BALANAY, JR. vs.

MARTINEZ
64 SCRA 452

FACTS: Leodegaria Julian died. She was survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and six legitimate children.
Felix Balanay, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of his mother’s notarial will, which was written in English. In that
will, Leodegaria declared that it was her desire her properties should not be divided among her heirs during her
husband's lifetime and that their legitimes should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties. She devised and
partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all owned by her. She disposed of in the will her husband's one-half
share of the conjugal assets.
Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the probate of the will.
Thereafter, Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument waiving and renouncing his right in Leodegaria’s estate in favor
of their 6 children.

ISSUE: Whether or not the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling on its
allowance or formal validity, and in declaring it void.

RULING: The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal
validity had been established. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to
be intrinsically void.
But the probate court erred in declaring that the will was void and in converting the testate proceeding into an
intestate proceeding.
The will is intrinsically valid and the partition therein may be given effect if it does not prejudice the creditors and
impair the legitimes. The distribution and partition would become effective upon the death of Felix Balanay, Sr. In the
meantime, the net income should be equitably divided among the children and the surviving spouse.

(Relate to Articles 779 and 780 : In this case, there is testamentary succession because it resulted from the
designation of heirs by the testatrix, made in a will executed in the form prescribed by law. It can be considered as a
mixed succession because there is partly by will (execution of the will and execution of the waiver) and by operation
of law (as to the share of the husband of the conjugal party of which he eventually waived – buot buot ni na answer
ha  )

VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs. JUICO

4 SCRA 550

FACTS: Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor of
his wife, Dona Faustina ½ of all his real and personal properties giving the other half to his brother Don Fausto.
Petitioner filed an action against the administrator contending that upon the widow’s death, she became vested with
the ownership of the properties bequeathed under clause 7 pursuant to its 8 th clause of the will.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the death of Dona Faustina.

HELD: The intention of the testator here was to merely give usufructuary right to his wife Doňa Fausta because in his
will he provided that Doňa Fausta shall forfeit the properties if she fails to bear a child and because she died without
having begotten any children with the deceased then it means that Doňa Fausta never acquired ownership over the
property. Upon her death, because she never acquired ownership over the property, the said properties are not
included in her estate. Those properties actually belong to Villaflor. That was the intention of the testator.
Otherwise, if the testator wanted to give the properties to Doňa Fausta then he should have specifically
stated in his will that ownership should belong to Doňa Fausta without mentioning any condition.