TANCHANCO VS SANTOS

GR NO. 204793

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

CONSUELO PASSED AWAY LEAVING BEHIND AN ESTATE CONSISTING SEVERAL PERSONAL AND REAL
PROPERTIES. CATALINO FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE RTC TO SETTLE THE INTESTATE OF CONSUELO.
NATIVIDAD FILED A PETITION TO DISMISS STATING THAT SHE ALREADY FILED A PETITION FOR PROBATE
OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CONSUELO.

TANCHANCO FILED AN OPPOSITION TO NATIVIDADS PETITION FOR PROBATE ALLEGING THAT THE
WILL’S CLAUSE DID NOT STATE THE NUMBER OF PAGES AND THAT THE WILL WAS WRITTEN IN
TAGALOG, NOT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE USUALLY USED BY CONSUELO IN MOST OF HER LEGAL DOCS.
ASIDE FROM THAT CONSUELO COULD NOT GO TO MAKATI WHERE THE PURPORTED WILL WAS
NOTARIZED CONSIDERING HER HEALTH CONDITION AND ALSO ALLEGING THAT CONSUELO’S SIGNATURE
WAS FORGED AND THEY PRAYED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROBATE AND FOR THE PROCEEDINGS TO
CONVERTED INTO AN INTESTATE ONE. NATIVIDAD CONTENTED THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 805 OF CC. ALTHOUGH THE ATTESTATION CLAUSE DID NOT STATE THE
NUMBER OF PAGES COMPRISING THE WILL THE SAME WAS CLEARLY INDICATED IN THE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PORTION. ASIDE FROM THAT CONSUELO CAN UNDERSTAND TAGALOG WELL
BECAUSE SHE GREW UP IN BULACAN. AND THE LAWYERS WHO ARE WITNESSED AT QUASHA LAW FIRM
ATTESTED THAT THEY WITNESSED CONSUELO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT. RTC FAVORED CATALINO AND
RULED THAT TAKEN AS A WHOLE THE WILL IS DUBIOUS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED PROBATE.
NATIVIDAD APPEALED TO THE CA.

THE CA ASSAILED THE DECISION OF THE RTC AND HELD THAT ART 960 OF CC PREFFERED TESTACY OVER
INTESTACY. CA DECLARED THAT THE WILL SHOULD BE ALLOWED PROBATE.TANCHANCOS FILED A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE CA.

ISSUE : W/N THE WILL SHOULD BE ALLOWED PROBATE

THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT IT IS SETTLED THAT THE LAW FAVORS TESTACY OVER INTESTACY
AND HENCE, THE PROBATE OF THE WILL CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. ART 838 OF THE CC PROVIDES
THAT NO WILL SHALL PASS EITHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY UNLESS IT IS PROVED AND ALLOWED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ROC. UNLESS THE WILL IS PROBATED THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF HIS
PROPERTY MAY BE RENDERED NUGATORY. IN A DECIDED CASE, THE COURT ALLOWED THE PROBATE OF
A WILL NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE NUMBER OF PAGES WAS STATED NOT IN THE ATTESTATION
CLAUSE BUT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ASIDE FROM THAT THE COURT RULED THAT THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT IF IT IS STATED ELSEWHERE IN THE WILL HOW
MANY PAGES IT IS COMPROMISED.
AJERO VS CA GR NO. 106720

FACTS

The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for probate.

Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament’s body nor
the signature therein was in decedent’s handwriting; it contained alterations and corrections
which were not duly signed by decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners through
improper pressure and undue influence.

However, the trial court still admitted the decedent’s holographic will to probate.
The trial court held that since it must decide only the question of the identity of the will, its due
execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix, it finds no reason for the disallowance
of the will for its failure to comply with the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of
testamentary capacity of the testatrix.

On appeal, the CA reversed said Decision holding that the decedent did not comply
with Articles 313 and 314 of the NCC. It found that certain dispositions in the will were either
unsigned or undated, or signed by not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations
and cancellations made had not been authenticated by decedent.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in holding that Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC were not complies with.

HELD:

839 enumeration is exclusive. These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a
will. 5 Thus,
in a petition to admit a holographic will to probate, the only issues to be resolved are: (1)
whether the instrument
submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will and testament; (2) whether said will was executed
in accordance with
the formalities prescribed by law; (3) whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary
capacity at the time the
will was executed; and, (4) whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary
acts of the decedent.
In the case at bench, respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne Sand was not
executed in accordance
with the formalities prescribed by law. It held that Articles 813 and814 of the New Civil Code,
ante, were not
complied with, hence, it disallowed the probate of said will. This is erroneous. A reading of
Article 813 of the New
Civil Code shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the
holographic will, but not
its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these
dispositions cannot
be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void. Likewise, a
holographic will can
still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article
814.Thus, unless the
unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the
holographic will or on
testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication
will only result in
disallowance of such changes. It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of
changes and
signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that
which provides for
the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810)

Atty. Constantino v. People

G.R. No. 225696

FACTS:

The RTC and CA convicted Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino for the crime of falsification of a public
document under Art. 171(2) of the RPC. That on or about September 9, 2001 in the City of Laoag,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ATTY.
BERNARDO CONSTANTINO taking advantage of his being a notary public for Laoag City and Ilocos Norte,
together with TERESITA C. SALIGANAN, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause to appear in the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
executed by Severino C. Cabrales in favor of the accused TERESITA C. SALIGANAN, of the Notarial
Register of Atty. BERNARDO CONSTANTINO, a notary public for Laoag City and Province of Ilocos Norte,
that SEVERINO C. CABRALES participated in the execution of the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, when in
fact he did not so participate, and making it appear that the testator Severino Cabrales and the attesting
witnesses, Dr. Eliezer Asuncion, Mary Balintona and Dr. Justino Balintona acknowledge the Last Will and
Testament before Atty. Bernardo Constantino while in truth they never appeared to acknowledge the
same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in convicting the accused for the crime

HELD:

No. Before one can be held criminally liable for falsification of public documents, it is essential
that the document allegedly falsified is a public document. In Cacnio v. Baens, public documents are
“those instruments authorized by a notary public or by a competent public official with all the
solemnities required by law.” Public documents are: (a) The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country; (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills
and testaments; and (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to
be entered therein. All other writings are private. Petitioner's failure to cross out Dr. Asuncion's name
when he notarized the Joint Acknowledgment has allowed Dr. Asuncion to still sign the document
despite not having participated in its due execution. This is the mischief being guarded against in
disallowing notaries ;J L-public to notarize incomplete documents.