WILLS AND SUCCESSION

I. CONCEPT OF SUCCESSION
Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property,
rights and o!igations to the e"tent of the #a!ue of the inheritance of a
!erson are transmitted through his death to another or others either y his $i!!
or y operation of !a$. "n#
II. $IN%S OF SUCCESSION&
A. TESTA'ENTA()
Art. 77*. Testa+entary succession is that which resu!ts from the designation of
an heir, made in a $i!! e"ecuted in the form prescried y !a$. "n#
,. -E.A- O( INTESTATE
Art. */0. -e1a2 or intestate succession ta3es !2ace&
4. If a !erson dies $ithout a $i!! or with a #oid $i!! or one which has
susequent!y !ost its #a!idity5
6. 7hen the wi22 does not institute an heir to or dispose of a!! the
property be2on1in1 to the testator. In such case 2e1a2 succession sha22
ta3e !2ace on2y with res!ect to the !ro!erty of which the testator has not
8is!ose85
9. If the suspensi#e condition attached to the institution of heir
does not happen or is not fu2fi22e8 or if the heir dies efore the
testator or repudiates the inheritance there bein1 no substitution
an8 no ri1ht of accretion ta3es !2ace5
4. 7hen the heir institute8 is incapa!e of succeeding e:ce!t in cases
!rovi8e8 in this Co8e. "*46a#
C. 'I;E%
Art. 7<0. 'i:e8 succession is that effecte8 !art2y by wi22 an8 !art2y by o!eration of
2aw.
%. CONT(ACTUA- "su!erse8e8 by Art. <4 of the Fa+i2y Co8e#
III. TESTA'ENTA() SUCCESSION
A% 7I--S
4. %EFINITION
4
Art. 7<9. A wi22 is an act whereby a !erson is !er+itte8 with the forma!ities
prescried y !a$ to contro! to a certain degree the 8is!osition of this estate
to ta&e effect after his death. "//7a#
'% C=A(ACTE(ISTICS OF 7I--S
(% )ure!y statutory, forma!
Art. 7<9
*% +ree and #o!untary
Art. <9*. The wi22 sha22 be 8isa22owe8 in any of the fo22owin1 cases&
4. If the for+a2ities re>uire8 by 2aw have not been co+!2ie8 with5
6. If the testator was insane or otherwise +enta22y inca!ab2e of +a3in1 a wi22
at the ti+e of its e:ecution5
,% If it $as e"ecuted through force or under duress, or the inf!uence of
fear, or threats-
.% If it $as procured y undue and improper pressure and inf!uence,
on the part of the eneficiary or of some other person-
?. If the si1nature of the testator was !rocure8 by frau85
/. If the testator acte8 by +ista3e or 8i8 not inten8 that the instru+ent he
si1ne8 shou28 be his wi22 at the ti+e of affi:in1 his si1nature thereto. "n#
,% Essentia!!y re#oca!e
Art. <6<. A wi22 +ay be re#o&ed y the testator at any time efore his death.
Any waiver or restriction of this ri1ht is voi8. "797a#
.% /estator must ha#e testamentary capacity
a. Not !rohibite8 by 2aw
Art. 7*/. A22 !ersons who are not e:!ress2y !rohibite8 by 2aw +ay +a3e a wi22. "//6#
b. 4< years o28 or over
Art. 7*7. Persons of either se" under eighteen years of age cannot +a3e a
wi22. "n#
c. Of soun8 an8 8is!osin1 +in8
Art. 7*<. In or8er to +a3e a wi22 it is essentia2 that the testator e of sound mind
at the time of its e"ecution% "n#
6
0% Disposition must e mortis causa
Art. 777. The ri1hts to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the
death of the 8ece8ent. "/?7a#
1I/U2 1S CA (3, SC4A 500
Facts&
This case is a cha!ter in an ear2ier suit 8eci8e8 by this Court 4 invo2vin1 the !robate
of the two wi22s of the 2ate %o2ores -uchan1co @itu1 who 8ie8 in New )or3 U.
S.A.na+in1 !rivate res!on8ent (owena FaustinoACorona e:ecutri:. In our sai8
8ecision we u!he28 the a!!oint+ent of Nenita A2onte as coAs!ecia2 a8+inistrator of
'rs. @itu1Bs estate with her "'rs. @itu1Bs# wi8ower !etitioner (o+arico .. @itu1
!en8in1 !robate.On Canuary 49 4*<? (o+arico .. @itu1 fi2e8 a +otion as3in1 for
authority fro+ the !robate court to se22 certain shares of stoc3 an8 rea2 !ro!erties
be2on1in1 to the estate to cover a22e1e82y his a8vances to the estate in the su+ of
P//7794.// !2us interests which he c2ai+e8 were !ersona2 fun8s.(owena Corona
o!!ose8 the +otion to se22 on the 1roun8 that the sa+e fun8s with8rawn fro+
savin1s account No. 9?946A09< were conDu1a2 !artnershi! !ro!erties an8 !art of
the estate an8 hence there was a22e1e82y no 1roun8 for rei+burse+ent. She a2so
sou1ht his ouster for fai2ure to inc2u8e the su+s in >uestion for inventory an8 for
Econcea2+ent of fun8s be2on1in1 to the estate.E@itu1 insists that the sai8 fun8s are
his e:c2usive !ro!erty havin1 ac>uire8 the sa+e throu1h a survivorshi! a1ree+ent
e:ecute8 with his 2ate wife an8 the ban3 on Cune 4* 4*70. The a1ree+ent !rovi8es&
7e hereby a1ree with each other an8 with the ,AN$ OF A'E(ICAN NATIONA-
T(UST AN% SA@IN.S ASSOCIATION "hereinafter referre8 to as the ,AN$# that a22
+oney now or hereafter 8e!osite8 by us or any or either of us with the ,AN$ in our
Doint savin1s current account sha22 be the !ro!erty of a22 or both of us an8 sha22 be
!ayab2e to an8 co22ectib2e or with8rawab2e by either or any of us 8urin1 our 2ifeti+e
an8 after the 8eath of either or any of us sha22 be2on1 to an8 be the so2e !ro!erty of
the survivor or survivors an8 sha22 be !ayab2e to an8 co22ectib2e or with8rawab2e by
such survivor or survivors.
7e further a1ree with each other an8 the ,AN$ that the recei!t or chec3 of either
any or a22 of us 8urin1 our 2ifeti+e or the recei!t or chec3 of the survivor or
survivors for any !ay+ent or with8rawa2 +a8e for our aboveA+entione8 account
sha22 be va2i8 an8 sufficient re2ease an8 8ischar1e of the ,AN$ for such !ay+ent or
with8rawa2.
/he tria! courts uphe!d the #a!idity of this agreement and granted 6the
motion to se!! some of the estate of Do!ores L% 1itug, the proceeds of
$hich sha!! e used to pay the persona! funds of 4omarico 1itug in the tota2
su+ of P//7794.// ... .E
On the other han8 the Court of A!!ea2s in the !etition for certiorari fi2e8 by the
herein !rivate res!on8ent he!d that the ao#e7quoted sur#i#orship
agreement constitutes a con#eyance mortis causa $hich 6did not comp!y
$ith the forma!ities of a #a!id $i!! as prescried y Artic!e 380 of the Ci#i!
9
Code,6 and second!y, assuming that it is a mere donation inter #i#os, it is
a prohiited donation under the pro#isions of Artic!e (,, of the Civi2 Co8e.
In his !etition @itu1 the survivin1 s!ouse assai2s the a!!e22ate courtBs ru2in1 on the
stren1th of our 8ecisions in (ivera v. Peo!2eBs ,an3 an8 Trust Co.an8 'aca+ v.
.at+aitan in which we sustaine8 the va2i8ity of Esurvivorshi! a1ree+entsE an8
consi8erin1 the+ as a2eatory contracts.
/he petition is meritorious%
/he con#eyance in question is not, first of a!!, one of mortis causa which
shou28 be e+bo8ie8 in a wi22. A wi22 has been 8efine8 as 6a persona!, so!emn,
re#oca!e and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his
property and rights an8 8ec2ares or co+!2ies with 8uties to ta3e effect after his
8eath.E
In other wor8s the equest or de#ice must pertain to the testator%
In this case the monies su9ect of sa#ings account No% ,0,.*78,3 $ere in
the nature of con9uga! funds In the case re2ie8 on 4i#era #% )eop!e:s 'an&
and /rust Co%, $e re9ected c!aims that a sur#i#orship agreement purports
to de!i#er one party:s separate properties in fa#or of the other but si+!2y
their 9oint ho!dings;
... Such conc2usion is evi8ent2y !re8icate8 on the assu+!tion that Ste!henson was
the e:c2usive owner of the fun8sA8e!osite8 in the ban3 which assu+!tion was in
turn base8 on the facts <(= that the account $as origina!!y opened in the
name of Stephenson a!one and <*= that Ana 4i#era 6ser#ed on!y as
housemaid of the deceased%6 ,ut it not infre>uent2y ha!!ens that a !erson
8e!osits +oney in the ban3 in the na+e of another5 an8 in the instant case it a2so
a!!ears that Ana 4i#era ser#ed her master for aout nineteen years
$ithout actua!!y recei#ing her sa!ary from him% The fact that susequent!y
Stephenson transferred the account to the name of himse!f and>or Ana
4i#era and e"ecuted $ith the !atter the sur#i#orship agreement in
question a2thou1h there was no re!ation of &inship et$een them but on!y
that of master and ser#ant nu22ifies the assu+!tion that Ste!henson was the
e:c2usive owner of the ban3 account. In the absence then of c2ear !roof to the
contrary we +ust 1ive fu22 faith an8 cre8it to the certificate of 8e!osit which recites
in effect that the fun8s in >uestion be2on1e8 to E81ar Ste!henson an8 Ana (ivera5
that they were Doint "an8 severa2# owners thereof5 an8 that either of the+ cou28
with8raw any !art or the who2e of sai8 account 8urin1 the 2ifeti+e of both and the
a!ance, if any, upon the death of either, e!onged to the sur#i#or%
In 'aca+ v. .at+aitan 4< it was he28&
::: ::: :::
This Court is of the o!inion that E:hibit C is an a!eatory contract $herey,
according to artic!e (5?8 of the Ci#i! Code, one of the parties or oth
reciproca!!y ind themse!#es to gi#e or do something as an equi#a!ent for
4
that $hich the other party is to gi#e or do in case of the occurrence of an
e#ent $hich is uncertain or $i!! happen at an indeterminate time% As
a2rea8y state8 -eonar8a was the owner of the house an8 Cuana of the ,uic3
auto+obi2e an8 +ost of the furniture. ,y virtue of E:hibit C Cuana wou28 beco+e
the owner of the house in case -eonar8a 8ie8 first an8 -eonar8a wou28 beco+e the
owner of the auto+obi2e an8 the furniture if Cuana were to 8ie first. In this +anner
-eonar8a an8 Cuana reci!roca22y assi1ne8 their res!ective !ro!erty to one another
con8itione8 u!on who +i1ht 8ie first the ti+e of 8eath 8eter+inin1 the event u!on
which the ac>uisition of such ri1ht by the one or the other 8e!en8e8. This contract
as any other contract is bin8in1 u!on the !arties thereto. Inas+uch as -eonar8a
ha8 8ie8 before Cuana the 2atter thereu!on ac>uire8 the ownershi! of the house in
the sa+e +anner as -eonar8a wou28 have ac>uire8 the ownershi! of the
auto+obi2e an8 of the furniture if Cuana ha8 8ie8 first.
Neither is the sur#i#orship agreement a donation inter #i#os, for o#ious
reasons, ecause it $as to ta&e effect after the death of one party%
Secon82y it is not a donation et$een the spouses because it in#o!#ed no
con#eyance of a spouse:s o$n properties to the other.
/he #a!idity of the contract seems deata!e y reason of its 6sur#i#or7
ta&e7a!!6 feature, ut in rea!ity, that contract imposed a mere o!igation
$ith a term, the term eing death% Such agreements are permitted y the
Ci#i! Code%
Un8er Artic2e 6040 of the Co8e&
A(T. 6040. ,y an a2eatory contract one of the parties or oth reciproca!!y
ind themse!#es to gi#e or to do something in consideration of $hat the
other sha!! gi#e or do upon the happening of an e#ent which is uncertain or
which is to occur at an in8eter+inate ti+e.
n8er the afore>uote8 !rovision the fu!fi!!ment of an a!eatory contract
depends on either the happening of an e#ent $hich is <(= 6uncertain,6 <*=
6$hich is to occur at an indeterminate time%6 A sur#i#orship agreement,
the sa!e of a s$eepsta&e tic&et, a transaction stipu!ating on the #a!ue of
currency, and insurance have been he28 to fa22 un8er the first cate1ory $hi!e a
contract for !ife annuity or pension under Artic!e *8*(, et sequentia, has
een categori@ed under the second% In either case the e2e+ent of ris3 is
!resent. In the case at bar the ris3 was the 8eath of one !arty an8 survivorshi! of
the other.
/he conc!usion is according!y una#oida!e that Ars% 1itug ha#ing
predeceased her husand, the !atter has acquired upon her death a #ested
right o#er the amounts under sa#ings account No% ,0,.*78,3 of the 'an&
of America% Insofar as the res!on8ent court or8ere8 their inc2usion in the inventory
of assets 2eft by 'rs. @itu1 we ho28 that the court was in error. ,ein1 the se!arate
!ro!erty of !etitioner it for+s no +ore !art of the estate of the 8ecease8.
?
/. /estator must ha#e animus testandi B !ur!ose is to transfer tit2e via a
testamentary disposition in contemp!ation of death to ta3e effect
u!on testatorFs 8eath.
C% INTE(P(ETATION OF 7I--S
4. In favor of va2i8ity
Art. 7<<. If a testa+entary 8is!osition a8+its of 8ifferent inter!retations in case of
8oubt that interpretation y $hich the disposition is to e operati#e sha!!
e preferred.
6. In case of a+bi1uities
Art. 7<*. 7hen there is an i+!erfect 8escri!tion or when no !erson or !ro!erty
e:act2y answers the 8escri!tion mista&es and omissions must e corrected if
the error appears from the conte"t of the $i!! or from e"trinsic e#idence
e:c2u8in1 the ora2 8ec2arations of the testator as to his intention5 an8 when an
uncertainty arises upon the face of the $i!! as to the a!!2ication of any of its
!rovisions the testator:s intention is to e ascertained from the $ords of
the $i!! ta3in1 into consi8eration the circu+stances un8er which it was +a8e
e:c2u8in1 such ora2 8ec2arations. "n#
a. -atent or intrinsic a+bi1uity G that which 8oes not a!!ear on the face of the
wi22 an8 is 8iscovere8 on2y by e:trinsic evi8ence5
4. 7hen there is an i+!erfect 8escri!tion of the heir 2e1atee or 8evisee5
6. 7hen there is an i+!erfect 8escri!tion of the 1ift bein1 1iven5
9. 7hen on2y one reci!ient is 8esi1nate8 but it turns out there are two or +ore
who fit the 8escri!tion5
b. Patent or e:trinsic a+bi1uity G that which a!!ears on the face of the wi22
itse2f5 by e:a+inin1 the !rovisions itse2f it is evi8ent that it is not c2ear5
=ow to cure a+bi1uities&
a. ,y e:a+inin1 the wi22 itse2f5
b. E:trinsic evi8ence such as written 8ec2arations of the testator "ora2
8ec2arations not a22owe8 since contrary to the 8ea8 +ans statute#
9. Inter!retation of wor8s
Art. 7*0. The wor8s of a wi22 are to e ta&en in their ordinary and grammatica!
sense un2ess a c2ear intention to use the+ in another sense can be 1athere8 an8
that other can be ascertaine8.
/echnica! $ords in a $i!! are to e ta&en in their technica! sense un2ess the
conte:t c2ear2y in8icates a contrary intention or un2ess it satisfactori2y a!!ears that
he was unac>uainte8 with such technica2 sense. "/7?a#
4. Inter!retation as a who2e
/
Art. 7*4. The wor8s of a wi22 are to receive an interpretation $hich $i!! gi#e to
e#ery e"pression some effect rather than one which wi22 ren8er any of the
e:!ressions ino!erative5 an8 of t$o modes of interpreting a $i!!, that is to e
preferred $hich $i!! pre#ent intestacy. "n#
?. Se!arabi2ity of inva2i8 !rovisions
Art. 7*6. The in#a!idity of one of severa2 8is!ositions containe8 in a wi22 does not
resu!t in the in#a!idity of the other dispositions, un!ess it is to e
presumed that the testator $ou!d not ha#e made such other 8is!ositions if
the first in#a!id disposition had not een made. "n#
/. AfterAac>uire8 !ro!erty
Art. 7*9. )roperty acquired after the ma&ing of a $i!! sha!! on!y pass
thereby as if the testator ha8 !ossesse8 it at the ti+e of +a3in1 the wi22 shou!d it
e"press!y appear y the $i!! that such was his intention. "n#
7. E:tent of interest covere8
Art. 7*4. Every de#ise or !egacy sha!! co#er a!! the interest $hich the
testator cou!d de#ice or equeath in the property disposed of un2ess it
c2ear2y a!!ears fro+ the wi22 that he inten8e8 to convey a 2ess interest. "n#
The entire interest of the testator in the !ro!erty is 1iven not +ore not 2ess5
D% -A7 .O@E(NIN. FO('
a. As to the ti+e of e:ecution
Art. 7*?. /he #a!idity of a $i!! as to its form depends u!on the observance of
the !a$ in force at the time it is made% "n#
$in8s of va2i8ity
A. E:trinsic va2i8ity G refers to the for+s an8 so2e+nities nee8e8
a. 7hat +ust be observe8 is the 2aw in force at the ti+e the wi22 is
e:ecute85
b. 7hat 2aw of the 2an8 +ust be observe8 8e!en8s&
i. If the testator is a Fi2i!ino he can observe Phi2i!!ine 2aws5 or the
2aws of the country where he +ay be5 2aws of the country where
he e:ecutes the wi225
ii. If the testator is an a2ien who is abroa8 he can fo22ow the 2aw of
his 8o+ici2e5 or his nationa2ity5 or Phi2i!!ine 2aws5 or where he
e:ecutes the wi225
iii. If the testator is an a2ien in the Phi2i!!ines he can fo22ow the 2aw
of his nationa2ity or the 2aws of the Phi2i!!ines since he
e:ecutes the wi22 here5
,. Intrinsic va2i8ity G refers to the 2e1a2ity of the !rovisions in an instru+ent
7
a. Successiona2 ri1hts are 1overne8 by the 2aw in force at the TI'E OF
T=E %ECE%ENTFS %EAT=5
b. -aws that +ust be observe8 8e!en8s& un8er Phi2i!!ine -aw&
i. Nationa2 2aw of the 8ece8ent5 2aw of his country or nationa2ity5
re1ar82ess of the !2ace of e:ecution an8 the !2ace of 8eath5
ii. (EN@OI %OCT(INE& referrin1 bac3 to the foru+ of the !rob2e+
4. 7here the conf2ict ru2es un8er the 8ece8entFs nationa2 2aw
refers the +atter to the 2aw of the 8o+ici2e5
iii. Intestate an8 testa+entary succession both with res!ect to&
4. The or8er of succession
6. The a+ount of successiona2 ri1hts
9. An8 the intrinsic va2i8ity of testa+entary !rovisions
Sha22 be re1u2ate8 by the nationa2 2aw of the !erson whose
succession is un8er consi8eration whatever +ay be the nature
of the !ro!erty an8 re1ar82ess of the country where sai8
!ro!erty +ay be foun8.
b. As to the !2ace of e:ecution
Art. 47. The for+s an8 so2e+nities of contracts wi22s an8 other !ub2ic instru+ents
sha22 be go#erned y the !a$s of the country in $hich they are e"ecuted%
Art. <40. A !erson +ay e:ecute a ho2o1ra!hic wi22 which must e entire!y
$ritten, dated, and signed y the hand of the testator himse!f% It is subDect
to no other form an8 +ay be made in or out of the )hi!ippines, and need
not e $itnessed% "/7< /<<a#
Art. <4?. 7hen a +i!ipino is in a foreign country he is authori@ed to ma&e a
$i!! in any of the forms esta!ished y the !a$ of the country in which he +ay
be. Such wi22 +ay be !robate8 in the Phi2i!!ines. "n#
Art. <4/. The $i!! of an a!ien who is abroa8 produces effect in the )hi!ippines
if made $ith the forma!ities prescried y the !a$ of the p!ace in $hich he
resides or accor8in1 to the forma!ities oser#ed in his country or in
confor+ity with those which this Co8e !rescribes. "n#
Art. <47. A $i!! made in the )hi!ippines y a citi@en or su9ect of another
country which is e:ecute8 in accordance $ith the !a$ of the country of
$hich he is a citi@en or su9ect an8 which +i1ht be !rove8 an8 a22owe8 by the
2aw of his own country sha22 have the same effect as if e"ecuted according to
the !a$s of the )hi!ippines% "n#
Art. <4<. Two or +ore !ersons cannot ma&e a $i!! 9oint!y, or in the same
instrument either for their reciproca! enefit or for the enefit of a third
person. "//*#
Art. <4*. Wi!!s, prohiited y the preceding artic!e, e"ecuted y +i!ipinos in
a foreign country sha!! not e #a!id in the )hi!ippines even thou1h
authoriHe8 by the 2aws of the country where they +ay have been e:ecute8. "799a#
<
E% -A7 .O@E(NIN. CONTENT
a. As to ti+e
Art. 66/9. (i1hts to the inheritance of a person $ho died, $ith or $ithout a
$i!!, efore the effecti#ity of this Code, sha!! e go#erned y the Ci#i! Code
of (33? by other pre#ious !a$s, and y the 4u!es of Court. The inheritance of
those who with or without a wi22 8ie after the be1innin1 of the effectivity of this
Co8e sha22 be a8Du8icate8 an8 8istribute8 in accor8ance with this new bo8y of 2aws
an8 by the (u2es of Court5 but the testa+entary !rovisions sha22 be carrie8 out
insofar as they +ay be !er+itte8 by this Co8e. Therefore 2e1iti+es better+ents
2e1acies an8 be>uests sha22 be res!ecte85 however their a+ount sha22 be re8uce8 if
in no other +anner can every co+!u2sory heir be 1iven his fu22 share accor8in1 to
this Co8e. "(u2e 46a#
b. As to successiona2 ri1hts
Art. 4/. (ea2 !ro!erty as we22 as !ersona2 !ro!erty is subDect to the 2aw of the
country where it is sti!u2ate8.
CACE/ANO 1S LEONIDES (*? SC4A 0*.
On Danuary ,(, (?55, Adoracion C% Campos died, !ea#ing her father,
petitioner Eermogenes Campos and her sisters, pri#ate respondent Nenita
C% )aguia, 4emedios C% Lope@ and Aarieta C% Aedina as the sur#i#ing
heirs% As =er+o1enes Ca+!os was the on2y co+!u2sory heir he e:ecute8 an
Affi8avit of A8Du8ication un8er (u2e 74 Section I of the (u2es of Court whereby he
a8Du8icate8 unto hi+se2f the ownershi! of the entire estate of the 8ecease8
A8oracion Ca+!os.
E!e#en months after, on No#emer *0, (?55, Nenita C% )aguia fi!ed a
petition for the reproate of a $i!! of the deceased, Adoracion Campos,
$hich $as a!!eged!y e"ecuted in the United States and for her
appointment as administratri" of the estate of the deceased testatri"%In
her petition, Nenita a!!eged that the testatri" $as an American citi@en at
the time of her death and $as a permanent resident of .F,, Ditman
Street, )hi!ade!phia, )ennsy!#ania, U%S%A%-
As a genera! ru!e, the proate court:s authority is !imited on!y to the
e"trinsic #a!idity of the $i!!, the due e"ecution thereof, the testatri":s
testamentary capacity and the comp!iance $ith the requisites or
so!emnities prescried y !a$% The intrinsic va2i8ity of the wi22 nor+a22y co+es
on2y after the court has 8ec2are8 that the wi22 has been 8u2y authenticate8.
=owever where !ractica2 consi8erations 8e+an8 that the intrinsic va2i8ity of the
wi22 be !asse8 u!on even before it is !robate8 the court shou28 +eet the issue.
"'aninan1 vs. Court of A!!ea2s 444 SC(A 47<#.
the pri#ate respondents ha#e sufficient!y esta!ished that Adoracion $as,
at the time of her death, an American citi@en and a permanent resident of
*
)hi!ade!phia, )ennsy!#ania, U%S%A% /herefore, under Artic!e (F par% <*= and
(8,? of the Ci#i! Code $hich respecti#e!y pro#ide;
Art. 4/ !ar. "6#.
::: ::: :::
=owever, intestate and testamentary successions, oth $ith respect to the
order of succession and to the amount of successiona! rights and to the
intrinsic #a!idity of testamentary pro#isions, sha!! e regu!ated y the
nationa! !a$ of the person whose succession is un8er consi8eration whatever
+ay be the nature of the !ro!erty an8 re1ar82ess of the country wherein sai8
!ro!erty +ay be foun8.
Art. 409*.
Capacity to succeed is go#erned y the !a$ of the nation of the decedent%
the !a$ $hich go#erns Adoracion Campo:s $i!! is the !a$ of )ennsy!#ania,
U%S%A%, $hich is the nationa! !a$ of the decedent% A2thou1h the !arties a8+it
that the Pennsy2vania 2aw 8oes not !rovi8e for 2e1iti+es an8 that a22 the estate +ay
be 1iven away by the testatri: to a co+!2ete stran1er the !etitioner ar1ues that
such 2aw shou28 not a!!2y because it wou28 be contrary to the soun8 an8
estab2ishe8 !ub2ic !o2icy an8 wou28 run counter to the s!ecific !rovisions of
Phi2i!!ine -aw.
It is a sett!ed ru!e that as regards the intrinsic #a!idity of the pro#isions of
the $i!!, as pro#ided for y Artic!e (F<*= and (8,? of the Ci#i! Code, the
nationa! !a$ of the decedent must app!y%
This was s>uare2y a!!2ie8 in the case of ,e22is v. ,e22is "60 SC(A 9?<# wherein we
ru2e8&
It is therefore e#ident that $hate#er pu!ic po!icy or good customs may e
in#o!#ed in our system of !egitimes, Congress has not intended to e"tend
the same to the succession of foreign nationa!s% For it has s!ecifica22y chosen
to 2eave inter a2ia the a+ount of successiona2 ri1hts to the 8ece8entBs nationa2
2aw. S!ecific !rovisions +ust !revai2 over 1enera2 ones.
::: ::: :::
The !arties a8+it that the 8ece8ent A+os .. ,e22is was a citiHen of the State of
Te:as U.S.A. an8 un8er the 2aw of Te:as there are no force8 heirs or 2e1iti+es.
According!y, since the intrinsic #a!idity of the pro#ision of the $i!! and the
amount of successiona! rights are to e determined under /e"as !a$, the
)hi!ippine La$ on !egitimes cannot e app!ied to the testacy of Amos 2%
'e!!is%
+% SO-E'NITIES OF 7I--S
40
a. .enera2 re>uire+ents
Art. <04. Every wi22 must e in $riting an8 e:ecute8 in a !anguage or dia!ect
&no$n to the testator. "n#
b. S!ecific re>uire+ents
Art. <0?. Every wi22 other than a ho2o1ra!hic wi22 must e suscried at the
end thereof y the testator hi+se2f or y the testator:s name
$ritten y some other person in his presence an8 y his
e"press direction an8 attested and suscried y three or
more credi!e $itnesses in the !resence of the testator an8 of one
another.
/he testator or the person requested y him to $rite his name
an8 the instrumenta! $itnesses of the wi22 sha!! a!so sign as
aforesai8 each and e#ery page thereof e:ce!t the 2ast on the
!eft margin an8 a22 the pages sha!! e numered corre!ati#e!y in
!etters !2ace8 on the u!!er !art of each !a1e.
/he attestation sha!! state the numer of pages use8 u!on which
the wi22 is written an8 the fact that the testator signed the $i!! and
e#ery page thereof or caused some other person to $rite his
name un8er his e:!ress 8irection in the !resence of the instru+enta2
witnesses an8 that the 2atter witnesse8 an8 si1ne8 the wi22 an8 a22 the
!a1es thereof in the !resence of the testator an8 of one another.
If the attestation c!ause is in a !anguage not &no$n to the
$itnesses, it sha!! e interpreted to them% <n=
Art. <0/. Every wi22 must e ac&no$!edged efore a notary pu!ic by the
testator an8 the witnesses. The notary !ub2ic sha22 not be re>uire8 to
retain a co!y of the wi22 or fi2e another with the Office of the C2er3 of
Court. "n#
SONOGA 1S EON4ADO
Shou28 8isci!2inary action be ta3en a1ainst res!on8ent Du81e for havin1 a8+itte8 to
!robate a wi22 which on its face is voi8 because it is written in En12ish a 2an1ua1e
not 3nown to the i22iterate testatri: an8 which is !robab2y a for1e8 wi22 because she
an8 the attestin1 witnesses 8i8 not a!!ear before the notary as a8+itte8 by the
notary hi+se2fI
'auro SuroHa a cor!ora2 in the 4?th Infantry of the U.S. Ar+y "Phi2i!!ine Scouts#
Fort 'c$in2ey +arrie8 'arce2ina Sa2va8or in 4*69 "!. 4?0 S!ec. Proc. No. 7<4/#.
They were chi282ess. They reare8 a boy na+e8 A1a!ito who use8 the surna+e
SuroHa an8 who consi8ere8 the+ as his !arents as shown in his 4*4? +arria1e
contract with Nenita 8e @era "!. 4? (o22o of CAA..(. No. 0</?4A(5 !. 44< (o22o of
Testate Case showin1 that A1a!ito was ? years o28 when 'auro +arrie8 'arce2ina
in 4*69#.
44
A1a!ito an8 Nenita be1ot a chi28 na+e8 -i2ia who beca+e a +e8ica2 techno2o1ist
an8 went abroa8. A1a!ito a2so beca+e a so28ier. =e was 8isab2e8 an8 his wife
Nenita was a!!ointe8 as his 1uar8ian in 4*?9 when he was 8ec2are8 an
inco+!etent in S!ecia2 Procee8in1 No. 4<07 of the Court of First Instance of (iHa2
Pasi1 ,ranch I "!. 4/ (o22o of CAA..(. No. 0</?4A(#.
On a date not indicated in the record, the spouses Antonio Sy and
Eermogena /a!an egot a chi!d named Aari!yn Sy, $ho, $hen a fe$ days
o!d, $as entrusted to Arsenia de !a Cru@ <apparent!y a gir! friend of
Agapito= and $ho $as !ater de!i#ered to Aarce!ina Sa!#ador Suro@a $ho
rought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapito and as her
granddaughter "!!. 69A6/ (o22o of CAA..(. No.SPA0</?4A(#. Aari!yn used the
surname Suro@a% She stayed $ith Aarce!ina ut $as not !ega!!y adopted
y Agapito%
Aarce!ina supposed!y e"ecuted a notaria! $i!! in Aani!a on Du!y *,, (?5,,
$hen she $as 5, years o!d% /hat $i!! $hich is in Eng!ish $as thummar&ed
y her% She $as i!!iterate% Eer !etters in Eng!ish to the 1eterans
Administration $ere a!so thummar&ed y her "!!. 9<A9* CA (o22o#. In that
wi1 'arce2ina be>ueathe8 a22 her estate to her su!!ose8 1ran88au1hter 'ari2yn.
In an or8er 8ate8 'arch 94 4*7? Cu81e =onra8o a!!ointe8 'arina as
a8+inistratri:.U!on +otion of 'arina Cu81e =onra8o issue8 another or8er 8ate8
A!ri2 44 4*7? instructin1 a 8e!uty sheriff to eDect the occu!ants of the testatri:Bs
house a+on1 who+ was Nenita @. SuroHa an8 to !2ace 'arina in !ossession
thereof.
That or8er a2erte8 Nenita to the e:istence of the testa+entary !rocee8in1 for the
sett2e+ent of 'arce2inaBs estate. She an8 the other occu!ants of the 8ece8entBs
house fi2e8 on A!ri2 4< in the sai8 !rocee8in1 a +otion to set asi8e the or8er of A!ri2
44 eDectin1 the+. They a22e1e8 that the 8ece8entBs son A1a!ito was the so2e heir of
the 8ecease8 that he has a 8au1hter na+e8 -i2ia that Nenita was A1a!itoBs
1uar8ian an8 that 'ari2yn was not A1a!itoBs 8au1hter nor the 8ece8entBs
1ran88au1hter "!!. ?6A/< (ecor8 of testate case#. -ater they >uestione8 the
!robate courtBs Duris8iction to issue the eDect+ent or8er.
Nenita further a22e1e8 that the institution of 'ari2yn as heir is voi8 because of the
!reterition of A1a!ito an8 that 'arina was not >ua2ifie8 to act as e:ecutri:.
In a +otion 8ate8 %ece+ber ? 4*7? for the conso2i8ation of a22 !en8in1 inci8ents
Nenita @. SuroHa reiterate8 her contention that the a22e1e8 wi22 is voi8 because
'arce2ina 8i8 not a!!ear before the notary an8 because it is written in En12ish
which is not 3nown to her .
(U-IN.&
7e ho28 that 8isci!2inary action shou28 be ta3en a1ainst res!on8ent Du81e for his
i+!ro!er 8is!osition of the testate case which +i1ht have resu2te8 in a +iscarria1e
46
of Dustice because the 8ece8entBs 2e1a2 heirs an8 not the institute8 heiress in the
voi8 win shou28 have inherite8 the 8ece8entBs estate.
In this case res!on8ent Du81e on !erusin1 the wi22 an8 notin1 that it was written in
En12ish an8 was thu+b+ar3e8 by an obvious2y i22iterate testatri: cou28 have rea8i2y
!erceive8 that the wi22 is voi8.
In the o!enin1 !ara1ra!h of the wi22 it was state8 that En12ish was a 2an1ua1e
Eun8erstoo8 an8 3nownE to the testatri:. ,ut in its conc2u8in1 !ara1ra!h it was
state8 that the wi22 was rea8 to the testatri: Ean8 trans2ate8 into Fi2i!ino 2an1ua1eE.
"!. 4/ (ecor8 of testate case#. That cou28 on2y +ean that the wi22 was written in a
2an1ua1e not 3nown to the i22iterate testatri: an8 therefore it is #oid ecause of
the mandatory pro#ision of artic!e 38. of the Ci#i! Code that e#ery $i!!
must e e"ecuted in a !anguage or dia!ect &no$n to the testator% /hus, a
$i!! $ritten in Eng!ish, $hich $as not &no$n to the Igorot testator, is #oid
and $as disa!!o$ed <Acop #s% )iraso, 0* )hi!% FF8=%
The hasty !re!aration of the wi22 is shown in the attestation c2ause an8 notaria2
ac3now2e81+ent where 'arce2ina Sa2va8or SuroHa is re!eate82y referre8 to as the
EtestatorE instea8 of Etestatri:E.
=a8 res!on8ent Du81e been carefu2 an8 observant he cou28 have note8 not on2y the
ano+a2y as to the 2an1ua1e of the wi22 but a2so that there was so+ethin1 wron1 in
institutin1 the su!!ose8 1ran88au1hter as so2e heiress an8 1ivin1 nothin1 at a22 to
her su!!ose8 father who was sti22 a2ive.
Further+ore after the hearin1 con8ucte8 by res!on8ent 8e!uty c2er3 of court
res!on8ent Du81e cou28 have notice8 that the notary was not !resente8 as a
witness.
2A4CIA 1S LACUES/A ?8 )EIL .3?
This is an a!!ea2 fro+ a 8ecision of the Court of A!!ea2s 8isa22owin1 the wi22 of
Antero 'erca8o 8ate8 Canuary 9 4*49. The wi22 is written in the I2ocano 8ia2ect an8
contains the fo22owin1 attestation c2ause&
7e the un8ersi1ne8 by these !resents to 8ec2are that the fore1oin1 testa+ent of
Antero 'erca8o was si1ne8 by hi+se2f an8 a2so by us be2ow his na+e an8 of this
attestation c2ause an8 that of the 2eft +ar1in of the three !a1es thereof. Pa1e three
the continuation of this attestation c2ause5 this wi22 is written in I2ocano 8ia2ect which
is s!o3en an8 un8erstoo8 by the testator an8 it bears the corres!on8in1 nu+ber in
2etter which co+!ose of three !a1es an8 a22 the+ were si1ne8 in the !resence of
the testator an8 witnesses an8 the witnesses in the !resence of the testator an8 a22
an8 each an8 every one of us witnesses.
/he $i!! appears to ha#e een signed y Atty% +!orentino Da#ier $ho $rote
the name of Antero Aercado, fo!!o$ed e!o$ y 6A reugo de! testator6 and
the name of +!orentino Da#ier% Antero Aercado is a!!eged to ha#e $ritten a
cross immediate!y after his name% The Court of A!!ea2s reversin1 the
Du81e+ent of the Court of First Instance of I2ocos Norte ru2e8 that the attestation
49
c2ause fai2e8 "4# to certify that the wi22 was si1ne8 on a22 the 2eft +ar1ins of the
three !a1es an8 at the en8 of the wi22 by Atty. F2orentino Cavier at the e:!ress
re>uest of the testator in the !resence of the testator an8 each an8 every one of
the witnesses5 "6# to certify that after the si1nin1 of the na+e of the testator by
Atty. Cavier at the for+erBs re>uest sai8 testator has written a cross at the en8 of his
na+e an8 on the 2eft +ar1in of the three !a1es of which the wi22 consists an8 at the
en8 thereof5 "9# to certify that the three witnesses si1ne8 the wi22 in a22 the !a1es
thereon in the !resence of the testator an8 of each other.
In our opinion, the attestation c!ause is fata!!y defecti#e for fai!ing to state
that Antero Aercado caused Atty% +!orentino Da#ier to $rite the testator:s
name under his e"press direction, as required y section F(3 of the Code
of Ci#i! )rocedure%
It is not here !reten8e8 that the cross a!!earin1 on the wi22 is the usua2 si1nature of
Antero 'erca8o or even one of the ways by which he si1ne8 his na+e. After +ature
ref2ection we are not !re!are8 to 2i3en the +ere si1n of the cross to a thu+b+ar3
an8 the reason is obvious. /he cross cannot and does not ha#e the
trust$orthiness of a thummar&%
'ALONAN 1S A'ELLANA (8? )EIL ,03
It a!!ears on recor8 that the 2ast 7i22 an8 Testa+ent "E:hibit EAE# which is sou1ht
to be !robate8 is written in the S!anish 2an1ua1e an8 consists of two "6#
ty!ewritten !a1es "!a1es 4 an8 ? of the recor8# 8oub2e s!ace. /he first page is
signed y Duan 'e!!o and under his name appears type$ritten 6)or !a
testadora Anac!eta Ae!!ana, residence Certificate A7((F5F*?, Enero *8,
(?0(, Ciudad de Gamoanga:, and on the second page appears the
signature of three <,= instrumenta! $itnesses '!as Seastian, +austino
Aacaso and 4afae! Ignacio, at the ottom of $hich appears the signature
of /% de !os Santos and e!o$ his signature is his officia! designation as
the notary pu!ic $ho notari@ed the said testament% On the first !a1e on the
2eft +ar1in of the sai8 instru+ent a2so a!!ear the si1natures of the instru+enta2
witnesses. On the second page, $hich is the !ast page of said !ast Wi!! and
/estament, a!so appears the signature of the three <,= instrumenta!
$itnesses and on that second page on the !eft margin appears the
signature of Duan 'e!!o under $hose name appears hand$ritten the
fo!!o$ing phrase, 6)or !a /estadora Anac!eta Ae!!ana:% The wi22 is 8u2y
ac3now2e81e8 before Notary Pub2ic Attorney Ti+oteo 8e 2os Santos. "E+!hasis
su!!2ie8#
The a!!ea2 s>uare2y !resents the fo22owin1 issue& %oes the si1nature of %r. Cuan A.
Abe22o above the ty!ewritten state+ent EPor 2a Testa8ora Anac2eta Abe22ana . . .
Ciu8a8 8e Ja+boan1aE co+!2y with the re>uire+ents of 2aw !rescribin1 the
+anner in which a wi22 sha22 be e:ecute8I
Art. <0?. Every wi22 other than a ho2o1ra!hic wi22 must e suscried at the
end thereof y the testator himse!f or y the testator:s name
$ritten y some other person in his presence, and y his
e"press direction an8 atteste8 an8 subscribe8 by three or +ore
44
cre8ib2e witness in the !resence of the testator an8 of one another.
"E+!hasis su!!2ie8.#
Section /4< of the Co8e of Civi2 Proce8ure "Act No. 4*0# which rea8s as fo22ows&
No wi22 e:ce!t as !rovi8e8 in the !rece8in1 section sha22 be va2i8 to
!ass any estate rea2 or !ersona2 nor char1e or affect the sa+e
un!ess it e in $riting and signed y the testator, or y the
testator:s name $ritten y some other person in his presence,
and y his e"press direction, an8 atteste8 an8 subscribe8 by three
or +ore cre8ib2e witnesses in the !resence of the testator an8 of each
other. . . . "E+!hasis su!!2ie8#.
A!!2yin1 this !rovision this Court sai8 in the case of E: Parte Pe8ro Arcenas et a2.
Phi2. 700&
It wi22 be notice8 fro+ the aboveA>uote8 section /4< of the Co8e of Civi2 Proce8ure
that where the testator 8oes not 3now how or is unab2e to si1n it $i!! not e
sufficient that one of the attesting $itnesses signs the $i!! at the
testator:s request, the notary certifyin1 thereto as !rovi8e8 in Artic2e /*? of the
Civi2 Co8e which in this res!ect was +o8ifie8 by section /4< above referre8 to
ut it is necessary that the testator:s name e $ritten y the person
signing in his stead in the p!ace $here he cou!d ha#e signed if he &ne$
ho$ or $as a!e to do so, and this in the testator:s presence and y his
e"press direction- so that a wi22 si1ne8 in a +anner 8ifferent than that !rescribe8
by 2aw sha22 not be va2i8 an8 wi22 not be a22owe8 to be !robate8.
In the case at bar the na+e of the testatri: Anac2eta Abe22ana 8oes not a!!ear
written un8er the wi22 by sai8 Abe22ana herse2f or by %r. Cuan Abe22o. There is
therefore a fai2ure to co+!2y with the e:!ress re>uire+ent in the 2aw that the
testator +ust hi+se2f si1n the wi22 or that his na+e be affi:e8 thereto by so+e
other !erson in his !resence an8 by his e:!ress 8irection.
NE4A 1S 4IAANDO (3 )EIL .08
The on2y >uestion raise8 by the evi8ence in this case as to the 8ue e:ecution of the
instru+ent !ro!oun8e8 as a wi22 in the court be2ow is $hether one of the
suscriing $itnesses $as present in the sma!! room $here it $as
e"ecuted at the time $hen the testator and the other suscriing
$itnesses attached their signatures- or whether at that ti+e he was outsi8e
so+e ei1ht or ten feet away in a 2ar1e roo+ connectin1 with the s+a22er roo+ by a
8oorway across which was hun1 a curtain which +a8e it i+!ossib2e for one in the
outsi8e roo+ to see the testator an8 the other subscribin1 witnesses in the act of
attachin1 their si1natures to the instru+ent.
A +aDority of the +e+bers of the court is of o!inion that this subscribin1 witness
was in the s+a22 roo+ with the testator an8 the other subscribin1 witnesses at the
4?
ti+e when they attache8 their si1natures to the instru+ent an8 this fin8in1 of
course 8is!oses of the a!!ea2 an8 necessitates the affir+ance of the 8ecree
a8+ittin1 the 8ocu+ent to !robate as the 2ast wi22 an8 testa+ent of the 8ecease8.
/he true test of presence of the testator and the $itnesses in the
e"ecution of a $i!! is not $hether they actua!!y sa$ each other sign, ut
$hether they might ha#e een seen each other sign, had they chosen to
do so, considering their menta! and physica! condition and position $ith
re!ation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature%
,ut it is es!ecia22y to be note8 that the !osition of the !arties with re2ation to each
other at the +o+ent of the subscri!tion of each si1nature +ust be such that they
+ay see each other si1n if they choose to 8o so. This of course 8oes not +ean that
the testator an8 the subscribin1 witnesses +ay be he28 to have e:ecute8 the
instru+ent in the !resence of each other if it a!!ears that they wou28 not have
been ab2e to see each other si1n at that +o+ent without chan1in1 their re2ative
!ositions or e:istin1 con8itions
<In the case of Daoneta #s 2usti!o;
The !ur!ose of a statutory re>uire+ent that the witness si1n in the !resence of the
testator is sai8 to be that the testator +ay have ocu2ar evi8ence of the i8entity of
the instru+ent subscribe8 by the witness an8 hi+se2f an8 the 1enera22y acce!te8
tests of !resence are vision an8 +enta2 a!!rehension.
In the +atter of ,e8e22 "6 Conno2y "N.).# 96<# it was he28 that it is sufficient if
the $itnesses are together for the purpose of $itnessing the e"ecution of
the $i!!, and in a position to actua!!y see the testator $rite, if they choose
to do so- an8 there are +any cases which 2ay 8own the ru2e that the true test of
vision is not whether the testator actua22y saw the witness si1n but whether he
+i1ht have seen hi+ si1n consi8erin1 his +enta2 an8 !hysica2 con8ition an8
!osition at the ti+e of the subscri!tion.#
An8 the 8ecision +ere2y 2ai8 8own the 8octrine that the >uestion whether the
testator an8 the subscribin1 witnesses to an a22e1e8 wi22 si1n the instru+ent in the
!resence of each other 8oes not 8e!en8 u!on !roof of the fact that their eyes were
actua22y cast u!on the !a!er at the +o+ent of its subscri!tion by each of the+ but
that at that +o+ent e:istin1 con8itions an8 their !osition with re2ation to each
other were such that by +ere2y castin1 the eyes in the !ro!er 8irection they cou28
have seen each other si1n.
/A'OADA 1S 4OSAL ((3 SC4A (?0
In the !etition for !robate fi2e8 with the res!on8ent court the !etitioner attache8
the a22e1e8 2ast wi22 an8 testa+ent of the 2ate %orotea PereH. 7ritten in the
CebuanoA@isayan 8ia2ect the wi22 consists of two !a1es. The first !a1e contains the
entire testa+entary 8is!ositions an8 is si1ne8 at the en8 or botto+ of the !a1e by
the testatri: a2one an8 at the 2eft han8 +ar1in by the three "9# instru+enta2
4/
witnesses. The secon8 !a1e which contains the attestation c2ause an8 the
ac3now2e81+ent is si1ne8 at the en8 of the attestation c2ause by the three "9#
attestin1 witnesses an8 at the 2eft han8 +ar1in by the testatri:.
The tria2 court thru then Presi8in1 Cu81e (a+on C. Pa+atian issue8 the >uestione8
or8er 8enyin1 the !robate of the wi22 of %orotea PereH for want of a for+a2ity in its
e:ecution.
Subse>uent2y the new Cu81e 8enie8 the +otion for reconsi8eration as we22 as the
+anifestation an8Kor +otion fi2e8 e: !arte. In the sa+e or8er of 8enia2 the +otion
for the a!!oint+ent of s!ecia2 a8+inistrator was 2i3ewise 8enie8 because of the
!etitionerBs fai2ure to co+!2y with the or8er re>uirin1 hi+ to sub+it the na+es ofB
the intestate heirs an8 their a88resses.
For the va2i8ity of a for+a2 notaria2 wi22 8oes Artic2e <0? of the Civi2 Co8e re>uire
that the testatri: an8 a22 the three instru+enta2 an8 attestin1 witnesses si1n at the
en8 of the wi22 an8 in the !resence of the testatri: an8 of one anotherI
Artic2e <0? of the Civi2 Co8e !rovi8es&
Every wi22 other than a ho2o1ra!hic wi22 +ust be subscribe8 at the en8 thereof by the testator hi+se2f or by the
testatorBs na+e written by so+e other !erson in his !resence an8 by his e:!ress 8irection an8 atteste8 an8
subscribe8 by three or +ore cre8ib2e witnesses in the !resence of the testator an8 of one another.
/he testator or the person requested y him to $rite his name and the instrumenta! $itnesses of the
$i!!, sha!! a!so sign, as aforesaid, each and e#ery page thereof, e"cept the !ast, on the !eft margin, and
a!! the pages sha!! e numered corre!ati#e!y in !etters p!aced on the upper part of each page%
/he attestation sha!! state the numer of pages used upon $hich the $i!! is $ritten, and the fact that
the testator signed the $i!! and e#ery page thereof, or caused some other person to $rite his name,
under his e"press direction, in the presence of the instrumenta! $itnesses, and that the !acier
$itnesses and signed the $i!! and the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
another%
If the attestation c2ause is in a 2an1ua1e not 3nown to the witnesses it sha22 be inter!rete8 to the+5
The res!on8ent Cu81e inter!rets the aboveA>uote8 !rovision of 2aw to re>uire that
for a notaria2 wi22 to be va2i8 it is not enou1h that on2y the testatri: si1ns at the
Een8E but the three subscribin1 witnesses +ust a2so si1n at the sa+e !2ace or at the
en8 in the !resence of the testatri: an8 of one another because the attestin1
witnesses to a wi22 attest not +ere2y the wi22 itse2f but a2so the si1nature of the
testator. It is not sufficient co+!2iance to si1n the !a1e where the en8 of the wi22 is
foun8 at the 2eft han8 +ar1in of that !a1e.
7e fin8 the !etition +eritorious.
Un8oubte82y un8er Artic2e <0? of the Civi2 Co8e the wi22 +ust be subscribe8 or
si1ne8 at its en8 by the testator hi+se2f or by the testatorBs na+e written by
another !erson in his !resence an8 by his e:!ress 8irection an8 atteste8 an8
subscribe8 by three or +ore cre8ib2e witnesses in the !resence of the testator an8
of one another.
It +ust be note8 that the 2aw uses the ter+s atteste8 an8 subscribe8 Attestation
consists in witnessin1 the testatorBs e:ecution of the wi22 in or8er to see an8 ta3e
note +enta22y that those thin1s are 8one which the statute re>uires for the
47
e:ecution of a wi22 an8 that the si1nature of the testator e:ists as a fact. On the
other han8 subscri!tion is the si1nin1 of the witnessesB na+es u!on the sa+e
!a!er for the !ur!ose of I8entification of such !a!er as the wi22 which was e:ecute8
by the testator. "(a1s8a2e v. =i22 6/* S7 68 *44#.
Insofar as the requirement of suscription is concerned, it is our
considered #ie$ that the $i!! in this case $as suscried in a manner
$hich fu!!y satisfies the purpose of Identification%
The si1natures of the instru+enta2 witnesses on the 2eft +ar1in of the first !a1e of
the wi22 atteste8 not on2y to the 1enuineness of the si1nature of the testatri: but
a2so the 8ue e:ecution of the wi22 as e+bo8ie8 in the attestation c2ause.
Whi!e perfection in the drafting of a $i!! may e desira!e, unsustantia!
departure from the usua! forms shou!d e ignored, especia!!y $here the
authenticity of the $i!! is not assai!ed% ".onHa2es v. .onHa2es *0 Phi2. 444
44*#.
/he !a$ is to e !iera!!y construed, Ethe un8er2yin1 an8 fun8a+enta2 obDective
!er+eatin1 the !rovisions on the 2aw on wi22s in this !roDect consists in the
2ibera2iHation of the +anner of their e:ecution with the en8 in #ie$ of gi#ing the
testator more freedom in e"pressing his !ast $ishes ut $ith sufficient
safeguards and restrictions to pre#ent the commission of fraud and the
e"ercise of undue and improper pressure and inf!uence upon the testator%
This obDective is in accor8 with the +o8ern ten8ency in res!ect to the for+a2ities in
the e:ecution of a wi22E "(e!ort of the Co8e co++ission !. 409#.
In Sin1son vs F2orentino&
The ratio 8eci8en8i of these cases see+s to be that the attestation c2ause +ust
contain a state+ent of the nu+ber of sheets or !a1es co+!osin1 the wi22 an8 that if
this is +issin1 or is o+itte8 it wi22 have the effect of inva2i8atin1 the wi22 if the
8eficiency cannot be su!!2ie8 not by evi8ence a2iun8e but by a consi8eration or
e:a+ination of the wi22 itse2f.
ICASIANO 1S ICASIANO ((SC4A .**
The evi8ence !resente8 for the !etitioner is to the effect that Cosefa @i22acorte 8ie8
in the City of 'ani2a on Se!te+ber 46 4*?<5 that on Cune 6 4*?/ the 2ate Cosefa
@i22acorte e:ecute8 a 2ast wi22 an8 testa+ent in 8u!2icate at the house of her
8au1hter 'rs. Fe2isa Icasiano at Pe8ro .uevara Street 'ani2a !ub2ishe8 before an8
atteste8 by three instru+enta2 witnesses na+e2y& attorneys Custo P. Torres Cr. an8
Cose @. Nativi8a8 an8 'r. @inicio ,. %iy5 that the wi22 was ac3now2e81e8 by the
testatri: an8 by the sai8 three instru+enta2 witnesses on the sa+e 8ate before
attorney Cose Oyen1co On1 Notary Pub2ic in an8 for the City of 'ani2a5 an8 that the
wi22 was actua22y !re!are8 by attorney Fer+in Sa+son who was a2so !resent 8urin1
the e:ecution an8 si1nin1 of the 8ece8entBs 2ast wi22 an8 testa+ent to1ether with
for+er .overnor E+i2io (ustia of ,u2acan Cu81e (a+on Icasiano an8 a 2itt2e 1ir2. Of
the sai8 three instru+enta2 witnesses to the e:ecution of the 8ece8entBs 2ast wi22
an8 testa+ent attorneys Torres an8 Nativi8a8 were in the Phi2i!!ines at the ti+e of
4<
the hearin1 an8 both testifie8 as to the 8ue e:ecution an8 authenticity of the sai8
wi22. So 8i8 the Notary Pub2ic before who+ the wi22 was ac3now2e81e8 by the
testatri: an8 attestin1 witnesses an8 a2so attorneys Fer+in Sa+son who actua22y
!re!are8 the 8ocu+ent. The 2atter a2so testifie8 u!on cross e:a+ination that he
!re!are8 one ori1ina2 an8 two co!ies of Cosefa @i22acorte 2ast wi22 an8 testa+ent at
his house in ,a2iua1 ,u2acan but he brou1ht on2y one ori1ina2 an8 one si1ne8 co!y
to 'ani2a retainin1 one unsi1ne8 co!y in ,u2acan.
The recor8s show that the ori1ina2 of the wi22 which was surren8ere8
si+u2taneous2y with the fi2in1 of the !etition an8 +ar3e8 as E:hibit EAE consists of
five !a1es an8 whi2e si1ne8 at the en8 an8 in every !a1e it 8oes not contain the
si1nature of one of the attestin1 witnesses Atty. Cose @. Nativi8a8 on !a1e three
"9# thereof5 but the 8u!2icate co!y attache8 to the a+en8e8 an8 su!!2e+enta2
!etition an8 +ar3e8 as E:hibit EAA4E is si1ne8 by the testatri: an8 her three
attestin1 witnesses in each an8 every !a1e.
On the >uestion of 2aw we ho28 that the ina8vertent fai2ure of one witness to affi:
his si1nature to one !a1e of a testa+ent 8ue to the si+u2taneous 2iftin1 of two
!a1es in the course of si1nin1 is not !er se sufficient to Dustify 8enia2 of !robate.
I+!ossibi2ity of substitution of this !a1e is assure8 not on2y the fact that the
testatri: an8 two other witnesses 8i8 si1n the 8efective !a1e but a2so by its
bearin1 the coinci8ent i+!rint of the sea2 of the notary !ub2ic before who+ the
testa+ent was ratifie8 by testatri: an8 a22 three witnesses. /he !a$ shou!d not e
so strict!y and !itera!!y interpreted as to pena!i@e the testatri" on account
of the inad#ertence of a sing!e $itness o#er $hose conduct she had no
contro!, $here the purpose of the !a$ to guarantee the identity of the
testament and its component pages is sufficient!y attained, no intentiona!
or de!ierate de#iation e"isted, and the e#idence on record attests to the
fu!! oser#ance of the statutory requisites% Otherwise as state8 in @8a. 8e .i2.
vs. 'urciano 4* Off. .aH. 44?* at 447* "8ecision on reconsi8eration# Ewitnesses
+ay sabota1e the wi22 by +u882in1 or bun12in1 it or the attestation c2auseE.
CA24O 1S CA24O ?* )EIL (8,*
The +ain obDection insiste8 u!on by the a!!e22ant in that the wi22 is fata22y 8efective
because its attestation c2ause is not si1ne8 by the attestin1 witnesses. There is no
>uestion that the si1natures of the three witnesses to the wi22 8o not a!!ear at the
botto+ of the attestation c2ause a2thou1h the !a1e containin1 the sa+e is si1ne8
by the witnesses on the 2eftAhan8 +ar1in.
7e are of the o!inion that the !osition ta3en by the a!!e22ant is correct. The
attestation c2ause is Ba +e+oran8u+ of the facts atten8in1 the e:ecution of the wi22B
re>uire8 by 2aw to be +a8e by the attestin1 witnesses an8 it +ust necessari2y bear
their si1natures. An unsigned attestation c!ause cannot e considered as an
act of the $itnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the ottom
thereof negates their participation%
If an attestation c!ause not signed y the three $itnesses at the ottom
thereof, e admitted as sufficient, it $ou!d e easy to add such c!ause to a
4*
$i!! on a susequent occasion and in the asence of the testator and any
or a!! of the $itnesses%
,autista An1e2o 8issentin1&
This obDection is too technica2 to be entertaine8. In the case of Aban1an vs.
Aban1an "40 Phi2. 47/# this court said that $hen the testamentary
dispositions 6are $ho!!y $ritten on on!y one sheet signed at the ottom y
the testator and three $itnesses <as the instant case=,their signatures on
the !eft margin of said sheet $ou!d e comp!ete!y purpose!ess%6 In such a
case the court sai8 the re>uire+ent of the si1natures on the 2eft han8 +ar1in was
not necessary because the !ur!ose of the 2aw L which is to avoi8 the substitution
of any of the sheets of the wi22 thereby chan1in1 the testatorBs 8is!ositions L has
a2rea8y been acco+!2ishe8. 7e +ay say the sa+e thin1 in connection with the wi22
un8er consi8eration because whi2e the three instru+enta2 witnesses 8i8 not si1n
i++e8iate2y by the +aDority that it +ay have been on2y a88e8 on a subse>uent
occasion an8 not at the uncontradicted testimony of said $itnesses to the
effect that such attestation c!ause $as a!ready $ritten in the $i!! $hen
the same $as signed%
C4UG 1S 1ILLASO4 0. SC4A ,(
Of the three instrumenta! $itnesses thereto, name!y Deogracias /%
Dama!oas Dr%, Dr% +rancisco )aHares and Atty% Ange! E% /e#es, Dr%, one of
them, the !ast named, is at the same time the Notary )u!ic efore $hom
the $i!! $as supposed to ha#e een ac&no$!edged% As the thir8 witness is the
notary !ub2ic hi+se2f !etitioner ar1ues that the resu2t is that on2y two witnesses
a!!eare8 before the notary !ub2ic to ac3now2e81e the wi22.
/he notary pu!ic efore $hom the $i!! $as ac&no$!edged cannot e
considered as the third instrumenta! $itness since he cannot ac&no$!edge
efore himse!f his ha#ing signed the $i!!%
Further+ore the function of a notary pu!ic is, among others, to guard
against any i!!ega! or immora! arrangement 'a!inon #% De Leon, 08 8% 2%
03,%= /hat function $ou!d defeated if the notary pu!ic $ere one of the
attesting instrumenta! $itnesses% +or then he $ou!d e interested in
sustaining the #a!idity of the $i!! as it direct!y in#o!#es him and the
#a!idity of his o$n act% It wou28 !2ace hi+ in inconsistent !osition an8 the very
!ur!ose of ac3now2e81+ent which is to +ini+iHe frau8 "(e!ort of Co8e
Co++ission !. 40/A407# wou28 be thwarte8.
To a22ow the notary !ub2ic to act as thir8 witness or one of the attestin1 an8
ac3now2e81in1 witnesses wou28 have the effect of havin1 on2y two attestin1
witnesses to the wi22 which wou28 be in contravention of the !rovisions of Artic2e <0
be re>uirin1 at 2east three cre8ib2e witnesses to act as such an8 of Artic2e <0/ which
re>uires that the testator an8 the re>uire8 nu+ber of witnesses +ust a!!ear before
the notary !ub2ic to ac3now2e81e the wi22. The resu2t wou28 be as has been sai8
that on2y two witnesses a!!eare8 before the notary !ub2ic for or that !ur!ose. In
the circu+stances the 2aw wou28 not be 8u2y in observe8.
60
2A'UCAN 1S AAN/A ?0 SC4A 50*
/his case is aout the dismissa! of a petition for the proate of a notaria!
$i!! on the ground that it does not ear a thirty7centa#o documentary
stamp%
The !rocee8in1 was 8is+isse8 because the re>uisite 8ocu+entary sta+! was not
affi:e8 to the notaria2 ac3now2e81+ent in the wi22 an8 hence accor8in1 to
res!on8ent Cu81e it was not a8+issib2e in evi8ence citin1 section 69< of the Ta:
Co8e now section 6?0 of the 4*77 Ta: Co8e which rea8s&
SEC. 69<. Effect of fai2ure to sta+! ta:ab2e 8ocu+ent. L An instru+ent 8ocu+ent or !a!er
which is re>uire8 by 2aw to be sta+!e8 an8 which has been si1ne8 issue8 acce!te8 or
transferre8 without bein1 8u2y sta+!e8 sha22 not be recor8e8 nor sha22 it or any co!y
thereof or any recor8 of transfer of the sa+e be a8+itte8 or use8 in evi8ence in any court
unti2 the re>uisite sta+! or sta+!s sha22 have been affi:e8 thereto an8 cance22e8.
No notary !ub2ic or other officer authoriHe8 to a8+inister oaths sha22 a88 his Durat or
ac3now2e81+ent to any 8ocu+ent subDect to 8ocu+entary sta+! ta: un2ess the !ro!er
8ocu+entary sta+!s are affi:e8 thereto an8 cance22e8.
7e ho28 that the 2ower court +anifest2y erre8 in 8ec2arin1 that because no
8ocu+entary sta+! was affi:e8 to the wi22 there was Eno wi22 an8 testa+ent to
!robateE an8 conse>uent2y the a22e1e8 Eaction +ust of necessity be 8is+isse8E.
7hat the !robate court shou28 have 8one was to re>uire the !etitioner or !ro!onent
to affi: the re>uisite thirtyAcentavo 8ocu+entary sta+! to the notaria2
ac3now2e81+ent of the wi22 which is the ta:ab2e !ortion of that 8ocu+ent.
/hat procedure may e imp!ied from the pro#ision of section *,3 that the
non7admissii!ity of the document, $hich does not ear the requisite
documentary stamp, susists on!y 6unti! the requisite stamp or stamps
sha!! ha#e een affi"ed thereto and cance!!ed%6
Note the ho!ding in A@arraga #s% 4odrigue@, ? )hi!% F,5, that the !ac& of
the documentary stamp on a document does not in#a!idate such
document% See Cia% 2enera! de /aacos #s% Dean9aquet (* )hi!% (?0, *8(7*
and De!gado and +igueroa #s% Amenaar (F )hi!% .8,, .807F%=
DA1ELLANA 1S LEDESAA ?5 )EIL *03
,y or8er of Cu2y 69 4*?9 the Court of First Instance of I2oi2o a8+itte8 to !robate the
8ocu+ents in the @isayan 8ia2ect.The contestant %a. 'atea -e8es+a sister an8
nearest survivin1 re2ative of sai8 8ecease8 a!!ea2e8 fro+ the 8ecision insistin1
that the sai8 e:hibits were not e:ecute8 in confor+ity with 2aw.
The issue was concentrate8 into three s!ecific >uestions& <(= $hether the
testament of (?08 $as e"ecuted y the testatri" in the presence of the
instrumenta! $itnesses- <*= $hether the ac&no$!edgment c!ause $as
signed and the notaria! sea! affi"ed y the notary $ithout the presence of
64
the testatri" and the $itnesses- and <,= if so, $hether the codici! $as
therey rendered in#a!id and ineffecti#e% These >uestions are the sa+e ones
!resente8 to us for reso2ution.
4. Our e:a+ination of the testi+ony on recor8 8isc2oses no 1roun8s for
reversin1 the tria2 CourtBs reDection of the i+!robab2e story of the witnesses.
It is s>uare2y contra8icte8 by the concor8ant testi+ony of the instru+enta2
witnesses @icente )a! Atty. (a+on Tabiana an8 his wife .2oria 'ontino2a
who asserte8 un8er oath that the testa+ent was e:ecute8 by testatri: an8
witnesses in the !resence of each other at the house of the 8ece8ent on
.enera2 =u1hes St. I2oi2o City on 'arch 90 4*?0. An8 it is hi1h2y un2i3e2y
an8 contrary to usa1e that either Tabiana or )a! shou28 have insiste8 that
%a. A!o2inaria an infir+ 2a8y then over <0 years o28 shou28 2eave her own
house in or8er to e:ecute her wi22 when a22 three witnesses cou28 have easi2y
re!aire8 thither for the !ur!ose. 'oreover the crossAe:a+ination has
revea2e8 fata2 f2aws in the testi+ony of ContestantBs witnesses. ,oth c2ai+ to
have hear8 the wor8 Etesta+entoE for the first ti+e when )a! use8 it5 an8
they c2ai+e8 abi2ity to reca22 that wor8 four years 2ater 8es!ite the fact that
the ter+ +eant nothin1 to either. It is we22 3nown that what is to be
re+e+bere8 +ust first be rationa22y conceive8 an8 assi+i2ate8 "II 'oore on
Facts !. <<4#.
6. At any rate, as oser#ed y the Court e!o$, $hether or not the
notary signed the certification of ac&no$!edgment in the presence of
the testatri" and the $itnesses, does not affect the #a!idity of the
codici!% Un2i3e the Co8e of 4<<* "Art. /**=, the ne$ Ci#i! Code does not
require that the signing of the testator, $itnesses and notary shou!d
e accomp!ished in one sing!e act% A co+!arison of Artic2es <0? an8 <0/
of the new Civi2 Co8e revea2s that $hi!e testator and $itnesses sign in
the presence of each other, a!! that is thereafter required is that
6e#ery $i!! must e ac&no$!edged efore a notary pu!ic y the
testator and the $itnesses6 <Art% 38F=- i.e. that the 2atter shou28 avow
to the certifyin1 officer the authenticity of their si1natures an8 the
vo2untariness of their actions in e:ecutin1 the testa+entary 8is!osition. /he
susequent signing and sea!ing y the notary of his certification
that the testament $as du!y ac&no$!edged y the participants
therein is no part of the ac&no$!edgment itse!f nor of the
testamentary act% =ence their se!arate e:ecution out of the !resence of
the testatri: an8 her witnesses cannot be sai8 to vio2ate the ru2e that
testa+ents shou28 be co+!2ete8 without interru!tion. It is note$orthy that
Artic!e 38F of the ne$ Ci#i! Code does not contain $ords requiring
that the testator and the $itnesses shou!d ac&no$!edge the
testament on the same day or occasion that it $as e"ecuted%
CANEDA 1S CA *** SC4A 53(
The recor8s show that on %ece+ber ? 4*7< 'ateo Caba22ero a wi8ower without
any chi28ren an8 a2rea8y in the twi2i1ht years of his 2ife e:ecute8 a 2ast wi22 an8
testa+ent at his resi8ence in Ta2isay Cebu before three attestin1 witnesses
na+e2y Ci!riano -abuca .re1orio Caban8o an8 F2aviano Tore1osa. The sai8
testator was 8u2y assiste8 by his 2awyer Atty. E+i2io -u+onta8 an8 a notary !ub2ic
66
Atty. Fi2oteo 'ani1os in the !re!aration of that 2ast wi22. 4 It was 8ec2are8 therein
a+on1 other thin1s that the testator was 2eavin1 by way of 2e1acies an8 8evises
his rea2 an8 !ersona2 !ro!erties to Presentacion .avio2a An1e2 Abatayo (o1e2io
Abatayo Isabe2ito Abatayo ,enoni .. Cabrera an8 'arcosa A2cantara a22 of who+
8o not a!!ear to be re2ate8 to the testator.
Thereafter herein !etitioners c2ai+in1 to be ne!hews an8 nieces of the testator
institute8 a secon8 !etition entit2e8 EIn the 'atter of the Intestate Estate of 'ateo
Caba22eroE an8 8oc3ete8 as S!ecia2 Procee8in1 No. 9*/?A( before ,ranch I; of the
aforesai8 Court of First Instance of Cebu. On October 4< 4*<6 herein !etitioners
ha8 their sai8 !etition intestate !rocee8in1 conso2i8ate8 with S!ecia2 Procee8in1
No. 9<**A( in ,ranch II of the Court of First Instance of Cebu an8 o!!ose8 thereat
the !robate of the TestatorBs wi22 an8 the a!!oint+ent of a s!ecia2 a8+inistrator for
his estate.
Un8aunte8 by the sai8 Du81+ent of the !robate court !etitioners e2evate8 the case
in the Court of A!!ea2s in CAA..(. C@ No. 4*//*. They asserte8 therein that the wi22
in >uestion is nu22 an8 voi8 for the reason that its attestation c2ause is fata22y
8efective since it fai2s to s!ecifica22y state that the instru+enta2 witnesses to the wi22
witnesse8 the testator si1nin1 the wi22 in their !resence an8 that they a2so si1ne8
the wi22 an8 a22 the !a1es thereof in the !resence of the testator an8 of one another.
An attestation c!ause refers to that part of an ordinary $i!! $herey the
attesting $itnesses certify that the instrument has een e"ecuted efore
them and to the manner of the e"ecution the same% It is a se!arate
+e+oran8u+ or recor8 of the facts surroun8in1 the con8uct of e:ecution an8 once
si1ne8 by the witnesses it gi#es affirmation to the fact that comp!iance $ith
the essentia! forma!ities required y !a$ has een oser#ed% It is +a8e for
the !ur!ose of !reservin1 in a !er+anent for+ a recor8 of the facts that atten8e8
the e:ecution of a !articu2ar wi22 so that in case of fai2ure of the +e+ory of the
attestin1 witnesses or other casua2ty such facts +ay sti22 be !rove8.
Un8er the thir8 !ara1ra!h of Artic2e <0? such a c2ause the co+!2ete 2ac3 of which
wou28 resu2t in the inva2i8ity of the wi22 shou!d state <(= the numer of the
pages used upon $hich the $i!! is $ritten- <*= that the testator signed, or
e"press!y caused another to sign, the $i!! and e#ery page thereof in the
presence of the attesting $itnesses- and <,= that the attesting $itnesses
$itnessed the signing y the testator of the $i!! and a!! its pages, and that
said $itnesses a!so signed the $i!! and e#ery page thereof in the presence
of the testator and of one another%
The attestation in the wi22 of testator states&
7e the un8ersi1ne8 attestin1 7itnesses whose (esi8ences an8 !osta2 a88resses
a!!ear on the O!!osite of our res!ective na+es we 8o hereby certify that the
Testa+ent was rea8 by hi+ an8 the testator 'ATEO CA,A--E(O5 has !ub2ishe8
unto us the fore1oin1 7i22 consistin1 of T=(EE PA.ES inc2u8in1 the
Ac3now2e81+ent each !a1e nu+bere8 corre2ative2y in the 2etters on the u!!er !art
of each !a1e as his -ast 7i22 an8 Testa+ent and he has the same and e#ery
page thereof, on the spaces pro#ided for his signature and on the !eft
69
hand margin, in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of
each and a!! of us%
7hat is fair2y a!!arent u!on a carefu2 rea8in1 of the attestation c2ause herein
assai2e8 is the fact that whi2e it recites that the testator in8ee8 si1ne8 the wi22 an8
a22 its !a1es in the !resence of the three attestin1 witnesses an8 states as we22 the
nu+ber of !a1es that were use8 the same does not e"press!y state therein
the circumstance that said $itnesses suscried their respecti#e
signatures to the $i!! in the presence of the testator and of each other%
/he so7ca!!ed !iera! ru!e, the Court said in 2i! #s% Aurciano, 6does not
offer any pu@@!e or difficu!ty, nor does it open the door to serious
consequences. The 2ater 8ecisions 8o te22 us when an8 where to sto!5 they 8raw
the 8ivi8in1 2ine with !recision. /hey do not a!!o$ e#idence a!iunde to fi!! a
#oid in any part of the document or supp!y missing detai!s that shou!d
appear in the $i!! itse!f% They on2y !er+it a !robe into the wi22 an e:!2oration
into its confines to ascertain its +eanin1 or to 8eter+ine the e:istence or absence
of the re>uisite for+a2ities of 2aw. This c2ear shar! 2i+itation e2i+inates uncertainty
an8 ou1ht to banish any fear of 8ire resu2ts.E
It may thus e stated that the ru!e, as it no$ stands, is that omissions
$hich can e supp!ied y an e"amination of the $i!! itse!f, $ithout the
need of resorting to e"trinsic e#idence, $i!! not e fata! and,
corresponding!y, $ou!d not ostruct the a!!o$ance to proate of the $i!!
eing assai!ed% =owever those o+issions which cannot be su!!2ie8 e:ce!t by
evi8ence a2iun8e wou28 resu2t in the inva2i8ation of the attestation c2ause an8
u2ti+ate2y of the wi22 itse2f.
CALDE 1S CA Dune *5, (??.
The recor8s show that 8ece8ent 2eft behin8 nine thousan8 !esos "P*000.00# worth
of !ro!erty. She a2so 2eft a -ast 7i22 an8 Testa+ent 8ate8 October 90 4*76 an8 a
Co8ici2 thereto 8ate8 Cu2y 64 4*79. ,oth 8ocu+ents containe8 the thu+b+ar3s of
8ece8ent. They were a2so si1ne8 by three "9# attestin1 witnesses each an8
ac3now2e81e8 before To+as A. To2ete then the 'unici!a2 Cu81e an8 Notary Pub2ic
E:AOfficio of ,au3o 't. Province.
Nicasio Ca28e the e:ecutor na+e8 in the wi22 fi2e8 a Petition for its a22owance
before the (TC of ,ontoc 't. Province ,r. 9/. =e 8ie8 8urin1 the !en8ency of the
!rocee8in1s an8 was 8u2y substitute8 by !etitioner. Private res!on8ents re2atives
of 8ece8ent o!!ose8 the Petitioner fi2e8 by Ca28e on the fo22owin1 1roun8s& that
the $i!! and codici! $ere $ritten in I!ocano, a dia!ect that decedent did not
&no$- that decedent $as menta!!y incapacitated to e"ecute the t$o
documents ecause of her ad#anced age, i!!ness and deafness- that
decedentIs thummar&s $ere procured through fraud and undue
inf!uence- and that the codici! $as not e"ecuted in accordance $ith !a$%
On Cune 69 4*<< the tria2 court ren8ere8 Du81+ent on the case a!!rovin1 an8
a22owin1 8ece8entFs wi22 an8 its co8ici2. The 8ecision was a!!ea2e8 to an8 reverse8
by the res!on8ent Court of A!!ea2s. It he28&
64
% % % </=he $i!! and codici! cou!d pass the safeguards under Artic!e 380 of
the Ne$ Ci#i! Code ut for one crucia! factor of discrepancy in the co!or of
in& $hen the instrumenta! $itnesses affi"ed their respecti#e signatures%
The >uestion in the case at bench is one of fact& whether or not base8 on the
evi8ence sub+itte8 res!on8ent a!!e22ate court erre8 in conc2u8in1 that both
8ece8entFs -ast 7i22 an8 Testa+ent an8 its Co8ici2 were subscribe8 by the
instru+enta2 witnesses on se!arate occasions. As a 1enera2 ru2e factua2 fin8in1s of
the Court of A!!ea2s are consi8ere8 fina2 an8 conc2usive an8 cannot be reviewe8
on a!!ea2 to this court. In the !resent instance however there is reason to +a3e
an e:ce!tion to that ru2e since the fin8in1 of the res!on8ent court is contrary to
that of the tria2 court.
In the case at ench, the autoptic preference <+rom the point of #ie$ of
the !itigant party furnishing this source of e!ief, it may e termed
Autoptic )roference= contradicts the testimonia! e#idence produced y
petitioner% The wi22 an8 its co8ici2 u!on ins!ection by the res!on8ent court show
in b2ac3 an8 white L or +ore accurate2y in b2ac3 an8 b2ue L that +ore than one
!en was use8 by the si1natories thereto. Thus it was not erroneous nor base2ess for
res!on8ent court to 8isbe2ieve !etitionerFs c2ai+ that both testa+entary 8ocu+ents
in >uestion were subscribe8 to in accor8ance with the !rovisions of Art. <0? of the
Civi2 Co8e.
Neither did respondent court err $hen it did not accord great $eight to
the testimony of Dudge /omas A% /o!ete. It is true that his testi+ony contains a
narration of how the two testa+entary 8ocu+ents were subscribe8 an8 atteste8 to
startin1 fro+ 8ece8entFs thu+b+ar3in1 thereof to the a22e1e8 si1nin1 of the
instru+enta2 witnesses thereto in consecutive or8er. Nonethe!ess, no$here in
Dudge /o!eteIs testimony is there any &ind of e"p!anation for the different7
co!ored signatures on the testaments%
c. Specia! requirements
Art. <07. If the testator be deaf, or a deaf7mute he +ust persona!!y read
the $i!! if ab2e to 8o so5 otherwise he sha22 designate t$o persons
to read it and communicate to him in so+e practica!e manner
the contents thereof. "n#
Art. <0<. If the testator is !ind, the $i!! sha!! e read to him t$ice5 once by
one of the suscriing $itnesses an8 a1ain by the notary pu!ic
before who+ the wi22 is ac3now2e81e8. "n#
2A4CIA 1S 1ASJUEG ,* SC4A .3?
6?
Facts&
Two wi22s were e:ecute8 one 8urin1 4*?/ the other on 4*/0. Testatri: was
sufferin1 fro+ 12auco+a when the subse>uent 4*/0 wi22 consistin1 on2y of one
!a1e to which the !rovisions were cra++e8 was e:ecute8. O!!ositors to the wi22
a22e1e8 that the wi22 was secure8 throu1h frau8 or un8ue inf2uence as when the
testatri: con8ition +ay be consi8ere8 as si+i2ar to that of a b2in8 +an. -i3ewise
they see3 to oust the s!ecia2 a8+inistratri: for havin1 conf2ict of interest for havin1
!revious2y bou1ht the !ro!erty of the testatri: for on2y 903 when it was +ore that
9003 in va2ue.
Court he28&
TestatorFs con8ition is si+i2ar to that of a b2in8 +an thus un8er Art. <0< the
!rovisions of the wi22 shou28Fve been rea8 to her twice.
That the s!ecia2 a8+inistratri: is re+ove8 in so far as with res!ect to her interest in
the testa+entary succession but 8oesnFt inva2i8ate the !revious sa2e of !ro!erty
between her an8 the testatri:.
8. Substantia2 co+!2iance
Art. <0*. In the asence of ad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and
improper pressure and inf!uence 8efects an8 i+!erfections in the
for+ of attestation or in the 2an1ua1e use8 therein sha!! not render
the $i!! in#a!id if it is pro#ed that the $i!! $as in fact e"ecuted
and attested in sustantia! comp!iance with a22 the re>uire+ents
of Artic2e <0?. "n#
2IL 1S AU4CIANO 33 )EIL *F8
The Court of First Instance of 'ani2a a8+itte8 to !robate the a22e1e8 wi22 an8
testa+ent of the 8ecease8 Car2os .i2. The o!!ositor Pi2ar .i2 @8a. 8e
'urciano a!!ea2e8 to this Court raisin1 on2y >uestion of 2aw. =er
counse2 assi1ns the two fo22owin1 a22e1e8 errors&
Pri+er Error. L E2 CuH1a8o inferior erro a2 8eDar 8e 8ec2arar >ue e2 a2e1a8o
testa+ento 8e Car2os .i2 no ha si8o oto1ar 8e acuer8o con 2a 2ey.
Se1un8o Error. L Erro fina2+ente a 2e1a2iHar e2 referi8o testa+ento. "=ICO %E
PUTAMMM %O I SPEA$ SPANIS=IM NO 'E =A,-E ESPANO- ESEMMM#
It $i!! e noted that the attestation c!ause ao#e quoted does not state
that the a!!eged testor signed the $i!!% It dec!ares on!y that it $as signed
y the $itnesses% This is a fata2 8efect for the precise purpose of the
attestation c!ause is to certify that the testator signed the $i!!, this eing
the most essentia! e!ement of the c!ause% 7ithout it there is no attestation at
a22. It is sai8 that the court +ay correct a +ere c2erica2 error. This is too +uch of a
c2erica2 error for it affects the very essence of the c2ause. A22e1e8 errors +ay be
6/
over2oo3e8 or correct on2y in +atters of for+ which 8o not affect the substance of
the state+ent.
It is c2ai+e8 that the correction +ay be +a8e by inference. If we cure a 8eficiency
by +eans of inferences when are we 1oin1 to sto! +a3in1 inferences to su!!2y
fata2 8eficiencies in wi22sI 7here are we to 8raw the 2ineI Fo22owin1 that !roce8ure
we wou28 be +a3in1 inter!o2ations by inferences i+!2ication an8 even by interna2
circu+tantia2 evi8ence. This wou28 be 8one in the face of the c2ear uni>uivoca2
2an1ua1e of the statute as to how the attestation c2ause shou28 be +a8e. It is to be
su!!ose8 that the 8rafter of the a22e1e8 wi22 rea8 the c2ear wor8s of the statute
when he !re!are8 it. For the court to su!!2y a22e1e8 8eficiencies wou28 be a1ainst
the evi8ent !o2icy of the 2aw. Section /4< of Act No. 4*0 before it was a+en8e8
containe8 the fo22owin1 !rovision&
. . . ,ut the absence of such for+ of attestation sha22 not ren8er the wi22 inva2i8 if it
!roven that the wi22 was in fact si1ne8 an8 atteste8 as in this section !rovi8e8.
=owever Act No. 6/4? of the Phi2i!!ine -e1is2ature !asse8 on Cu2y 4 4*4/ besi8es
increasin1 the contents of the attestation c2ause entire2y su!!resse8 the aboveA
>uote8 !rovision. This wou28 show that the !ur!ose of the a+en8in1 act was to
surroun8 the e:ecution of a wi22 with 1reater 1uarantees an8 so2e+nities. Cou28 we
in view of this ho28 that the court can cure a22e1e8 8eficiencies by inferences
i+!2ications an8 interna2 circu+stantia2 evi8enceI Even in or8inary cases the 2aw
re>uires certain re>uisities for the conc2usiveness of circu+stantia2 evi8ence.
It is said that the ru!es of statutory construction are app!ica!e to
documents and $i!!s% /his is true, ut said ru!es app!y to the ody of the
$i!!, containing the testamentary pro#isions, ut not to the attestation
c!ause, $hich must e so c!ear that it shou!d not require any construction%
In the case of .u+ban vs. .orecho "?0 Phi2. 90 94# the court ha8 the fo22owin1 to
say&
4. I%.5 I%.5 I%.5 I%. L An attestation c2ause which 8oes not recite that the witnesses
si1ne8 the wi22 an8 each an8 every !a1e thereof on the 2eft +ar1in in the !resence
of the testator is 8efective an8 such a 8efect annu2s the wi22. "Sano vs. Ouintana
su!ra.#
The Su!re+e Court fu22y affir+e8 the 8ecision 2ayin1 8own the fo22owin1 8octrine&
4. 7I--S5 ATTESTATION C-AUSE5 E@I%ENCE TO SUPP-) %EFECTS OF. L /he
attestation c!ause must e made in strict conformity $ith the
requirements of section F(3 of Act No% (?8, as amended% Where said
c!ause fai!s to sho$ on its face a fu!! comp!iance $ith those requirements,
the defect constitutes sufficient ground for the disa!!o$ance of the $i!!%
"Sano vs. Ouintana 4< Phi2. ?0/5 .u+ban vs. .orecho ?0 Phi2. 90=% E#idence
a!iunde shou!d not e admitted to esta!ish facts not appearing on the
attestation c!ause, an8 where sai8 evi8ence has been a8+itte8 it shou28 not be
1iven the effect inten8e8. "Uy Co>ue vs. Navas -. Sioca 49 Phi2. 40? 40*.#.
67
6. I%.5 I%.5 INTE(P(ETATION OF SECTION /4< OF ACT NO. 4*0 AS A'EN%E%. L
Section /4< of Act No. 4*0 as a+en8e8 shou28 be 1iven a strict inter!retation in
or8er to 1ive effect to the intention of the -e1is2ature. Statutes prescriing
forma!ities to e oser#ed in the e"ecution of $i!!s are #ery strict!y
construed% Courts cannot supp!y the defensi#e e"ecution of $i!!% "40 Cyc. !.
407*5 Uy Co>ue vs. Navas -. Sioca su!ra.#
CUE1AS 1S ACEACOSO 33 )EIL 5,8
On Canuary 4* 4*4/ Cose @enHon 8ie8 in Iba Ja+ba2es 2eavin1 a wi22. In sai8 wi22
the 8ecease8 institute8 as his heirs @a2entina Cuevas his wi8ow an8 (osario Asera
@enHon his 8au1hter. =e na+e8 therein his wi8ow as e:ecutri: of the wi22. On
February 4 4*4/ @a2entina Cuevas fi2e8 a !etition for the !robate of sai8 wi22.
On 'ay 40 4*4/ one Pi2ar Achacoso fi2e8 an a2ternative !etition for the !robate of
a !revious wi22 e:ecute8 by the 8ecease8 !rayin1 therein that if the wi22 sub+itte8
by the wi8ow be reDecte8 the other wi22 be a8+itte8 to !robate in 2ieu thereof. In
the !revious wi22 there are other heirs institute8 a+on1 the+ !etitioner Pi2ar
Achacoso. Pi2ar Achacoso obDecte8 to the !robate of the secon8 wi22 e:ecute8 by the
8ecease8 on October 40 4*4?. After 8ue hearin1 the court foun8 that the 2atter
wi22 was e:ecute8 in accor8ance with 2aw an8 or8ere8 that it be a8+itte8 to
!robate. Pi2ar Achacoso too3 the case to the Court of A!!ea2s but the 2atter
certifie8 it to this Court on the 1roun8 that it invo2ves !ure2y >uestions of 2aw.
/he main error assigned refers to the a!!eged !ac& of attestation c!ause in
the $i!! under consideration, or to the fact that, if there is such attestation
c!ause, the same has not een signed y the instrumenta! $itnesses, ut
y the testator himse!f, and it is c!aimed that this defect has the effect of
in#a!idating the $i!!%
The wi22 in >uestion after recitin1 in se!arate !ara1ra!hs an8 un8er corre2ative
nu+bers the !rovisions of the wi22 win8s u! with the fo22owin1 c2ause&
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this testament or last will in the municipality of Iba, ambales,
!hilippines, this "#th $ay of October, "%&', in the presence of the three witnesses, namely (r)
Nestorio Trini$a$, (on *al$omero +chacoso, an$ ,r) !roceso -abal as instrumental witnesses to my
signing. this testament is written in three /01 sheets mar2e$ by letter 3+3, 3*3 an$ 3-3 consecuti4ely on
top of each sheet an$ upon my re5uest an$ in my presence an$ also in the presence of each of the
aforesai$ instrumental witnesses, they also signe$ this testament alrea$y reffere$ to)
I hereby manifest that e4ery sheet of the aforesai$ testament, on the left6han$ margin as well as the
testament itself ha4e been signe$ by me as also each of the witnesses has also signe$ in my presence
an$ in the presence of each other)
/Sg$)1 7OSE 8ENON
Witnesses9
/Sg$)1 NESTORIO TRINI(+(
/Sg$)1 *+:(O,ERO :) +-H+-OSO
/Sg$)1 !RO-ESO -+*+:)
6<
/he c!ause ao#e quoted is the attestation c!ause reffered to in the !a$
$hich, in our opinion, sustantia!!y comp!ies $ith its requirements% The
on2y a!!arent ano+a2y we fin8 is that it a!!ears to be an attestation +a8e by the
testator hi+se2f +ore than by the instru+enta2 witnesses. This a!!arent ano+a2y
as to affect the va2i8ity of the wi22 it a!!earin1 that ri1ht un8er the si1nature of the
testator there a!!ear the si1natures of the three instru+enta2 witnesses.
EInstru+enta2 witness as 8efine by Escriche in his %iccionario (aHona8o 8e
-e1is2acion y Curis!ru8encia @o2. 4 !. 444? is one who ta3es !art in the e:ecution
of an instru+ent or writin1E "In re wi22 of Tan %iuco 4? Phi2. <07 <0*#. An
instru+enta2 witness therefore 8oes not +ere2y attest to the si1nature of the
testator but a2so to the !ro!er e:ecution of the wi22. /he fact that the three
instrumenta! $itnesses ha#e signed the $i!! immediate!y under the
signature of the testator, sho$s that they ha#e in fact attested not on!y to
the genuineness of his signature ut a!so to the due e"ecution of the $i!!
as emodied in the attestation c!ause%
As $as said in one case, 6the o9ect of the so!emnities surrounding the
e"ecution of the $i!!s is to c!ose the door against ad faith and fraud, to
a#oid sustitution of $i!!s and testaments and to guarantee their truth
and authenticity% Therefore the 2aws on this subDect shou28 be intre!rete8 in such
a way as to attain this !re+or8ia2 en8s. ,ut on the other han8 a2so one +ust not
2ose si1ht of the fact that it is not the obDect of the 2aw to restrain an8 curtai2 the
e:ercise of the ri1ht to +a3e a wi22. So $hen an interpretation a!ready gi#en
assures such ends, any other interpretation $hatsoe#er, that adds
nothing ut demands more requisites entire!y unnecessary, use!ess and
frustrati#e of the testator:s $i!!, must e disregarded%6
e. 7itnesses to wi22s
4. 7ho are co+!etent
Art. <60. Any !erson of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or
more an8 not !ind deaf or dum an8 a!e to read and $rite
+ay be a witness to the e:ecution of a wi22 +entione8 in Artic2e <0? of
this Co8e. "n#
Art. <64. The fo22owin1 are 8is>ua2ifie8 fro+ bein1 witnesses to a wi22&
4. Any !erson not domici!ed in the )hi!ippines5
6. Those who have been con#icted of fa!sification of a document,
per9ury or fa!se testimony. "n#
2ONGALES 1S CA ?8 SC4A (3,
There is no 8is!ute in the recor8s that the 2ate Isabe2 An8res .abrie2 8ie8 as a
wi8ow an8 without issue in the +unici!a2ity of Navotas !rovince of (iHa2 her !2ace
of resi8ence on Cune 7 4*/4 at the a1e of ei1htyAfive "<?# havin1 been born in
4<7/. It is 2i3ewise not controverte8 that herein !rivate res!on8ent -ut1ar8a
6*
Santia1o an8 !etitioner (iHa2ina .abrie2 .onHa2es are nieces of the 8ecease8 an8
that !rivate res!on8ent with her husban8 an8 chi28ren 2ive8 with the 8ecease8 at
the 2atters resi8ence !rior anA 8 u! to the ti+e of her 8eath.
The !etitioner in her brief +a3es the fo22owin1 assi1n+ent of errors&
I. The res!on8ent Court of A!!ea2s erre8 in ho28in1 that the 8ocu+ent E:hibit EFE
was e:ecute8 an8 atteste8 as re>uire8 by 2aw when there was abso2ute2y no !roof
that the three instru+enta2 witnesses were cre8ib2e witness
In fine 7e state the ru2e that the instrumenta! $itnesses in Order to e
competent must e sho$n to ha#e the qua!ifications under Artic!e 3*8 of
the Ci#i! Code and none of the disqua!ifications under Artic!e 3*( and for
their testimony to e credi!e, that is $orthy of e!ief and entit!ed to
credence, it is not mandatory that e#idence e first esta!ished on record
that the $itnesses ha#e a good standing in the community or that they
are honest and upright or reputed to e trust$orthy and re!ia!e, for a
person is presumed to e such un!ess the contrary is esta!ished
other$ise% In other wor8s the instru+enta2 witnesses +ust be co+!etent an8
their testi+onies +ust be cre8ib2e before the court a22ows the !robate of the wi22
they have atteste8.
C4UG 1S 1ILLASO4 0. SC4A ,(
/o a!!o$ the notary pu!ic to act as third $itness, or one of the attesting
and ac&no$!edging $itnesses, $ou!d ha#e the effect of ha#ing on!y t$o
attesting $itnesses to the $i!! which wou28 be in contravention of the !rovisions
of Artic2e <0 be re>uirin1 at 2east three cre8ib2e witnesses to act as such an8 of
Artic2e <0/ which re>uires that the testator an8 the re>uire8 nu+ber of witnesses
+ust a!!ear before the notary !ub2ic to ac3now2e81e the wi22. The resu2t wou28 be
as has been sai8 that on2y two witnesses a!!eare8 before the notary !ub2ic for or
that !ur!ose. In the circu+stances the 2aw wou28 not be 8u2y in observe8.
f. =o2o1ra!hic wi22s
4. In 1enera2
Art. <04. Every wi22 +ust be in writin1 an8 e:ecute8 in a 2an1ua1e or 8ia2ect
3nown to the testator. "n#
6. S!ecific re>uire+ents
Art. <40. A !erson may e"ecute a ho!ographic $i!! which +ust be entire!y
$ritten, dated, and signed y the hand of the testator himse!f.
It is subDect to no other for+ an8 may e made in or out of the
)hi!ippines, and need not e $itnessed% "/7< /<<a#
Art. <46. In ho2o1ra!hic wi22s the dispositions of the testator $ritten
e!o$ his signature must e dated and signed y him in or8er to
+a3e the+ va2i8 as testa+entary 8is!ositions. "n#
90
Art. <49. 7hen a numer of dispositions appearing in a ho!ographic $i!!
are signed $ithout eing dated, and the !ast disposition has a
signature and a date, such date #a!idates the dispositions
preceding it whatever be the ti+e of !rior 8is!ositions. "n#
Art. <44. In case of any insertion, cance!!ation, erasure or a!teration in a
ho2o1ra!hic wi22 the testator must authenticate the same y his
fu!! signature. "n#
4OKAS 1S DE DESUS (,. SC4A *.0
)etitioner Simeon 4% 4o"as testified that after his appointment as
administrator, he found a noteoo& e!onging to the deceased 'iiana 4%
de Desus and that on pages *(, **, *, and *. thereof, a !etter7$in
addressed to her chi!dren and entire!y $ritten and signed in the
hand$riting of the deceased 'iiana 4% de Desus $as found% /he $i!! is
dated 6+E'%>F( 6 and states; 6/his is my $in $hich I $ant to e respected
a!though it is not $ritten y a !a$yer% %%%
/he testimony of Simeon 4% 4o"as $as corroorated y the testimonies of
)edro 4o"as de Desus and Aanue! 4o"as de Desus $ho !i&e$ise testified
that the !etter dated 6+E'%>F( 6 is the ho!ographic Wi!! of their deceased
mother, 'iiana 4% de Desus% 'oth recogni@ed the hand$riting of their
mother and positi#e!y Identified her signature% They further testifie8 that their
8ecease8 +other un8erstoo8 En12ish the 2an1ua1e in which the ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 is
written an8 that the 8ate EFE,.K/4 E was the 8ate when sai8 7i22 was e:ecute8 by
their +other.
4espondent Lu@ 4% Eenson, another compu!sory heir fi!ed an 6opposition
to proate6 assai2in1 the !ur!orte8 ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 of ,ibiana (. 8e Cesus because
a it was not e"ecuted in accordance $ith !a$, <= it $as e"ecuted through
force, intimidation and>or under duress, undue inf!uence and improper
pressure, and <c= the a!!eged testatri" acted y mista&e and>or did not
intend, nor cou!d ha#e intended the said Wi!! to e her !ast Wi!! and
testament at the time of its e"ecution%
The on2y issue is whether or not the 8ate EFE,.K/4 E a!!earin1 on the ho2o1ra!hic
7i22 of the 8ecease8 ,ibiana (o:as 8e Cesus is a va2i8 co+!2iance with the Artic2e
<40 of the Civi2 Co8e which rea8s&
A(T. <40. A !erson +ay e:ecute a ho2o1ra!hic wi22 which +ust be entire2y
written 8ate8 an8 si1ne8 by the han8 of the testator hi+se2f. It is
subDect to no other for+ an8 +ay be +a8e in or out of the Phi2i!!ines
an8 nee8 not be witnesse8.
(es!on8ent -uH =enson on the other han8 sub+its that the !ur!orte8 ho2o1ra!hic
7i22 is voi8 for nonAco+!2iance with Artic2e <40 of the New Civi2 Co8e in that the
8ate +ust contain the year +onth an8 8ay of its e:ecution.
7e a1ree with the !etitioner.
94
This wi22 not be the first ti+e that this Court 8e!arts fro+ a strict an8 2itera2
a!!2ication of the statutory re>uire+ents re1ar8in1 the 8ue e:ecution of 7i22s. 7e
shou28 not over2oo3 the 2ibera2 tren8 of the Civi2 Co8e in the +anner of e:ecution of
7i22s the !ur!ose of which in case of 8oubt is to !revent intestacy L
The un8er2yin1 an8 fun8a+enta2 obDectives !er+eatin1 the !rovisions of the 2aw on
wi1s in this ProDect consists in the 2ibera2iHation of the +anner of their e:ecution
with the en8 in view of 1ivin1 the testator +ore free8o+ in e:!ressin1 his 2ast
wishes but with sufficien safe1uar8s an8 restrictions to !revent the co++ission of
frau8 an8 the e:ercise of un8ue an8 i+!ro!er !ressure an8 inf2uence u!on the
testator.
As a genera! ru!e, the 6date6 in a ho!ographic Wi!! shou!d inc!ude the day,
month, and year of its e"ecution% =owever when as in the case at bar there is
no appearance of fraud, ad faith, undue inf!uence and pressure and the
authenticity of the Wi!! is esta!ished an8 the on2y issue is whether or not the
8ate EFE,.K/4E a!!earin1 on the ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 is a va2i8 co+!2iance with Artic2e
<40 of the Civi2 Co8e !robate of the ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 shou28 be a22owe8 un8er the
!rinci!2e of substantia2 co+!2iance.
LALAW 1S 4ELO1A (,* SC4A *,5
On Se!te+ber 4 4*74 !rivate res!on8ent .(E.O(IO $. $A-A7 c2ai+in1 to be the
so2e heir of his 8ecease8 sister Nativi8a8 $. $a2aw fi2e8 a !etition before the Court
of First Instance of ,atan1as ,ranch @I -i!a City for the !robate of her ho2o1ra!hic
7i22 e:ecute8 on %ece+ber 64 4*/<.
The ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 rea8s in fu22 as fo22ows&
'y -ast wi22 an8 Testa+ent
In the na+e of .o8 A+en.
I Nativi8a8 $. $a2aw Fi2i!ino /9years of a1e sin12e an8 a resi8ent of -i!a City bein1
of soun8 an8 8is!osin1 +in8 an8 +e+ory 8o hereby 8ec2are thus to be +y 2ast wi22
an8 testa+ent.
4. It is +y wi22 that IB22 be burrie8 in the ce+etery of the catho2ic church of -i!a City.
In accor8ance with the ri1hts of sai8 Church an8 that +y e:ecutri: hereinafter
na+e8 !rovi8e an8 erect at the e:!ose of +y state a suitab2e +onu+ent to
!er!etuate +y +e+ory.
::: ::: :::
The ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 as first written na+e8 (OSA $. $a2aw a sister of the testatri:
as her so2e heir. =ence on Nove+ber 40 4*74 !etitioner (OSA $. $a2aw o!!ose8
!robate a22e1in1 in substance that the ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 containe8 a2terations
corrections an8 insertions without the !ro!er authentication by the fu22 si1nature of
the testatri: as re>uire8 by Artic2e <44 of the Civi2 Co8e rea8in1&
96
Art. <44. In case of any insertion cance22ation erasure or a2teration in a ho2o1ra!hic
wi22 the testator +ust authenticate the sa+e by his fu22 si1nature.
(OSABs !osition was that the ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 as first written shou28 be 1iven effect
an8 !robate8 so that she cou28 be the so2e heir thereun8er.
Or8inari2y when a nu+ber of erasures corrections an8 inter2ineations +a8e by the
testator in a ho2o1ra!hic 7i22 2ite+ not been note8 un8er his si1nature ... the 7i22 is
not thereby inva2i8ate8 as a who2e but at +ost on2y as res!ects the !articu2ar
wor8s erase8 correcte8 or inter2ine8.4 'anresa 1ave an I8entica2 co++entary
when he sai8 E2a o+ision 8e 2a sa2ve8a8 no anu2a e2 testa+ento se1un 2a re12a 8e
Duris!ru8encia estab2eci8a en 2a sentencia 8e 4 8e Abri2 8e 4<*?.E
Eo$e#er, $hen as in this case, the ho!ographic Wi!! in dispute had on!y
one sustantia! pro#ision, $hich $as a!tered y sustituting the origina!
heir $ith another, ut $hich a!teration did not carry the requisite of fu!!
authentication y the fu!! signature of the testator, the effect +ust be that
the entire 7i22 is voi8e8 or revo3e8 for the si+!2e reason that nothin1 re+ains in
the 7i22 after that which cou28 re+ain va2i8. To state that the 7i22 as first written
shou28 be 1iven efficacy is to 8isre1ar8 the see+in1 chan1e of +in8 of the testatri:.
,ut that chan1e of +in8 can neither be 1iven effect because she fai2e8 to
authenticate it in the +anner re>uire8 by 2aw by affi:in1 her fu22 si1nature
2% (E@OCATION OF 7I--S
a. 7hen effecte8
Art% 3*3% A wi22 +ay be revo3e8 by the testator at any time efore his death%
Any waiver or restriction of this ri1ht is voi8. "797a#
b. -aw 1overnin1 revocation
Art% 3*?% A revocation done outside the )hi!ippines by a !erson who does
not ha#e his domici!e in this country, is #a!id $hen it is done
according to the !a$ of the p!ace $here the $i!! $as made or
99
accor8in1 to the !a$ of the p!ace in $hich the testator had his
domici!e at the ti+e5 an8 if the re#ocation ta&es p!ace in this
country, $hen it is in accordance $ith the pro#isions of this
Code% <n=
c. 'o8es of revocation
Art% 3,8% No wi22 sha22 be revo3e8 e:ce!t in the fo22owin1 cases&
4. ,y imp!ication of !a$5 or
6. ,y so+e $i!!, codici! or other $riting e:ecute8 as
!rovi8e8 in case of wi22s5 or
9. ,y urning, tearing, cance!!ing, or o!iterating the wi22
with the intention of revo3in1 it by the testator hi+se2f or
y some other person in his presence an8 by his
e"press direction. If burne8 torn cance22e8 or ob2iterate8
by so+e other !erson without the e:!ress 8irection of the
testator the wi22 +ay sti22 be estab2ishe8 an8 the estate
8istribute8 in accor8ance therewith if its contents an8 8ue
e:ecution an8 the fact of its unauthoriHe8 8estruction
cance22ation or ob2iteration are estab2ishe8 accor8in1 to the
(u2es of Court. "n#
LI)ANA 1S LI)ANA 58 )EIL 3F0
One E2io8ora -i!ana fi2e8 in the res!on8ent court an a!!2ication for the !robate of a
wi22 su!!ose82y e:ecute8 by the 8ecease8 'anue2a -i!ana a carbon co!y of which
was attache8 to the a!!2ication. Nativi8a8 -i!ana fi2e8 an o!!osition an8 her
Eo!osicion su!2etoriaE she c2ai+e8 that evi8ence was unnecessary u!on the facts
a22e1e8 in the a!!2ication the co!y of the wi22 attache8 thereto showin1 in itse2f
that the wi22 ha8 not been e:ecute8 in accor8ance with 2aw. The res!on8ent court
after ins!ectin1 the co!y of the wi22 8is+isse8 the a!!2ication on the 1roun8 that
such co!y cou28 not be a8+itte8 to !robate it not havin1 been si1ne8 by the
testatri: an8 the attestin1 witnesses at the en8 thereof an8 on the 2eft +ar1in of
each !a1e. It is a1ainst this or8er of 8is+issa2 that the !etition for certiorari has
been fi2e8 with this court.
/here can e no dout that the respondent court acted in e"cess of its
9urisdiction in rendering a 9udgment upon the merits of the case $ithout a
pre#ious hearing. The !ronounce+ent +a8e by the res!on8ent court that the wi22
ha8 not been e:ecute8 in accor8ance with 2aw is founded undouted!y on the
erroneous assumption that the proate of the caron copy of the $i!! $as
eing app!ied for% Such copy $as attached to the app!ication mere!y to
corroorate the a!!egation as to the e"istence of its origina! and not to
esta!ish a fu!! comp!iance $ith the requirements of the !a$ as to the
e"ecution of the $i!!% Such re>uire+ents are a22e1e8 in the a!!2ication to have
been co+!2ie8 with an8 +ay be !rove8 at the hearin1.
94
It is apparent from the app!ication that $hat is sought to e admitted to
proate is the origina! of the $i!!% It is a22e1e8 therein that the ori1ina2 was in
the !ossession of a thir8 !erson or that it was either 2ost or 8estroye8 by so+e
!erson other than the testatri:. Under Section F*, of Act No% (?8, if a $i!! is
sho$n to ha#e een torn y some other person $ithout the e"press
direction of the testator, it may e admitted to proate, if its contents,
due e"ecution and its unauthori@ed destruction are esta!ished y
satisfactory e#idence% The a!!2icant therefore was entit2e8 to hearin1 to !rove
the 8ue e:ecution of the ori1ina2 wi22 an8 its 2oss or 8estruction an8 the res!on8ent
court ha8 no statutory authority to 8is+iss the a!!2ication without such hearin1.
2A2O 1S AAAUCAC .? )EIL ?8*
The !ur!ose of this action was to obtain the !robation of a 2ast wi22 an8
testa+ent of 'i1ue2 'a+uyac.
It a!!ears fro+ the recor8 that on or about the 67th 8ay of Cu2y 4*4< the sai8
'i1ue2 'a+uyac e:ecute8 a 2ast wi22 an8 testa+ent.
Francisco .a1o !resente8 a !etition for the !robation of that wi22.
The !robation of the sa+e was o!!ose8 by Corne2io 'a+uyac A+brosio -ariosa
Fe2iciana ,auHon an8 Cata2ina 'a+uyac.
After hearin1 a22 of the !arties the !etition for the !robation of sai8 wi22 was
8enie8 u!on the 1roun8 that the 8ecease8 ha8 on the 4/th 8ay of A!ri2 4*4*
e:ecute8 a new wi22 an8 testa+ent.
On the 64st 8ay of February 4*6? the !resent action was co++ence8 to secure
the !robation of the sai8 wi22 of the 4/th 8ay of A!ri2 4*4*.
To sai8 !etition Corne2io 'a+uyac A+brosio -ariosa Fe2iciana ,auHon an8
Cata2ina 'a+uyac !resente8 their o!!ositions a22e1in1 "a# that the sai8 $i!! is
a copy of the second $i!! and testament e:ecute8 by the sai8 'i1ue2
'a+uyac5 "b# that the same had een cance!!ed and re#o&ed during the
!ifetime of 'i1ue2 'a+uyac an8 "c# that the said $i!! $as not the !ast $i!!
and testament of the 8ecease8 'i1ue2 'a+uyac.
The a!!e22ant conten8s that the 2ower court co++itte8 an error&
in not fin8in1 fro+ the evi8ence that the $i!! in question had een e"ecuted
$ith a!! the forma!ities required y the !a$5
that the same had een re#o&ed and cance!!ed in 4*60 before his 8eath5
that the said $i!! $as a mere caron copy and that the oppositors $ere
not estopped fro+ a22e1in1 that fact.
=e28&
With reference to the said cance!!ation, it may e stated that there is
positi#e proof, not denied, $hich $as accepted y the !o$er court, that
$i!! in question had een cance!!ed in (?*8% /he !a$ does not require
any e#idence of the re#ocation or cance!!ation of a $i!! to e preser#ed%
It therefore becomes $ifficult at times to pro4e the re4ocation or cancellation of
wills) The fact that such cancellation or re4ocation has ta2en place must either
9?
remain unpro4e$ of be inferre$ from e4i$ence showing that after $ue search the
original will cannot be foun$)
Where a $i!! $hich cannot e found is sho$n to ha#e een in the
possession of the testator, $hen !ast seen, the presumption is, in the
asence of other competent e#idence, that the same $as cance!!ed or
destroyed% /he same presumption arises $here it is sho$n that the
testator had ready access to the $i!! and it cannot e found after his
death% It will not be presume$ that such will has been $estroye$ by any other
person without the 2nowle$ge or authority of the testator) The force of the
presumption of cancellation or re4ocation by the testator, while 4arying greatly,
being wea2 or strong accor$ing to the circumstances, is ne4er conclusi4e, but
may be o4ercome by proof that the will was not $estroye$ by the testator with
intent to re4o2e it)
In a proceeding to proate a $i!! the urden of proofs is upon the
proponent c!ear!y to esta!ish not on!y its e"ecution ut its e"istence%
Ea#ing pro#ed its e"ecution y the proponents, the urden is on the
contestant to sho$ that it has een re#o&ed% In a great ma;ority of
instances in which wills are $estroye$ for the purpose of re4o2ing them there is
no witness to the act of cancellation or $estruction an$ all e4i$ence of its
cancellation perish with the testator)
Copies of $i!!s shou!d e admitted y the courts $ith great caution%
When it is pro#en, ho$e#er, y proper testimony that a $i!! $as
e"ecuted in dup!icate and each copy $as e"ecuted $ith a!! the
forma!ities and requirements of the !a$, then the dup!icate may e
admitted in e#idence $hen it is made to appear that the origina! has
een !ost and $as not cance!!ed or destroyed y the testator%
AALO/O 1S CA (0, SC4A .0(
On October 60 4*/9 A8riana 'a2oto 8ie8 2eavin1 as heirs her niece an8
ne!hews the !etitioners A28ina 'a2otoACasiano an8 Constancio 'a2oto an8 the
!rivate res!on8ents Panfi2o 'a2oto an8 Fe2ino 'a2oto.
,e2ievin1 that the 8ecease8 8i8 not 2eave behin8 a 2ast wi22 an8 testa+ent these
four heirs co++ence8 on Nove+ber 4 4*/9 an intestate !rocee8in1 for the
sett2e+ent of their auntBs estate.
Three years 2ater or so+eti+e in 'arch 4*/7 Atty. Su2!icio Pa2+a a for+er
associate of A8rianaBs counse2 the 2ate Atty. E2iseo =ervas 8iscovere8 a
8ocu+ent entit2e8 E$ATAPUSAN N.A PA.,U,U-ATAAN "Testa+ento#E 8ate8
Canuary 94*40 an8 !ur!ortin1 to be the 2ast wi22 an8 testa+ent of A8riana.
Atty. Pa2+a c2ai+e8 to have foun8 the testa+ent the ori1ina2 co!y whi2e he was
1oin1 throu1h so+e +ateria2s insi8e the cabinet 8rawer for+er2y use8 by Atty.
=ervas.
7hi2e Panfi2o an8 Fe2ino are sti22 na+e8 as heirs in the sai8 wi22 A28ina an8
Constancio are be>ueathe8 +uch bi11er an8 +ore va2uab2e shares in the estate
of A8riana than what they receive8 by virtue of the a1ree+ent of e:traDu8icia2
sett2e+ent they ha8 ear2ier si1ne8.
The wi22 2i3ewise 1ives 8evises an8 2e1acies to other !arties.
9/
Significant!y, the appe!!ate court whi2e fin8in1 as inconc2usive the +atter on
whether or not the 8ocu+ent or !a!ers a22e1e82y burne8 by the househe2! of
A8riana .ua8a2u!e 'a2oto @8a. 8e Cora2 u!on instructions of the testatri: was
in8ee8 the wi22 contradicted itse!f and found that the $i!! had een
re#o&ed.
The res!on8ent court state8 that the presence of animus re#ocandi in the
destruction of the $i!! had, ne#erthe!ess, een sufficient!y pro#en%
The a!!e22ate court base8 its fin8in1 on the facts that&
The 8ocu+ent was not in the two safes in A8rianaBs resi8ence
,y the testatri: 1oin1 to the resi8ence of Atty. =ervas to retrieve a
co!y of the wi22 2eft in the 2atterBs !ossession an8
=er see3in1 the services of Atty. Pa2+a in or8er to have a new wi22
8rawn u!
=e28&
There is no 8oubt as to the testa+entary ca!acity of the testatri: an8 the 8ue
e:ecution of the wi22. The heart of the case 2ies on the issue as to whether or not
the wi22 was revo3e8 by A8riana.
The !rovisions of the new Civi2 Co8e !ertinent to the issue can be foun8 in Artic2e <90.
Art. <90. No wi22 sha22 be revo3e8 e:ce!t in the fo22owin1 cases&
"4# ,y i+!2ication of 2aw5 or
"6# ,y so+e wi22 co8ici2 or other writin1 e:ecute8 as !rovi8e8 in case of wi22s& or
"9# ,y burnin1 tearin1 cance22in1 or ob2iteratin1 the wi22 with the intention of revo3in1 it by the
testator hi+se2f or by so+e other !erson in his !resence an8 by his e:!ress 8irection. If burne8 torn
cance22e8 or ob2iterate8 by so+e other !erson without the e:!ress 8irection of the testator the wi22
+ay sti22 be estab2ishe8 an8 the estate 8istribute8 in accor8ance therewith if its contents an8 8ue
e:ecution an8 the fact of its unauthoriHe8 8estruction cance22ation or ob2iteration are estab2ishe8
accor8in1 to the (u2es of Court. "E+!hasis Su!!2ie8.#
It is c2ear that the !hysica2 act of 8estruction of a wi22 2i3e urning in this
case, does not per se constitute an effecti#e re#ocation, un!ess the
destruction is coup!ed $ith animus re#ocandi on the part of the
testator%
It is not imperati#e that the physica! destruction e done y the testator
himse!f% It may e performed y another person ut under the e"press
direction and in the presence of the testator% Of course it 1oes without
sayin1 that the document destroyed must e the $i!! itse!f%
Animus re#ocandi is on!y one of the necessary e!ements for the
effecti#e re#ocation of a !ast $i!! and testament% /he intention to
re#o&e must e accompanied y the o#ert physica! act of urning,
tearing, o!iterating, or cance!!ing the $i!! carried out y the testator or
y another person in his presence and under his e"press direction%
There is paucity of e4i$ence to show compliance with these re5uirements) For
one, the $ocument or papers burne$ by +$riana<s mai$, =ua$alupe, was not
satisfactorily establishe$ to be a will at all, much less the will of +$riana ,aloto)
For another, the burning was not pro4en to ha4e been $one un$er the e>press
97
$irection of +$riana) +n$ then, the burning was not in her presence) *oth
witnesses, =ua$alupe an$ Ela$io, were one in stating that they were the only
ones present at the place where the sto4e /presumably in the 2itchen1 was
locate$ in which the papers proffere$ as a will were burne$)
At this 9uncture, $e reiterate that 6<it= is an important matter of pu!ic
interest that a purported $in is not denied !ega!i@ation on duious
grounds% Other$ise, the #ery institution of testamentary succession
$i!! e sha&en to its #ery foundations %%%%6
8. %octrine of 8e!en8ent re2ative revocation
AOLO 1S AOLO ?8 )EIL ,5
FACTS&
'ariano 'o2o 8ie8 on Canuary 64 4*44 without 2eavin1 any force8 heir either in
the 8escen8in1 or ascen8in1 2ine.
=is wife Cuana 'o2o "!etitioner# survive8 hi+ an8 by his nieces an8 ne!hew -uH
.2iceria an8 Corne2io a22 surna+e8 'o2o "o!!ositorsAa!!e22ants#.
O!!ositors G a!!e22ants were the 2e1iti+ate chi28ren of a 8ecease8 brother of the
testator.
'ariano 2eft two wi22s one e:ecute8 on Au1ust 47 4*4< an8 another e:ecute8
on Cune 60 4*9*
In both the 4*4< an8 4*9* wi22s Cuana was institute8 as his universa2 heir.
The 2atter wi22 contains a c2ause which e:!ress2y revo3es the wi22 e:ecute8 in
4*4<.
Cuana 'o2o fi2e8 in the CFI a !etition see3in1 the !robate of the wi22 e:ecute8 in
4*9*.
The court ren8ere8 a 8ecision 8enyin1 the !robate of sai8 wi22 on the 1roun8
that the !etitioner fai2e8 to !rove that the sa+e was e:ecute8 in accor8ance
with 2aw.
In view of the 8isa22owance of the wi22 the wi8ow fi2e8 another !etition for the
!robate of the wi22 e:ecute8 by the 8ecease8 on Au1ust 4< 4*4<.
The o!!ositors fi2e8 an o!!osition to the !etition conten8in1 that
notwithstan8in1 the 8isa22owance of the 4*9* wi22 the revocatory c2ause is va2i8
an8 sti22 has the effect of nu22ifyin1 the !rior wi22 of 4*4<.
-i3ewise re1ar82ess of the revocatory c2ause sai8 wi22 of 4*4< cannot sti22 be
1iven effect because of the !resu+!tion that the testator hi+se2f 8e2iberate2y
revo3e8 it.
The wi22 of 4*4< was a8+itte8 to !robate.
=ence this a!!ea2.
ISSUE&
7as the a8+ittance into !robate !ro!erI
7hat is the 8octrine of 8e!en8ent re2ative revocationI
=E-%&
9<
A susequent $i!! containing a c!ause re#o&ing a pre#ious $i!!, ha#ing
een disa!!o$ed, for the reason that it $as not e"ecuted in conformity
$ith the pro#isions of !a$ as to the ma&ing of $i!!s, cannot produce the
effect of annu!!ing the pre#ious $i!!, inasmuch as said re#ocatory c!ause is
#oid%
The doctrine of dependent re!ati#e re#ocation is usua22y app!ied $here the
testator cance!s or destroys a $i!! or e"ecuted an instrument intended to
re#o&e a $i!! $ith a present intention to ma&e a ne$ testamentary
disposition as a sustitute for the o!d an8 the ne$ disposition is not made
or, if made, fai!s to effect for same reason%
/he fai!ure of the ne$ testamentary disposition, upon $hose #a!idity the
re#ocation depends, is equi#a!ent to the non7fu!fi!!ment of a suspensi#e
condition, and hence pre#ents the re#ocation of the origina! $i!!% ,ut a
+ere intent to +a3e at so+e ti+e a wi22 in !2ace of that 8estroye8 wi22 8oes not
ren8er the 8estruction con8itiona2. It must appear that the re#ocation is
dependent upon the #a!id e"ecution of a ne$ $i!!%
Even in the su!!osition that the 8estruction of the ori1ina2 wi22 by the testator cou28
be !resu+e8 fro+ the fai2ure of the !etitioner to !ro8uce it in court such
8estruction cannot have the effect of 8efeatin1 the !rior wi22 of 4*4< because of the
fact that it is founded on the mista&en e!ief that the $i!! of (?,? has een
#a!id!y e"ecuted and $ou!d e gi#en due effect%
The theory on which the P!rinci!2e of 8e!en8ent re2ative revocation P is !re8icate8
on that the testator 8i8 not inten8 to 8ie intestate. An8 this intention is c2ear2y
+anifest when he e:ecute8 two wi22s on 8ifferent occasions an8 institute8 his wife
as his universa2 heir. There can therefore be no +ista3e as to his intention of 8yin1
testate.
Doctrine of dependent re!ati#e re#ocation ? the re4ocation by $estruction or
o4ert act was goo$ only if this con$ition is fulfille$, namely, that the re4o2ing will
was 4ali$) The con8itione8 was not fu2fi22e85 therefore the revocation by overt act
8i8 not rea22y +ateria2iHe.
E% INSTITUTION OF =EI(S
a. %efinition
Art% 3.8% Institution of heir is an act by virtue of which a testator designates
in his $i!! the person or persons $ho are to succeed him in his
!ro!erty an8 trans+issib2e ri1hts an8 ob2i1ations. "n#
b. If wi22 institutes no heirs
Art% 3.(% A $i!! sha!! e #a!id e#en though it shou!d not contain an
institution of an heir, or such institution shou!d not comprise
the entire estate an8 even thou1h the person so instituted
9*
shou!d not accept the inheritance or shou28 e incapacitated to
succee8.
In such cases the testa+entary 8is!ositions +a8e in accor8ance with
2aw sha22 be co+!2ie8 with an8 the re+ain8er of the estate sha22 !ass
to the 2e1a2 heirs. "7/4#
c. 'anner of 8esi1nation of heir
Art% 3.,% The testator sha22 designate the heir y his name and surname
an8 $hen there are t$o persons ha#ing the same names, he
sha!! indicate some circumstance by which the institute8 heir +ay
be 3nown.
E#en though the testator may ha#e omitted the name of the
heir shou!d he designate him in such manner that there can e
no dout as to $ho has een instituted the institution sha22 be
va2i8. "776#
CrossAreference&
Art% 53?% 7hen there is an imperfect description, or $hen no person or
property e"act!y ans$ers the description, mista&es and
omissions must e corrected, if the error appears from the
conte"t of the $i!! or from e"trinsic e#idence e:c2u8in1 the ora2
8ec2arations of the testator as to his intention5 and $hen an
uncertainty arises upon the face of the $i!! as to the a!!2ication
of any of its !rovisions the testator:s intention is to e
ascertained from the $ords of the $i!2 ta&ing into
consideration the circumstances un8er which it was +a8e
e:c2u8in1 such ora2 8ec2arations. "n#
I% SU,STITUTION OF =EI(S
a. Conce!t
Art% 305% Sustitution is the appointment of another heir so that he +ay
enter into the inheritance in 8efau2t of the heir ori1ina22y institute8. "n#
Art% 303% Substitution of heirs +ay be&
(% Simp!e or common-
*% 'rief or compendious-
,% 4eciproca!- or
.% +ideicommissary% <n=
40
4. Si+!2e substitution
Art% 30?% The testator may designate one or more persons to substitute the
heir or heirs institute8 in case such heir or heirs shou!d die efore
him or shou!d not $ish or shou28 e incapacitated to acce!t the
inheritance.
A si+!2e substitution without a state+ent of the cases to which it
refers sha22 co+!rise the three +entione8 in the !rece8in1 !ara1ra!h
un2ess the testator has otherwise !rovi8e8. "774#
6. ,rief or co+!en8ious
Art% 3F8% /$o or more persons may e sustituted for one- and one
person for t$o or more heirs% <553=
9. (eci!roca2
Art% 3F(% If heirs instituted in unequa! shares shou!d e reciproca!!y
sustituted the sustitute sha!! acquire the share of the heir
$ho dies, renounces, or is incapacitated un2ess it c2ear2y a!!ears
that the intention of the testator was otherwise. If there are more
than one sustitute they sha22 have the same share in the
sustitution as in the institution. "77*a#
4. Fi8eico++issary
Art% 3F,% A fi8eico++issary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or
first heir instituted is entrusted $ith the o!igation to preser#e
and to transmit to a second heir the $ho!e or part of the
inheritance sha22 be va2i8 an8 sha22 ta3e effect !rovi8e8 such
substitution does not go eyond one degree from the heir
origina!!y instituted an8 !rovi8e8 further that the fiduciary or
first heir and the second heir are !i#ing at the time of the
death of the testator. "7<4a#
Art% 3F.% A fi8eico++issary substitution can ne#er urden the !egitime.
"7<6a#
Art% 3F0% Every fi8eico++issary substitution must e e"press!y made in
order that it may e #a!id.
/he fiduciary sha!! e o!iged to de!i#er the inheritance to the
second heir $ithout other deductions than those $hich arise
from !egitimate e"penses cre8its an8 i+!rove+ents save in the
case where the testator has !rovi8e8 otherwise. "7<9#
Art% 3FF. The secon8 heir sha22 ac>uire a ri1ht to the succession fro+ the ti+e of
the testatorBs 8eath, e#en though he shou!d die efore the
fiduciary. The ri1ht of the secon8 heir sha!! pass to his heirs. "7<4#
44
Art% 3F5% The fo22owin1 sha22 not ta3e effect&
4. +ideicommissary sustitutions $hich are not made in an
e"press manner either by 1ivin1 the+ this na+e or imposing
upon the fiduciary the aso!ute o!igation to de!i#er the
property to a second heir5
6. )ro#isions $hich contain a perpetua! prohiition to
a!ienate an8 even a te+!orary one beyon8 the 2i+it fi:e8 in
artic2e </95
9. Those which impose upon the heir the charge of paying to
#arious persons successi#e!y beyon8 the 2i+it !rescribe8 in
artic2e </9 a certain inco+e or !ension5
4. Those $hich !ea#e to a person the $ho!e part of the
hereditary property in order that he may app!y or in#est the
same according to secret instructions communicated to him
y the testator. "7<?a#
Art% 3F3% The nu!!ity of the fi8eico++issary substitution does not pre9udice
the #a!idity of the institution of the heirs first designated5 the
fi8eico++issary c2ause sha22 si+!2y be considered as not $ritten.
"7</#
Art% 3F?% A !rovision whereby the testator !ea#es to a person the $ho!e or
part of the inheritance, and to another the usufruct, sha!! e
#a!id. If he 1ives the usufruct to various !ersons not si+u2taneous2y
but successive2y the !rovisions of Artic2e </9 sha22 a!!2y. "7<7a#
)CI' 1S ESCOLIN 0F SC4A *FF
The substitution !rovi8e8 for by !ara1ra!h four of the 7i22 of -innie Cane =o81es is
not fi8eico++issary substitution because there is c2ear2y no ob2i1ation on the !art
of C. N. =o81es as the first heir 8esi1nate8 to !reserve the !ro!erties for the
substitute heirs.
4AAI4EG 1S 4AAI4EG ((( SC4A 58.
The +ain issue in this a!!ea2 is the +anner of partitioning the testate estate of
Dose Eugenio 4amire@ among the principa! eneficiaries, name!y; his
$ido$ Aarce!!e Demoron de 4amire@- his t$o grandnephe$s 4oerto and
Dorge 4amire@5 an8 his companion Wanda de Wro!es&i.
The tas3 is not troub2eAfree because the $ido$ Aarce!!e is a +rench $ho !i#es
in )aris whi2e the companion Wanda is an Austrian $ho !i#es in Spain.
'oreover the testator !rovi8e8 for substitutions.
46
Dose Eugenio 4amire@, a +i!ipino nationa!, died in Spain on %ece+ber 44
4*/4 $ith on!y his $ido$ as compu!sory heir. =is $i!! $as admitted to
proate y the Court of +irst Instance of Aani!a ,ranch ; on Cu2y 67 4*/?.
Aaria Luisa )a!acios $as appointed administratri" of the estate.
On Cune 69 4*//, the administratri" sumitted a pro9ect of partition as
fo22ows& the !ro!erty of the 8ecease8 is to e di#ided into t$o parts. One part
sha!! go to the $ido$ :en p!eno dominioE in satisfaction of her !egitime5 the
other part or 6free portion6 sha!! go to Dorge and 4oerto 4amire@ Een nu8a
!ro!rie8a8.E Further+ore one third <(>,= of the free portion is char1e8 with the
$ido$:s usufruct an8 the remaining t$o7thirds <*>,= $ith a usufruct in
fa#or of Wanda.
Cor1e an8 (oberto o!!ose8 the !roDect of !artition on the 1roun8s& "a# that the
pro#isions for #u!gar sustitution in fa#or of Wanda de Wro!es&i $ith
respect to the $ido$:s usufruct and in fa#or of Duan )a!o Dan&o$s&i and
Eoracio 1% 4amire@, $ith respect to Wanda:s usufruct are in#a!id ecause
the first heirs Aarce!!e and Wanda= sur#i#ed the testator- "b# that the
pro#isions for fideicommissary sustitutions are a!so in#a!id ecause the
first heirs are not re!ated to the second heirs or sustitutes $ithin the
first degree, as pro#ided in Artic!e 3F, of the Ci#i! Code-
4. /he appe!!ant:s do not question the !ega!ity of gi#ing Aarce!!e one7ha!f
of the estate in fu!! o$nership. They a8+it that the testatorBs 8is!ositions
i+!aire8 his wi8owBs 2e1iti+e. In8ee8 un8er Art. *00 of the Civi2 Co8e EIf the
on2y survivor is the wi8ow or wi8ower she or he sha22 be entit2e8 to oneAha2f of
the here8itary estate.E
6. It is the one7third usufruct o#er the free portion $hich the appe!!ants
question and 9ustifia!y so% It appears that the court a quo appro#ed
the usufruct in fa#or of Aarce!!e ecause the testament pro#ides for a
usufruct in her fa#or of one7third of the estate% To 1ive 'arce22e +ore than
her 2e1iti+e wi22 run counter to the testatorBs intention for as state8 above his
8is!ositions even i+!aire8 her 2e1iti+e an8 ten8e8 to favor 7an8a.
9. They a22e1e that the substitution in its vu21ar as!ect as voi8 because 7an8a
survive8 the testator or state8 8ifferent2y because she 8i8 not !re8ecease the
testator. 'ut dying efore the testator is not the on!y case for #u!gar
sustitution for it a!so inc!udes refusa! or incapacity to accept the
inheritance as pro#ided in Art% 30? of the Ci#i! Code, supra% Eence, the
#u!gar sustitution is #a!id%
4. The substitutes "Cuan Pab2o Can3ows3i an8 =orace @. (a+ireH# are not re2ate8 to
7an8a the heir ori1ina22y institute8. Art. </9 of the Civi2 Co8e va2i8ates a
fi8eico++issary substitution E!rovi8e8 such substitution 8oes not 1o beyon8
one 8e1ree fro+ the heir ori1ina22y institute8.E
7hat is +eant by Eone 8e1reeE fro+ the first heir is e:!2aine8 by To2entino as
fo22ows&
Scaevo2a 'aura an8 Traviesas construe E8e1reeE as 8esi1nation substitution or trans+ission.
The Su!re+e Court of S!ain has 8eci8e82y a8o!te8 this construction. Fro+ this !oint of view there
can be on2y one tran+ission or substitution an8 the substitute nee8 not be re2ate8 to the first heir.
49
'anresa 'ore22 an8 SancheH (o+an however construe the wor8 E8e1reeE as 1eneration an8 the
!resent Co8e has obvious2y fo22owe8 this inter!retation. by !rovi8in1 that the substitution sha22 not
1o beyon8 one 8e1ree Efro+ the heir ori1ina22y institute8.E The Co8e thus c2ear2y in8icates that the
secon8 heir +ust be re2ate8 to an8 be one 1eneration fro+ the first heir.
+rom this, it fo!!o$s that the fideicommissary can on!y e either a chi!d
or a parent of the first heir% /hese are the on!y re!ati#es $ho are one
generation or degree from the fiduciary <Op% cit%, pp% (?,7(?.%=
?. There is no abso2ute 8uty i+!ose8 on 7an8a to trans+it the usufruct to the
substitutes as re>uire8 by Arts. </? an8 </7 of the Civi2 Co8e. In fact the
a!!e22ee a8+its Ethat the testator contra8icts the estab2ish+ent of a
fi8eico++issary substitution when he !er+its the !ro!erties subDect of the
usufruct to be so28 u!on +utua2 a1ree+ent of the usufructuaries an8 the na3e8
owners.E ",rief !. 6/.#
)E4EG 1S 2A4CEI/O4ENA 0. )EIL .,(
44
The a+ount of P6446<.?< is on 8e!osit in the !2aintiffBs na+e with the
association 3nown as -a Urbana in 'ani2a as the fina2 !ay+ent of the 2i>ui8ate8
cre8it of Ana 'aria A2cantara 8ecease8 whose heiress is sai8 !2aintiff.
'ariano .architorena he28 a Du81+ent for P7<76.69 a1ainst Coa>uin PereH
A2cantara husban8 of the !2aintiff Car+en .. 8e PereH the sheriff !ursuant to
the writ of e:ecution issue8 in sai8 Du81+ent 2evie8 an attach+ent on sai8
a+ount.
The !2aintiff a22e1in1 that sai8 8e!osit be2on1s to the fi8eico++issary heirs
of the 8ece8ent Ana 'aria A2cantara secure8 a !re2i+inary inDunction.
The 8efen8ants conten8 that the !2aintiff is the 8ece8entBs universa2 heiress
an8 !ray for the 8isso2ution of the inDunction.
Issue& whether such 8e!osit be2on1s to the fi8eico++issary heirs.
(u2in1&
The c2auses of sai8 wi22 re2evant to the !oints in 8is!ute between the !arties are
the ninth tenth an8 e2eventh >uote8 be2ow&
Ninth. Qthat she may en9oy them $ith 2od:s !essing and my o$n%
Tenth. Shou!d my heiress Carmen 2architorena die, I order that my $ho!e estate sha!! pass unimpaired
to her sur#i#ing chi!dren- Mmy estate sha!! ne#er pass out of the hands of my heiress or her chi!dren in
so far as it is !ega!!y possi!e%
E2eventh. Shou!d my aforesaid heiress, Carmen 2architorena, die after me $hi!e her chi!dren are sti!! in
their minority, I order that my estate e administered y my e"ecutri", Ars% Dosefa Lap!ana, and in her
defau!t, y Attorney 4amon Sa!inas and in his defau!t, y his son 4amon Sa!inas-
/he disposition contained in c!ause IK, that said heiress sha!! recei#e
and en9oy the estate, is not incompati!e $ith a fideicommissary
sustitution <it certain!y is incompati!e $ith the idea of simp!e
sustitution, $here the heiress instituted does not recei#e the
inheritance=%
/he i!!ustrious Aanresa, in his Ci#i! Code <1o!% F, pp% (.* and (.,, 0th ed%=, says;
Or, $hat amounts to the same thing, the fideicommissary sustitution, as he!d in the
4eso!ution of Dune *0, (3?0, +eruary (8, (3??, and Du!y (?, (?8?, requires three things;
(% A first heir ca!!ed primari!y to the en9oyment of the estate%
*% An o!igation c!ear!y imposed upon him to preser#e and transmit to a third person the
$ho!e or a part of the estate%
,% A second heir%
/o these requisites, the decision of No#emer (3, (?(3 adds another, name!y that the
fideicommissarius e entit!ed to the estate from the time the testator dies, since he is to
inherit from the !atter and not from the fiduciary% <Emphasis ours%=
It shou!d a!so e noted that said c!ause IK #ests in the heiress on!y the
right to en9oy ut not the right to dispose of the estate% It says she +ay
enDoy it but 8oes not say she +ay 8is!ose of it. This is an in8ication of the
usufruct inherent in fi8eico++issary substitution.
Another c!ear and outstanding indication of fideicommissary
sustitution in c!ause K is the pro#ision that the $ho!e estate sha!! pass
unimpaired to the heiress:s chi!dren that is to say the heiress is re>uire8 to
4?
!reserve the who2e estate without 8i+inution in or8er to !ass it on in 8ue ti+e
to the fi8eico++issary heirs.
Last!y, c!ause KI more c!ear!y indicates the idea of fideicommissary
sustitution, $hen a pro#ision is therein made in the e#ent the heiress
shou!d die after the testatri"% That is said c!ause anticipates the case
$here the instituted heiress shou!d die after the testatri" an8 after
receivin1 an8 enDoyin1 the inheritance.
'y #irtue of this consequence, the inheritance in question does not
e!ong to the heiress instituted, the p!aintiff herein, as her aso!ute
property, ut to her chi!dren, from the moment of the death of the
testatri", Ana Aaria A!cantara%
C4ISOLO2O 1S SIN2SON .? SC4A .?(
Action for !artition co++ence8 by the s!ouses Conso2acion F2orentino an8
Francisco Criso2o1o a1ainst 'anue2 Sin1son in connection with a resi8entia2 2ot
2ocate8 a P2ari8e2 St. @i1an I2ocos Sur.
Their co+!2aint a22e1e8 that Sin1son owne8 oneAha2f !roAin8iviso of sai8
!ro!erty an8 that Conso2acion F2orentino owne8 the other ha2f by virtue of the
!rovisions of the 8u2y !robate8 2ast wi22 of %Ra. -eona Sin1son the ori1ina2
owner.
%efen8antBs 8efense was that Conso2acion F2orentino was a +ere usufructuary
of an8 not owner of oneAha2f !roAin8iviso of the !ro!erty in >uestion an8 that
therefore she was not entit2e8 to 8e+an8 !artition thereof.
=e28&
It is c2ear that the !articu2ar testa+entary c2ause un8er consi8eration !rovi8es
for a substitution of the heir na+e8 therein in this +anner& that u!on the 8eath
of Conso2acion F2orentino L whether this occurs before or after that of the
testatri: L the !ro!erty be>ueathe8 to her sha22 be 8e2ivere8 "Ese 8araE# or sha22
be2on1 in e>ua2 !arts to the testatri:Bs three brothers Evaristo 'anue2 an8
%ionisio or their force8 heirs shou28 anyone of the+ 8ie ahea8 of Conso2acion
F2orentino.
A carefu! perusa! of the testamentary c!ause under consideration sho$s
that the sustitution of heirs pro#ided for therein is not e"press!y made
of the fideicommissary &ind, nor does it contain a c!ear statement to
the effect that appe!!ee, during her !ifetime, sha!! on!y en9oy
usufructuary rights o#er the property equeathed to her na3e8
ownershi! thereof bein1 veste8 in the brothers of the testatri:. As a2rea8y
state8 it +ere2y !rovi8es that u!on a!!e22eeBs 8eath L whether this ha!!ens
before or after that of the testatri: L her share sha22 be2on1 to the brothers of
the testatri:.
D% -E.ITI'E
4. CONCEPT
4/
Art% 33F% -e1iti+e is that part of the testator:s property $hich he cannot
dispose of because the !a$ has reser#ed it for certain heirs who
are therefore ca!!ed compu!sory heirs. "<0/#
6. 7ho are entit2e8
Art% 335% The fo22owin1 are compu!sory heirs&
4. Legitimate chi!dren and descendants with res!ect to their
!egitimate parents an8 ascendants5
6. In 8efau2t of the fore1oin1 !egitimate parents and ascendants
with res!ect to their !egitimate chi!dren and descendants5
9. /he $ido$ or $ido$er5
4. Ac&no$!edged natura! chi!dren, and natura! chi!dren by
2e1a2 fiction5
?. Other i!!egitimate chi!dren referre8 to in Artic2e 6<7.
Co+!u2sory heirs +entione8 in Nos. 9 4 an8 ? are not e:c2u8e8 by
those in Nos. 4 an8 65 neither 8o they e:c2u8e one another.
In a22 cases of i!!egitimate chi!dren their fi!iation must e du!y
pro#ed.
The father or +other of i22e1iti+ate chi28ren of the three c2asses
+entione8 sha22 inherit fro+ the+ in the +anner an8 to the e:tent
estab2ishe8 by this Co8e. "<07a#
Art% ?8*% The rights of i!!egitimate chi!dren set forth in the !rece8in1 artic2es
are transmitted upon their death to their descendants whether
2e1iti+ate or i22e1iti+ate. "<49a#
4OSALES 1S 4OSALES (.3 SC4A F?
'rs. Petra @. (osa2es a resi8ent of Cebu City 8ie8 intestate. She was survive8
by her husban8 Fortunate T. (osa2es an8 their two "6# chi28ren 'a1na (osa2es
Acebes an8 Antonio (osa2es. Another chi28 Carterio (osa2es !re8ecease8 her
2eavin1 behin8 a chi28 'aci3e>uero: (osa2es an8 his wi8ow Irenea C. (osa2es
the herein !etitioner.
Irenea 4osa!es insisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity
as the sur#i#ing spouse of the !ate Carterio 4osa!es, son of the
deceased c2ai+in1 that she is a co+!u2sory heir of her +otherAinA2aw to1ether
with her son 'aci3e>uero: (osa2es.
ISSUE&
Is a wi8ow "survivin1 s!ouse# an intestate heir of her +otherAinA2awI
47
=E-%&
Our answer to the first >uestion is in the ne1ative.
/he sur#i#ing spouse is considered a third person as regards the
estate of the parent7in7!a$%
Intestate or 2e1a2 heirs are c2assifie8 into two "6# 1rou!s na+e2y those who
inherit by their own ri1ht an8 those who inherit by the ri1ht of re!resentation.
(estate8 an intestate heir can on!y inherit either y his o$n right as in
the or8er of intestate succession !rovi8e8 for in the Civi2 Co8e or y the right
of representation !rovi8e8 for in Artic!e ?3( of the sa+e 2aw.
Artic!e ?5( e"p!icit!y dec!ares that Aaci&equero" 4osa!es is ca!!ed to
succession y !a$ ecause of his !ood re!ationship% =e does not
succeed his father Carterio (osa2es "the !erson re!resente8# who
!re8ecease8 his 1ran8+other Petra (osa2es ut the !atter $hom his father
$ou!d ha#e succeeded.
)etitioner cannot assert the same right of representation as she has
no fi!iation y !ood $ith her mother7in7!a$%
Petitioner ar1ues that she is a co+!u2sory heir in accor8ance with the
!rovisions of Artic2e <<7 of the Civi2 Co8e. /he aforesaid pro#ision of !a$
refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in $hich case the sur#i#ing
spouse <$ido$ or $ido$er= is a compu!sory heir% It 8oes not a!!2y to the
estate of a !arentAinA2aw.
LAU4O 1IGCONDE 1S CA
PetitionerBs wife Estre22ita is one of the five sib2in1s of s!ouses (afae2 Nico2as
an8 Sa2u8 .onHa2esANico2as. The other chi28ren of (afae2 an8 Sa2u8 are Antonio
Nico2as5 (a+on Nico2as5 Teresita Nico2as 8e -eon an8 (icar8o Nico2as an
inco+!etent. Antonio !re8ecease8 his !arents an8 is now survive8 by his wi8ow
Jenai8a an8 their four chi28ren.
Estre22ita !urchase8 fro+ (afae2 a !arce2 of 2an8 with an area of 40440 s>. +.
2ocate8 at @a2enHue2a ,u2acan. Estre22ita so28 the @a2enHue2a !ro!erty to A+e2ia
-i+ an8 'aria Nativi8a8 ,a2ictar Chiu for Three 'i22ion Four =un8re8 Five
Thousan8 Si: =un8re8 Twe2ve Pesos "P940?/46.00#.
In Cune of the sa+e year Estre22ita bou1ht fro+ Pre+ier =o+es Inc. a !arce2 of
2an8 with i+!rove+ents situate8 at @inHon St. ,F =o+es ParaRa>ue "hereafter
ParaRa>ue !ro!erty# usin1 a !ortion of the !rocee8s of sa2e of the @a2enHue2a
!ro!erty. The re+ainin1 a+ount of the !rocee8s was use8 in buyin1 a car whi2e
the ba2ance was 8e!osite8 in a ban3.
The fo22owin1 year an unfortunate event in !etitionerBs 2ife occurre8. Estre22ita
an8 her two 8au1hters Car+e2a an8 Cennifer were 3i22e8 on Cune 90 4**4 an
inci8ent !o!u2ar2y 3nown as the E@iHcon8e 'assacreE.
4<
The fin8in1s of the investi1ation con8ucte8 by the N,I re#ea! that Estre!!ita
died ahead of her daughters. Accor8in12y Carme!a, Dennifer and herein
petitioner succeeded Estre!!ita and, $ith the susequent death of
Carme!a and Dennifer, petitioner $as !eft as the so!e heir of his
daughters. Neverthe2ess !etitioner entere8 into an EE:traACu8icia2 Sett2e+ent
of the Estate of %ecease8 Estre22ita Nico2asA@iHcon8e 7ith 7aiver of SharesE
with (afae2 an8 Sa2u8 Estre22itaBs !arents.
On Nove+ber 4< 4**6 (afae2 8ie8. To sett2e (afae2Bs estate Teresita institute8
an intestate estate !rocee8in1. Teresita !raye8 to be a!!ointe8 S!ecia2
A8+inistratri: of (afae2Bs estate. A88itiona22y she sou1ht to be a!!ointe8 as
1uar8ian a8 2ite+ of Sa2u8 now seni2e an8 (icar8o her inco+!etent brother.
=erein !rivate res!on8ent (a+on fi2e8 an o!!osition 8ate8 'arch 64 4**9
!rayin1 to be a!!ointe8 instea8 as Sa2u8 an8 (icar8oBs 1uar8ian. ,are2y three
wee3s !asse8 (a+on fi2e8 another o!!osition a22e1in1 a+on1 others that
Estre22ita was 1iven the @a2enHue2a !ro!erty by (afae2 which she so28 for not 2ess
than Si: 'i22ion Pesos "P/000000.00# before her 1rueso+e +ur8er.
On 'ay 46 4**9 (a+on fi2e8 his own !etition 8oc3ete8 as S!. Proc. No. CA
4/** entit2e8 EIn The 'atter Of The .uar8ianshi! Of Sa2u8 .. Nico2as an8
(icar8o .. Nico2asE an8 averre8 that their 2e1iti+e shou28 co+e fro+ the
co22ation of a22 the !ro!erties 8istribute8 to his chi28ren by (afae2 8urin1 his
2ifeti+e. (a+on state8 that herein !etitioner is one of (afae2Bs chi28ren Eby ri1ht
of re!resentation as the wi8ower of 8ecease8 2e1iti+ate 8au1hter of Estre22ita.E
(a+on throu1h a +otion 8ate8 February 44 4**4 +ove8 to inc2u8e !etitioner
in the intestate estate !rocee8in1 an8 as3e8 that the ParaRa>ue !ro!erty as
we22 as the car an8 the ba2ance of the !rocee8s of the sa2e of the @a2enHue2a
!ro!erty be co22ate8.
Issue&
7hether or not the transfer of the @a2enHue2a !ro!erty fro+ (afae2 to Estre22ita an8
8ec2arin1 the ParaRa>ue !ro!erty as subDect to co22ation is va2i8.
=e28&
Co22ation is the act by virtue of which 8escen8ants or other force8 heirs who
intervene in the 8ivision of the inheritance of an ascen8ant brin1 into the
co++on +ass the !ro!erty which they receive8 fro+ hi+ so that the 8ivision
+ay be +a8e accor8in1 to 2aw an8 the wi22 of the testator. Co!!ation is on!y
required of compu!sory heirs succeeding $ith other compu!sory heirs
and in#o!#es property or rights recei#ed y donation or gratuitous tit!e
during the !ifetime of the decedent%
The atten8ant facts herein 8o not +a3e a case of co22ation. 7e fin8 that the
!robate court as we22 as res!on8ent Court of A!!ea2s co++itte8 reversib2e
errors. )etitioner, a son7in7!a$ of 4afae!, is not one of 4afae!:s
compu!sory heirs%
As a ru!e, the proate court may pass upon and determine the tit!e
or o$nership of a property $hich may or may not e inc!uded in the
4*
estate proceedings% Such 8eter+ination is !rovisiona2 in character an8 is
subDect to fina2 8ecision in a se!arate action to reso2ve tit2e.
Even on the assu+!tion that co22ation is a!!ro!riate in this case the !robate
court nonethe2ess +a8e a reversib2e error in or8erin1 co22ation of the
ParaRa>ue !ro!erty. We note that $hat $as transferred to Estre!!ita, y
$ay of deed of sa!e, is the 1a!en@ue!a property% The ParaRa>ue !ro!erty
which Estre22ita ac>uire8 by usin1 the !rocee8s of the sa2e of the @a2enHue2a
!ro!erty 8oes not beco+e co22ationab2e si+!2y by reason thereof. In8ee8
co22ation of the ParaRa>ue !ro!erty has no statutory basis. (afae2 the 8ece8ent
has no !artici!ation therein an8 petitioner $ho inherited and is no$ the
present o$ner of the )araHaque property is not one of 4afae!:s heirs%
/hus, the proate court:s order of co!!ation against petitioner is
un$arranted for the o!igation to co!!ate is !odged $ith Estre!!ita, the
heir, and not to herein petitioner $ho does not ha#e any interest in
4afae!:s estate%
Fina22y it is futi2e for the !robate court to ascertain whether or not the
@a2enHue2a !ro!erty +ay be brou1ht to co22ation. Estre!!ita, it shou!d e
stressed, died ahead of 4afae!% In fact, it $as 4afae! $ho inherited from
Estre!!ita an amount more than the #a!ue of the 1a!en@ue!a property%
=ence even assu+in1 that the @a2enHue2a !ro!erty +ay be co22ate8 co22ation
+ay not be a22owe8 as the va2ue of the @a2enHue2a !ro!erty has 2on1 been
returne8 to the estate of (afae2.
'A4I/UA 1S CA (3, SC4A 0F0
In the evenin1 of Nove+ber 7 4*7* the tricyc2e then bein1 8riven by
,ienveni8o Nacario a2on1 the nationa2 hi1hway at ,aran1ay San Cayetano in
,aao Ca+arines Sur fi1ure8 in an acci8ent with C, ,us No. <0 8riven by
!etitioner E81ar ,itancor an8 owne8 an8 o!erate8 by !etitioner Cose ,aritua. As
a resu2t of that acci8ent ,ienveni8o an8 his !assen1er 8ie8 an8 the tricyc2e was
8a+a1e8. No cri+ina2 case arisin1 fro+ the inci8ent was ever institute8.
Susequent!y, on Aarch *5, (?38, as a consequence of the e"tra7
9udicia! sett!ement of the matter negotiated y the petitioners and the
us insurer N )hi!ippine +irst Insurance Company, Incorporated <)+ICI
for re#ity= N 'ien#enido Nacario:s $ido$, A!icia 'aracena 1da% de
Nacario, recei#ed )(3,088%88% In consi8eration of the a+ount she receive8
A2icia e:ecute8 on 'arch 67 4*<0 a E(e2ease of C2ai+E in favor of the
!etitioners an8 PFICI.
On Septemer *, (?3(, or aout one year and ten months from the
date of the accident on No#emer 5, (?5?, the pri#ate respondents,
$ho are the parents of 'ien#enido Nacario, fi!ed a comp!aint for
damages against the petitioners $ith the then Court of +irst Instance of
Camarines Sur% The Nacario s!ouses !raye8 that the 8efen8ants !etitioners
herein be or8ere8 to in8e+nify the+ in the a+ount of P6?000.00 for the 8eath
of their son ,ienveni8o P40000.00 for the 8a+a1e8 tricyc2e P6?000.00 for
co+!ensatory an8 e:e+!2ary 8a+a1es P?000.00 for attorneyBs fees an8 for
+ora2 8a+a1es.
?0
ISSUE&
7hether or not the res!on8ent a!!e22ate court erre8 in ho28in1 that the !etitioners
are sti22 2iab2e to !ay the !rivate res!on8ents the a11re1ate a+ount of P60?0?.00
8es!ite the a1ree+ent of e:traDu8icia2 sett2e+ent between the !etitioners an8 the
victi+Bs co+!u2sory heirs.
=E-%&
Artic2e 4640 of the Civi2 Co8e of the Phi2i!!ines enu+erates the !ersons to who+
!ay+ent to e:tin1uish an ob2i1ation shou28 be +a8e.
Art 4640. Pay+ent sha22 be +a8e to the !erson in whose favor the ob2i1ation has been constitute8
or his successor in interest or any !erson authoriHe8 to receive it.
Certain!y there can e no question that A!icia and her son $ith the
deceased are the successors in interest referred to in !a$ as the
persons authori@ed to recei#e payment%
It is patent!y c!ear that the parents of the deceased succeed on!y $hen
the !atter dies $ithout a !egitimate descendant% On the other han8 the
survivin1 s!ouse concurs with a22 c2asses of heirs. This is so even if A2icia ha8
been estran1e8 fro+ ,ienveni8o. 'ere estran1e+ent is not a 2e1a2 1roun8 for
the 8is>ua2ification of a survivin1 s!ouse as an heir of the 8ecease8 s!ouse.
9. %eter+ination or co+!utation
Art% ?83% To determine the !egitime the #a!ue of the property 2eft at the
8eath of the testator sha22 be consi8ere8 deducting a!! dets and
charges which sha22 not inc2u8e those i+!ose8 in the wi22.
To the net #a!ue of the hereditary estate sha22 be added the
#a!ue of a!! donations by the testator that are su9ect to co!!ation
at the ti+e he +a8e the+. "<4<a#
Art% ?8?. %onations gi#en to chi!dren sha22 be char1e8 to their !egitime.
%onations made to strangers sha22 be char1e8 to that part of the
estate of $hich the testator cou!d ha#e disposed y his !ast
$i!!%
Insofar as they +ay be inofficious or may e"ceed the disposa!e
portion they sha!! e reduced accor8in1 to the ru2es estab2ishe8 by
this Co8e. "<4*a#
Art% ?(8. %onations which an i!!egitimate chi!d +ay have receive8 8urin1 the
2ifeti+e of his father or +other sha22 be charged to his !egitime.
Shou28 they e"ceed the portion that can be free2y 8is!ose8 of they
sha!! e reduced in the +anner !rescribe8 by this Co8e. "<47a#
?4
Art% ?((% After the !egitime has een determined in accor8ance with the
three !rece8in1 artic2es the reduction sha!! e made as fo!!o$s&
4. Donations sha!! e respected as !ong as the !egitime can e
co#ered re8ucin1 or annu22in1 if necessary the 8evises or
2e1acies +a8e in the wi225
6. The reduction of the de#ises or !egacies sha!! e pro rata
without any 8istinction whatever.
If the testator has directed that a certain de#ise or !egacy e
paid in preference to others it sha!! not suffer any reduction
unti2 the 2atter have been a!!2ie8 in fu22 to the !ay+ent of the
2e1iti+e.
9. If the de#ise or !egacy consists of a usufruct or !ife annuity
whose va2ue +ay be considered greater than that of the
disposa!e portion, the compu!sory heirs may choose
between comp!ying $ith the testamentary pro#ision an8
de!i#ering to the de#isee or !egatee the part of the
inheritance of which the testator cou28 free2y 8is!ose. "<60a#
Art% ?(*. If the de#ise su9ect to reduction shou!d consist of rea!
property which cannot e con#enient!y di#ided it sha22 go to the
de#isee if the re8uction does not asor one7ha!f of its #a!ue5 an8
in a contrary case, to the compu!sory heirs5 but the former and
the !atter sha!! reimurse each other in cash for what res!ective2y
be2on1s to the+.
The de#isee $ho is entit!ed to a !egitime may retain the entire
property !rovi8e8 its #a!ue does not e"ceed that of the
disposa!e portion an8 of the share !ertainin1 to hi+ as 2e1iti+e.
"<64#
Art. *49. If the heirs or de#isees do not choose to a#ai! themse!#es of the
right granted by the !rece8in1 artic2e, any heir or de#isee $ho
did not ha#e such right may e"ercise it5 shou28 the !atter not
ma&e use of it the !ro!erty sha!! e so!d at pu!ic auction at the
instance of any one of the intereste8 !arties. "<66#
LOCSIN 1S CA *8F SC4A ,3,
'ariano -ocsin e:ecute8 a -ast 7i22 an8 Testa+ent institutin1 his wife Cata2ina
as the so2e an8 universa2 heir of a22 his !ro!erties. The s!ouses bein1 chi282ess
ha8 a1ree8 that their !ro!erties after both of the+ sha22 have 8ie8 shou28 revert
to their res!ective si8es of the fa+i2y i.e. 'arianoBs !ro!erties wou28 1o to his
?6
E-ocsin re2ativesE "i.e. brothers an8 sisters or ne!hews an8 nieces# an8 those of
Cata2ina to her ECaucian re2atives.E
%on 'ariano re2ie8 on %oRa Cata2ina to carry out the ter+s of their co+!act
hence nine "*# years after his 8eath %oRa Cata2ina be1an transferrin1 by sa2e
8onation or assi1n+ent %on 'arianoBs as we22 as her own !ro!erties to their
res!ective ne!hews an8 nieces. She +a8e the sa2es an8 8onation of !ro!erties
which she ha8 receive8 fro+ her husban8Bs estate to his -ocsin ne!hews an8
nieces.
In 4*<* or si: "/# years after %oRa Cata2inaBs 8e+ise so+e of her Caucian
ne!hews an8 nieces who ha8 a2rea8y receive8 their 2e1acies an8 here8itary
shares fro+ her estate fi2e8 action in the (e1iona2 Tria2 Court of -e1as!i City to
recover the !ro!erties which she ha8 conveye8 to the -ocsins 8urin1 her
2ifeti+e a22e1in1 that the conveyances were inofficious without consi8eration
an8 inten8e8 so2e2y to circu+vent the 2aws on succession. Those who were
c2osest to %oRa Cata2ina 8i8 not Doin the action.
ISSUE&
7hether or not the ne!hews an8 nieces of %oRa Cata2ina C. @8a. 8e -ocsin are
entit2e8 to inherit the !ro!erties which she ha8 a2rea8y 8is!ose8 of +ore than ten
"40# years before her 8eath.
=E-%&
/hey are not entit!ed since those properties did not form part of her
hereditary estate i.e. Ethe !ro!erty an8 trans+issib2e ri1hts an8 ob2i1ations
e:istin1 at the ti+e of "the 8ece8entBs# 8eath an8 those which have accrue8
thereto since the o!enin1 of the succession.E
The ri1hts to a !ersonBs succession are trans+itte8 fro+ the +o+ent of his
8eath an8 8o not vest in his heirs unti2 such ti+e.
)roperty $hich DoHa Cata!ina had transferred or con#eyed to other
persons during her !ifetime no !onger formed part of her estate at the
time of her death to $hich her heirs may !ay c!aim% =a8 she 8ie8 intestate
on2y the !ro!erty that re+aine8 in her estate at the ti+e of her 8eath 8evo2ve8
to her 2e1a2 heirs5
Even if those transfers were one an8 a22 treate8 as 8onations the right
arising under certain circumstances to impugn and compe! the
reduction or re#ocation of a decedent:s gifts inter #i#os does not inure
to the respondents since neither they nor the donees are compu!sory
<or forced= heirs%
Said respondents are not her compu!sory heirs, and it is not
pretended that she had any such, hence there $ere no !egitimes that
cou!d concei#a!y e impaired y any transfer of her property during
her !ifetime% A22 that the res!on8ents ha8 was an e:!ectancy that in nowise
restricte8 her free8o+ to 8is!ose of even her entire estate subDect on2y to the
2i+itation set forth in Art. 7?0 Civi2 Co8e which even if it were breache8 the
res!on8ents +ay not invo3e&
Art% 508% /he donation may comprehend a!! the present property of the donor or part thereof,
!rovi8e8 he reserves in fu22 ownershi! or in usufruct sufficient +eans for the su!!ort of hi+se2f an8 of a22
?9
re2atives who at the ti+e of the acce!tance of the 8onation are by 2aw entit2e8 to be su!!orte8 by the
8onor. 7ithout such reservation the 8onation sha22 be re8uce8 on !etition of any !erson affecte8. "/94a#
4. Free8o+ to 8is!ose free !ortion
Art% ?(.% The testator +ay 8evise an8 be>ueath the free !ortion as he +ay
8ee+ fit. "n#
$. Preterition of Co+!u2sory =eirs
Art% 30.% The preterition or omission of one so+e or a22 of the compu!sory
heirs in the direct !ine, $hether !i#ing at the time of the
e"ecution of the $i!! or orn after the death of the testator sha!!
annu! the institution of heir5 but the de#ises and !egacies sha!!
e #a!id insofar as they are not inofficious.
If the omitted compu!sory heirs shou!d die efore the testator
the institution sha!! e effectua! without !reDu8ice to the ri1ht of
re!resentation. "<44a#
Art% ?8F% Any compu!sory heir to who+ the testator has 2eft by any tit2e !ess
than the !egitime e!onging to him may demand that the same
e fu!!y satisfied. "<4?#
Art% 300% The share of a chi!d or descendant omitted in a $i!! +ust first e
ta&en from the part of the estate not disposed of y the $i!! if
any5 if that is not sufficient so +uch as +ay be necessary +ust be
ta&en proportiona!!y fro+ the shares of the other compu!sory
heirs. "40<0a#
Art% ?(3% Disinheritance $ithout a specification of the cause, or for a
cause the truth of $hich, if contradicted, is not pro#ed or which
is not one of those set forth in this Code sha22 annu! the
institution of heirs insofar as it +ay !reDu8ice the !erson
8isinherite85 but the de#ises and !egacies an8 other testa+entary
8is!ositions sha!! e #a!id to such e:tent as wi22 not impair the
!egitime. "<?4a#
AGNA4 1S DUNCAN (5 SC4A 0?8
E8war8 E. Christensen a citiHen of Ca2ifornia with 8o+ici2e in the Phi2i!!ines
8ie8 2eavin1 a wi22 which was a8+itte8 to !robate.
In that sa+e 8ecision the court 8ec2are8 that 'aria =e2en Christensen .arcia
"hereinafter referre8 to as =e2en .arcia# was a natura2 chi28 of the 8ecease8.
The Court of First Instance of %avao issue8 an or8er a!!rovin1 the !roDect of
!artition sub+itte8 by the e:ecutor wherein the !ro!erties of the estate were
8ivi8e8 e>ua22y between -ucy %uncan who+ the testator ha8 e:!ress2y
reco1niHe8 in his wi22 as his 8au1hter an8 =e2en .arcia who ha8 been Du8icia22y
8ec2are8 as such after his 8eath.
The sai8 or8er was base8 on the !ro!osition that since =e2en .arcia ha8
been !reterite8 in the wi22 the institution of -ucy %uncan as heir was annu22e8
?4
an8 hence the !ro!erties !asse8 to both of the+ as if the 8ecease8 ha8 8ie8
intestate savin1 on2y the 2e1acies 2eft in favor of certain other !ersons which
2e1acies have been 8u2y a!!rove8 by the 2ower court an8 8istribute8 to the
2e1atees.
Issue&
7hether the estate after 8e8uctin1 the 2e1acies shou28 !ertain to her an8 to =e2en
.arcia in e>ua2 shares or whether the inheritance of -ucy %uncan as institute8 heir
shou28 be +ere2y re8uce8 to the e:tent necessary to cover the 2e1iti+e of =e2en
.arcia e>uiva2ent to 4K4 of the entire estate.
=e28&
'anresa 8efines preterition as the omission of the heir in the $i!!, either
y not naming him at a!! or, $hi!e mentioning him as father, son, etc%,
y not instituting him as heir $ithout disinheriting him e"press!y, nor
assigning to him some part of the properties%
'anresa cites !articu2ar2y three 8ecisions of the Su!re+e Court of S!ain 8ate8
Canuary 4/ 4<*? 'ay 6? 4*47 an8 A!ri2 69 4*96 res!ective2y) In each one of
those cases the testator left to one who was a force$ heir a legacy worth less
than the legitime, but without referring to the legatee as an heir or e4en as a
relati4e, an$ wille$ the rest of the estate to other persons. It $as he!d that
Artic!e 3(0 app!ied, and the heir cou!d not as& that the institution of
heirs e annu!!ed entire!y, ut on!y that the !egitime e comp!eted% <F
Aanresa, pp% .,3, ..(%=
/he foregoing so!ution is indeed more in consonance $ith the
e"pressed $ishes of the testator in the present case as may e
gathered #ery c!ear!y from the pro#isions of his $i!!% =e refuse8 to
ac3now2e81e =e2en .arcia as his natura2 8au1hter an8 2i+ite8 her share to a
2e1acy of P9/00.00. The fact that she was subse>uent2y 8ec2are8 Du8icia22y to
!ossess such status is no reason to assu+e that ha8 the Du8icia2 8ec2aration
co+e 8urin1 his 2ifeti+e his subDective attitu8e towar8s her wou28 have
un8er1one any chan1e an8 that he wou28 have wi22e8 his estate e>ua22y to her
an8 to -ucy %uncan who a2one was e:!ress2y reco1niHe8 by hi+.
The case is re+an8e8 with instructions to !artition the here8itary estate anew
as in8icate8 in this decision, that is, y gi#ing to oppositor7appe!!ee
Aaria Ee!en Christensen 2arcia no more than the portion corresponding
to her as !egitime, equi#a!ent to one7fourth <(>.= of the hereditary
estate after which sha22 not inc2u8e those i+!ose8 in the wi22 of the 8ece8ent
in accor8ance with Artic2e *0< of the Civi2 Co8e.
NU2UID 1S NU2UID (5 SC4A ..?
(osario Nu1ui8 8ie8 on %ece+ber 90 4*/6 sin12e without 8escen8ants
2e1iti+ate or i22e1iti+ate. Survivin1 her were her 2e1iti+ate !arents Fe2i: Nu1ui8
an8 PaH Sa2on1a Nu1ui8 an8 si: "/# brothers an8 sisters na+e2y& A2fre8o
Fe8erico (e+e8ios Conra8o -our8es an8 A2berto a22 surna+e8 Nu1ui8.
On 'ay 4< 4*/9 !etitioner (e+e8ios Nu1ui8 fi2e8 in the Court of First Instance
of (iHa2 a ho2o1ra!hic wi22 a22e1e82y e:ecute8 by (osario Nu1ui8. Petitioner
??
!raye8 that sai8 wi22 be a8+itte8 to !robate an8 that 2etters of a8+inistration
with the wi22 anne:e8 be issue8 to her.
Fe2i: Nu1ui8 an8 PaH Sa2on1a Nu1ui8 conce8e82y the 2e1iti+ate father an8
+other of the 8ecease8 (osario Nu1ui8 entere8 their o!!osition to the !robate
of her wi22 on the 1roun8s that bein1 co+!u2sory heirs of the 8ecease8 in the
8irect ascen8in1 2ine they were i22e1a22y !reterite8 an8 that in conse>uence the
institution is voi8.
Issue&
Is the ho2o1ra!hic wi22 va2i8 insofar as it !reterite8 the co+!u2sory heirs of the
8ece8entI
=e28&
Art. <?4 !rovi8es&
A(T. <?4. The !reterition or o+ission of one so+e or a22 of the co+!u2sory heirs in the 8irect 2ine whether
2ivin1 at the ti+e of the e:ecution of the wi22 or born after the 8eath of the testator sha22 annu2
the institution of heir5 but the 8evises an8 2e1acies sha22 be va2i8 insofar as they are not
inofficious. ...
The 8ecease8 (osario Nu1ui8 2eft no 8escen8ants 2e1iti+ate or i22e1iti+ate. ,ut
she 2eft force8 heirs in the 8irect ascen8in1 2ine her !arents now o!!ositors
Fe2i: Nu1ui8 an8 PaH Sa2on1a Nu1ui8. An8 the wi22 co+!2ete2y o+its both of
the+& They thus receive8 nothin1 by the testa+ent5 tacit2y they $ere
depri#ed of their !egitime- neither $ere they e"press!y disinherited%
/his is a c!ear case of preterition%
Nothing in Artic!e 30. suggests that the mere institution of a uni#ersa!
heir in a $i!! N #oid ecause of preterition N $ou!d gi#e the heir so
instituted a share in the inheritance% As to hi+ the wi22 is ine:istent. There
+ust be in a88ition to such institution a testa+entary 8is!osition 1rantin1 hi+
be>uests or 2e1acies a!art an8 se!arate fro+ the nu22ifie8 institution of heir. As
aforesai8 there is no other !rovision in the wi22 before us e:ce!t the institution
of !etitioner as universa2 heir. That institution by itse2f is nu22 an8 voi8. An8
intestate succession ensues.
/he $i!! here does not e"p!icit!y disinherit the testatri":s parents, the
forced heirs% It simp!y omits their names a!together% Said $i!! rather
than e !ae!ed ineffecti#e disinheritance is c!ear!y one in $hich the
said forced heirs suffer from preterition% On to! of this is the fact that the
effects f2owin1 fro+ !reterition are tota22y 8ifferent fro+ those of 8isinheritance.
Preterition un8er Artic2e <?4 of the Civi2 Co8e we re!eat Esha22 annu2 the
institution of heirE.
Artic2e <?4 of the Civi2 Co8e in turn +ere2y nu22ifies Ethe institution of heirE.
Considering, ho$e#er, that the $i!! efore us so!e!y pro#ides for the
institution of petitioner as uni#ersa! heir, and nothing more, the resu!t
is the same% /he entire $i!! is nu!!%
4ECES 1S 'A44E/O7DA/U (? SC4A 30
?/
,ibiano ,arretto was +arrie8 to 'aria .erar8o. %urin1 their 2ifeti+e they
ac>uire8 a vast estate.
7hen ,ibiano ,arretto 8ie8 he 2eft his share of these !ro!erties in a wi22 to
Sa2u8 ,arretto +other of !2aintiffBs war8s an8 -ucia 'i2a1ros ,arretto an8 to his
wi8ow 'aria .erar8o.
7hen 'aria .erar8o 8ie8 it was 8iscovere8 that she ha8 e:ecute8 two wi22s in
the first of which she institute8 Sa2u8 an8 'i2a1ros both surna+e8 ,arretto as
her heirs5 an8 in the secon8 she revo3e8 the sa+e an8 2eft a22 her !ro!erties in
favor of 'i2a1ros ,arretto a2one. Thus the 2ater wi22 was a22owe8 an8 the first
reDecte8.
The 2ower court he28 that Sa2u8 was not the 8au1hter of the 8ece8ent 'aria
.erar8o by her husban8 ,ibiano ,arretto. This ru2in1 was a!!ea2e8 to the
Su!re+e Court which affir+e8 the sa+e.
The nu22ity of the !roDect of !artition was 8ecree8 on the basis of Artic2e 40<4 of
the Civi2 Co8e of 4<<* "then in force# !rovi8in1 as fo22ows& .
A partition in $hich a person $as e!ie#ed to e an heir, $ithout eing so, has een inc!uded, sha!!
e nu!! and #oid%
The court a >uo further reDecte8 the contention a8vance8 by !2aintiffs that since
,ibiano ,arretto was free to 8is!ose of oneAthir8 "4K9# of his estate un8er the o28
Civi2 Co8e his wi22 was va2i8 in favor of Sa2u8 ,arretto "nee -i+ ,oco# to the
e:tent at 2east of such free !art.
An8 it conc2u8e8 that as 8efen8ant 'i2a1ros was the on2y true heir of ,ibiano
,arretto she was entit2e8 to recover fro+ Sa2u8 an8 fro+ the 2atterBs chi28ren
an8 successors a!! the )roperties recei#ed y her from 'iiano:s estate,
in #ie$ of the pro#isions of Artic!e (.0F of the ne$ Ci#i! Code of the
)hi!ippines esta!ishing that property acquired y fraud or mista&e is
he!d y its acquirer in imp!ied trust for the rea! o$ner%
Ee!d;
/he !ega! precept <Artic!e (83(= does not spea& of chi!dren, or
descendants, ut of heirs <$ithout distinction et$een forced,
#o!untary or intestate ones=, an8 the fact that Sa2u8 ha!!ene8 not to be a
8au1hter of the testator 8oes not !rec2u8e her bein1 one of the heirs e:!ress2y
na+e8 in his testa+ent5 for ,ibiano ,arretto was at 2iberty to assi1n the free
!ortion of his estate to who+soever he chose.
Nor does the fact that Ai!agros $as a!!otted in her father:s $i!! a share
sma!!er than her !egitime in#a!idate the institution of Sa!ud as heir,
since there $as here no preterition, or tota! ommission of a forced heir%
ESCUIN 1S ESCUIN (( )EIL ,,*
E+i2io Antonio Escuin 8e 2os Santos e:ecute8 a wi22 an8 state8 in c2ause three of his
wi22 that in case he has a 8u2y re1istere8 successor his chi28 wou28 be his so2e an8
universa2 heir5 but that if as wou28 !robab2y be the case there shou28 be no such
heir then in c2ause four he na+e8 his sai8 father Francisco Escuin an8 his wife
'aria Teresa Ponce 8e -eon an8 his universa2 heirs they to 8ivi8e the estate in
e>ua2 shares between the+. =is natura2 son was !reterite85
?7
Is the wi22 va2i8I
As has been seen the testator wish to 8is!ose his !ro!erty in his wi22
8esi1natin1 as heirs his natura2 father Francisco Escuin an8 his wife 'aria
Teresa Ponce 8e -eon a22 to1ether i1norin1 his reco1niHe8 natura2 chi28 who is
1enera2 heir. In #ie$ thereof, and for the reason that he e"ceeded his
rights, the said designation of heirs ecame #oid and so far as it
impaired the right of his genera! heir and depri#ed him of his !ega!
portions- the $i!!, ho$e#er, is #a!id $ith respect to the t$o7thirds of
the property $hich the testator free!y disposed of%
Notwithstan8in1 the fact that the sai8 8esi1nation of heirs annu22e8 an8 that the
2aw reco1niHes the tit2e of the +inor Escuin y ,atac to oneAthir8 of the !ro!erty
of his natura2 father as his 2awfu2 an8 1enera2 heir it is not proper to assert
that the !ate Emi!io Escuin de !os Santos died intestate since it is c!ear
and unquestiona!e that it $as the $ish of the testator to fa#or his
natura! father and his $ife $ith certain portions of his property $hich,
under the !a$, he had the right to dispose of by wi22 as he has 8one
!rovi8e8 the 2e1a2 !ortion of his 1enera2 heir was not thereby i+!aire8 the two
for+er !ersons bein1 consi8ere8 as 2e1atees un8er the wi22.
LADOA 1S LEU/E4IO <24 NO% L7(,005=
'a:i+o @io2a 8ie8 on Se!te+ber 9 4*99. Cu8icia2 !rocee8in1s of his testate
estate were institute8 in the Court of First Instance.
An a1ree+ent of !artition an8 8istribution was e:ecute8 by an8 between Cose P.
@io2a (afae2 @io2a an8 Si2vio @io2a 2e1iti+ate chi28ren of 'a:i+o @io2a an8
Cuana Toura whereby the !ro!erties 2eft by their father 'a:i+o @io2a were
8ivi8e8 a+on1 the+se2ves.
%onato -aDo+ fi2e8 in the Court of First Instance a co+!2aint !rayin1 a+on1
other thin1s that he be 8ec2are8 a natura2 chi28 of 'a:i+o @io2a i+!2ie82y
reco1niHe8 an8 ac3now2e81e8 in accor8ance with the 2aws in force !rior to the
Civi2 Co8e thereby bein1 a coAheir of Cose P. @io2a (afae2 @io2a an8 Si2vio @io2a5
that the a1ree+ent of !artition an8 8istribution e:ecute8 in 4*9? by these three
2e1iti+ate chi28ren of 'a:i+o @io2a be 8ec2aire8 nu22 an8 voi8.
Sai8 8ecision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva EciDa was on a!!ea2
affir+e8 by this Court.
?<
7hen (afae2 @io2a fi2e8 the re!ort re>uire8 in this or8er %onato -aDo+ notice8
that nothin1 was sai8 in the afore+entione8 re!ort concernin1 the fruits of a
rice2an8 with an area of 64? hectares a22e1e82y 8onate8 by %r. 'a:i+o @io2a to
sai8 (afae2 @io2a. So -aDo+ as3e8 that (afae2 @io2a be or8ere8 to inc2u8e the
!ro8ucts of sai8 rice2an8 in his re!ort in or8er that the !ro!erty +ay be
inc2u8e8 in the re8istribution of the @io2a Estate.
(afae2 @io2a obDecte8 thereto u!on the 1roun8 that sai8 !ro!erty was not
E+entione8 or inc2u8e8 in the co+!2aint fi2e8 in this case.E The obDection was
sustaine8 an8 the !etition was 8enie8.
Issue&
4. 7hether other !ro!erties shou28 be co22ate8 or not o!en for future
8eter+ination.
6. Petitioner havin1 been the victi+ of !reterition the institution of heirs
+a8e by the 8ecease8 %r. 'a:i+o @io2a beca+e ineffective an8 that Civi2 Case
No. <077 was thereby converte8 into an intestate !rocee8in1s for the sett2e+ent
of his estate.
=e28&
4. In any event res!on8ent Cu81e was +ere2y enforcin1 a 8ecision that ha8
a2rea8y beco+e fina2. Any order directing $hat $as not required in said
decision L an8 the sa+e containe8 no !ronounce+ent with res!ect to the
rice2an8 a8verte8 to above L $ou!d e in e"cess of his 9urisdiction and
therefore, nu!! and #oid%
6. This contention is c2ear2y untenab2e. /here might ha#e een merit
therein if $e $ere dea!ing $ith a specia! proceedings for the sett!ement
of the testate estate of a deceased person, which in conse>uence of sai8
!reterition wou28 thereby ac>uire the character of a !rocee8in1 for the
sett2e+ent of an intestate estate with Duris8iction over any an8 a22 !ro!erties of
the 8ecease8. 'ut, Ci#i! Case No% 3855 is an ordinary ci#i! action, and the
authority of the court ha#ing 9urisdiction o#er the same is !imited to the
properties descried in the p!eadings, $hich admitted!y do not inc!ude
the aforementioned rice!and%
'ALANAC 1S AA4/INEG F. SC4A .0*
In the instant case the !reterite8 heir was the survivin1 s!ouse. =is !reterition
8i8 not !ro8uce intestacy. 'oreover he si1nifie8 his confor+ity to his wifeBs wi22
an8 renounce8 his here8itary ri1hts.
The basic issue is whether the !robate court erre8 in !assin1 u!on the intrinsic
va2i8ity of the wi22 before ru2in1 on its a22owance or for+a2 va2i8ity an8 in
8ec2arin1 it voi8.
?*
=E-%&
/he proate of a $i!! might ecome an id!e ceremony if on its face it
appears to e intrinsica!!y #oid% 7here !ractica2 consi8erations 8e+an8 that
the intrinsic va2i8ity of the wi22 be !asse8 u!on even before it is !robate8 the
court shou28 +eet the issue
The ru2e is that Ethe inva2i8ity of one of severa2 8is!ositions containe8 in a wi22
8oes not resu2t in the inva2i8ity of the other 8is!ositions un2ess it is to be
!resu+e8 that the testator wou28 not have +a8e such other 8is!ositions if the
first inva2i8 8is!osition ha8 not been +a8eE "Art. 7*6 Civi2 Co8e#. 6Where
some of the pro#isions of a $i!! are #a!id and others in#a!id, the #a!id
parts $i!! e uphe!d if they can e separated from the in#a!id $ithout
defeating the intention of the testator or interfering $ith the genera!
testamentary scheme, or doing in9ustice to the eneficiaries6 <?0 C%D%S%
35,=%
To 1ive effect to the intention an8 wishes of the testatri: is the first an8
!rinci!a2 2aw in the +atter of testa+ents. /estacy is prefera!e to intestacy%
An interpretation that $i!! render a testamentary disposition operati#e
ta&es precedence o#er a construction that $i!! nu!!ify a pro#ision of the
$i!! "Arts. 7<< an8 7*4 Civi2 Co8e#.
SOLANO 1S CA (,F SC4A (**
,ienveni8o .arcia an8 E+eteria .arcia ".A(CIAS# c2ai+in1 to be i22e1iti+ate
chi28ren of %r. 'e2iton SO-ANO fi2e8 an action for reco1nition a1ainst hi+. In
his Answer SO-ANO 8enie8 !aternity. %urin1 the !en8ency of the suit SO-ANO
8ie8.
Petitioner JONIA Ana So2ano was or8ere8 substitute8 for the %ECE%ENT as the
on2y survivin1 heir +entione8 in his -ast 7i22 an8 Testa+ent.
The .A(CIAS i+!u1ne8 the reco1nition of JONIA as an ac3now2e81e8 natura2
chi28 with the !rayer that she be 8ec2are8 instea8 2i3e the+ as an a8u2terous
chi28 of the %ECE%ENT.
A!!ea2e8 to the Court of A!!ea2s by JONIA sai8 Court affir+e8 the Du81+ent in
8ec2arin1 a22 of the+ as A8u2terous Chi28ren.
ISSUE&
Is the wi22 va2i8I
=E-%&
The 7i22 therefore is va2i8 subDect to that 2i+itation. It is a p!ain that the
intention of the testator $as to fa#or GONIA $ith certain portions of
his property, $hich, under the !a$, he had a right to dispose of y Wi!!,
so that the disposition in her fa#or shou!d e uphe!d as to the oneAha2f
"4K6# !ortion of the !ro!erty that the testator cou28 free2y 8is!ose of.
The case of Nuguid #s% Nuguid et a2. reiteratin1 the ru2in1 in Neri, et a!% #s%
A&utin et a2. $hich he!d that $here the institution of a uni#ersa! heir is
nu!! and #oid due to pretention, the Wi!! is a comp!ete nu!!ity and
/0
intestate succession ensues, is not app!ica!e herein ecause in the
Nuguid case, on!y a one7sentence Wi!! $as in#o!#ed $ith no other
pro#ision e"cept the institution of the so!e and uni#ersa! heir5 there was
no s!ecification of in8ivi8ua2 !ro!erty5 there were no s!ecific 2e1acies or
be>uests.
In contrast in the case at bar there is a s!ecific be>uest or 2e1acy so that
Artic2e <?4 of the Civi2 Co8e su!ra a!!2ies +ere2y annu22in1 the Einstitution of
heirE.
ACAIN 1S CA <(00 SC4A (88=
Ne+esio Acain 8ie8 2eavin1 a wi22 in which !etitioner an8 his brothers Antonio
F2ores an8 Cose an8 his sisters Anita Conce!cion Ouirina an8 -aura were
institute8 as heirs.
The o!!ositors res!on8ents herein @ir1inia A. Fernan8eH a 2e1a22y a8o!te8
8au1hter of the 8ecease8 an8 the 2atterBs 7i8ow (osa %ion1son @8a. 8e Acain
fi2e8 a +otion to 8is+iss on the fo22owin1 1roun8s "4# for the !etitioner has no
2e1a2 ca!acity to institute these !rocee8in1s5 "6# he is +ere2y a universa2 heir
an8 "9# the wi8ow an8 the a8o!te8 8au1hter have been !retirite8. Sai8 +otion
was 8enie8 by the tria2 Du81e.
=e28&
It cannot be 8enie8 that she has tota22y o+itte8 an8 !reterite8 in the wi22 of the
testator an8 that both a8o!te8 chi28 an8 the wi8ow were 8e!rive8 of at 2east
their 2e1iti+e. Neither can it be 8enie8 that they were not e:!ress2y
8isinherite8. =ence this is a c2ear case of !reterition of the 2e1a22y a8o!te8
chi28.
Insofar as the wi8ow is concerne8 Artic2e <?4 of the Civi2 Co8e +ay not a!!2y
as she 8oes not ascen8 or 8escen8 fro+ the testator a2thou1h she is a
co+!u2sory heir. State8 otherwise even if the survivin1 s!ouse is a co+!u2sory
heir there is no !reterition even if she is o+itte8 fro+ the inheritance for she is
not in the 8irect 2ine. "Art. <?4 Civi2 co8e#
=owever the sa+e thin1 cannot be sai8 of the other res!on8ent @ir1inia A.
Fernan8eH whose 2e1a2 a8o!tion by the testator has not been >uestione8 by
!etitioner. Under Artic!e ,? of )%D% No% F8,, &no$n as the Chi!d and
Couth We!fare Code, adoption gi#es to the adopted person the same
rights and duties as if he $ere a !egitimate chi!d of the adopter and
ma&es the adopted person a !ega! heir of the adopter%
Pretention annu2s the institution of an heir an8 annu2+ent throws o!en to
intestate succession the entire inheritance. The on2y !rovisions which 8o not
resu2t in intestacy are the 2e1acies an8 8evises +a8e in the wi22 for they shou28
stan8 va2i8 an8 res!ecte8 e:ce!t insofar as the 2e1iti+es are concerne8.
L% (ESE(@A T(ONCA-
4. Conce!t
/4
Art% 3?(% The ascendant $ho inherits from his descendant any !ro!erty
which the !atter may ha#e acquired y gratuitous tit!e from
another ascendant or a rother or sister is ob2i1e8 to reser#e
such property as he may ha#e acquired y operation of !a$ for
the enefit of re!ati#es $ho are $ithin the third degree an8 who
be2on1 to the 2ine fro+ which sai8 !ro!erty ca+e. "<74#
ED4OSO 1S SA'LAN <*0 )EIL *?0=
'arce2ina E8roso was +arrie8 to @ictoriano Sab2an unti2 his 8eath. In this
+arria1e they ha8 a son na+e8 Pe8ro who at his fatherBs 8eath inherite8 the
two sai8 !arce2s. Pe8ro a2so 8ie8 un+arrie8 an8 without issue an8 by this
8ecease the two !arce2s of 2an8 !asse8 throu1h inheritance to his +other
'arce2ina E8roso. =ence the here8itary tit2e whereu!on is base8 the a!!2ication
for re1istration of her ownershi!.
Two 2e1iti+ate brothers of @ictoriano Sab2an a!!eare8 in the case to o!!ose the
re1istration c2ai+in1 one of two thin1s& Either that the re1istration be 8enie8
Eor that if 1rante8 to her the ri1ht reserve8 by 2aw to the o!!onents be recor8e8
in the re1istration of each !arce2.E
Other issue& A!!e22ant conten8s that it is not !roven that the two !arce2s of 2an8
in >uestion have been ac>uire8 by o!eration of 2aw an8 that on2y !ro!erty
ac>uire8 without a va2uab2e consi8eration which is by o!eration of 2aw is
re>uire8 by 2aw to reserve8.
=e28&
'arce2ina E8roso ascen8ant of Pe8ro Sab2an inherite8 fro+ hi+ these two
!arce2s of 2an8 which he ha8 ac>uire8 without a va2uab2e consi8eration L that
is by inheritance fro+ another ascen8ant his father @ictoriano. Ea#ing
acquired them y operation of !a$, she is o!igated to re!ati#es $ithin
the third degree and e!ong to the !ine of Aariano Sa!an and Aaria
4ita +ernande@, $hence the !ands proceeded% The tria2 courtBs ru2in1 that
they !arta3e of the nature !ro!erty re>uire8 by 2aw to be reserve8 is therefore
in accor8ance with the 2aw.
A!!e22ant conten8s that it is not !roven that the two !arce2s of 2an8 in >uestion
have been ac>uire8 by o!eration of 2aw an8 that on2y !ro!erty ac>uire8
without a va2uab2e consi8eration which is by o!eration of 2aw is re>uire8 by 2aw
to reserve8.
The case !resents no testa+entary !rovision that 8e+onstrate any transfer of
!ro!erty fro+ the son to the +other not by o!eration of 2aw but by her sonBs
wish. /he !ega! presumption is that the transfer of the t$o parce!s of
!and $as aintestate or y operation of !a$, and not y $i!! or the $ish
of the predecessor in interest% "Act No. 4*0 sec. 994 No. 6/.# A22 the
!rovision of artic2e <44 of the Civi2 Co8e have therefore been fu22y co+!2ie8
with.
If )edro Sa!an had instituted his mother in a $i!! as the uni#ersa!
heiress of his property, a!! he !eft at death $ou!d not e required y
/6
!a$ to e reser#ed, but on2y what he wou28 have !erforce 2eft her as the 2e1a2
!ortion of a 2e1iti+ate ascen8ant.
In such case on!y the ha!f constituting the !ega! portion $ou!d e
required y !a$ to e reser#ed, because it is what by o!eration of 2aw cou28
fu22 to the +other fro+ her sonBs inheritance5 the other ha2f at free 8is!osa2
wou28 not have to be reserve8. This is a22 that artic2e <44 of the Civi2 Co8e says.
SIENES 1S ES)ACIA ( SC4A 508
Francisco inherite8 a !arce2 of 2an8 fro+ his father.
Francisco 8ie8 sin12e an8 without issue.
=is +other An8rea .utan1 inherite8 such 2an8 fro+ Francisco who 2ater so28 it
to Constancio Sienes.
Thereafter the sisters Pau2ina an8 Ci!riana )aeso "the Ori1ina2 TCT in their
!ossession# ha2fAsisters of Francisco so28 the 2an8 in favor of the s!ouses Fi8e2
Es!arcia an8 Pau2ina Sienes.
An8rea .utan1 8ie8 on %ece+ber 49 4*?4 an8 the 2one reservee survivin1 her
bein1 Ci!riana )aeso who 8ie8 on2y on Canuary 49 4*?6.
Issue&
7hose sa2e was va2i8 an8 shou28 be u!he28I
=e28&
The 2an8 in >uestion was reservab2e !ro!erty.
The reserve creates two reso2utory con8itions namely, /"1 the death of the
ascendant oblige$ to reser4e an$ /@1 the survival, at the time of his
death, of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which
the property came.
/he reser#ista has the !ega! tit!e and dominion to the reser#a!e
property ut su9ect to a reso!utory condition- that he is li2e a life
usufructuary of the reser4able property5 that he may a!ienate the same ut
su9ect to reser#ation, sai8 a2ienation trans+ittin1 on2y the revocab2e an8
con8itiona2 ownershi! of the reservists the rights acquired y the
transferee eing re#o&ed or reso!#ed y the sur#i#a! of reser#atarios
at the time of the death of the reser#ista%
/he reser#ee may a!ienate and dispose of, a!eit conditiona!!y the
condition eing that the a!ienation sha!! transfer o$nership to the
#endee on!y if and $hen the reser#ee sur#i#es the person o!iged to
reser#e% In the !resent case Ci!riana )aeso one of the reservees was sti22
a2ive when An8rea .utan1 the !erson ob2i1e8 to reserve 8ie8. Thus the for+er
beca+e the abso2ute owner of the reservab2e !ro!erty u!on An8reaBs 8eath.
7hi2e it +ay be true that the sa2e +a8e by her an8 her sister !rior to this event
beca+e effective because of the occurrence of the reso2utory con8ition we are
not now in a !osition to reverse the a!!ea2e8 8ecision in so far as it or8ers the
reversion of the !ro!erty in >uestion to the Estate of Ci!riana )aeso because
the ven8ees L the Es!arcia s!ouses 8i8 L not a!!ea2 therefro+.
+LO4EN/INO 1S +LO4EN/INO .8 )EIL .38
/9
U!on the 8eath of the ascen8ant reservista the reservab2e !ro!erty shou28
!ass not to a22 the reservatarios as a c2ass but on2y to those nearest in 8e1ree
to the 8escen8ant "!re!ositus# e:c2u8in1 those reservatarios of +ore re+ote
8e1ree. And $ithin the third degree of re!ationship from the descendant
<prepositus=, the right of representation operates in fa#or of nephe$s%
ne#erthe!ess there is right of representation on the part of
reser#atarios $ho are $ithin the third degree mentioned y !a$, as in
the case of nephe$s of the deceased person from $hom the reser#a!e
property came% %%% %
)ADUA4A 1S 'ALDO1INO <L7((?F8, DEC% *5, (?03=
where the reservatario was survive8 by e2even ne!hews an8 nieces of the
!rae!ositus in the 2ine of ori1in four of who2e b2oo8 an8 seven of ha2f b2oo8 an8
the c2ai+ was a2so +a8e that a22 e2even were entit2e8 to the reversionary
!ro!erty in e>ua2 shares. This Court s!ea3in1 throu1h 'r. Custice C.,.-. (eyes
8ec2are8 the !rinci!2es of intestacy to be contro22in1 an8 ru2e8 that the
ne!hews an8 nieces of who2e b2oo8 were each entit2e8 to a share 8oub2e that of
each of the ne!hews an8 nieces of ha2f b2oo8 in accor8ance with Artic2e 400/ of
the Civi2 Co8e.
As to the reservab2e !ro!erty the reservatarios 8o not inherit fro+ the
reservista but fro+ the 8escen8ant !rae!ositus.
7ithin the thir8 8e1ree the nearest re2atives e:c2u8e the +ore re+ote subDect
to the ru2e of re!resentation. ,ut the re!resentative shou28 be within the thir8
8e1ree fro+ the !re!ositus.
The on2y 8ifference in their ri1ht of succession is !rovi8e8 in Art. 400< NCC in
re2ation to Artic2e 400/ of the New Civi2 Co8e "su!ra# which !rovisions in effect
entit2e the so2e niece of fu22 b2oo8 to a share 8oub2e that of the ne!hews an8
nieces of ha2f b2oo8. Such 8istinction between who2e an8 ha2f b2oo8 re2ationshi!s
with the 8ecease8 has been reco1niHe8 in %ionisia Pa8ura et a2. vs. 'e2anie
,a28ovino et a2. No. -A44*/0 %ece+ber 67 4*?< 404 Phi2. 40/?
CEUA 1S C+I <53 SC4A .(*=
Cose Frias Chua on his first +arria1e sire8 9 chi28ren I1nacio -orenHo an8
'anue2.
7hen his wife 8ie8 he contracte8 a secon8 +arria1e with Conso2acion 8e 2a
Torre with who+ he ha8 a chi28 by the na+e of Cuanito Frias Chua.
'anue2 !re8ecease8 his father havin1 no heirs.
7hen Cose Frias Chua 8ie8 he 2eft no wi22 an8 has his wi8ow Conso2acion an8
chi28ren Cuanito -orenHo an8 I1nacio as heirs.
Cuanito Frias Chua of the secon8 +arria1e 8ie8 intestate without any issue.
Conso2acion 8e 2a Torre 8ie8 intestate 2eavin1 no 8irect heir either in the
8escen8in1 or ascen8in1 2ine e:ce!t her brother an8 sisters.
-orenHo an8 I1nacio fi2e8 a co+!2aint to 8ec2are as reservab2e !ro!erty the
!ortion of a 2ot that Conso2acion receive8 fro+ Cuanito u!on his 8eath.
=e28&
/4
In or8er that a !ro!erty +ay be i+!resse8 with a reservab2e character the
fo22owin1 re>uisites +ust e:ist to wit&
4. that the !ro!erty was acquired y a descendant from an asscendant or
from a rother or sister y gratuitous tit!e-
6. that sai8 descendant died $ithout an issue5
9. that the property is inherited y another ascendant y operation of
!a$5 an8
4. that there are re!ati#es $ithin the third degree be2on1in1 to the !ine
from $hich said property ca+e.
Cuanito Frias Chua who 8ie8 intestate ha8 re2atives within the thir8 8e1ree.
These re2atives are I1nacio Frias Chua an8 %o+ina8or Chua an8 (e+i8ios Chua
the su!!ose 2e1iti+ate chi28ren of the 8ecease8 -orenHo Frias Chua who are
the !etitioners herein.
As e:!2aine8 by 'anresa which this Court >uote8 with a!!rova2 in Cabar8o v.
@i22anueva 44 Phi2. 4</ 6/he transmission is gratuitous or y gratuitous
tit!e $hen the recipient does not gi#e anything in return%6 It +atters not
whether the !ro!erty trans+itte8 be or be not subDect to any !rior char1es5
what is essential is that the transmission be ma$e gratuitously, or by an act of
mere liberality of the person ma2ing it, without imposing any obligation on the
part of the recipient. an$ that the person recei4ing the property gi4es or $oes
nothing in return.
O/he essentia! thing is that the person $ho transmits it does so
gratuitous!y, from pure generosity, $ithout requiring from the
transferee any prestation%P It is evi8ent fro+ the recor8 that the
trans+ission of the !ro!erty in >uestion to Cuanito Frias Chua of the secon8
+arria1e u!on the 8eath of his father Cose Frias Chua was by +eans of a
here8itary succession an8 therefore 1ratuitous.
2ONGALES 1S C+I <(8. SC4A .5?=
Can a reservista convey by wi22 reservab2e !ro!erty to reservatarios in the thir8
8e1ree an8 byA!ass those in the secon8I
=e28&
NO. Artic!e 3?( c!ear!y indicates that the reser#a!e properties shou!d
e inherited y a!! the nearest re!ati#es $ithin the third degree from
the prepositus%
She cou28 not se2ect the reservees to who+ the reservab2e !ro!erty shou28 be
1iven an8 8e!rive the other reservees of their share therein.
/he reser#a!e property does not form part of the reser#istaIs estate
and shou!d e gi#en to a!! the se#en reser#atarios or nearest re!ati#es
of the prepositus $ithin the third degree% 7hi2e it is true that by 1ivin1 the
/?
reservab2e !ro!erty to on2y one reservatario it 8i8 not !ass into the han8s of
stran1ers neverthe2ess it is 2i3ewise true that the reservista was on2y one of
the reservatarios an8 there is no reason foun8e8 u!on 2aw an8 Dustice why the
other reservatarios shou28 be 8e!rive8 of their shares in the reservab2e
!ro!erty. The !ro!erty !asses by strict o!eration of 2aw.
DE )A)A 1S CAAACEO (.. SC4A *3(
P2aintiffs an8 8efen8ant were a22 re2atives within thir8 8e1ree of the !rae!ositus.
Issue;
7hether a22 re2atives of the !rae!ositus within the thir8 8e1ree in the a!!ro!riate
2ine succee8 without 8istinction to the reservab2e !ro!erty u!on the 8eath of the
reservista or the ri1hts of sai8 re2atives are subDect to an8 shou28 be 8eter+ine8
by the ru2es on intestate succession.
=e28&
(eversion of the reservab2e !ro!erty bein1 1overne8 by the ru2es on intestate
succession the !2aintiffsAa!!e22ees +ust be he28 without any ri1ht thereto
because as aunt an8 unc2es res!ective2y of Faustino %iHon "the !rae!ositus#
they are e:c2u8e8 fro+ the succession by his niece the 8efen8antAa!!e22ant
a2thou1h they are re2ate8 to hi+ within the sa+e 8e1ree as the 2atter.
To this effect is Abe22ana vs. Ferraris where Arts. 4004 4004 400? an8 400* of
the Civi2 Co8e were cite8 an8 a!!2ie8&
Neverthe2ess the tria2 court was correct when it he28 that in case of intestacy ne!hews an8 nieces of the 8e
cuDus e:c2u8e a22 other co22atera2s "aunts an8 unc2es first cousins etc.# fro+ the succession. This is rea8i2y
a!!arent fro+ Artic2es 4004 4004 400? an8 400* of the Civi2 Co8e of the Phi2i!!ines
Art. 400*. Shou28 there be neither brothers nor sisters nor chi28ren of brothers an8 sisters the
other co22atera2 re2atives sha22 succee8 to the estate.
Un8er the 2ast artic2e "400*# the asence of rothers, sisters, nephe$s and nieces of the decedent is
a precondition to the other co!!atera!s <unc!es, cousins, etc%= eing ca!!ed to the succession%
We, therefore, ho!d, and so ru!e, that under our !a$s of succession, a decedent:s unc!es and aunts
may not succeed a intestato so !ong as nephe$s and nieces of the decedent sur#i#e and are
$i!!ing and qua!ified to succeed% %%%
SUAACA 1S IAC *8 SC4A (53
(au2 inherite8 4K9 of a !arce2 of 2an8 fro+ his father an8 4K7 of 40 !arce2s of 2an8
fro+ his +aterna2 1ran8+other.
=e 8ie8 sin12e an8 without issue.
=is +other a8Du8icate8 to herse2f (au2Fs !ro!erties. Thereafter she so28 these
!ro!erties which 2ater ca+e into the han8s of !etitioners.
(au2Fs brothers an8 his ne!hews an8 niece fro+ a 8ecease8 bother now c2ai+s the
!ro!erty by virtue of reserve tronca2.
Issue&
Are !etitioners innocent !urchasers for va2ueI
//
=e28&
No the fact re+ains however that the affi8avit of se2fAa8Du8ication e:ecute8 by
Consue2o statin1 the source of the !ro!erties thereby showin1 the reservab2e
nature thereof was re1istere8 with the (e1ister of %ee8s of -a1una an8 this is
sufficient notice to the who2e wor28 in accor8ance with Section ?6 of the
Pro!erty (e1istration %ecree "for+er2y Sec. ?4 of (.A. 4*/# which !rovi8es&
Sec. ?6. CONST(UCTI@E NOTICE UPON (E.IST(ATION. L Every conveyance +ort1a1e 2ease 2ien
attach+ent or8er Du81+ent instru+ent or entry affectin1 re1istere8 2an8 sha22 if re1istere8 fi2e8 or entere8
in the Office of the (e1ister of %ee8s for the !rovince or city where the 2an8 to which it re2ates 2ies be
constructive notice to a22 !ersons fro+ the ti+e of such re1isterin1 fi2in1 or enterin1.
Consistent with the ru2e in reserva viu8a2 where the !erson ob2i1e8 to reserve
"the wi8owe8 s!ouse# ha8 the ob2i1ation to annotate in the (e1istry of Pro!erty
the reservab2e character of the !ro!erty in reser#a tronca!, the reser#or
<the ascendant $ho inherited from a descendant property $hich the
!atter inherited from another descendant= has the duty to reser#e and
therefore, the duty to annotate a!so%
This ru2e is consistent with the ru2e !rovi8e8 in the secon8 !ara1ra!h of Section
?4 of P.%. 4?6* which !rovi8es that& EThe act of re1istration sha22 be the
o!erative act to convey or affect the 2an8 insofar as thir8 !ersons are concerne8
. . .E "e+!hasis su!!2ie8#
The cause of action of the reservees 8i8 not co++ence u!on the 8eath of the
!ro!ositus (au2 ,a2anta3bo on Cune 49 4*?6 but u!on the 8eath of the reservor
Consue2o @8a. 8e ,a2anta3bo on Cune 9 4*/<. 4e!ati#es $ithin the third
degree in $hose fa#or the right <or property= is reser#ed ha#e no tit!e
of o$nership or of fee simp!e o#er the reser#ed property during the
!ifetime of the reser#or%
L% 4ESE41A ADO)/I1A <Art% ,?, )%D% F8,=
Artic2e 9*. Effects of A8o!tion. A The a8o!tion sha22&
4. .ive to the a8o!te8 !erson the sa+e ri1hts an8 8uties as if he were a 2e1iti+ate chi28 of the a8o!ter&
Provi8e8 That an a8o!te8 chi28 cannot ac>uire Phi2i!!ine citiHenshi! by virtue of such a8o!tion5
6. %isso2ve the authority veste8 in the natura2 !arent or !arents e:ce!t where the a8o!ter is the s!ouse of
the survivin1 natura2 !arent5
9. Entit2e the a8o!te8 !erson to use the a8o!terBs surna+e5 an8
4. Aa&e the adopted person a !ega! heir of the adopter& Provi8e8 That if the a8o!ter is survive8 by
2e1iti+ate !arents or ascen8ants an8 by an a8o!te8 !erson the 2atter sha22 not have +ore successiona2
ri1hts than an ac3now2e81e8 natura2 chi28& Provi8e8 further That any property recei#ed gratuitous!y
y the adopted from the adopter sha!! re#ert to the adopter shou!d the former predecease the
!atter without 2e1iti+ate issue un2ess the a8o!te8 has 8urin1 his 2ifeti+e a2ienate8 such !ro!erty&
Provi8e8 fina22y That in the 2ast case shou!d the adopted !ea#e no property other than that
recei#ed from the adopter, and he is sur#i#ed y i!!egitimate issue or a spouse, such
i!!egitimate issue co!!ecti#e!y or the spouse sha!! recei#e one7fourth of such property- if the
a8o!te8 is survive8 by i!!egitimate issue and a spouse then the for+er co22ective2y sha!! recei#e
one7fourth an8 the !atter a!so one7fourth the rest in any case re#erting to the adopter observin1
in the case of the i22e1iti+ate issue the !ro!ortion !rovi8e8 for in Artic2e <*? of the Civi2 Co8e.
/7
/he adopter sha!! not e a !ega! heir of the adopted person, $hose parents y nature sha!!
inherit from him e:ce!t that if the !atter are oth dead, the adopting parent or parents ta&e
the p!ace of the natura! parents in the 2ine of succession whether testate or interstate.
'ANAWA 1S AI4ANO ?5 SC4A 0(5
'aria 'irano receive8 by way of 8onation interAvivos !arce2s of 2an8 fro+
%oroteo ,anawa an8 her aunt Cu2iana 'en8oHa.
'aria was never Du8ia22y a8o!te8.
She 8ie8 with no issue.
=e28&
Section ? (u2e 400 of the O28 (u2es of Court the !ertinent !ortion of which
rea8s&
... In case of the death of the chi!d his parents and re!ati#es y nature
an8 not y adoption sha!! e his !ega! heirs, e:ce!t as to !ro!erty
receive8 or inherite8 by the a8o!te8 chi28 fro+ either of his !arents by
a8o!tion which sha22 beco+e the !ro!erty of the 2atter or their 2e1iti+ate
re2atives who sha22 !artici!ate in the or8er estab2ishe8 by the Civi2 Co8e for
intestate estates.
The sub+ission of the !etitioners is that e:traDu8icia2 a8o!tion is within the
conte+!2ation an8 s!irit of this ru2e of reversion a8o!tive. =owever the ru!e
in#o!#ed specifica!!y pro#ides for the case of the 9udicia!!y adopted
chi!d% It is an e2e+entary ru2e of construction that when the 2an1ua1e of the 2aw
is c2ear an8 une>uivoca2 the 2aw +ust be ta3en to +ean e:act2y what it says.
/EO/ICO 1S DEL 1AL (, SC4A .8F
%ecease8 e:ecute8 a wi22 na+in1 as heirs her niece an8 the 2atterFs husban8 an8
her 1ran8chi28ren.
A!!e22ant o!!ose8 the !robate c2ai+in1 to be an a8o!te8 chi28 of the 8ecease8
sister an8 an i22e1iti+ate chi28 of the 8ecease8Fs bother.
Issue;
Is she entit2e8 to c2ai+ as an i22e1iti+ate 8au1hter of the brother of the testatri: or
as an a8o!te8 8au1hter of the testatri: sisterI
=e28&
No Artic2e **6 of our Civi2 Co8e !rovi8es& EAn i22e1iti+ate chi28 has no ri1ht to
inherit ab intestato fro+ the 2e1iti+ate chi28ren an8 re2atives of his father or
+other5 ... .E
-i3ewise the o!!ositor cannot a2so 8erive co+fort fro+ the fact that she is an
a8o!te8 chi28 of Francisca 'ortera ecause under our !a$ the re!ationship
esta!ished y adoption is !imited so!e!y to the adopter and the
adopted and does not e"tend to the re!ati#es of the adopting parents
or of the adopted chi!d e"cept on!y as e"press!y pro#ided for y !a$%
/<
=ence no re2ationshi! is create8 between the a8o!te8 an8 the co22atera2s of the
a8o!tin1 !arents. As a conse>uence the a8o!te8 is an heir of the a8o!ter but
not of the re2atives of the a8o!ter.
A% %ISIN=E(ITANCE
Art. *4?. A compu!sory heir may, in consequence of disinheritance, e
depri#ed of his !egitime for causes e:!ress2y state8 by 2aw. "<4<a#
Art. *4/. %isinheritance can e effected on!y through a $i!! wherein the
!ega! cause therefor sha!! e specified% <3.?=
Art. *47. The urden of pro#ing the truth of the cause for 8isinheritance
sha22 rest u!on the other heirs of the testator, if the disinherited
heir shou!d deny it. "<?0#
Art. *4<. Disinheritance $ithout a specification of the cause or for a
cause the truth of $hich, if contradicted, is not pro#ed or which
is not one of those set forth in this Code sha22 annu! the
institution of heirs insofar as it +ay !reDu8ice the !erson
8isinherite85 but the de#ises and !egacies an8 other testa+entary
8is!ositions sha!! e #a!id to such e:tent as wi22 not i+!air the
2e1iti+e. "<?4a#
Art. *4*. The fo22owin1 sha22 be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of
chi28ren an8 8escen8ants 2e1iti+ate as we22 as i22e1iti+ate&
"4# 7hen a chi28 or 8escen8ant has been found gui!ty of an attempt
against the !ife of the testator his or her s!ouse 8escen8ants or
ascen8ants5
"6# 7hen a chi28 or 8escen8ant has accused the testator of a crime
for which the 2aw prescries imprisonment for si" years or more
if the accusation has been foun8 1roun82ess5
"9# 7hen a chi28 or 8escen8ant has been con#icted of adu!tery or
concuinage with the spouse of the testator5
"4# 7hen a chi28 or 8escen8ant y fraud, #io!ence, intimidation, or
undue inf!uence causes the testator to ma&e a $i!! or to
change one a!ready made5
"?# A refusa! $ithout 9ustifia!e cause to support the !arent or
ascen8ant who 8isinherits such chi28 or 8escen8ant5
"/# Aa!treatment of the testator y $ord or deed by the chi28 or
8escen8ant5
"7# 7hen a chi28 or 8escen8ant !eads a dishonora!e or disgracefu!
!ife5
/*
"<# Con#iction of a crime which carries with it the !ena2ty of ci#i!
interdiction. "7?/ <?9 /74a#
Art. *60. The fo22owin1 sha22 be sufficient causes for the 8isinheritance of
!arents or ascen8ants whether 2e1iti+ate or i22e1iti+ate&
4. 7hen the !arents ha#e aandoned their chi!dren or in8uce8
their 8au1hters to 2ive a corru!t or i++ora2 2ife or atte+!te8
a1ainst their virtue5
6. 7hen the !arent or ascen8ant has been con#icted of an
attempt against the !ife of the testator his or her s!ouse
8escen8ants or ascen8ants5
9. 7hen the !arent or ascen8ant has accused the testator of a
crime for $hich the !a$ prescries imprisonment for si"
years or more if the accusation has been foun8 to be fa2se5
4. 7hen the !arent or ascen8ant has been con#icted of adu!tery
or concuinage with the s!ouse of the testator5
?. 7hen the !arent or ascen8ant by fraud, #io!ence,
intimidation, or undue inf!uence causes the testator to
ma&e a $i!! or to change one a!ready made5
/. The !oss of parenta! authority for causes s!ecifie8 in this
Co8e5
7. The refusa! to support the chi!dren or descendants without
Dustifiab2e cause5
<. An attempt y one of the parents against the !ife of the
other un2ess there has been a reconci2iation between the+. "7?/
<?4 /74a#
Art. *64. The fo22owin1 sha22 be sufficient causes for 8isinheritin1 a s!ouse&
"4# 7hen the s!ouse has been con#icted of an attempt against the
!ife of the testator his or her 8escen8ants or ascen8ants5
"6# 7hen the s!ouse has accused the testator of a crime for which
the 2aw !rescribes i+!rison+ent of si: years or +ore an8 the
accusation has been foun8 to be fa2se5
"9# 7hen the s!ouse y fraud, #io!ence, intimidation, or undue
inf!uence cause the testator to +a3e a wi22 or to chan1e one a2rea8y
+a8e5
"4# 7hen the s!ouse has gi#en cause for !ega! separation5
70
"?# 7hen the s!ouse has gi#en grounds for the !oss of parenta!
authority5
"/# Un9ustifia!e refusa! to support the chi28ren or the other
s!ouse. "7?/ <?? /74a#
Art. *66. A susequent reconci!iation between the offen8er an8 the offen8e8
!erson depri#es the !atter of the right to disinherit an8 renders
ineffectua! any disinheritance that +ay have been +a8e. "<?/#
Art. *69. The chi!dren and descendants of the person disinherited sha!!
ta&e his or her p!ace an8 sha22 preser#e the rights of compu!sory
heirs $ith respect to the !egitime5 but the disinherited parent
sha!! not ha#e the usufruct or administration of the !ro!erty
which constitutes the 2e1iti+e. "<?7#
N% LE2ACIES AND DE1ISES
Art. *?7. The 2e1acy or 8evise sha22 be without effect&
4. If the testator transforms the thing equeathed in such a
+anner that it does not retain either the form or the
denomination it ha85
6. If the testator by any tit2e or for any cause a!ienates the thing
equeathed or any !art thereof it bein1 un8erstoo8 that in the
2atter case the !egacy or de#ise sha!! e $ithout effect on!y
$ith respect to the part thus a!ienated. If after the a2ienation
the thin1 shou28 a1ain be2on1 to the testator even if it be by
reason of nu22ity of the contract the 2e1acy or 8evise sha22 not
thereafter be va2i8 un!ess the reacquisition sha!! ha#e een
effected y #irtue of the e"ercise of the right of repurchase5
9. If the thin1 be>ueathe8 is tota22y !ost during the !ifetime of the
testator or after his 8eath without the heirBs fau2t. Neverthe2ess
the person o!iged to pay the !egacy or de#ise sha!! e !ia!e
for e#iction if the thin1 be>ueathe8 shou28 not have been
8eter+inate as to its 3in8 in accor8ance with the !rovisions of
Artic2e *6<. "</*a#
+E4NANDEG 1S DEAA2I'A <L7*,F,3, OC/% (*, (?F5=
In fact as foun8 by the Court of A!!ea2s in its 8ecision annu22in1 these
conveyances "affir+e8 in that !oint by this Su!re+e Court in (eyes vs. Court of
A!!ea2s an8 %i+a1iba -A?/4< an8 -A?/60 !ro+u21ate8 on Cu2y 94 4*?4# Eno
consi8eration whatever was !ai8 by res!on8ent %i+a1ibaE on account of the
transfers thereby ren8erin1 it even +ore 8oubtfu2 whether in conveyin1 the
!ro!erty to her 2e1atee the testatri: +ere2y inten8e8 to co+!2y in a8vance with
74
what she ha8 or8aine8 in her testa+ent rather than an a2teration or 8e!arture
therefro+.
(evocation bein1 an e:ce!tion we be2ieve with the Courts be2ow that in the
circu+stances of the !articu2ar case Artic2e *?7 of the Civi2 Co8e of the
Phi2i!!ines 8oes not a!!2y to the case at bar.
Not on2y that but even if it were a!!2icab2e the annu2+ent of the conveyances
wou28 not necessari2y resu2t in the revocation of the 2e1acies if we bear in +in8
that the fin8in1s +a8e in the 8ecision 8ecreein1 the annu2+ent of the
subse>uent 4*49 an8 4*44 8ee8s of sa2e were a2so that it was the +ora2
inf2uence ori1inatin1 fro+ their confi8entia2 re2ationshi! which was the on2y
cause for the e:ecution of the 4*49 an8 4*44 conveyances.
If the annu2+ent was 8ue to un8ue inf2uence as the >uote8 !assa1e i+!2ies
then the transferor was not e:!ressin1 her own free wi22 an8 intent in +a3in1
the conveyances. =ence it can not be conc2u8e8 either that such conveyances
estab2ishe8 a 8ecision on her !art to aban8on the ori1ina2 2e1acy.
'ELEN 1S ')I <(8? )EIL (883=
Un>uestionab2y the testator $as at !ierty to pro#ide a series of successi#e
sustitutions in the order of pro"imity of re!ationship to the origina!
!egatee. An8 he 2i3ewise was free to ordain that the more distant
descendants shou!d en9oy the right of representation as in intestate
succession%
76