Gago vs.

Mamuyac
G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927
Johnson, J. (Ponente)

Facts:
1. Previously, Francisco Gago filed a petition for the probate of a will of Miguel Mamuyac executed
on July 27, 1918. The oppositors alleged that the said will was already annulled and revoked. It
appeared that on April 16, 1919, the deceased executed another will. The lower court denied the
probate of the first will on the ground of the existence of the second will.

2. Another petition was filed to seek the probate of the second will. The oppositors alleged that the
second will presented was merely a copy. According to the witnesses, the said will was allegedly
revoked as per the testimony of Jose Tenoy, one of the witnesses who typed the document. Another
witness testified that on December 1920 the original will was actually cancelled by the testator.

3. The lower court denied the probate and held that the same has been annulled and revoked.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation of the will

RULING: Yes. The will was already cancelled in 1920. This was inferred when after due search, the
original will cannot be found. When the will which cannot be found in shown to be in the possession
of the testator when last seen, the presumption is that in the absence of other competent evidence,
the same was deemed cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption applies when it is shown that
the testator has ready access to the will and it can no longer be found after his death.

Facts: The testator Miguel Mamuyac died on 2 January 1922. Within the same month, Gago presented to court a
will supposed to have been executed by the testator on 27 July 1918. The will was not admitted on the ground that
the testator had, on 16 April 1919, executed a new will and testament. Gago then petitioned for the probate of the
2nd will which was denied again by the court on the ground that the same will had been revoked by the testator
as testified by Fenoy, the person who typed the will and Bejar, to whom a house and lot in the 1919 Will was sold
to. Another witness testified that the 1919 will was in the possession of the testator but could not be found after his
death. It was also successfully established that another will was executed in 1920. The 1919 will presented was
found by the lower court to be a mere carbon copy of the original.

Issue/Held: WON the will should be probated. – NO. Ratio: The original will was revoked by a 1920 will.

Doctrine: Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator, when last
seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed.
The same presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be
found after his death.