Alsua-Betts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

[L-46430-31, July 30, 1979]

FACTS: After executing a holographic will which was later probated during his lifetime, the deceased executed an-other will, but this second will
he did not submit to the court for probate while still alive. Can the second will be probated after his death?

HELD: Yes, for the fact of non-submission to probate during his lifetime of the second will does not indicate any defect in the requisite
testamentary capacity. Besides, a will is revocable at any time by the testator while still alive.

 
ALSUA-BETTS VS CA
FACTS: Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Doña Tinay, together with all their living children, entered into a duly notarizedagreement,  (escritura de
particion extrajudicial/extra judicial partition) for the inventory and partition of all the spouses present and existing properties. In the provision
of said extra judicial partition, (stated therein_) each of the four children was allotted with the properties considered as their share in the estate
or as inheritance left by the deceased where they will be the  absolute owner of the properties assigned in case of death of one of the spouses .
Don Jesus and Doña Tinay also separately executed holographic will with exactly the same terms and conditions in conformity with the
executed extra judicial partition naming each other as an executor without having to post any bond. That in case new properties be acquired
same shall be partitioned one half to the surviving spouse and the other half to children of equal parts. Spouses subsequently executed
separately a codicil of exactly the same terms and conditions, amending and supplementing their holographic wills stating that they reserved
for themselves the other half not disposed of to their legitimate heirs under the agreement of partition and mutually and reciprocally
bequeathed each other their participation as well all properties which might be acquired subsequently. Doña Tinay died in effect Don Jesus by
order of the probate court was name as executor. Before Don Jesus died he cancelled his holographic will in the presence of his bookkeeper
and secretary and instructed his lawyer to draft a new will. This was a notarial will and testament of 3 essential features as follows: (1) it
expressly cancelled revoked and annulled all the provisions of his holographic will and codicil; (2) it provided for the collation of all his
properties donated to his four living children by virtue of the Escritura de Partition Extra judicial”; and (3) instituted his children as legatees /
devisees of specific properties, and as to the rest of the properties and whatever may be subsequently acquired in the future, before his death,
were to be given to Francisca and Pablo naming Francisca as executor to serve without a bond.
ISSUES:
Whether oppositors to the probate of the will, are in estoppel to question the competence of testator Don Jesus Alsua.
RULINGS:
NO. The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings. Probate proceedings involve public interest, and the application therein
of the rule of estoppel, when it will block the ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances surrounding the execution of a testament,
would seem inimical to public policy. Over and above the interest of private parties is that of the state to see that  testamentary dispositions be
carried out if, and only if, executed conformably to law.
ISSUES:
Whether testator Don Jesus can revoke his previous will.
YES. We rule that Don Jesus was not forever bound of his previous holographic will and codicil as such, would remain revocable at his
discretion. Art. 828 of the new Civil Code is clear: "A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death. Any waiver or restriction
of this right is void." There can be no restriction that may be made on his absolute freedom to revoke his holographic will and codicil previously
made. This would still hold true even if such previous will had as in the case at bar already been probated. For in the first place, probate only
authenticates the will and does not pass upon the efficacy of the dispositions therein. And secondly, the rights to the succession are transmitted
only from the moment of the death of the decedent (Article 777, New Civil Code). In fine, Don Jesus retained the liberty of disposing of his
property before his death to whomsoever he chose, provided the legitime of the forced heirs are not prejudiced, which is not herein claimed
for it is undisputed that only the free portion of the whole Alsua estate is being contested.