SUROZA V.

JUDGE HONRADO
A.M. No. 2026-CFI December 19, 1981

DOCTRINE: 110 SCRA 388

- A will written in a language not known to the testator is void. It runs contrary to the mandatory provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code that
every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.
- In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a language “understood and known” to the testatrix. But in its concluding
paragraph, it was stated that the will was read to the testatrix “and translated into Filipino language.”

FACTS:
Mauro Suroza a corporal in the 45th Infantry of the U.S. Army (Philippine Scouts), Fort McKinley, married Marcelina Salvador in 1923. They
were childless, hence they reared a boy named Agapito who used surname of Suroza and considered them as his parents as shown in his 1945
marriage contract with Nenita de Vera.
Mauro died in 1942. Marcelina became a pensioner of the Federal Govt, and accumulated some cash in 2 banks.
Agapito and Nenita begot a child named Lilia, became a medical technologist. Agapito became a soldier. He was disabled and Nenita was
appointed his guardian when he was declared an incompetent by CFI of Rizal. A woman named Arsenia de la Cruz wanted to be his guardian in
another proceeding. She tried to prove that Nenita was living separately from Agapito and the Nenita admitted to Marcelina that she was
unfaithful to Agapito. Judge Tan dismissed the 2nd guardianship proceeding and confirmed Nenita’s appointment as Agapito’s guardian, as he
was staying in a veteran’s hospital in California.
Spouses Antonio Sy and Hermogena Talan begot a child named Marilyn Sy. Latter was entrusted to Arsenia and brought to Marcelina as a
supposed daughter of Agapito and her granddaughter. Marilyn used surname Suroza. She stayed with Marcelina but was not legally adopted by
Agapito. She married Oscar Medrano.
Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will in Manila when she was 73 yrs old. That will which is in English was thumbmarked by her. She
was illiterate. Her letters in English to the Veterans Administration were also thumbmarked by her. In that wig, Marcelina bequeathed all her
estate to her supposed granddaughter Marilyn. Marcelina died at the Veterans Hospital in QC. At the time of her death, she was a resident of
Makati, Rizal, and owned a lot and house in that place and also acquired a lot in 1966. Alleged laundrywoman of Marcelina and executrix of her
will, Marina Paje filed with CFI of Rizal, a petition for probate of Marcelina’s alleged will. Judge Honrado appointed Marina as administratrix and
issued 2 orders directing Merchants Banking Corporation and the Bank of America to allow Marina to withdraw the sum of P10,000 from the
savings accounts of Marcelina S. Suroza and Marilyn Suroza and requiring Corazon Castro, the custodian of the passbooks, to deliver them to
Marina. Then issued another order instructing deputy sheriff to eject occupants of testatrix’s house, among whom was Nenita, and to place
Marina in possession thereof.

ISSUE: W/N disciplinary action be taken against respondent Judge for having admitted to probate a will, which on its face is void because it is
written in English, a language not known to the illiterate testatrix, and which is probably forged will because she and the attesting witnessed did
not appear before the notary as admitted by the notary himself.

RULING: YES. Respondent judge, on perusing the will and noting that it was written in English and was thumbmarked by an obviously illiterate
testatrix, could have readily perceived that the will is void. In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that  English was a language
“understood and known” to the testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will was read to the testatrix “and translated
into Filipino language”. That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is
void because of the mandatory provision of article 804 of the Civil Code that every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the
testator.
The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is
repeatedly referred to as the “testator” instead of “testatrix”. Had respondent judge been careful and observant, he could have noted not only
the anomaly as to the language of the will but also that there was something wrong in instituting the supposed granddaughter as sole heiress
and giving nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive. Furthermore, after the hearing conducted by the deputy clerk of court,
respondent judge could have noticed that the notary was not presented as a witness. In spite of the absence of an opposition, respondent
judge should have personally conducted the hearing on the probate of the will so that he could have ascertained whether the will was validly
executed.