Rodelas v. Aranza!

ISSUE: W/N a holographic will which was lost or

!
FACTS: Rodelas filed a petition with the CFI of
cannot be found can be proved by means of a
photostatic copy.!
Rizal for the probate of the holographic will of
Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters
!
HELD:If the holographic will has been lost or
testamentary in her favor.! destroyed and no other copy is available, the will
!
Aranza, et al. filed a MTD on the grounds of:!
cannot be probated because the best and only
evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said
!
1.Rodelas was estopped from claiming that the
will. It is necessary that there be a comparison
between sample handwritten statements of the
deceased left a will by failing to produce the will testator and the handwritten will.!
within twenty days of the death of the testator as
required by Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of
!
But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the
Court;! holographic will may be allowed because
!
2.the copy of the alleged holographic will did not
comparison can be made by the probate court with
the standard writings of the testator. The probate
contain a disposition of property after death and court would be able to determine the authenticity of
was not intended to take effect after death, and the handwriting of the testator.!
therefore it was not a will, it was merely an
instruction as to the management and improvement
!
In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the
of the schools and colleges founded by the Court ruled that “the execution and the contents of
decedent;! a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be
!
3.the hollographic will itself, and not an alleged
proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who
have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must
copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect.
produce no effect because lost or destroyed The law regards the document itself as material
holographic wills cannot be proved by secondary proof of authenticity.” But, in Footnote 8 of said
evidence unlike ordinary wills.! decision, it says that “Perhaps it may be proved by
!
4.the deceased did not leave any will, holographic
a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a
mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar
or otherwise, executed and attested as required by means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the
law.! handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and
!
MTD was denied. Aranza et al. filed an MR,
tested before the probate court!
!!
Rodelas filed an opposition.!
!
The CFI set aside its order and dismissed the
!!
petition for the probate of the will stating that “in the
case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, 522, the
!!
Supreme Court held that ‘in the matter of
holographic wills the law, it is reasonable to
!!
suppose, regards the document itself as the
material proof of authenticity of said wills.”!
!!
!
And that the alleged holographic will was executed
!!
on January 25, 1962 while Ricardo B. Bonilla died
on May 13, 1976. The lapse of more than 14 years
!!
from the time of the execution of the will to the
death of the decedent and the fact that the original
!!
of the will could not be located shows to that the
decedent had discarded the alleged holographic
!!
will before his death.!
! !!
Rodelas filed an MR which was denied. Rodelas
appealed to the CA. Aranza et al. moved to forward
!!
the case to the SC as it involves a question of law
not of fact.!
!!
! !!
!
ALABAN VS C.A!
! time and place for proving the will must be
• Respondent Francisco filed a petition, for the
probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late
Soledad, alleging that he was the heir of the
decedent and the executor of her will.!
! it has been held that a proceeding for the probate
• The RTC rendered its Decision, allowing the
probate of the will of the decedent and directing
the issuance of letters testamentary to
respondent.!
! decedent.!
• More than four months later, herein petitioners
filed a motion for the reopening of the probate
proceedings. !
• The RTC issued an Order denying petitioners’
motion for being unmeritorious. !
• Petitioners thereafter filed a petition with an
application for preliminary injunction with the CA,
seeking the annulment of the RTC’s Decision and
Order. They claimed that they learnt of the
probate proceedings only in July of 2001. They
argued that the RTC Decision should be annulled
and set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC due to
non-payment of the correct docket fees, defective
publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs.
The CA dismissed the petition. Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA
for lack of merit. Hence, this recourse.!
!
ISSUE: WON C.A committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
dismissed their petition for the alleged failure to
show that they have not availed of or resorted to
the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief
from judgment or other remedies through no fault of
their own.!
!
RULING: The petition is devoid of merit.!
Section 37 of the Rules of Court allows an
aggrieved party to file a motion for new trial on the
ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence. The same Rule permits the filing of a
motion for reconsideration on the grounds of
excessive award of damages, insufficiency of
evidence to justify the decision or final order, or that
the decision or final order is contrary to law. !
!!
Meanwhile, a petition for relief from judgment under
Rule 38 is resorted to when a judgment or final
order is entered, or any other proceeding is
thereafter taken, against a party in any court
through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence. However, petitioners in this case are
mistaken in asserting that they are not or have not
become parties to the probate proceedings.!
! !!
In a petition for allowance of a will, notice of the
published for three consecutive weeks, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province, as
well as furnished to the designated or other known
heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. Thus,
of a will is one in rem, such that with the
corresponding publication of the petition the court’s
jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said
will or in the settlement of the estate of the
!
Publication is notice to the whole world that the
proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all
who might be minded to make an objection of any
sort against the right sought to be established. It is
the publication of such notice that brings in the
whole world as a party in the case and vests the
court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it. !
!
Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned
in the petition for probate, they eventually became
parties thereto as a consequence of the publication
of the notice of hearing. As parties to the probate
proceedings, petitioners could have validly availed
of the remedies of motion for new trial or
reconsideration and petition for relief from
judgment. In fact, petitioners filed a motion to
reopen, which is essentially a motion for new trial,
with petitioners praying for the reopening of the
case and the setting of further proceedings. !
!
However, the motion was denied for having been
filed out of time, long after the Decision became
final and executory.!
!
Conceding that petitioners became aware of the
Decision after it had become final, they could have
still filed a petition for relief from judgment after the
denial of their motion to reopen. !
!
For failure to make use without sufficient
justification of the said remedies available to them,
petitioners could no longer resort to a petition for
annulment of judgment; otherwise, they would
benefit from their own inaction or negligence.!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
UY KIAOENG VS LEE! official station of the party to whom the writ is
!
Facts: Respondent Nixon Lee filed a petition for
directed or from operation of law. This definition
recognizes the public character of the remedy, and
mandamus with damages against his mother Uy clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to
Kiao Eng, herein petitioner, before the RTC of for the purpose of enforcing the performance of
Manila to compel petitioner to produce the duties in which the public has no interest. The writ
holographic will of his father so that probate is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to
proceedings for the allowance thereof could be enforce a public right and to compel the
instituted. ! performance of a public duty, most especially when
!
Respondent had already requested his mother to
the public right involved is mandated by the
Constitution. As the quoted provision instructs,
settle and liquidate the patriarch’s estate and to mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board,
deliver to the legal heirs their respective officer, or person unlawfully neglects the
inheritance, but petitioner refused to do so without performance of an act which the law enjoins as a
any justifiable reason. ! duty resulting from an office, trust or station.!
!
Petitioner denied that she was in custody of the
!
In the instant case, the Court, without
original holographic will and that she knew of its unnecessarily ascertaining whether the obligation
whereabouts. The RTC heard the case. After the involved here—the production of the original
presentation and formal offer of respondent’s holographic will—is in the nature of a public or a
evidence, petitioner demurred, contending that her private duty, rules that the remedy of mandamus
son failed to prove that she had in her custody the cannot be availed of by respondent Lee because
original holographic will. The RTC, at first, denied there lies another plain, speedy and adequate
the demurrer to evidence. ! remedy in the ordinary course of law. Let it be
!
However, it granted the same on petitioner’s motion
noted that respondent has a photocopy of the will
and that he seeks the production of the original for
for reconsideration. Respondent’s motion for purposes of probate. The Rules of Court, however,
reconsideration of this latter order was denied. does not prevent him from instituting probate
Hence, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, proceedings for the allowance of the will whether
respondent sought review from the appellate court. the same is in his possession or not.!
The CA initially denied the appeal for lack of merit.
Respondent moved for reconsideration. !
!
There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy
!
The appellate court granted the motion, set aside
in the ordinary course of law for the production of
the subject will, the remedy of mandamus cannot
its earlier ruling, issued the writ, and ordered the be availed of. Suffice it to state that respondent Lee
production of the will and the payment of attorney’s lacks a cause of action in his petition. Thus, the
fees. It ruled this time that respondent was able to Court grants the demurrer.
show by testimonial evidence that his mother had
in her possession the holographic will.!
Dissatisfied with this turn of events, petitioner filed
a motion for reconsideration. The appellate court
denied this motion. Left with no other recourse,
petitioner brought the matter before this Court,
contending in the main that the petition for
mandamus is not the proper remedy and that the
testimonial evidence used by the appellate court as
basis for its ruling is inadmissible.!
!
Issue: Whether or not mandamus is the proper
remedy of the respondent!
!
HELD: No. The Court cannot sustain the CA’s
issuance of the writ.!
!
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of
law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the
state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior
court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or
person requiring the performance of a particular
duty therein specified, which duty results from the