ;e disallowed in an1 of the following cases: (a) If not e?ecuted and attested as re=uired ;1 lawD

(;) If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentall1 incapa;le to make a will" at the time of its e?ecutionD (c) If it was e?ecuted under duress" or the influence of fear" or threatsD (d) If it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence" on the part of the ;eneficiar1" or of some other person for his ;enefitD (e) If the signature of the testator was procured ;1 fraud or trick" and he did not intend that the instrument should ;e his will at the time of fi?ing his signature thereto. In the same vein" Article $ # of the )ew Civil Code reads: Art. $ #: The will shall ;e disallowed in an1 of the following casesD (!) If the formalities re=uired ;1 law have not ;een complied withD (,) If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentall1 incapa;le of making a will" at the time of its e?ecutionD ( ) If it was e?ecuted through force or under duress" or the influence of fear" or threatsD (3) If it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence" on the part of the ;eneficiar1 or of some other personD (*) If the signature of the testator was procured ;1 fraudD (+) If the testator acted ;1 mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should ;e his will at the time of affi?ing his signature thereto. These lists are e?clusiveD no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. 5 Thus" in a petition to admit a holographic will to pro;ate" the onl1 issues to ;e resolved are: (!) whether the instrument su;mitted is" indeed" the decedent<s last will and testamentD (,) whether said will was e?ecuted in accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 lawD ( ) whether the decedent had the necessar1 testamentar1 capacit1 at the time the will was e?ecutedD and" (3) whether the e?ecution of the will and its signing were the voluntar1 acts of the decedent. 6 In the case at ;ench" respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne 0and was not e?ecuted in accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law. It held that Articles $! and $!3 of the )ew Civil Code" ante" were not complied with" hence" it disallowed the pro;ate of said will. This is erroneous. Ae reiterate what we held in " angan vs. " angan" 37 6hil. 32+" 32# (!#!#)" that: The o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of wills is to close the door against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution of wills and testaments and to guarant1 their truth and authenticit1. Therefore" the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in such a wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. 9ut" on the other hand" also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise of the right to make a will. 0o when an interpretation alread1 given assures such ends" an1 other interpretation whatsoever" that adds nothing ;ut demands more re=uisites entirel1 unnecessar1" useless and frustrative of the testator<s last will" must ;e disregarded.

For purposes of pro;ating non%holographic wills" these formal solemnities include the su;scription" attestation" and acknowledgment re=uirements under Articles $7* and $7+ of the )ew Civil Code. In the case of holographic wills" on the other hand" what assures authenticit1 is the re=uirement that the1 ;e totall1 autographic or handwritten ;1 the testator himself" 7 as provided under Article $!7 of the )ew Civil Code" thus: A person ma1 e?ecute a holographic will which must ;e entirel1 written" dated" and signed ;1 the hand of the testator himself. It is su ject to no ot$er form" and ma1 ;e made in or out of the 6hilippines" and need not ;e witnessed. (>mphasis supplied.) Failure to strictl1 o;serve other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is un=uestiona;l1 handwritten ;1 the testator. A reading of Article $! of the )ew Civil Code shows that its re=uirement affects the validit1 of the dispositions contained in the holographic will" ;ut not its pro;ate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions" the result is that these dispositions cannot ;e effectuated. 0uch failure" however" does not render the whole testament void. 8ikewise" a holographic will can still ;e admitted to pro;ate" notwithstanding non%compliance with the provisions of Article $!3. In the case of ,ala% vs. -elova ! , 0C'A , 2 ,3, (!#$3)" this Court held: 4rdinaril1" when a num;er of erasures" corrections" and interlineations made ;1 the testator in a holographic Aill have not ;een noted under his signature" . . . the Aill is not there;1 invalidated as a whole" ;ut at most onl1 as respects the particular words erased" corrected or interlined. :anresa gave an identical commentar1 when he said -la omission de la salvedad no anula el testamento" segun la regla de 5urisprudencia esta;lecida en la sentencia de 3 de A;ril de !#$*.- 8 (Citations omitted.) Thus" unless the unauthenticated alterations" cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on testator<s signature" 9 their presence does not invalidate the will itself. 10 The lack of authentication will onl1 result in disallowance of such changes. It is also proper to note that the re=uirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles $! and $!3) separate from that which provides for the necessar1 conditions for the validit1 of the holographic will (Article $!7). The distinction can ;e traced to Articles +2$ and +$$ of the 0panish Civil Code" from which the present provisions covering holographic wills are taken. The1 read as follows: Art. +2$: A will is called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form and with the re=uisites re=uired in Article +$$. Art. +$$: @olographic wills ma1 ;e e?ecuted onl1 ;1 persons of full age. In order that the will ;e valid it must ;e drawn on stamped paper corresponding to the 1ear of its e?ecution" written in its entiret1 ;1 the testator and signed ;1 him" and must contain a statement of the 1ear" month and da1 of its e?ecution. If it should contain an1 erased" corrected" or interlined words" the testator must identif1 them over his signature. Foreigners ma1 e?ecute holographic wills in their own language.

This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that onl1 the re=uirements of Article $!7 of the )ew Civil Code J and not those found in Articles $! and $!3 of the same Code J are essential to the pro;ate of a holographic will. The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie 0and could not validl1 dispose of the house and lot located in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan del )orte" in its entiret1. This is correct and must ;e affirmed. As a general rule" courts in pro;ate proceedings are limited to pass onl1 upon the e?trinsic validit1 of the will sought to ;e pro;ated. @owever" in e?ceptional instances" courts are not powerless to do what the situation constrains them to do" and pass upon certain provisions of the will. 11 In the case at ;ench" decedent herself indu;ita;l1 stated in her holographic will that the Ca;ad;aran propert1 is in the name of her late father" .ohn @. 0and (which led oppositor Dr. .ose A5ero to =uestion her conve1ance of the same in its entiret1). Thus" as correctl1 held ;1 respondent court" she cannot validl1 dispose of the whole propert1" which she shares with her father<s other heirs. I) (I>A A@>'>4F" the instant petition is &'A)T>D. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. ,,$37" dated :arch 7" !##," is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" e?cept with respect to the invalidit1 of the disposition of the entire house and lot in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan del )orte. The Decision of the 'egional Trial Court of IueBon Cit1" 9ranch #3 in 0p. 6roc. )o. I% 2!2!" dated )ovem;er !#" !#$$" admitting to pro;ate the holographic will of decedent Annie 0and" is here;1 '>I)0TAT>D" with the a;ove =ualification as regards the Ca;ad;aran propert1. )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. L-)0(07 '/2./70/, (8, 198) RO'A 4. 4ALA9, vs. !ON. &UDGE "EN&AM#N RELOVA, $,/*-d-n5 &+d5/ o= .1/ %F# o= "a.an5a*, ",an>1 V#, L-2a %-.y, and GREGOR#O 4. 4ALA9, . 4n 0eptem;er !" !#2!" private respondent &'>&4'I4 L. LA8AA" claiming to ;e the sole heir of his deceased sister" )atividad L. Lalaw" filed a petition ;efore the Court of First Instance of 9atangas" 9ranch (I" 8ipa Cit1" for the pro;ate of her holographic Aill e?ecuted on Decem;er ,3" !#+$. The holographic Aill reads in full as follows: :1 8ast will and Testament In the name of &od" Amen. I )atividad L. Lalaw Filipino + 1ears of age" single" and a resident of 8ipa Cit1" ;eing of sound and disposing mind and memor1" do here;1 declare thus to ;e m1 last will and testament. !. It is m1 will that I<ll ;e ;urried in the cemeter1 of the catholic church of 8ipa Cit1. In accordance with the rights of said Church" and that m1 e?ecutri? hereinafter named provide and erect at the e?pose of m1 state a suita;le monument to perpetuate m1 memor1. ??? ??? ??? The holographic Aill" as first written" named '40A L. Lalaw" a sister of the testatri? as her sole heir. @ence" on )ovem;er !7" !#2!" petitioner '40A L. Lalaw opposed pro;ate alleging" in su;stance" that the holographic Aill contained alterations" corrections" and insertions without the proper authentication ;1 the full signature of the testatri? as re=uired ;1 Article $!3 of the Civil Code reading:

Art. $!3. In case of an1 insertion" cancellation" erasure or alteration in a holographic will the testator must authenticate the same ;1 his full signature. '40A<s position was that the holographic Aill" as first written" should ;e given effect and pro;ated so that she could ;e the sole heir thereunder. After trial" respondent .udge denied pro;ate in an 4rder" dated 0eptem;er " !#2 " reading in part: The document >?hi;it -C- was su;mitted to the )ational 9ureau of Investigation for e?amination. The )9I reported that the handwriting" the signature" the insertions andEor additions and the initial were made ;1 one and the same person. Conse=uentl1" >?hi;it -C- was the handwriting of the decedent" )atividad L. Lalaw. The onl1 =uestion is whether the win" >?hi;it <C<" should ;e admitted to pro;ate although the alterations andEor insertions or additions a;ove%mentioned were not authenticated ;1 the full signature of the testatri? pursuant to Art. $!3 of the Civil Code. The petitioner contends that the oppositors are estopped to assert the provision of Art. $!3 on the ground that the1 themselves agreed thru their counsel to su;mit the Document to the )9I F4' >MA:I)ATI4)0. This is untena;le. The parties did not agree" nor was it impliedl1 understood" that the oppositors would ;e in estoppel. The Court finds" therefore" that the provision of Article $!3 of the Civil Code is applica;le to >?hi;it -C-. Finding the insertions" alterations andEor additions in >?hi;it -C- not to ;e authenticated ;1 the full signature of the testatri? )atividad L. Lalaw" the Court will den1 the admission to pro;ate of >?hi;it -C-. A@>'>F4'>" the petition to pro;ate >?hi;it -C- as the holographic will of )atividad L. Lalaw is here;1 denied. 04 4'D>'>D. From that 4rder" &'>&4'I4 moved for reconsideration arguing that since the alterations andEor insertions were the testatri?" the denial to pro;ate of her holographic Aill would ;e contrar1 to her right of testamentar1 disposition. 'econsideration was denied in an 4rder" dated )ovem;er ," !#2 " on the ground that -Article $!3 of the Civil Code ;eing " clear and e?plicit" (it) re=uires no necessit1 for interpretation.From that 4rder" dated 0eptem;er " !#2 " den1ing pro;ate" and the 4rder dated )ovem;er ," !#2 den1ing reconsideration" '40A filed this 6etition for 'eview on certiorari on the sole legal =uestion of whether or not the original unaltered te?t after su;se=uent alterations and insertions were voided ;1 the Trial Court for lack of authentication ;1 the full signature of the testatri?" should ;e pro;ated or not" with her as sole heir. 4rdinaril1" when a num er of erasures" corrections" and interlineations made ;1 the testator in a holographic Aill litem not ;een noted under his signature" ... the Aill is not there;1 invalidated as a whole" ;ut at most onl1 as respects the particular words erased" corrected or interlined. 1 :anresa gave an Identical commentar1 when he said -la omision de la salvedad no anula el testamento" segun la regla de 5urisprudencia esta;lecida en la sentencia de 3 de A;ril de !$#*.- ( @owever" when as in this case" the holographic Aill in dispute had onl1 one su;stantial provision" which was altered ;1 su;stituting the original heir with another" ;ut which alteration did not carr1 the re=uisite of full authentication ;1 the full signature of the testator" the effect must ;e that the entire Aill is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Aill after that which could remain valid. To state that the Aill as first written should ;e given efficac1 is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the

testatri?. 9ut that change of mind can neither ;e given effect ;ecause she failed to authenticate it in the manner re=uired ;1 law ;1 affi?ing her full signature" The ruling in ?elasco, supra, must ;e held confined to such insertions" cancellations" erasures or alterations in a holographic Aill" which affect onl1 the efficac1 of the altered words themselves ;ut not the essence and validit1 of the Aill itself. As it is" with the erasures" cancellations and alterations made ;1 the testatri? herein" her real intention cannot ;e determined with certitude. As :anresa had stated in his commentar1 on Article +$$ of the 0panish Civil Code" whence Article $!3 of the new Civil Code was derived: ... )o infringe lo dispuesto en este articulo del Codigo (el +$$) la sentencia =ue no declara la nulidad de un testamento olografo =ue contenga pala;ras tachadas" enmendadas o entre renglones no salvadas por el testador ;a5o su firnia segun previene el parrafo tercero del mismo" por=ue" en realidad" tal omision solo puede afectar a la validez o eficacia de tales pala ras, y nunca al testamento mismo " 1a por estar esa disposicion en parrafo aparte de a=uel =ue determine las condiciones necesarias para la valideB del testamento olografo" 1a por=ue" de admitir lo contrario" se Ilegaria al a;surdo de =ue pe=uefias enmiendas no salvadas" =ue en nada afectasen a la parte esencial 1 respectiva del testamento" vinieran a anular este" 1 1a por=ue el precepto contenido en dicho parrafo ha de entenderse en perfecta armonia 1 congruencia con el art. ,+ de la le1 del )otariado =ue declara nulas las adiciones apostillas entrerrenglonados" raspaduras 1 tachados en las escrituras matrices" siempre =ue no se salven en la forma prevenida" paro no el documento =ue las contenga" 1 con ma1or motivo cuando las pala ras enmendadas, tac$adas, o entrerrenglonadas no tengan importancia ni susciten duda alguna acerca del pensamiento del testador" o constitu1an meros accidentes de ortografia o de pureB escrituraria" sin trascendencia alguna(l). :as para =ue sea aplica;le la doctrina de e?cepcion contenida en este ultimo fallo" es preciso !ue las tac$aduras, enmiendas o entrerrenglonados sin salvar saan de pala ras !ue no afecterJ alteren ni uarien de modo su stancial la express voluntad del testador manifiesta en el documento. Asi lo advierte la sentencia de ,# de )oviem;re de !#!+" =ue declara nulo un testamento olografo por no estar salvada por el testador la enmienda del guarismo ultimo del aFo en =ue fue e?tendido 3 (>mphasis ours). A@>'>F4'>" this 6etition is here;1 dismissed and the Decision of respondent .udge" dated 0eptem;er " !#2 " is here;1 affirmed in toto. )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. L-1)003 A+5+*. 5, 1960

FEDER#%O AZAOLA, vs. %E'AR#O '#NG'ON, This appeal" taken on points of law from a decision rendered on !* .anuar1 !#*$ ;1 the Court of First Instance of IueBon Cit1 in its 0pecial 6roceedings )o. I%,+37" involves the determination of the =uantit1 of evidence re=uired for the pro;ate of a holographic will. The esta;lished facts are thus summariBed in the decision appealed from ('ec. App. pp. ,,%,3): -9riefl1 speaking" the following facts were esta;lished ;1 the petitionerD that on 0eptem;er #" !#*2" Fortunata 0. (da. de /ance died at ! 8uskot" IueBon Cit1" known to ;e the last residence of said testatri?D that Francisco ABaola" petitioner herein for pro;ate of the holographic will" su;mitted the said holographic will (>?h. C) where;1 :aria :ilagros ABaola was made the sole heir as against the nephew of deceased Cesario 0ingsonD that witness Francisco ABaola testified

that he saw the holographic will (>?h. C) one month" more or less" ;efore the death of the testatri?" as the same was handed to him and his wifeD that the witness testified also that he recogniBed all the signatures appearing in the holographic will (>?h. C) as the handwriting of the testatri? and to reinforce said statement" witness presented the mortgage (>?h. >)" the special power of the attorne1 (>?h. F)" and the general power of attorne1 (>?h. F%!)" ;esides the deeds of sale (>?hs. & and &%!) including an affidavit (>?h. &%,)" and that there were further e?hi;ited in court two residence certificates (>?hs. @ and @%!) to show the signatures of the testatri?" for comparison purposesD that said witness" ABaola" testified that the penmanship appearing in the aforesaid documentar1 evidence is in the handwriting of the testatri? as well as the signatures appearing in the aforesaid documentar1 evidence is in the handwriting of the testatri? as well as the signatures appearing therein are the signatures of the testatri?D that said witness" in answer to a =uestion of his counsel admitted that the holographic will was handed to him ;1 the testatri?. -apparentl1 it must have ;een written ;1 her- (t.s.n." p. !!). @owever" on page !+ on the same transcript of the stenographic notes" when the same witness was asked ;1 counsel if he was familiar with the penmanship and handwriting of the deceased Fortunata (da. de /ance" he answered positivel1 in the affirmative and when he was asked again whether the penmanship referred to in the previous answer as appearing in the holographic will (>?h. C) was hers (testatri?<)" he answered" -I would definitel1 sa1 it is hers-D that it was also esta;lished in the proceedings that the assessed value of the propert1 of the deceased in 8uskot" IueBon Cit1" is in the amount of 62"777.77. The opposition to the pro;ate was on the ground that (!) the e?ecution of the will was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner and his wife" and (,) that the testatri? did not seriousl1 intend the instrument to ;e her last will" and that the same was actuall1 written either on the *th or +th da1 of August !#*2 and not on )ovem;er ,7" !#*+ as appears on the will. The pro;ate was denied on the ground that under Article $!! of the Civil Code" the proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in the writing of the testatri?" the pro;ate ;eing contestedD and ;ecause the lone witness presented ;1 the proponent -did not prove sufficientl1 that the ;od1 of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatri?.The proponent appealed" urging: first" that he was not ;ound to produce more than one witness ;ecause the will<s authenticit1 was not =uestionedD and second" that Article $!! does not mandatoril1 re=uire the production of three witnesses to identif1 the handwriting and signature of a holographic will" even if its authenticit1 should ;e denied ;1 the adverse part1. Article $!! of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines is to the following effect: A'T. $!!. In the pro;ate of a holographic will" it shall ;e necessar1 that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator e?plicitl1 declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested" at least three of such witnesses shall ;e re=uired. In the a;sence of an1 competent witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraph" and if the court deems it necessar1" e?pert testimon1 ma1 ;e resorted to. (+#!a). Ae agree with the appellant that since the authenticit1 of the will was not contested" he was not re=uired to produce more than one witnessD ;ut even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested" we are of the opinion that Article $!! of our present Civil Code can not ;e interpreted as to re=uire the compulsor1 presentation of three witnesses to identif1 the handwriting of the testator" under penalt1 of having the pro;ate denied. 0ince no witness ma1 have ;een present at the e?ecution of a holographic will" none ;eing re=uired ;1 law (Art. $!7" new Civil Code)" it ;ecomes o;vious that the e?istence of witness possessing the re=uisite =ualifications is a matter ;e1ond the control of the proponent. For it is not merel1 a =uestion of finding and producing an1 three witnessesD the1 must ;e witnesses -who know

the handwriting and signature of the testator- and who can declare (truthfull1" of course" even if the law does not so e?press) -that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator-. There ma1 ;e no availa;le witness of the testator<s handD or even if so familiariBed" the witnesses ma1 ;e unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph ! of Article $!! ma1 thus ;ecome an impossi;ilit1. That is evidentl1 the reason wh1 the second paragraph of Article $!! prescri;es that J in the a;sence of an1 competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph" and if the court deems it necessar1" e?pert testimon1 ma1 ;e resorted to. As can ;e seen" the law foresees the possi;ilit1 that no =ualified witness ma1 ;e found (or what amounts to the same thing" that no competent witness ma1 ;e willing to testif1 to the authenticit1 of the will)" and provides for resort to e?pert evidence to suppl1 the deficienc1. It ma1 ;e true that the rule of this article (re=uiring that three witnesses ;e presented if the will is contested and onl1 one if no contest is had) was derived from the rule esta;lished for ordinar1 testaments (cf. Ca;ang vs. Delfinado" 3* 6hil." ,#!D Tolentino vs. Francisco" *2 6hil." 23,). 9ut it can not ;e ignored that the re=uirement can ;e considered mandator1 onl1 in the case of ordinar1 testaments" precisel1 ;ecause the presence of at least three witnesses at the e?ecution of ordinar1 wills is made ;1 law essential to their validit1 (Art. $7*). Ahere the will is holographic" no witness need ;e present (Art. !7)" and the rule re=uiring production of three witnesses must ;e deemed merel1 permissive if a;surd results are to ;e avoided. Again" under Article $!!" the resort to e?pert evidence is conditioned ;1 the words -if the Court deem it necessar1-" which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the Court should ;e convinced of the will<s authenticit1. Ahere the prescri;ed num;er of witnesses is produced and the court is convinced ;1 their testimon1 that the ill is genuine" it ma1 consider it unnecessar1 to call for e?pert evidence. 4n the other hand" if no competent witness is availa;le" or none of those produced is convincing" the Court ma1 still" and in fact it should" resort to handwriting e?perts. The dut1 of the Court" in fine" is to e?haust all availa;le lines of in=uir1" for the state is as much interested as the proponent that the true intention of the testator ;e carried into effect. Commenting on analogous provisions of Article +#! of the 0panish Civil Code of !$$#" the noted Commentator" :ucuis 0caevola ((ol. !," ,nd >d." p.3,!)" sagel1 remarks: 8a manera como esta conce;ida la redaccion del ultimo apartado de dicho precepto induce la conclusion de =ue siempre o por lo menos" en la ma1or parte de los casos" el .ueB de;e acudir al criterio pericial para =ue le ilustre acerca de la autenticidad del testamento olografo" aun=ue 1a esten insertas en los autos del e?pediente las declaraciones testificales. 8a prudencia con =ue el .ueB de;e de proceder en resoluciones de transcendencia asi lo e?ige" 1 la indole delicada 1 peligrosa del testamento olografo lo hace necesario para ma1or garantia de todos los interes comprometidos en a=uel. >n efecto" el cote5o pericial de letras puede ser una confirmacion facultativa del dicho profano de los testigos 1 un modo de desvanecer las ultimas dudas =ue pudieran ocurrir al .ueB acerca de la autenticidad =ue trata de averigaur 1 declarar. 6ara eso se ha escrito la frase del citado ultimo apartado" (siempre =ue el .ueB lo estime conveniente)" ha1a ha;ido o no testigos 1 dudaran o no estos respecto de los e?tremos por =ue son preguntados. >l ar;itrio 5udicial en este caso de;e formarse con independencia de los sucesos 1 de su significacion" para responder de;idamente de las resoluciones =ue ha1a de dictar. And ;ecause the law leaves it to the trial court if e?perts are still needed" no unfavoura;le inference can ;e drawn from a part1<s failure to offer e?pert evidence" until and unless the court e?presses dissatisfaction with the testimon1 of the la1 witnesses.

4ur conclusion is that the rule of the first paragraph of Article $!! of the Civil Code is merel1 director1 and is not mandator1. Considering" however" that this is the first occasion in which this Court has ;een called upon to construe the import of said article" the interest of 5ustice would ;e ;etter served" in our opinion" ;1 giving the parties ample opportunit1 to adduce additional evidence" including e?pert witnesses" should the Court deem them necessar1. In view of the foregoing" the decision appealed from is set aside" and the records ordered remanded to the Court of origin" with instructions to hold a new trial in conformit1 with this opinion. 9ut evidence alread1 on record shall not ;e retaken. )o costs. 2engzon, *adilla, 2autista "ngelo, La rador, Concepcion, 2arrera and Butierrez &avid, @@., concur. G.R. No*. 75005-06 F/0,+a,y 15, 1990 &O'E R#VERA vs. #N ERMED#A E A$$ELLA E %OUR and ADELA#DO &. R#VERA, Aas there onl1 one (enancio 'ivera in :a;alacat" 6ampanga" or were there twoK 4n :a1 7" !#2*" a prominent and wealth1 resident of that town named (enancio 'ivera died. 4n .ul1 ,$" !#2*" .ose 'ivera" claiming to ;e the onl1 surviving legitimate son of the deceased" filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over (enancio<s estate. Docketed as 06 )o. !72+" this petition was opposed ;1 Adelaido .. 'ivera" who denied that .ose was the son of the decedent. Adelaido averred that (enancio was his father and did not die intestate ;ut in fact left two holographic wills. 1 4n )ovem;er 2" !#2*" Adelaido .. 'ivera filed" also with the 'egional Trial Court of Angeles Cit1" a petition for the pro;ate of the holographic wills. Docketed as 06 )o. !7#!" this petition was in turn opposed ;1 .ose 'ivera" who reiterated that he was the sole heir of (enancio<s intestate estate. ( 4n )ovem;er !!" !#2*" the two cases were consolidated. Adelaido .. 'ivera was later appointed special administrator. After 5oint trial" .udge >liodoro 9. &uinto found that .ose 'ivera was not the son of the decedent ;ut of a different (enancio 'ivera who was married to :aria (ital. The (enancio 'ivera whose estate was in =uestion was married to :aria .ocson" ;1 whom he had seven children" including Adelaido. .ose 'ivera had no claim to this estate ;ecause the decedent was not his father. The holographic wills were also admitted to pro;ate. 3 4n appeal" the decision of the trial court was affirmed ;1 the then Intermediate Appellate Court. ) Its decision is now the su;5ect of this petition" which urges the reversal of the respondent court. In support of his claim that he was the sole heir of the late (enancio 'ivera" .ose sought to show that the said person was married in !#,$ to :aria (ital" who was his mother. @e su;mitted for this purpose >?hi;it A" the marriage certificate of the couple" and >?hi;it 9" his own ;aptismal certificate where the couple was indicated as his parents. The petitioner also presented Domingo 0antos" who testified that .ose was indeed the son of the couple and that he saw (enancio and .ose together several times. 5 .ose himself stressed that Adelaido considered him a half%;rother and kissed his hand as a sign of respect whenever the1 met. @e insisted that Adelaido and his ;rothers and sisters were illegitimate children" sired ;1 (enancio with :aria .ocson. 6 Adelaido" for his part" maintained that he and his ;rothers and sisters were ;orn to (enancio 'ivera and :aria .ocson" who were legall1 married and lived as such for man1 1ears. @e e?plained that he could not present his parents< marriage certificate ;ecause the record of marriages for !#3, in :a;alacat were destro1ed when the town was ;urned during the war" as certified ;1 >?hi;it +. 7 @e also su;mitted his

own ;irth certificate and those of his sisters Oenaida and /olanda 'ivera" who were each descri;ed therein as the legimitate children of (enancio 'ivera and :aria .ocson. 8 Att1. 'egalado 6. :orales" then 2! 1ears of age" affirmed that he knew the deceased and his parents" :agno 'ivera and &ertrudes de los 'e1es" and it was during the .apanese occupation that (enancio introduced to him :aria .ocson as his wife. 9 To prove that there were in fact two persons ;1 the same name of (enancio 'ivera" Adelaido offered (enancio 'ivera<s ;aptismal certificate showing that his parents were :agno 'ivera and &ertrudes de los 'e1es" 10 as contrasted with the marriage certificate su;mitted ;1 .ose" which indicated that the (enancio 'ivera su;5ect thereof was the son of Florencio 'ivera and >strudeB 'e1es. 11 @e also denied kissing .ose<s hand or recogniBing him as a ;rother. 1( Ae find in favor of Adelaido .. 'ivera. It is true that Adelaido could not present his parents< marriage certificate ;ecause" as he e?plained it" the marriage records for !#3, in the :a;alacat civil registr1 were ;urned during the war. >ven so" he could still rel1 on the presumption of marriage" since it is not denied that (enancio 'ivera and :aria .ocson lived together as hus;and and wife for man1 1ears" ;egetting seven children in all during that time. According to Article ,,7 of the Civil Code: In case of dou;t" all presumptions favor the solidarit1 of the famil1. Thus ever1 intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validit1 of marriage" the indissolu;ilit1 of the marriage ;onds" the legitimac1 of children" ... . The 'ules of Court" in 'ule ! !" provides: 0>C. . &isputa le presumptions. J The following presumptions are satisfactor1 if uncontradicted" ;ut ma1 ;e contradicted and overcome ;1 other evidence: ??? ??? ??? (aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as hus;and and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. 91 contrast" although .ose did present his parents< marriage certificate" (enancio was descri;ed therein as the son of Florencio 'ivera. 6resuma;l1" he was not the same (enancio 'ivera descri;ed in >?hi;it 3" his ;aptismal certificate" as the son of :agno 'ivera. Ahile we realiBe that such ;aptismal certificate is not conclusive evidence of (enancio<s filiation (which is not the issue here) it ma1 nonetheless ;e considered to determine his real identit1. .ose insists that :agno and Florencio are one and the same person" arguing that it is not uncommon for a person to ;e called ;1 different names. The Court is not convinced. There is no evidence that (enancio<s father was called either :agno or Florencio. Ahat is more likel1 is that two or more persons ma1 live at the same time and ;ear the same name" even in the same communit1. That is what the courts ;elow found in the cases at ;ar. Ahat this Court considers particularl1 intriguing is wh1" if it is true that he was the legitimate son of (enancio 'ivera" .ose did not assert his right as such when his father was still alive. 91 his own account" .ose supported himself J and presuma;l1 also his mother :aria (ital J as a gasoline attendant and driver for man1 1ears. All the time" his father was residing in the same town J and o;viousl1 prospering J and availa;le for support. @is alleged father was openl1 living with another woman and raising another famil1" ;ut this was apparentl1 accepted ;1 .ose without protest" taking no step whatsoever to invoke his status. If" as he insists" he and (enancio 'ivera were on cordial terms" there is no reason wh1 the father did not help the son and instead left .ose to fend for himself as a hum;le worker while his other children ;1 :aria .ocson en5o1ed a comforta;le life. 0uch paternal discrimination is difficult to understand" especiall1 if it is considered J assuming the claims to ;e true J that .ose was the oldest and" ;1 his own account" the onl1 legitimate child of (enancio 'ivera.

And there is also :aria (ital" whose attitude is no less incomprehensi;le. As (enancio<s legitimate wife J if indeed she was J she should have o;5ected when her hus;and a;andoned her and founded another famil1 ;1 another woman" and in the same town at that. 0eeing that the children of :aria .ocson were ;eing raised well while her own son .ose was practicall1 ignored and neglected" she nevertheless did not demand for him at least support" if not ;etter treatment" from his legitimate father. It is unnatural for a lawful wife to sa1 nothing if she is deserted in favor of another woman and for a caring mother not to protect her son<s interests from his wa1ward father<s neglect. The fact is that this forsaken wife never demanded support from her wealth1 if errant hus;and. 0he did not file a complaint for ;igam1 or concu;inage against (enancio 'ivera and :aria .ocson" the alleged partners in crime and sin. :aria (ital was completel1 passive and complaisant. 0ignificantl1" as noted ;1 the respondent court" :aria (ital was not even presented at the trial to support her son<s allegations that she was the decedent<s lawful wife. .ose sa1s this was not done ;ecause she was alread1 old and ;edridden then. 9ut there was no impediment to the taking of her deposition in her own house. )o effort was made toward this end although her testimon1 was vital to the petitioner<s cause. .ose dismisses such testimon1 as merel1 -cumulative"- ;ut this Court does not agree. @aving alleged that :aria .ocson<s marriage to (enancio 'ivera was null and void" .ose had the ;urden of proving that serious allegation. Ae find from the evidence of record that the respondent court did not err in holding that the (enancio 'ivera who married :aria .ocson in !#3, was not the same person who married :aria (ital" .ose<s legitimate mother" in !#,$. .ose ;elonged to a hum;ler famil1 which had no relation whatsoever with the famil1 of (enancio 'ivera and :aria (ital. This was more prosperous and prominent. >?cept for the curious Identit1 of names of the head of each" there is no evidence linking the two families or showing that the deceased (enancio 'ivera was the head of ;oth. )ow for the holographic wills. The respondent court considered them valid ;ecause it found them to have ;een written" dated and signed ;1 the testator himself in accordance with Article $!7 of the Civil Code. It also held there was no necessit1 of presenting the three witnesses re=uired under Article $!! ;ecause the authenticit1 of the wills had not ;een =uestioned. The e?istence and therefore also the authenticit1 of the holographic wills were =uestioned ;1 .ose 'ivera. In his own petition in 06 )o. !72+" he declared that (enancio 'ivera died intestateD and in 06 )o. !7#!" he denied the e?istence of the holographic wills presented ;1 Adelaido 'ivera for pro;ate. In ;oth proceedings" .ose 'ivera opposed the holographic wills su;mitted ;1 Adelaido 'ivera and claimed that the1 were spurious. Conse=uentl1" it ma1 ;e argued" the respondent court should have applied Article $!! of the Civil Code" providing as follows: In the pro;ate of a holographic will" it shall ;e necessar1 that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator e?plicitl1 declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested" at least three of such witnesses shall ;e re=uired. The flaw in this argument is that" as we have alread1 determined" .ose 'ivera is not the son of the deceased (enancio 'ivera whose estate is in =uestion. @ence" ;eing a mere stranger" he had no personalit1 to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have the legal effect of re=uiring the three witnesses. The testimon1 of Oenaida and (enancio 'ivera" .r." who authenticated the wills as having ;een written and signed ;1 their father" was sufficient. A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D and the challenged decision is AFFI':>D" with costs against the petitioner. 04 4'D>'>D.

G.R. No. 7671) &+n/ (, 199) 'ALUD EODORO VDA. DE $EREZ, vs. !ON. ZO #%O A. OLE E -n 1-* >a2a>-.y a* $,/*-d-n5 &+d5/, ",an>1 18, R %, "+3a>an, This is a petition for certiorari under 'ule +* of the 'evised 'ules of Court to set aside the 4rder dated )ovem;er !#" !#$+ of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch !$" 9ulacan presided ;1 respondent .udge Ootico A. Tolete" in 0pecial 6roceedings )o. !2# %:. Ae grant the petition. II Dr. .ose F. Cunanan and his wife" Dr. >vel1n 6ereB%Cunanan" who ;ecame American citiBens" esta;lished a successful medical practice in )ew /ork" C.0.A. The Cunanans lived at )o. ,$#+ Citation Drive" 6ompe1" 01racuse" )ew /ork" with their children" .ocel1n" !$D .ac=ueline" !+D and .osephine" !3. 4n August , " !#2#" Dr. Cunanan e?ecuted a last will and testament" ;e=ueathing to his wife -all the remainder- of his real and personal propert1 at the time of his death -wheresoever situated- ( -ollo" p. *). In the event he would survive his wife" he ;e=ueathed all his propert1 to his children and grandchildren with Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. as trustee. @e appointed his wife as e?ecutri? of his last will and testament and Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. as su;stitute e?ecutor. Article (III of his will states: If m1 wife" >(>8/) 6>'>O%CC)A)A)" and I shall die under such circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our deaths" then it shall ;e presumed that I predeceased her" and m1 estate shall ;e administered and distri;uted" in all respects" in accordance with such presumption (-ollo" p. 3!). Four da1s later" on August ,2" Dr. >vel1n 6. Cunanan e?ecuted her own last will and testament containing the same provisions as that of the will of her hus;and. Article (III of her will states: If m1 hus;and" .40> F. CC)A)A)" and I shall die under such circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our deaths" then it shall ;e presumed that he predeceased me" and m1 estate shall ;e administered and distri;uted in all respects" in accordance with such presumption. (-ollo" p. !). 4n .anuar1 #" !#$," Dr. Cunanan and his entire famil1 perished when the1 were trapped ;1 fire that gutted their home. Thereafter" Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. as trustee and su;stitute e?ecutor of the two wills" filed separate proceedings for the pro;ate thereof with the 0urrogate Court of the Count1 of 4nondaga" )ew /ork. 4n April 2" these two wills were admitted to pro;ate and letters testamentar1 were issued in his favor. 4n Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$ " 0alud Teodoro 6ereB" the mother of Dr. >vel1n 6. Cunanan" and petitioner herein" filed with the 'egional 6. Cunanan" and petitioner herein" filed with the 'egional Trial Court" :alolos" 9ulacan a petition for the repro;ate of the two ;ills ancillar1 to the pro;ate proceedings in )ew /ork. 0he also asked that she ;e appointed the special administratri? of the estate of the deceased couple consisting primaril1 of a farm land in 0an :iguel" 9ulacan. 4n :arch #" the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch !+" :alolos" 9ulacan" presided ;1 .udge &ual;erto .. de la 8lana" issued an order" directing the issuance of letters of special administration in favor of petitioner upon her filing of a 6!7"777.77 ;ond. The following da1" petitioner posted the ;ond and took her oath as special administration.

As her first act of administration" petitioner filed a motion" pra1ing that the 6hilippine 8ife Insurance Compan1 ;e directed to deliver the proceeds in the amount of 6*7"777.77 of the life insurance polic1 taken ;1 Dr. .ose F. Cunanan with Dr. >vel1n 6ereB%Cunanan and their daughter .ocel1n as ;eneficiaries. The trial court granted the motion. Counsel for the 6hilippine American 8ife Insurance Compan1 then filed a manifestation" stating that said compan1 then filed a manifestation" stating that said compan1 had delivered to petitioner the amount of 63#"2+*.$*" representing the proceeds of the life insurance polic1 of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan. In a motion dated :a1 !#" !#$ " petitioner asked that Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r. ;e ordered to deliver to her a 6hilippine Trust Compan1 pass;ook with 6,*"*#3.77 in savings deposit" and the Famil1 0avings 9ank time deposit certificates in the total amount of 6!,"3!,.*,. 4n :a1 !" Att1. Federico Alda1 filed a notice of appearance as counsel for the heirs of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan" namel1" Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r." 6riscilla Cunanan 9autista" 81dia Cunanan Ignacio" Felipe F. Cunanan and 8oreto Cunanan Concepcion (Cunanan heirs). @e also manifested that ;efore receiving petitioner<s motion of :a1 !#" !#$ " his clients were unaware of the filing of the testate estate case and therefore" -in the interest of simple fair pla1"- the1 should ;e notified of the proceedings ('ecords" p. !!7). @e pra1ed for deferment of the hearing on the motions of :a1 !#" !#$ . 6etitioner then filed a counter manifestation dated .une ! " !#$ " asserting: (!) that the -Cunanan collaterals are neither heirs nor creditors of the late Dr. .ose F. Cunanan- and therefore" the1 had -no legal or proprietar1 interests to protect- and -no right to intervene-D (,) that the wills of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan and Dr. >vel1n 6ereB%Cunanan" ;eing American citiBens" were e?ecuted in accordance with the solemnities and formalities of )ew /ork laws" and produced -effects in this 5urisdiction in accordance with Art. !+ in relation to Art. $!+ of the Civil Code-D ( ) that under Article (III of the two wills" it was presumed that the hus;and predeceased the wifeD and (3) that -the Cunanan collaterals are neither distri;utees" legatees or ;eneficiaries" much less" heirs as heirship is onl1 ;1 institution- under a will or ;1 operation of the law of )ew /ork ('ecords" pp. !!,%!! ). 4n .une , " the pro;ate court granted petitioner<s motion of :a1 !#" !#$ . @owever" on .ul1 ,!" the Cunanan heirs filed a motion to nullif1 the proceedings and to set aside the appointment of" or to dis=ualif1" petitioner as special administratri? of the estates of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan and Dr. >vel1n 6ereB% Cunanan. The motion stated: (!) that ;eing the -;rothers and sisters and the legal and surviving heirs- of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan" the1 had ;een -deli;eratel1 e?cluded- in the petition for the pro;ate of the separate wills of the Cunanan spouses there;1 misleading the 9ulacan court to ;elieve that petitioner was the sole heir of the spousesD that such -misrepresentation- deprived them of their right to -due process in violation of 0ection 3" 'ule 2+ of the 'evised 'ules of CourtD (,) that Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r." the e?ecutor of the estate of the Cunanan spouses" was likewise not notified of the hearings in the 9ulacan courtD ( ) that the -misrepresentation and concealment committed ;1- petitioner rendered her unfit to ;e a special administratri?D (3) that Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. had" ;1 virtue of a verified power of attorne1" authoriBed his father" Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r." to ;e his attorne1%in%factD and (*) that Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r. is =ualified to ;e a regular administrator -as practicall1 all of the su;5ect estate in the 6hilippines ;elongs to their ;rother" Dr. .ose F. Cunanan- ('ecords" pp. !!$%!,,). @ence" the1 pra1ed: (!) that the proceedings in the case ;e declared null and voidD (,) that the appointment of petitioner as special administratri? ;e set asideD and ( ) that Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r. ;e appointed the regular administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. Thereafter" the Cunanan heirs filed a motion re=uiring petitioner to su;mit an inventor1 or accounting of all monies received ;1 her in trust for the estate. In her opposition" petitioner asserted: (!) that she was the -sole and onl1 heir- of her daughter" Dr. >vel1n 6ereB%Cunanan to the e?clusion of the -Cunanan collaterals-D hence the1 were complete strangers to the

proceedings and were not entitled to noticeD (,) that she could not have -concealed- the name and address of Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. ;ecause his name was prominentl1 mentioned not onl1 in the two wills ;ut also in the decrees of the American surrogate courtD ( ) that the rule applica;le to the case is 'ule 22" not 'ule 2+" ;ecause it involved the allowance of wills proved outside of the 6hilippines and that nowhere in 0ection , of 'ule 22 is there a mention of notice ;eing given to the e?ecutor who" ;1 the same provision" should himself file the necessar1 ancillar1 proceedings in this countr1D (3) that even if the 9ulacan estate came from the -capital- of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan" he had willed all his worldl1 goods to his wife and nothing to his ;rothers and sistersD and (*) that Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. had unlawfull1 dis;ursed S,!*"777.77 to the Cunanan heirs" misappropriated S!*"777.77 for himself and irregularl1 assigned assets of the estates to his American law1er ('ecords" pp. !*!%!+7). In their repl1" the Cunanan heirs stressed that on )ovem;er ,3" !#$," petitioner and the Cunanan heirs had entered into an agreement in the Cnited 0tates -to settle and divide e=uall1 the estates"- and that under 0ection , of 'ule 22 the -court shall fi? a time and place for the hearing and cause notice thereof to ;e given as in case of an original will presented for allowance- ('ecords" pp. !$3%!$*). 6etitioner asked that Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. ;e cited for contempt of court for failure to compl1 with the 4rder of .une , " !#$ and for appropriating mone1 of the estate for his own ;enefit. 0he also alleged that she had impugned the agreement of )ovem;er ,3" !#$, ;efore the 0urrogate Court of 4nondaga" )ew /ork which rendered a decision on April ! " !#$ " finding that -all assets are pa1a;le to Dr. >vel1n 6. CunananRs e?ecutor to ;e then distri;uted pursuant to >6T83%!.! su;d GaH par G3H- ( -ollo" p. *,). 4n their part" the Cunanan heirs replied that petitioner was estopped from claiming that the1 were heirs ;1 the agreement to divide e=uall1 the estates. The1 asserted that ;1 virtue of 0ection , of 'ule 22 of the 'ules of Court" the provisions of 0ections " 3 and * of 'ule 2+ on the re=uirement of notice to all heirs" e?ecutors" devisees and legatees must ;e complied with. The1 reiterated their pra1er: (!) that the proceedings in the case ;e nullifiedD (,) that petitioner ;e dis=ualified as special administratri?D ( ) that she ;e ordered to su;mit an inventor1 of all goods" chattels and monies which she had received and to surrender the same to the courtD and (3) that Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r. ;e appointed the regular administrator. 6etitioner filed a re5oinder" stating that in violation of the April ! " !#$ decision of the American court Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. made -unauthoriBed dis;ursements from the estates as earl1 as .ul1 2" !#$,('ecords" p. , !). Thereafter" petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings as she had -to attend to the settlement proceedings- of the estate of the Cunanan spouses in )ew /ork ('ecords" p. ,3,). The Cunanans heirs opposed this motion and filed a manifestation" stating that petitioner had received S,!*"777.77 -from the 0urrogateRs Court as part of legac1- ;ased on the aforesaid agreement of )ovem;er ,3" !#$, ('ecords" p. ,3$). 4n Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3" .udge de la 8lana issued an order" disallowing the repro;ate of the two wills" recalling the appointment of petitioner as special administratri?" re=uiring the su;mission of petitioner of an inventor1 of the propert1 received ;1 her as special administratri? and declaring all pending incidents moot and academic. .udge de la 8lana reasoned out that petitioner failed to prove the law of )ew /ork on procedure and allowance of wills and the court had no wa1 of telling whether the wills were e?ecuted in accordance with the law of )ew /ork. In the a;sence of such evidence" the presumption is that the law of succession of the foreign countr1 is the same as the law of the 6hilippines. @owever" he noted" that there were onl1 two witnesses to the wills of the Cunanan spouses and the 6hilippine law re=uires three witnesses and that the wills were not signed on each and ever1 page" a re=uirement of the 6hilippine law. 4n August ,2" !#$*" petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 4rder dated Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3" where she had sufficientl1 proven the applica;le laws of )ew /ork governing the e?ecution of last wills and testaments.

4n the same da1" .udge de la 8lana issued another order" den1ing the motion of petitioner for the suspension of the proceedings ;ut gave her !* da1s upon arrival in the countr1 within which to act on the other order issued that same da1. Contending that the second portion of the second order left its finalit1 to the discretion of counsel for petitioner" the Cunanans filed a motion for the reconsideration of the o;5ectiona;le portion of the said order so that it would conform with the pertinent provisions of the .udiciar1 'eorganiBation Act of !#$7 and the Interim 'ules of Court. 4n April 7" !#$*" the respondent .udge of 9ranch !$ of the 'egional Trial Court" :alolos" to which the repro;ate case was reassigned" issued an order stating that -(A)hen the last will and testament . . . was denied pro;ate"- the case was terminated and therefore all orders theretofore issued should ;e given finalit1. The same 4rder amended the Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3 4rder ;1 re=uiring petitioner to turn over to the estate the inventoried propert1. It considered the proceedings for all intents and purposes" closed ('ecords" p. 7,). 4n August !," petitioner filed a motion to resume proceedings on account of the final settlement and termination of the pro;ate cases in )ew /ork. Three da1s later" petitioner filed a motion pra1ing for the reconsideration of the 4rder of April 7" !#$* on the strength of the Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3 4rder granting her a period of !* da1s upon arrival in the countr1 within which to act on the denial of pro;ate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses. 4n August !#" respondent .udge granted the motion and reconsidered the 4rder of April 7" !#$*. 4n August ,#" counsel for petitioner" who happens to ;e her daughter" )atividad" filed a motion pra1ing that since petitioner was ailing in Fort 8ee" )ew .erse1" C.0.A. and therefore incapacitated to act as special administratri?" she (the counsel) should ;e named su;stitute special administratri?. 0he also filed a motion for the reconsideration of the 4rder of Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3" den1ing pro;ate to the wills of the Cunanan spouses" alleging that respondent .udge -failed to appreciate the significant pro;ative value of the e?hi;its . . . which all refer to the offer and admission to pro;ate of the last wills of the Cunanan spouses including all procedures undertaken and decrees issued in connection with the said pro;ate('ecords" pp. ! % , ). Thereafter" the Cunanans heirs filed a motion for reconsideration of the 4rder of August !#" !#$*" alleging lack of notice to their counsel. 4n :arch !" !#$+" respondent .udge to which the case was reassigned denied the motion for reconsideration holding that the documents su;mitted ;1 petitioner proved -that the wills of the testator domiciled a;road were properl1 e?ecuted" genuine and sufficient to possess real and personal propert1D that letters testamentar1 were issuedD and that proceedings were held on a foreign tri;unal and proofs taken ;1 a competent 5udge who in=uired into all the facts and circumstances and ;eing satisfied with his findings issued a decree admitting to pro;ate the wills in =uestion.- @owever" respondent .udge said that the documents did not esta;lish the law of )ew /ork on the procedure and allowance of wills ('ecords" p. $!). 4n April #" !#$+" petitioner filed a motion to allow her to present further evidence on the foreign law. After the hearing of the motion on April ,*" !#$+" respondent .udge issued an order wherein he conceded that insufficienc1 of evidence to prove the foreign law was not a fatal defect and was cura;le ;1 adducing additional evidence. @e granted petitioner 3* da1s to su;mit the evidence to that effect. @owever" without waiting for petitioner to adduce the additional evidence" respondent .udge ruled in his order dated .une ,7" !#$+ that he found -no compelling reason to distur; its ruling of :arch !" !#$+- ;ut allowed petitioner to -file anew the appropriate pro;ate proceedings for each of the testator- ('ecords" p. #!).

The 4rder dated .une ,7" !#$+ prompted petitioner to file a second motion for reconsideration stating that she was -read1 to su;mit further evidence on the law o;taining in the 0tate of )ew /ork- and pra1ing that she ;e granted -the opportunit1 to present evidence on what the law of the 0tate of )ew /ork has on the pro;ate and allowance of wills- ('ecords" p. # ). 4n .ul1 !$" respondent .udge denied the motion holding that to allow the pro;ate of two wills in a single proceeding -would ;e a departure from the t1pical and esta;lished mode of pro;ate where one petition takes care of one will.- @e pointed out that even in )ew /ork -where the wills in =uestion were first su;mitted for pro;ate" the1 were dealt with in separate proceedings- ('ecords" p. #*). 4n August ! " !#$+" petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of the 4rder of .ul1 !$" !#$+" citing 0ection " 'ule , of the 'ules of Court" which provides that no part1 ma1 institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. 0he pointed out that separate proceedings for the wills of the spouses which contain ;asicall1 the same provisions as the1 even named each other as a ;eneficiar1 in their respective wills" would go against -the grain of ine?pensive" 5ust and speed1 determination of the proceedings('ecords" pp. 37*%372). 4n 0eptem;er !!" !#$+" petitioner filed a supplement to the motion for reconsideration" citing 2enigno v. &e La *e+a" *2 6hil. 7* (!# ,) ('ecords" p. 3!!)" ;ut respondent .udge found that this pleading had ;een filed out of time and that the adverse part1 had not ;een furnished with a cop1 thereof. In her compliance" petitioner stated that she had furnished a cop1 of the motion to the counsel of the Cunanan heirs and reiterated her motion for a -final ruling on her supplemental motion- ('ecords" p. 3,!). 4n )ovem;er !#" respondent .udge issued an order" den1ing the motion for reconsideration filed ;1 petitioner on the grounds that -the pro;ate of separate wills of two or more different persons even if the1 are hus;and and wife cannot ;e undertaken in a single petition- ('ecords" pp. 2+% 2$). @ence" petitioner instituted the instant petition" arguing that the evidence offered at the hearing of April !!" !#$ sufficientl1 proved the laws of the 0tate of )ew /ork on the allowance of wills" and that the separate wills of the Cunanan spouses need not ;e pro;ated in separate proceedings. II 6etitioner contends that the following pieces of evidence she had su;mitted ;efore respondent .udge are sufficient to warrant the allowance of the wills: (a) two certificates of authentication of the respective wills of >vel1n and .ose ;1 the Consulate &eneral of the 6hilippines (>?hs. -F- and -&-)D (;) two certifications from the 0ecretar1 of 0tate of )ew /ork and Custodian of the &reat 0eal on the facts that .udge 9ernard 8. 'eagan is the 0urrogate of the Countr1 of 4nondaga which is a court of record" that his signature and seal of office are genuine" and that the 0urrogate is dul1 authoriBed to grant cop1 of the respective wills of >vel1n and .ose (>?hs. -F%!- and -&%!-)D (c) two certificates of .udge 'eagan and Chief Clerk Donald >. :oore stating that the1 have in their records and files the said wills which were recorded on April 2" !#$, (>?hs. -F%,- and -&%,-)D (d) the respective wills of >vel1n and .ose (>?hs. -F% -" -F%+- and >?h. -&% - J -&%+-)D

(e) certificates of .udge 'eagan and the Chief Clerk certif1ing to the genuineness and authenticit1 of the e?emplified copies of the two wills (>?hs. -F%2- and -F%2-)D (f) two certificates of authentication from the Consulate &eneral of the 6hilippines in )ew /ork (>?h. -@- and -F-). (g) certifications from the 0ecretar1 of 0tate that .udge 'eagan is dul1 authoriBed to grant e?emplified copies of the decree of pro;ate" letters testamentar1 and all proceedings had and proofs dul1 taken (>?hs. -@%!- and -I%!-)D (h) certificates of .udge 'eagan and the Chief Clerk that letters testamentar1 were issued to 'afael &. Cunanan (>?hs. -@%,- and -I%,-)D (i) certification to the effect that it was during the term of .udge 'eagan that a decree admitting the wills to pro;ate had ;een issued and appointing 'afael &. Cunanan as alternate e?ecutor (>?hs. -@% - and -I%!7-)D (5) the decrees on pro;ate of the two wills specif1ing that proceedings were held and proofs dul1 taken (>?hs. -@%3- and -I%*-)D (k) decrees on pro;ate of the two wills stating that the1 were properl1 e?ecuted" genuine and valid and that the said instruments were admitted to pro;ate and esta;lished as wills valid to pass real and personal propert1 (>?hs. -@%*- and -I%*-)D and (l) certificates of .udge 'eagan and the Chief Clerk on the genuineness and authenticit1 of each otherRs signatures in the e?emplified copies of the decrees of pro;ate" letters testamentar1 and proceedings held in their court (>?hs. -@%+- and -I%+-) ( -ollo" pp. ! % !+). 6etitioner adds that the wills had ;een admitted to pro;ate in the 0urrogate CourtRs Decision of April ! " !#$ and that the proceedings were terminated on )ovem;er ,#" !#$3. The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses" who were American citiBens" will onl1 ;e effective in this countr1 upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines: Art. $!+. The will of an alien who is a;road produces effect in the 6hilippines if made with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 the law of the place in which he resides" or according to the formalities o;served in his countr1" or in conformit1 with those which this Code prescri;es. Thus" proof that ;oth wills conform with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 )ew /ork laws or ;1 6hilippine laws is imperative. The evidence necessar1 for the repro;ate or allowance of wills which have ;een pro;ated outside of the 6hilippines are as follows: (!) the due e?ecution of the will in accordance with the foreign lawsD (,) the testator has his domicile in the foreign countr1 and not in the 6hilippinesD ( ) the will has ;een admitted to pro;ate in such countr1D (3) the fact that the foreign tri;unal is a pro;ate court" and (*) the laws of a foreign countr1 on procedure and allowance of wills (III :oran Commentaries on the 'ules of Court" !#27 ed." pp. 3!#%3,#D 0unta1 v. 0unta1" #* 6hil. *77 G!#*3HD Fluemer v. @i?" *3 6hil. +!7 G!# 7H). >?cept for the first and last re=uirements" the petitioner su;mitted all the needed evidence.

The necessit1 of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the pro;ate in the foreign countr1 is ;ased is impelled ;1 the fact that our courts cannot take 5udicial notice of them (6hilippine Commercial and Industrial 9ank v. >scolin" *+ 0C'A ,++ G!#23H). 6etitioner must have perceived this omission as in fact she moved for more time to su;mit the pertinent procedural and su;stantive )ew /ork laws ;ut which re=uest respondent .udge 5ust glossed over. Ahile the pro;ate of a will is a special proceeding wherein courts should rela? the rules on evidence" the goal is to receive the ;est evidence of which the matter is suscepti;le ;efore a purported will is pro;ated or denied pro;ate ((da. de 'amos v. Court of Appeals" $! 0C'A # G!#2$H). There is merit in petitionerRs insistence that the separate wills of the Cunanan spouses should ;e pro;ated 5ointl1. 'espondent .udgeRs view that the 'ules on allowance of wills is couched in singular terms and therefore should ;e interpreted to mean that there should ;e separate pro;ate proceedings for the wills of the Cunanan spouses is too literal and simplistic an approach. 0uch view overlooks the provisions of 0ection ," 'ule ! of the 'evised 'ules of Court" which advise that the rules shall ;e -li;erall1 construed in order to promote their o;5ect and to assist the parties in o;taining 5ust" speed1" and ine?pensive determination of ever1 action and proceeding.A literal application of the 'ules should ;e avoided if the1 would onl1 result in the dela1 in the administration of 5ustice (Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court" !** 0C'A !77 G!#$2HD 'o;erts v. 8eonidas" !,# 0C'A G!#$3H). Ahat the law e?pressl1 prohi;its is the making of 5oint wills either for the testatorRs reciprocal ;enefit or for the ;enefit of a third person (Civil Code of the 6hilippines" Article $!$). In the case at ;ench" the Cunanan spouses e?ecuted separate wills. 0ince the two wills contain essentiall1 the same provisions and pertain to propert1 which in all pro;a;ilit1 are con5ugal in nature" practical considerations dictate their 5oint pro;ate. As this Court has held a num;er of times" it will alwa1s strive to settle the entire controvers1 in a single proceeding leaving no root or ;ranch to ;ear the seeds of future litigation (:otoomull v. Dela 6aB" !$2 0C'A 23 G!##7H). This petition cannot ;e completel1 resolved without touching on a ver1 glaring fact J petitioner has alwa1s considered herself the sole heir of Dr. >vel1n 6ereB Cunanan and ;ecause she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan" she noticea;l1 failed to notif1 his heirs of the filing of the proceedings. Thus" even in the instant petition" she onl1 impleaded respondent .udge" forgetting that a 5udge whose order is ;eing assailed is merel1 a nominal or formal part1 (Calderon v. 0olicitor &eneral" ,!* 0C'A $2+ G!##,H). The rule that the court having 5urisdiction over the repro;ate of a will shall -cause notice thereof to ;e given as in case of an original will presented for allowance- ('evised 'ules of Court" 'ule ,2" 0ection ,) means that with regard to notices" the will pro;ated a;road should ;e treated as if it were an -original willor a will that is presented for pro;ate for the first time. Accordingl1" compliance with 0ections and 3 of 'ule 2+" which re=uire pu;lication and notice ;1 mail or personall1 to the -known heirs" legatees" and devisees of the testator resident in the 6hilippines- and to the e?ecutor" if he is not the petitioner" are re=uired. The ;rothers and sisters of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan" contrar1 to petitioner<s claim" are entitled to notices of the time and place for proving the wills. Cnder 0ection 3 of 'ule 2+ of the 'evised 'ules of Court" the -court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fi?ed for proving the will to ;e addressed to the designated or other known heirs" legatees" and devisees of the testator" . . . A@>'>F4'>" the =uestioned 4rder is 0>T A0ID>. 'espondent .udge shall allow petitioner reasona;le time within which to su;mit evidence needed for the 5oint pro;ate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses and see to it that the ;rothers and sisters of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan are given all notices and copies of all pleadings pertinent to the pro;ate proceedings.

04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 118671 &an+a,y (9, 1996

!E E' A E OF !#LAR#O M. RU#Z, EDMOND RU#Z, EA/>+.o,, vs. !E %OUR OF A$$EAL' DFo,7/, '2/>-a3 '-A.1 D-8-*-onE, MAR#A $#LAR RU#Z-MON E', MAR#A %A !RYN RU#Z, %AND#%E AL"ER #NE RU#Z, MAR#A ANGEL#NE RU#Z and !E $RE'#D#NG &UDGE OF !E REG#ONAL R#AL %OUR OF $A'#G, This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the decision dated )ovem;er !7" !##3 and the resolution dated .anuar1 *" !##* of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. 06 )o. 73*. The facts show that on .une ,2" !#$2" @ilario :. 'uiB ! e?ecuted a holographic will naming as his heirs his onl1 son" >dmond 'uiB" his adopted daughter" private respondent :aria 6ilar 'uiB :ontes" and his three granddaughters" private respondents :aria Cathr1n" Candice Al;ertine and :aria Angeline" all children of >dmond 'uiB. The testator ;e=ueathed to his heirs su;stantial cash" personal and real properties and named >dmond 'uiB e?ecutor of his estate., 4n April !," !#$$" @ilario 'uiB died. Immediatel1 thereafter" the cash component of his estate was distri;uted among >dmond 'uiB and private respondents in accordance with the decedent<s will. For un;eknown reasons" >dmond" the named e?ecutor" did not take an1 action for the pro;ate of his father<s holographic will. 4n .une ,#" !##," four 1ears after the testator<s death" it was private respondent :aria 6ilar 'uiB :ontes who filed ;efore the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch !*+" 6asig" a petition for the pro;ate and approval of @ilario 'uiB<s will and for the issuance of letters testamentar1 to >dmond 'uiB" 0urprisingl1" >dmond opposed the petition on the ground that the will was e?ecuted under undue influence. 4n )ovem;er ," !##," one of the properties of the estate J the house and lot at )o. , 4liva 0treet" (alle (erde I(" 6asig which the testator ;e=ueathed to :aria Cathr1n" Candice Al;ertine and :aria Angeline 3 J was leased out ;1 >dmond 'uiB to third persons. 4n .anuar1 !#" !## " the pro;ate court ordered >dmond to deposit with the 9ranch Clerk of Court the rental deposit and pa1ments totalling 6*37"777.77 representing the one%1ear lease of the (alle (erde propert1. In compliance" on .anuar1 ,*" !## " >dmond turned over the amount of 6 3$"*$ .*+" representing the ;alance of the rent after deducting 6!#!"3!+.!3 for repair and maintenance e?penses on the estate.* In :arch !## " >dmond moved for the release of 6*7"777.77 to pa1 the real estate ta?es on the real properties of the estate. The pro;ate court approved the release of 62"2,,.77. + 4n :a1 !3" !## " >dmond withdrew his opposition to the pro;ate of the will. Conse=uentl1" the pro;ate court" on :a1 !$" !## " admitted the will to pro;ate and ordered the issuance of letters testamentar1 to >dmond conditioned upon the filing of a ;ond in the amount of 6*7"777.77. The letters testamentar1 were issued on .une , " !## . 4n .ul1 ,$" !## " petitioner Testate >state of @ilario 'uiB" with >dmond 'uiB as e?ecutor" filed an ->?% 6arte :otion for 'elease of Funds.- It pra1ed for the release of the rent pa1ments deposited with the 9ranch Clerk of Court. 'espondent :ontes opposed the motion and concurrentl1 filed a -:otion for 'elease of Funds to Certain @eirs- and -:otion for Issuance of Certificate of Allowance of 6ro;ate Aill.:ontes pra1ed for the release of the said rent pa1ments to :aria Cathr1n" Candice Al;ertine and :aria Angeline and for the distri;ution of the testator<s properties" specificall1 the (alle (erde propert1 and the 9lue 'idge apartments" in accordance with the provisions of the holographic will.

4n August ,+" !## " the pro;ate court denied petitioner<s motion for release of funds ;ut granted respondent :ontes< motion in view of petitioner<s lack of opposition. It thus ordered the release of the rent pa1ments to the decedent<s three granddaughters. It further ordered the deliver1 of the titles to and possession of the properties ;e=ueathed to the three granddaughters and respondent :ontes upon the filing of a ;ond of 6*7"777.77. 6etitioner moved for reconsideration alleging that he actuall1 filed his opposition to respondent :ontes<s motion for release of rent pa1ments which opposition the court failed to consider. 6etitioner likewise reiterated his previous motion for release of funds. 4n )ovem;er , " !## " petitioner" through counsel" manifested that he was withdrawing his motion for release of funds in view of the fact that the lease contract over the (alle (erde propert1 had ;een renewed for another 1ear.2 Despite petitioner<s manifestation" the pro;ate court" on Decem;er ,," !## " ordered the release of the funds to >dmond ;ut onl1 -such amount as ma1 ;e necessar1 to cover the e?penses of administration and allowances for support- of the testator<s three granddaughters su;5ect to collation and deducti;le from their share in the inheritance. The court" however" held in a;e1ance the release of the titles to respondent :ontes and the three granddaughters until the lapse of si? months from the date of first pu;lication of the notice to creditors.$ The court stated thus: ??? ??? ???

After consideration of the arguments set forth thereon ;1 the parties the court resolves to allow Administrator >dmond :. 'uiB to take possession of the rental pa1ments deposited with the Clerk of Court" 6asig 'egional Trial Court" ;ut onl1 such amount as ma1 ;e necessary to cover the e?penses of administration and allowances for support of :aria Cathr1n (eroni=ue" Candice Al;ertine and :aria Angeli" which are su;5ect to collation and deducti;le from the share in the inheritance of said heirs and insofar as the1 e?ceed the fruits or rents pertaining to them. As to the release of the titles ;e=ueathed to petitioner :aria 6ilar 'uiB%:ontes and the a;ove% named heirs" the same is here;1 reconsidered and $eld in a eyance until the lapse of si? (+) months from the date of first pu;lication of )otice to Creditors. A@>'>F4'>" Administrator >dmond :. 'uiB is here;1 ordered to su;mit an accounting of the e?penses necessar1 for administration including provisions for the support 4f :aria Cathr1n (eroni=ue 'uiB" Candice Al;ertine 'uiB and :aria Angeli 'uiB ;efore the amount re=uired can ;e withdrawn and cause the pu;lication of the notice to creditors with reasona;le dispatch.# 6etitioner assailed this order ;efore the Court of Appeals. Finding no grave a;use of discretion on the part of respondent 5udge" the appellate court dismissed the petition and sustained the pro;ate court<s order in a decision dated )ovem;er !7" !##3!7 and a resolution dated .anuar1 *" !##*.!! @ence" this petition. 6etitioner claims that: T@> 6C98IC '>064)D>)T C4C'T 4F A66>A80 C4::ITT>D &'A(> A9C0> 4F DI0C'>TI4) A:4C)TI)& T4 8ACL 4' >MC>00 4F .C'I0DICTI4) I) AFFI':I)& A)D C4)FI':I)& T@> 4'D>' 4F '>064)D>)T '>&I4)A8 T'IA8 C4C'T 4F 6A0I&" 9'A)C@ !*+" DAT>D D>C>:9>' ,," !## " A@IC@ A@>) &I(>) DC> C4C'0> A)D I0 >FF>CT>D A4C8D: (!) DI0A884A T@> >M>CCT4'EAD:I)I0T'AT4' 4F T@> >0TAT> 4F T@> 8AT> @I8A'I4 :. 'CIO T4 TAL> 6400>00I4) 4F A88 T@> '>A8 A)D 6>'04)A8

6'46>'TI>0 4F T@> >0TAT>D (,) &'A)T 0C664'T" DC'I)& T@> 6>)D>)C/ 4F T@> 0>TT8>:>)T 4F A) >0TAT>" T4 C>'TAI) 6>'04)0 )4T >)TIT8>D T@>'>T4D A)D ( ) 6'>:ATC'>8/ 6A'TITI4) A)D DI0T'I9CT> T@> >0TAT> 6C'0CA)T T4 T@> 6'4(I0I4)0 4F T@> @484&'A6@IC AI88 >(>) 9>F4'> IT0 I)T'I)0IC (A8IDIT/ @A0 9>>) D>T>':I)>D" A)D D>06IT> T@> >MI0T>)C> 4F C)6AID D>9T0 A)D 498I&ATI4)0 4F T@> >0TAT>.!, The issue for resolution is whether the pro;ate court" after admitting the will to pro;ate ;ut ;efore pa1ment of the estate<s de;ts and o;ligations" has the authorit1: (!) to grant an allowance from the funds of the estate for the support of the testator<s grandchildrenD (,) to order the release of the titles to certain heirsD and ( ) to grant possession of all properties of the estate to the e?ecutor of the will. 4n the matter of allowance" 0ection of 'ule $ of the 'evised 'ules of Court provides:

0ec. . "llo%ance to %ido% and family . J The widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person" during the settlement of the estate" shall receive therefrom under the direction of the court" such allowance as are provided ;1 law. 6etitioner alleges that this provision onl1 gives the widow and the minor or incapacitated children of the deceased the right to receive allowances for support during the settlement of estate proceedings. @e contends that the testator<s three granddaughters do not =ualif1 for an allowance ;ecause the1 are not incapacitated and are no longer minors ;ut of legal age" married and gainfull1 emplo1ed. In addition" the provision e?pressl1 states -children- of the deceased which e?cludes the latter<s grandchildren. It is settled that allowances for support under 0ection of 'ule $ should not ;e limited to the -minor or incapacitated- children of the deceased. Article !$$ ! of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines" the su;stantive law in force at the time of the testator<s death" provides that during the li=uidation of the con5ugal partnership" the deceased<s legitimate spouse and children" regardless of their age" civil status or gainful emplo1ment" are entitled to provisional support from the funds of the estate. !3 The law is rooted on the fact that the right and dut1 to support" especiall1 the right to education" su;sist even ;e1ond the age of ma5orit1.!* 9e that as it ma1" grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedent<s estate. The law clearl1 limits the allowance to -widow and children- and does not e?tend it to the deceased<s grandchildren" regardless of their minorit1 or incapacit1. !+ It was error" therefore" for the appellate court to sustain the pro;ate court<s order granting an allowance to the grandchildren of the testator pending settlement of his estate. 'espondent courts also erred when the1 ordered the release of the titles of the ;e=ueathed properties to private respondents si? months after the date of first pu;lication of notice to creditors. An order releasing titles to properties of the estate amounts to an advance distri;ution of the estate which is allowed onl1 under the following conditions: 0ec. ,. "dvance distri ution in special proceedings. J )othwithstanding a pending controvers1 or appeal in proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent" the court ma1" in its discretion and upon such terms as it ma1 deem proper and 5ust" permit that such part of the estate as ma1 not ;e affected ;1 the controvers1 or appeal ;e distri;uted among the heirs or legatees" upon compliance with the conditions set forth in 'ule #7 of these 'ules. !2 And 'ule #7 provides that: 0ec. !. 7$en order for distri ution of residue made. J 7$en t$e de ts, funeral c$arges, and expenses of administration t$e allo%ance to t$e %ido%, and in$eritance tax if any, c$argea le to t$e estate in accordance %it$ la%, $ave een paid, t$e court, on t$e application of t$e executor or

administrator, or of a person interested in t$e estate, and after $earing upon notice s$all assign t$e residue of t$e estate to t$e persons entitled to t$e same " naming them and the proportions or parts" to which each is entitled" and such persons ma1 demand and recover their respective shares from the e?ecutor or administrator" or an1 other person having the same in his possession. If there is a controvers1 ;efore the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distri;utive shares to which each person is entitled under the law" the controvers1 shall ;e heard and decided as in ordinar1 cases. )o distri;ution shall ;e allowed until the pa1ment of the o;ligations a;ove%mentioned has ;een made or provided for" unless the distri;utees" or an1 of them" give a ;ond" in a sum to ;e fi?ed ;1 the court" conditioned for the pa1ment of said o;ligations within such time as the court directs. !$ In settlement of estate proceedings" the distri;ution of the estate properties can onl1 ;e made: (!) after all the de;ts" funeral charges" e?penses of administration" allowance to the widow" and estate ta? have ;een paidD or (,) ;efore pa1ment of said o;ligations onl1 if the distri;utees or an1 of them gives a ;ond in a sum fi?ed ;1 the court conditioned upon the pa1ment of said o;ligations within such time as the court directs" or when provision is made to meet those o;ligations. !# In the case at ;ar" the pro;ate court ordered the release of the titles to the (alle (erde propert1 and the 9lue 'idge apartments to the private respondents after the lapse of si? months from the date of first pu;lication of the notice to creditors. The =uestioned order speaks of -notice- to creditors" not pa1ment of de;ts and o;ligations. @ilario 'uiB allegedl1 left no de;ts when he died ;ut the ta?es on his estate had not hitherto ;een paid" much less ascertained. The estate ta? is one of those o;ligations that must ;e paid ;efore distri;ution of the estate. If not 1et paid" the rule re=uires that the distri;utees post a ;ond or make such provisions as to meet the said ta? o;ligation in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance.,7 )ota;l1" at the time the order was issued the properties of the estate had not 1et ;een inventoried and appraised. It was also too earl1 in the da1 for the pro;ate court to order the release of the titles si? months after admitting the will to pro;ate. The pro;ate of a will is conclusive as to its due e?ecution and e?trinsic validit1,! and settles onl1 the =uestion of whether the testator" ;eing of sound mind" freel1 e?ecuted it in accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law. ,, Iuestions as to the intrinsic validit1 and efficac1 of the provisions of the will" the legalit1 of an1 devise or legac1 ma1 ;e raised even after the will has ;een authenticated., The intrinsic validit1 of @ilario<s holographic will was controverted ;1 petitioner ;efore the pro;ate court in his 'epl1 to :ontes< 4pposition to his motion for release of funds ,3 and his motion for reconsideration of the August ,+" !## order of the said court. ,* Therein" petitioner assailed the distri;utive shares of the devisees and legatees inasmuch as his father<s will included the estate of his mother and allegedl1 impaired his legitime as an intestate heir of his mother. The 'ules provide that if there is a controvers1 as to who are the lawful heirs of the decedent and their distri;utive shares in his estate" the pro;ate court shall proceed to hear and decide the same as in ordinar1 cases. ,+ 0till and all" petitioner cannot correctl1 claim that the assailed order deprived him of his right to take possession of all the real and personal properties of the estate. The right of an e?ecutor or administrator to the possession and management of the real and personal properties of the deceased is not a;solute and can onl1 ;e e?ercised -so long as it is necessar1 for the pa1ment of the de;ts and e?penses of administration"-,2 0ection of 'ule $3 of the 'evised 'ules of Court e?plicitl1 provides: 0ec. . Executor or administrator to retain %$ole estate to pay de ts, and to administer estate not %illed. J An e?ecutor or administrator shall have the right to the possession and management of the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary for t$e payment of t$e de ts and expenses for administration.,$

Ahen petitioner moved for further release of the funds deposited with the clerk of court" he had ;een previousl1 granted ;1 the pro;ate court certain amounts for repair and maintenance e?penses on the properties of the estate" and pa1ment of the real estate ta?es thereon. 9ut petitioner moved again for the release of additional funds for the same reasons he previousl1 cited. It was correct for the pro;ate court to re=uire him to su;mit an accounting of the necessar1 e?penses for administration ;efore releasing an1 further mone1 in his favor. It was relevantl1 noted ;1 the pro;ate court that petitioner had deposited with it onl1 a portion of the one% 1ear rental income from the (alle (erde propert1. 6etitioner did not deposit its succeeding rents after renewal of the lease.,# )either did he render an accounting of such funds. 6etitioner must ;e reminded that his right of ownership over the properties of his father is merel1 inchoate as long as the estate has not ;een full1 settled and partitioned. 7 As e?ecutor" he is a mere trustee of his father<s estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are trust funds and he is held to the duties and responsi;ilities of a trustee of the highest order. ! @e cannot unilaterall1 assign to himself and possess all his parents< properties and the fruits thereof without first su;mitting an inventor1 and appraisal of all real and personal properties of the deceased" rendering a true account of his administration" the e?penses of administration" the amount of the o;ligations and estate ta?" all of which are su;5ect to a determination ;1 the court as to their veracit1" propriet1 and 5ustness. , I) (I>A A@>'>4F" the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. 06 )o. 73* affirming the order dated Decem;er ,," !## of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch !*+" 6asig in 06 6roc. )o. !7,*# are affirmed with the modification that those portions of the order granting an allowance to the testator<s grandchildren and ordering the release of the titles to the private respondents upon notice to creditors are annulled and set aside. 'espondent 5udge is ordered to proceed with dispatch in the proceedings ;elow. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 8(0(7 Ma,>1 (9, 1990 ROMAR#%O G. V# UG, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL' and RO9ENA FAU' #NO%ORONA, This case is a chapter in an earlier suit decided ;1 this Court 1 involving the pro;ate of the two wills of the late Dolores 8uchangco (itug" who died in )ew /ork" C. 0.A." on )ovem;er !7" !#$7" naming private respondent 'owena Faustino%Corona e?ecutri?. In our said decision" we upheld the appointment of )enita Alonte as co%special administrator of :rs. (itug<s estate with her (:rs. (itug<s) widower" petitioner 'omarico &. (itug" pending pro;ate. 4n .anuar1 ! " !#$*" 'omarico &. (itug filed a motion asking for authorit1 from the pro;ate court to sell certain shares of stock and real properties ;elonging to the estate to cover allegedl1 his advances to the estate in the sum of 6++2"2 !.++" plus interests" which he claimed were personal funds. As found ;1 the Court of Appeals" ( the alleged advances consisted of 6*$"!32.37 spent for the pa1ment of estate ta?" 6*!$"$ 3.,2 as deficienc1 estate ta?" and 6#7"23#.## as -increment thereto.- 3 According to :r. (itug" he withdrew the sums of 6*!$"$ 3.,2 and 6#7"23#.## from savings account )o. * 3,%7 $ of the 9ank of America" :akati" :etro :anila. 4n April !," !#$*" 'owena Corona opposed the motion to sell on the ground that the same funds withdrawn from savings account )o. * 3,%7 $ were con5ugal partnership properties and part of the estate" and hence" there was allegedl1 no ground for reim;ursement. 0he also sought his ouster for failure to include the sums in =uestion for inventor1 and for -concealment of funds ;elonging to the estate.- )

(itug insists that the said funds are his e?clusive propert1 having ac=uired the same through a survivorship agreement e?ecuted with his late wife and the ;ank on .une !#" !#27. The agreement provides: Ae here;1 agree with each other and with the 9A)L 4F A:>'ICA) )ATI4)A8 T'C0T A)D 0A(I)&0 A004CIATI4) (hereinafter referred to as the 9A)L)" that all mone1 now or hereafter deposited ;1 us or an1 or either of us with the 9A)L in our 5oint savings current account shall ;e the propert1 of all or ;oth of us and shall ;e pa1a;le to and collecti;le or withdrawa;le ;1 either or an1 of us during our lifetime" and after the death of either or an1 of us shall ;elong to and ;e the sole propert1 of the survivor or survivors" and shall ;e pa1a;le to and collecti;le or withdrawa;le ;1 such survivor or survivors. Ae further agree with each other and the 9A)L that the receipt or check of either" an1 or all of us during our lifetime" or the receipt or check of the survivor or survivors" for an1 pa1ment or withdrawal made for our a;ove%mentioned account shall ;e valid and sufficient release and discharge of the 9A)L for such pa1ment or withdrawal. 5 The trial courts 6 upheld the validit1 of this agreement and granted -the motion to sell some of the estate of Dolores 8. (itug" the proceeds of which shall ;e used to pa1 the personal funds of 'omarico (itug in the total sum of 6++2"2 !.++ ... .- 7 4n the other hand" the Court of Appeals" in the petition for certiorari filed ;1 the herein private respondent" held that the a;ove%=uoted survivorship agreement constitutes a conve1ance mortis causa which -did not compl1 with the formalities of a valid will as prescri;ed ;1 Article $7* of the Civil Code"- 8 and secondl1" assuming that it is a mere donation inter vivos, it is a prohi;ited donation under the provisions of Article ! of the Civil Code. 9 The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals states: A@>'>F4'>" the order of respondent .udge dated )ovem;er ,+" !#$* (Anne? II" petition) is here;1 set aside insofar as it granted private respondent<s motion to sell certain properties of the estate of Dolores 8. (itug for reim;ursement of his alleged advances to the estate" ;ut the same order is sustained in all other respects. In addition" respondent .udge is directed to include provisionall1 the deposits in 0avings Account )o. * 3,%7 $ with the 9ank of America" :akati" in the inventor1 of actual properties possessed ;1 the spouses at the time of the decedent<s death. Aith costs against private respondent. 10 In his petition" (itug" the surviving spouse" assails the appellate court<s ruling on the strength of our decisions in -ivera v. *eople9s 2an# and /rust Co. 11 and 6acam v. Batmaitan 1( in which we sustained the validit1 of -survivorship agreements- and considering them as aleator1 contracts. 13 The petition is meritorious. The conve1ance in =uestion is not" first of all" one of mortis causa, which should ;e em;odied in a will. A will has ;een defined as -a personal" solemn" revoca;le and free act ;1 which a capacitated person disposes of his propert1 and rights and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death.- 1) In other words" the ;e=uest or device must pertain to the testator. 15 In this case" the monies su;5ect of savings account )o. * 3,%7 $ were in the nature of con5ugal funds In the case relied on" -ivera v. *eople9s 2an# and /rust Co., 16 we re5ected claims that a survivorship agreement purports to deliver one part1<s separate properties in favor of the other" ;ut simpl1" their 5oint holdings: ??? ??? ???

... 0uch conclusion is evidentl1 predicated on the assumption that 0tephenson was the e?clusive owner of the funds%deposited in the ;ank" which assumption was in turn ;ased on the facts (!) that the account was originall1 opened in the name of 0tephenson alone and (,) that Ana 'ivera -served onl1 as housemaid of the deceased.- 9ut it not infre=uentl1 happens that a person deposits mone1 in the ;ank in the name of anotherD and in the instant case it also appears that Ana 'ivera served her master for a;out nineteen 1ears without actuall1 receiving her salar1 from him. The fact that su;se=uentl1 0tephenson transferred the account to the name of himself andEor Ana 'ivera and e?ecuted with the latter the survivorship agreement in =uestion although there was no relation of kinship ;etween them ;ut onl1 that of master and servant" nullifies the assumption that 0tephenson was the e?clusive owner of the ;ank account. In the a;sence" then" of clear proof to the contrar1" we must give full faith and credit to the certificate of deposit which recites in effect that the funds in =uestion ;elonged to >dgar 0tephenson and Ana 'iveraD that the1 were 5oint (and several) owners thereofD and that either of them could withdraw an1 part or the whole of said account during the lifetime of ;oth" and the ;alance" if an1" upon the death of either" ;elonged to the survivor. 17 ??? ??? ??? In 6acam v. Batmaitan, 18 it was held: ??? ??? ??? This Court is of the opinion that >?hi;it C is an aleator1 contract where;1" according to article !2#7 of the Civil Code" one of the parties or ;oth reciprocall1 ;ind themselves to give or do something as an e=uivalent for that which the other part1 is to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which is uncertain or will happen at an indeterminate time. As alread1 stated" 8eonarda was the owner of the house and .uana of the 9uick automo;ile and most of the furniture. 91 virtue of >?hi;it C" .uana would ;ecome the owner of the house in case 8eonarda died first" and 8eonarda would ;ecome the owner of the automo;ile and the furniture if .uana were to die first. In this manner 8eonarda and .uana reciprocall1 assigned their respective propert1 to one another conditioned upon who might die first" the time of death determining the event upon which the ac=uisition of such right ;1 the one or the other depended. This contract" as an1 other contract" is ;inding upon the parties thereto. Inasmuch as 8eonarda had died ;efore .uana" the latter thereupon ac=uired the ownership of the house" in the same manner as 8eonarda would have ac=uired the ownership of the automo;ile and of the furniture if .uana had died first.
19

??? ??? ??? There is no showing that the funds e?clusivel1 ;elonged to one part1" and hence it must ;e presumed to ;e con5ugal" having ;een ac=uired during the e?istence of the marita. relations. (0 )either is the survivorship agreement a donation inter vivos, for o;vious reasons" ;ecause it was to take effect after the death of one part1. 0econdl1" it is not a donation ;etween the spouses ;ecause it involved no conve1ance of a spouse<s own properties to the other. It is also our opinion that the agreement involves no modification petition of the con5ugal partnership" as held ;1 the Court of Appeals" (1 ;1 -mere stipulation- (( and that it is no -cloak- (3 to circumvent the law on con5ugal propert1 relations. Certainl1" the spouses are not prohi;ited ;1 law to invest con5ugal propert1" sa1" ;1 wa1 of a 5oint and several ;ank account" more commonl1 denominated in ;anking parlance as an -andEor- account. In the case at ;ar" when the spouses (itug opened savings account )o. * 3,%7 $" the1 merel1 put what rightfull1 ;elonged to them in a mone1%making venture. The1 did not dispose of it in

favor of the other" which would have argua;l1 ;een sanctiona;le as a prohi;ited donation. And since the funds were con5ugal" it can not ;e said that one spouse could have pressured the other in placing his or her deposits in the mone1 pool. The validit1 of the contract seems de;ata;le ;1 reason of its -survivor%take%all- feature" ;ut in realit1" that contract imposed a mere o;ligation with a term" the term ;eing death. 0uch agreements are permitted ;1 the Civil Code. () Cnder Article ,7!7 of the Code: A'T. ,7!7. 91 an aleator1 contract" one of the parties or ;oth reciprocall1 ;ind themselves to give or to do something in consideration of what the other shall give or do upon the happening of an event which is uncertain" or which is to occur at an indeterminate time. Cnder the afore=uoted provision" the fulfillment of an aleator1 contract depends on either the happening of an event which is (!) -uncertain"- (,) -which is to occur at an indeterminate time.- A survivorship agreement" the sale of a sweepstake ticket" a transaction stipulating on the value of currenc1" and insurance have ;een held to fall under the first categor1" while a contract for life annuit1 or pension under Article ,7,!" et se!uentia" has ;een categoriBed under the second. (5 In either case" the element of risk is present. In the case at ;ar" the risk was the death of one part1 and survivorship of the other. @owever" as we have warned: ??? ??? ??? 9ut although the survivorship agreement is per se not contrar1 to law its operation or effect ma1 ;e violative of the law. For instance" if it ;e shown in a given case that such agreement is a mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation" to transfer propert1 in fraud of creditors" or to defeat the legitime of a forced heir" it ma1 ;e assailed and annulled upon such grounds. )o such vice has ;een imputed and esta;lished against the agreement involved in this case. (6 ??? ??? ??? There is no demonstration here that the survivorship agreement had ;een e?ecuted for such unlawful purposes" or" as held ;1 the respondent court" in order to frustrate our laws on wills" donations" and con5ugal partnership. The conclusion is accordingl1 unavoida;le that :rs. (itug having predeceased her hus;and" the latter has ac=uired upon her death a vested right over the amounts under savings account )o. * 3,%7 $ of the 9ank of America. Insofar as the respondent court ordered their inclusion in the inventor1 of assets left ;1 :rs. (itug" we hold that the court was in error. 9eing the separate propert1 of petitioner" it forms no more part of the estate of the deceased. A@>'>F4'>" the decision of the respondent appellate court" dated .une ,#" !#$2" and its resolution" dated Fe;ruar1 #" !#$$" are 0>T A0ID>. )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No*. 838)3-)) A2,-3 5, 1990

#N !E MA ER OF !E $E # #ON O A$$ROVE !E 9#LL OF MELE%#O LA"RADOR. 'AGRADO LA"RADOR DD/>/a*/dE, *+0*.-.+./d 0y RO'# A LA"RADOR, ENR#%A LA"RADOR, and %R#' O"AL LA"RADOR, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', 1 GAUDEN%#O LA"RADOR, and &E'U' LA"RADOR, The sole issue in this case is whether or not the alleged holographic will of one :elecio 8a;rador is dated" as provided for in Article $!7 ( of the )ew Civil Code. The antecedent and relevant facts are as follows: 4n .une !7" !#2," :elecio 8a;rador died in the :unicipalit1 of I;a" province of Oam;ales" where he was residing" leaving ;ehind a parcel of land designated as 8ot )o. !#!+ under 4riginal Certificate of Title )o. 6%!+*," and the following heirs" namel1: 0agrado" >nrica" Cristo;al" .esus" &audencio" .osefina" .uliana" @ilaria and .ovita" all surnamed 8a;rador" and a holographic will. 4n .ul1 ,$" !#2*" 0agrado 8a;rador (now deceased ;ut su;stituted ;1 his heirs)" >nrica 8a;rador and Cristo;al 8a;rador" filed in the court a !uo a petition for the pro;ate docketed as 0pecial 6roceeding )o. #,,%I of the alleged holographic will of the late :elecio 8a;rador. 0u;se=uentl1" on 0eptem;er 7" !#2*" .esus 8a;rador (now deceased ;ut su;stituted ;1 his heirs)" and &audencio 8a;rador filed an opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has ;een e?tinguished or revoked ;1 implication of law" alleging therein that on 0eptem;er 7" !#2!" that is" ;efore :elecio<s death" for the consideration of 0i? Thousand (6+"777) 6esos" testator :elecio e?ecuted a Deed of A;solute 0ale" selling" transferring and conve1ing in favor of oppositors .esus and &audencio 8ot )o. !#!+ and that as a matter of fact" 4.C.T. )o. 6%!+*, had ;een cancelled ;1 T.C.T. )o. T%,!!2$. >arlier however" in !#2 " .esus 8a;rador sold said parcel of land to )avat for onl1 Five Thousand (6*"777) 6esos. (-ollo" p. 2) 0agrado thereupon filed" on )ovem;er ,$" !#2*" against his ;rothers" &audencio and .esus" for the annulment of said purported Deed of A;solute 0ale over a parcel of land which 0agrado allegedl1 had alread1 ac=uired ;1 devise from their father :elecio 8a;rador under a holographic will e?ecuted on :arch !2" !#+$" the complaint for annulment docketed as Civil Case )o. # 3%I" ;eing premised on the fact that the aforesaid Deed of A;solute 0ale is fictitious. After ;oth parties had rested and su;mitted their respective evidence" the trial court rendered a 5oint decision dated Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#$*" allowing the pro;ate of the holographic will and declaring null and void the Deed of A;solute sale. The court a !uo had also directed the respondents (the defendants in Civil Case )o. # 3%I) to reim;urse to the petitioners the sum of 6*"777.77 representing the redemption price for the propert1 paid ;1 the plaintiff%petitioner 0agrado with legal interest thereon from Decem;er ,7" !#2+" when it was paid to vendee a retro. 'espondents appealed the 5oint decision to the Court of Appeals" which on :arch !7" !#$$ modified said 5oint decision of the court a !uo ;1 den1ing the allowance of the pro;ate of the will for ;eing undated and reversing the order of reim;ursement. 6etitioners< :otion for 'econsideration of the aforesaid decision was denied ;1 the Court of Appeals" in the resolution of .une ! " !#$$. @ence" this petition. 6etitioners now assign the following errors committed ;1 respondent court" to wit: I T@> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) )4T A884AI)& A)D A66'4(I)& T@> 6'49AT> 4F T@> @484&'A6@IC AI88 4F T@> T>0TAT4' :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4'D and

II T@> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) FI)DI)& T@AT T@> 4'D>' 4F T@> 84A>' C4C'T DI'>CTI)& T@> '>I:9C'0>:>)T 4F T@> FI(> T@4C0A)D 6>040 '>6'>0>)TI)& T@> '>D>:6TI4) 6'IC> AA0 >''4)>4C0. The alleged undated holographic will written in Ilocano translated into >nglish" is =uoted as follows: >)&8I0@ I)T>'6'>TATI4) 4F T@> AI88 4F T@> 8AT> :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4' A'ITT>) I) I84CA)4 9/ ATT/. FID>)CI4 8. F>')A)D>O I J First 6age This is also where it appears in writing of the place which is assigned and shared or the partition in favor of 0A&'AD4 8A9'AD4' which is the fishpond located and known place as Tagale. And this place that is given as the share to him" there is a measurement of more or less one hectare" and the ;oundar1 at the 0outh is the propert1 and assignment share of >)'ICA 8A9'AD4'" also their sister" and the ;oundar1 in the Aest is the sea" known as the 0>A as it is" and the ;oundar1 on the )4'T@ is assignment ;elonging to C'I0T49A8 8A9'AD4'" who likewise is also their ;rother. That ;ecause it is now the time for me ;eing now ninet1 three (# ) 1ears" then I feel it is the right time for me to partition the fishponds which were and had ;een ;ought or ac=uired ;1 us" meaning with their two mothers" hence there shall ;e no differences among themselves" those among ;rothers and sisters" for it is I m1self their father who am making the apportionment and delivering to each and ever1one of them the said portion and assignment so that there shall not ;e an1 cause of trou;les or differences among the ;rothers and sisters. II J 0econd 6age And this is the da1 in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond" and this ;eing in the month of :arch" !2th da1" in the 1ear !#+$" and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to ;e followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4'" their father. )ow" this is the final disposition that I am making in writing and it is this that should ;e followed and complied with in order that an1 differences or trou;les ma1 ;e forestalled and nothing will happen along these trou;les among m1 children" and that the1 will ;e in good relations among themselves" ;rothers and sistersD And those improvements and fruits of the landD mangoes" ;am;oos and all coconut trees and all others like the other kind of ;am;oo ;1 name of 9a1og" it is their right to get if the1 so need" in order that there shall ;e nothing that an1one of them shall complain against the other" and against an1one of the ;rothers and sisters. III J T@I'D 6A&>

And that referring to the other places of propert1" where the said propert1 is located" the same ;eing the fruits of our earnings of the two mothers of m1 children" there shall ;e e=ual portion of each share among themselves" and or to ;e ;enefitted with all those propert1" which propert1 we have ;een a;le to ac=uire. That in order that there shall ;e ;asis of the truth of this writing (AI88) which I am here hereof manifesting of the truth and of the fruits of our la;or which their two mothers" I am signing m1 signature ;elow hereof" and that this is what should ;e complied with" ;1 all the ;rothers and sisters" the children of their two mothers J .C8IA)A ICI)T>'4 6I8A'I0A and CA0IA)A AICI)4 (I88A)C>(A /our father who made this writing (AI88)" and he is" :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4' 1 'A8CTI) (p. 3+" -ollo) The petition" which principall1 alleges that the holographic will is reall1 dated" although the date is not in its usual place" is impressed with merit. The will has ;een dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article $!7. It is worth1 of note to =uote the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will" viz: And this is the da1 in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond" and this ;eing in the month of 6arc$, '=t$ day, in t$e year ';KL" and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to ;e followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4'" their father. (emphasis supplied) (p. 3+" -ollo) The law does not specif1 a particular location where the date should ;e placed in the will. The onl1 re=uirements are that the date ;e in the will itself and e?ecuted in the hand of the testator. These re=uirements are present in the su;5ect will. 'espondents claim that the date !2 :arch !#+$ in the will was when the testator and his ;eneficiaries entered into an agreement among themselves a;out -the partitioning and assigning the respective assignments of the said fishpond"- and was not the date of e?ecution of the holographic willD hence" the will is more of an -agreement- ;etween the testator and the ;eneficiaries thereof to the pre5udice of other compulsor1 heirs like the respondents. This was thus a failure to compl1 with Article 2$ which defines a will as -an act where;1 a person is permitted" with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law" to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate" to take effect after his death.'espondents are in error. The intention to show '= 6arc$ ';KL as the date of the e?ecution of the will is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptl1 put ;1 petitioner" the will was not an agreement ;ut a unilateral act of :elecio 8a;rador who plainl1 knew that what he was e?ecuting was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning as the testator<s instruction or decision to ;e followed reveal that :elecio 8a;rador was full1 aware of the nature of the estate propert1 to ;e disposed of and of the character of the testamentar1 act as a means to control the disposition of his estate. Anent the second issue of finding the reim;ursement of the 6*"777 representing the redemption price as erroneous" respondent court<s conclusion is incorrect. Ahen private respondents sold the propert1 (fishpond) with right to repurchase to )avat for 6*"777" the1 were actuall1 selling propert1 ;elonging to another and which the1 had no authorit1 to sell" rendering such sale null and void. 6etitioners" thus -redeemed- the propert1 from )avat for 6*"777" to immediatel1 regain possession of the propert1 for its disposition in accordance with the will. 6etitioners therefore deserve to ;e reim;ursed the 6*"777. 6'>:I0>0 C4)0ID>'>D" the decision of the Court of Appeals dated :arch !7" !#$$ is here;1 '>(>'0>D. The holographic will of :elecio 8a;rador is A66'4(>D and A884A>D pro;ate. The

private respondents are directed to '>I:9C'0> the petitioners the sum of Five Thousand 6esos (6*"777.77). 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. L-58509 D/>/70/, 7, 198( #N !E MA ER OF !E $E # #ON O A$$ROVE !E 9#LL OF R#%ARDO ". "ON#LLA d/>/a*/d, MAR%ELA RODELA', vs. AM$ARO ARANZA, E AL., oppositors%appellees" A Y. LORENZO 'UMULONG, intervenor. This case was certified to this Tri;unal ;1 the Court of Appeals for final determination pursuant to 0ection " 'ule *7 of the 'ules of Court. As found ;1 the Court of Appeals: ... 4n .anuar1 !!" !#22" appellant filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of 'iBal for the pro;ate of the holographic will of 'icardo 9. 9onilla and the issuance of letters testamentar1 in her favor. The petition" docketed as 0p. 6roc. )o. $3 ," was opposed ;1 the appellees Amparo AranBa 9onilla" Ailferine 9onilla Tre1es >?pedita 9onilla Frias and >phraim 9onilla on the following grounds: (!) Appellant was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will ;1 failing to produce the will within twent1 da1s of the death of the testator as re=uired ;1 'ule 2*" section , of the 'ules of CourtD (,) The alleged cop1 of the alleged holographic will did not contain a disposition of propert1 after death and was not intended to take effect after death" and therefore it was not a will ( ) The alleged hollographic will itself"and not an alleged cop1 thereof" must ;e produced" otherwise it would produce no effect" as held in &am v. /ap" !73 6hil. *7#D and (3 ) The deceased did not leave an1 will" holographic or otherwise" e?ecuted and attested as re=uired ;1 law. The appellees likewise moved for the consolidation of the case with another case 0p. 6roc. )o" $,2*). Their motion was granted ;1 the court in an order dated April 3" !#22. 4n )ovem;er ! " !#2$" following the consolidation of the cases" the appellees moved again to dismiss the petition for the pro;ate of the will. The1 argued that: (!) The alleged holographic was not a last will ;ut merel1 an instruction as to the management and improvement of the schools and colleges founded ;1 decedent 'icardo 9. 9onillaD and (,) 8ost or destro1ed holographic wills cannot ;e proved ;1 secondar1 evidence unlike ordinar1 wills. Cpon opposition of the appellant" the motion to dismiss was denied ;1 the court in its order of Fe;ruar1 , " !#2#.

The appellees then filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the order was contrar1 to law and settled pronouncements and rulings of the 0upreme Court" to which the appellant in turn filed an opposition. 4n .ul1 , " !#2#" the court set aside its order of Fe;ruar1 , " !#2# and dismissed the petition for the pro;ate of the will of 'icardo 9. 9onilla. The court said: ... It is our considered opinion that once the original cop1 of the holographic will is lost" a cop1 thereof cannot stand in lieu of the original. In the case of &am vs. /ap" !73 6hil. *7#" *,," the 0upreme Court held that <in the matter of holographic wills the law" it is reasona;le to suppose" regards the document itself as the material proof of authenticit1 of said wills. :4'>4(>'" this Court notes that the alleged holographic will was e?ecuted on .anuar1 ,*" !#+, while 'icardo 9. 9onilla died on :a1 ! " !#2+. In view of the lapse of more than !3 1ears from the time of the e?ecution of the will to the death of the decedent" the fact that the original of the will could not ;e located shows to our mind that the decedent had discarded ;efore his death his allegedl1 missing @olographic Aill. Appellant<s motion for reconsideration was denied. @ence" an appeal to the Court of Appeals in which it is contended that the dismissal of appellant<s petition is contrar1 to law and well%settled 5urisprudence. 4n .ul1 2" !#$7" appellees moved to forward the case to this Court on the ground that the appeal does not involve =uestion of fact and alleged that the trial court committed the following assigned errors: I. T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) @48DI)& T@AT A 840T @484&'A6@IC AI88 :A/ )4T 9> 6'4(>D 9/ A C46/ T@>'>4FD II. T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) @48DI)& T@AT T@> D>C>D>)T @A0 DI0CA'D>D 9>F4'> @I0 D>AT@ T@> :I00I)& @484&'A6@IC AI88D III. T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) DI0:I00I)& A66>88A)T<0 AI88. The onl1 =uestion here is whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot ;e found can ;e proved ;1 means of a photostatic cop1. 6ursuant to Article $!! of the Civil Code" pro;ate of holographic wills is the allowance of the will ;1 the court after its due e?ecution has ;een proved. The pro;ate ma1 ;e uncontested or not. If uncontested" at least one Identif1ing witness is re=uired and" if no witness is availa;le" e?perts ma1 ;e resorted to. If contested" at least three Identif1ing witnesses are re=uired. @owever" if the holographic will has ;een lost or destro1ed and no other cop1 is availa;le" the will can not ;e pro;ated ;ecause the ;est and onl1 evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessar1 that there ;e a comparison ;etween sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. 9ut" a photostatic cop1 or ?ero? cop1 of the holographic will ma1 ;e allowed ;ecause comparison can ;e made with the standard writings of the testator. In the case of &am vs. /ap" !73 6@I8. *7#" the Court ruled that -the e?ecution and the contents of a lost or destro1ed holographic will ma1 not ;e proved ;1 the ;are testimon1 of witnesses who have seen andEor read such will. The will itself must ;e presentedD otherwise" it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticit1.- 9ut" in Footnote $ of said decision" it sa1s that -6erhaps it ma1 ;e proved ;1 a photographic or photostatic cop1. >ven a mimeographed or car;on cop1D or ;1 other similar means" if an1" where;1 the authenticit1 of the handwriting of the deceased ma1 ;e e?hi;ited and tested ;efore the pro;ate court">videntl1" the photostatic or ?ero? cop1 of the lost or destro1ed holographic will ma1 ;e admitted ;ecause then the authenticit1 of the handwriting of the deceased can ;e determined ;1 the pro;ate court.

A@>'>F4'>" the order of the lower court dated 4cto;er " !#2#" den1ing appellant<s motion for reconsideration dated August #" !#2#" of the 4rder dated .ul1 , " !#2#" dismissing her petition to approve the will of the late 'icardo 9. 9onilla" is here;1 0>T A0ID>. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 1067(0 '/2./70/, 15, 199) '$OU'E' RO"ER O AND !ELMA A&ERO, vs. !E %OUR OF A$$EAL' AND %LEMEN E 'AND, This is an appeal ;1 certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA%&.'. C( )o. ,,$37" dated :arch 7" !##," the dispositive portion of which readsD 6'>:I0>0 C4)0ID>'>D" the =uestioned decision of )ovem;er !#" !#$$ of the trial court is here;1 '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" and the petition for pro;ate is here;1 DI0:I00>D. )o costs. The earlier Decision was rendered ;1 the 'TC of IueBon Cit1" 9ranch #3" ( in 0p. 6roc. )o. I% 2!2!" and the instrument su;mitted for pro;ate is the holographic will of the late Annie 0and" who died on )ovem;er ,*" !#$,. In the will" decedent named as devisees" the following: petitioners 'o;erto and Thelma A5ero" private respondent Clemente 0and" :eriam 0. Arong" 8eah 0and" 8ilia 0and" >dgar 0and" Fe 0and" 8isa 0. 0and" and Dr. .ose A5ero" 0r." and their children. 4n .anuar1 ,7" !#$ " petitioners instituted 0p. 6roc. )o. I% 2!2!" for allowance of decedent<s holographic will. The1 alleged that at the time of its e?ecution" she was of sound and disposing mind" not acting under duress" fraud or undue influence" and was in ever1 respect capacitated to dispose of her estate ;1 will. 6rivate respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament<s ;od1 nor the signature therein was in decedent<s handwritingD it contained alterations and corrections which were not dul1 signed ;1 decedentD and" the will was procured ;1 petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence. The petition was likewise opposed ;1 Dr. .ose A5ero. @e contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan Del )orte. @e claimed that said propert1 could not ;e conve1ed ;1 decedent in its entiret1" as she was not its sole owner. )otwithstanding the oppositions" the trial court admitted the decedent<s holographic will to pro;ate. It found" inter alia: Considering then that the pro;ate proceedings herein must decide onl1 the =uestion of identit1 of the will" its due e?ecution and the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri?" this pro;ate court finds no reason at all for the disallowance of the will for its failure to compl1 with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law nor for lack of testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri?. For one" no evidence was presented to show that the will in =uestion is different from the will actuall1 e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. The onl1 o;5ections raised ;1 the oppositors . . . are that the will was not written in the handwriting of the testatri? which properl1 refers to the =uestion of its due e?ecution" and not to the =uestion of identit1 of will. )o other will was alleged to have ;een e?ecuted ;1 the testatri? other than the will herein presented. @ence" in the light of the evidence adduced" the identit1 of the will presented for pro;ate

must ;e accepted" i.e." the will su;mitted in Court must ;e deemed to ;e the will actuall1 e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. ??? ??? ??? Ahile the fact that it was entirel1 written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatri? has ;een disputed" the petitioners" however" have satisfactoril1 shown in Court that the holographic will in =uestion was indeed written entirel1" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatri?. Three ( ) witnesses who have convincingl1 shown knowledge of the handwriting of the testatri? have ;een presented and have e?plicitl1 and categoricall1 identified the handwriting with which the holographic will in =uestion was written to ;e the genuine handwriting and signature of the testatri?. &iven then the aforesaid evidence" the re=uirement of the law that the holographic will ;e entirel1 written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatri? has ;een complied with. ??? ??? ??? As to the =uestion of the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testrati?" (private respondent) Clemente 0and himself has testified in Court that the testatri? was completel1 in her sound mind when he visited her during her ;irthda1 cele;ration in !#$!" at or around which time the holographic will in =uestion was e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. To ;e of sound mind" it is sufficient that the testatri?" at the time of making the will" knew the value of the estate to ;e disposed of" the proper o ject of her ;ount1" and the c$aracter of the testamentar1 act . . . The will itself shows that the testatri? even had detailed knowledge of the nature of her estate. 0he even identified the lot num;er and s=uare meters of the lots she had conve1ed ;1 will. The o;5ects of her ;ount1 were likewise identified e?plicitl1. And considering that she had even written a nursing ;ook which contained the law and 5urisprudence on will and succession" there is more than sufficient showing that she knows the character of the testamentar1 act. In this wise" the =uestion of identit1 of the will" its due e?ecution and the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri? has to ;e resolved in favor of the allowance of pro;ate of the will su;mitted herein. 8ikewise" no evidence was presented to show sufficient reason for the disallowance of herein holographic will. Ahile it was alleged that the said will was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the ;eneficiar1 or of some other person" the evidence adduced have not shown an1 instance where improper pressure or influence was e?erted on the testatri?. (6rivate respondent) Clemente 0and has testified that the testatri? was still alert at the time of the e?ecution of the will" i.e." at or around the time of her ;irth anniversar1 cele;ration in !#$!. It was also esta;lished that she is a ver1 intelligent person and has a mind of her own. @er independence of character and to some e?tent" her sense of superiorit1" which has ;een testified to in Court" all show the unlikelihood of her ;eing undul1 influenced or improperl1 pressured to make the aforesaid will. It must ;e noted that the undue influence or improper pressure in =uestion herein onl1 refer to the making of a will and not as to the specific testamentar1 provisions therein which is the proper su;5ect of another proceeding. @ence" under the circumstances" this Court cannot find convincing reason for the disallowance of the will herein. Considering then that it is a well%esta;lished doctrine in the law on succession that in case of dou;t" testate succession should ;e preferred over intestate succession" and the fact that no convincing grounds were presented and proven for the disallowance of the

holographic will of the late Annie 0and" the aforesaid will su;mitted herein must ;e admitted to pro;ate. 3 (Citations omitted.) 4n appeal" said Decision was reversed" and the petition for pro;ate of decedent<s will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that" -the holographic will fails to meet the re=uirements for its validit1.- ) It held that the decedent did not compl1 with Articles $! and $!3 of the )ew Civil Code" which read" as follows: Art. $! : Ahen a num;er of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without ;eing dated" and the last disposition has a signature and date" such date validates the dispositions preceding it" whatever ;e the time of prior dispositions. Art. $!3: In case of insertion" cancellation" erasure or alteration in a holographic will" the testator must authenticate the same ;1 his full signature. It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated" or signed ;ut not dated. It also found that the erasures" alterations and cancellations made thereon had not ;een authenticated ;1 decedent. Thus" this appeal which is impressed with merit. 0ection #" 'ule 2+ of the 'ules of Court provides that will shall ;e disallowed in an1 of the following cases: (a) If not e?ecuted and attested as re=uired ;1 lawD (;) If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentall1 incapa;le to make a will" at the time of its e?ecutionD (c) If it was e?ecuted under duress" or the influence of fear" or threatsD (d) If it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence" on the part of the ;eneficiar1" or of some other person for his ;enefitD (e) If the signature of the testator was procured ;1 fraud or trick" and he did not intend that the instrument should ;e his will at the time of fi?ing his signature thereto. In the same vein" Article $ # of the )ew Civil Code reads: Art. $ #: The will shall ;e disallowed in an1 of the following casesD (!) If the formalities re=uired ;1 law have not ;een complied withD (,) If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentall1 incapa;le of making a will" at the time of its e?ecutionD ( ) If it was e?ecuted through force or under duress" or the influence of fear" or threatsD (3) If it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence" on the part of the ;eneficiar1 or of some other personD (*) If the signature of the testator was procured ;1 fraudD

(+) If the testator acted ;1 mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should ;e his will at the time of affi?ing his signature thereto. These lists are e?clusiveD no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. 5 Thus" in a petition to admit a holographic will to pro;ate" the onl1 issues to ;e resolved are: (!) whether the instrument su;mitted is" indeed" the decedent<s last will and testamentD (,) whether said will was e?ecuted in accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 lawD ( ) whether the decedent had the necessar1 testamentar1 capacit1 at the time the will was e?ecutedD and" (3) whether the e?ecution of the will and its signing were the voluntar1 acts of the decedent. 6 In the case at ;ench" respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne 0and was not e?ecuted in accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law. It held that Articles $! and $!3 of the )ew Civil Code" ante" were not complied with" hence" it disallowed the pro;ate of said will. This is erroneous. Ae reiterate what we held in " angan vs. " angan" 37 6hil. 32+" 32# (!#!#)" that: The o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of wills is to close the door against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution of wills and testaments and to guarant1 their truth and authenticit1. Therefore" the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in such a wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. 9ut" on the other hand" also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise of the right to make a will. 0o when an interpretation alread1 given assures such ends" an1 other interpretation whatsoever" that adds nothing ;ut demands more re=uisites entirel1 unnecessar1" useless and frustrative of the testator<s last will" must ;e disregarded. For purposes of pro;ating non%holographic wills" these formal solemnities include the su;scription" attestation" and acknowledgment re=uirements under Articles $7* and $7+ of the )ew Civil Code. In the case of holographic wills" on the other hand" what assures authenticit1 is the re=uirement that the1 ;e totall1 autographic or handwritten ;1 the testator himself" 7 as provided under Article $!7 of the )ew Civil Code" thus: A person ma1 e?ecute a holographic will which must ;e entirel1 written" dated" and signed ;1 the hand of the testator himself. It is su ject to no ot$er form" and ma1 ;e made in or out of the 6hilippines" and need not ;e witnessed. (>mphasis supplied.) Failure to strictl1 o;serve other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is un=uestiona;l1 handwritten ;1 the testator. A reading of Article $! of the )ew Civil Code shows that its re=uirement affects the validit1 of the dispositions contained in the holographic will" ;ut not its pro;ate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions" the result is that these dispositions cannot ;e effectuated. 0uch failure" however" does not render the whole testament void. 8ikewise" a holographic will can still ;e admitted to pro;ate" notwithstanding non%compliance with the provisions of Article $!3. In the case of ,ala% vs. -elova ! , 0C'A , 2 ,3, (!#$3)" this Court held: 4rdinaril1" when a num;er of erasures" corrections" and interlineations made ;1 the testator in a holographic Aill have not ;een noted under his signature" . . . the Aill is not there;1 invalidated as a whole" ;ut at most onl1 as respects the particular words erased" corrected or interlined. :anresa gave an identical commentar1 when he said -la omission

de la salvedad no anula el testamento" segun la regla de 5urisprudencia esta;lecida en la sentencia de 3 de A;ril de !#$*.- 8 (Citations omitted.) Thus" unless the unauthenticated alterations" cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on testator<s signature" 9 their presence does not invalidate the will itself. 10 The lack of authentication will onl1 result in disallowance of such changes. It is also proper to note that the re=uirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles $! and $!3) separate from that which provides for the necessar1 conditions for the validit1 of the holographic will (Article $!7). The distinction can ;e traced to Articles +2$ and +$$ of the 0panish Civil Code" from which the present provisions covering holographic wills are taken. The1 read as follows: Art. +2$: A will is called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form and with the re=uisites re=uired in Article +$$. Art. +$$: @olographic wills ma1 ;e e?ecuted onl1 ;1 persons of full age. In order that the will ;e valid it must ;e drawn on stamped paper corresponding to the 1ear of its e?ecution" written in its entiret1 ;1 the testator and signed ;1 him" and must contain a statement of the 1ear" month and da1 of its e?ecution. If it should contain an1 erased" corrected" or interlined words" the testator must identif1 them over his signature. Foreigners ma1 e?ecute holographic wills in their own language. This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that onl1 the re=uirements of Article $!7 of the )ew Civil Code J and not those found in Articles $! and $!3 of the same Code J are essential to the pro;ate of a holographic will. The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie 0and could not validl1 dispose of the house and lot located in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan del )orte" in its entiret1. This is correct and must ;e affirmed. As a general rule" courts in pro;ate proceedings are limited to pass onl1 upon the e?trinsic validit1 of the will sought to ;e pro;ated. @owever" in e?ceptional instances" courts are not powerless to do what the situation constrains them to do" and pass upon certain provisions of the will. 11 In the case at ;ench" decedent herself indu;ita;l1 stated in her holographic will that the Ca;ad;aran propert1 is in the name of her late father" .ohn @. 0and (which led oppositor Dr. .ose A5ero to =uestion her conve1ance of the same in its entiret1). Thus" as correctl1 held ;1 respondent court" she cannot validl1 dispose of the whole propert1" which she shares with her father<s other heirs. I) (I>A A@>'>4F" the instant petition is &'A)T>D. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. ,,$37" dated :arch 7" !##," is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" e?cept with respect to the invalidit1 of the disposition of the entire house and lot in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan del )orte. The Decision of the 'egional Trial Court of IueBon Cit1" 9ranch #3 in 0p. 6roc. )o. I% 2!2!" dated )ovem;er !#" !#$$" admitting to pro;ate the holographic will of decedent Annie 0and" is here;1 '>I)0TAT>D" with the a;ove =ualification as regards the Ca;ad;aran propert1. )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. L-6(95( O>.o0/, 9, 1985

'OF#A &. NE$OMU%ENO, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL', RUF#NA GOMEZ, O'%AR &UGO ANG, %ARMEL# A &UGO, This is a petition for certiorari to set aside that portion of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals (now intermediate Appellate Court) dated .une " !#$," as amended ;1 the resolution dated August !7" !#$," declaring as null and void the devise in favor of the petitioner and the resolution dated Decem;er ,$" !#$, den1ing petitioner<s motion for reconsideration. :artin .ugo died on .ul1 !+" !#23 in :ala;on" 'iBal. @e left a last Aill and Testament dul1 signed ;1 him at the end of the Aill on page three and on the left margin of pages !" , and 3 thereof in the presence of Celestina Ale5andro" :1rna C. CorteB" and 8eandro 8eano" who in turn" affi?ed their signatures ;elow the attestation clause and on the left margin of pages !" , and 3 of the Aill in the presence of the testator and of each other and the )otar1 6u;lic. The Aill was acknowledged ;efore the )otar1 6u;lic 'omeo >scareal ;1 the testator and his three attesting witnesses. In the said Aill" the testator named and appointed herein petitioner 0ofia .. )epomuceno as his sole and onl1 e?ecutor of his estate. It is clearl1 stated in the Aill that the testator was legall1 married to a certain 'ufina &omeB ;1 whom he had two legitimate children" 4scar and Carmelita" ;ut since !#*," he had ;een estranged from his lawfull1 wedded wife and had ;een living with petitioner as hus;and and wife. In fact" on Decem;er *" !#*," the testator :artin .ugo and the petitioner herein" 0ofia .. )epomuceno were married in (ictoria" Tarlac ;efore the .ustice of the 6eace. The testator devised to his forced heirs" namel1" his legal wife 'ufina &omeB and his children 4scar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free portion thereof to herein petitioner. The Aill reads in part: Art. III. That I have the following legal heirs" namel1: m1 aforementioned legal wife" 'ufina &omeB" and our son" 4scar" and daughter Carmelita" ;oth surnamed .ugo" whom I declare and admit to ;e legall1 and properl1 entitled to inherit from meD that while I have ;een estranged from m1 a;ove%named wife for so man1 1ears" I cannot den1 that I was legall1 married to her or that we have ;een separated up to the present for reasons and 5ustifications known full1 well ;1 them: Art. I(. That since !#*," ! have ;een living" as man and %ife with one 0ofia .. )epomuceno" whom I declare and avow to ;e entitled to m1 love and affection" for all the things which she has done for me" now and in the pastD that while 0ofia .. )epomuceno has with m1 full knowledge and consent" did comport and represent m1self as her own hus;and" in truth and in fact" as well as in the e1es of the law" I could not ;ind her to me in the hol1 ;onds of matrimon1 ;ecause of m1 aforementioned previous marriageD 4n August ,!" !#23" the petitioner filed a petition for the pro;ate of the last Aill and Testament of the deceased :artin .ugo in the Court of First Instance of 'iBal" 9ranch MMMI(" Caloocan Cit1 and asked for the issuance to her of letters testamentar1. 4n :a1 ! " !#2*" the legal wife of the testator" 'ufina &omeB and her children filed an opposition alleging inter alia that the e?ecution of the Aill was procured ;1 undue and improper influence on the part of the petitionerD that at the time of the e?ecution of the Aill" the testator was alread1 ver1 sick and that petitioner having admitted her living in concu;inage with the testator" she is wanting in integrit1 and thus" letters testamentar1 should not ;e issued to her. 4n .anuar1 +" !#2+" the lower court denied the pro;ate of the Aill on the ground that as the testator admitted in his Aill to coha;iting with the petitioner from Decem;er !#*, until his death on .ul1 !+" !#23" the Aill<s admission to pro;ate will ;e an Idle e?ercise ;ecause on the face of the Aill" the invalidit1 of its intrinsic provisions is evident. The petitioner appealed to the respondent%appellate court.

4n .une ," !#$," the respondent court set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of 'iBal den1ing the pro;ate of the will. The respondent court declared the Aill to ;e valid e?cept that the devise in favor of the petitioner is null and void pursuant to Article 2 # in relation with Article !7,$ of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: A@>'>F4'>" the decision a !uo is here;1 set aside" the will in =uestion declared valid e?cept the devise in favor of the appellant which is declared null and void. The properties so devised are instead passed on in intestac1 to the appellant in e=ual shares" without pronouncement as to cost. 4n .une !*" !#$," oppositors 'ufina &omeB and her children filed a -:otion for Correction of Clerical >rror- pra1ing that the word -appellant- in the last sentence of the dispositive portion of the decision ;e changed to -appellees- so as to read: -The properties so devised are instead passed on intestac1 to the appellees in e=ual shares" without pronouncement as to costs.- The motion was granted ;1 the respondent court on August !7" !#$,. 4n August , " !#$," the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. This was denied ;1 the respondent court in a resolution dated Decem;er ,$" !#$,. The main issue raised ;1 the petitioner is whether or not the respondent court acted in e?cess of its 5urisdiction when after declaring the last Aill and Testament of the deceased :artin .ugo validl1 drawn" it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validit1 of the testamentar1 provision in favor of herein petitioner. The petitioner su;mits that the validit1 of the testamentar1 provision in her favor cannot ;e passed upon and decided in the pro;ate proceedings ;ut in some other proceedings ;ecause the onl1 purpose of the pro;ate of a Aill is to esta;lish conclusivel1 as against ever1one that a Aill was e?ecuted with the formalities re=uired ;1 law and that the testator has the mental capacit1 to e?ecute the same. The petitioner further contends that even if the provisions of paragraph ! of Article 2 # of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines were applica;le" the declaration of its nullit1 could onl1 ;e made ;1 the proper court in a separate action ;rought ;1 the legal wife for the specific purpose of o;taining a declaration of the nullit1 of the testamentar1 provision in the Aill in favor of the person with whom the testator was allegedl1 guilt1 of adulter1 or concu;inage. The respondents on the other hand contend that the fact that the last Aill and Testament itself e?pressl1 admits indu;ita;l1 on its face the meretricious relationship ;etween the testator and the petitioner and the fact that petitioner herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged ignorance of the true civil status of the testator" which led private respondents to present contrar1 evidence" merits the application of the doctrine enunciated in 0uguid v. >elix 0uguid, et al. (!2 0C'A 33#) and >elix 2alanay, @r. v. Hon. "ntonio 6artinez, et al. (&.'. )o. 8% #,32" .une ,2" !#2*). 'espondents also su;mit that the admission of the testator of the illicit relationship ;etween him and the petitioner put in issue the legalit1 of the devise. Ae agree with the respondents. The respondent court acted within its 5urisdiction when after declaring the Aill to ;e validl1 drawn" it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validit1 of the Aill and declared the devise in favor of the petitioner null and void. The general rule is that in pro;ate proceedings" the court<s area of in=uir1 is limited to an e?amination and resolution of the e?trinsic validit1 of the Aill. The rule is e?pressed thus: ??? ??? ??? ... It is elementar1 that a pro;ate decree finall1 and definitivel1 settles all =uestions concerning capacit1 of the testator and the proper e?ecution and witnessing of his last

Aill and testament" irrespective of whether its provisions are valid and enforcea;le or otherwise. 8>ernandez v. &imagi a, ,! 0C'A 3,$) The petition ;elow ;eing for the pro;ate of a Aill" the court<s area of in=uir1 is limited to the e?trinsic validit1 thereof. The testators testamentar1 capacit1 and the compliance with the formal re=uisites or solemnities prescri;ed ;1 law are the onl1 =uestions presented for the resolution of the court. An1 in=uir1 into the intrinsic validit1 or efficac1 of the provisions of the will or the legalit1 of an1 devise or legac1 is premature. ??? ??? ??? True or not" the alleged sale is no ground for the dismissal of the petition for pro;ate. 6ro;ate is one thingD the validit1 of the testamentar1 provisions is another. The first decides the e?ecution of the document and the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatorD the second relates to descent and distri;ution (Sumilang v. -amagosa, ,! 0C'A ! +#) ??? ??? ??? To esta;lish conclusivel1 as against ever1one" and once for all" the facts that a will was e?ecuted with the formalities re=uired ;1 law and that the testator was in a condition to make a will" is the onl1 purpose of the proceedings under the new code for the pro;ate of a will. (0ec. +,*). The 5udgment in such proceedings determines and can determine nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass upon the validit1 of an1 provisions made in the will. It can not decide" for e?ample" that a certain legac1 is void and another one valid. ... (Castaneda v. "lemany, 6hil. 3,+) The rule" however" is not infle?i;le and a;solute. &iven e?ceptional circumstances" the pro;ate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Aill. In 0uguid v. 0uguid (!2 0C'A 33#) cited ;1 the trial court" the testator instituted the petitioner as universal heir and completel1 preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of this nature" no matter how valid it ma1 appear e?trinsicall1" would ;e null and void. 0eparate or latter proceedings to determine the intrinsic validit1 of the testamentar1 provisions would ;e superfluous. >ven ;efore esta;lishing the formal validit1 of the will" the Court in 2alanay .@r. v. 6artinez (+3 0C'A 3*,) passed upon the validit1 of its intrinsic provisions. Invoking -practical considerations-" we stated: The ;asic issue is whether the pro;ate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validit1 of the will" ;efore ruling on its allowance or formal validit1" and in declaring it void. Ae are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual provisions of the will" which are of du;ious legalit1" and ;ecause of the motion to withdraw the petition for pro;ate (which the lower court assumed to have ;een filed with the petitioner<s authoriBation) the trial court acted correctl1 in passing upon the will<s intrinsic validit1 even ;efore its formal validit1 had ;een esta;lished. The pro;ate of a will might ;ecome an Idle ceremon1 if on its face it appears to ;e intrinsicall1 void. Ahere practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validit1 of the will ;e passed upon" even ;efore it is pro;ated" the court should meet the issue ()uguid v. )uguid" +3 4.&. !*,2" !2 0C'A 33#. Compare with 0umilang vs. 'amagosa 8%, ! *" Decem;er ,+" !#+2" ,! 0C'A ! +#D Cacho v. Cdan 8%!###+" April 7" !#+*" ! 0C'A +# ).

There appears to ;e no more dispute at this time over the e?trinsic validit1 of the Aill. 9oth parties are agreed that the Aill of :artin .ugo was e?ecuted with all the formalities re=uired ;1 law and that the testator had the mental capacit1 to e?ecute his Aill. The petitioner states that she completel1 agrees with the respondent court when in resolving the =uestion of whether or not the pro;ate court correctl1 denied the pro;ate of :artin .ugo<s last Aill and Testament" it ruled: This ;eing so" the will is declared validl1 drawn. (6age 3" Decision" Anne? A of 6etition.) 4n the other hand the respondents pra1 for the affirmance of the Court of Appeals< decision in toto. The onl1 issue" therefore" is the 5urisdiction of the respondent court to declare the testamentar1 provision in favor of the petitioner as null and void. Ae sustain the respondent court<s 5urisdiction. As stated in 0uguid v. 0uguid, 8supra:M Ae pause to reflect. If the case were to ;e remanded for pro;ate of the will" nothing will ;e gained. 4n the contrar1" this litigation will ;e protracted. And for aught that appears in the record" in the record" in the event of pro;ate or if the court re5ects the will" pro;a;ilit1 e?ists that the case will come up once again ;efore us on the same issue of the intrinsic validit1 or nullit1 of the will. 'esult" waste of time" effort" e?pense" plus added an?iet1. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a ;elief that we might as well meet head%on the issue of the validit1 of the provisions of the will in =uestion. (0ection ," 'ule !" 'ules of Court. Case" et al. v. .ugo" et al." 22 6hil. *!2" *,,). After all" there e?ists a 5usticia;le controvers1 cr1ing for solution. Ae see no useful purpose that would ;e served if we remand the nullified provision to the proper court in a separate action for that purpose simpl1 ;ecause" in the pro;ate of a will" the court does not ordinaril1 look into the intrinsic validit1 of its provisions. Article 2 # of the Civil Code provides: The following donations shall ;e void: (!) Those made ;etween persons who were guilt1 of adulter1 or concu;inage at the time of the donationD (,) Those made ;etween persons found guilt1 of the same criminal offense" in consideration thereofD ( ) Those made to a pu;lic officer or his wife" descendants and ascendants" ;1 reason of his office. In the case referred to in )o. !" the action for declaration of nullit1 ma1 ;e ;rought ;1 the spouse of the donor or doneeD and the guilt of the donor and donee ma1 ;e proved ;1 preponderance of evidence in the same action. Article !7,$ of the Civil Code provides: The prohi;itions mentioned in Article 2 #" concerning donations inter vivos shall appl1 to testamentar1 provisions. In Article III of the disputed Aill" e?ecuted on August !*" !#+$" or almost si? 1ears ;efore the testator<s death on .ul1 !+" !#23" :artin .ugo stated that respondent 'ufina &omeB was his legal wife from whom

he had ;een estranged -for so man1 1ears.- @e also declared that respondents Carmelita .ugo and 4scar .ugo were his legitimate children. In Article I(" he stated that he had ;een living as man and wife with the petitioner since !#*,. Testator .ugo declared that the petitioner was entitled to his love and affection. @e stated that )epomuceno represented .ugo as her own hus;and ;ut -in truth and in fact" as well as in the e1es of the law" I could not ;ind her to me in the hol1 ;onds of matrimon1 ;ecause of m1 aforementioned previous marriage. There is no =uestion from the records a;out the fact of a prior e?isting marriage when :artin .ugo e?ecuted his Aill. There is also no dispute that the petitioner and :r. .ugo lived together in an ostensi;le marital relationship for ,, 1ears until his death. It is also a fact that on Decem;er ," !#*," :artin .ugo and 0ofia .. )epomuceno contracted a marriage ;efore the .ustice of the 6eace of (ictoria" Tarlac. The man was then *! 1ears old while the woman was 3$. )epomuceno now contends that she acted in good faith for ,, 1ears in the ;elief that she was legall1 married to the testator. The records do not sustain a finding of innocence or good faith. As argued ;1 the private respondents: First. The last will and testament itself e?pressl1 admits indu;ita;l1 on its face the meretricious relationship ;etween the testator and petitioner" the devisee. 0econd. 6etitioner herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged ignorance of the true civil status of the testator" which led private respondents to present contrar1 evidence. In short" the parties themselves dueled on the intrinsic validit1 of the legac1 given in the will to petitioner ;1 the deceased testator at the start of the proceedings. Ahether or not petitioner knew that testator :artin .ugo" the man he had lived with as man and wife" as alread1 married" was an important and specific issue ;rought ;1 the parties ;efore the trial court" and passed upon ;1 the Court of Appeals. Instead of limiting herself to proving the e?trinsic validit1 of the will" it was petitioner who opted to present evidence on her alleged good faith in marr1ing the testator. (Testimon1 of 6etitioner" T0) of August !" !#$," pp. *+%*2 and pp. +,%+3). 6rivate respondents" naturall1" presented evidence that would refute the testimon1 of petitioner on the point. 0e;astian .ugo" 1ounger ;rother of the deceased testator" testified at length on the meretricious relationship of his ;rother and petitioner. (T0) of August !$"!#2*). Clearl1" the good faith of petitioner was ;1 option of the parties made a decisive issue right at the inception of the case. Confronted ;1 the situation" the trial court had to make a ruling on the =uestion. Ahen the court a !uo held that the testator :artin .ugo and petitioner <were deemed guilt1 of adulter1 or concu;inage<" it was a finding that petitioner was not the innocent woman she pretended to ;e. ??? ??? ???

. If a review of the evidence must ;e made nonetheless" then private respondents respectfull1 offer the following anal1sis: FI'0T: The secrec1 of the marriage of petitioner with the deceased testator in a town in Tarlac where neither she nor the testator ever resided. If there was nothing to hide from" wh1 the concealment< K 4f course" it ma1;e argued that the marriage of the deceased with private respondent 'ufina &omeB was likewise done in secrec1. 9ut it should ;e remem;ered that 'ufina &omeB was alread1 in the famil1 wa1 at that time and it would seem that the parents of :artin .ugo were not in favor of the marriage so much so that an action in court was ;rought concerning the marriage. (Testimon1 of 0e;astian .ugo" T0) of August !$" !#2*" pp. ,#% 7) 0>C4)D: 6etitioner was a sweetheart of the deceased testator when the1 were still ;oth single. That would ;e in !#,, as :artin .ugo married respondent 'ufina &omeB on )ovem;er ,#" !#, (>?h. ). 6etitioner married the testator onl1 on Decem;er *" !#*,. There was a space of a;out 7 1ears in ;etween. During those 7 1ears" could it ;e ;elieved that she did not even wonder wh1 :artin .ugo did not marr1 her nor contact her an1more after )ovem;er" !#, % facts that should impel her to ask her groom ;efore she married him in secrec1" especiall1 so when she was alread1 a;out *7 1ears old at the time of marriage. T@I'D: The fact that petitioner ;roke off from :artin .ugo in !#, is ;1 itself conclusive demonstration that she new that the man she had openl1 lived for ,, 1ears as man and wife was a married man with alread1 two children. F4C'T@: @aving admitted that she knew the children of respondent 'ufina &omeB" is it possi;le that she would not have asked :artin .ugo whether or not the1 were his illegitimate or legitimate children and ;1 whomK That is un%Filipino. FIFT@: @aving often gone to 6asig to the residence of the parents of the deceased testator" is it possi;le that she would not have known that the mother of private respondent 4scar .ugo and Carmelita .ugo was respondent 'ufina &omeB" considering that the houses of the parents of :artin .ugo (where he had lived for man1 1ears) and that of respondent 'ufina &omeB were 5ust a few meters awa1K 0uch pretentions of petitioner 0ofia )epomuceno are un;elieva;le. The1 are" to sa1 the least" inherentl1 impro;a;le" for the1 are against the e?perience in common life and the ordinar1 instincts and promptings of human nature that a woman would not ;other at all to ask the man she was going to marr1 whether or not he was alread1 married to another" knowing that her groom had children. It would ;e a stor1 that would strain human credulit1 to the limit if petitioner did not know that :artin .ugo was alread1 a married man in view of the irrefuta;le fact that it was precisel1 his marriage to respondent 'ufina &omeB that led petitioner to ;reak off with the deceased during their 1ounger 1ears. :oreover" the prohi;ition in Article 2 # of the Civil Code is against the making of a donation ;etween persons who are living in adulter1 or concu;inage. It is the donation which ;ecomes void. The giver cannot give even assuming that the recipient ma1 receive. The ver1 wordings of the Aill invalidate the legac1 ;ecause the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a person with whom he had ;een living in concu;inage. A@>'>F4'>" the petition is DI0:I00>D for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals" now Intermediate Appellate Court" is AFFI':>D. )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D.

G.R. No. 8((33 Ma,>1 ((, 1990 &O'E "AR# UA and EDGAR "# AN%OR, vs. !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL', N#%OLA' NA%AR#O and V#% OR#A RONDA NA%AR#O, This petition for review on certiorari assails as erroneous and contrar1 to e?isting relevant laws and applica;le 5urisprudence the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated Decem;er !!" !#$2 which reversed and set aside that of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch MMMII" at 6ili" Camarines 0ur. ( The challenged decision ad5udged the petitioners lia;le to the private respondents in the total amount of 6,7"*7*.77 and for costs. The facts are as follows: In the evening of )ovem;er 2" !#2#" the tric1cle then ;eing driven ;1 9ienvenido )acario along the national highwa1 at 9aranga1 0an Ca1etano" in 9aao" Camarines 0ur" figured in an accident with .9 9us )o. $7 driven ;1 petitioner >dgar 9itancor and owned and operated ;1 petitioner .ose 9aritua. 3 As a result of that accident 9ienvenido and his passenger died ) and the tric1cle was damaged. 5 )o criminal case arising from the incident was ever instituted. 6 0u;se=uentl1" on :arch ,2" !#$7" as a conse=uence of the e?tra%5udicial settlement of the matter negotiated ;1 the petitioners and the ;us insurer J 6hilippine First Insurance Compan1" Incorporated (6FICI for ;revit1) J 9ienvenido )acario<s widow" Alicia 9aracena (da. de )acario" received 6!$"*77.77. In consideration of the amount she received" Alicia e?ecuted on :arch ,2" !#$7 a -'elease of Claim- in favor of the petitioners and 6FICI" releasing and forever discharging them from all actions" claims" and demands arising from the accident which resulted in her hus;and<s death and the damage to the tric1cle which the deceased was then driving. Alicia likewise e?ecuted an affidavit of desistance in which she formall1 manifested her lack of interest in instituting an1 case" either civil or criminal" against the petitioners. 7 4n 0eptem;er ," !#$!" or a;out one 1ear and ten months from the date of the accident on )ovem;er 2" !#2#" the private respondents" who are the parents of 9ienvenido )acario" filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners with the then Court of First Instance of Camarines 0ur. 8 In their complaint" the private respondents alleged that during the vigil for their deceased son" the petitioners through their representatives promised them (the private respondents) that as e?tra%5udicial settlement" the1 shall ;e indemnified for the death of their son" for the funeral e?penses incurred ;1 reason thereof" and for the damage for the tric1cle the purchase price of which the1 (the private respondents) onl1 loaned to the victim. The petitioners" however" reneged on their promise and instead negotiated and settled their o;ligations with the long%estranged wife of their late son. The )acario spouses pra1ed that the defendants" petitioners herein" ;e ordered to indemnif1 them in the amount of 6,*"777.77 for the death of their son 9ienvenido" 6!7"777.77 for the damaged tric1cle" 6,*"777.77 for compensator1 and e?emplar1 damages" 6*"777.77 for attorne1<s fees" and for moral damages. 9 After trial" the court a !uo dismissed the complaint" holding that the pa1ment ;1 the defendants (herein petitioners) to the widow and her child" who are the preferred heirs and successors%in%interest of the deceased 9ienvenido to the e?clusion of his parents" the plaintiffs (herein private respondents)" e?tinguished an1 claim against the defendants (petitioners). 10 The parents appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the 5udgment of the trial court. The appellate court ruled that the release e?ecuted ;1 Alicia 9aracena (da. de )acario did not discharge the lia;ilit1 of the petitioners ;ecause the case was instituted ;1 the private respondents in their own capacit1 and not as -heirs" representatives" successors" and assigns- of AliciaD and Alicia could not have validl1 waived the damages ;eing pra1ed for (;1 the private respondents) since she was not the one who suffered these damages arising from the death of their son. Furthermore" the appellate court said that the petitioners -failed to re;ut the testimon1 of the appellants (private respondents) that the1 were the ones

who ;ought the tric1cle that was damaged in the incident. Appellants had the ;urden of proof of such fact" and the1 did esta;lish such fact in their testimon1 . . . 11 Anent the funeral e?penses" -(T)he e?penses for the funeral were likewise shouldered ;1 the appellants (the private respondents). This was never contradicted ;1 the appellees (petitioners). . . . 6a1ment (for these) were made ;1 the appellants" therefore" the reim;ursement must accrue in their favor. 1( Conse=uentl1" the respondent appellate court ordered the petitioners to pa1 the private respondents 6!7"777.77 for the damage of the tric1cle" 6*"777.77 for -complete- funeral services" 63*7.77 for cemeter1 lot" 6**.77 for oracion adulto" and 6*"777.77 for attorne1<s fees. 13 The petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the appellate court<s decision 1) ;ut their motion was denied. 15 @ence" this petition. The issue here is whether or not the respondent appellate court erred in holding that the petitioners are still lia;le to pa1 the private respondents the aggregate amount of 6,7"*7*.77 despite the agreement of e?tra5udicial settlement ;etween the petitioners and the victim<s compulsor1 heirs. The petition is meritorious. 4;ligations are e?tinguished ;1 various modes among them ;eing ;1 pa1ment. Article !, ! of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines provides: Art. !, !. 4;ligations are e?tinguished: (!) 2y payment or performanceD (,) 91 the loss of the thing dueD ( ) 91 the condonation or remission of the de;tD (3) 91 the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and de;torD (*) 91 compensationD (+) 91 novation. (>mphasis ours.) There is no den1ing that the petitioners had paid their o;ligation petition arising from the accident that occurred on )ovem;er 2" !#2#. The onl1 =uestion now is whether or not Alicia" the spouse and the one who received the petitioners< pa1ment" is entitled to it. Article !,37 of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines enumerates the persons to whom pa1ment to e?tinguish an o;ligation should ;e made. Art !,37. 6a1ment shall ;e made to the person in whose favor the o;ligation has ;een constituted" or his successor in interest" or an1 person authoriBed to receive it. Certainl1 there can ;e no =uestion that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in interest referred to in law as the persons authoriBed to receive pa1ment. The Civil Code states: Article $$2. The following are compulsor1 heirs:

!. 8egitimate children and descendants" with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendantsD ,. In default of t$e foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their legitimate children and decendantsD . The widow or widowerD 3. Acknowledged natural children and natural children ;1 legal fictionD *. 4ther illegitimate children referred to in Article ,$2. Compulsor1 heirs mentioned in )os. " 3 and * are not e?cluded ;1 those in )os. ! and ,. )either do the1 e?clude one another. (>mphasis ours.) Article #$*. In default of legitimate c$ildren and descendants of the deceased" his parents and ascendants shall inherit from him" to the e?clusion of collateral relatives. (>mphasis ours.) It is patentl1 clear that the parents of the deceased succeed onl1 when the latter dies without a legitimate descendant. 4n the other hand" the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs. As it has ;een esta;lished that 9ienvenido was married to Alicia and that the1 ;egot a child" the private respondents are not successors%in%interest of 9ienvenidoD the1 are not compulsor1 heirs. The petitioners therefore acted correctl1 in settling their o;ligation with Alicia as the widow of 9ienvenido and as the natural guardian of their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had ;een estranged from 9ienvenido. :ere estrangement is not a legal ground for the dis=ualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse. )either could the private respondents" as alleged creditors of 9ienvenido" seek relief and compensation from the petitioners. Ahile it ma1 ;e true that the private respondents loaned to 9ienvenido the purchase price of the damaged tric1cle and shouldered the e?penses for his funeral" the said purchase price and e?penses are ;ut mone1 claims against the estate of their deceased son. 16 These mone1 claims are not the lia;ilities of the petitioners who" as we have said" had ;een released ;1 the agreement of the e?tra% 5udicial settlement the1 concluded with Alicia 9aracena (da. de )acario" the victim<s widow and heir" as well as the natural guardian of their child" her co%heir. As a matter of fact" she e?ecuted a -'elease 4f Claim- in favor of the petitioners. A@>'>F4'>" the petition is &'A)T>DD the decision of the Court of Appeals is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID> and the decision of the 'egional Trial Court is here;1 '>I)0TAT>D. Costs against the private respondents. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 13877) Ma,>1 8, (001

REG#NA FRAN%#'%O AND ZENA#DA $A'%UAL, vs. A#DA FRAN%#'%O-ALFON'O, :a1 a legitimate daughter ;e deprived of her share in the estate of her deceased father ;1 a simulated contract transferring the propert1 of her father to his illegitimate childrenK The case ;efore the Court is an appeal via certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals ! declaring void the deed of sale of two parcels of land conve1ed to petitioners who are illegitimate children of the deceased to the e?clusion of respondent" his sole legitimate daughter.

The facts, are: 'espondent Aida Francisco%Alfonso (hereafter Aida) is the onl1 daughter of spouses &regorio Francisco and Cirila de la CruB" who are now ;oth deceased. 6etitioners" on the other hand" are daughters of the late &regorio Francisco with his common law wife .ulia :endoBa" with whom he ;egot seven (2) children. &regorio Francisco (hereafter &regorio) owned two parcels of residential land" situated in 9aranga1 8olom;o1" 9ocaue" 9ulacan" covered ;1 TCT )os. T% ,237 and T%!!2!+7. Ahen &regorio was confined in a hospital in !##7" he confided to his daughter Aida that the certificates of title of his propert1 were in the possession of 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual. After &regorio died on .ul1 ,7" !##7" Aida in=uired a;out the certificates of title from her half sisters. The1 informed her that &regorio had sold the land to them on August !*" !#$ . After verification" Aida learned that there was indeed a deed of a;solute sale in favor of 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual. Thus" on August !*" !#$ " &regorio e?ecuted a -Lasulatan sa &anap na 9ilihan" where;1 for 6,*"777.77" he sold the two parcels of land to 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual. 91 virtue of the sale" the 'egister of Deeds of 9ulacan issued TCT )o. T%*#.*$* to 'egina Francisco and TCT T%*#.*$+ to Oenaida 6ascual.3 4n April !" !##!" Aida filed with the 'egional Trial Court" 9ulacan a complaint against petitioners for annulment of sale with damages.* 0he alleged that the signature of her late father" &regorio Francisco" on the ,asulatan sa Banap na 2ili$an dated August !*" !#$ " was a forger1. In their 5oint answer to the complaint" petitioners denied the alleged forger1 or simulation of the deed of sale. After due proceedings" on .ul1 ,!" !##3" the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint. The dispositive portion reads: -A@>'>F4'>" on the ;asis of the evidence adduced and the law applica;le thereon" the Court here;1 renders 5udgment: -a) sustaining the validit1 of the -Lasulatan 0a &anap )a 9ilihan- (>?h.-&-) e?ecuted on !* August !## ;1 the late &regorio Francisco in favor of the defendantsD -;) affirming the validit1 of the Transfer Certificates of Title )o. T%*#.*$* (>?h. -I-) issued to defendant 'egina Francisco and )o. T%*#. $+ (>?h. -@-) issued to defendant Oenaida 6ascualD and -c) dismissing the complaint as well as the defendants< counterclaim for damages and attorne1<s fees for lack of merit.- + In time2" respondent Alfonso appealed to the Court of Appeals. $ After due proceedings" on April 7" !###" the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision reversing that of the trial court" the dispositive portion of which reads: -A@>'>F4'>" the Decision dated .ul1 ,!" !##3 of the court a =uo is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID> and another rendered as follows: -!. The Lasulatan 0a &anap na 9ilihan dated August !*" !#$ (>?hi;it -&-) is declared null and void from the ;eginning and TCT )os. T%*#.*$* (:) and T%*#%*$+ (:)" ;oth of the 'egistr1 of

Deeds of 9ulacan (:e1caua1an 9ranch) in the names of 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual" respectivel1" are annulled and cancelledD -,. The 'egister of Deeds of 9ulacan (:e1caua1an 9ranch) is ordered to cancel the aforementioned TCT )os. T%*#.*$* (:) and T%*#.*$+ (:) and to reinstate Transfer Certificates of Title )os. T%! ,237 and T%!!2!+7 ;oth in the name of &regorio Francisco. - . Defendants%appellees 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual 5ointl1 and solidaril1 are ordered to pa1 plaintiff%appellant Alfonso the amount of 6*"777.77 as moral damages" 6*"777.77 as e?emplar1 damages and 6*"777.77 as attorne1<s fees. -3. The counterclaim of defendants%appellees is dismissed for lack of merit. -Costs of suit against said defendants%appellees.@ence" this petition.!7 The main issue raised is whether the 0upreme Court ma1 review the factual findings of the appellate court. The 5urisdiction of this Court in cases ;rought ;efore it from the Court of Appeals under 'ule 3* of the 'evised 'ules of Court is limited to review of pure errors of law. It is not the function of this Court to anal1Be or weigh evidence all over again" unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totall1 devoid of support or are glaringl1 erroneous as to constitute grave a;use of discretion. !! The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported ;1 su;stantial evidence are conclusive and ;inding on the parties and are not reviewa;le ;1 this Court" !, unless the case falls under an1 of the recogniBed e?ceptions to the rule.! 6etitioner has failed to prove that the case falls within the e?ceptions. !3 Ae affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals ;ecause: >irst: The #asulatan was simulated. There was no consideration for the contract of sale. Felicitas de la CruB" a famil1 friend of the Franciscos" testified that Oenaida 6ascual and 'egina Francisco did not have an1 source of income in !#$ " when the1 ;ought the propert1" until the time when Felicitas testified in !##!.!* As proof of income" however" Oenaida 6ascual testified that she was engaged in operating a canteen" working as cashier in :a1on )ight Clu; as well as ;u1ing and selling 'TA ('ead1 to Aear) items in August of !#$ and prior thereto. Oenaida alleged that she paid her father the amount of 6!7"777.77. 0he did not withdraw mone1 from her ;ank account at the 'ural 9ank of :e1caua1an" 9ulacan" to pa1 for the propert1. 0he had personal savings other than those deposited in the ;ank. @er gross earnings from the 'TA for three 1ears was 6#"777.77" and she earned 6*7.77 a night at the clu;. !+ 'egina Francisco" on the other hand" was a market vendor" selling niluga%" earning a net income of 6 77.77 a da1 in !#$ . 0he ;ought the propert1 from the deceased for 6!*"777.77. !2 0he had no other source of income. Ae find it incredi;le that engaging in ;u1 and sell could raise the amount of 6!7"777.77" or that earnings in selling goto could save enough to pa1 6!*"777.77" in cash for the land.
#

The testimonies of petitioners were incredi;le considering their inconsistent statements as to whether there was consideration for the sale and also as to whether the propert1 was ;ought ;elow or a;ove its supposed market value. The1 could not even present a single witness to the #asulatan that would prove receipt of the purchase price. 0ince there was no cause or consideration for the sale" the same was a simulation and hence" null and void.!$ Second: >ven if the #asulatan was not simulated" it still violated the Civil Code !# provisions insofar as the transaction affected respondent<s legitime. The sale was e?ecuted in !#$ " when the applica;le law was the Civil Code" not the Famil1 Code. 4;viousl1" the sale was &regorio<s wa1 to transfer the propert1 to his illegitimate daughters ,7 at the e?pense of his legitimate daughter. The sale was e?ecuted to prevent respondent Alfonso from claiming her legitime and rightful share in said propert1. 9efore his death" &regorio had a change of heart and informed his daughter a;out the titles to the propert1. According to Article $$$" Civil Code: -The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one%half of the hereditar1 estate of the father and of the mother. -The latter ma1 freel1 dispose of the remaining half su;5ect to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.&regorio Francisco did not own an1 other propert1. If indeed the parcels of land involved were the onl1 propert1 left ;1 their father" the sale in fact would deprive respondent of her share in her father<s estate. 91 law" she is entitled to half of the estate of her father as his onl1 legitimate child. ,! The legal heirs of the late &regorio Francisco must ;e determined in proper testate or intestate proceedings for settlement of the estate. @is compulsor1 heir can not ;e deprived of her share in the estate save ;1 disinheritance as prescri;ed ;1 law. ,, A@>'>F4'>" the petition is here;1 D>)I>D. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&. '. C( )o. 3$*3* is AFFI':>D" in toto. )o costs. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 83)8) F/0,+a,y 1(, 1990 %ELEDON#A 'OL#V#O, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL' and %ON%ORD#A &AVELLANA V#LLANUEVA, This is a petition for review of the decision dated .anuar1 ,+" !#$$ of the Court of Appeals in CA &' C( )o. 7#7!7 (Concordia (illanueva v. Celedonia 0olivio) affirming the decision of the trial court in Civil Case )o. ! ,72 for partition" reconve1ance of ownership and possession and damages" the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: A@>'>F4'>" 5udgment is here;1 rendered for the plaintiff and against defendant:

a) 4rdering that the estate of the late >ste;an .avellana" .r. ;e divided into two (,) shares: one%half for the plaintiff and one%half for defendant. From ;oth shares shall ;e e=uall1 deducted the e?penses for the ;urial" mausoleum and related e?penditures. Against the share of defendants shall ;e charged the e?penses for scholarship" awards" donations and the <0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana :emorial FoundationD< ;) Directing the defendant to su;mit an inventor1 of the entire estate propert1" including ;ut not limited to" specific items alread1 mentioned in this decision and to render an accounting of the propert1 of the estate" within thirt1 ( 7) da1s from receipt of this 5udgmentD one%half (!E,) of this produce shall ;elong to plaintiffD c) 4rdering defendant to pa1 plaintiff 6*"777.77 as e?penses of litigationD 6!7"777.77 for and as attorne1<s fees plus costs. 04 4'D>'>D. (pp. 3,%3 " 'ollo) This case involves the estate of the late novelist" >ste;an .avellana" .r." author of the first post%war Filipino novel -Aithout 0eeing the Dawn"- who died a ;achelor" without descendants" ascendants" ;rothers" sisters" nephews or nieces. @is onl1 surviving relatives are: (!) his maternal aunt" petitioner Celedonia 0olivio" the spinster half%sister of his mother" 0alustia 0olivioD and (,) the private respondent" Concordia .avellana%(illanueva" sister of his deceased father" >ste;an .avellana" 0r. @e was a posthumous child. @is father died ;arel1 ten (!7) months after his marriage in Decem;er" !#!+ to 0alustia 0olivio and four months ;efore >ste;an" .r. was ;orn. 0alustia and her sister" Celedonia (daughter of >ngracio 0olivio and his second wife .osefa FernandeB)" a teacher in the Iloilo 6rovincial @igh 0chool" ;rought up >ste;an" .r. 0alustia ;rought to her marriage paraphernal properties (various parcels of land in Calinog" Iloilo covered ;1 ,3 titles) which she had inherited from her mother" &regoria Celo" >ngracio 0olivio<s first wife (p. ,*" 'ecord)" ;ut no con5ugal propert1 was ac=uired during her short%lived marriage to >ste;an" 0r. 4n 4cto;er !!" !#*#" 0alustia died" leaving all her properties to her onl1 child" >ste;an" .r." including a house and lot in 8a 6aB" Iloilo Cit1" where she" her son" and her sister lived. In due time" the titles of all these properties were transferred in the name of >ste;an" .r. During his lifetime" >ste;an" .r. had" more than once" e?pressed to his aunt Celedonia and some close friends his plan to place his estate in a foundation to honor his mother and to help poor ;ut deserving students o;tain a college education. Cnfortunatel1" he died of a heart attack on Fe;ruar1 ,+"!#22 without having set up the foundation. Two weeks after his funeral" Concordia and Celedonia talked a;out what to do with >ste;an<s properties. Celedonia told Concordia a;out >ste;an<s desire to place his estate in a foundation to ;e named after his mother" from whom his properties came" for the purpose of helping indigent students in their schooling. Concordia agreed to carr1 out the plan of the deceased. This fact was admitted ;1 her in her -:otion to 'eopen andEor 'econsider the 4rder dated April " !#2$- which she filed on .ul1 ,2" !#2$ in 0pecial 6roceeding )o. ,*37" where she stated: 3. That petitioner knew all along the narrated facts in the immediatel1 preceding paragraph Gthat herein movant is also the relative of the deceased within the third degree" she ;eing the 1ounger sister of the late >ste;an .avellana" father of the decedent hereinH" ;ecause prior to t$e filing of t$e petition t$ey 8petitioner Celedonia Solivio and movant Concordia @avellana: $ave agreed to ma#e t$e estate of t$e decedent a foundation,

;esides the1 have closel1 known each other due to their filiation to the decedent and the1 have ;een visiting each other<s house which are not far awa1 for (sic) each other. (p. , 3" 'ecordD >mphasis supplied.) 6ursuant to their agreement that Celedonia would take care of the proceedings leading to the formation of the foundation" Celedonia in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel" filed on :arch $" !#22 0pl. 6roceeding )o. ,*37 for her appointment as special administratri? of the estate of >ste;an .avellana" .r. (>?h. ,). 8ater" she filed an amended petition (>?h. *) pra1ing that letters of administration ;e issued to herD that she ;e declared sole heir of the deceasedD and that after pa1ment of all claims and rendition of inventor1 and accounting" the estate ;e ad5udicated to her (p. !!*" 'ollo). After due pu;lication and hearing of her petition" as well as her amended petition" she was declared sole heir of the estate of >ste;an .avellana" .r. 0he e?plained that this was done for three reasons: (!) ;ecause the properties of the estate had come from her sister" 0alustia 0olivioD (,) that she is the decedent<s nearest relative on his mother<s sideD and ( ) with her as sole heir" the disposition of the properties of the estate to fund the foundation would ;e facilitated. 4n April " !#2$" the court (9ranch II" CFI" now 9ranch , " 'TC) declared her the sole heir of >ste;an" .r. Thereafter" she sold properties of the estate to pa1 the ta?es and other o;ligations of the deceased and proceeded to set up the .S"L3S/I" SALI?IA ?&". &E @"?ELL"0" >A30&"/IA0. which she caused to ;e registered in the 0ecurities and >?change Commission on .ul1 !2"!#$! under 'eg. )o. 7!777,2 (p. #$" 'ollo). Four months later" or on August 2" !#2$" Concordia .avellana (illanueva filed a motion for reconsideration of the court<s order declaring Celedonia as -sole heir- of >ste;an" .r." ;ecause she too was an heir of the deceased. 4n 4cto;er ,2" !#2$" her motion was denied ;1 the court for tardiness (pp. $7%$!" 'ecord). Instead of appealing the denial" Concordia filed on .anuar1 2" !#$7 (or one 1ear and two months later)" Civil Case )o. ! ,72 in the 'egional Trial Court of Iloilo" 9ranch ,+" entitled .Concordia @avellana- ?illanueva v. Celedonia Solivio. for partition" recover1 of possession" ownership and damages. 4n 0eptem;er " !#$3" the said trial court rendered 5udgment in Civil Case )o. ! ,72" in favor of Concordia .avellana%(illanueva. 4n Concordia<s motion" the trial court ordered the e?ecution of its 5udgment pending appeal and re=uired Celedonia to su;mit an inventor1 and accounting of the estate. In her motions for reconsideration of those orders" Celedonia averred that the properties of the deceased had alread1 ;een transferred to" and were in the possession of" the <0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana Foundation.- The trial court denied her motions for reconsideration. In the meantime" Celedonia perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA &' C( )o. 7#7!7). 4n .anuar1 ,+" !#$$" the Court of Appeals" >leventh Division" rendered 5udgment affirming the decision of the trial court in toto. @ence" this petition for review wherein she raised the following legal issues: !. whether 9ranch ,+ of the 'TC of Iloilo had 5urisdiction to entertain Civil Case )o. ! ,72 for partition and recover1 of Concordia (illanueva<s share of the estate of >ste;an .avellana" .r. even while the pro;ate proceedings (0pl. 6roc. )o. ,*37) were still pending in 9ranch , of the same courtD ,. whether Concordia (illanueva was prevented from intervening in 0pl. 6roc. )o. ,*37 through e?trinsic fraudD . whether the decedent<s properties were su;5ect to reserva troncal in favor of Celedonia" his relative within the third degree on his mother<s side from whom he had inherited themD and

3. whether Concordia ma1 recover her share of the estate after she had agreed to place the same in the 0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana Foundation" and notwithstanding the fact that conforma;l1 with said agreement" the Foundation has ;een formed and properties of the estate have alread1 ;een transferred to it. I. /$e !uestion of jurisdictionN After a careful review of the records" we find merit in the petitioner<s contention that the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch ,+" lacked 5urisdiction to entertain Concordia (illanueva<s action for partition and recover1 of her share of the estate of >ste;an .avellana" .r. while the pro;ate proceedings (0pl" 6roc. )o. ,*37) for the settlement of said estate are still pending in 9ranch , of the same court" there ;eing as 1et no orders for the su;mission and approval of the administrati?<s inventor1 and accounting" distri;uting the residue of the estate to the heir" and terminating the proceedings (p. !" 'ecord). It is the order of distri;ution directing the deliver1 of the residue of the estate to the persons entitled thereto that ;rings to a close the intestate proceedings" puts an end to the administration and thus far relieves the administrator from his duties (0antieste;an v. 0antieste;an" +$ 6hil. +2" 6hilippine Commercial and Industrial 9ank v. >scolin" et al." 8%,2$+7" :arch ,#" !#23" *+ 0C'A ,++). The assailed order of .udge Adil in 0pl. 6roc. )o. ,*37 declaring Celedonia as the sole heir of the estate of >ste;an .avellana" .r. did not toll the end of the proceedings. As a matter of fact" the last paragraph of the order directed the administratri? to -hurr1 up the settlement of the estate.- The pertinent portions of the order are =uoted ;elow: ,. As regards the second incident G:otion for Declaration of :iss Celedonia 0olivio as 0ole @eir" dated :arch 2" !#2$H" it appears from the record that despite the notices posted and the pu;lication of these proceedings as re=uired ;1 law" no other heirs came out to interpose an1 opposition to the instant proceeding. It further appears that herein Administratri? is the onl1 claimant%heir to the estate of the late >ste;an .avellana who died on Fe;ruar1 ,+" !#22. During the hearing of the motion for declaration as heir on :arch !2" !#2$" it was esta;lished that the late >ste;an .avellana died single" without an1 known issue" and without an1 surviving parents. @is nearest relative is the herein Administratri?" an elder GsicH sister of his late mother who reared him and with whom he had alwa1s ;een living with GsicH during his lifetime. ????????? ,. :iss Celedonia 0olivio" Administratri? of this estate" is here;1 declared as the sole and legal heir of the late >ste;an 0. .avellana" who died intestate on Fe;ruar1 ,+" !#22 at 8a 6aB" Iloilo Cit1. The Administratri? is here;1 instructed to hurr1 up with the settlement of this estate so that it can ;e terminated. (pp" !3%!+" 'ecord) In view of the pendenc1 of the pro;ate proceedings in 9ranch !! of the Court of First Instance (now 'TC" 9ranch , )" Concordia<s motion to set aside the order declaring Celedonia as sole heir of >ste;an" and to have herself (Concordia) declared as co%heir and recover her share of the properties of the deceased" was properl1 filed ;1 her in 0pl. 6roc. )o. ,*37. @er remed1 when the court denied her motion" was to elevate the denial to the Court of Appeals for review on certiorari. @owever" instead of availing of that remed1" she filed more than one 1ear later" a separate action for the same purpose in 9ranch ,+ of the court. Ae hold that the separate action was improperl1 filed for it is the pro;ate court that has exclusive 5urisdiction to make a 5ust and legal distri;ution of the estate.

In the interest of orderl1 procedure and to avoid confusing and conflicting dispositions of a decedent<s estate" a court should not interfere with pro;ate proceedings pending in a co%e=ual court. Thus" did we rule in Builas v. @udge of t$e Court of >irst Instance of *ampanga, L-OKK;<, @anuary P', ';=O, 3 0C'A !!!" !!2" where a daughter filed a separate action to annul a pro5ect of partition e?ecuted ;etween her and her father in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of her mother: The pro;ate court loses 5urisdiction of an estate under administration onl1 after the pa1ment of all the de;ts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. The finalit1 of the approval of the pro5ect of The pro;ate court" in the e?ercise of its 5urisdiction to make distri;ution" has power to determine the proportion or parts to which each distri;uted is entitled. ... The power to determine the legalit1 or illegalit1 of the testamentar1 provision is inherent in the 5urisdiction of the court making a 5ust and legal distri;ution of the inheritance. ... To hold that a separate and independent action is necessar1 to that effect" would ;e contrar1 to the general tendenc1 of the 5urisprudence of avoiding multiplicit1 of suitsD and is further" e?pensive" dilator1" and impractical. (:arcelino v. Antonio" 27 6hil. $$) A 5udicial declaration that a certain person is the onl1 heir of the decedent is e?clusivel1 within the range of the administratri? proceedings and can not properl1 ;e made an independent action. (8itam v. >spiritu" !77 6hil. +3) A separate action for the declaration of heirs is not proper. (6imentel v. 6alanca" * 6hil. 3 +) partition ;1 itself alone does not terminate the pro;ate proceeding (Tim;ol v. Cano" ! 0C'A !,2!" !,2+" 8%!*33*" April ,#" !#+!D 0iguiong v. Tecson" $# 6hil. pp. ,$" 7). As long as the order of the distri;ution of the estate has not ;een complied with" the pro;ate proceedings cannot ;e deemed closed and terminated 0iguiong v. Tecson" supra)D ;ecause a 5udicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heirs from ;ringing an action to o;tain his share" provided the prescriptive period therefore has not elapsed (:ari v. 9onilia" $ 6hil. ! 2). /$e etter practice, $o%ever, for t$e $eir %$o $as not received $is s$are, is to demand $is s$are t$roug$ a proper motion in t$e same pro ate or administration proceedings, or for reopening of t$e pro ate or administrative proceedings if it $ad already een closed, and not t$roug$ an independent action, which would ;e tried ;1 another court or .udge which ma1 thus reverse a decision or order of the pro;ate or intestate court alread1 final and e?ecuted and re%shuffle properties long ago distri;uted and disposed of. ('amos v. 4rtuBar" $# 6hil. 2 7" 23!%23,D Tim;ol v. Cano" supraQ .ingco v. DaluB" 8%*!72" April ,3" !#* " #, 6hil. !7$,D 'oman Catholic v. Agustines" 8%!32!7" :arch ,#" !#+7" !72 6hil. 3**" 3+7%3+!D >mphasis supplied) In Litam et al., v. -ivera, !77 6hil. +3" where despite the pendenc1 of the special proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of the deceased 'afael 8itam the plaintiffs%appellants filed a civil action in which the1 claimed that the1 were the children ;1 a previous marriage of the deceased to a Chinese woman" hence" entitled to inherit his one%half share of the con5ugal properties ac=uired during his marriage to :arcosa 'ivera" the trial court in the civil case declared that the plaintiffs%appellants were not children of the deceased" that the properties in =uestion were paraphernal properties of his wife" :arcosa 'ivera" and that the latter was his onl1 heir. 4n appeal to this Court" we ruled that -such declarations (that :arcosa 'ivera was the onl1 heir of the decedent) is improper" in Civil Case )o. ,72!" it eing %it$in t$e exclusive competence of t$e court in Special *roceedings 0o. '<P=, in which it is not as 1et" in issue" and" will not ;e" ordinaril1" in issue until the presentation of the pro5ect of partition. (p. 2$). @owever" in the &uilas case" supra, since the estate proceedings had ;een closed and terminated for over three 1ears" the action for annulment of the pro5ect of partition was allowed to continue. Considering that in the instant case" the estate proceedings are still pending" ;ut nonetheless" Concordia had lost her

right to have herself declared as co%heir in said proceedings" Ae have opted likewise to proceed to discuss the merits of her claim in the interest of 5ustice. The orders of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch ,+" in Civil Case )o. ! ,72 setting aside the pro;ate proceedings in 9ranch , (formerl1 9ranch !!) on the ground of e?trinsic fraud" and declaring Concordia (illanueva to ;e a co%heir of Celedonia to the estate of >ste;an" .r." ordering the partition of the estate" and re=uiring the administratri?" Celedonia" to su;mit an inventor1 and accounting of the estate" were improper and officious, to sa1 the least" for these matters he within the e?clusive competence of the pro;ate court. II. /$e !uestion of extrinsic fraudN Aas Concordia prevented from intervening in the intestate proceedings ;1 extrinsic fraud emplo1ed ;1 CeledoniaK It is noteworth1 that e?trinsic fraud was not alleged in Concordia<s original complaint in Civil Case )o. ! ,72. It was onl1 in her amended complaint of :arch +" !#$7" that e?trinsic fraud was alleged for the first time. >?trinsic fraud" as a ground for annulment of 5udgment" is an1 act or conduct of the prevailing part1 which prevented a fair su;mission of the controvers1 (Francisco v. David" $ 4.&. 2!3). A fraud <which prevents a part1 from having a trial or presenting all of his case to the court" or one which operates upon matters pertaining" not to the 5udgment itself" ;ut to the manner ;1 which such 5udgment was procured so much so that there was no fair su;mission of the controvers1. For instance" if through fraudulent machination ;1 one Ghis adversar1H" a litigant was induced to withdraw his defense or was prevented from presenting an availa;le defense or cause of action in the case wherein the 5udgment was o;tained" such that the aggrieved part1 was deprived of his da1 in court through no fault of his own" the e=uita;le relief against such 5udgment ma1 ;e availed of. (/atco v. 0umagui" 33+, %'" .ul1 !" !#2!). (cited in 6hilippine 8aw Dictionar1" !#2, >d. ;1 :orenoD (arela v. (illanueva" et al." #+ 6hil. ,3$) A 5udgment ma1 ;e annulled on the ground of e?trinsic or collateral fraud" as distinguished from intrinsic fraud" which connotes an1 fraudulent scheme e?ecuted ;1 a prevailing litigant <outside the trial of a case against the defeated part1" or his agents" attorne1s or witnesses" where;1 said defeated part1 is prevented from presenting full1 and fairl1 his side of the case. ... The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a part1 from having his da1 in court or from presenting his case. The fraud" therefore" is one that affects and goes into the 5urisdiction of the court. (8i;udan v. &il" 8%,!!+ " :a1 !2" !#2," 3* 0C'A !2" ,2%,#D 0terling Investment Corp. v. 'uiB" 8% 7+#3" 4cto;er !" !#+#" 7 0C'A !$" , ) The charge of e?trinsic fraud is" however" unwarranted for the following reasons: !. Concordia was not unaware of the special proceeding intended to ;e filed ;1 Celedonia. 0he admitted in her complaint that she and Celedonia had agreed that the latter would -initiate the necessar1 proceeding- and pa1 the ta?es and o;ligations of the estate. Thus paragraph + of her complaint alleged: +. ... for the purpose of facilitating the settlement of the estate of the late >ste;an .avellana" .r. at the lowest possi;le cost and the least effort" t$e plaintiff and t$e defendant agreed t$at t$e defendant s$all initiate t$e necessary proceeding, cause the pa1ment of ta?es and other o;ligations" and to do ever1thing else re=uired ;1 law" and thereafter" secure the partition of the estate ;etween her and the plaintiff" Galthough Celedonia denied that the1 agreed to partition the estate" for their agreement was to place the estate in a foundation.H (p. ," 'ecordD emphasis supplied)

>videntl1" Concordia was not prevented from intervening in the proceedings. 0he sta1ed awa1 y c$oice. 9esides" she knew that the estate came e?clusivel1 from >ste;an<s mother" 0alustia 0olivio" and she had agreed with Celedonia to place it in a foundation as the deceased had planned to do. ,. The pro;ate proceedings are proceedings in rem. )otice of the time and place of hearing of the petition is re=uired to ;e pu;lished (0ec. " 'ule 2+ in relation to 0ec. " 'ule 2#" 'ules of Court). )otice of the hearing of Celedonia<s original petition was pu;lished in the -(isa1an Tri;une- on April ,*" :a1 , and #" !#22 (>?h 3" p. !#2" 'ecord). 0imilarl1" notice of the hearing of her amended petition of :a1 ,+" !#22 for the settlement of the estate was" ;1 order of the court" pu;lished in -9agong Lasanag- ()ew 8ight) issues of :a1 ,2" .une and !7" !#22 (pp. !$,% 7*" 'ecord). The pu;lication of the notice of the proceedings was constructive notice to the whole world. Concordia was not deprived of her right to intervene in the proceedings for she had actual" as well as constructive notice of the same. As pointed out ;1 the pro;ate court in its order of 4cto;er ,2" !#2$: ... . The move of Concordia .avellana" however" was filed a;out five months after Celedonia 0olivio was declared as the sole heir. ... . Considering that this proceeding is one in rem and had ;een dul1 pu;lished as re=uired ;1 law" despite which the present movant onl1 came to court now" then she is guilt1 of laches for sleeping on her alleged right. (p. ,," 'ecord) The court noted that Concordia<s motion did not compl1 with the re=uisites of a petition for relief from 5udgment nor a motion for new trial. The rule is stated in 3# Corpus .uris 0ecundum $7 7 as follows: Ahere petition was sufficient to invoke statutor1 5urisdiction of pro;ate court and proceeding %as in rem no su;se=uent errors or irregularities are availa;le on collateral attack. (9edwell v. Dean ! , 0o. ,7) Celedonia<s allegation in her petition that she was the sole heir of >ste;an within the third degree on his mot$er9s side was not false. :oreover" it was made in good faith and in the honest ;elief that ;ecause the properties of >ste;an had come from his mother" not his father" she" as >ste;an<s nearest surviving relative on his mother<s side" is the rightful heir to them. It would have ;een self%defeating and inconsistent with her claim of sole $eirs$ip if she stated in her petition that Concordia was her co%heir. @er omission to so state did not constitute e?trinsic fraud. Failure to disclose to the adversar1" or to the court" matters which would defeat one<s own claim or defense is not such e?trinsic fraud as will 5ustif1 or re=uire vacation of the 5udgment. (3# C...0. 3$#" citing /oung v. /oung" , 0> ,d +,,D First )ational 9ank P Trust Co. of Ling Cit1 v. 9owman" !* 0A ,d $3,D 6rice v. 0mith" !7# 0A ,d !!33" !!3#) It should ;e remem;ered that a petition for administration of a decedent<s estate ma1 ;e filed ;1 an1 -interested person- (0ec. ," 'ule 2#" 'ules of Court). The filing of Celedonia<s petition did not preclude Concordia from filing her own. III. An t$e !uestion of reserva troncalN Ae find no merit in the petitioner<s argument that the estate of the deceased was su;5ect to reserva troncal and that it pertains to her as his onl1 relative within the third degree on his mother<s side. The reserva troncal provision of the Civil Code is found in Article $#! which reads as follows:

A'T. $#!. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant an1 propert1 which the latter ma1 have ac=uired ;1 gratuitous title from another ascendant" or a ;rother or sister" is o;liged to reserve such propert1 as he ma1 have ac=uired ;1 operation of law for the ;enefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who ;elong to the line from which said propert1 came. The persons involved in reserva troncal are: !. The person o;liged to reserve is the reservor 8reservista:Jthe ascendant who inherits ;1 operation of law propert1 from his descendants. ,. The persons for whom the propert1 is reserved are the reservees 8reservatarios:J relatives within the third degree counted from the descendant 8propositus:, and ;elonging to the line from which the propert1 came. . The propositusJthe descendant who received ;1 gratuitous title and died without issue" making his other ascendant inherit ;1 operation of law. (p. +#," Civil 8aw ;1 6adilla" (ol. II" !#*+ >d.) Clearl1" the propert1 of the deceased" >ste;an .avellana" .r." is not reserva;le propert1" for >ste;an" .r. was not an ascendant" ;ut the descendant of his mother" 0alustia 0olivio" from whom he inherited the properties in =uestion. Therefore" he did not hold his inheritance su;5ect to a reservation in favor of his aunt" Celedonia 0olivio" who is his relative within the third degree on his mother<s side. The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited ;1 an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or # ;rother or sister. It does not appl1 to propert1 inherited ;1 a descendant from his ascendant" the reverse of the situation covered ;1 Article $#!. 0ince the deceased" >ste;an .avellana" .r." died without descendants" ascendants" illegitimate children" surviving spouse" ;rothers" sisters" nephews or nieces" what should appl1 in the distri;ution of his estate are Articles !77 and !77# of the Civil Code which provide: A'T. !77 . If there are no descendants" ascendants" illegitimate children" or a surviving spouse" the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles. A'T. !77#. 0hould there ;e neither ;rothers nor sisters" nor children of ;rothers or sisters" the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them ;1 reason of relationship ;1 the whole ;lood. Therefore" the Court of Appeals correctl1 held that: 9oth plaintiff%appellee and defendant%appellant ;eing relatives of the decedent within the third degree in the collateral line" each" therefore" shall succeed to the su;5ect estate <without distinction of line or preference among them ;1 reason of relationship ;1 the whole ;lood"< and is entitled one%half (!E,) share and share alike of the estate. (p. *2" 'ollo) I(. /$e !uestion of Concordia9s one-$alf s$areN @owever" inasmuch as Concordia had agreed to deliver the estate of the deceased to the foundation in honor of his mother" 0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana (from whom the estate came)" an agreement

which she ratified and confirmed in her -:otion to 'eopen andEor 'econsider 4rder dated April " !#2$which she filed in 0pl. 6roceeding )o. ,*37: 3. That ... prior to t$e filing of t$e petition t$ey 8petitioner Celedonia Solivio and movant Concordia @avellana: $ave agreed to ma#e t$e estate of t$e decedent a foundation, ;esides the1 have closel1 known each other due to their filiation to the decedent and the1 have ;een visiting each other<s house which are not far awa1 for (sic) each other. (p. , 3" 'ecordD >mphasis supplied) she is ;ound ;1 that agreement. It is true that ;1 that agreement" she did not waive her inheritance in favor of Celedonia" ;ut she did agree to place all of >ste;an<s estate in the -0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana Foundation- which >ste;an" .r." during his lifetime" planned to set up to honor his mother and to finance the education of indigent ;ut deserving students as well. @er admission ma1 not ;e taken lightl1 as the lower court did. 9eing a 5udicial admission" it is conclusive and no evidence need ;e presented to prove the agreement (Cunanan v. Amparo" $7 6hil. ,,2D &ranada v. 6hilippine )ational 9ank" 8%,723*" 0ept. ," !#++" !$ 0C'A !D 0ta. Ana v. :aliwat" 8%, 7, " Aug. !" !#+$" ,3 0C'A !7!$D 6eople v. >ncipido" &.'.277#!" Dec. ,#" !#$+" !3+ 0C'A 32$D and 'odillas v. 0andigan;a1an" &.'. *$+*," :a1 ,7" !#$$" !+! 0C'A 32). The admission was never withdrawn or impugned ;1 Concordia who" significantl1" did not even testif1 in the case" although she could have done so ;1 deposition if she were supposedl1 indisposed to attend the trial. 4nl1 her hus;and" )arciso" and son%in%law" .uanito Domin" activel1 participated in the trial. @er hus;and confirmed the agreement ;etween his wife and Celedonia" ;ut he endeavored to dilute it ;1 alleging that his wife did not intend to give all" ;ut onl1 one%half" of her share to the foundation (p. , " 'ecord). The records show that the -0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana Foundation- was esta;lished and dul1 registered in the 0ecurities and >?change Commission under 'eg. )o. 7!777,2 for the following principal purposes: !. To provide for the esta;lishment andEor setting up of scholarships for such deserving students as the 9oard of Trustees of the Foundation ma1 decide of at least one scholar each to stud1 at Aest (isa1as 0tate College" and the Cniversit1 of the 6hilippines in the (isa1as ;oth located in Iloilo Cit1. ,. To provide a scholarship for at least one scholar for 0t. Clements 'edemptorist Communit1 for a deserving student who has the religious vocation to ;ecome a priest. . To foster" develop" and encourage activities that will promote the advancement and enrichment of the various fields of educational endeavors" especiall1 in literar1 arts. 0cholarships provided for ;1 this foundation ma1 ;e named after its ;enevolent ;enefactors as a token of gratitude for their contri;utions. 3. To direct or undertake surve1s and studies in the communit1 to determine communit1 needs and ;e a;le to alleviate partiall1 or totall1 said needs. *. To maintain and provide the necessar1 activities for the proper care of the 0olivio% .avellana mausoleum at Christ the Ling :emorial 6ark" .aro" Iloilo Cit1" and the .avellana :emorial at the Aest (isa1as 0tate College" as a token of appreciation for the contri;ution of the estate of the late >ste;an 0. .avellana which has made this foundation possi;le. Also" in perpetuation of his 'oman Catholic ;eliefs and those of his mother" &regorian masses or their e=uivalents will ;e offered ever1 Fe;ruar1 and 4cto;er" and

'e=uiem masses ever1 Fe;ruar1 ,*th and 4cto;er llth" their death anniversaries" as part of this provision. +. To receive gifts" legacies" donations" contri;utions" endowments and financial aids or loans from whatever source" to invest and reinvest the funds" collect the income thereof and pa1 or appl1 onl1 the income or such part thereof as shall ;e determined ;1 the Trustees for such endeavors as ma1 ;e necessar1 to carr1 out the o;5ectives of the Foundation. 2. To ac=uire" purchase" own" hold" operate" develop" lease" mortgage" pledge" e?change" sell" transfer" or otherwise" invest" trade" or deal" in an1 manner permitted ;1 law" in real and personal propert1 of ever1 kind and description or an1 interest herein. $. To do and perform all acts and things necessar1" suita;le or proper for the accomplishments of an1 of the purposes herein enumerated or which shall at an1 time appear conducive to the protection or ;enefit of the corporation" including the e?ercise of the powers" authorities and attri;utes concerned upon the corporation organiBed under the laws of the 6hilippines in general" and upon domestic corporation of like nature in particular. (pp. #%!7" 'ollo) As alleged without contradiction in the petition< for review: The Foundation ;egan to function in .une" !#$," and three ( ) of its eight >ste;an .avellana scholars graduated in !#$+" one (!) from C6( graduated Cum 8aude and two (,) from A(0C graduated with honorsD one was a Cum 8aude and the other was a recipient of 8agos 8opeB award for teaching for ;eing the most outstanding student teacher. The Foundation has four (3) high school scholars in &uiso 9aranga1 @igh 0chool" the site of which was donated ;1 the Foundation. The 0chool has ;een selected as the 6ilot 9aranga1 @igh 0chool for 'egion (I. The Foundation has a special scholar" Fr. >l;ert (as=ueB" who would ;e ordained this 1ear. @e studied at 0t. Francis Mavier :a5or 'egional 0eminar1 at Davao Cit1. The Foundation likewise is a mem;er of the 'edemptorist Association that gives 1earl1 donations to help poor students who want to ;ecome 'edemptorist priests or ;rothers. It gives 1earl1 awards for Creative writing known as the >ste;an .avellana Award. Further" the Foundation had constructed the >ste;an 0. .avellana :ulti%purpose Center at the Aest (isa1as 0tate Cniversit1 for teachers< and students< use" and has likewise contri;uted to religious civic and cultural fund%raising drives" amongst other<s. (p. !7" 'ollo) @aving agreed to contri;ute her share of the decedent<s estate to the Foundation" Concordia is o;ligated to honor her commitment as Celedonia has honored hers. A@>'>F4'>" the petition for review is granted. The decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are here;1 0>T A0ID>. Concordia .. (illanueva is declared an heir of the late >ste;an .avellana" .r. entitled to one%half of his estate. @owever" comforma;l1 with the agreement ;etween her and her co%heir" Celedonia 0olivio" the entire estate of the deceased should ;e conve1ed to the -0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avallana Foundation"- of which ;oth the petitioner and the private respondent shall ;e trustees" and each shall ;e entitled to nominate an e=ual num;er of trustees to constitute the 9oard of Trustees of the Foundation which shall administer the same for the purposes set forth in its charter. The petitioner" as

administratri? of the estate" shall su;mit to the pro;ate court an inventor1 and accounting of the estate of the deceased preparator1 to terminating the proceedings therein. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. L-6657) F/0,+a,y (1, 1990 AN'ELMA D#AZ, 5+a,d-an o= V#% OR, RODR#GO, AN'ELM#NA and M#GUEL, a33 *+,na7/d 'AN ERO, and FEL#F"ER A $A%UR'A, 5+a,d-an o= FEDER#%O 'AN ERO, /. a3., vs. #N ERMED#A E A$$ELLA E %OUR and FEL#'A $AMU # &ARD#N, The decision of the 0econd Division of this Court in the case of Anselma DiaB" et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court" et al." &.'. )o. +*23" promulgated .une !2" !#$2 declaring Felisa 6amuti%.ardin to ;e the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the late 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero" and its 'esolution of Fe;ruar1 ,3" !#$$ den1ing the :otion for 'econsideration dated .ul1 ," !#$2" are ;eing challenged in this 0econd :otion for 'econsideration dated .ul1 *" !#$$. After the parties had filed their respective pleadings" the Court" in a resolution dated 4cto;er ,2" !#$$" resolved to grant the re=uest of the petitioners for oral argument ;efore the court en anc, and the case was set for hearing on )ovem;er !2" !#$$ to resolve the =uestion: Does the term -relatives- in Article ##, of the )ew Civil Code which reads: An illegitimate child has no right to inherit a intestato from the legitimate children or relatives of his father or motherD nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. include the legitimate parents of the father or mother of the illegitimate childrenK Invited to discuss as amici curiae during the hearing were the following: .ustice .ose 9.8. 'e1es" former .ustice :inister 'icardo C. 6uno" Dr. Arturo Tolentino" former .ustice >duardo Caguioa" and 6rofessor 'u;en 9alane. The facts of the case" as s1nthesiBed in the assailed decision" are as follows: It is undisputed: !) that Felisa 6amuti .ardin is a niece of 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero who together with Felisa<s mother .uliana were the onl1 legitimate children of the spouses Felipe 6amuti and 6etronila AsuncionD ,) that .uliana married 0imon .ardin and out of their union were ;orn Felisa 6amuti and another child who died during infanc1D ) that 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero is the widow of 6ascual 0antero and the mother of 6a;lo 0anteroD 3) that 6a;lo 0antero was the onl1 legitimate son of his parents 6ascual 0antero and 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0anteroD *) that 6ascual 0antero died in !#27D 6a;lo 0antero in !#2 and 0imona 0antero in !#2+D +) that 6a;lo 0antero" at the time of his death was survived ;1 his mother 0imona 0antero and his si? minor natural children to wit: four minor children with Anselma DiaB and two minor children with Feli?;erta 6acursa. (pp. !%," DecisionD pp. !#7%!#!" 'ollo) 9riefl1 stated" the real issue in the instant case is this J who are the legal heirs of 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero J her niece Felisa 6amuti%.ardin or her grandchildren (the natural children of 6a;lo 0antero)K The present controvers1 is confined solel1 to the intestate estate of 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero. In connection therewith" Ae are tasked with determining anew whether petitioners as illegitimate children of 6a;lo 0antero could inherit from 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero" ;1 right of representation of their father 6a;lo 0antero who is a legitimate child of 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero.

6etitioners claim that the amendment of Articles #3! and #3 of the old Civil Code (Civil Code of 0pain) ;1 Articles ##7 and ##, of the new Civil Code (Civil Code of the 6hilippines) constitute a su;stantial and not merel1 a formal change" which grants illegitimate children certain successional rights. Ae do not dispute the fact that the )ew Civil Code has given illegitimate children successional rights" which rights were never ;efore en5o1ed ;1 them under the 4ld Civil Code. The1 were during that time merel1 entitled to support. In fact" the1 are now considered as compulsor1 primar1 heirs under Article $$2 of the new Civil Code ()o. * in the order of intestate succession). Again" Ae do not den1 that fact. These are onl1 some of the man1 rights granted ;1 the new Code to illegitimate children. 9ut that is all. A careful evaluation of the )ew Civil Code provisions" especiall1 Articles #7," #$," #$#" and ##7" claimed ;1 petitioners to have conferred illegitimate children the right to represent their parents in the inheritance of their legitimate grandparents" would in point of fact reveal that such right to this time does not e?ist. 8et Cs take a closer look at the a;ove%cited provisions. Art.#7,. The rights of illegitimate children set forth in the preceding articles are transmitted upon their death to their descendants" whether legitimate or illegitimate. Art. #$,. The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit ;1 right of representation and if an1 one of them should have died" leaving several heirs" the portion pertaining to him shall ;e divided among the latter in e=ual portions. (# ) Art. #$#. If" together with illegitimate children" there should survive descendants of another illegitimate child who is dead" the former shall succeed in their own right and the latter ;1 right of representation. (#37a) Art. ##7. The hereditar1 rights granted ;1 the two preceding articles to illegitimate children shall ;e transmitted upon their death to their descendants" who shall inherit ;1 right of representation from their deceased grandparent. (#3!a) >mphasis supplied). Articles #7," #$#" and ##7 clearl1 speak of successional rights of illegitimate children" which rights are transmitted to their descendants upon their death. The descendants (of these illegitimate children) who ma1 inherit ;1 virtue of the right of representation ma1 ;e legitimate or illegitimate. In whatever manner" one should not overlook the fact that the persons to ;e represented are themselves illegitimate. The three named provisions are ver1 clear on this matter. The right of representation is not availa;le to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent. It ma1 ;e argued" as done ;1 petitioners" that the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate child is entitled to represent ;1 virtue of the provisions of Article #$," which provides that -the grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit ;1 right of representation.- 0uch a conclusion is erroneous. It would allow intestate succession ;1 an illegitimate child to the legitimate parent of his father or mother" a situation which would set at naught the provisions of Article ##,. Article #$, is inapplica;le to instant case ;ecause Article ##, prohi;its a;solutel1 a succession a intestato ;etween the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother. It ma1 not ;e amiss to state that Article #$, is the general rule and Article ##, the e?ception. -The rules laid down in Article #$, that <grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit ;1 right of representation and in Article #7, that the rights of illegitimate children ... are transmitted upon their death to their descendants" whether legitimate or illegitimate are su ject to t$e limitation prescri;ed ;1 Article ##, to the end that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit a intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother.-< (Amicus Curiae<s 4pinion ;1 former .ustice :inister 'icardo C. 6uno" p. !,) -Article ##, of the )ew Civil Code provides a ;arrier or iron curtain in that it prohi;its a;solutel1 a succession a intestato ;etween the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said illegitimate child. The1 ma1 have a natural tie of ;lood" ;ut this is not recogniBed

;1 law for the purpose of Article ##,. 9etween the legitimate famil1 and the illegitimate famil1 there is presumed to ;e an intervening antagonism and incompati;ilit1. The illegitimate child is disgracefull1 looked down upon ;1 the legitimate famil1D and the famil1 is in turn" hated ;1 the illegitimate childD the latter considers the privileged condition of the former" and the resources of which it is there;1 deprivedD the former" in turn" sees in the illegitimate child nothing ;ut the product of sin" palpa;le evidence of a ;lemish ;roken in lifeD the law does no more than recogniBe this truth" ;1 avoiding further ground of resentment.- (2 :anresa !!7 cited in &re1 v. Fa;le 37 4& (First 0) )o. " p. !#+). According to petitioners" the commentaries of :anresa as a;ove% =uoted are ;ased on Articles # # to #33 of the old Civil Code and are therefore inapplica;le to the )ew Civil Code and to the case at ;ar. 6etitioners further argue that the consistent doctrine adopted ;1 this Court in the cases of Llorente vs. -odriguez, et al., !7 6hil." *$*D Centeno vs. Centeno" *, 6hil. ,," and Ayao vs. Ayao" #3 6hil. ,73" cited ;1 former .ustice :inister .ustice 6uno" .ustice Caguioa" and 6rof. 9alane" which identicall1 held that an illegitimate child has no right to succeed a intestato the legitimate father or mother of his natural parent (also a legitimate child himself is alread1 a;rogated ;1 the amendments made ;1 the )ow Civil Code and thus cannot ;e made to appl1 to the instant case. 4nce more" Ae decline to agree with petitioner. Ae are full1 aware of certain su;stantial changes in our law of succcession" ;ut there is no change whatsoever with respect to the provision of Article ##, of the Civil Code. 4therwise" ;1 the said su;stantial change" Article ##," which was a reproduction f Article #3 of the Civil Code of 0pain" should have ;een suppressed or at least modified to clarif1 the matters which are now the su;5ect of the present controvers1. Ahile the )ew Civil Code ma1 have granted successional rights to illegitimate children" those articles" however" in con5unction with Article ##," prohi;it the right of representation from ;eing e?ercised where the person to ;e represented is a legitimate child. )eedless to sa1" the determining factor is the legitimac1 or illegitimac1 of the person to ;e represented. If the person to ;e represented is an illegitimate child" then his descendants" whether legitimate or illegitimate" ma1 represent himD however" if the person to ;e represented is legitimate" his illegitimate descendants cannot represent him ;ecause the law provides that onl1 his legitimate descendants ma1 e?ercise the right of representation ;1 reason of the ;arrier imposed Article ##,. In this wise" the commentaries of :anresa on the matter in issue" even though ;ased on the old Civil Code" are still ver1 much applica;le to the )ew Civil Code ;ecause the amendment" although su;stantial" did not consist of giving illegitimate children the right to represent their natural parents (legitimate) in the intestate succession of their grandparents (legitimate). It is with the same line of reasoning that the three aforecited cases ma1 ;e said to ;e still applica;le to the instant case. >=uall1 important are the reflections of the Illustrious @on. .ustice .ose 9.8. 'e1es which also find support from other civilists. Ae =uote: In the 0panish Civil Code of !$$# the right of representation was admitted onl1 within the legitimate famil1D so much so that Article #3 of that Code prescri;ed that an illegitimate child can not inherit a intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father and mother. The Civil Code of the 6hilippines apparentl1 adhered to this principle since it reproduced Article #3 of the 0panish Code in its own Art. ##," ;ut with fine inconsistenc1" in su;se=uent articles (##7" ##* and ##$) our Code allows the hereditar1 portion of the illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants" whether legitimate or illegitimate. 0o that while Art. ##, prevents the illegitimate issue of a legitimate child from representing him in the intestate succession of the grandparent" the illegitimates of an illegitimate child can now do so. This difference ;eing indefensi;le and unwarranted" in the future revision of the Civil Code we shall have to make a choice and decide either that the illegitimate issue en5o1s in all cases the right of representation" in which case Art. ##, must ;e suppressedD or contrariwise maintain said article and modif1 Articles ##, and ##$. The first solution would ;e more in accord with an enlightened attitude vis%a%vis illegitimate children. (-eflections on t$e -eform of $ereditary Succession, .4C')A8 of the Integrated 9ar of the 6hilippines" First Iuartet !#2+" (olume 3" )um;er !" pp. 37% 3!). (p. 2" DecisionD p. !#+" 'ollo)

It is therefore clear from Article ##, of the )ew Civil Code that the phrase -legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother- includes 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero as the word -relative- is ;road enough to comprehend all the kindred of the person spoken of. (Comment" p. ! # 'ollo citing p. ,$+, 9ouvier<s 8aw Dictionar1 vol. !!" Third 'evision" >ight >dition) The record reveals that from the commencement of this case the onl1 parties who claimed to ;e the legitimate heirs of the late 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero are Felisa 6amuti .ardin and the si? minor natural or illegitimate children of 6a;lo 0antero. 0ince petitioners herein are ;arred ;1 the provisions of Article ##," the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court did not commit an1 error in holding Felisa 6amuti .ardin to ;e the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the late 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero. It is 4ur shared view that the word -relatives- should ;e construed in its general acceptation. "micus curiae 6rof. 'u;en 9alane has this to sa1: The term relatives, although used man1 times in the Code" is not defined ;1 it. In accordance therefore with the canons of statutor1 interpretation" it should ;e understood to have a general and inclusive scope" inasmuch as the term is a general one. Beneralia ver a sunt generaliter intelligenda. That the law does not make a distinction prevents us from making one: 3 i lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguera de emus. >srinche" in his &iccionario de Legislacion y @urisprudencia defines parientes as -los =ue estan relacionados por los vinculos de la sangre" ya sea por proceder unos de otros, como los descendientes y ascendientes, 1a sea por proceder de una misma raiB o tronco" como los colaterales. (cited in 0caevola" op. cit." p. 3*2). (p. 22" 'ollo) According to 6rof. 9alane" to interpret the term relatives in Article ##, in a more restrictive sense than it is used and intended is not warranted ;1 an1 rule of interpretation. 9esides" he further states that when the law intends to use the term in a more restrictive sense" it =ualifies the term with the word collateral" as in Articles !77 and !77# of the )ew Civil Code. Thus" the word -relatives- is a general term and when used in a statute it em;races not onl1 collateral relatives ;ut also all the kindred of the person spoken of" unless the conte?t indicates that it was used in a more restrictive or limited sense J which as alread1 discussed earlier" is not so in the case at ;ar. To recapitulate" Ae =uote this: The lines of this distinction ;etween legitimates and illegitimates. which goes ;ack ver1 far in legal histor1" have ;een softened ;ut not erased ;1 present law. 4ur legislation has not gone so far as to place legitimate and illegitimate children on e?actl1 the same footing. >ven the Famil1 Code of !#$2 (>4 ,7#) has not a;olished the gradation ;etween legitimate and illegitimate children (although it has done awa1 with the su;% classification of illegitimates into natural and <spurious<). It would thus ;e correct to sa1 that illegitimate children have onl1 those rights which are e?pressl1 or clearl1 granted to them ;1 law (vide Tolentino" Civil Code of the 6hilippines" !#2 ed." vol. III" p. ,#!). (Amicus Curiae<s 4pinion ;1 6rof. 'u;en 9alane" p. !,). In the light of the foregoing" Ae conclude that until Article ##, is suppressed or at least amended to clarif1 the term -relatives- there is no other alternative ;ut to appl1 the law literall1. Thus" Ae here;1 reiterate the decision of .une !2" !#$2 and declare Felisa 6amuti%.ardin to ;e the sole heir to the intestate estate of 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero" to the e?clusion of petitioners. A@>'>F4'>" the second :otion for 'econsideration is D>)I>D" and the assailed decision is here;1 AFFI':>D. 04 4'D>'>D.

G.R. No. 10997( A2,-3 (9, 1996 ZO'#MA VERDAD, vs. !E !ON. %OUR OF A$$EAL', 'O%ORRO %. RO'ALE', AURORA RO'ALE', NA$OLEON RO'ALE', AN ON#O RO'ALE', FLORENDA RO'ALE', ELENA RO'ALE' AND V#RG#N#A RO'ALE', The petitioner" Oosima (erdad" is the purchaser of a ,3$%s=uare meter residential lot (identified to ;e 8ot )o. *,#" Ts%+* of the 9utuan Cadastre" located along :agallanes 0treet" now :arcos :. Calo 0t." 9utuan Cit1). 6rivate respondent" 0ocorro Cordero (da. de 'osales" seeks to e?ercise a right of legal redemption over the su;5ect propert1 and traces her title to the late :acaria Atega" her mother%in%law" who died intestate on 7$ :arch !#*+. During her lifetime" :acaria contracted two marriages: the first with Angel 9urdeos and the second" following the latter<s death" with Canuto 'osales. At the time of her own death" :acaria was survived ;1 her son 'amon A. 9urdeos and her grandchild (;1 her daughter Felicidad A. 9urdeos) >stela 8oBada of the first marriage and her children of the second marriage" namel1" David 'osales" .usto 'osales" 'omulo 'osales" and Aurora 'osales. 0ocorro 'osales is the widow of David 'osales who himself" some time after :acaria<s death" died intestate without an issue. In an instrument" dated !3 .une !#$," the heirs of 'amon 9urdeos" namel1" his widow :anuela 8egaspi 9urdeos and children Felicidad and 'amon" .r." sold to petitioner Oosima (erdad (their interest on) the disputed lot supposedl1 for the price of 6**"3+7.77. In a dul1 notariBed deed of sale" dated !3 )ovem;er !#$," it would appear" however" that the lot was sold for onl1 6, "777.77. 6etitioner e?plained that the second deed was intended merel1 to save on the ta? on capital gains. 0ocorro discovered the sale on 7 :arch !#$2 while she was at the Cit1 Treasurer<s 4ffice. 4n ! :arch !#$2" she sought the intervention of the 8upong Tagapa1apa of 9aranga1 #" 6rincess Crdu5a" for the redemption of the propert1. 0he tendered the sum of 6, "777.77 to Oosima. The latter refused to accept the amount for ;eing much less than the lot<s current value of 6$7"777.77. )o settlement having ;een reached ;efore the 8upong Tagapa1apa" private respondents" on !+ 4cto;er !#$2" initiated against petitioner an action for -8egal 'edemption with 6reliminar1 In5unction- ;efore the 'egional Trial Court of 9utuan Cit1. 4n ,# .une !##7" following the reception of evidence" the trial court handed down its decision holding" in fine" that private respondents< right to redeem the propert1 had alread1 lapsed. An appeal to the Court of Appeals was interposed ;1 private respondents. The appellate court" in its decision of ,, April !## " reversed the court a !uoD thus: A@>'>F4'>" premises considered" the 5udgment appealed from is here;1 '>(>'0>D" and a new one is accordingl1 entered declaring plaintiff%appellant" 0ocorro C. 'osales" entitled to redeem the inheritance rights (Art. !7$$" )CC) or pro indiviso share (Art. !+,7" )CC) of the @eirs of 'amon 9urdeos" 0r. in 8ot *,#" Ts%+* of the 9utuan Cadastre" within the remaining >8>(>) (!!) DA/0 from finalit1 hereon" unless written notice of the sale and its terms are received in the interim" under the same terms and conditions appearing under >?hi;it -.- and after returning the purchase price of 6, "777.77 within the foregoing period. )o cost. 1 In her recourse to this Court" petitioner assigned the following -errors:- That J

The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in declaring 0ocorro C. 'osales is entitled to redeem the inheritance rights (Article !7$$" )CC) or pro-indiviso share (Article !+,7" )CC) of the heirs of 'amon 9urdeos" 0r. in 8ot *,#" Ts%+* of the 9utuan Cadastre" for ;eing contrar1 to law and evidence. The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in ignoring the peculiar circumstance" in that" the respondents< actual knowledge" as a factor in the dela1 constitutes laches. The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in concluding that 0ocorro C. 'osales" in effect" timel1 e?ercised the right of legal redemption when referral to 9aranga1 ;1 respondent signifies ;ona fide intention to redeem andD that" redemption is properl1 made even if there is no offer of redemption in legal tender. The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the running of the statutor1 redemption period is sta1ed upon commencement of 9aranga1 proceedings. ( 0till" the thrust of the petition ;efore us is the alleged incapacit1 of private respondent 0ocorro C. 'osales to redeem the propert1" she ;eing merel1 the spouse of David 'osales" a son of :acaria" and not ;eing a co%heir herself in the intestate estate of :acaria. Ae rule that 0ocorro can. It is true that 0ocorro" a daughter%in%law (or" for that matter" a mere relative ;1 affinit1)" is not an intestate heir of her parents%in%lawD 3 however" 0ocorro<s right to the propert1 is not ;ecause she rightfull1 can claim heirship in :acaria<s estate ;ut that she is a legal heir of her hus;and" David 'osales" part of whose estate is a share in his mother<s inheritance. David 'osales" incontroverti;l1" survived his mother<s death. Ahen :acaria died on 7$ :arch !#*+ her estate passed on to her surviving children" among them David 'osales" who thereupon ;ecame co% owners of the propert1. Ahen David 'osales himself later died" his own estate" which included his undivided interest over the propert1 inherited from :acaria" passed on to his widow 0ocorro and her co% heirs pursuant to the law on succession. Art. ##*. In the a;sence of legitimate descendants and ascendants" and illegitimate children and their descendants" whether legitimate or illegitimate" the surviving spouse shall inherit the entire estate" without pre5udice to the rights of ;rothers and sisters" nephews and nieces" should there ;e an1" under article !77!. ??? ??? ??? Art. !77!. 0hould ;rothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower" the latter shall ;e entitled to one%half of the inheritance and the ;rothers and sisters or their children to the other half. ) 0ocorro and herein private respondents" along with the co%heirs of David 'osales" thereupon ;ecame co-o%ners of the propert1 that originall1 descended from :acaria. Ahen their interest in the propert1 was sold ;1 the 9urdeos heirs to petitioner" a right of redemption arose in favor of private respondentsD thus: Art. !+!#. 8egal redemption is the right to ;e su;rogated" upon the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract" in the place of one who ac=uires a thing ;1 purchase or dation in pa1ment" or ;1 an1 other transaction where;1 ownership is transmitted ;1 onerous title.

Art. !+,7. A co%owner of a thing ma1 e?ercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co%owners or of an1 of them" are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossl1 e?cessive" the redemptioner shall pa1 onl1 a reasona;le one. Ae hold that the right of redemption was timel1 e?ercised ;1 private respondents. Concededl1" no written notice of the sale was given ;1 the 9urdeos heirs (vendors) to the co%owners 5 re=uired under Article !+, of the Civil Code J Art. !+, . The right of legal pre%emption or redemption shall not ;e e?ercised e?cept within thirt1 da1s from the notice in writing ;1 the prospective vendor" or ;1 the vendor" as the case ma1 ;e. The deed of safe shall not ;e recorded in the 'egistr1 of 6ropert1" unless accompanied ;1 an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possi;le redemptioners. @ence" the thirt1%da1 period of redemption had 1et to commence when private respondent 'osales sought to e?ercise the right of redemption on ! :arch !#$2" a da1 after she discovered the sale from the 4ffice of the Cit1 Treasurer of 9utuan Cit1" or when the case was initiated" on !+ 4cto;er !#$2" ;efore the trial court. The written notice of sale is mandator1. This Court has long esta;lished the rule that notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co%owner" the latter is still entitled to a written notice from the selling co%owner in order to remove all uncertainties a;out the sale" its terms and conditions" as well as its efficac1 and status. 6 >ven in "lonzo vs. Intermediate "ppellate Court" 7 relied upon ;1 petitioner in contending that actual knowledge should ;e an e=uivalent to a written notice of sale" the Court made it clear that it was not reversing the prevailing 5urisprudenceD said the Court: Ae realiBe that in arriving at our conclusion toda1" we are deviating from the strict letter of the law" which the respondent court understanda;l1 applied pursuant to e?isting 5urisprudence. The said court acted properl1 as it had no competence to reverse the doctrines laid down ;1 this Court in the a;ove%cited cases. In fact" and this should ;e clearl1 stressed" we ourselves are not a;andoning the De Cone5ero and 9uttle doctrines. Ahat we are doing simpl1 is adopting an e?ception to the general rule" in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. 8 In "lonzo" the right of legal redemption was invoked several 1ears" not 5ust da1s or months" after the consummation of the contracts of sale. The complaint for legal redemption itself was there filed more than thirteen 1ears after the sales were concluded. 'elative to the =uestion posed ;1 petitioner on private respondents< tender of pa1ment" it is enough that we =uote" with approval" the appellate courtD viz.: In contrast" records dearl1 show that an amount was offered" as re=uired in Sempio vs. &el -osario" 33 6hil. ! and &aza vs. /omacruz" *$ 6hil. 3!3" ;1 the redemptioner% appellant during the ;aranga1 conciliation proceedings (Answer" par. $) ;ut was flatl1 re5ected ;1 the appellee" not on the ground that it was not the purchase price (though it appeared on the face of the deed of sale" >?h. -.%!-)" nor that it was offered as partial pa1ment thereof" ;ut rather that it was All given" we find no error in the appellate court<s finding that private respondents are entitled to the redemption of the su;5ect propert1.

A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFI':>D. Costs against petitioner. 04 4'D>'>D. G.R. No. 108581 D/>/70/, 8, 1999 LOURDE' L. DORO !EO, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', N#LDA D. 6U#N ANA, =o, !/,*/3= and a* A..o,n/y--n-Fa>. o= V#%EN E DORO !EO and &O'E DORO !EO, :a1 a last will and testament admitted to pro;ate ;ut declared intrinsicall1 void in an order that has ;ecome final and e?ecutor1 still ;e given effectK This is the issue that arose from the following antecedents: 6rivate respondents were the legitimate children of Ale5andro Dorotheo and Aniceta 'e1es. The latter died in !#+# without her estate ;eing settled. Ale5andro died thereafter. 0ometime in !#22" after Ale5andro<s death" petitioner" who claims to have taken care of Ale5andro ;efore he died" filed a special proceeding for the pro;ate of the latter<s last will and testament. In !#$!" the court issued an order admitting Ale5andro<s will to pro;ate. 6rivate respondents did not appeal from said order. In !#$ " the1 filed a -:otion To Declare The Aill Intrinsicall1 (oid.- The trial court granted the motion and issued an order" the dispositive portion of which reads: A@>'>F4'>" in view of the foregoing" 4rder is here;1 issued declaring 8ourdes 8egaspi not the wife of the late Ale5andro Dorotheo" the provisions of the last will and testament of Ale5andro Dorotheo as intrinsicall1 void" and declaring the oppositors (icente Dorotheo" .ose Dorotheo and )ilda Dorotheo Iuintana as the onl1 heirs of the late spouses Ale5andro Dorotheo and Aniceta 'e1es" whose respective estates shall ;e li=uidated and distri;uted according to the laws on intestac1 upon pa1ment of estate and other ta?es due to the government. 1 6etitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to some compensation since she took care of Ale5andro prior to his death although she admitted that the1 were not married to each other. Cpon denial of her motion for reconsideration" petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals" ;ut the same was dismissed for failure to file appellant<s ;rief within the e?tended period granted. ( This dismissal ;ecame final and e?ecutor1 on Fe;ruar1 " !#$# and a corresponding entr1 of 5udgment was forthwith issued ;1 the Court of Appeals on :a1 !+" !#$#. A writ of e?ecution was issued ;1 the lower court to implement the final and e?ecutor1 4rder. Conse=uentl1" private respondents filed several motions including a motion to compel petitioner to surrender to them the Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) covering the properties of the late Ale5andro. Ahen petitioner refused to surrender the TCT<s" private respondents filed a motion for cancellation of said titles and for issuance of new titles in their names. 6etitioner opposed the motion. An 4rder was issued on )ovem;er ,#" !##7 ;1 .udge Oain 9. Angas setting aside the final and e?ecutor1 4rder dated .anuar1 7" !#$+" as well as the 4rder directing the issuance of the writ of e?ecution" on the ground that the order was merel1 -interlocutor1-" hence not final in character. The court added that the dispositive portion of the said 4rder even directs the distri;ution of the estate of the deceased spouses. 6rivate respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in an 4rder dated Fe;ruar1 !" !##!. Thus" private respondents filed a petition ;efore the Court of Appeals" which nullified the two assailed 4rders dated )ovem;er ,#" !##7 and Fe;ruar1 !" !##!. Aggrieved" petitioner instituted a petition for review arguing that the case filed ;1 private respondents ;efore the Court of Appeals was a petition under 'ule +* on the ground of grave a;use of discretion or lack of 5urisdiction. 6etitioner contends that in issuing the two assailed orders" .udge Angas cannot ;e said to have no 5urisdiction ;ecause he was particularl1 designated to hear the case. 6etitioner likewise

assails the 4rder of the Court of Appeals upholding the validit1 of the .anuar1 7" !#$+ 4rder which declared the intrinsic invalidit1 of Ale5andro<s will that was earlier admitted to pro;ate. 6etitioner also filed a motion to reinstate her as e?ecutri? of the estate of the late Ale5andro and to maintain the status !uo or lease of the premises thereon to third parties. 3 6rivate respondents opposed the motion on the ground that petitioner has no interest in the estate since she is not the lawful wife of the late Ale5andro. The petition is without merit. A final and e?ecutor1 decision or order can no longer ;e distur;ed or reopened no matter how erroneous it ma1 ;e. In setting aside the .anuar1 7" !#$+ 4rder that has attained finalit1" the trial court in effect nullified the entr1 of 5udgment made ;1 the Court of Appeals. It is well settled that a lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court" for to do so would ;e to negate the hierarch1 of courts and nullif1 the essence of review. It has ;een ruled that a final 5udgment on pro;ated will" al;eit erroneous" is ;inding on the whole world. ) It has ;een consistentl1 held that if no appeal is taken in due time from a 5udgment or order of the trial court" the same attains finalit1 ;1 mere lapse of time. Thus" the order allowing the will ;ecame final and the =uestion determined ;1 the court in such order can no longer ;e raised anew" either in the same proceedings or in a different motion. The matters of due e?ecution of the will and the capacit1 of the testator ac=uired the character of res judicata and cannot again ;e ;rought into =uestion" all 5uridical =uestions in connection therewith ;eing for once and forever closed. 5 0uch final order makes the will conclusive against the whole world as to its e?trinsic validit1 and due e?ecution. 6 It should ;e noted that pro;ate proceedings deals generall1 with the e?trinsic validit1 of the will sought to ;e pro;ated" 7 particularl1 on three aspects: n whether the will su;mitted is indeed" the decedent<s last will and testamentD n compliance with the prescri;ed formalities for the e?ecution of willsD n the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatorD
8

n and the due e?ecution of the last will and testament. 9 Cnder the Civil Code" due e?ecution includes a determination of whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of its e?ecution" that he had freel1 e?ecuted the will and was not acting under duress" fraud" menace or undue influence and that the will is genuine and not a forger1" 10 that he was of the proper testamentar1 age and that he is a person not e?pressl1 prohi;ited ;1 law from making a will. 11 The intrinsic validit1 is another matter and =uestions regarding the same ma1 still ;e raised even after the will has ;een authenticated. 1( Thus" it does not necessaril1 follow that an e?trinsicall1 valid last will and testament is alwa1s intrinsicall1 valid. >ven if the will was validl1 e?ecuted" if the testator provides for dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to the laws on succession" 13 the unlawful provisionsEdispositions thereof cannot ;e given effect. This is speciall1 so when the courts had alread1 determined in a final and e?ecutor1 decision that the will is intrinsicall1 void. 0uch determination having attained that character of finalit1 is ;inding on this Court which will no longer ;e distur;ed. )ot that this Court finds the will to ;e intrinsicall1 valid" ;ut that a final and e?ecutor1 decision of which the part1 had the opportunit1 to challenge ;efore the higher tri;unals must stand and should no longer ;e reevaluated. Failure to avail of the remedies provided ;1 law constitutes waiver. And if the part1 does not avail of other remedies despite its ;elief that it was aggrieved ;1 a decision or court action" then it is deemed to have full1 agreed and is satisfied with the decision or order. As earl1 as !#!$" it has ;een declared that pu;lic polic1 and sound practice demand that" at the

risk of occasional errors" 5udgments of courts must at some point of time fi?ed ;1 law 1) ;ecome final otherwise there will ;e no end to litigation. Interes rei pu licae ut finis sit litium J the ver1 o;5ect of which the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies. 15 To fulfill this purpose and to do so speedil1" certain time limits" more or less ar;itrar1" have to ;e set up to spur on the slothful. 16 The onl1 instance where a part1 interested in a pro;ate proceeding ma1 have a final li=uidation set aside is when he is left out ;1 reason of circumstances ;e1ond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputa;le to negligence" 17 which circumstances do not concur herein. 6etitioner was priv1 to the suit calling for the declaration of the intrinsic invalidit1 of the will" as she precisel1 appealed from an unfavora;le order therefrom. Although the final and e?ecutor1 4rder of .anuar1 7" !#$+ wherein private respondents were declared as the onl1 heirs do not ;ind those who are not parties thereto such as the alleged illegitimate son of the testator" the same constitutes res judicata with respect to those who were parties to the pro;ate proceedings. 6etitioner cannot again raise those matters anew for relitigation otherwise that would amount to forum%shopping. It should ;e remem;ered that forum shopping also occurs when the same issue had alread1 ;een resolved adversel1 ;1 some other court. 18 It is clear from the e?ecutor1 order that the estates of Ale5andro and his spouse should ;e distri;uted according to the laws of intestate succession. 6etitioner posits that the .anuar1 7" !#$+ 4rder is merel1 interlocutor1" hence it can still ;e set aside ;1 the trial court. In support thereof" petitioner argues that -an order merel1 declaring who are heirs and the shares to which set of heirs is entitled cannot ;e the ;asis of e?ecution to re=uire deliver1 of shares from one person to another particularl1 when no pro5ect of partition has ;een filed.- 19 The trial court declared in the .anuar1 7" !#$+ 4rder that petitioner is not the legal wife of Ale5andro" whose onl1 heirs are his three legitimate children (petitioners herein)" and at the same time it nullified the will. 9ut it should ;e noted that in the same 4rder" the trial court also said that the estate of the late spouses ;e distri;uted according to the laws of intestac1. Accordingl1" it has no option ;ut to implement that order of intestate distri;ution and not to reopen and again re%e?amine the intrinsic provisions of the same will. It can ;e clearl1 inferred from Article #+7 of the Civil Code" on the law of successional rights that testac1 is preferred to intestac1. (0 9ut ;efore there could ;e testate distri;ution" the will must pass the scrutiniBing test and safeguards provided ;1 law considering that the deceased testator is no longer availa;le to prove the voluntariness of his actions" aside from the fact that the transfer of the estate is usuall1 onerous in nature and that no one is presumed to give J 0emo praesumitur donare. (1 )o intestate distri;ution of the estate can ;e done until and unless the will had failed to pass ;oth its e?trinsic and intrinsic validit1. If the will is e?trinsicall1 void" the rules of intestac1 appl1 regardless of the intrinsic validit1 thereof. If it is e?trinsicall1 valid" the ne?t test is to determine its intrinsic validit1 J that is whether the provisions of the will are valid according to the laws of succession. In this case" the court had ruled that the will of Ale5andro was e?trinsicall1 valid ;ut the intrinsic provisions thereof were void. Thus" the rules of intestac1 appl1 as correctl1 held ;1 the trial court. Furthermore" Ale5andro<s disposition in his will of the alleged share in the con5ugal properties of his late spouse" whom he descri;ed as his -onl1 ;eloved wife-" is not a valid reason to reverse a final and e?ecutor1 order. Testamentar1 dispositions of properties not ;elonging e?clusivel1 to the testator or properties which are part of the con5ugal regime cannot ;e given effect. :atters with respect to who owns the properties that were disposed of ;1 Ale5andro in the void will ma1 still ;e properl1 ventilated and determined in the intestate proceedings for the settlement of his and that of his late spouse<s estate. 6etitioner<s motion for appointment as administratri? is rendered moot considering that she was not married to the late Ale5andro and" therefore" is not an heir. A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D and the decision appealed from is AFFI':>D. 04 4'D>'>D.

G.R. No. L-5)919 May 30, 198) $OLLY %AYE ANO, vs. !ON. OMA' . LEON#DA', -n 1-* >a2a>-.y a* .1/ $,/*-d-n5 &+d5/ o= ",an>1 FFFV###, %o+,. o= F-,*. #n*.an>/ o= Man-3a and NEN# A %AM$O' $AGU#A, This is a petition for review on certiorari" seeking to annul the order of the respondent 5udge of the Court of First Instance of :anila" 9ranch MMM(III" which admitted to and allowed the pro;ate of the last will and testament of Adoracion C. Campos" after an e?%parte presentation of evidence ;1 herein private respondent. 4n .anuar1 !" !#22" Adoracion C. Campos died" leaving her father" petitioner @ermogenes Campos and her sisters" private respondent )enita C. 6aguia" 'emedios C. 8opeB and :arieta C. :edina as the surviving heirs. As @ermogenes Campos was the onl1 compulsor1 heir" he e?ecuted an Affidavit of Ad5udication under 'ule 23" 0ection I of the 'ules of Court where;1 he ad5udicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the deceased Adoracion Campos. >leven months after" on )ovem;er ,*" !#22" )enita C. 6aguia filed a petition for the repro;ate of a will of the deceased" Adoracion Campos" which was allegedl1 e?ecuted in the Cnited 0tates and for her appointment as administratri? of the estate of the deceased testatri?. In her petition" )enita alleged that the testatri? was an American citiBen at the time of her death and was a permanent resident of 3+ Ditman 0treet" 6hiladelphia" 6enns1lvania" C.0.A.D that the testatri? died in :anila on .anuar1 !" !#22 while temporaril1 residing with her sister at ,!+2 8everiBa" :alate" :anilaD that during her lifetime" the testatri? made her last wig and testament on .ul1 !7" !#2*" according to the laws of 6enns1lvania" C.0.A." nominating Ailfredo 9arBaga of )ew .erse1 as e?ecutorD that after the testatri? death" her last will and testament was presented" pro;ated" allowed" and registered with the 'egistr1 of Ains at the Count1 of 6hiladelphia" C.0.A." that Clement 8. :c8aughlin" the administrator who was appointed after Dr. 9arBaga had declined and waived his appointment as e?ecutor in favor of the former" is also a resident of 6hiladelphia" C.0.A." and that therefore" there is an urgent need for the appointment of an administratri? to administer and eventuall1 distri;ute the properties of the estate located in the 6hilippines. 4n .anuar1 !!" !#2$" an opposition to the repro;ate of the will was filed ;1 herein petitioner alleging among other things" that he has ever1 reason to ;elieve that the will in =uestion is a forger1D that the intrinsic provisions of the will are null and voidD and that even if pertinent American laws on intrinsic provisions are invoked" the same could not appl1 inasmuch as the1 would work in5ustice and in5ur1 to him. 4n Decem;er !" !#2$" however" the petitioner through his counsel" Att1. Franco 8o1ola" filed a :otion to Dismiss 4pposition (Aith Aaiver of 'ights or Interests) stating that he -has ;een a;le to verif1 the veracit1 thereof (of the will) and now confirms the same to ;e trul1 the pro;ated will of his daughter Adoracion.- @ence" an ex-parte presentation of evidence for the repro;ate of the =uestioned will was made. 4n .anuar1 !7" !#2#" the respondent 5udge issued an order" to wit: At the hearing" it has ;een satisfactoril1 esta;lished that Adoracion C. Campos" in her lifetime" was a citiBen of the Cnited 0tates of America with a permanent residence at 3+ Ditman 0treet" 6hiladelphia" 6A !#!,3" (>?hi;it D) that when alive" Adoracion C. Campos e?ecuted a 8ast Aill and Testament in the count1 of 6hiladelphia" 6enns1lvania" C.0.A." according to the laws thereat (>?hi;its >% to >% %;) that while in temporar1 so5ourn in the 6hilippines" Adoracion C. Campos died in the Cit1 of :anila (>?hi;it C) leaving propert1 ;oth in the 6hilippines and in the Cnited 0tates of AmericaD that the 8ast Aill and Testament of the late Adoracion C. Campos was admitted and granted pro;ate ;1 the 4rphan<s Court Division of the Court of Common 6leas" the pro;ate court of the

Commonwealth of 6enns1lvania" Count1 of 6hiladelphia" C.0.A." and letters of administration were issued in favor of Clement .. :c8aughlin all in accordance with the laws of the said foreign countr1 on procedure and allowance of wills (>?hi;its > to >%!7)D and that the petitioner is not suffering from an1 dis=ualification which would render her unfit as administratri? of the estate in the 6hilippines of the late Adoracion C. Campos. A@>'>F4'>" the 8ast Aill and Testament of the late Adoracion C. Campos is here;1 admitted to and allowed pro;ate in the 6hilippines" and )enita Campos 6aguia is here;1 appointed Administratri? of the estate of said decedentD let 8etters of Administration with the Aill anne?ed issue in favor of said Administratri? upon her filing of a ;ond in the amount of 6*"777.77 conditioned under the provisions of 0ection I" 'ule $! of the 'ules of Court. Another manifestation was filed ;1 the petitioner on April !3" !#2#" confirming the withdrawal of his opposition" acknowledging the same to ;e his voluntar1 act and deed. 4n :a1 ,*" !#2#" @ermogenes Campos filed a petition for relief" pra1ing that the order allowing the will ;e set aside on the ground that the withdrawal of his opposition to the same was secured through fraudulent means. According to him" the -:otion to Dismiss 4pposition- was inserted among the papers which he signed in connection with two Deeds of Conditional 0ales which he e?ecuted with the Construction and Development Corporation of the 6hilippines (CDC6). @e also alleged that the law1er who filed the withdrawal of the opposition was not his counsel%of%record in the special proceedings case. The petition for relief was set for hearing ;ut the petitioner failed to appear. @e made several motions for postponement until the hearing was set on :a1 ,#" !#$7. 4n :a1 !$" !#$7" petitioner filed another motion entitled -:otion to (acate andEor 0et Aside the 4rder of .anuar1 !7" !#2#" andEor dismiss the case for lack of 5urisdiction. In this motion" the notice of hearing provided: 6lease include this motion in 1our calendar for hearing on :a1 ,#" !#$7 at $: 7 in the morning for su;mission for reconsideration and resolution of the @onora;le Court. Cntil this :otion is resolved" ma1 I also re=uest for the future setting of the case for hearing on the 4ppositor<s motion to set aside previousl1 filed. The hearing of :a1 ,#" !#$7 was re%set ;1 the court for .une !#" !#$7. Ahen the case was called for hearing on this date" the counsel for petitioner tried to argue his motion to vacate instead of adducing evidence in support of the petition for relief. Thus" the respondent 5udge issued an order dismissing the petition for relief for failure to present evidence in support thereof. 6etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration ;ut the same was denied. In the same order" respondent 5udge also denied the motion to vacate for lack of merit. @ence" this petition. :eanwhile" on .une +"!#$," petitioner @ermogenes Campos died and left a will" which" incidentall1 has ;een =uestioned ;1 the respondent" his children and forced heirs as" on its face" patentl1 null and void" and a fa;rication" appointing 6oll1 Ca1etano as the e?ecutri? of his last will and testament. Ca1etano" therefore" filed a motion to su;stitute herself as petitioner in the instant case which was granted ;1 the court on 0eptem;er ! " !#$,. A motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the rights of the petitioner @ermogenes Campos merged upon his death with the rights of the respondent and her sisters" onl1 remaining children and forced heirs was denied on 0eptem;er !," !#$ . 6etitioner Ca1etano persists with the allegations that the respondent 5udge acted without or in e?cess of his 5urisdiction when:

!) @e ruled the petitioner lost his standing in court deprived the 'ight to )otice (sic) upon the filing of the :otion to Dismiss opposition with waiver of rights or interests against the estate of deceased Adoracion C. Campos" thus" paving the wa1 for the hearing ex-parte of the petition for the pro;ate of decedent will. ,) @e ruled that petitioner can waive" renounce or repudiate (not made in a pu;lic or authenticated instrument)" or ;1 wa1 of a petition presented to the court ;ut ;1 wa1 of a motion presented prior to an order for the distri;ution of the estate%the law especiall1 providing that repudiation of an inheritance must ;e presented" within 7 da1s after it has issued an order for the distri;ution of the estate in accordance with the rules of Court. ) @e ruled that the right of a forced heir to his legitime can ;e divested ;1 a decree admitting a will to pro;ate in which no provision is made for the forced heir in complete disregard of 8aw of 0uccession 3) @e denied petitioner<s petition for 'elief on the ground that no evidence was adduced to support the 6etition for 'elief when no )otice nor hearing was set to afford petitioner to prove the merit of his petition J a denial of the due process and a grave a;use of discretion amounting to lack of 5urisdiction. *) @e ac=uired no 5urisdiction over the testate case" the fact that the Testator at the time of death was a usual resident of DasmariFas" Cavite" conse=uentl1 Cavite Court of First Instance has e?clusive 5urisdiction over the case (De 9or5a vs. Tan" &.'. )o. 8%22#," .ul1 !#**). The first two issues raised ;1 the petitioner are anchored on the allegation that the respondent 5udge acted with grave a;use of discretion when he allowed the withdrawal of the petitioner<s opposition to the repro;ate of the will. Ae find no grave a;use of discretion on the part of the respondent 5udge. )o proof was adduced to support petitioner<s contention that the motion to withdraw was secured through fraudulent means and that Att1. Franco 8o1ola was not his counsel of record. The records show that after the firing of the contested motion" the petitioner at a later date" filed a manifestation wherein he confirmed that the :otion to Dismiss 4pposition was his voluntar1 act and deed. :oreover" at the time the motion was filed" the petitioner<s former counsel" Att1. .ose 6. 8agrosa had long withdrawn from the case and had ;een su;stituted ;1 Att1. Franco 8o1ola who in turn filed the motion. The present petitioner cannot" therefore" maintain that the old man<s attorne1 of record was Att1. 8agrosa at the time of filing the motion. 0ince the withdrawal was in order" the respondent 5udge acted correctl1 in hearing the pro;ate of the will ex-parte, there ;eing no other opposition to the same. The third issue raised deals with the validit1 of the provisions of the will. As a general rule" the pro;ate court<s authorit1 is limited onl1 to the e?trinsic validit1 of the will" the due e?ecution thereof" the testatri?<s testamentar1 capacit1 and the compliance with the re=uisites or solemnities prescri;ed ;1 law. The intrinsic validit1 of the will normall1 comes onl1 after the court has declared that the will has ;een dul1 authenticated. @owever" where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validit1 of the will ;e passed upon" even ;efore it is pro;ated" the court should meet the issue. (:aninang vs. Court of Appeals" !!3 0C'A 32$). In the case at ;ar" the petitioner maintains that since the respondent 5udge allowed the repro;ate of Adoracion<s will" @ermogenes C. Campos was divested of his legitime which was reserved ;1 the law for him. This contention is without merit.

Although on its face" the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus" the respondent 5udge should have denied its repro;ate outright" the private respondents have sufficientl1 esta;lished that Adoracion was" at the time of her death" an American citiBen and a permanent resident of 6hiladelphia" 6enns1lvania" C.0.A. Therefore" under Article !+ par. (,) and !7 # of the Civil Code which respectivel1 provide: Art. !+ par. (,). ??? ??? ??? @owever" intestate and testamentar1 successions" ;oth with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validit1 of testamentar1 provisions" shall ;e regulated ;1 the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration" whatever ma1 ;e the nature of the propert1 and regardless of the countr1 wherein said propert1 ma1 ;e found. Art. !7 #. Capacit1 to succeed is governed ;1 the law of the nation of the decedent. the law which governs Adoracion Campo<s will is the law of 6enns1lvania" C.0.A." which is the national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the 6enns1lvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate ma1 ;e given awa1 ;1 the testatri? to a complete stranger" the petitioner argues that such law should not appl1 ;ecause it would ;e contrar1 to the sound and esta;lished pu;lic polic1 and would run counter to the specific provisions of 6hilippine 8aw. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validit1 of the provisions of the will" as provided for ;1 Article !+(,) and !7 # of the Civil Code" the national law of the decedent must appl1. This was s=uarel1 applied in the case of 2ellis v. 2ellis (,7 0C'A *$) wherein we ruled: It is therefore evident that whatever pu;lic polic1 or good customs ma1 ;e involved in our s1stem of legitimes" Congress has not intended to e?tend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specificall1 chosen to leave" inter alia" the amount of successional rights" to the decedent<s national law. 0pecific provisions must prevail over general ones. ??? ??? ??? The parties admit that the decedent" Amos &. 9ellis" was a citiBen of the 0tate of Te?as" C.0.A." and under the law of Te?as" there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingl1" since the intrinsic validit1 of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to ;e determined under Te?as law" the 6hilippine 8aw on legitimes cannot ;e applied to the testac1 of Amos &. 9ellis. As regards the alleged a;sence of notice of hearing for the petition for relief" the records wig ;ear the fact that what was repeatedl1 scheduled for hearing on separate dates until .une !#" !#$7 was the petitioner<s petition for relief and not his motion to vacate the order of .anuar1 !7" !#2#. There is no reason wh1 the petitioner should have ;een led to ;elieve otherwise. The court even admonished the petitioner<s failing to adduce evidence when his petition for relief was repeatedl1 set for hearing. There was no denial of due process. The fact that he re=uested -for the future setting of the case for hearing . . .- did not mean that at the ne?t hearing" the motion to vacate would ;e heard and given preference in lieu of the petition for relief. Furthermore" such re=uest should ;e em;odied in a motion and not in a mere notice of hearing.

Finall1" we find the contention of the petition as to the issue of 5urisdiction utterl1 devoid of merit. Cnder 'ule 2 " 0ection !" of the 'ules of Court" it is provided that: 0>CTI4) !. 7$ere estate of deceased persons settled. J If the decedent is an inha;itant of the 6hilippines at the time of his death" whether a citiBen or an alien" his will shall ;e proved" or letters of administration granted" and his estate settled" in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resided at the time of his death" and if he is an inha;itant of a foreign countr1" the Court of First Instance of an1 province in which he had estate. The court first taking cogniBance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent" shall e?ercise 5urisdiction to the e?clusion of all other courts. The 5urisdiction assumed ;1 a court" so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent" or of the location of his estate" shall not ;e contested in a suit or proceeding" e?cept in an appeal from that court" in the original case" or when the want of 5urisdiction appears on the record. Therefore" the settlement of the estate of Adoracion Campos was correctl1 filed with the Court of First Instance of :anila where she had an estate since it was alleged and proven that Adoracion at the time of her death was a citiBen and permanent resident of 6enns1lvania" Cnited 0tates of America and not a -usual resident of Cavite- as alleged ;1 the petitioner. :oreover" petitioner is now estopped from =uestioning the 5urisdiction of the pro;ate court in the petition for relief. It is a settled rule that a part1 cannot invoke the 5urisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief" against his opponent and after failing to o;tain such relief" repudiate or =uestion that same 5urisdiction. (0ee 0aulog Transit" Inc. vs. @on. :anuel 8aBaro" et al." &. '. )o. + ,$3" April 3" !#$3). A@>'>F4'>" the petition for certiorari and prohi;ition is here;1 dismissed for lack of merit. 04 4'D>'>D.

MOLO VS. MOLO 90 Phil 37 FACTS: 1. Mariano Molo died on January 2 ! 19 1 "i#hou# lea$in% any &or'ed heir ei#her in #he de('endin% or a('endin% line. 2. )i( "i&e Juana Molo *+e#i#ioner, (ur$i$ed hi-! and .y hi( nie'e( and ne+he" Lu/! 0li'eria and Cornelio! all (urna-ed Molo *o++o(i#or(1a++ellan#(,. 3. O++o(i#or( 2 a++ellan#( "ere #he le%i#i-a#e 'hildren o& a de'ea(ed .ro#her o& #he #e(#a#or. . Mariano le&# #"o "ill(! one e3e'u#ed on Au%u(# 17! 1914 and ano#her e3e'u#ed on June 20! 1939! 5. 6n .o#h #he 1914 and 1939 "ill( Juana "a( in(#i#u#ed a( hi( uni$er(al heir. 7. The la##er "ill 'on#ain( a 'lau(e! "hi'h e3+re((ly re$o8e( #he "ill e3e'u#ed in 1914. 7. Juana Molo &iled in #he CF6 a +e#i#ion (ee8in% #he +ro.a#e o& #he "ill e3e'u#ed in 1939. 4. The 'our# rendered a de'i(ion denyin% #he +ro.a#e o& (aid "ill on #he %round #ha# #he +e#i#ioner &ailed #o +ro$e #ha# #he (a-e "a( e3e'u#ed in a''ordan'e "i#h la". 9. 6n $ie" o& #he di(allo"an'e o& #he "ill! #he "ido" &iled ano#her +e#i#ion &or #he +ro.a#e o& #he "ill e3e'u#ed .y #he de'ea(ed on Au%u(# 14! 1914. 10. The o++o(i#or( &iled an o++o(i#ion #o #he +e#i#ion 'on#endin% #ha#! no#"i#h(#andin% #he di(allo"an'e o& #he 1939 "ill! #he re$o'a#ory 'lau(e i( $alid and (#ill ha( #he e&&e'# o& nulli&yin% #he +rior "ill o& 1914. 11. Li8e"i(e! re%ardle(( o& #he re$o'a#ory 'lau(e! (aid "ill o& 1914 'anno# (#ill .e %i$en e&&e'# .e'au(e o& #he +re(u-+#ion #ha# #he #e(#a#or hi-(el& deli.era#ely re$o8ed i#. 12. The "ill o& 1914 "a( ad-i##ed #o +ro.a#e.

13. )en'e #hi( a++eal. 6SS9:: ;a( #he ad-i##an'e in#o +ro.a#e +ro+er< ;ha# i( #he do'#rine o& de+enden# rela#i$e re$o'a#ion< ):L=: A (u.(e>uen# "ill 'on#ainin% a 'lau(e re$o8in% a +re$iou( "ill! ha$in% .een di(allo"ed! &or #he rea(on #ha# i# "a( no# e3e'u#ed in 'on&or-i#y "i#h #he +ro$i(ion( o& la" a( #o #he -a8in% o& "ill(! 'anno# +rodu'e #he e&&e'# o& annullin% #he +re$iou( "ill! ina(-u'h a( (aid re$o'a#ory 'lau(e i( $oid. The do'#rine o& de+enden# rela#i$e re$o'a#ion i( u(ually a++lied "here #he #e(#a#or 'an'el( or de(#roy( a "ill or e3e'u#ed an in(#ru-en# in#ended #o re$o8e a "ill "i#h a +re(en# in#en#ion #o -a8e a ne" #e(#a-en#ary di(+o(i#ion a( a (u.(#i#u#e &or #he old! and #he ne" di(+o(i#ion i( no# -ade or! i& -ade! &ail( #o e&&e'# &or (a-e rea(on. The &ailure o& #he ne" #e(#a-en#ary di(+o(i#ion! u+on "ho(e $alidi#y #he re$o'a#ion de+end(! i( e>ui$alen# #o #he non1&ul&ill-en# o& a (u(+en(i$e 'ondi#ion! and hen'e +re$en#( #he re$o'a#ion o& #he ori%inal "ill. ?u# a -ere in#en# #o -a8e a# (o-e #i-e a "ill in +la'e o& #ha# de(#royed "ill no# render #he de(#ru'#ion 'ondi#ional. 6# -u(# a++ear #ha# #he re$o'a#ion i( de+enden# u+on #he $alid e3e'u#ion o& a ne" "ill. :$en in #he (u++o(i#ion #ha# #he de(#ru'#ion o& #he ori%inal "ill .y #he #e(#a#or 'ould .e +re(u-ed &ro- #he &ailure o& #he +e#i#ioner #o +rodu'e i# in 'our#! (u'h de(#ru'#ion 'anno# ha$e #he e&&e'# o& de&ea#in% #he +rior "ill o& 1914 .e'au(e o& #he &a'# #ha# i# i( &ounded on #he -i(#a8en .elie& #ha# #he "ill o& 1939 ha( .een $alidly e3e'u#ed and "ould .e %i$en due e&&e'#. The #heory on "hi'h #he @+rin'i+le o& de+enden# rela#i$e re$o'a#ion @ i( +redi'a#ed in #ha# #he #e(#a#or did no# in#end #o die in#e(#a#e. And #hi( in#en#ion i( 'learly -ani&e(# "hen he e3e'u#ed #"o "ill( on di&&eren# o''a(ion( and in(#i#u#ed hi( "i&e a( hi( uni$er(al heir. There 'an #here&ore .e no -i(#a8e a( #o hi( in#en#ion o& dyin% #e(#a#e.