VITUG v.

CA

Facts: In January 1985, Romarico G. vitug filed a motion with the probate court asking authority to sell
certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his advances to the
estate, which he claimed were personal funds. According to Vitug, he withdrew the sums from savings
account no. 35342-038 of the Bank of America, Makati. In April 1985, Rowena Corona opposed the
motion to sell on the ground that the funds withdrawn from account number 35342-038 were conjugal.
Vitug however, insists that the said funds are his exclusive property having acquired the same through a
survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the Bank in June 1970 wherein the agreement
provides among others: that allmoney now or hereafter deposited by us or any or either us with the
bank (Bank of America) in our joint savings current account shall be the property of all or both of us and
shall be payable

Issue: whether conveyance in question is one mortis causa which should be embodied in a will.

Decision: The conveyance in question is not, first of all, one of mortis causa, which should be embodied
in a will. A will has been defined as a “personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a capacitated
person disposes of his property and rights and declares and complies with duties to take effect after his
death.” In other words, the bequest or devise must pertain to the testator. In this case, the monies
subject of savings account no. 35342-038, were in the nature of conjugal funds.

BUGNAO v. Ubag

Issue: Execution of wills; while a number of a contradictions in the testimony of alleged subscribing
witnesses to will as to the circumstances under which it was executed, or a single contradiction as to a
particular incident to which the attention of such witnesses must have been directed, may in certain
cases justify the conclusion that the alleged witnesses were not present, together, at the time when the
alleged will was executed, a mere lapse of memory on the part of these witnesses as to the precise
details of an unimportant incident,to which his attention was not directed, does not necessarily put in
doubt the truth and veracity of the testimony in support of the execution of the will.

Testamentary capacity defined; proof of the existence of all the elementsin the following definition of
testamentray capacity, which was frequently been adopted in the U.S , held sufficient to establish the
existence of such capacity in the absence of proof of very exceptional circumstances: “Testamentary
capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged at
that time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed
to have claims upon the testator,andto comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute
his property among the objects of his bounty.”

BAGTAS v Paguio

Wills; Formalities of execution – where notes are made by a testator of the disposition he desires to
make of his property, from which an attorney prepares a formal will which is read to the testator, who
assents to it section by section, after which the whole will is read in a loud voice and is then signed by
the testator and four witnesses in the presence of each other, Held: that the requirements of the code
of civil procedure are fully complied with.

Id.; Presumption of testamentary capacity – when a testator has never been adjudged insane by a court
of competent jurisdiction, there is a presumption of mental soundness which must be overcomed by
competent proof.

Id.; Id.; sound mind and memory – to constitute a sound mind and disposing memory it is not necessary
that the mind shall be wholly unbroken,unimpaired and unshattered by diseases or otherwise, or that
the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties. Failure of memory is not sufficient unless
it be total or extends to his immediate family or property.

Id.: Id,; Id.; Infirmities – for some 14 or 15 yrs prior to his death, the testator suffered from a paralysis of
the left side of his body. A few years prior to his death, his hearing became impaired andhe lost the
power of speech . owing to the parsalysis of certain muscles, his head fell to one side and saliva ran from
his mouth. HE retained the use of his right hand, however, and was able to write fairly well. Though the
medium of signs he was able to indicate his wished to his wife and to other members of his family. Held:
Not sufficient evidence to overthrow the legal presumption of a sound mind and disposing memory.

Bellis v. Bellis

Wills; succession; conflict of laws; renvoi doctrine – The doctrine of renvoi is usually pertinent where the
decedent is a national of one country andisdomiciled in another. It does not apply to a casewhere
thedecedent was a citizen of Texas andwas domiciled therein at the time of his death. So that, even
assuming that texas has a conflicts rule providing that the domiciliary law should govern successional
rights , the same will not result in a reference back to Philippine law, but it would still refer to Texas law.
Nonetheless, if texas has a conflicts rule, adopting the rule of lex rei sitae, which calls for the application
of the law of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, where the properties
involved are found in the Philippines.

Same; applicability of national law to succession; capacity to succeed – The decedent’s national law
governs the order of succession, the amount of successional rights, the intrinsic validity of the provisions
of the will and capacity to succeed.

Same; legitimes; statutes; special and general provision –whatever public policy and good customs may
be involved in our system of legitimes, congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession
of foreign nationals. It has specifically chosen the decedent’s national law to govern, inter alia, the
amount of successional rights. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.

Same; testamentary provisions that successional right to decedent’s estate would be governed by law
other than his national lawis void –A provision in a foreigner’swill that his properties shouldbe
distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not in accordance with his national law is void, being
contrary to Article 16 of the NCC.
Same; Systemof legitime does not apply to estate of citizen of texas – wherethe decedent was a citizen
of texas andunder texas lawsthereno forced heirs, the system of legitimes in Philippine law cannot be
applied to the successionto the decedent’s testate because the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the
decedent’s will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under texas law.

PARISH PRIEST

Settlement of estate; will of testator is the first and principal law in the matter of testatments – copy.
When his intention is clearly and precisely expressed, any interpretation must be in accord when it may
certainly appear that his intention was differentfrom that literally expressed.

Same; same – one canon in the interpretation of the testamentary provisions is that “testators intention
is to be ascertained from the words of the will, taking into consideration the circumstances as
hisintention.

DIZON

Succession; Testamentary Succession; wills; interpretation XEROXED