Seangio v.

Reyes

Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the
late Segundo Seangio and prayed for the appointment of Elisa Seangio-Santos as
special administrator and guardian ad litem of Dy Yieng Seangio. Petitioners
opposed the petition alleging among others that Segundo left a holographic will,
dated September 20, 1995, disinheriting one of the private respondents, Alfredo
Seangio, for cause. The existence of a will, as opined by petitioner, warrants the
dismissal of the case as a probate proceedings should be pursued instead.
Thereafter, petitioner file a petition for the probate of the purported holographic will
by Segundo.

(The will essentially provides that the eldest son, Alfredo, is disinheritance)

Private respondents opposed the probate of the will alleging that the purported will
merely called for the disinheritance of Alfredo and that compulsory heirs were not
named nor instituted as heir, devisee or legatee, hence, there is preterition which
would result to intestacy. Petitioner in turn replied, alleging that respondent’s
contention were in effect delving into the intrinsic validity of the will, which is beyond
the power of the court and that the disinheritance per se is a valid disposition of the
estate.

Issue: Whether the disinheritance of Alfredo constitutes as a valid will

Ruling:

The document of disinheritance conforms with the requirements of a valid will

A holographic will must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the
testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the
Philippines, and need not be witnessed.



It can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument that it conforms with the
requirements of a valid holographic will, and while it does not make an affirmative
disposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an
act of disposition in itself. Considering the liberal interpretation afforded to
holographic wills, the Court declared that the document, even if captioned
as  Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana,  was intended by Segundo to be his last
testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of a
holographic will. Unless the will is probated, the disinheritance cannot be given
effect.

Succession: Testamentary Succession Page 1 of 7

Vitug v. CA

The case is an offshoot of a previously decided case designating petition (husband

of decedent) together with Nenita Alonte as administrator of the late Dolores Vitug’s
estate. Petitioner filed a motion asking the Court to allow the sale certain shares of
stock and real property belonging to the estate for the advances paid sourced from
his personal funds. Rowena Corona opposed the motion to sell alleging that the
funds advanced were not personal funds of petitioner but were sourced from the
conjugal funds.

To prove that the advances made were sourced from personal funds, petitioner
presented a survivorship agreement containing the provision:

“……….. after the death of either or any of us shall belong to and be the sole
property of the survivor or survivors, and shall be payable to and collectible or
withdrawable by such survivor or survivors…..”

Issue: Whether the funds were conjugal in nature

Ruling:

The funds were personal in nature pursuant to the valid survivorship agreement

The Court principally upheld the presumption that funds jointly acquired in the
course of marriage was considered to accrue to the conjugal funds. Despite this
presumption, the Court is mindful of the fact the nature of the funds may be
reclassified as personal through proper transfer. Principally, the survivorship
agreement is not a donation inter vivos, for obvious reasons, because it was to take
effect after the death of one party. Secondly, it is not a donation between the
spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse's own properties to the
other.

The “survivor-take-all” provision was seen to be an aleatory contract, a contract

dependent on the happening of an uncertain period. Being an aleatory contract, the
Court noted that the it was not illegal per se but may become illegal if it was
pursued to be a cloak of illegality (e.g. contracts in fraud of creditors). There is no
demonstration here that the survivorship agreement had been executed for such
unlawful purposes. Hence, the validity of the survivorship agreement is upheld.

Succession: Testamentary Succession Page 2 of 7

Enriquez v. Abadia

Subject of the controversy is the estate of Father Abadia a parish priest from Talisay,
Cebu who left an estate with a worth of 8,000 after his death in 1943. The
distribution of the legitimes were enumerated in his will and testament created on
1923. One of the legatees, filed a motion to probate the will. The motion was
opposed by his cousins who would not inherit if the will was probated.

The trial court ruled that the will was a holographic will but noted that it was not yet
allowed by law at the time of its making. Despite this, the Court permitted the
execution of holographic wills, under a liberal view, and to carry out the intention of
the testator.

Issue: Whether the Holographic will was valid despite being crafted prior to the
effectivity of the Civil Code.

Ruling:

The probate proceedings should be disallowed; will is invalid

The Court highlighted the Civil Code provision that provided that The validity of a
will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is
made. Considering that the will was crafted at the time holographic wills were
prohibited, the Court ruled that the will of Father Abadia was invalid.

The Court further ruled that  when one executes a will which is invalid for failure to
observe and follow the legal requirements at the time of its execution then upon his
death he should be regarded and declared as having died intestate, and his heirs
will then inherit by intestate succession, and no subsequent law with more liberal
requirements or which dispenses with such requirements as to execution should be
allowed to validate a defective will and thereby divest the heirs of their vested rights
in the estate by intestate succession.

Succession: Testamentary Succession Page 3 of 7

Jimenez v. Fernandez

A parcel of land belonged to Fermin Jimenez who was survived by his two sons
Fortunato and Carlos Jimenez. Although Fortunato predeceased his parents, he
was however survived by his daughter petitioner Sulpica. The land was
subsequently registered under the names of Carlos and Sulpica. Upon the death of
Carlos, his illegitimate daughter Melecia occupied the lot and sold her share to
Edilberto Cagampan and Teodora Grado. However, Sulpica executed an affidavit
adjudicating herself as the heir of her uncle, Carlos. The affidavit led to the issuance
of a title in her name.

Sulpica instituted an action for recovery of possession on the portion occupied by

defendants.

Issue: Whether the land pertains to plaintiff

Ruling:

Melecia had no right of succession over Carlos’s share

Citing Article 2263 of the Civil Code, the Court opined that the propriety of Melecia’s
right to the property was based on the old Civil Code. Under the latter, To be an heir
under the rules of Civil Code of 1889, a child must be either a child legitimate,
legitimated, or adopted, or else an acknowledged natural child — for illegitimate not
natural are disqualified to inherit. Hence, Melecia was not entitled to the properties
of Carlos. (1933)

More so, prescription cannot lies considering that Sulpica had exercised her right
over the property even when Carlos was still alive.

Succession: Testamentary Succession Page 4 of 7

G.R. No. L-22595             November 1, 1927

Testate Estate of Joseph G. Brimo, JUAN MICIANO, administrator, petitioner-

appellee, 

vs.

ANDRE BRIMO, opponent-appellant.

Ross, Lawrence and Selph for appellant.


Camus and Delgado for appellee.

The administrator of Joseph Brimo filed an application for the partition of estate.
The decedent’s will provided that the disposition of the properties of the estate shall
be in accordance with Philippine laws. Respondent Andre Brimo opposed the will
alleging that it was invalid under Turkish law. 



Issue: Whether the provision of the will was valid

Ruling:

The Court did not rule on the validity of the will in the eyes of Turkish law for failure
of respondent to prove the existence of the statute prohibiting the same.
Nonetheless the Court ruled that the provision that the will shall be governed by
Philippine law expressly ignores the testator's national law when, according to
article 10 of the Civil Code above quoted, such national law of the testator is the
one to govern his testamentary dispositions.

Succession: Testamentary Succession Page 5 of 7

POLLY CAYETANO, petitioner, 

vs.

HON. TOMAS T. LEONIDAS, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch
XXXVIII, Court of First Instance of Manila and NENITA CAMPOS
PAGUIA, respondents.

Ermelo P. Guzman for petitioner.

Armando Z. Gonzales for private respondent.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Adoracion Campos left petitioner and her sisters (respondents) as the survivng
heirs. Being the sole compulsory heir, petitioner executed an affidavit of
adjudication whereby he adjudicated the entire estate in favor of himself. Thereafter,
respondent filed a petition for the reprobate of a will alleging that Adoracion had
created a will in the US prior to her death and that the same is registered with the
Registry of Will. Petitioner opposed the probate proceedings alleging that the will
was a forgery and that it would effectively divest him of the share he was entitled to
receive by law. The opposition is anchored on the fact that under the Laws of
Philadelphia an executor may dispose of the properties even to a complete stranger.
The RTC probated the will of Adoracion Campos after petitioner had withdrawn his
opposition.

Subsequently, petitioner filed another opposition alleging that the motion to

withdraw the opposition was procured fraudulently. Meanwhile, on June 6, 1982,
petitioner Hermogenes Campos died and left a will, which, incidentally has been
questioned by the respondent, his children and forced heirs as, on its face patently
null and void, and a fabrication, appointing Polly Cayetano as the executrix of his
last will and testament. Cayetano, therefore, filed a motion to substitute herself as
petitioner in the instant case which was granted by the court on September 13,
1982.

Issue: Whether the will is valid

Ruling:

The provision of disposing the properties through the executor/administrator is valid.

Principally, the Court held that probate court's authority is limited only to the
extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testatrix's testamentary
capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law.
The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the court has declared that

Succession: Testamentary Succession Page 6 of 7

the will has been duly authenticated. However, where practical considerations
demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
probated, the court should meet the issue.

Consistent with the Civil Code, the Court held that the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of the will, as provided for by Article 16 (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code,
the national law of the decedent must apply. As such, the assailed provision was
deemed valid as the national law of the decedent did not prohibit it.

Succession: Testamentary Succession Page 7 of 7