Alsua-Betts v.
CA  After executing such, the spouses then filed their respective
L - 46430 |July 30, 1979 | Guerrero
Digest maker: Rojo
SUMMARY: Don Jesus and Doña Tinay and their children executed a
partition agreement in 1949. Afterwards, Don Jesus and Doña Tinay executed
holographic wills in conformity with the partition agreement in 1955 and a
codicil in 1956. The holographic wills and codicils were admitted to probate in
1957. When Doña Tinay died, Don Jesus decided to revoke his previous will
and executed an entirely new notarial will in 1959. He died without probating
the 1959 notarial will. Petitioners filed a petition for probate proceedings with
Don Jesus' 1959 notarial will. Respondents opposed saying that the 1959
notarial will was in violation of the 1949 partition agreement and the 1957
probated holographic wills and codicil. The trial court granted probate. The CA
denied. The SC reversed.
DOCTRINE: We rule, however, that Don Jesus was not forever bound
thereby for his previous holographic will and codicil as such, would
remain revokable at his discretion. Art. 828 of the new Civil Code is clear:
"A win 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 (Palacios v. Palacios, 106 Phil. 739).
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.
The fact that Don Jesus did not cause his will to be probated during his
lifetime while his previous holographic will and codicil were duly probated
when he was still alive is a mere speculation which depends entirely on the
discretion of Don Jesus as the testator. The law does not require that a will be
probated during the lifetime of the testator and for not doing so there cannot
arise any favorable or unfavorable consequence therefrom.
 Don Jesus Alsua and his wife Doña Ralla (Doña Tinay), together
with their living children, through this judicial guardian, entered
into a duly notarized agreement (Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial
aka Particion) over the present and existing properties of the spouses.
 They then executed separately their respective holographic wills,
the provisions of which were in conformity and in implementation of the
extrajudicial partition.
 Spouses then filed in CFI Albay their respective petitions for
probate of their respective holographic wills (one case each separately).
supplemental petitioners for probate of their respective codicils in
the same probate proceedings for each of their holographic wills.
o Their respective wills and codicils were duly admitted into
probate.
 Upon the death of Doña Tinay, the probate court ordered Don Jesus as
named executor.
 Don Jesus then cancelled his holographic will in the presence of
his bookkeeper secretary.
o Instructed to make a list of all remaining properties
o Instructed lawyer to draft a new will signed by Don Jesus and
attesting witnesses in his home in Ligao, Albay.
 This notarial will had 3 essential features:
o Expressly cancelled, revoked and annulled all the provisions of
the holographic will and codicil
o Provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four
living children from the Particion and that such properties be
taken into account in the partition of his estate among the
children
o Instituted his children as legatees/devisees of certain specific
properties
o The rest of the properties and whatever may be subsequently
acquired in the future before his death, were to be given to
petitioner Francisca and Pablo.
 In the probate proceedings of Doña Tinay, the court confirmed the
provisions of the Particion, the holographic will of Doña Tinay and her
codicial. -> Proceedings terminated.
 Don Jesus Alsua died.
 CFI: Petition Francisca, as name executrix in the notarial will, filed a
petition for probate of the new will of Don Jesus.
o Oppositions were from the other children of the spouses alleging
that a) not of sound and disposing when executed, b) will was
made under undue and improper pressure and influence, c) will
was not executed according to formalities of law, d) will subject
of probate contravened the Particion agreed upon and his own
holographic will and codicil.
 Francisca was appointed as executrix based on the new will and she
filed an inventory of the properties of the estate.
o Oppositors claim that such inventory did not include some
properties in the previous will, it appearing that these missing
properties were bequeathed to petitioner here and Pablo Alsua.
o Petitioner, in her answer, then claimed she bought the
properties from their father through a Deed of Sale.
 Oppositors to file a Civil Case to annul such deed of
sale which was jointly heard and tried with the probate
proceedings of Don Jesus.
  CFI: Approved the notarial will and the dismissed the petition to annul
the deed of sale.
 CA: Reversed.
 Hence this petition.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. [TOPIC] W/N the Particion was an enforceable contract binding Don
Jesus thereby barring him from violating the agreement and revoking
his holographic will? NO
 The Court here does not agree with the holding that the Particion, which
under the old Civil Code was expressly prohibited against public policy
had been validly ratified by the holographic will of Don Jesus.
o A person who executes a will being permitted to partition his
properties before executing his will so long as he mentions this
fact in this will is not warranted.
o The Particion is void and inoperative as a partition; neither is it a
valid or enforceable contract because it involved future
inheritance; it may only be given effect as a donation inter vivos
of specific properties to the heirs made by the parents.
 The Court ruled that the Partition has substantial compliance with
the rules on donations inter vivos under the old Code but no valid
donation to the children of the other half reserved as the free
portion, due to the fact that the property or properties were not
specifically described in the public instrument.
o Therefore, the other half remained as the disposable free portion
of the spouses.
o Thus, the spouses made valid donations to only ½ of their
combined properties which must be charged against their
legitime and cannot anymore be revoked, unless
inofficious, while the other half remained at their free 2. W/N the Deeds of Sales were valid? YES
disposal.
 Dona Tinay’s will and codicil instituted Don Jesus as sole heir to her
share in the free portion of the conjugal assets and there was no
stipulation that Don Jesus will need to bestow the properties equally to
the children.
o The properties bequeathed to Don Jesus became part of his
estate unburdened by any condition, obligation or proviso.
 Don Jesus, not being bound by his previous holographic will and
codicil, had no restrictions on his absolute freedom to revoke the
holographic will and codicil he previously made.
o Would still hold true even if such previous will had already been
probated such as in the case at bar.
o Don Jesus retained the liberty of disposing of his property before 4. W/N respondents are estopped from assigning errors? NO
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.
 It must be presumed that the intention of Don Jesus in his last will was
not to revoke the donations already made in the Particion but only to
redistribute his remaining estate, or that portion of the conjugal assets
totally left to his free disposal and that which he received as his
inheritance from Doña Tinay.
o Legitimes of the forced heirs were left unimpaired and the
properties that were disposed of in the contested will belonged
wholly to Don Jesus Alsua's free portion and may be disposed of
by him to whomsoever he may choose.
 The fact that Don Jesus did not cause his will to be probated during
his lifetime while his previous holographic will and codicil were
duly probated when he was still alive is a mere speculation which
depends entirely on the discretion of Don Jesus as the testator.
o The law does not require that a will be probated during the
lifetime of the testator and for not doing so there cannot arise
any favorable or unfavorable consequence therefrom.
 In the case at bar, the acceptance by the respondent court of the
findings of fact of the trial court on the due execution of the last will and
testament of Don Jesus has foreclosed any and all claim to the contrary
that the will was not executed in accordance with the requirements of the
law.
o Don Jesus did not exhibit any behavior of that of a mentally
incapacitated person nor one suffering from “senile
dementia”
o On the day of the signing, he gave the detailed instructions to
his lawyer, he made corrections, he was in “bright and lively
spirits” on the day of the signing, and even made a statement
about the purpose of the meeting.
 Respondent court’s conclusion as to the nullity is not supported by
evidence.
o They show that the properties were bought for value and validly
executed thus Don Jesus in fact sold the subject properties to
his daughter
3. W/N respondent court erred in allowing the probate of the last will and
testament of Don Jesus Alsua? NO
 Court accepts as a fact the findings of the lowers courts declaring the
will as having been executed with all the formal requirements of a valid
will.
 Principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings.
o [JBL Reyes] Probate proceedings involve public interest and
the application of estoppel if it will block the ascertainment of
truth surrounds the execution of the testament would seem
inimical to public policy.
RULING: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision
appealed from is hereby set aside. The decision of the Court of First Instance of
Albay in Special Proceedings No. 699 and Civil Case No. 3068 is hereby
reinstated, with costs against respondents. SO ORDERED.