G.R. No. L-33006 December 8, 1982 NICANOR NACAR, petitioner, vs. CLAUDIO A.

NISTAL as Municipal Judge of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of Agusan del Sur, ILDEFONSO JAPITANA and ANTONIO DOLORICON, respondents. Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. for petitioner. Ildefonso Japitana and Antonio Boloricon for respondents.

respondent Japitana filed an opposition to this motion while intervenor Antonio Doloricon filed a complaint in intervention asserting that he was the owner of the attached carabaos and that the certificates of ownership of large cattle were in his name. The respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss prompting Mr. Nacar to come to the Supreme Court. In a resolution dated January 12, 1971, this Court, upon the posting of a bond in the amount of P1,000.00, directed the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction. The respondents were enjoined from further enforcing the writ of attachment and to return the seized carabaos. The judge was restrained from further proceeding with Civil Case No. 65. We find the petition meritorious.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: Nicanor Nacar filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul an order of the respondent judge of the municipal court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur directing the attachment of seven (7) carabaos, to effect the return of four (4) carabaos seized under the questioned order, and to stop the respondent judge from further proceeding in Civil Case No. 65. Respondent Ildefonso Japitana filed the complaint in Civil Case No. 65 and entitled it "Claim Against the Estate of the Late Isabelo Nacar With Preliminary Attachment:" On the basis of this complaint, including an allegation "that defendant are (sic) about to remove and dispose the above-named property (seven carabaos) with intent to defraud plaintiff herein", and considering that Mr. Japitana had given security according to the Rules of Court, Judge Nistal issued the order commanding the provincial sheriff to attach the seven (7) heads of cattle in the possession of petitioner Nicanor Nacar. Actually only four (4) carabaos were attached because three (3) carabaos had earlier been slaughtered during the rites preceding the burial of the late Isabelo Nacar. Nicanor Nacar filed a motion to dismiss, to dissolve writ of preliminary attachment, and to order the return of the carabaos. Private

The pertinent portions of the complaint filed by Mr. Japitana with the municipal court read as follows: ILDEFONSO JAPITANA Civil Case No. 65 Plaintiff, FOR: Versus CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE NICANOR NACAR THE LATE ISABELO NACAR WITH Defendant. PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT x --------------------------------x COMPLAINT COMES NOW the undersigned plaintiff and before this Honorable Court, respectfully avers: xxx xxx xxx

That at various dates since the year 1968, the defendant have (sic) incurred indebtedness to the plaintiff in the total sum of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY ONE (P2,791.00) PESOS, which said amount had long been overdue for payment, and which the defendant up to this date have (sic) not been able to pay, despite repeated demands from the plaintiff; That the defendant Isabelo Nacar died last April, 1970 leaving among other things personal property consisting seven (7) heads of carabaos now in the possession of the defendant Nicanor Nacar; That plaintiff herein file a claim against the estate of the late Isabelo Nacar to recover the aforementioned sum of P2,791.99; That defendant are (sic) about to remove and dispose the above mentioned property with intent to defraud plaintiff herein; That plaintiff is willing to put up a bond for the issuance of a preliminary attachment in an amount to be fixed by the Court, not exceeding the sum of P 2,791.00 which is the plaintiff's claim herein; WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that pending the hearing of this case, a writ of preliminary attachment be issued against the properties of the defendant to serve as security for the payment or satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered herein; and that after due hearing on the principal against the defendant for the sum of P 2,791,00 with legal interest from September 15, 1970 plus costs of this suit. (Annex "A", p. 7 rollo). In his motion to dismiss, the petitioner raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction and absence of a cause of action. Mr. Nacar averred that the indebtedness mentioned in the complaint was alleged to have

been incurred by the late Isabelo Nacar and not by Nicanor Nacar. There was, therefore, no cause of action against him. The petitioner also stated that a municipal court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action involving a claim filed against the estate of a deceased person. The same grounds have been raised in this petition. Mr. Nacar contends: xxx xxx xxx 9. That the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction.The municipal courts or inferior courts have NO jurisdiction to settle the estate of deceased persons. The proper remedy is for the creditor to file the proper proceedings in the court of first instance and file the corresponding claim. But assuming without admitting that the respondent judge had jurisdiction, it is very patent that he committed a very grave abuse of discretion and totally disregarded the provisions of the Rules of Court and decisions of this honorable Court when he issued an ex-parte writ of preliminary attachment, when there is no showing that the plaintiff therein has a sufficient cause of action, that there is no other security for the claim sought to be enforced by the plaintiff; or that the amount claimed in the action is as much as the sum for which the order is prayed for above all legal counterclaims; There was no bond to answer for whatever damages that herein petitioner may suffer; (Rollo, pp. 3- 4). xxx xxx xxx The respondent judge tried to avoid the consequences of the issues raised in the motion to dismiss by stating that although the title of the complaint styled it a claim against the estate of the late Isabelo Nacar, the allegations showed that the nature of the action was really for the recovery of an indebtedness in the amount of P2,791.99.

The rule cited by the judge is correctly stated but it is hardly relevant to the contents of the complaint filed by Mr. Japitana. It is patent from the portions of the complaint earlier cited that the allegations are not only vague and ambiguous but downright misleading. The second paragraph of the body of the complaint states that the defendant (herein petitioner Nicanor Nacar) at various dates since the year 1968 incurred debts to the plaintiff in the sum of P2,791.00. And yet, in the subsequent paragraphs, one clearly gathers that the debts were actually incurred by the late Isabelo Nacar, who died several months before the filing of the complaint. The complaint which the respondent judge reads as one for the collection of a sum of money and all the paragraphs of which are incidentally unnumbered, expressly states as a material averment: xxx xxx xxx That plaintiff herein file (sic) a claim against the estate of the late Isabelo Nacar to recover the aforementioned sum of P2,791.00; xxx xxx xxx Under the circumstances of this case, respondent Japitana has no cause of action against petitioner Nacar.Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Company (58 SCRA 559) gives the elements of a valid cause of action: A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. Its essential elements are, namely: (1) the existence of a legal right in the plaintiff, (2) a correlative legal duty in the defendant, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of plaintiff's right with consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action for the recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. ( Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. vs. Barrios, et al., 79 Phil. 666, 667; Ramitere et al. vs. Montinola Vda. de Yulo, et al., L19751, February 28, 1966, 16 SCRA 251, 255). On the

other hand, Section 3 of Rule 6 of the Rules of Court provides that the complaint must state the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. Hence, where the complaint states ultimate facts that constitute the three essential elements of a cause of action, the complaint states a cause of action; (Community Investment and Finance Corp. vs. Garcia, 88 Phil. 215, 218) otherwise, the complaint must succumb to a motion to dismiss on that ground. Indeed, although respondent Japitana may have a legal right to recover an indebtedness due him, petitioner Nicanor Nacar has no correlative legal duty to pay the debt for the simple reason that there is nothing in the complaint to show that he incurred the debt or had anything to do with the creation of the liability. As far as the debt is concerned, there is no allegation or showing that the petitioner had acted in violation of Mr. Japitana's rights with consequential injury or damage to the latter as would create a cause of action against the former. It is also patent from the complaint that respondent Japitana filed the case against petitioner Nacar to recover seven (7) heads of carabaos allegedly belonging to Isabelo Nacar which Japitana wanted to recover from the possession of the petitioner to answer for the outstanding debt of the late Isabelo Nacar. This matter, however, is only ancillary to the main action. The ancillary matter does not cure a fatal defect in the complaint for the main action is for the recovery of an outstanding debt of the late lsabelo Nacar due respondent Japitana, a cause of action about which petitioner Nacar has nothing to do. In fact the fatal defect in the complaint was noticed by the respondent court when it advised respondent Japitana to amend his complaint to conform with his evidence and from the court's admission that it was inclined to dismiss the case were it not for the complaint in intervention of respondent Doloricon. Respondent Doloricon filed his complaint for intervention on the ground that the four carabaos, subject of the writ of attachment, were actually his carabaos. Thus, the respondent court in

its Order denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss, to dissolve writ of preliminary attachment and in order the return of the carabaos said: ... Antonio Doloricon manifested before this Court that he is filing a third-party complaint alleging that he is the true and lawful owner of the carabaos in questions. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court for the interest of both parties will not for the meantime dismiss this case. Antonio Doloricon is hereby given 10 days from receipt hereof within which to file his third-party complaint. The plaintiff who in his opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss pray (sic) for the custody of the carabaos. This Court further requires plaintiff to put up the additional bond of P I,000.00 after which the latter may be entitled of (sic) the custody of the carabaos subject of litigation pending final termination of this case. (Rollo, pp. 18-19) The respondent court's reason for not dismissing the case is contrary to applicable precedents on the matter. We ruled in Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, supra: Section I, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, providing in part that: Within the time for pleading a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds; ... (g) That the complaint states no cause of action. ... explicitly requires that the sufficiency of the complaint must be tested exclusively on the basis of the complaint itself and no other should be considered when the ground for motion to dismiss is that the complaint states no cause of action. Pursuant thereto this Court has ruled that:

As a rule the sufficiency of the complaint, when challenged in a motion to dismiss, must be determined exclusively on the basis of the facts alleged therein' (Uy Chao vs. De La Rama Steamship Co., Inc., L14495, September 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 69, 72. See also De Jesus, et al. vs. Belarmino et al., 95 Phil. 365, 371; Dalandan, et at. vs. Julio, et al., L- 19101, February 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 400; Ramitere et al. vs. Montinola Vda. de Yulo, et al., L-19751, February 28, 1966, 16 SCRA 250, 254; Acuna vs. Batac Producers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc., et al., L-20338, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 526, 531) Hence, it was error for the respondent court not to dismiss the case simply because respondent Doloricon filed the complaint for intervention alleging that he owned the carabaos. Moreover, even assuming that respondent Japitana had a legal right to the carabaos which were in the possession of petitioner Nacar, the proper procedure would not be to file an action for the recovery of the outstanding debts of the late Isabelo Nacar against his stepfather, the petitioner Nacar as defendant. As we said in Maspil v. Romero (61 SCRA 197): Appropriate actions for the enforcement or defense of rights must be taken in accordance with procedural rules and cannot be left to the whims or caprices of litigants. It cannot even be left to the untrammeled discretion of the courts of justice without sacrificing uniformity and equality in the application and effectivity thereof. Considering the foregoing, the respondent court's denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint and its issuance of a writ of attachment based on the allegations of the complaint are improper. With this conclusion, we find no need to discuss the other issue on whether or not the

procedural rules on the issuance of a writ of attachment were followed by the respondent court in issuing the subject writ of attachment. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted. The preliminary mandatory injunction issued on January 13, 1971 is made permanent and the cash bond filed by the petitioner in connection therewith is ordered returned to him. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Relova, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions VASQUEZ, J., concurring: I concur in the result. The fundamental error committed by the private respondents was in pursuing their claim in an ordinary action; and that by the respondent municipal judge in entertaining the same. As can be seen from the caption and the body of the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 65, the claim of the private respondents was not against herein petitioner Nicanor Nacar but against the estate of the deceased Isabelo Nacar. It is a claim for money arising from unpaid indebtedness granted on various dates. Isabelo Nacar died before the said complaint was filed. It does not appear that any proceeding has been filed to settle his estate. Under these facts, the filing of an ordinary action to recover said claim is not allowed in any court. Even if settlement proceedings had been taken to settle the estate of Isabelo Nacar, the suit to recover the claim of the private respondents may not be filed against the administrator or executor of his estate. This is expressly provided for in Section 1 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; ... . The claim of private respondents, being one arising from a contract, may be pursued only by filing the same in the administration proceedings that may be taken to settle the estate of the deceased Isabelo Nacar. If such a proceeding is instituted and the subject claim is not filed therein within the period prescribed, the same shall be deemed "barred forever." (Sec. 5, Rule 86, Rules of Court). Even if this action were commenced during the lifetime of Isabelo Nacar, the same shall have to be dismissed, and the claim prosecuted in the proper administration proceedings (Sec. 21, Rule 3, Ibid.). It would seem that the main purpose of the private respondents in filing Civil Case No. 65 was to attach the seven carabaos owned by Isabelo Nacar. A case had to be filed in order to justify the issuance of a writ of attachment, unfortunately, said remedy may not be allowed. The carabaos, if really owned by Isabelo Nacar, pertained to his estate upon his death. The claim of the private respondents may only be satisfied by a voluntary act on the part of the heirs of Isabelo Nacar, or pursued in the appropriate settlement proceedings. A municipal court may not entertain such a proceeding, it not being vested, under the law then in force, with probate jurisdiction. Civil Case No. 65 should accordingly be dismissed and the writ of attachment issued therein dissolved.

G.R. No. L-15388

January 31, 1961

DORA PERKINS ANDERSON, petitioner-appellee, vs. IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, oppositor-appellant. Ponce Enrile, S. Reyna, Montecillo and Belo for petitioner-appellee. Lazaro A. Marquez and J. D. Quirino for oppositor-appellant. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Special Proceedings No. 29636 authorizing the special administrator of the testate estate of the late Eugene Arthur Perkins to sell at public auction certain personal properties left by the deceased. It appears that said special proceedings were commenced on May 10, 1956, by a petition presented by Dora Perkin Anderson for the probate of the supposed last will and testament of the late Eugene Arthur Perkins, who died in Manila on April 28, 1956 allegedly possessed of personal and real properties with a probable value of P5,000,000. On the same date of the filing of the aforesaid petition, petitioner Dora Perkins Anderson also filed a urgent petition for the appointment of Alfonso Ponce Enrile as special administrator of the estate, and on the same day, the court issued an order appointing Alfonso Ponce Enrile as such special administrator upon his posting of a bond in the amount of P50,000. On July 9, 1956, Idonah Slade Perkins, surviving spouse of the deceased entered an opposition to the probate of the will presented by petitioner Dora Perkins Anderson. On September 28, 1956 the special administrator submitted an inventory of all the assets which have come to his knowledge as belonging to the deceased Eugene Arthur Perkins at the time of his death. About two years later, or on September 4, 1958, the special administrator submitted to the court a petition seeking authority to sell, or give away to some charitable or educational institution institutions, certain personal effects left by the deceased, such as clothes, books, gadgets, electrical appliances, etc., which were allegedly deteriorating

both physically and in value, in order to avoid their further deterioration and to save whatever value migh be obtained in their disposition. When the motion was heard on September 25, 1958, the court required the administrator to submit a specification of the properties sought to be sold, and in compliance therewith, the special administrator, on October 21, 1958, submitted to the court, in place of a specification, a copy of the inventory of the personal properties belonging to the estate with the items sought to be sold marked with a check in red pencil, with the statement that said items were too voluminous to enumerate. On July 9, 1956, Idonah Slade Perkins filed an opposetion to the proposed sale. Reasons, for the opposition were that (1) most of the properties sought to be sold were conjugal properties of herself and her deceased husband; and (2) that unauthorized removal of fine pieces of furniture belonging to the estate had been made. The opposition notwithstanding, the lower court, on December 2, 1958, approved the proposed sale, authorizing the Sheriff of Manila to conduct the same. Oppositor Idonah Slade Perkins moved to reconsider this order on the grounds (1) that said order in effect authorized the special administrator to sell the entire personal estate of the deceased, contrary to Rule 81, section 2. Rules of Court; (2) that said order was issued without a showing that the goods and chattels sought to be sold were perishable, pursuant to Rule 81, section 2, Rules of Court; (3) that the personalty sought to be sold represented the lifetime savings and collections of oppositor; (4) that there is evidence on record showing unauthorized withdrawals from the properties of the estate, and the sale of the inventoried lot would prevent identification and recovery of the articles removed; and (5) that there is also evidence showing oppositor's separate rights to a substantial part of the personal estate. On February 23, 1959, the lower court denied the above motion for reconsideration. Whereupon, oppositor Idonah Slade Perkins appealed to this court.

Appellant first claims that the personal properties sought to be sold not being perishable, the special administrator has no legal authority to sell them. This argument is untenable, because section 2, Rule 81, of the Rules of Court, specifically provides that the special administrator "may sell such perishable and other property as the court orders sold", which shows that the special administrator's power to sell is not limited to "perishable" property only. It is true that the function of a special administrator is only to collect and preserve the property of the deceased until a regular administrator is appointed (sec. 2, Rule 81; De Gala v. Gonzales, 53 Phil. 104; Collins v. Henry, 118 S.E. 729, 155 Ga. 886; Sqydelko v. Smith's Estate, 244 N.W. 149, 259 Mich. 519). But it is not alone the specific property of the estate which is to be preserved, but its value as well, as shown by the legal provision for the sale by a special administrator of perishable property (Cao vs. Cascade Silver Mines & Mills, et al., 213 P. 109 66 Mont. 488). It is in line with this general power of the special administrator to preserve not only the property of the estate but also its value, that section 2, Rule 81, also empowers such administrator to sell "other proerty as the court ordered sold;" . There is, however, a serious obstacle to the proposed sale, namely, the vigorous opposition presented thereto the appellant, the surviving spouse of the deceased, on the ground that she is allegedly entitled to a large portion of the personal properties in question, either because the were conjugal property of herself and the deceased, or because they are her own, exclusive, personal property. Indeed the records show that up to the time the propose sale was asked for and judicially approved, no proceeding had as yet been taken, or even started, to segregate the alleged exclusive property of the oppositor-appellant from the mass of the estate supposedly left by the deceased or to liquidate the conjugal partnership property of the oppositor-appellant and the deceased. Until, therefore the issue of the ownership of the properties sought to be sold is heard and decided, and the conjugal partnership liquidated; or, at least, an agreement be reached with a appellant as to which properties of the conjugal partnership she would not mind being sold to preserve their value the proposed sale is clearly premature. After all, most of the items sought to be sold pieces of

furniture, kitchen and dinner ware, electrical appliances, various gadget and books can easily be protected and preserved with proper care and storage measures in either or both of two residential houses (in Manila and in Baguio City left by the deceased, so that no reasons of extreme urgency justify the proposed sale at this time over the strong opposition and objection of oppositor-appellant who may later be adjudged owner of a substantial portion of the personal estate in question. The special administrator claims in his brief that t oppositor-appellant should have indicated the alleged "fine furniture" which she did not want sold and that her refusal to do so is an indication of her unmeritorious claim. But it does not appear that appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to point out which items in the inventory she did not want sold. In fact, her opposition to the proposed sale and later her motion for reconsideration to the order approving the same were overruled by the court without so much as stating reasons why the grounds for her opposition were not well-founded; the records do not even show that an inquiry was made as to the validity of the grounds of her opposition. WHEREFORE, the lower court's order of December 2, 1958 authorizing the special administrator to sell certain personal properties of the estate is set aside, with costs against the special administrator Alfonso Ponce Enrile and petition-appellee Dora Perkins Anderson.

RIGHTS TO SUCCESSION

G.R. No. 92436 July 26, 1991 MARIA VDA. DE REYES, EFREN REYES, ELVIRA REYES-TIMBOL, ERLINDA REYES-VALERIO, ERNESTO REYES, ELIZABETH REYES, ALEX, RAFAEL II, EMELINA and EVELYN, all surnamed REYES, represented by their mother, MARIA VDA. DE REYES, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES DALMACIO GARDIOLA and ROSARIO MARTILLANOrespondents. De Lara, De Lunas & Rosales for petitioners. Santos, Pilapil & Associates for private respondents.

Tubig, Carmona, Cavite. He sought to bring said land under the operation of the Torrens System of registration of property. Unfortunately, he died in 1921 without the title having been issued to him. The application was prosecuted by his son, Marcelo Reyes, who was the administrator of his property. In 1936 the above property was surveyed and subdivided by Gavino's heirs (Exh. "6"). In the subdivision plan, each resultant lot was earmarked, indicated for and assigned to a specific heir. It appears therein that two lots, one of which is Lot No. I A-14 (Exh. "6-A"), were allotted to Rafael Reyes, Sr., one of Gavino's children. Per testimony of Juan Poblete, the children thereafter secured tax declarations for their respective shares. In 1941, or about twenty (20) years after the death of Gavino, the original certificate of title for the whole property OCT No. 255 was issued. It was, however, kept by Juan Poblete, son-in-law of Marcelo Reyes, who was by then already deceased. The heirs of Gavino were not aware of this fact. On 3 December 1943, Rafael Reyes, Sr. sold a parcel of land with an area of 23,431 square meters, more or less, to private respondent Dalmacio Gardiola (Exh. "5"). According to the vendee, this parcel corresponds to Lot No. 1-A-14 of the subdivision plan aforestated. The deed of sale, however, did not specifically mention Lot No. 1-A-14. The vendee immediately took possession of the property and started paying the land taxes therein. In 1945 or thereabouts, Juan Poblete "revalidated" the original Certificate of Title. As reconstituted, the new title isOCT (0-4358) RO255 (Exhs. "4" to "4-A"). On 21 October 1967, when the heirs of Gavino Reyes executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Exh. "D") based on the aforestated subdivision plan (Exh. "6"), the lot that was intended for Rafael Reyes, Sr., who was already deceased, was instead adjudicated to his only son and heir, Rafael Reyes, Jr. (the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein). Private respondent

DAVIDE, JR., J.:p Assailed before Us in this appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 11934, promulgated on 20 October 1989, 1 reversing the decision of 1 October 1986 of Branch 21 (Imus, Cavite) of the Regional Trial Court of the Fourth Judicial Region in Civil Case No. RTC-BCV-83-17 entitled Maria vda. de Reyes, et al. vs. Spouses Dalmacio Gardiola and Rosario Martillano, and Spouses Ricardo M. Gardiola and Emelita Gardiola, 2 and the resolution of 1 March 1990 denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. As culled from both decisions and the pleadings of the parties, the following facts have been preponderantly established: During his lifetime, one Gavino Reyes owned a parcel of land of approximately 70 hectares, more or less, located at Sangayad, Ulong-

Rosario Martillano signed the deed in representation of her mother, Marta Reyes, one of the children of Gavino Reyes. As a result of the Extrajudicial Settlement, OCT RO-255 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, several transfer certificates of title covering the subdivided lots were issued in the names of the respective adjudicatees. One of them is TCT No. 27257 in the name of Rafael Reyes, Jr. covering Lot No. 1-A-14. The Transfer Certificates of Title were, however, kept by one Candido Hebron. On 10 January 1969, some of the heirs of Gavino Reyes filed a case of Annulment of Partition and Recovery of Possession before the Court of First Instance of Cavite City, which was docketed therein as Civil Case No. 1267. One of the defendants in said case is herein private respondent Rosario Martillano. The case was dismissed on 18 September 1969, but Candido Hebron was ordered by the trial court to deliver to the heirs concerned all the transfer certificates of title in his possession. 3 After obtaining the Transfer Certificate of Title for Lot No. 1-A-14 from Hebron, pursuant to the aforesaid order in Civil Case No. 1267, petitioners herein, as successors-in-interest of Rafael Reyes, Jr., filed on 14 March 1983 with the Regional Trial Court the above-mentioned Civil Case No. RTC-BCV-83-17 against private respondents (defendants therein) for recovery of possession or, in the alternative, for indemnification, accounting and damages. They allege therein that after "having definitely discovered that they are the lawful owners of the property," (Lot No. 1-A-14), they, "including Rafael Reyes, Jr., during his lifetime, made repeated demands to (sic) defendants to surrender the possession of and vacate the parcel of land belonging to the former, but defendants refused to vacate and surrender the possession of the said land to herein plaintiffs;" the last of the demands was allegedly made on 8 October 1982. They further allege that they have been deprived by said defendants of the rightful possession and enjoyment of the property since September 1969 which coincides with the date of the order in Civil Case No. 1267. 4 In their answer, private respondents deny the material averments in the complaint and assert that they are the owners of the lot in question, having bought the same from Rafael Reyes, Sr., that the

issuance of TCT No. 27257 is null and void, for such sale was known to Rafael Reyes, Jr.; that they have been in possession of the property and have been paying the land taxes thereon; and that petitioners are barred by prescription and/or laches. 5 Petitioners amended their complaint on 21 March 1985 to implead as additional defendants the spouses Ricardo M. Gardiola and Emerita Gardiola, on the basis of the following claims: xxx xxx xxx 9. Meanwhile, during the presentation of the defendants spouses Dalmacio Gardiola and Rosario Martillano's evidence the former testified that they mortgaged the subject land to the Rural Bank of Carmona Inc. For their failure to redeem the mortgage the same was foreclosed by the bank. 10. However, within the period of one(1) year from such foreclosure the questioned land was redeemed by the original defendants' son in the person of Ricardo M. Gardiola, who was knowledgeable/aware of the pendency of the above captioned case. The corresponding redemption was effected through a deed of conveyance, . . . .6 The prayer of the amended complaint now contains the alternative relief for indemnification for the reasonable value of the property "in the event restitution of the property is no longer possible." 7 In its decision of 1 October 1986, 8 the trial court concluded that petitioners' "title over the subject property is valid and regular and thus they are entitled to its possession and enjoyment," and accordingly decided thus: WHEREFORE, the defendants or anyone acting for and in their behalf are hereby ordered to relinguish possession or vacate the property in question which is

covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27257 in favor of the plaintiffs. All other claims and/or counterclaims of the parties relative to this case are dismissed for lack of proper substantiation. The conclusion of the trial court is based on its finding that (a) there is no evidence that the heirs of Gavino Reyes entered into any written agreement of partition in 1936 based on the subdivision plan; (b) there is no identity between Lot No. 1-14-A and the land sold to private respondents by Rafael Reyes, Sr., or otherwise stated, the description of the latter as indicated in the deed of sale (Exh. "5") does not tally with the description of the former; and (c) moreover: Granting, arguendo, that the sale made by Rafael Reyes, Sr. to the defendants covered the land in question Lot No. 1-A-14 and that Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27257 was obtained by means of fraud, the claim of the defendants over the said property is already barred. Action for reconveyance prescribes in four (4) years from the discovery thereof. If there was fraud, the defendant could have discovered the same in 1967 when the partition was made in as much as defendant Rosario Martillano was a party to that partition. Let us grant further that the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27257 to Rafael Reyes, Jr. created a constructive or implied trust in favor of the defendants, again, the claim of the defendants is also barred. From 1967 to the filing of their answer (let us consider this as an action for reconveyance) to this case sometime in July, 1983, a period of about sixteen (16) years had already elapsed. Prescriptibility of an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust is ten (10) years. The trial court further held that the continued possession by private respondents, which it found to have started in 1943, did not ripen into

ownership because at that time, the property was already registered, hence it cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. 9 Private respondents appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals which docketed the appeal as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 11934. In its decision of 20 October 1989, the respondent Court of Appeals formulated the issues before it as follows: I Whether or not the lower court erred in declaring that the property of the late Gavino Reyes consisting of 70 hectares was partitioned only in 1967 by his grandchildren after discovery of the existence of OCT No. 255 and that no actual partition was made in 1936 by the decedent's children. II Whether or not the lower court erred in concluding that the parcel of land sold by the appellees' predecessor-ininterest, the late Rafael Reyes, Sr. to appellant Dalmacio Gardiola was not the same parcel of land under litigation. 10 and resolved such issues, thus: On the first issue, We believe that the lower court committed a reversible error when it declared that the landed estate of the late Gavino Reyes was partitioned only in 1967 by the latter's grandchildren; and that no actual partition was made in 1936 by the decedents' (sic) children. The evidence on record bears out the existence of a subdivision plan (Exh. 6) which was not controverted nor denied by the appellees. In like manner, the lower court itself recognized the fact that the property of the late Gavino Reyes consisting of 70 hectares was surveyed and subdivided in 1936 as evidenced by the

said subdivision plan (Exh. 6). With the existence of a subdivision plan, and from the uncontroverted testimony of appellants' witness, We can only infer that at least an oral partition, which under the law is valid and binding, was entered into by the heirs of Gavino Reyes regarding his properties in 1936. As held in a long line of decisions, extrajudicial partition can be done orally, and the same would be valid if freely entered into (Belen v. Belen, 49 O.G. 997, March 1953). The reason for this is because a partition is not exactly a conveyance for the reason that it does not involve transfer of property from one to the other but rather a confirmation by them of their ownership of the property. It must also be remembered that when Gavino Reyes died on March 7, 1921, his property was admittedly not yet covered by a torrens title, as it was only in 1941 when said properties were brought into the application of the torrens system. With this factual milieu, it can also be concluded that his heirs have indeed settled, subdivided and partitioned Gavino Reyes' landed estate without formal requirements of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court when a parcel of land is covered by a torrens title. As told earlier, the Subdivision Plan (Exh. 6) undisputedly showed on its face that the 70 hectares of land belonging to the late Gavino Reyes was subdivided and partitioned by his children in 1936. On this score, the partition of the said property even without the formal requirements under the rule is valid as held in the case of Hernandez vs. Andal, 78 Phil. 176, which states: xxx xxx xxx Moreover, in the Deed of Sale dated December 3, 1943 (Exh. 5) executed by Rafael Reyes, Sr. in favor of appellant Dalmacio Gardiola, the land sold therein was described as "na aking minana sa aking ama." This alone would confirm the contention of the appellants that there was already an actual partition (at least an oral

partition) of the property of Gavino Reyes in 1936. As aforestated, the presence of the Subdivision Plan (Exh. 6) is an (sic) evidence of such partition which appellees failed to controvert not to mention the fact that the lower court itself recognized the existence of said plan, in the same manner that it concluded that the property was already surveyed and actually subdivided in 1936 (page 3, pars. 3 and 4, Decision). From the foregoing considerations it is evident that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Exh. D) executed by the grandchildren of the late Gavino Reyes in 1967 is of no moment considering that the property subject of the partition in the deed was already partitioned in 1936 by the children of Gavino Reyes. It is for this reason that the lots supposedly inherited by the grandchildren named in the deed of 1967 were the same lots inherited and given to their respective fathers or mothers in 1936 while the land was not yet covered by the torrens system. Hence, in the case of Rafael Reyes, Sr., the land inherited by him was two (2) parcels of land known as Lots Nos. 1-A-3 and 1-A-14 described in the Subdivision plan of 1936 (Exh. 6), which were the same parcels of land allegedly inherited by Rafael Reyes, Jr. from Gavino Reyes in representation of his father, pursuant to the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate for which TCT No. 27257 was issued. Coming to the second issue, the lower court likewise erred when it concluded that the parcel of land sold by appellee's predecessor-in-interest to appellant Dalmacio Gardiola was not the same parcel of land under litigation. It must be pointed out that the identity of the parcel of land which the appellees sought to recover from the appellants was never an issue in the lower court, because the litigants had already conceded that the parcel identified as Lot No. 1-A-14 in TCT No. 27257 was the same parcel of land identified as Cadastral Lot

No. 1228 and 1235 described in Tax Declaration No. 4766. Despite this admission, however, the lower court declared that "as described in the deed of sale (Exh. 5), the land's description does not tally with the description of Lot No. 1-A-14, the land in litigation." As correctly pointed out by the appellants however, the discrepancy in the description was due to the fact that the description of the land sold in the Deed of Sale was expressed in layman's language whereas the description of Lot No. 1A-14 in TCT No. 27257 was done in technical terms. This was so because, when Rafael Reyes, Sr. sold the property in dispute to appellant Dalmacio Gardiola on December 3, 1943, the only evidence of title to the land then available in so far as Rafael Reyes, Sr. was concerned was Tax Declaration No. 4766, because at that time, neither he nor appellant Dalmacio Gardiola was aware of the existence of OCT No. 255 as in fact TCT No. 27257 was issued only in 1967. Consequently, the land subject of the Deed of Sale was described by the vendor in the manner as described in Tax Declaration No. 4766. However, the description of the land appearing in the Deed of Sale (Exh. 5) was exactly the same land identified as Lot No. 1-A-14 in the Subdivision Plan (Exh. 6) of 1936. Accordingly, the assumption of the lower court that "if the land sold by Rafael Reyes, Sr. was the one now in litigation, he could have easily indicated Lot No. 1-A-14" is bereft of merit under the foregoing circumstances. Interestingly enough, the appellees never denied the identity of the subject lot during the hearing at the lower court. What they were denying only was the sale made by Rafael Reyes, Sr. to appellant Dalmacio Gardiola which does not hold true because of the document denominated as Deed of Sale (Exh. 5). 11 It concluded that the trial court erred when it ordered the private respondents or anyone acting in their behalf to relinquish the possession or vacate the property in question. It thus decreed:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Judgment is ordered REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered declaring appellants to be the lawful owners of the lot identified as Lot No. 1-A-14 in TCT No. 27257. No costs. 12 Their motion to reconsider the above decision having been denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of 1 March 1990, 13 petitioners filed the instant petition on 6 April 1990 after having obtained an extension of time within which to file it. The petition does not implead original new defendants Ricardo Gardiola and Emelita Gardiola. As ground for their plea for the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioners allege that said court has decided questions of substance in a way not in accord with law or applicable jurisprudence when it held that "the deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate (Exh. "D") executed by the grandchildren of the late Gavino Reyes in 1967 is of no moment considering that the property subject of the partition was already partitioned in 1936 by the children of Gavino Reyes." In support thereof, they claim that (a) TCT No. 27257 covers two parcels of land; the lot described in paragraph 1 thereof is owned by petitioners and that ownership was confirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 79882, hence, the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the decision of the trial court; (b) private respondent Rosario Martillano was a party to the extrajudicial settlement of estate which was duly registered in the Registry of Deeds in 1967; said registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land and also constituted constructive notice to the whole world. The court cannot disregard the binding effect thereof Finally, the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals that private respondents are the lawful owners of the lot in question "militates against the indefeasible and incontrovertible character of the torrens title,"14 and allows reconveyance which is not tenable since the action therefor had already prescribed, as stated in the decision of the trial court.

In the resolution of 7 May 1990, We required respondents to comment on the petition. But even before it could do so, petitioner, without obtaining prior leave of the Court, filed on 29 May 1990 a so-called Supplemental Arguments in Support of The Petition For Review On certiorari 15 wherein they assert, among others, that: (a) the findings of facts of respondent Court are contrary to those of the trial court and appear to be contradicted by the evidence on record thus calling for the review by this Court; 16 (b) it also committed misapprehension of the facts in this case and its findings are based on speculation, conjecture and surmises; (c) private respondents' attack on petitioners' title is a collateral attack which is not allowed; even if it is allowed, the same had already prescribed and is now barred. It was only on 15 June 1990 that private respondents filed their Comment. 17 We required petitioners to reply thereto, which they complied with on 8 August 1990. 18 A rejoinder was filed by private respondents on 29 August 1990. We gave due course to the petition on 19 September 1990 and required the parties to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda which they complied with. Attached as Annex "A" to private respondent's Memorandum, which was filed on 10 December 1990, is the Resolution of this Court (Third Division) of 20 August 1990 in G.R. No. 92811 entitled Spouses Artemio Durumpili and Angustia Reyes vs. The Court of Appeals and Spouses Dalmacio Gardiola and Rosario Martillano, which also involves the property of Gavino Reyes, the partition thereof among his children in 1936, and the extrajudicial settlement in 1967. In said resolution, this Court held: . . . The partition made in 1936, although oral, was valid. The requirement in Article 1358 of the Civil Code that acts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public instrument is only for convenience and not for validity or

enforceability as between the parties themselves. [Thunga Hui vs. Que Bentec, 2 Phil. 561 (1903)] The subsequent execution by the heirs of the Extrajudicial Partition in 1967 did not alter the oral partition as in fact the share pertaining to Angustia Reyes corresponded to that previously assigned to her father. Considering that Angel Reyes sold this property to Basilio de Ocampo who, in turn, sold the same to respondents, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the latter lawfully acquired the property and are entitled to ownership and possession thereof. In answer to the charge of private respondents that petitioners deliberately failed to cite this resolution, the latter, in their replymemorandum dated 15 March 1991 and filed three days thereafter, allege: Our failure to mention the aforementioned resolution before this Honorable Court is not deliberate nor with malice aforethought. The reason is that to date, we have not yet received any resolution to our Motion For Leave of Court To Refer Case To The Honorable Supreme Court En Banc. Moreover, we honestly feel that the resolution that will be issued therein will not be applicable to the case before this Honorable Court's Second Division. It should be mentioned that in the Durumpili case before the Third Division, the Court of Appeals relied on the alleged confirmation of the sale executed by Angustia Reyes, while in the Reyes case before this Second Division, there was no sale that was executed by the petitioners Reyes' predecessor-ininterest, Rafael Reyes, Jr. The foregoing claim is not supported by the rollo of G.R. No. 92811, which reveals the following: (a) On 18 September 1990, petitioners therein, represented by De Lara, De Lunas and Rosales, who are the lawyers of petitioners in the instant case, filed a motion for the reconsideration of the resolution of 20 August 1990. 19 b) This motion

was denied in the resolution of 1 October 1990. 20 c) On 17 November 1990, petitioners therein, through the same lawyers, filed a Motion For Leave Of Court To Refer Case To The Honorable Supreme CourtEn Banc And/Or Motion For Reconsideration 21 wherein they specifically admit that said case and the instant petition have "identity and/or similarity of the parties, the facts, the issues raised," even going to the extent of "graphically" illustrating where such similarities lie. 22 d) This motion was denied in the resolution of 28 November 1990. Copy thereof was furnished the attorneys for petitioners. 23 e) Entry of judgment had already been made therein and a copy thereof was sent to petitioner's counsel per Letter of Transmittal of the Deputy Court and Chief of the Judicial Records Office dated 20 December 1990. What comes out prominently from the disquisitions of the parties is this simple issue: whether or not respondent Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in setting aside the decision of the trial court. We find none. The reversal of the trial court's decision is inevitable and unavoidable because the legal and factual conclusions made by the trial court are unfounded and clearly erroneous. The Court of Appeals was not bound to agree to such conclusions. The trial court erred in holding that: (a) there was no partition among the children of Gavino Reyes in 1936 since there is no written evidence in support thereof; yet, it admits that there was a survey and subdivision of the property and the adjudication of specific subdivision lots to each of the children of Gavino; (b) the land sold by Rafael Reyes, Sr. to private respondents is not identical to Lot No. 1-A-14, the lot specified for and adjudicated to Rafael Reyes, Jr. in the partition agreement; and (c) if the land sold by Rafael Reyes, Sr. to private respondent Dalmacio Gardiola is indeed Lot No. 1-A-14 and that TCT No. T-27257 was obtained through fraud, the remedy open to the vendee was an action for reconveyance, which should have been brought within four (4) years from the discovery thereof in 1967 when the Extrajudicial Settlement was executed since private respondent Rosario Martillano, wife of Dalmacio, was a party thereto.

The Court of Appeals correctly held that the partition made by the children of Gavino Reyes in 1936, although oral, was valid and binding. There is no law that requires partition among heirs to be in writing to be valid. 24 InHernandez vs. Andal, supra, this Court, interpreting Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, held that the requirement that a partition be put in a public document and registered has for its purpose the protection of creditors and at the same time the protection of the heirs themselves against tardy claims. The object of registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. It follows then that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the prescribed formalities does not come into play when there are no creditors or the rights of creditors are not affected. Where no such rights are involved, it is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distribution in a manner and upon a plan different from those provided by law. There is nothing in said section from which it can be inferred that a writing or other formality is an essential requisite to the validity of the partition. Accordingly, an oral partition is valid. Barcelona, et al. vs. Barcelona, et al., supra, provides the reason why oral partition is valid and why it is not covered by the Statute of Frauds: partition among heirs or renunciation of an inheritance by some of them is not exactly a conveyance of real property for the reason that it does not involve transfer of property from one to the other, but rather a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property by the heir renouncing in favor of another heir accepting and receiving the inheritance. Additionally, the validity of such oral partition in 1936 has been expressly sustained by this Court in the Resolution of 20 August 1990 in G.R. No. 92811. 25 But even if We are to assume arguendo that the oral partition executed in 1936 was not valid for some reason or another, We would still arrive at the same conclusion for upon the death of Gavino Reyes in 1921, his heirs automatically became co-owners of his 70-hectare parcel of land. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. 26 The estate of the decedent would then be held in co-ownership by the heirs. The co-heir or co-owner

may validly dispose of his share or interest in the property subject to the condition that the portion disposed of is eventually allotted to him in the division upon termination of the co-ownership. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides: Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the coowners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. In Ramirez vs. Bautista, 27 this Court held that every co-heir has the absolute ownership of his share in the community property and may alienate, assign, or mortgage the same, except as to purely personal rights, but the effect of any such transfer is limited to the portion which may be awarded to him upon the partition of the property. In the case at bar, the lot sold by Rafael Reyes, Sr. to private respondent Dalmacio Gardiola is his share in the estate of his deceased father, Gavino Reyes. It is the same property which was eventually adjudicated to his son and heir, Rafael Reyes, Jr., represented in turn by his heirs-petitioners herein-in the extrajudicial settlement of 1967. In respect to the issue as to whether the property sold by Rafael Reyes, Sr. is identical to Lot No. 1-14-A, the trial court based its conclusion that it is not, on his observation that the description of the former does not tally with that of the latter, moreover, if Rafael did intend to sell Lot No. 1-14-A, he should have specifically stated it in the deed since at that time, the property had already been partitioned and said lot was adjudicated to him. In addition to the contrary findings and conclusion of the respondent Court on this issue to which We fully agree, it is to be stressed that Rafael had this property declared for taxation purposes and the tax declaration issued was made the basis for the description of the property in the deed of sale. Upon the

execution of the deed of sale, vendee herein private respondent Dalmacio Gardiola immediately took possession of the property. This is the very same property which is the subject matter of this case and which petitioners seek to recover from the private respondents. The main evidence adduced for their claim of ownership and possession over it is TCT No. T-27257, the certificate of title covering Lot No. 1-14-A. They therefore admit and concede that the property claimed by private respondent, which was acquired by sale from Rafael Reyes, Sr., is none other than Lot No. 1-14-A. The participation of private respondent Rosario Gardiola in the Extrajudicial Settlement did not place private respondents in estoppel to question the issuance of TCT No. T-27257. As correctly maintained by private respondents, she signed it in representation of her deceased mother, Marta Reyes, a daughter and an heir of Gavino Reyes. She did not sign for and in behalf of her husband, Dalmacio Gardiola, vendee of the share of Rafael Reyes, Sr. The same did not operate to divest the vendee of the share of Rafael Reyes, Sr. in the estate of Gavino. Petitioners, as mere successors-ininterest of Rafael Reyes, Jr., son of Rafael Reyes, Sr., can only acquire that which Rafael, Jr. could transmit to them upon his death. The latter never became the owner of Lot No. 1-A-14 because it was sold by his father in 1943. The issuance of TCT No. T-27257 in the name of Rafael Reyes, Jr., in so far as Lot No. 1-14-A is concerned, was clearly erroneous because he never became its owner. An extrajudicial settlement does not create a light in favor of an heir. As this Court stated in the Barcelona case, 28 it is but a confirmation or ratification of title or right to property. Thus, since he never had any title or right to Lot No. 1-14-A, the mere execution of the settlement did not improve his condition, and the subsequent registration of the deed did not create any right or vest any title over the property in favor of the petitioners as heirs of Rafael Reyes, Jr. The latter cannot give them what he never had before. Nemo dare potest quod non habet. There is one more point that should be stressed here. Petitioners' immediate predecessor-in-interest, Rafael Reyes, Jr., never took any action against private respondents from the time his father sold the lot

to the latter. Neither did petitioners bring any action to recover from private respondents the ownership and possession of the lot from the time Rafael Reyes, Jr. died. As categorically admitted by petitioners in their complaint and amended complaint, it was only in or about September 1969 when, after the delivery of TCT No. 27257 by Candido Hebron to them, that they definitely discovered that they were the owners of the property in question. And yet, despite full knowledge that private respondents were in actual physical possession of the property, it was only about thirteen and one-half (13 1/2) years later that they decided to file an action for recovery of possession. As stated earlier, the original complaint was filed in the trial court on 14 March 1983. There was then absolutely no basis for the trial court to place the burden on private respondents to bring an action for reconveyance within four (4) years from their discovery of the issuance of the transfer certificate of title in the name of Rafael Reyes, Jr. The instant petition then is without merit. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DENYING the petition with costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

GR NO. 94918 DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ-ANDRES, MARCELO I. SUAREZ, JR., EVELYN SUAREZ-DE LEON AND REGINIO I. SUAREZ, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, VALENTE RAYMUNDO, VIOLETA RAYMUNDO, MA. CONCEPCION VITO AND VIRGINIA BANTA RESPONDENTS. The ultimate issue before Us is whether or not private respondents can validly acquire all the five (5) parcels of land co-owned by petitioners and registered in the name of petitioner's deceased father, Marcelo Suarez, whose estate has not been partitioned or liquidated, after the said properties were levied and publicly sold en masse to private respondents to satisfy the personal judgment debt of Teofista Suarez, the surviving spouse of Marcelo Suarez, mother of herein petitioners. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: Herein petitioners are brothers and sisters. Their father died in 1955 and since then his estate consisting of several valuable parcels of land in Pasig, Metro Manila has not been liquidated or partitioned. In 1977, petitioners widowed mother and Rizal Realty Corporation lost in the consolidated cases for rescission of contract and for damages, and were ordered by Branch 1 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (now Branch 151, RTC of Pasig) to pay, jointly and severally, herein respondents the aggregate principal amount of about P70,000 as damages.[1] The judgment against petitioner's mother and Rizal Realty Corporation having become final and executory, five (5) valuable parcels of land in Pasig, Metro Manila, (worth to be millions then) were levied and sold on execution on June 24, 1983 in favor of the private respondents as the highest bidder for the amount of P94,170.00. Private respondents

were then issued a certificate of sale which was subsequently registered on August 1, 1983. On June 21, 1984, before the expiration of the redemption period, petitioners filed a reinvindicatory action[2] against private respondents and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, thereafter docketed as Civil Case No. 51203, for the annulment of the auction sale and the recovery of the ownership of the levied pieces of property. Therein, they alleged, among others, that being strangers to the case decided against their mother, they cannot be held liable therefor and that the five (5) parcels of land, of which they are co-owners, can neither be levied nor sold on execution. On July 31, 1984, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal issued to private respondents a final deed of sale[3] over the properties. On October 22, 1984, Teofista Suarez joined by herein petitioners filed with Branch 151 a Motion for Reconsideration[4] of the Order dated October 10, 1984, claiming that the parcels of land are co-owned by them and further informing the Court the filing and pendency of an action to annul the auction sale (Civil Case No. 51203), which motion however, was denied. On February 25, 1985, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued enjoining private respondents from transferring to third parties the levied parcels of land based on the finding that the auctioned lands are co-owned by petitioners. On March 1, 1985, private respondent Valente Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. 51203 a Motion to Dismiss for failure on the part of the

petitioners to prosecute, however, such motion was later denied by Branch 155, Regional Trial Court, Pasig. On December 1985, Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. 51203 an ExParte Motion to Dismiss complaint for failure to prosecute. This was granted by Branch 155 through an Order dated May 29, 1986, notwithstanding petitioner's pending motion for the issuance of alias summons to be served upon the other defendants in the said case. A motion for reconsideration was filed but was later denied. On October 10, 1984, RTC Branch 151 issued in Civil Case Nos. 21736-21739 an Order directing Teofista Suarez and all persons claiming right under her to vacate the lots subject of the judicial sale; to desist from removing or alienating improvements thereon; and to surrender to private respondents the owner's duplicate copy of the torrens title and other pertinent documents. Teofista Suarez then filed with the then Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari to annul the Orders of Branch 151 dated October 10, 1984 and October 14, 1986 issued in Civil Case Nos. 21736-21739. On December 4, 1986, petitioners filed with Branch 155 a Motion for reconsideration of the Order[5] dated September 24, 1986. In an Order dated June 10, 1987,[6] Branch 155 lifted its previous order of dismissal and directed the issuance of alias summons. Respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the orders dated February 25, 1985,[7] May 19, 1989[8] and February

26, 1990[9] issued in Civil Case No. 51203 and further ordering respondent judge to dismiss Civil Case. No. 51203. The appellate court rendered its decision on July 27, 1990,[10] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted and the questioned orders dated February 25, 1985, May 19, 1989 and February 26, 1990 issued in Civil Case No. 51203 are hereby annulled; further respondent judge is ordered to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203.[11] Hence, this appeal. Even without touching on the incidents and issues raised by both petitioner and private respondents and the developments subsequent to the filing of the complaint. We cannot but notice the glaring error committed by the trial court. It would be useless to discuss the procedural issue on the validity of the execution and the manner of publicly selling en masse subject properties for auction. To start with, only one-half of the 5 parcels of land should have been the subject of the auction sale. The law in point is Article 777 of the Civil Code, the law applicable at the time of the institution of the case: The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. Article 888 further provides:

The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. Article 892 par. 2 likewise provides: If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. Thus, from the foregoing, the legitime of the surviving spouse is equal to the legitime of each child. The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is different from and adverse to that of their mother. Petitioners became co-owners of the property not because of their mother but through their own right as children of their deceased father. Therefore, petitioners are not barred in any way from instituting the action to annul the auction sale to protect their own interest. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 27, 1990 as well as its Resolution of August 28, 1990 are hereby REVERSED and set aside; and Civil Case No. 51203 is reinstated only to determine that portion which belongs to petitioners and to annul the sale with regard to said portion. SO ORDERED.

petitioner asked the heirs to affix their signatures on the document. The heirs signed the document with the understanding that respondent Aurora S. Roque, one of the heirs, would be present when the latter would seek permission from the Bureau of Lands and have the land surveyed. However, without the participation of any of the Torres heirs, the property was subsequently surveyed, subdivided and then covered by TCT Nos. T-292265 and T-292266. Petitioner did not furnish the heirs with copies of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale nor of the subdivision plan and the certificates of title. Upon securing a copy of the deed from the Registry of Deeds, the respondents learned that the area of the property purportedly sold to petitioner was much bigger than that agreed upon by the parties. It already included the portion being occupied by the spouses Severino and Consuelo Lim. On 2 June 1986, private respondents sent a letter to petitioner demanding the surrender to them of the deed of settlement and conveyance, the subdivision plan and the certificates of title; but to no avail. On 25 June 1986 respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan an action for annulment of the deed and cancellation of the certificates of title, with prayer for recovery of damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit.[1] Petitioner controverted the allegations of respondents by presenting the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale dated 10 October 1984 wherein respondents agreed to divide and adjudicate among themselves the inherited property with an area of one thousand five hundred and three (1,503) square meters. In the same document, they caused the subdivision of the property into two (2) lots according to Plan No. PSD-03-009105 identified as Lot 4-A with an area of one thousand ninety-six (1,096) square meters, and Lot 4-B with an area of four hundred and seven (407) square meters, and acknowledged the sale to petitioner of said Lot 4-B. As a consequence, on 18 March 1985, the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. T-292265 in the name of the heirs of Josefa Torres and TCT No. T-292266 in the name of petitioner.

INTESTATE [G.R. No. 116018. November 13, 1996] NELIA A. CONSTANTINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA S. ROQUE, PRISCILLA S. LUNA and JOSEFINA S. AUSTRIA,respondents. DECISION BELLOSILLO, J.: JOSEFA TORRES died intestate leaving a parcel of land located at Balagtas, Bulacan. Among her heirs are respondents Aurora S. Roque, Priscilla S. Luna and Josefina S. Austria. Sometime in 1984, the heirs of Josefa Torres, as vendors, and petitioner Nelia A. Constantino, as vendee, entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land with a total land area of two hundred and fifty (250) square meters. The lot, owned in common by the Torres heirs, is being occupied by petitioners mother and sister. An adjoining lot, also coowned by the heirs, is being occupied by spouses Severino and Consuelo Lim. Pursuant to their agreement, the heirs authorized petitioner to prepare the necessary Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale. After having the document drafted - with several spaces left blank including the specification as to the metes and bounds of the land -

In reply, private respondents reiterated that all the heirs signed the document before the land was surveyed and subdivided, hence, there was as yet no definite area to be sold that could be indicated in the deed at the time of the signing. They also claimed that they were not notified about the survey and the subdivision of the lot and therefore they could not have agreed on the area supposedly sold to petitioner. The respondent heirs insist that they could not have agreed to the extent of the area actually reflected in the deed because it included the portion being occupied by the Lim spouses, which was already the subject of a previous agreement to sell between them and their predecessor. The trial court entertained serious doubts with respect to the preparation and due execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale taking into account that (a) while petitioner claimed that all the heirs signed before the notary public and in her presence, she was not able to enumerate all the signatories to the document; (b) while petitioner claimed that the document was signed only after the survey of the land was completed, or on 10 October 1984, such fact was negated by her own witness who testified that the survey was conducted only on 16 October 1984; and, (c) while petitioner alleged that the document was signed and notarized in Manila no explanation was offered why the same could not have been signed and notarized in Bulacan where notaries public abound which could have been less inconvenient to the parties concerned. Additionally, the trial court relied heavily on the assertions of respondents as reflected in their demand letter that they did not give their consent to the sale of Lot 4B. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court on 27 September 1990 ordered the annulment and cancellation of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale, TCT Nos. T-292265 and T-292266 and Subdivision Plan No. PSD-03-009105. It also ordered petitioner to pay private respondents P50,000.00 for moral damages,P15,000.00 for attorneys fees, and to pay the costs of suit.[2] On 16 March 1994 respondent Court of Appeals sustained the decision of the trial court,[3] and on 20 June 1994 denied the motion to reconsider its decision.[4]

Petitioner faults respondent Court of Appeals: (a) for disregarding documentary evidence already presented, marked and identified on a purely technical ground, and (b) for concluding that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale did not reflect the true intent of the parties. Petitioner argues that the trial court should not have denied her motion to admit formal offer of evidence merely on the basis of technicality such as late filing, citing Siguenza v. Court of Appeals.[5] We are not persuaded. Indeed, we held in Siguenza that rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical sense as they are used only to help secure, not override, substantial justice. Yet the holding is inapplicable to the present case as the trial court had a reasonable basis for denying petitioners motion On February 6, 1990, Atty. Ponciano Mercado, defendants counsel, manifested in Court that he has (sic) no more witness to present. He asked that he be given 15 days to make a formal offer of evidence and which the Court granted. At the scheduled hearing of April 03, 1990, Atty. Ponciano Mercado x x x x was not in Court. Atty. Veneracion, plaintiffs counsel, called the attention of the Court that Atty. Mercado has (sic) not yet filed and/or complied with the Court Order dated February 06, 1990, which is to file his formal offer of evidence. On motion of Atty. Veneracion, defendants right to file a formal offer of evidence was deemed waived. Atty. Veneracion waived the presentation of rebuttal evidence considering that the defendant can (sic) no longer make a formal offer of evidence. On May 11, 1990, the Court was in receipt of a motion to admit formal offer of exhibits filed by the defendant thru counsel, Atty. Ponciano Mercado, on May 02, 1990. Considering that the same was filed out of time and the plaintiffs having filed their memorandum already, the motion to admit formal offer of exhibits was denied (underscoring supplied). The trial court was correct in holding that petitioner waived the right to formally offer his evidence. A considerable lapse of time, about three (3) months, had already passed before petitioners counsel made effort to formally offer his evidence. For the trial court

to grant petitioners motion to admit her exhibits would be to condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-compliance with a court order which, in effect, would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy administration of justice. Petitioner also insists that the real intent of the parties was to make the entire Lot 4-B the subject matter of the sale. She claims that during cross-examination respondent Aurora S. Roque admitted that she signed in behalf of her co-heirs a receipt for P30,000.00 as partial payment for the lot occupied by Ka Baring and Lina (relatives of petitioner) and Iling (Consuelo Lim). Moreover, according to petitioner, the assertions of private respondents to petitioner contained in the demand letter should not necessarily be true and that the validity of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale was not affected by the fact that it was notarized in a place other than where the subject matter thereof was situated, citing Sales v. Court of Appeals.[6] These other arguments of petitioner are barren and futile. The admission of respondent Roque cannot prevail in the face of the clear evidence that there was as yet no meeting of the minds on the land area to be sold since private respondents were still awaiting the survey to be conducted on the premises. Obviously, the trial court only lent credence to the assertions in the demand letter after having weighed the respective evidence of the parties. But even without the letter, the evidence of respondents had already amply substantiated their claims. We ruled in the Sales case that the extrinsic validity of a document was not affected by the fact that it was notarized in a place other than where the subject matter thereof was located. What is more important under the Notarial Law is that the notary public has authority to acknowledge the document executed within his territorial jurisdiction. The ruling in Sales is not applicable to the present case. Our concern here is not whether the notary public had the authority to acknowledge the document executed within his territorial jurisdiction but whether respondents indeed appeared before him and signed the deed. However, the quantum of evidence shows that they did not.

The trial court correctly appreciated the fact that the deed was notarized in Manila when it could have been notarized in Bulacan. This additional detail casts doubt on the procedural regularity in the preparation, execution and signing of the deed. It is not easy to believe that petitioner and the ten (10) Torres heirs traveled all the way to Manila to have their questioned document notarized considering that they, with the exception of respondent Roque, are residents of Balagtas, Bulacan, where notaries public are easy to find. Consequently, the claim of private respondents that they did not sign the document before a notary public is more plausible than petitioners feeble claim to the contrary. Likewise, we find the allegation of respondents that they signed the deed prior to the survey, or before determination of the area to be sold, worthy of credit as against the contention of petitioner that they signed after the survey or on 10 October 1984. As found by the trial court, such contention was contradicted by petitioners own witness who positively asserted in court that the survey was conducted only on 16 October 1984 or six (6) days after the signing. Quite obviously, when respondents affixed their signatures on the deed, it was still incomplete since petitioner who caused it to be prepared left several spaces blank, more particularly as regards the dimensions of the property to be sold. The heirs were persuaded to sign the document only upon the assurance of petitioner that respondent Roque, pursuant to their understanding, would be present when the property would be surveyed after obtaining permission from the Bureau of Lands. As it surfaced, the supposed understanding was merely a ruse of petitioner to induce respondents to sign the deed without which the latter would not have given their conformity thereto.[7] Apparently, petitioner deceived respondents by filling the blank spaces in the deed, having the lots surveyed and subdivided, and then causing the issuance of transfer certificates of title without their knowledge, much less consent. Thus all the elements of fraud vitiating consent for purposes of annulling a contract concur: (a) It was employed by a contracting party upon the other; (b) It induced the other party to enter into the contract; (c) It was serious; and, (d) It resulted in damages and injury to the party seeking annulment.[8]

Perhaps, another compelling reason for the annulment of the document of settlement and conveyance is that the second page thereof clearly manifests that the number of the subdivision plan and the respective areas of Lots 4-A and 4-B were merely handwritten while all the rest of the statements therein were typewritten, which leads us to the conclusion that handwritten figures thereon were not available at the time the document was formalized. WHEREFORE, there being no error to warrant a reversal of the decision and resolution in question of respondent Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Br. 22, the instant petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

DE GUZMAN, SPS. RICARDO G. ONG AND JULIE LIM-IT, SPS. MISAEL ADELAIDA P. SOLIMAN AND FERDINAND SOLIMAN, SPS. MYLENE T. LIM AND ARTHUR LIM, EVELYN K. CHUA, GOLDEN BAY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. DECISION PURISIMA, J.: At bar is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Orders dated October 25, 1995 and February 23, 1996, respectively, of Branch 21 of the Regional Trial Court in Imus, Cavite (RTC). The facts that matter are, as follows: Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay, the owners-claimants of Lot No. 1131 with an area of 520,638 and Lot No. 1132 with an area of 96,235 square meters, more or less situated in Bancal, Carmona, Cavite. On March 17, 1994, petitioners executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the estate of the deceased Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay. On August 26, 1994, petitioners discovered that a portion, if not all, of the aforesaid properties were titled in the name of respondent Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation (Golden Bay) under Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. (TCT) 225254 and 225255. With the discovery of what happened to subject parcels of land, petitioners filed a complaint for ANNULMENT and/or DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF TCT NO. 493363, 493364, 493665, 493366, 493367; and its Derivatives; As Alternative Reconveyance of Realty WITH A PRAYER FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and/or RESTRAINING ORDER WITH DAMAGES, docketed as RTC BCV-94-127 before Branch 21 of the Regional Trial Court in Imus, Cavite. Upon learning that Golden Bay sold portions of the parcels of land in question, petitioners filed with the RTC an Amended

[G.R. No. 124320. March 2, 1999]

HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY AND ISABEL YAPTINCHAY, NAMELY: LETICIA ENCISO-GADINGAN, EMILIO ENCISO, AURORA ENCISO, AND NORBERTO ENCISO, REPRESENTED BY LETICIA ENCISO-GADINGAN, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, petitioners, vs. HON. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 21, IMUS, CAVITE; THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR TRECE MARTIRES CITY, GEORGE T. CHUA, SPS. ALFONSO NG AND ANNABELLE CHUA, SPS. ROSENDO L. DY AND DIANA DY, SPS. ALEXANDER NG AND CRISTINA NG, SPS. SAMUEL MADRID AND BELEN MADRID, SPS. JOSE MADRID AND BERNARDA MADRID, SPS. DAVID MADRID AND VIOLETA MADRID, JONATHAN NG, SPS. VICTORIANO CHAN, JR. AND CARMELITA CHAN, SPS. MARIE TES C. LEE AND GREGORIE W.C. LEE, JACINTO C. NG, JR., SPS. ADELAIDO S. DE GUZMAN AND ROSITA C.

Complaint to implead new and additional defendants and to mention the TCTs to be annulled. But the respondent court dismissed the Amended Complaint. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the Order dismissing the Amended Complaint. The motion was granted by the RTC in an Order[1] dated July 7, 1995, which further allowed the herein petitioners to file a Second Amended Complaint,[2] which they promptly did. On August 12, 1995, the private respondents presented a Motion to Dismiss[3] on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, that plaintiffs did not have a right of action, that they have not established their status as heirs, that the land being claimed is different from that of the defendants, and that plaintiffs claim was barred by laches. The said Motion to Dismiss was granted by the respondent court in its Order[4] dated October 25, 1995, holding that petitioners have not shown any proof or even a s emblance of it except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the above-named Yaptinchays - that they have been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Petitioners interposed a Motion for Reconsideration[5] but to no avail. The same was denied by the RTC in its Order[6] of February 23, 1996. Undaunted, petitioners have come before this Court to seek relief from respondent courts Orders under attack. Petitioners contend that the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the issue of heirship should first be determined before trial of the case could proceed. It is petitioners submission that the respondent court should have proceeded with the trial and simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in the same case. The petition is not impressed with merit. To begin with, petitioners Petition for Certiorari before this Court is an improper recourse. Their proper remedy should have been an appeal. An order of dismissal, be it right or wrong, is a final order, which is subject to appeal and not a proper subject

of certiorari[7]. Where appeal is available as a remedy, certiorari will not lie[8]. Neither did the respondent court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned Order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint of petitioners, as it aptly ratiocinated and ruled: But the plaintiffs who claimed to be the legal heirs of the said Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay have not shown any proof or even a semblance of it - except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the aforementioned Yaptinchays - that they have been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Now, the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance (Elena C. Monzon, et. al., v. Angelita Taligato, CA-G-R No. 33355, August 12, 1992). In Litam, etc., et. al. v. Rivera[9], this court opined that the declaration of heirship must be made in an administration proceeding, and not in an independent civil action. This doctrine was reiterated in Solivio v. Court of Appeals[10] where the court held: "In Litam, et al. v. Rivera, 100 Phil. 364, where despite the pendency of the special proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of the deceased Rafael Litam, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a civil action in which they claimed that they were the children by a previous marriage of the deceased to a Chinese woman, hence, entitled to inherit his one-half share of the conjugal properties acquired during his marriage to Marcosa Rivera, the trial court in the civil case declared that the plaintiffs-appellants were not children of the deceased, that the properties in question were paraphernal properties of his wife, Marcosa Rivera, and that the latter was his only heir. On appeal to this Court, we ruled that such declarations (that Marcosa Rivera was the only heir of the decedent) is improper, in Civil Case No. 2071, it being within the exclusive competence of the court in Special Proceedings No. 1537, in which it is not as yet, in issue, and, will not be, ordinarily, in issue until the presentation of the project of partition. (p. 378).

The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. We therefore hold that the respondent court did the right thing in dismissing the Second Amended Complaint, which stated no cause of action. In Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals[11], it was ruled that: xxx If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Petition under consideration is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

gains regime, they acquired numerous properties, which included the following: (1) a parcel of land situated in Barrio Caniogan, Pasig with an area of 348 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 30680; (2) property located in Pinagbuhatan, Pasig, with an area of 1,020 square meters under Tax Declaration No. A-016-01003; and (3) Lot Nos. 5, 6 & 7, Block 2 covered by Tax Declaration No. A01700723 (subject properties). After the death of Marcelo Sr. in 1955, Teofista and herein respondents, as well as Elpidio Suarez,7executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate,8 partitioning Marcelo Sr.'s estate, thus: WHEREAS, the said deceased is survived by the parties hereto who are his only legal heirs: TEOFISTA ISAGON, being the surviving spouse, and EUFROCINA S. ANDRES, ELPIDIO SUAREZ, DANILO SUAREZ, EVELYN SUAREZ, MARCELO SUAREZ, JR. and REGGINEO SUAREZ, being the legitimate children of the deceased with the said TEOFISTA ISAGON; WHEREAS, the minors ELPIDIO, SUAREZ, DANILO SUAREZ, EVELYN SUAREZ, MARCELO SUAREZ, JR. and REGGINEO SUAREZ are represented herein by EUFROCINA S. ANDRES, in her capacity as the guardian and legal administrator of the property of the said minors; WHEREAS, there are no known debts or financial obligations of whatever nature and amount against the estate of the deceased; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the Parties have agreed to settle and liquidate the assets of the conjugal partnership between the deceased and TEOFISTA ISAGON, and to settle and adjudicate the estate of the said deceased, by and pursuance to these presents, in the following manner, to wit: 1. That TEOFISTA ISAGON, as the surviving spouse and partner of the deceased, shall receive in absolute and exclusive

G.R. No. 149017

November 28, 2008

VALENTE RAYMUNDO,petitioner, vs. TEOFISTA ISAGON VDA. DE SUAREZ, DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ, MARCELO I. SUAREZ, JR, EVELYN SUAREZ, ET AL., respondents. DECISION NACHURA, J.: This petition, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assails the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1and Resolution2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58090 which reversed, set aside and recalled the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Orders3 in Civil Case No. 51203. First, the long settled facts. Marcelo and Teofista Isagon Suarez'4 marriage was blessed with both material wealth and progeny in herein respondents, namely, Danilo,5 Eufrocina, Marcelo Jr., Evelyn, and Reggineo,6 all surnamed Suarez. During their marriage, governed by the conjugal partnership of

ownership the following properties as her lawful share in the assets of the conjugal partnership of gains between her and the deceased, to wit: (a) Half (1/2) interest and participation in the parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 6938, situated at Sitio Pantayan, Municipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal; (b) Half (1/2) interest and participation in the parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 6939, situated at Sitio Pantayan, Municipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal; (c) Half (1/2) interest and participation in the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 38291, situated at Barrio Rosario, Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal; (d) Half (1/2) interest and participation in the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 38290, situated at Barrio Rosario, Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal; (e) TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY PESOS AND NINETY (P12,530.90) deposited with the Commercial Bank and Trust Company of the Philippines, and THIRTY-NINE PESOS (P39.00) deposited with Prudential Bank. 2. That the Parties TEOFISTA ISAGON, EUFROCINA S. ANDRES, ELPIDIO SUAREZ, DANILO SUAREZ, EVELYN SUAREZ, MARCELO SUAREZ, JR. and REGGINEO SUAREZ, shall each and all receive and be entitled to a share equivalent to one-seventh (1/7) of the estate of the deceased MARCELO SUAREZ, which estate is comprised of the following properties, to wit: (a) A parcel of land covered by TCT No. 30680, situated at Barrio Kaniogan, Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, with an assessed value of P4,150.00.

(b) Three (3) parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 33982, 33983 and 33984, situated at Barrio Pineda, Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, with an assessed value ofP560.00. (c) A parcel of land covered by TCT 33986, situated at Barrio Pineda, Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, with an assessed value of P440.00. (d) Two (2) parcels of land, being Lots Nos. 42 and 44 of the amendment-subdivision plan TY-4653-Amd., being a portion of Lot 2 described on the original plan II-4653, G.L.R.O. Record No. _____, situated at Barrio Santolan, Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, with a total assessed value of P590.00. (e) Two parcels of land, being Lots Nos. 43 and 45 of the amendment-subdivision plan TY-4653-Amd., being a portion of Lot 2 described on the original plan II-4653, G.L.R.O. Record No. _______, situated at Barrio Santolan, Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, with a total assessed value of P1,190.00. (f) A parcel of land, being Lot No. 6, Block 269 of the subdivision plan pos-112, being a portion of Lot 2, Block 348, Psd-3188, G.L.R.O. Record Nos. 375,699 and 917, situated at San Felipe Neri, Province of Rizal, with an assessed value of P6,340.00. (g) A parcel of land covered by OCT No. 391, situated in the Municipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal, with an assessed value of P1,840.00. (h) TWELVE THOUSAND (12,000) shares of stock of the Consolidated Mines, Inc. represented by Certificate No. 71-5-B (for 1,000 shares) and Certificate No. 12736 (for 11,000 shares).

PROVIDED, that their title to the properties hereinabove mentioned shall be in common and the share of each heir being pro indiviso. Curiously, despite the partition, title to the foregoing properties, explicitly identified in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate as forming part of Marcelo's and Isagon's property regime, remained in the couple's name. Not surprisingly, Teofista continued to administer and manage these properties. On the whole, apart from those now owned exclusively by Teofista, all the properties were held pro indiviso by Teofista and her children; and respective titles thereto were not changed, with Teofista asde facto administrator thereof. In 1975, Rizal Realty Corporation (Rizal Realty) and Teofista, the latter owning ninety percent (90%) of the former's shares of stock, were sued by petitioner Valente Raymundo, his wife Violeta, Virginia Banta and Maria Concepcion Vito (plaintiffs) in consolidated cases for Rescission of Contract and Damages, docketed as Civil Case Nos. 21736 to 21739. Thereafter, in 1975, the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch 1, rendered judgment: (1) rescinding the respective contracts of plaintiffs with Rizal Realty and Teofista, and (2) holding the two defendants solidarily liable to plaintiffs for damages in the aggregate principal amount of about P70,000.00.9 When the judgment of the CFI became final and executory, herein subject properties were levied and sold on execution on June 24, 1983 to satisfy the judgment against Teofista and Rizal Realty. The aforementioned plaintiffs were the highest bidder, and bought the levied properties for the amount ofP94,170.00. As a result, a certificate of sale was issued to them and registered in their favor on August 1, 1983. On July 31, 1984, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal issued a final deed of sale over the subject properties. Parenthetically, before expiration of the redemption period, or on June 21, 1984, herein respondents filed a revindicatory action against petitioner Valente, Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion, docketed as Civil Case No. 51203, for the annulment of the auction sale and recovery of ownership of the levied properties. Essentially,

respondents alleged in their complaint that they cannot be held liable for the judgment rendered against their mother, Teofista, not having been impleaded therein; and consequently, the subject properties, which they own pro indiviso with their mother, can neither be levied nor be sold on execution. Meanwhile, the RTC, Branch 151, formerly the CFI, Branch 1, in Civil Case Nos. 21376 to 21379, issued an Order10 directing Teofista: (1) to vacate the subject properties, (2) to desist from despoiling, dismantling, removing or alienating the improvements thereon, (3) to place petitioner Valente, Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion in peaceful possession thereof, and (4) to surrender to them the owner's duplicate copy of the torrens title and other pertinent documents. Herein respondents, joined by their mother, Teofista, filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the subject properties are co-owned by them and further informing the RTC of the filing and pendency of Civil Case No. 51203. Nonetheless, the trial court denied Teofista's and herein respondents' motion, reiterated its previous order, which included, among others, the order for Teofista and all persons claiming right under her, to vacate the lots subject of the judicial sale. Undaunted, Teofista and herein respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA to annul the foregoing orders. The appellate court, on July 6, 1987, dismissed Teofista's and herein respondents' petition, thus: We believe this petition cannot prosper for two reasons. First, as purported case for certiorari it fails to show how the respondent judge had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The two orders being assailed were preceded by a final judgment, a corresponding writ of execution, a levy on execution and a judicial sale, all of which enjoy a strong sense presumption of regularity. Secondly, as far as [petitioner] Teofista Suarez is concerned, she cannot complain about the levy because she was a party in the consolidated cases where judgment was rendered against her in her personal capacity. Since she did not appeal from the

decision, she cannot say that the judgment is erroneous for an obligation that belong to the corporation. And with respect to the children of Teofista Suarez, who are co-petitioners in this proceedings [herein respondents], suffice it to point out that not being parties in the consolidated cases, what they should have done was to immediately file a third party claim. The moment levy was made on the parcels of land, which they claim are theirs by virtue of hereditary succession, they should have seasonably filed such claim to protect their rights. As the record discloses, however, the children chose to remain silent, and even allowed the auction sale to be held, filing almost a year later a half-hearted complaint to annul the proceedings which they allowed to be dismissed by not diligently prosecuting it. In Santos v. Mojica (10 SCRA 318), a partition case with thirdparty claimants, the Supreme Court came out with the following ruling: "The procedure (a petition for certiorari) followed by him (a petitioner not party to the original partition case) in vindicating his right is not the one sanctioned by law, for he should have filed a separate and independent action making parties therein the sheriff and the plaintiffs responsible for the execution xxx. It can, therefore, be said that (he) acted improperly in filing the present petition because his remedy was to file a separate and independent action to vindicate his ownership over the land. WHEREFORE, the petition is denied and the restraining order previously issued is DISSOLVED, with costs against petitioners.11 On the other litigation front concerning Civil Case No. 51203, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the RTC Pasig, Branch 155, on February 25, 1985, enjoining petitioner Valente, Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion from transferring to third parties the levied properties based on its preliminary finding that the auctioned properties are co-owned by Teofista and herein respondents. Subsequently, however, Civil Case No. 51203 was dismissed by the RTC, Branch 155, at the instance of petitioner Valente for failure of

herein respondents to prosecute. But in yet another turn of events, the RTC, Branch 155, lifted its previous order of dismissal and directed the issuance of alias summons. Thus, it was now petitioner Valente's, Violeta's, Virginia's and Maria Concepcion's turn to file a petition for certiorari with the CA, assailing the various orders of the RTC, Branch 155, which all rejected their bid to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203. The CA granted their petition, thus: And the fact that herein private respondents, as the legal heirs of Teofista Vda. de Suarez and supposedly not parties in Civil Case Nos. 21376 - 21379 does not preclude the application of the doctrine of res judicata since, apart from the requisites constitutive of this procedural tenet, they were admittedly the children of Teofista Suarez, who is the real party-in-interest in the previous final judgment. As successors-in-interest of Teofista Suarez, private respondents merely stepped into the shoes of their mother in regard to the levied pieces of property. Verily, there is identity of parties, not only where the parties in both actions are the same, but where there is privity with them as in the cases of successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or where there is substantial identity. Finally, the action to annul the judicial sale filed by herein private respondents is not the reinvindicatory suit, much less the third party claim contemplated by Section 17 of Rule 39. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted and the questioned orders dated February 25, 1985, May 19, 1989 and February 26, 1990 issued in Civil Case No. 51203 are hereby annulled; further respondent judge is ordered to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203.12 From this ruling, herein respondents appealed to the Supreme Court. In Suarez v. Court of Appeals,13we reversed the appellate court, thus:

Even without touching on the incidents and issues raised by both petitioner [herein respondents] and private respondents [petitioner Valente, Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion] and the developments subsequent to the filing of the complaint, [w]e cannot but notice the glaring error committed by the trial court. It would be useless to discuss the procedural issue on the validity of the execution and the manner of publicly selling en masse the subject properties for auction. To start with, only one-half of the 5 parcels of land [subject properties] should have been the subject of the auction sale. The law in point is Article 777 of the Civil Code, the law applicable at the time of the institution of the case: The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent." Article 888 further provides: "The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided." Article 892, par. 2 likewise provides: "If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants." Thus, from the foregoing, the legitime of the surviving spouse is equal to the legitime of each child.

The proprietary interest of petitioners [herein respondents] in the levied and auctioned property is different from and adverse to that of their mother [Teofista]. Petitioners [herein respondents] became co-owners of the property not because of their mother [Teofista] but through their own right as children of their deceased father [Marcelo Sr.]. Therefore, petitioners [herein respondents] are not barred in any way from instituting the action to annul the auction sale to protect their own interest. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 27, 1990 as well as its Resolution of August 28, 1990 are hereby REVERSED and set aside; and Civil Case No. 51203 is reinstated only to determine that portion which belongs to petitioners and to annul the sale with regard to said portion. It was at this point when another series of events transpired, culminating in the present petition. Upon our reinstatement of Civil Case No. 51203, each and every pleading filed by herein respondents, as plaintiffs therein, was hotly contested and opposed by therein defendants, including petitioner Valente. Moreover, even at that stage, when the case had been remanded with a directive to "determine that portion which belongs to [herein respondents] and to annul the sale with regard to said portion," Civil Case No. 51203 had to be re-raffled and transferred, for varied reasons, to the different court branches in Pasig City. In between all these, petitioner Valente, along with the other defendants, repeatedly filed a Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 51203 for the purported failure of herein respondents to prosecute the case. Most of these Motions to Dismiss were denied. With each transfer of Civil Case No. 51203, the judge to which the case was raffled had to study the records anew. Expectedly, part of the records went missing and were lost. On April 12, 1993, the Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 71, to which Civil Case No. 51203 was remanded, filed a report on the records of the case, to wit:

1. The first volume of the record in the above-entitled case was recorded as received on June 20, 1990, by Sheriff Alejandro O. Loquinario; 2. That the staff of Branch 71 at this time was sharing a small room with Branch 161 at the First Floor of the Justice Hall, and as the Branch was newly formed, it had no equipment or furniture of its own, and was still undermanned; 3. That sometime in August 1990, Branch 71 moved to the staffroom of Branch 159 at the Second Floor of the Justice Hall; 4. That on October 25, 1990, this Court received a Notice of Judgment dated October 22, 1990 from the Court of Appeals that ruled the dismissal of the above-entitled case, and as per standing instructions of Judge Graduacion A. Reyes-Claravall, the same was bound as volume 2 of the case; 5. That just before the Christmas vacation in 1991, the branch was forced to hastily move all of its records and equipment to branch 69, because of the unexpected notice we received that the room we were occupying was to be demolished in order to meet the schedule for the renovation of the building; 6. That unfortunately, the room was demolished before the undersigned could make a last check to see if everything was transferred; 7. That it was only later on that this office discovered that important documents were indeed lost, including transcripts of stenographic notes in a case that was submitted for decision; 8. That sometime in May 1992, the branch moved its Office to its present location; 9. That on March 8, 1993, this Court received a copy of a Decision of the Supreme Court reversing the earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals;

10. That it was at this time that the first volume of this case, which was bundled along with other cases which were decided and/or archived, was reported as missing; 11. That from the time the same was found to be missing, Judge Claravall ordered that a search for the same be made in all of the offices wherein this branch was forced to share a room with, as well as the Court of Appeals, in the event that the same was transmitted to said Court; 12. That all the efforts were in vain, as said record could not be located anywhere; 13. That the undersigned now concludes that the first volume of the above-entitled case was probably lost during the renovation of the Justice Hall Building, and will have to be reconstituted with the use of documents in the possession of the parties, or documents entered as exhibits in other Courts.14 In this regard, herein respondents filed a Motion for Reconstitution of Records15 of the case. Initially, petitioner Valente, and the other defendants -- Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion -- opposed the motion.16 However, the trial court eventually granted the motion for reconstitution, and ordered petitioner Valente and the other defendants to submit a copy of their Answer filed thereat and copies of other pleadings pertinent to the case.17 Thereafter, three (3) incidents, among numerous others, set off by the parties' pleadings, are worth mentioning, to wit: 1. A Motion for Leave to File and Admit Supplemental Complaint18 filed by herein respondents. The Supplemental Complaint additionally prayed that the levy and sale at public auction of the subject properties be annulled and set aside, as the bid price was unconscionable and grossly inadequate to the current value of the subject properties. The Supplemental Complaint further sought a rebidding with respect to Teofista's share in the subject properties. Finally, it prayed that TCT No. 6509 in the name of petitioner Valente,

Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion be cancelled and TCT No. 30680 in the name of Marcelo Suarez, married to Teofista Isagon, be reinstated. 2. A Manifestation and Motion (to Execute/Enforce Decision dated September 4, 1992 of the Supreme Court)19 filed by herein respondents pointing out that the Supreme Court itself had noted the current increased value of the subject properties and that petitioner Valente, Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion unjustly enriched themselves in appropriating the subject properties worth millions then, for a measly bid price of P94,170.00, for a judgment obligation worth only P70,000.00. 3. An Urgent Motion [to direct compliance by plaintiffs (herein respondents) with Supreme Court Decision or to consider the matter submitted without evidence on the part of plaintiffs]20 filed by therein defendants, including herein petitioner Valente, pointing out that plaintiffs (herein respondents) have yet to comply with the RTC, Branch 67 Order commanding them to submit (to the RTC) any evidence showing settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo Suarez, in order for the court to determine the portion in the estate which belongs to Teofista. The Urgent Motion stated in paragraph 2, thus: 2. The defendants [including herein petitioner Valente] did everything possible to expedite the disposition of this case while the plaintiffs [herein respondents] did everything possible to DELAY the disposition of the same obviously because the plaintiffs [herein respondents] are in full possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute. In its decision of September 4, 1992, the SUPREME COURT nullified TWO final and executory DECISIONS of the Court of Appeals in an unprecedented action. In said decision, the Supreme Court ordered the plaintiffs [herein respondents] to establish with evidence their personality as heirs of Marcelo Suarez, and after being able to do so, to adduce evidence that would determine what portion belongs to plaintiffs hence the above matters need

be litigated upon before the RTC can "annul the sale with regard to said portion" (belonging to the plaintiffs alleged heirs). On these incidents, the records reveal the following Orders issued by the different branches of the RTC: 1. Order dated March 17, 1995, issued by Presiding Judge Rodrigo B. Lorenzo of Branch 266, Pasig City, admitting herein respondents' Supplemental Complaint.21 2. Order dated January 22, 1996, issued by Judge Apolinario B. Santos resolving: (a) herein respondents' Manifestation and Motion (to execute/enforce Decision dated September 4, 1992 of the Supreme Court), and (b) therein defendants' (including herein petitioner Valente's) Request for Answer to Written Interrogatories.22 The RTC, Branch 67, resolved the incidents, thus: From the foregoing uncontroverted facts, this Court is convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the Decision of the Supreme Court of September 4, 1992, being the final arbiter in any judicial dispute, should be implemented for the following reasons: xxxx On the request for Answers to Written Interrogatories filed by the defendants, it is obvious that at this stage of the proceedings where the Supreme Court had already pronounced the undisputed facts, which binds this court, the answer sought to be elicited through written interrogatories, therefore, are entirely irrelevant, aside from having been filed way out of time. WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court, implements the decision of the Supreme Court dated September 4, 1992 which mandates that:

"xxx and Civil Case No. 51203 is reinstated only to determine that portion which belongs to petitioner and to annul the sale with regard to said portion." In order to enforce such mandate of the Supreme Court, this court orders that: a. The auction sale of the five (5) parcels of land and all prior and subsequent proceedings in relation thereto are declared null and void. b. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6509 in the name of defendant Valente Raymundo is also declared null and void, and the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Pasig City, is ordered to issue a new one in the name of the deceased Marcelo Suarez or to reinstate Transfer Certificate of Title No. 30680 in the name of Marcelo Suarez. c. Teofista Suarez is ordered to reimburse the amount of P94,170.00, plus legal interest from the date of issuance of this order, and failing which, the portion of the estate of Marcelo Suarez belonging to the surviving spouse, Teofista Suarez, may be levied on execution. d. [Herein respondents], including Teofista Suarez, are hereby ordered to submit to this court any evidence showing settlement of the estate of the deceased, Marcelo Suarez, in order for this court to determine the portion in the estate which belongs to Teofista Suarez. Therein defendants, including petitioner Valente, filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the trial court denied on May 29, 1996. 3. Order dated September 10, 1996, issued by Judge Santos denying the appeal interposed by petitioner Valente from the January 22, 1996 and May 29, 1996 Orders, ruling that these are interlocutory orders, and, therefore, not appealable.23

4. Order dated April 8, 1999, issued by Pairing Judge Santiago Estrella which declared, thus: Considering that counsel for the plaintiffs does not have the birth certificates of the heirs of the plaintiff to prove their affiliation with the deceased which is one of the matters written in the decision of the higher court which must be complied with, and in order for counsel for the plaintiffs [herein respondents] to have the opportunity to complete all documentary evidence and in view of abbreviating the proceedings and as prayed for, today's scheduled pre-trial is re-set for the last time to May 19, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. In this connection, counsel for plaintiffs [herein respondents] is advised to secure all the documentary evidence she needs material to this case which will expedite the disposition of this case.24 This last Order and therein defendants' Urgent Motion spawned another contentious issue between the parties. In this connection, Judge Estrella issued an Order25 requiring the parties to file their respective position papers due to the "divergent views on the nature of the hearing that should be conducted in compliance with" our decision in Suarez. Both parties duly filed their position papers, with herein respondents attaching thereto a copy of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate executed by the heirs of Marcelo Suarez in 1957. In resolving this latest crossfire between the parties, the RTC, Branch 67, issued an Order dated January 11, 2000, which reads, in part: This Court is of the view that the Honorable Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, precisely it directed that the records of this case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings. xxxx It is a matter of record that there was no trial on the merits completed in the Regional Trial Court. xxx The Supreme Court

reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and ordered the reinstatement of Civil Case No. 51203. Naturally, there was no trial on the merits before this Court that allowed the parties to adduce evidence to establish their respective claims in the plaintiffs' [herein respondents] complaint and in the defendants' [including petitioner Valente] counter-claim, respectively. It is in this context that the Honorable Supreme Court reinstated the "action [of herein respondents] to annul the auction sale to protect their [herein respondents] own interest. While this Court is of the view that trial on the merits is necessary for the purpose of giving the plaintiffs [herein respondents] a chance to adduce evidence to sustain their complaint and the defendants [including petitioner Valente] to prove their defense, consistent with the directive of the Honorable Supreme Court (in its Decision promulgated on September 4, 1992), the Court is, however, confronted with the very recent decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in "Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay, et al. vs. Del Rosario, et al., G.R. No. 124320, March 2, 1999" where it held that The declaration of heirship must be made in an administration proceeding, and not in an independent civil action. This doctrine was reiterated in Solve vs. Court of Appeals (182 SCRA 119, 128). The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as "one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong" while a special proceeding is "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact." It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right.

In as much as the leading case on the matter is that of "Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 124320, March 2, 1999" it is left with no choice but to obey said latter doctrine. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, this Court holds that in the light of the doctrine laid down in the case of "Heirs of Yaptinchay vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 124320, March 2, 1999" this case is dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs' [herein respondents'] filing a special proceeding consistent with said latest ruling.26 Herein respondents moved for reconsideration thereof which, however, was denied by the RTC, Branch 67 on March 14, 2000. 27 Consequently, herein respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion in the trial court's order dismissing Civil Case No. 51203 without prejudice. All the defendants in the trial court were impleaded as private respondents in the petition. Yet, curiously, only petitioner Valente filed a Comment thereto. The appellate court granted the petition, recalled and set aside RTC, Branch 67's Orders dated January 11, 2000 and March 14, 2000, and reinstated Judge Santos' Orders dated May 29, 1996 and September 6, 1996. It disposed of the petition, thus: We agree with [herein respondents]. On September 4, 1992, the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 94918) reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and mandates that Civil Case No. 51203 be reinstated in order to determine the portion in the estate which belongs to Teofista Suarez. The sale of the parcels of land was declared null and void. Necessarily, the title (TCT No. 5809) in the name of respondents was also declared null and void. xxx xxxx Hon. Apolinario Santos of Br. 67, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, on January 22, 1996 and on motion of [herein

respondents], issued an order to execute/enforce the decision of the Supreme Court xxx. xxxx [Petitioner Valente, Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion] filed a notice of appeal on the order of Judge Santos. The appeal, on motion of [herein respondents] was denied on September 10, 1996. Obviously, the decision of the Supreme Court had become final and executory. Likewise, both orders of Judge Santos dated May 29, 1996 denying the motion for reconsideration and the denial of the notice of appeal dated September 6, 1996 had also become final and executory. The denial of petitioner Valente's Motion for Reconsideration prompted the filing of this present petition for certiorari. Petitioner Valente posits that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in recalling and setting aside the Orders of Judge Estrella and reinstating those of Judge Santos because: 1. The CA ruled that the Orders dated May 29, 1996 and September 6, 1996 issued by Judge Santos were final and executory, and yet the latter did not allow an appeal to be taken therefrom ratiocinating that the questioned orders were interlocutory, and therefore, not appealable; and 2. The CA ignored and violated the Supreme Court's ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario28 which held that a declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding and not in a civil action. We find the petition bereft of merit. At the outset, we note that petitioner Valente incorrectly filed a petition for certiorari to appeal the CA decision. Petitioner should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Simply imputing in a petition that the decision sought to be reviewed is

tainted with grave abuse of discretion does not magically transform a petition into a special civil action for certiorari. The CA decision disposed of the merits of a special civil action, an original petition, filed thereat by herein respondents. That disposition is a final and executory order, appealable to, and may be questioned before, this Court by persons aggrieved thereby, such as petitioner Valente, via Rule 45. On this score alone, the petition should have been dismissed outright. However, we have disregarded this procedural flaw and now resolve this case based on the merits or lack thereof. Petitioner asseverates that the assailed CA ruling "is unfair and it amounts to a trickery to prevent an appeal against a final order by claiming that the appealed order is merely interlocutory and later maintain that the same order has become final after declaring it to be interlocutory." We reject petitioner's paltry contention. Petitioner apparently does not comprehend the distinction between an interlocutory order which is final and executory, and a final order which disposes of the controversy or case; much less, understand the available remedies therefrom. We have defined an interlocutory order as referring to something between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but it is not the final decision on the whole controversy.29 It does not terminate or finally dismiss or finally dispose of the case, but leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits.30 Upon the other hand, a final order is one which leaves to the court nothing more to do to resolve the case.31 On more than one occasion, we laid down the test to ascertain whether an order is interlocutory or final i.e., "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case?" If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. The key test to what is interlocutory is when there is something more to be done on the merits

of the case.32 The Orders dated May 29, 1996 and September 6, 1996 issued by Judge Santos are interlocutory, and therefore, not appealable, as they leave something more to be done on the merits of the case. In fact, in paragraph (d) of Judge Santos' Order dated May 29, 1996, herein respondents were directed to submit evidence showing settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo Sr. Contrary to petitioner Valente's stance, there is no trickery or chicanery in the CA's distinction between an interlocutory and a final order. Indeed, as ruled by the CA, the RTC Order denying petitioner Valente's Notice of Appeal attained finality when he failed to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. We cannot overemphasize the rule that the correct identification of the nature of an assailed order determines the remedies available to an aggrieved party. The old Rules of Court in Section 2, Rule 41 reads, thus: SEC. 2. Judgments or orders subject to appeal.-Only final judgments or orders shall be subject to appeal. No interlocutory or incidental judgment or order shall stay the progress of an action, nor shall it be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other. xxxx With the advent of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 1, Rule 41 now provides for the appropriate remedy to be taken from an interlocutory order, thus: SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from: xxx

(c) An interlocutory order; xxx In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. Clearly, the denial of therein defendants' (including petitioner Valente's) appeal from the Orders dated May 29, 1996 and September 6, 1996 was in order. Thus, the CA decision affirming the RTC's denial was correct. Further, on this crucial distinction as applied to this case, petitioner Valente filed a petition for certiorarifrom the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 58090, which is not an interlocutory order. It is a final order which completely disposed of the merits of the case with nothing more left to be done therein. The correct and available remedy available to petitioner Valente was, as previously discussed, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In fine, petitioner Valente erroneously sought relief through reversed remedies. He tried to appeal the interlocutory orders of the RTC which are unappealable. Thus, the RTC properly denied his Notice of Appeal, and the CA correctly upheld the RTC. He should have filed a petition for certiorari; under Rule 65. On the other hand, from the final order of the CA, he comes before this Court on a petition forcertiorari under Rule 65, when the proper remedy is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. In the recent case of Jan-Dec Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals33 we ruled in this wise: As a rule, the remedy from a judgment or final order of the CA is appeal via petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules. Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or

proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. It seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court, tribunal, or officer. In contrast, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and proper only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is an extraordinary process for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal. Independently of this procedural infirmity, even on the merits of the case, the petition does not fare otherwise. It must be dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner Valente insists that, following our ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario,34 herein respondents must first be declared heirs of Marcelo Sr. before they can file an action to annul the judicial sale of what is, undisputedly, conjugal property of Teofista and Marcelo Sr. We disagree. Our ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay is not applicable. Herein respondents' status as legitimate children of Marcelo Sr. and Teofista and thus, Marcelo Sr.'s heirs has been firmly established, and confirmed by this Court in Suarez v. Court of Appeals.35True, this Court is not a trier of facts,36 but as the final arbiter of disputes,37 we found and so ruled that herein respondents are children, and heirs of their deceased father, Marcelo Sr. This having been settled, it should no longer have been a litigated issue when we ordered a remand to the lower court. In short, petitioner Valente's, Violeta's, Virginia's, and Maria Concepcion's representation in the RTC that our ruling in Suarez required herein respondents to present evidence of their affiliation with the deceased, Marcelo Sr., is wrong.

As was set forth in the dispositive portion of Suarez, "Civil Case No. 51203 is reinstated only to determine that portion which belongs to [herein respondents] and to annul the sale with regard to said portion." There is clearly no intimation in our decision for the RTC to have to determine an already settled issue i.e., herein respondents' status as heirs of Marcelo Sr. Moreover, petitioner Valente cannot assail, directly or indirectly, the status of herein respondents as legitimate children of Marcelo Sr. and Teofista, and likewise demand that herein respondents first prove their filiation to Marcelo Sr. The following records bear out Marcelo, Sr.'s and Teofista's paternity of herein respondents, and the latter's status as legitimate children: 1. The CA decision in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 10646 to 10649 where Teofista, along with herein respondents, questioned the RTC, Branch 151's Orders dated October 10, 1984 and October 14, 1986. Although the CA ruled against Teofista and herein respondents, it explicitly recognized the latter's status as legitimate children of Teofista and Marcelo Sr.; and38 2. The CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 20320 which incorrectly ruled that herein respondents were, as children of Teofista, merely successors-in-interest of the latter to the property and by virtue thereof, bound by the judgment in Civil Case Nos. 21376 to 21379 consistent with the doctrine of res judicata.39 We subsequently reversed this ruling on the wrong application of res judicata in the conclusive case of Suarez. We retained and affirmed, however, the CA's factual finding of herein respondents' status as heirs of Marcelo Sr. We categorically held therein that "the proprietary interest of [herein respondents] in the levied and auctioned [properties] is different from and adverse to that of [Teofista]. [Herein respondents] became co-owners of the property not because of [Teofista] but through their own right as children of their deceased father [, Marcelo Sr.]."

Clearly, herein respondents' long possessed status of legitimate children of Marcelo Sr. and Teofista cannot be indirectly or directly attacked by petitioner Valente in an action to annul a judicial sale. Articles 262,40 263,41 265 and 26642 of the Civil Code, the applicable law at the time of Marcelo's death, support the foregoing conclusion, to wit: Art. 262. The heirs of the husband may impugn the legitimacy of the child only in the following cases: (1) If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action; (2) If the husband should die after the filing of the complaint, without having desisted from the same; (3) If the child was born after the death of the husband. Art. 263. The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within one year from the recording of birth in the Civil Register, if the husband should be in the same place, or in a proper case, any of his heirs. If he or his heirs are absent, the period shall be eighteen months if they should reside in the Philippines; and two years if abroad. If the birth of the child has been concealed, the term shall be counted from the discovery of the fraud. Art. 265. The filiation of legitimate children is proved by the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, or by an authentic document or a final judgment. Art. 266. In the absence of the titles indicated in the preceding article, the filiation shall be proved by the continuous possession of status of a legitimate child.

In Heirs of Yaptinchay, the complaint for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of certain TCT's was dismissed for failure of the petitioners to demonstrate "any proof or even a semblance of it" that they had been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple, the spouses Yaptinchay. In stark contrast, the records of this case reveal a document, an Extrajudicial Settlement of Marcelo Sr.'s estate, which explicitly recognizes herein respondents as Marcelo Sr.'s legitimate children and heirs. The same document settles and partitions the estate of Marcelo Sr. specifying Teofista's paraphernal properties, and separates the properties she owns in common with her children, herein respondents. Plainly, there is no need to re-declare herein respondents as heirs of Marcelo Sr., and prolong this case interminably. Petitioner Valente, along with Violeta, Virginia and Maria Concepcion, became owners of the subject properties only by virtue of an execution sale to recover Teofista's judgment obligation. This judgment obligation is solely Teofista's, and payment therefor cannot be made through an execution sale of properties not absolutely owned by her. These properties were evidently conjugal properties and were, in fact, even titled in the name of Marcelo, Sr. married to Teofista. Thus, upon Marcelo Sr.'s death, by virtue of compulsory succession, Marcelo Sr.'s share in the conjugal partnership was transmitted by operation of law to his compulsory heirs. Compulsory succession is a distinct kind of succession, albeit not categorized as such in Article 77843of the Civil Code. It reserves a portion of the net estate of the decedent in favor of certain heirs, or group of heirs, or combination of heirs, prevailing over all kinds of succession.44 The portion that is so reserved is the legitime. Article 886 of the Civil Code defines legitime as "that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs." Herein respondents are primary compulsory heirs,45 excluding secondary compulsory heirs,46 and preferred over concurring compulsory heirs in the distribution of the decedent's estate.47

Even without delving into the Extrajudicial Settlement of Marcelo Sr.'s estate in 1957, it must be stressed that herein respondents' rights to the succession vested from the moment of their father's death.48 Herein respondents' ownership of the subject properties is no longer inchoate; it became absolute upon Marcelo's death, although their respective shares therein remained pro indiviso. Ineluctably, at the time the subject properties were sold on execution sale to answer for Teofista's judgment obligation, the inclusion of herein respondents' share therein was null and void. In fine, Teofista's ownership over the subject properties is not absolute. Significantly, petitioner Valente does not even attempt to dispute the conjugal nature of the subject properties. Since Teofista owns only a portion of the subject properties, only that portion could have been, and was actually, levied upon and sold on auction by the provincial sheriff of Rizal. Thus, a separate declaration of heirship by herein respondents is not necessary to annul the judicial sale of their share in the subject properties. We note the recent case of Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran,49 where we scrutinized our rulings in Heirs of Yaptinchay and the cited cases of Litam v. Rivera50 and Solivio v. Court of Appeals,51 and Guilas v. CFI Judge of Pampanga52 cited in Solivio. We ruled thus: The common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas in which the adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the special proceedings for its settlement is that if the special proceedings are pending, or if there are no special proceedings filed but there is, under the circumstances of the case, a need to file one, then the determination of, among other issues, heirship should be raised and settled in said special proceedings. Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, however, or if a putative heirs has lost the right to have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and he can no longer ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary civil action can be filed for his declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of the partition or distribution or

adjudication of a property or properties belonging to the estate of the deceased. In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugal's estate, executed on February 15, 1988 the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule 74, Section of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception to the general rule that when a person dies leaving property, it should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed to name an executor therein. xxx It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it, under the circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and expenses of an administration proceedings. And it is superfluous in light of the fact that the parties to the civil casesubject of the present case, could and had already in fact presented evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case upon the issues it defined during pretrial. In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still subject Portugal's estate to administration proceedings since a determination of petitioners' status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners xxx.53 All told, under the circumstances, in addition to the already settled status of herein respondents as heirs of Marcelo Sr., there is no need to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203 and require herein respondents to

institute a separate special proceeding for a declaration of their heirship. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58090 is AFFIRMED. The Orders dated May 29, 1996 and September 6, 1996 issued by Judge Santos are REINSTATED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

x--------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION CORONA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of the December 14, 2005 decision[2] and March 28, 2006 resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 64259. The spouses Dionesio and Matea S. Asok owned several parcels of land. Upon their death on September 14, 1973 and February 22, 1982, respectively, their eleven children inherited the properties. One of the lands inherited was a lot covered by Original G.R. No. 172248 Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-4272, a free patent issued on July 19, 1967, located at Pagawan, Manticao, Misamis Oriental with an area of 39,552 sq. m.[4] Pursuant to the extrajudicial settlement of the estate with quitclaim executed by the spouses children, the subject property was inherited by Denison Asok (Asok). As a result, OCT No. P-4272 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-9626 was Promulgated: September 17, 2008 issued and registered in his name on November 17, 1987.[5]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, versus -

ELLA GAGARANI, ISAGANI, ADRIAN, NATHANIEL, NIEVA, JONATHAN, DIONESIO, FLORENCE and JEREMIAS, all surnamed ASOK, Respondents.

On August 31, 1989, Asok and his wife, respondent Ella Gagarani Asok, borrowed P100,000 from petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines, a government financial institution created and operating under EO 81,[6] as amended by RA 8523. They mortgaged the subject lot as collateral to guarantee payment of the loan. On due date, however, they failed to pay the loan and the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed pursuant to Act 3135.[7] Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder with a bid of P163,297.[8] On November 28, 1991, a certificate of sale was issued in favor of petitioner. This was registered on December 24, 1992.[9] On March 25, 1998, petitioners ownership over the property was consolidated and TCT No. T-27172 was issued in its name.[10] Meanwhile, Asok died on October 24, 1993 and was succeeded by his surviving spouse and children (respondents).[11] On May 15, 1998, respondents filed a complaint for repurchase against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Initao, Misamis Oriental, Branch 44, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-68. On July 3, 1998, they filed an amended complaint on learning that TCT No. T9626 had been cancelled by TCT No. T-27172 issued in the name of

petitioner. They invoked their right to repurchase the property under Sec. 119 of CA 141, as amended:[12] Sec. 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from date of the conveyance.

In a decision dated January 7, 1999, the RTC dismissed the complaint. Reconsideration was denied on February 3, 1999.[13] It ruled that the one-year period for redemption should be reckoned from the date of sale, i.e., November 28, 1991. Then the five-year period provided under Sec. 119 of CA 141 should be counted from the expiration of the redemption period, i.e., November 28,

1992. Therefore, respondents had until November 28, 1997 to exercise their right to repurchase. However, the complaint was filed on May 15, 1998 which was beyond the prescribed period.[14] Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the CA. In a decision dated December 14, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. Reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated March 28, 2006. It held that the period of redemption started from the date of registration of the certificate of sale, i.e., December 24, 1992, and not from the date of sale. Thus, respondents had until December 24,

1998 to repurchase the property and the complaint was seasonably filed.[15] Hence this petition. Petitioner raises the following issues: (1) whether Sec. 119 of CA 141 is applicable in this case; (2) whether respondents are the legal heirs of the patentees and (3) whether the right to repurchase has already prescribed. The petition lacks merit. Petitioner contends that respondents cannot claim the right under Sec. 119 which covers homesteads and free patents because the free patent issued to Asoks parents had already been cancelled and a new TCT had in fact been issued to him. Thus, the property mortgaged to it was no longer covered by a free patent but by a TCT.[16]

cleaning, developing and cultivating it.[17] Hence, the fact that the land had been inherited by the patentees son (and a new title in his name issued) does not bring it outside the purview of Sec. 119. In fact, the policy behind the law is fulfilled because the land remains in the family of the patentee. As we explained in Ferrer v. Mangente:[18] The applicant for a homestead is to be given all the inducement that the law offers and is entitled to its full protection. Its blessings, however, do not stop with him. This is particularly so in this case as the appellee is the son of the deceased. There is no question then as to his status of being a legal heir. The policy of the law is not difficult to understand. The incentive for a pioneer to venture into developing virgin land becomes more attractive if he is assured that his effort will not go for naught should perchance his life be cut short. This is merely a recognition of how closely bound parents and children are in a Filipino family. Logic, the sense of fitness and of right, as well as pragmatic considerations thus call for continued adherence to the policy that not the individual applicant alone but those so closely related to him as are entitled to legal succession may take full advantage of the benefits the law confers.[19]

Having ruled that Sec. 119 is applicable to this case, we now go This contention deserves scant consideration. The plain intent of Sec. 119 is to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve and keep in the family the land that the State has gratuitously given him as a reward for his labor in to the next issue: are respondents the legal heirs contemplated in the provision?

Petitioner argues that respondents are not the legal heirs of the patentees because respondents are merely their daughter-in-law and grandchildren. We disagree. In line with the rationale behind Sec. 119, we reject a restricted definition of legal heirs. It is used in a broad sense and the law makes no distinctions.[20] In Madarcos v. de la Merced,[21] we held that: The term legal heirs is used in Section 119 in a generic sense. It is broad enough to cover any person who is called to the succession either by provision of a will or by operation of law. Thus, legal heirs include both testate and intestate heirs depending upon whether succession is by the will of the testator or by law. Legal heirs are not necessarily compulsory heirs but they may be so if the law reserves a legitime for them. xxx xxx Verily, petitioners are legal heirs. Having been decreed under the rules on intestacy as entitled to succeed to the estate of the Catain spouses due to the absence of compulsory heirs, they now step into the shoes of the decedents. They should be considered as among the legal heirs contemplated by Section 119 as entitled to redeem the homestead. The above interpretation of "legal heirs" as contradistinguished from the restrictive construction given it by the lower court is more in keeping with the salutary purpose behind the enactment of Section 119 and the xxx

jurisprudence laid down on the matter. Indeed, it is not far-fetched to arrive at a more liberal conclusion if the section is analyzed in accordance with its purpose xxxx[22]

Respondents inherited the property from Asok, their husband and father, who in turn inherited it from his parents. Respondent Ella Gagarani Asok, as daughter-in-law of the patentees, can be considered as among the legal heirs who can repurchase the land in accordance with Salenillas v. CA.[23] In that case, we allowed the daughter and son-in-law of the patentees to repurchase the property because this would be more in keeping with the spirit of the law. We have time and again said that between two statutory interpretations, that which better serves the purpose of the law should

prevail.[24] Furthermore, the law must be liberally construed in order to carry out its purpose.[25] Finally, petitioner asserts that even if respondents could be considered as being entitled to the right under Sec. 119, this had already prescribed because the period should be counted from the date of conveyance which means the date of sale and not the date of registration of the certificate of sale. This argument lacks merit.

This is far from a novel issue. It was already resolved in Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. CA:[26] Thus, the rules on redemption in the case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of land acquired under free patent or homestead statutes may be summarized as follows: xxx If the land is mortgaged to parties other than rural banks, the mortgagor may redeem the property within one (1) year from the registration of the certificate of sale pursuant to Act No. 3135. If he fails to do so, he or his heirs may repurchase the property within five (5) years from the expiration of the redemption period also pursuant to Section 119 of the Public Land Act.[27] There is no dispute that in extrajudicial foreclosures under Act 3135, the debtor or his or her successors-in-interest may redeem the property within one year. This redemption period should be reckoned from the date of registration of the certificate of sale.[28] The five-year period fixed in Sec. 119 begins to run from the expiration of the oneyear redemption period.[29] Here, the certificate of sale was registered on December 24, 1992 and the one-year redemption period expired on December 24, 1993. Reckoned from that day, respondents had a five-year period, or until December 24, 1998, to exercise their right to repurchase under Sec. 119 of CA 141. Consequently, the CA was correct in holding that the complaint filed on May 15, 1998 was on time.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines is ordered to execute a deed of reconveyance in favor of respondents upon payment by the latter of the redemption price. No costs. SO ORDERED.

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to reverse the Decision1dated October 13, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41756, which affirmed the Decision2 dated March 2, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Makati City. The RTC had declared the last will and testament of Margarita S. Mayores probated and designated respondent Lucia D. Abena as the executor of her will. It also ordered the issuance of letters testamentary in favor of respondent. The facts are as follows: Petitioner Paz Samaniego-Celada was the first cousin of decedent Margarita S. Mayores (Margarita) while respondent was the decedents lifelong companion since 1929. On April 27, 1987, Margarita died single and without any ascending nor descending heirs as her parents, grandparents and siblings predeceased her. She was survived by her first cousins Catalina Samaniego-Bombay, Manuelita Samaniego Sajonia, Feliza Samaniego, and petitioner. Before her death, Margarita executed a Last Will and Testament 3 on February 2, 1987 where she bequeathed one-half of her undivided share of a real property located at Singalong Manila, consisting of 209.8 square meters, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1343 to respondent, Norma A. Pahingalo, and Florentino M. Abena in equal shares or one-third portion each. She likewise bequeathed one-half of her undivided share of a real property located at San Antonio Village, Makati, consisting of 225 square meters, and covered by TCT No. 68920 to respondent, Isabelo M. Abena, and Amanda M. Abena in equal shares or one-third portion each. Margarita also left all her personal properties to respondent whom she likewise designated as sole executor of her will. On August 11, 1987, petitioner filed a petition for letters of administration of the estate of Margarita before the RTC of Makati. The case was docketed as SP Proc. No. M-1531.

REQUISITES OF A FORMAL WILL

G.R. No. 145545

June 30, 2008

PAZ SAMANIEGO-CELADA, petitioner, vs. LUCIA D. ABENA, respondent. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.:

On October 27, 1987, respondent filed a petition for probate of the will of Margarita before the RTC of Makati. The case was docketed as SP Proc. No. M-1607 and consolidated with SP Proc. No. M-1531. On March 2, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the last will and testament of Margarita probated and respondent as the executor of the will. The dispositive portion of the decision states: In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: 1) declaring the will as probated; 2) declaring Lucia Abena as the executor of the will who will serve as such without a bond as stated in paragraph VI of the probated will; 3) ordering the issuance of letters testamentary in favor of Lucia Abena. So ordered.4 Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. But the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated October 13, 2000, affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision states: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the appeal having no merit in fact and in law, is herebyORDERED DISMISSED and the appealed Decision of the trial court AFFIRMED IN TOTO, with cost to oppositors-appellants. SO ORDERED.5 Hence, the instant petition citing the following issues: I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT INVALIDATING THE WILL SINCE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE FORMALITIES REQUIRED BY LAW; II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED ERROR IN NOT INVALIDATING THE WILL BECAUSE IT WAS PROCURED THROUGH UNDUE INFLUENCE AND PRESSURE[;] AND III. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT DECLARING PETITIONER, HER SIBLINGS AND COUSIN AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF MARGARITA S. MAYORES AND IN NOT ISSUING LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION TO HER.6 Briefly stated, the issues are (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the will invalid for failure to comply with the formalities required by law, (2) whether said court erred in not declaring the will invalid because it was procured through undue influence and pressure, and (3) whether it erred in not declaring petitioner and her siblings as the legal heirs of Margarita, and in not issuing letters of administration to petitioner. Petitioner, in her Memorandum,7 argues that Margaritas will failed to comply with the formalities required under Article 8058 of the Civil Code because the will was not signed by the testator in the presence of the instrumental witnesses and in the presence of one another. She also argues that the signatures of the testator on pages A, B, and C of the will are not the same or similar, indicating that they were not signed on the same day. She further argues that the will was procured through undue influence and pressure because at the time of execution of the will, Margarita was weak, sickly, jobless and entirely dependent upon respondent and her nephews for support, and these

alleged handicaps allegedly affected her freedom and willpower to decide on her own. Petitioner thus concludes that Margaritas total dependence on respondent and her nephews compelled her to sign the will. Petitioner likewise argues that the Court of Appeals should have declared her and her siblings as the legal heirs of Margarita since they are her only living collateral relatives in accordance with Articles 10099 and 101010 of the Civil Code. Respondent, for her part, argues in her Memorandum11 that the petition for review raises questions of fact, not of law and as a rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court. She also points out that although the Court of Appeals at the outset opined there was no compelling reason to review the petition, the Court of Appeals proceeded to tackle the assigned errors and rule that the will was validly executed, sustaining the findings of the trial court that the formalities required by law were duly complied with. The Court of Appeals also concurred with the findings of the trial court that the testator, Margarita, was of sound mind when she executed the will. After careful consideration of the parties contentions, we rule in favor of respondent. We find that the issues raised by petitioner concern pure questions of fact, which may not be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The issues that petitioner is raising now i.e., whether or not the will was signed by the testator in the presence of the witnesses and of one another, whether or not the signatures of the witnesses on the pages of the will were signed on the same day, and whether or not undue influence was exerted upon the testator which compelled her to sign the will, are all questions of fact. This Court does not resolve questions of fact in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1 12 of Rule 45 limits this Courts review to questions of law only.

Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.13 We find that this case does not involve any of the abovementioned exceptions.

Nonetheless, a review of the findings of the RTC as upheld by the Court of Appeals, reveal that petitioners arguments lack basis. The RTC correctly held: With [regard] to the contention of the oppositors [Paz Samaniego-Celada, et al.] that the testator [Margarita Mayores] was not mentally capable of making a will at the time of the execution thereof, the same is without merit. The oppositors failed to establish, by preponderance of evidence, said allegation and contradict the presumption that the testator was of sound mind (See Article 800 of the Civil Code). In fact, witness for the oppositors, Dr. Ramon Lamberte, who, in some occasions, attended to the testator months before her death, testified that Margarita Mayores could engage in a normal conversation and he even stated that the illness of the testator does not warrant hospitalization. Not one of the oppositors witnesses has mentioned any instance that they observed act/s of the testator during her lifetime that could be construed as a manifestation of mental incapacity. The testator may be admitted to be physically weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound mind. [The] testimonies of contestant witnesses are pure aforethought. Anent the contestants submission that the will is fatally defective for the reason that its attestation clause states that the will is composed of three (3) pages while in truth and in fact, the will consists of two (2) pages only because the attestation is not a part of the notarial will, the same is not accurate. While it is true that the attestation clause is not a part of the will, the court, after examining the totality of the will, is of the considered opinion that error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. It must be noted that the subject instrument is consecutively lettered with pages A, B, and C which is a sufficient safeguard from the possibility of an omission of some of the pages. The error must have been brought about by the honest belief that the will is the whole instrument consisting of three (3) pages inclusive of the attestation clause and the

acknowledgement. The position of the court is in consonance with the "doctrine of liberal interpretation" enunciated in Article 809 of the Civil Code which reads: "In the absence of bad faith, forgery or fraud, or undue [and] improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805." The court also rejects the contention of the oppositors that the signatures of the testator were affixed on different occasions based on their observation that the signature on the first page is allegedly different in size, texture and appearance as compared with the signatures in the succeeding pages. After examination of the signatures, the court does not share the same observation as the oppositors. The picture (Exhibit "H-3") shows that the testator was affixing her signature in the presence of the instrumental witnesses and the notary. There is no evidence to show that the first signature was procured earlier than February 2, 1987. Finally, the court finds that no pressure nor undue influence was exerted on the testator to execute the subject will. In fact, the picture reveals that the testator was in a good mood and smiling with the other witnesses while executing the subject will (See Exhibit "H"). In fine, the court finds that the testator was mentally capable of making the will at the time of its execution, that the notarial will presented to the court is the same notarial will that was executed and that all the formal requirements (See Article 805 of the Civil Code) in the execution of a will have been substantially complied with in the subject notarial will.14 (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, we find no reason to disturb the abovementioned findings of the RTC. Since, petitioner and her siblings are not compulsory heirs of the decedent under Article 88715 of the Civil Code and as the decedent validly disposed of her properties in a will duly executed and probated, petitioner has no legal right to claim any part of the decedents estate. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 13, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41756 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament. In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution. In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of complainant. The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965.1 Complainant, however, pointed out that the residence certificate2 of the testator noted in the acknowledgment of the will was dated January 5, 1962.3 Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not the same as his signature as donor in a deed of donation4 (containing his purported genuine signature). Complainant averred that the signatures of his deceased father in the will and in the deed of donation were "in any way (sic) entirely and diametrically opposed from (sic) one another in all angle[s]."5 Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported witnesses Noynay and Grajo. He alleged that their signatures had likewise been forged and merely copied from their respective voters affidavits. Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will was on file in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA). In this connection, the certification of the chief of the archives division dated September 19, 1999 stated:

A.C. No. 5281

February 12, 2008

MANUEL L. LEE, petitioner, vs. ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO, respondent. RESOLUTION CORONA, J.:

Doc. 14, Page No. 4, Book No. 1, Series of 1965 refers to an AFFIDAVIT executed by BARTOLOME RAMIREZ on June 30, 1965 and is available in this Office[s] files.6 Respondent in his comment dated July 6, 2001 claimed that the complaint against him contained false allegations: (1) that complainant was a son of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2) that the will in question was fake and spurious. He alleged that complainant was "not a legitimate son of Vicente Lee, Sr. and the last will and testament was validly executed and actually notarized by respondent per affidavit7 of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of Vicente Lee, Sr. and corroborated by the joint affidavit8 of the children of Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena N. Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. xxx."9 Respondent further stated that the complaint was filed simply to harass him because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the Office of the Ombudsman "did not prosper." Respondent did not dispute complainants contention that no copy of the will was on file in the archives division of the NCCA. He claimed that no copy of the contested will could be found there because none was filed. Lastly, respondent pointed out that complainant had no valid cause of action against him as he (complainant) did not first file an action for the declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the inheritance. In a resolution dated October 17, 2001, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.10 In his report, the investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in the Revised Administrative Code. The violation constituted an infringement of legal ethics, particularly Canon 111 and Rule 1.0112 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).13 Thus, the investigating commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline

recommended the suspension of respondent for a period of three months. The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVII-2006-285 dated May 26, 2006, resolved: [T]o ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondents failure to comply with the laws in the discharge of his function as a notary public, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year and Respondents notarial commission is Revoked and Disqualified fromreappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years.14 We affirm with modification. A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death.15 A will may either be notarial or holographic. The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. 16 A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.17 The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and Grajo. On this circumstance alone, the will must be considered

void.18 This is in consonance with the rule that acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. 19 The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and embodied in a distinct and separate provision.20 An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to the notary public that the same is his or her own free act and deed.21 The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the testators wishes long after his demise and (2) to assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done. A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the testators old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the will. As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of notarization. As we held in Santiago v. Rafanan:22 The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public. They are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before him had presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of such certification.

These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents.23 A notary public, especially a lawyer,24 is bound to strictly observe these elementary requirements. The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the residence certificate upon notarization of a document or instrument: Section 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of [cedula] residence tax. Every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper [cedula] residence certificate or are exempt from the [cedula] residence tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such certificate the number, place of issue, and date of each [cedula] residence certificate as aforesaid.25 The importance of such act was further reiterated by Section 6 of the Residence Tax Act26 which stated: When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act acknowledges any document before a notary public xxx it shall be the duty of such person xxx with whom such transaction is had or business done, to require the exhibition of the residence certificate showing payment of the residence taxes by such person xxx. In the issuance of a residence certificate, the law seeks to establish the true and correct identity of the person to whom it is issued, as well as the payment of residence taxes for the current year. By having allowed decedent to exhibit an expired residence certificate, respondent failed to comply with the requirements of both the old Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act. As much could be said of his failure to demand the exhibition of the residence certificates of Noynay and Grajo.

On the issue of whether respondent was under the legal obligation to furnish a copy of the notarized will to the archives division, Article 806 provides: Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witness. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court. (emphasis supplied) Respondents failure, inadvertent or not, to file in the archives division a copy of the notarized will was therefore not a cause for disciplinary action. Nevertheless, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register. The old Notarial Law required the entry of the following matters in the notarial register, in chronological order: 1. nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him; 2. person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument; 3. witnesses, if any, to the signature; 4. date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument; 5. fees collected by him for his services as notary; 6. give each entry a consecutive number; and 7. if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the substance of the instrument.27 In an effort to prove that he had complied with the abovementioned rule, respondent contended that he had crossed out a prior entry and

entered instead the will of the decedent. As proof, he presented a photocopy of his notarial register. To reinforce his claim, he presented a photocopy of a certification28 stating that the archives division had no copy of the affidavit of Bartolome Ramirez. A photocopy is a mere secondary evidence. It is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is unavailable. The proponent must first prove the existence and cause of the unavailability of the original,29 otherwise, the evidence presented will not be admitted. Thus, the photocopy of respondents notarial register was not admissible as evidence of the entry of the execution of the will because it failed to comply with the requirements for the admissibility of secondary evidence. In the same vein, respondents attempt to controvert the certification dated September 21, 199930 must fail. Not only did he present a mere photocopy of the certification dated March 15, 2000;31 its contents did not squarely prove the fact of entry of the contested will in his notarial register. Notaries public must observe with utmost care32 and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined.33 Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its contents.34 Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for his acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty.35 In this connection, Section 249 of the old Notarial Law provided: Grounds for revocation of commission. The following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the

discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission: xxx xxx xxx

(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law. xxx xxx xxx

Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction.46 We have held in a number of cases that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution47 and should not be decreed if any punishment less severe such as reprimand, suspension, or fine will accomplish the end desired.48 The rule then is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.49 Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of the elementary duties of his office. Contrary to his claims that he "exercised his duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regard to the provision of existing law and had complied with the elementary formalities in the performance of his duties xxx," we find that he acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in question. Such recklessness warrants the less severe punishment of suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient basis for the revocation of his commission50 and his perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public.51 WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby found guilty of professional misconduct. He violated (1) the Lawyers Oath; (2) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of the Civil Code and (5) the provisions of the old Notarial Law. Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission REVOKED. Because he has not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an officer of the court, he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, as well as made part of the personal records of respondent. SO ORDERED.

(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula certificates.36 These gross violations of the law also made respondent liable for violation of his oath as a lawyer and constituted transgressions of Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court37 and Canon 138 and Rule 1.0139 of the CPR. The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.40 For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice.41 While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As a servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an example for others to emulate.42 Being a lawyer, he is supposed to be a model in the community in so far as respect for the law is concerned.43 The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.44 A breach of these conditions justifies disciplinary action against the erring lawyer. A disciplinary sanction is imposed on a lawyer upon a finding or acknowledgment that he has engaged in professional misconduct.45 These sanctions meted out to errant lawyers include disbarment, suspension and reprimand.

Crispin was the owner of six lots identified as Lot Nos. 674, 675, 676, 677, 680, and 682 of the Pilar Cadastre, Capiz. After Crispin died, his wife Matilde adjudicated the lots to herself.1 On November 14, 1981, Matilde executed a document entitled "Deed of Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos"2(Deed of Donation) in favor of petitioners mother Maria3 covering all the six lots which Matilde inherited from her husband Crispin. The Deed of Donation provided: That, for and in consideration of the love and affection of the DONOR [Matilde] for the DONEE [Maria], the latter being adopted and hav[ing] been brought up by the former the DONOR, by these presents, transfer and convey, BY WAY OF DONATION, unto the DONEE the property above-described, to become effective upon the death of the DONOR, but in the event that the DONEE should die before the DONOR, the present donation shall be deemed rescinded and [of] no further force and effect; Provided, however, that anytime during the lifetime of the DONOR or anyone of them who should survive, they could use[,] encumber or even dispose of any or even all of the parcels of land herein donated.4 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) On September 30, 1986, Original Certificates of Title over Lot Nos. 674 and 676 were issued in Matildes name. On August 26, 1991, Matilde sold Lot No. 676 to respondent by a Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property.5 G.R. No. 176943 October 17, 2008 Subsequently or on January 14, 1992, Matilde executed a last will and testament,6 devising Lot Nos. 675, 677, 682, and 680 to Maria, and her "remaining properties" including Lot No. 674 to respondent. Matilde died on January 25, 1994, while Maria died on September 24 of the same year.7 On August 21, 1995, Marias heirs-herein petitioners filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City a Complaint,8 for declaration

DANILO ALUAD, LEONORA ALUAD, DIVINA ALUAD, PROSPERO ALUAD, and CONNIE ALUAD, petitioners, vs. ZENAIDO ALUAD, respondent. Petitioners mother, Maria Aluad (Maria), and respondent Zenaido Aluad were raised by the childless spouses Matilde Aluad (Matilde) and Crispin Aluad (Crispin).

and recovery of ownership and possession of Lot Nos. 674 and 676, and damages against respondent, alleging: That in 1978, plaintiff[s] possessed the two (2) parcels of land abovedescribed until January 1991 when defendant entered and possessed the two (2) parcels of land claiming as the adopted son of Crispin Aluad who refused to give back possession until Matilde Aluad died in [1994] and then retained the possession thereof up to and until the present time, thus, depriving the plaintiffs of the enjoyment of said parcels of land x x x; That after the death of Matilde R. Aluad, the plaintiffs succeeded by inheritance by right of representation from their deceased mother, Maria Aluad who is the sole and only daughter of Matilde Aluad[.]9 To the complaint respondent alleged in his Answer.10 That Lot 674 is owned by the defendant as this lot was adjudicated to him in the Last Will and Testament of Matilde Aluad x x x while Lot 676 was purchased by him from Matilde Aluad. These two lots are in his possession as true owners thereof.11 (Underscoring supplied) Petitioners later filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Already Filed to Conform to Evidence12 to which it annexed an Amended Complaint13 which cited the donation of the six lots via Deed of Donation in favor of their mother Maria. Branch 15 of the RTC granted the motion and admitted the Amended Complaint.14 Respondent filed an Amended Answer15 contending, inter alia, that the Deed of Donation is forged and falsified and petitioners change of theory showed that "said document was not existing at the time they filed their complaint and was concocted by them after realizing that their false claim that their mother was the only daughter of Matild[e] Aluad cannot in anyway be established by them";16 and that if ever said document does exist, the same was already revoked by Matilde "when [she] exercised all acts of dominion over said properties until she sold Lot 676 to defendant and until her death with respect to the other lots without any opposition from Maria Aluad." 17

The trial court, by Decision18 of September 20, 1996, held that Matilde could not have transmitted any right over Lot Nos. 674 and 676 to respondent, she having previously alienated them to Maria via the Deed of Donation. Thus it disposed: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Declaring the plaintiffs as the rightful owners of the subject Lots Nos. 674 and 676, Pilar Cadastre; 2. Ordering the defendant to deliver the possession of the subject lots to the plaintiffs; 3. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs: a. Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as attorneys fees; b. Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), representing the income from subject Lot 676, a year from 1991 up to the time said lot is delivered to the plaintiffs, together with the interest thereof at the legal rate until fully paid; c. Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00), representing the income from the subject Lot No. 674, a year from 1991 up to the time said lot is delivered to the plaintiffs, plus legal interest thereof at the legal rate until fully paid; and d. The costs of the suit. Defendants counterclaim is ordered dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.19 On petitioners motion, the trial court directed the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal.20 Possession of the subject lots appears to have in fact been taken by petitioners.

By Decision21 of August 10, 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts decision, it holding that the Deed of Donation was actually a donation mortis causa, not inter vivos, and as such it had to, but did not, comply with the formalities of a will. Thus, it found that the Deed of Donation was witnessed by only two witnesses and had no attestation clause which is not in accordance with Article 805 of the Civil Code, reading: Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testators name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will shall, also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last on the left margin and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that that testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator, and of one another. If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. While the appellate court declared respondent as the rightful owner of Lot No. 676, it did not so declare with respect to Lot No. 674, as Matildes last will and testament had not yet been probated. Thus the Court of Appeals disposed: WHEREFORE, finding the instant petition worthy of merit, the same is hereby GRANTED and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 15, dated 20 September 1996, in Civil Case No.

V-6686 for declaration of ownership, recovery of ownership and possession, and damages is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered in its stead declaring defendant-appellant as the lawful owner of Lot [No.] 676of the Pilar Cadastre. Accordingly, plaintiffs-appellees are directed to return the possession of the said lot to the defendant-appellant. Moreover, plaintiffs-appellees are ordered to pay P40,000.00 to defendant-appellant as attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Costs against plaintiffs-appellees. SO ORDERED.22 (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied) Their Motion for Reconsideration23 having been denied,24 petitioners filed the present Petition for Review,25contending that the Court of Appeals erred I X X X WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW (RTC, Branch 15, Roxas City) HOLDING THAT THE DEED OF DONATION INTER VIVOS IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS MOTHER IS IN FACT A DONATION MORTIS CAUSA. II X X X WHEN IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF LOT NO. 676 AS LOT BUYER ON THE BASIS OF A DEED OF SALE EXECUTED BY THE DONOR WHO HAD NO MORE RIGHT TO SELL THE SAME. III X X X WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE PETITIONERS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF LOT NO. 674 AFTER HAVING RULED

WHEN IT HELD THAT RESPONDENT CANNOT BE DECLARED OWNER THEREOF. IV X X X WHEN IT HELD THAT THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IS IN VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH (a) SECTION 2, RULE 39, OF THE RULES OF COURT (AND ORDERING PETITIONERS TO RETURN POSSESSION OF LOT 676 TO RESPONDENT) AND ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PAY ATTORNEYS FEES AND COST[S] OF SUIT.26 As did the appellate court, the Court finds the donation to petitioners mother one of mortis causa, it having the following characteristics: (1) It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the property while alive; (2) That before the death of the transferor, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will,ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed; and (3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.27 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The phrase in the earlier-quoted Deed of Donation "to become effective upon the death of the DONOR" admits of no other interpretation than to mean that Matilde did not intend to transfer the ownership of the six lots to petitioners mother during her (Matildes) lifetime.28 The statement in the Deed of Donation reading "anytime during the lifetime of the DONOR or anyone of them who should survive, they could use, encumber or even dispose of any or even all the parcels of land herein donated"29 means that Matilde retained

ownership of the lots and reserved in her the right to dispose them. For the right to dispose of a thing without other limitations than those established by law is an attribute of ownership.30 The phrase in the Deed of Donation "or anyone of them who should survive" is of course out of sync. For the Deed of Donation clearly stated that it would take effect upon the death of the donor, hence, said phrase could only have referred to the donor Matilde. Petitioners themselves concede that such phrase does not refer to the donee, thus: x x x [I]t is well to point out that the last provision (sentence) in the disputed paragraph should only refer to Matilde Aluad, the donor, because she was the only surviving spouse at the time the donation was executed on 14 November 1981, as her husband Crispin Aluad [] had long been dead as early as 1975.31 The trial court, in holding that the donation was inter vivos, reasoned: x x x The donation in question is subject to a resolutory term or period when the donor provides in the aforequoted provisions, "but in the event that the DONEE should die before the DONOR, the present donation shall be deemed rescinded and [of] no further force and effect". When the donor provides that should the "DONEE" xxx die before the DONOR, the present donation shall be deemed rescinded and [of] no further force and effect" the logical construction thereof is that after the execution of the subject donation, the same became effective immediately and shall be "deemed rescinded and [of] no further force and effect" upon the arrival of a resolutory term or period, i.e., the death of the donee which shall occur before that of the donor. Understandably, the arrival of this resolutory term or period cannot rescind and render of no further force and effect a donation which has never become effective, because, certainly what donation is there to be rescinded and rendered of no further force and effect upon the arrival of said resolutory term or period if there was no donation which was already effective at the time when the donee died?32 (Underscoring supplied) A similar ratio in a case had been brushed aside by this Court, however, thus:

x x x [P]etitioners contend that the stipulation on rescission in case petitioners [donee] die ahead of [donor] Cabatingan is a resolutory condition that confirms the nature of the donation as inter vivos. Petitioners arguments are bereft of merit.33 xxxx x x x The herein subject deeds expressly provide that the donation shall be rescinded in case [donees] the petitioners predecease [the donor] Conchita Cabatingan. As stated in Reyes v. Mosqueda, one of the decisive characteristics of a donation mortis causa is that the transfer should be considered void if the donor should survive the donee. This is exactly what Cabatingan provided for in her donations. If she really intended that the donation should take effect during her lifetime and that the ownership of the properties donated to the donee or independently of, and not by reason of her death, she would not have expressed such proviso in the subject deeds.34 (Underscoring supplied) As the Court of Appeals observed, "x x x [t]hat the donation is mortis causa is fortified by Matildes acts of possession as she continued to pay the taxes for the said properties which remained under her name; appropriated the produce; and applied for free patents for which OCTs were issued under her name."35 The donation being then mortis causa, the formalities of a will should have been observed36 but they were not, as it was witnessed by only two, not three or more witnesses following Article 805 of the Civil Code.37 Further, the witnesses did not even sign the attestation clause 38 the execution of which clause is a requirementseparate from the subscription of the will and the affixing of signatures on the left-hand margins of the pages of the will. So the Court has emphasized: x x x Article 805 particularly segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the will from the requisite

that the will be "attested and subscribed by [the instrumental witnesses]. The respective intents behind these two classes of signature[s] are distinct from each other. The signatures on the lefthand corner of every page signify, among others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause itself. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal. x x x It is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are required under Article 805 to state the number of pages used upon which the will is written; the fact that the testator had signed the will and every page thereof; and that they witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The only proof in the will that the witnesses have stated these elemental facts would be their signatures on the attestation clause.39 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Furthermore, the witnesses did not acknowledge the will before the notary public,40 which is not in accordance with the requirement of Article 806 of the Civil Code that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. More. The requirement that all the pages of the will must be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page was not also followed.41 The Deed of Donation which is, as already discussed, one of mortis causa, not having followed the formalities of a will, it is void and transmitted no right to petitioners mother. But even assuming arguendo that the formalities were observed, since it was not probated, no right to Lot Nos. 674 and 676 was transmitted to

Maria.42 Matilde thus validly disposed of Lot No. 674 to respondent by her last will and testament, subject of course to the qualification that her (Matildes) will must be probated. With respect to Lot No. 676, the same had, as mentioned earlier, been sold by Matilde to respondent on August 26, 1991. Petitioners nevertheless argue that assuming that the donation of Lot No. 674 in favor of their mother is indeedmortis causa, hence, Matilde could devise it to respondent, the lot should nevertheless have been awarded to them because they had acquired it by acquisitive prescription, they having been in continuous, uninterrupted, adverse, open, and public possession of it in good faith and in the concept of an owner since 1978.43 Petitioners failed to raise the issue of acquisitive prescription before the lower courts, however, they having laid their claim on the basis of inheritance from their mother. As a general rule, points of law, theories, and issues not brought to the attention of the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.44 For a contrary rule would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.45 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY

STREET, J.: This is a contest over the probate of a paper writing purporting to be the will of Victorina Villaranda y Diaz, a former resident of the municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, who died in the Hospital of San Juan de Dios, in the City of Manila, on June 9, 1929. The deceased left no descendants or ascendants, and the document produced as her will purports to leave her estate, consisting of properties valued at P50,000, more or less, chiefly to three collateral relatives, Eusebia, Crispina, and Maria, of the surname of Lim. This instrument was offered for probate by Eusebia Lim, named in the instrument as executrix Opposition was made by Juliana Chinco, a full sister of the deceased. Upon hearing the cause the trial court sustained the opposition and disallowed the will on the ground that the testatrix did not have testamentary capacity at the time the instrument purports to have been executed by her From this judgment the proponent of the will appealed. The deceased was a resident of Mercauayan, Province of Bulacan, and was about 80 years of age at the time of her death. On the morning of June 2, 1929, she was stricken with apoplexy, incident to cerebral hemorrhage, and was taken in an unconscious condition, seated in a chair, to her room. Doctor Geronimo Z. Gaanan, a local physician of Meycauayan, visited the old lady, with whom he was well acquianted, three or four times, the first visit having occurred between 6 and 7 p. m. of June 3d. Upon examining the patient, he found her insensible and incapable of talking or controlling her movements. On the same day the parish priest called for the purpose of administering the last rites of the church, and being unable to take her confession, he limited himself to performing the office of extreme unction. Doctor Isidoro Lim, of Manila, was also called upon to visit the patient and he came to see her two or three times. With his approval, it was decided to take the woman to the hospital of San Juan de Dios in Manila, and on the morning of June 5, 1929, the ambulance from this hospital arrived, in charge of Doctor Guillermo Lopez del Castillo, a resident physician of the hospital. At about 11 c'clock a.m. on that day she was embarked on the ambulance and taken to the hospital, where she died four days later.

G.R. No. L-33592

March 31, 1931

Estate of the deceased Victorina Villaranda. EUSEBIA LIM, petitioner-appellant, vs. JULIANA CHINCO, oppositor-appellee. Perfecto Gabriel and Eusebio Orense for appellant. Camus and Delgado for appellee.

The purported will, which is the subject of this proceeding, was prepared by Perfecto Gabriel, a practicing attorney of Manila, whose wife appears to be related to the chief beneficiaries named in the will. This gentlemen arrived upon the scene at 9 o'clock on the forenoon of June 5, 1929. After informing himself of the condition of the testatrix, he went into a room adjacent to that occupied by the patient and, taking a sheet from an exercise book, wrote the instrument in question. He then took it into the sick room for execution. With this end in view Gabriel suggested to Doctor Lopez del Castillo that he would be pleased to have Doctor Castillo sign as a witness, but the latter excused himself for the reason that he considered the old lady to be lacking in testamentary capacity. Another person present was Marcos Ira, a first cousin of the deceased, and attorney Gabriel asked him also whether or not he was willing to sign as one of the witnesses. Ira replied in a discouraging tone, and the attorney turned away without pressing the matter. In the end three persons served as witnesses, all of whom were in friendly relations with the lawyer, and two relatives of his wife. The intended testatrix was not able to affix her signature to the document, and it was signed for her by the attorney. The vital question in the case is whether the supposed testatrix had testamentary capacity at the time the paper referred to was signed. Upon this point we are of the opinion, as was the trial judge, that the deceased, on the morning of June 5, 1929, was in a comatose condition and incapable of performing any conscious and valid act. The testimony of Doctor Gaanan and Doctor Lopez del Castillo is sufficient upon this point, and this testimony is well corroborated by Paciana Diaz and Irene Ahorro. The first of these witnesses was the one who chiefly cared for the deceased during her last illness in Meycauayan until she was carried away to the hospital in Manila; and the second was a neighbor, who was called in when the stroke of apoplexy first occurred and who visited the patient daily until she was removed from Meycauayan. The testimony of these witnesses is convincing to the effect that the patient was in a continuous state of coma during the entire period of her stay in Meycauayan, subsequent to the attack, and that on the forenoon of June 5, 1929, she did not have sufficient command of her

faculties to enable her to do any valid act. Doctor Lim, the physician from Manila, testified for the proponent of the will. His testimony tends to show that the patient was not suffering from cerebral hemorrhage but from urmic trouble, and that, after the first attack, the patient was much relieved and her mind so far cleared up that she might have made a will on the morning of June 5th. The attorney testified that he was able to communicate with the deceased when the will was made, and that he read the instrument over to her clause by clause and asked her whether it expressed her wishes. He says that she made signs that enabled him to understand that she concurred in what was written. But it is clear, even upon the statement of this witness, that the patient was unable to utter intelligent speech. Upon the authority of Perry vs. Elio (29 Phil., 134), the paper offered for probate was properly disallowed. The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the appellant. Avancea, C.J., Johnson, Villamor and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. Malcolm and Johns, JJ., concurred, but being absent at the date of the promulgation of the opinion, their names do not appear signed thereto. AVANCEA, C.J.

Separate Opinions ROMUALDEZ, J., dissenting: I am of opinion that the will in question is genuine and that it was drawn up and signed with all the legal requisites; therefore, I vote for its allowance, and the consequent reversal of the judgment appealed from.

G.R. No. L-5263

February 17, 1954

AGUSTIN BARRERA, ET AL., proponents-appellants, vs. JOSE TAMPOCO, ET AL., oppositors-appellees. Jesus G. Barrera for appellants. Filemon Cajator for appellees. PARAS, C.J.: Olivia Villapaa died in Tarlac, Tarlac, on December 13, 1948. On December 31, 1948, a petition was filed by Agustin Barrera in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac for the probate of the will executed by

Olivia Villapaa on July 17, 1948, and for the appointment of the petitioner as executor. According to the petition the properties left by the testatrix are worth P94,852.96, and the heirs instituted are nephews and nieces and grandchildren in the collateral line. Jose Tampoco and Victoriano Tampoco, alleged grandchildren of the testatrix in the direct line, filed an opposition, claiming that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with the law, that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, that there was undue influence and pressure in its execution, that the signature of Olivia Villapaa was obtained by fraud and trickery, and that the testamentary provisions are illegal. Consorcia Lintang, Nemesio Villapaa, Marcos Villapaa, Jesus Villapaa, Vicente Villapaa, Ursulo Villapaa, Avelina Villapaa, and Rosario Villapaa, alleged nephews and nieces, also filed an opposition on substantially the same grounds on which the opposition of Jose and Victoriano Tampoco was based. After protracted trial, and more than a year after submission of the case, a decision was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac on August 11, 1951, disallowing the will. The court found that Olivia Villapaa had testamentary capacity, that there was no forgery, fraud, trickery or undue influence in the execution of the will, and that petition of forced heirs is not a ground for denying probate; but the will was disallowed because it was not the personal last will and testament of the deceased and it was not based on the finding that Olivia Villapaa did not furnish the names of the persons instituted as heirs and that the will was not read to her before she signed it. The second ground is premised on the conclusion that attesting witness Laureano Antonio was not present when Olivia Villapaa and attesting witness Honorio Lacson signed the will; that Antonio only partially saw the signing by attesting witness Modesto Puno; and that Olivia Villapaa saw Antonio sign only two or three times. From this decision the petitioner has appealed. According to appellant's evidence, two or three days before July 10, 1948, Pilar Taedo called on Modesto Puno, a lawyer and justice of the peace of Concepcion, Tarlac, and requested the latter to come to Manila for a conference with Olivia Villapaa, aunt of Pilar. On July 10, 1948, Atty. Puno, complying with the request, went to the house of Pilar Taedo in Singalong Street where Olivia was staying. The latter,

after preliminary greetings and courtesies, informed Atty. Puno that she wanted him to prepare her will, giving the names of the heirs and the properties to be left. Olivia Villapaa asked Atty. Puno to get the description of the properties from the herein appellant, Agustin Barrera, husband of Pilar Taedo. Atty. Puno noted the wishes of Olivia, and, as there was then no available typewriter, he informed the old woman that he would prepare the will in his office in Concepcion and come back with it on the following Saturday. As promised, on or July 17, 1948, Atty. Puno returned to the house of Olivia Villapaa in Singalong, carrying with him one original and three copies, in typewritten form, of the will he drafted in accordance with the instructions of Olivia Villapaa. Atty. Puno arrived about noon. He read the will to Olivia to find out whether it conformed to her wishes, and she indicated that it was all right. After lunch Atty. Puno manifested that two other witnesses were necessary, whereupon Pilar Taedo requested Honorio Lacson and Laureano Antonio, who were then living in the first floor of the house, to come up. Lacson and Antonio did as requested. Olivia Villapaa, Atty. Puno, Lacson and Antonio were then seated around a small rectangular table insala, and at this juncture Atty. Puno gave a copy of the will to Olivia, Lacson and Antonio, while he retained one. The Attorney again read the will aloud, advising the rest to check their respective copies. As Olivia Villapaa agreed to the will, she proceeded to sign all the four copies, on the lines previously placed by Atty. Puno, followed successively by Lacson, Atty. Puno and Antonio, all in the presence of each other. After the signing, Atty. Puno gave the original and a copy to Olivia, and retained the other two copies. Atty. Puno , Lacson and Antonio stayed for a while even ate merienda prepared by the sisters Pilar and Beatriz Taedo. Olivia Villapaa delivered her will to Agustin Barrera for safekeeping on October 17, 1948 when she was taken to the U.S.T. Hospital where she remained until November 7, 1948. On this date her doctors lost all hope for her recovery and Olivia Villapaa was brought to Tarlac, Tarlac, her hometown, where, as already stated, she died on December 13, 1948. According to the evidence for the oppositors-appellees, the will presented in the court by the petitioner was not executed in accordance with law, in that attesting witness Laureano Antonio did

not see the testatrix and attesting witness Lacson sign the will or any of its copies, that he saw Atty. Puno when the latter was already half thru signing the document, and that the testatrix did not see Antonio sign all the copies. After a thorough study of the record and mature reflection on the conflicting evidence, we are constrained to conclude that the trial court erred in denying probate of the will. Of the three attesting witnesses, namely, Atty. Modesto Puno, Honorio Lacson, and Laureano Antonio, the first two testified positively that the will was signed by the testatrix and the three witnesses in the presence of each other, and that it was read to the testatrix before being signed. In view of the opposition filed by the two sets of oppositors , the third attesting witness, Laureano Antonio, had to be presented by the petitioner but, contrary to expectations, Antonio testified that he arrived at the scene of the execution of the will after testatrix and Honorio Lacson had already signed and after Atty. Puno was half through affixing his signatures, and that the testatrix left before Antonio finished signing all the copies. By numerical superiority alone, the weight of the testimony of Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson outbalances the probative value of the testimony of Laureano Antonio. Intrinsically, we cannot state that Laureano Antonio spoke the truth on the witness stand, since, in the first place, the attestation clause signed by him contradicts his pretense and, in the second place, there is enough evidence on the record to show that in his conferences with Atty. Barrera before taking the witness stand, Antonio never gave the slightest indication that he was not present when the testatrix left before Antonio finished signing. Modesto Puno is a lawyer and at the time a justice of the peace, and it is improbable that he would unnecessarily risk his honor and reputation. Indeed, the trial court gave the impression that Atty. Puno was anxious to strictly meet the requirements of the law and in the absence, as in the case at bar, of any reason for a hasty completion, we do not believe that Atty. Puno would have allowed the signing of the will to be proceeded with unless three attesting witnesses were already present. On the other hand, we can fairly state that there was in fact no hurry on the part of any of the participants in the will, because the testatrix Olivia Villapaa was not

dying (she died some five months after the execution of the will) and the parties could therefore take all the time that they wanted, Indeed, none of the three witnesses, left the house of Olivia Villapaa and they even stayed therein until after meriendatime. The fact that Atty. Puno id the brother of Jose Puno who is the husband of Carmen Taedo, one of the beneficiaries of the will, and that Honorio Lacson is the husband of Bibiana Lacson who is a first cousin of Agustin Barrera, herein petitioner and husband of Pilar Taedo, is not sufficient to make then biased witnesses. If Atty. Puno had any material interest, this fact should have caused him to be more careful in seeing to it that the formalities of the law were strictly complied with, and this should be true with respect to Honorio Lacson. In deciding against the probate of the will, the trial court believed the testimony of Laureano Antonio to the effect that he arrived at the place of the signing at about 2:30 in the afternoon, and thereby found that a greater part of the proceeding was finished, because Atty. Puno declared in one place that "the signing of the testament commenced around between one o'clock and two o'clock" and in another place that the signing took place "around two and three o'clock," and Honorio Lacson declared that he was called by Pilar Taedo to act as witness at around two o'clock or two thirty. From the testimony of Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson the court concluded that the signing actually commenced between one and two o'clock. We are of the opinion that the specification of the time of the signing refers to an immaterial or unimportant detail which, in view of the lapse of time, might have been a mistake by one or the other participant in the execution of Oliva's will. What is important and decisive and this should be impressed in the mind of an attorney preparing and taking charge of the signing of will, is that the testatrix and each of the three attesting witnesses must affix their signatures in the presence of one another. In the case before us, Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson both attesting witnesses, categorically affirmed that this procedure was followed. At any rate, even under the testimony of Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson, the signing could have taken place at about or after two thirty, since the former declared that it took place

between two and three o'clock and Honorio Lacson stated that the time was two or two thirty. another point invoked by the trial court against the probate of the will is the circumstance that, while Atty. Puno testified that he placed the lines on which the testatrix and the witnesses were to sign before he read the document to the testatrix whom he gave the original witness Lacson testify that Atty. Puno read the original after giving a copy to the testatrix, and after reading Atty. Puno placed the lines for signatures. The discrepancy again refers to a minor detail which is not sufficient to negative the truthfulness of Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson on the main and important fact that the will was signed by the testatrix and the three attesting witnesses in the presence of each other. Oppositors-appellees presented in corroboration of the testimony of Laureano Antonio, Joaquin Villapaa and Consolacion del Mundo. Joaquin Villapaa, a painter allegedly was then the maid of Oliva Villapaa. Apart from the fact that there is evidence to show that both Joaquin Villapaa and Consolacion del Mundo were not yet employed in the house of Oliva when the latter's will was executed, there is little or no reason for their version to prevail over the positive testimony is even corroborated by two other witnesses, Bibiana Lacson and Beatriz Taedo. Certainly the story of Joaquin Villapaa and Consolacion del Mundo can have no greater weight than that of Laureano Antonio. In the holding that the will was not that of Oliva Villapaa, the trial court found that it was not read to her; and this finding was premised on the alleged contradiction of Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson regarding the sequence of the reading of the will and the placing of the lines for signatures, and regarding the question whether a copy or the original was handed to the testatrix. As we have already observed, the discrepancy relates to an insignificant matter which cannot vitally detract from the credibility of Atty. Puno to the effect that upon arrival at the house of Oliva Villapaa at about noon, he read the will to her with a view to finding whether she was agreeable thereto. It is not necessary that said will be read upon its signing and in the presence of the witnesses.

The trial court also concluded that the testatrix could not have furnished the names of the heirs instituted under the will, because (1) Salvador Taedo, one of such heirs, was long dead and (2) Marcelo Villapaa, another instituted heir, was non-existent, since Oliva Villapaa did not have a grandson by such name. It is true that Salvador Taedo was already dead and the testatrix knew about it, but it is not uncommon for a woman of old age, confused by the big number of her relatives, to commit the mistake of unwittingly mentioning a dead one. With respect to the instituted heir, Marcelo Villapaa, while it appears that Oliva did not have a grandson answering to that name, there is evidence tending to show that Pioquinto Villapaa, a child of Ruperta Pineda, must have been reffered to, because Oliva, who was the child's god-mother, originally wanted said child to be baptized as Marcelo, after his father. Moreover, if Atty. Puno had supplied the names instituted as heirs, he would have consulted all the interested parties and would be sure that no mistake of the kind was made. As a closing observation, it is not for us to discover the motives of Oliva Villapaa in leaving her properties to the person named in the will, and omitting therefrom the oppositors-appellees. Suffice it to state that the trial court itself found the will to have been executed free from falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence, with Oliva having testamentary capacity; and in such a situation it becomes our duty to give expression to her will. Wherefore, the appealed order is reversed and the will executed by Oliva Villapaa on July 17, 1948, is hereby allowed. So ordered without costs. Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 promulgated August 29,1986 affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXII 2 dated March 21, 1985, the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment declaring the holographic will marked in evidence as Exhibit "H" as one wholly written, dated, and signed freely by the late Herminia Montinola in accordance with law while in possession of full testamentary capacity, and allowing and admitting the same to probate. Upon the finality of the decision, let letters testamentary issue to the executor, Eduardo F. Hernandez, as well as the certificate of probate prescribed under Section 13 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. SO ORDERED. 3 This case arose from a petition filed by private respondent Atty. Eduardo F. Hernandez on April 22, 1981 with the Court of First Instance of Manila (now Regional Trial Court) seeking the probate of the holographic will of the late Herminia Montinola executed on January 28, 1980. 4 The testatrix, who died single, parentless and childless on March 29,1981 at the age of 70 years, devised in this will several of her real properties to specified persons. G.R. No. 76648 February 26, 1988 THE HEIRS OF THE LATE MATILDE MONTINOLASANSON, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ, respondents. On April 29,1981, private respondent who was named executor in the will filed an urgent motion for appointment of special administrator. 5 With the conformity of all the relatives and heirs of the testatrix except oppositor, the court in its order of May 5, 1981 6 appointed private respondent as Special Administrator of the testate estate of deceased. On June 29,1981, Matilde Montinola Sanson (petitioner), the only surviving sister of the deceased but who was not named in the said win, filed her Opposition to Probate of Will, 7 alleging inter alia: that the subject will was not entirely written, dated and signed by the testatrix

GANCAYCO, J.:

herself and the same was falsely dated or antedated; that the testatrix was not in full possession of her mental faculties to make testamentary dispositions; that undue influence was exerted upon the person and mind of the testatrix by the beneficiaries named in the win; and that the will failed to institute a residual heir to the remainder of the estate. After a hearing on the merits, the probate court, finding the evidence presented in support of the petition to be conclusive and overwhelming, rendered its decision allowing the probate of the disputed will. Petitioner thus appealed the decision of the probate court to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the decision. 8 On September 24,1986, petitioner filed with the respondent court a motion for new trial. 9 Attached to her motion was the Affidavit of Merit of Gregorio Montinola Sanson, petitioner's son, alleging that witnesses have been located whose testimonies could shed light as to the ill health of the testatrix as well as undue influence exerted on the latter. The appellate court in its resolution of October 13, 1986, 10 denied the motion for new trial of petitioner on the following grounds: (1) the Affidavit of merit attached to the motion alleged that efforts were exerted to locate unnamed witnesses only after the court's decision was handed down, and (2) the unnamed witnesses would allegedly shed light on the fact of grave illness of the testatrix as well as the undue influence exerted on her which are merely corroborative or cumulative since these facts were brought to light during the trial. The motion for reconsideration of petitioner dated October 27, 1986 11 was likewise denied by the appellate court in its resolution of November 20, 1986 12 on the ground that the affidavit of one Patricia Delgado submitted with the motion constitutes cumulative evidence and the motion being in reality a second motion for reconsideration which is prescribed by law. In the petition now before Us, petitioner assigned the following errors:

I THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE PRESENTED IS MERELY CUMULATIVE. II THE SAID COURT ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION DENYING THE AFORESAID MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. III AT ANY RATE, THE SAID COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE HOLOGRAPHIC WILL IN QUESTION WAS WHOLLY WRITTEN, DATED AND SIGNED BY THE LATE HERMINIA MONTINOLA. IV THE SAID COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ALLEGED WILL WAS FRAUDULENTLY ANTEDATED TO CONCEAL ITS ACTUAL DATE OF EXECUTION AND TO SHIELD IT FROM PROBABLE DISPUTES AS TO THE TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY ON THE PART OF THE ALLEGED TESTATRIX AT THE TIME OF ITS ACTUAL EXECUTION. V THE SAID COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LATE HERMINIA MONTINOLA WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO UNDUE PRESSURE AND IMPROPERIMPORTUNINGS ON THE PART OF

THOSE STANDING TO BENEFIT FROM THE ALLEGED WILL. VI THE SAID COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE HOLOGRAPHIC WILL IN QUESTION TO PROBATE. In the meantime, petitioner who passed away on November 3, 1986, was substituted by her heirs. In the first and second assigned errors, petitioners maintain that the appellate court erred in denying the motion for new trial insisting that the new evidence sought to be presented is not merely corroborative or cumulative. On the other hand, the contention of private respondent is that the motion for new trial was a pro-forma motion because it was not in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court. We find merit in this contention. Section 1, Rule 53 provides Before a final order or judgment rendered by the Court of appeals becomes executory, a motion for new trial may be filed on the ground of newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below by the exercise of the diligence and which is of such a character as would probably change the result. The motion shall be accompanied by affidavits showing the facts constituting the grounds therefor and the newly discovered evidence. The affidavit of merit executed by Gregorio Montinola Sanson alleged the following: xxx xxx xxx

3. That in her plea for new trial in the said case, I have exerted efforts to locate witnesses whose whereabouts were not known to us during the trial in the lower court, but I have finally succeeded in tracking them down; 4. That despite their initial reluctance to testify in this case,I am convinced that they would testify under proper subpoena for purposes of shedding light on the fact that the testatrix was gravely ill at or but the time that the questioned will was allegedly executed; 5. That they had the clear opportunity to know the circumstances under which the purported will was executed; and that they know for a fact that there was 'undue influence' exerted by petitioner and other relatives to procure improper favors from the testatrix; xxx xxx xxx 13 Said motion for new trial is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 53. The lone affidavit of a witness who was already presented said the hearing is hardly sufficient to justify the holding of new trial. The alleged new witnesses were unnamed without any certainty as, to their appearance before the court to testify. Affiant attests only on his belief that they would testify if and when they are subpoenaed by the court. Furthermore, the allegations in the affidavit as to the undue influence exerted on the testatrix are mere conclusions and not statement of facts. The requisite affidavits must state facts and not mere conclusions or opinions, otherwise they are not valid. 14 The affidavits are required to avoid waste of the court's time if the newly discovered evidence turns out to be immaterial or of any evidentiary weight. Moreover, it could not be said that the evidence sought to be presented is new having been discovered only after the trial. It is apparent from the allegations of affiant that efforts to locate the witnesses were exerted only after the decision of the appellate court was handed down. The trial lasted for about four years so that

petitioner had ample time to find said alleged witnesses who were admittedly known to her. The evidence which the petitioner now propose to present could have been discovered and presented during the hearing of the case, and there is no sufficient reason for concluding that had the petitioner exercised proper diligence she would not have been able to discover said evidence. 15 In addition, We agree with the appellate court that since the alleged illness of the testatrix as well as the charges of undue influence exerted upon her had been brought to light during the trial, and new evidence on this point is merely corroborative and cumulative which is generally not a ground for new trial. 16 Accordingly, such evidence even if presented win not carry much probative weight which can alter the judgment. 17 It is very patent that the motion for new trial was filed by petitioner only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. In fact, petitioners son in his manifestation admitted that he had to request a new law firm to do everything legally possible to meet the deadline for the filing of a motion for reconsideration and/or for new trial.18 This would explain the haphazard preparation of the motion, thus failing to comply with the requirements of rule 53, which was filed on the last day of the reglementary period of appeal so that the veracity of the ground relied upon is questionable. The appellate court correctly denied the motion for new trial. The motion for new trial being pro-forma, it does not interrupt the running of the period for appeal. 19 Since petitioner's motion was filed on September 24,1986, the fifteenth or last day of the period to appeal, the decision of the respondent court became final on the following day, September 25. And when the motion for reconsideration of petitioner was filed on October 30,1986, it was obviously filed out of time. Since the questioned decision has already become final and executory, it is no longer within the province of this Court to review it. This being so, the findings of the probate court as to the due execution

of the will and the testamentary capacity of testatrix are now conclusive. 20 At any rate, even assuming that We can still review this case on its merits, the petition will also have to fail. During the hearing before the probate court, not only were three (3) close relatives of the testatrix presented but also two (2) expert witnesses who declared that the contested will and signature are in the handwriting of the testatrix. These testimonies more than satisfy the requirements of Art. 811 of the Civil Code 21 in conjunction with Section 11 of Rule 76, Revised Rules of Court, 22 or the probate of holographic wills. As regards the alleged antedating of the will, petitioner failed to present competent proof that the will was actually executed sometime in June 1980 when the testatrix was already seriously ill and dying of terminal lung cancer. She relied only on the supposed inconsistencies in the testimony of Asuncion Gemperle, niece and constant companion of testatrix, which upon careful examination did not prove such claim of antedating. The factual findings of the probate court and the Court of Appeals that the will in question was executed according to the formalities required by law are conclusive on the Supreme Court when supported by evidence. 23 We have examined the records of this case and find no error in the conclusion arrived at by the respondent court that the contested will was duly executed in accordance with law. Petitioner alleges that her exclusion from the alleged holographic will was without rhyme or reason, being the only surviving sister of the testatrix with whom she shares an intimate relationship, thus demonstrating the lack of testamentary capacity of testatrix. In the case of Pecson v. Coronel, 24 it was held The appellants emphasize the fact that family ties in this country are very strongly knit and that the exclusion of a

relative from one's estate is an exceptional case. It is true that the ties of relationship in the Philippines are very strong, but we understand that cases of preterition of relatives from the inheritance are not rare. The liberty to dispose of one's estate by will when there are no forced heirs is rendered sacred by the Civil Code in force in the Philippines since 1889... Article 842 of the Civil Code provides that one who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed. It is within the right of the testatrix not to include her only sister who is not a compulsory heir in her will. Nevertheless, per testimony of Asuncion Gemperle, the latter had reserved two boxes of jewelry worth P850,000.00 for petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner's son Francis was instituted as an heir in the contested will. Petitioner still insists that the fact that in her holographic will the testatrix failed to dispose of all of her estate is an indication of the unsoundness of her mind. We cannot subscribe to this contention. Art. 841 of the Civil Code provides A will shall be valid even though it should not contain an institution of an heir, or such institution should not comprise the entire estate, and even though the person so instituted should not accept the inheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed. In such cases, the testamentary dispositions made in accordance with law shall be complied with and the remainder of the estate shall pass to the legal heirs. Thus, the fact that in her holographic will, testatrix disposed of only eleven (11) of her real properties does not invalidate the will, or is it an indication that the testatrix was of unsound mind. The portion of the

estate undisposed of shall pass on to the heirs of the deceased in intestate succession. Neither is undue influence present just because blood relatives, other than compulsory heirs have been omitted, for while blood ties are strong in the Philippines, it is the testator's right to disregard noncompulsory heirs. 25 The fact that some heirs are more favored than others is proof of neither fraud or undue influence. 26 Diversity of apportionment is the usual reason for making a testament, otherwise, the decedent might as well die intestate. 27 The contention of the petitioner that the will was obtained by undue influence or improper pressure exerted by the beneficiaries of the will cannot be sustained on mere conjecture or suspicion; as it is not enough that there was opportunity to exercise undue influence or a possibility that it may have been exercised. 28 The exercise of improper pressure and undue influence must be supported by substantial evidence that it was actually exercised.29 Finally, We quote with approval the observation of the respondent court There is likewise no question as to the due execution of the subject Will. To Our minds, the most authentic proof that decreased had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will, is the Will itself which according to a report of one of the two expert witnesses (Exhibits X to X-3) reveals the existence of significant handwriting characteristics such as: 1. Spontaneity, freedom, and speed of writing xxx xxx xxx 3. good line quality. 4. presence of natural variation... (Exhibit X).

The characteristics of spontaneity, freedom and good line quality could not be achieved by the testatrix if it was true that she was indeed of unsound mind and/or under undue influence or improper pressure when she the Will. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit with costs against petitioner. The decision of respondent court dated August 29, 1986 in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila dated March 21, 1985 is hereby declared to be immediately executory. SO ORDERED.

PUNO, J.: This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads; PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned decision of November 19, 1988 of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the petition for probate is hereby DISMISSED. No costs. The earlier Decision was rendered by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94, 2 in Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, and the instrument submitted for probate is the holographic will of the late Annie Sand, who died on November 25, 1982. In the will, decedent named as devisees, the following: petitioners Roberto and Thelma Ajero, private respondent Clemente Sand, Meriam S. Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr., and their children. On January 20, 1983, petitioners instituted Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, for allowance of decedent's holographic will. They alleged that at the time of its execution, she was of sound and disposing mind, not acting under duress, fraud or undue influence, and was in every respect capacitated to dispose of her estate by will. 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. The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

HOLOGRAPHIC WILL

G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994 SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents. Miguel D. Larida for petitioners. Montilla Law Office for private respondent.

Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the decedent's holographic will to probate. It found, inter alia: Considering then that the probate proceedings herein must decide only the question of identity of the will, its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix, this probate court finds no reason at all 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. For one, no evidence was presented to show that the will in question is different from the will actually executed by the testatrix. The only objections raised by the oppositors . . . are that the will was not written in the handwriting of the testatrix which properly refers to the question of its due execution, and not to the question of identity of will. No other will was alleged to have been executed by the testatrix other than the will herein presented. Hence, in the light of the evidence adduced, the identity of the will presented for probate must be accepted, i.e., the will submitted in Court must be deemed to be the will actually executed by the testatrix. xxx xxx xxx While the fact that it was entirely written, dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatrix has been disputed, the petitioners, however, have satisfactorily shown in Court that the holographic will in question was indeed written entirely, dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatrix. Three (3) witnesses who have convincingly shown knowledge of the handwriting of the testatrix have been presented and have explicitly and categorically identified the handwriting with which the holographic will in question was written to be the genuine handwriting and signature of the testatrix. Given then the aforesaid evidence, the requirement of the law

that the holographic will be entirely written, dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatrix has been complied with. xxx xxx xxx As to the question of the testamentary capacity of the testratix, (private respondent) Clemente Sand himself has testified in Court that the testatrix was completely in her sound mind when he visited her during her birthday celebration in 1981, at or around which time the holographic will in question was executed by the testatrix. To be of sound mind, it is sufficient that the testatrix, at the time of making the will, knew the value of the estate to be disposed of, the proper object of her bounty, and thecharacter of the testamentary act . . . The will itself shows that the testatrix even had detailed knowledge of the nature of her estate. She even identified the lot number and square meters of the lots she had conveyed by will. The objects of her bounty were likewise identified explicitly. And considering that she had even written a nursing book which contained the law and jurisprudence on will and succession, there is more than sufficient showing that she knows the character of the testamentary act. In this wise, the question of identity of the will, its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix has to be resolved in favor of the allowance of probate of the will submitted herein. Likewise, no evidence was presented to show sufficient reason for the disallowance of herein holographic will. While it was alleged that the said will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person, the evidence adduced have not shown any instance where improper pressure or influence was exerted on the testatrix.

(Private respondent) Clemente Sand has testified that the testatrix was still alert at the time of the execution of the will, i.e., at or around the time of her birth anniversary celebration in 1981. It was also established that she is a very intelligent person and has a mind of her own. Her independence of character and to some extent, her sense of superiority, which has been testified to in Court, all show the unlikelihood of her being unduly influenced or improperly pressured to make the aforesaid will. It must be noted that the undue influence or improper pressure in question herein only refer to the making of a will and not as to the specific testamentary provisions therein which is the proper subject of another proceeding. Hence, under the circumstances, this Court cannot find convincing reason for the disallowance of the will herein. Considering then that it is a well-established doctrine in the law on succession that in case of doubt, testate succession should be preferred over intestate succession, and the fact that no convincing grounds were presented and proven for the disallowance of the holographic will of the late Annie Sand, the aforesaid will submitted herein must be admitted to probate. 3 (Citations omitted.) On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the petition for probate of decedent's will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that, "the holographic will fails to meet the requirements for its validity." 4 It held that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code, which read, as follows: Art. 813: When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without being dated, and the last disposition has a signature and date, such date validates the dispositions preceding it, whatever be the time of prior dispositions.

Art. 814: In case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated by decedent. Thus, this appeal which is impressed with merit. Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides that will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases: (a) If not executed and attested as required by law; (b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution; (c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; (d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit; (e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature thereto. In the same vein, Article 839 of the New Civil Code reads: Art. 839: The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases; (1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;

(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution; (3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; (4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person; (5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; (6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto. 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. 6 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 and 814 of the New Civil Code, ante, were not complied with, hence, it disallowed the probate of said will. This is erroneous. We reiterate what we held in Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476, 479 (1919), that:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded. For purposes of probating non-holographic wills, these formal solemnities include the subscription, attestation, and acknowledgment requirements under Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code. In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, 7 as provided under Article 810 of the New Civil Code, thus: A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. (Emphasis supplied.) Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator. 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. In the case of Kalaw vs. Relova 132 SCRA 237 242 (1984), this Court held: Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not been noted under his signature, . . . the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined. Manresa gave an identical commentary when he said "la omission de la salvedad no anula el testamento, segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1985." 8 (Citations omitted.) Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on testator's signature, 9 their presence does not invalidate the will itself. 10 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). The distinction can be traced to Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish Civil Code, from which the present provisions covering holographic wills are taken. They read as follows: Art. 678: A will is called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form and with the requisites required in Article 688.

Art. 688: Holographic wills may be executed only by persons of full age. In order that the will be valid it must be drawn on stamped paper corresponding to the year of its execution, written in its entirety by the testator and signed by him, and must contain a statement of the year, month and day of its execution. If it should contain any erased, corrected, or interlined words, the testator must identify them over his signature. Foreigners may execute holographic wills in their own language. This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the requirements of Article 810 of the New Civil Code and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 of the same Code are essential to the probate of a holographic will. The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie Sand could not validly dispose of the house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, in its entirety. This is correct and must be affirmed. As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. However, in exceptional instances, courts are not powerless to do what the situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will. 11 In the case at bench, decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic will that the Cabadbaran property is in the name of her late father, John H. Sand (which led oppositor Dr. Jose Ajero to question her conveyance of the same in its entirety). Thus, as correctly held by respondent court, she cannot validly dispose of the whole property, which she shares with her father's other heirs. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30,

1992, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, except with respect to the invalidity of the disposition of the entire house and lot in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 in Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, dated November 19, 1988, admitting to probate the holographic will of decedent Annie Sand, is hereby REINSTATED, with the above qualification as regards the Cabadbaran property. No costs. SO ORDERED.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Hon. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr., presiding, in Special Proceeding No. 622 of said court, dated September 14, 1949, approving among things the final accounts of the executor, directing the executor to reimburse Maria Lucy Christensen the amount of P3,600 paid by her to Helen Christensen Garcia as her legacy, and declaring Maria Lucy Christensen entitled to the residue of the property to be enjoyed during her lifetime, and in case of death without issue, one-half of said residue to be payable to Mrs. Carrie Louise C. Borton, etc., in accordance with the provisions of the will of the testator Edward E. Christensen. The will was executed in Manila on March 5, 1951 and contains the following provisions: 3. I declare ... that I have but ONE (1) child, named MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN (now Mrs. Bernard Daney), who was born in the Philippines about twenty-eight years ago, and who is now residing at No. 665 Rodger Young Village, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 4. I further declare that I now have no living ascendants, and no descendants except my above named daughter, MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY. xxx xxx xxx

INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC VALIDITY

G.R. No. L-16749

January 31, 1963

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. ADOLFO C. AZNAR, Executor and LUCY CHRISTENSEN, Heir of the deceased, Executor and Heir-appellees, vs. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, oppositor-appellant. M. R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees. Leopoldo M. Abellera and Jovito Salonga for oppositor-appellant. LABRADOR, J.:

7. I give, devise and bequeath unto MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN, now married to Eduardo Garcia, about eighteen years of age and who, notwithstanding the fact that she was baptized Christensen, is not in any way related to me, nor has she been at any time adopted by me, and who, from all information I have now resides in Egpit, Digos, Davao, Philippines, the sum of THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P3,600.00), Philippine Currency the same to be deposited in trust for the said Maria Helen Christensen with the Davao Branch of the Philippine National Bank, and paid to her at the rate of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00), Philippine Currency per month until the principal thereof as well as any interest which may have accrued thereon, is exhausted..

xxx

xxx

xxx

12. I hereby give, devise and bequeath, unto my well-beloved daughter, the said MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY (Mrs. Bernard Daney), now residing as aforesaid at No. 665 Rodger Young Village, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., all the income from the rest, remainder, and residue of my property and estate, real, personal and/or mixed, of whatsoever kind or character, and wheresoever situated, of which I may be possessed at my death and which may have come to me from any source whatsoever, during her lifetime: .... It is in accordance with the above-quoted provisions that the executor in his final account and project of partition ratified the payment of only P3,600 to Helen Christensen Garcia and proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen. Opposition to the approval of the project of partition was filed by Helen Christensen Garcia, insofar as it deprives her (Helen) of her legitime as an acknowledged natural child, she having been declared by Us in G.R. Nos. L-11483-84 an acknowledged natural child of the deceased Edward E. Christensen. The legal grounds of opposition are (a) that the distribution should be governed by the laws of the Philippines, and (b) that said order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to Helen Christensen, one of two acknowledged natural children, onehalf of the estate in full ownership. In amplification of the above grounds it was alleged that the law that should govern the estate of the deceased Christensen should not be the internal law of California alone, but the entire law thereof because several foreign elements are involved, that the forum is the Philippines and even if the case were decided in California, Section 946 of the California Civil Code, which requires that the domicile of the decedent should apply, should be applicable. It was also alleged that Maria Helen Christensen having been declared an acknowledged natural child of the decedent, she is deemed for all purposes legitimate from the time of her birth. The court below ruled that as Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California at the time of his

death, the successional rights and intrinsic validity of the provisions in his will are to be governed by the law of California, in accordance with which a testator has the right to dispose of his property in the way he desires, because the right of absolute dominion over his property is sacred and inviolable (In re McDaniel's Estate, 77 Cal. Appl. 2d 877, 176 P. 2d 952, and In re Kaufman, 117 Cal. 286, 49 Pac. 192, cited in page 179, Record on Appeal). Oppositor Maria Helen Christensen, through counsel, filed various motions for reconsideration, but these were denied. Hence, this appeal. The most important assignments of error are as follows: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT THAT HELEN IS THE ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL CHILD OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN DEPRIVING HER OF HER JUST SHARE IN THE INHERITANCE. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ENTIRELY IGNORING AND/OR FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF SEVERAL FACTORS, ELEMENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CALLING FOR THE APPLICATION OF INTERNAL LAW. III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, PARTICULARLY UNDER THE RENVOI DOCTRINE, THE INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES. IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRIBUTION SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTOR IS CONTRARY TO THE PHILIPPINE LAWS. V THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT UNDER THE PHILIPPINE LAWS HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA IS ENTITLED TO ONE-HALF (1/2) OF THE ESTATE IN FULL OWNERSHIP. There is no question that Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California at the time of his death. But there is also no question that at the time of his death he was domiciled in the Philippines, as witness the following facts admitted by the executor himself in appellee's brief: In the proceedings for admission of the will to probate, the facts of record show that the deceased Edward E. Christensen was born on November 29, 1875 in New York City, N.Y., U.S.A.; his first arrival in the Philippines, as an appointed school teacher, was on July 1, 1901, on board the U.S. Army Transport "Sheridan" with Port of Embarkation as the City of San Francisco, in the State of California, U.S.A. He stayed in the Philippines until 1904. In December, 1904, Mr. Christensen returned to the United States and stayed there for the following nine years until 1913, during which time he resided in, and was teaching school in Sacramento, California. Mr. Christensen's next arrival in the Philippines was in July of the year 1913. However, in 1928, he again departed the Philippines for the United States and came back here the following year, 1929. Some nine years later, in 1938, he again returned to his own country, and came back to the Philippines the following year, 1939.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t Being an American citizen, Mr. Christensen was interned by the Japanese Military Forces in the Philippines during World War II. Upon liberation, in April 1945, he left for the United States but returned to the Philippines in December, 1945. Appellees Collective Exhibits "6", CFI Davao, Sp. Proc. 622, as Exhibits "AA", "BB" and "CC-Daney"; Exhs. "MM", "MM-l", "MM-2Daney" and p. 473, t.s.n., July 21, 1953.) In April, 1951, Edward E. Christensen returned once more to California shortly after the making of his last will and testament (now in question herein) which he executed at his lawyers' offices in Manila on March 5, 1951. He died at the St. Luke's Hospital in the City of Manila on April 30, 1953. (pp. 2-3) In arriving at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased is the Philippines, we are persuaded by the fact that he was born in New York, migrated to California and resided there for nine years, and since he came to the Philippines in 1913 he returned to California very rarely and only for short visits (perhaps to relatives), and considering that he appears never to have owned or acquired a home or properties in that state, which would indicate that he would ultimately abandon the Philippines and make home in the State of California. Sec. 16. Residence is a term used with many shades of meaning from mere temporary presence to the most permanent abode. Generally, however, it is used to denote something more than mere physical presence. (Goodrich on Conflict of Laws, p. 29) As to his citizenship, however, We find that the citizenship that he acquired in California when he resided in Sacramento, California from 1904 to 1913, was never lost by his stay in the Philippines, for the

latter was a territory of the United States (not a state) until 1946 and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of California by the fact that when he executed his will in 1951 he declared that he was a citizen of that State; so that he appears never to have intended to abandon his California citizenship by acquiring another. This conclusion is in accordance with the following principle expounded by Goodrich in his Conflict of Laws. The terms "'residence" and "domicile" might well be taken to mean the same thing, a place of permanent abode. But domicile, as has been shown, has acquired a technical meaning. Thus one may be domiciled in a place where he has never been. And he may reside in a place where he has no domicile. The man with two homes, between which he divides his time, certainly resides in each one, while living in it. But if he went on business which would require his presence for several weeks or months, he might properly be said to have sufficient connection with the place to be called a resident. It is clear, however, that, if he treated his settlement as continuing only for the particular business in hand, not giving up his former "home," he could not be a domiciled New Yorker. Acquisition of a domicile of choice requires the exercise of intention as well as physical presence. "Residence simply requires bodily presence of an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile." Residence, however, is a term used with many shades of meaning, from the merest temporary presence to the most permanent abode, and it is not safe to insist that any one use et the only proper one. (Goodrich, p. 29) The law that governs the validity of his testamentary dispositions is defined in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is as follows: ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country where said property may be found. The application of this article in the case at bar requires the determination of the meaning of the term "national law" is used therein. There is no single American law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United States, each state of the Union having its own private law applicable to its citizens only and in force only within the state. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code above quoted can not, therefore, possibly mean or apply to any general American law. So it can refer to no other than the private law of the State of California. The next question is: What is the law in California governing the disposition of personal property? The decision of the court below, sustains the contention of the executor-appellee that under the California Probate Code, a testator may dispose of his property by will in the form and manner he desires, citing the case of Estate of McDaniel, 77 Cal. Appl. 2d 877, 176 P. 2d 952. But appellant invokes the provisions of Article 946 of the Civil Code of California, which is as follows: If there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile. The existence of this provision is alleged in appellant's opposition and is not denied. We have checked it in the California Civil Code and it is there. Appellee, on the other hand, relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to by a witness. (Only the case of Kaufman is correctly cited.) It is argued on executor's behalf that as the deceased

Christensen was a citizen of the State of California, the internal law thereof, which is that given in the abovecited case, should govern the determination of the validity of the testamentary provisions of Christensen's will, such law being in force in the State of California of which Christensen was a citizen. Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article 946 should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and following the doctrine of therenvoi, the question of the validity of the testamentary provision in question should be referred back to the law of the decedent's domicile, which is the Philippines. The theory of doctrine of renvoi has been defined by various authors, thus: The problem has been stated in this way: "When the Conflict of Laws rule of the forum refers a jural matter to a foreign law for decision, is the reference to the purely internal rules of law of the foreign system; i.e., to the totality of the foreign law minus its Conflict of Laws rules?" On logic, the solution is not an easy one. The Michigan court chose to accept the renvoi, that is, applied the Conflict of Laws rule of Illinois which referred the matter back to Michigan law. But once having determined the the Conflict of Laws principle is the rule looked to, it is difficult to see why the reference back should not have been to Michigan Conflict of Laws. This would have resulted in the "endless chain of references" which has so often been criticized be legal writers. The opponents of the renvoi would have looked merely to the internal law of Illinois, thus rejecting the renvoi or the reference back. Yet there seems no compelling logical reason why the original reference should be the internal law rather than to the Conflict of Laws rule. It is true that such a solution avoids going on a merry-go-round, but those who have accepted the renvoitheory avoid this inextricabilis circulas by getting off at the second reference and at that point applying internal law. Perhaps the opponents of the renvoi are a bit more consistent for they look always to internal law as the rule of reference.

Strangely enough, both the advocates for and the objectors to the renvoi plead that greater uniformity will result from adoption of their respective views. And still more strange is the fact that the only way to achieve uniformity in this choice-of-law problem is if in the dispute the two states whose laws form the legal basis of the litigation disagree as to whether the renvoi should be accepted. If both reject, or both accept the doctrine, the result of the litigation will vary with the choice of the forum. In the case stated above, had the Michigan court rejected the renvoi, judgment would have been against the woman; if the suit had been brought in the Illinois courts, and they too rejected the renvoi, judgment would be for the woman. The same result would happen, though the courts would switch with respect to which would hold liability, if both courts accepted the renvoi. The Restatement accepts the renvoi theory in two instances: where the title to land is in question, and where the validity of a decree of divorce is challenged. In these cases the Conflict of Laws rule of the situs of the land, or the domicile of the parties in the divorce case, is applied by the forum, but any further reference goes only to the internal law. Thus, a person's title to land, recognized by the situs, will be recognized by every court; and every divorce, valid by the domicile of the parties, will be valid everywhere. (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 7, pp. 1314.) X, a citizen of Massachusetts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leaving movable property in Massachusetts, England, and France. The question arises as to how this property is to be distributed among X's next of kin. Assume (1) that this question arises in a Massachusetts court. There the rule of the conflict of laws as to intestate succession to movables calls for an application of the law of the deceased's last domicile. Since by hypothesis X's last domicile was France, the natural thing for the Massachusetts court to do would be to turn to French statute of distributions, or whatever corresponds

thereto in French law, and decree a distribution accordingly. An examination of French law, however, would show that if a French court were called upon to determine how this property should be distributed, it would refer the distribution to the national law of the deceased, thus applying the Massachusetts statute of distributions. So on the surface of things the Massachusetts court has open to it alternative course of action: (a) either to apply the French law is to intestate succession, or (b) to resolve itself into a French court and apply the Massachusetts statute of distributions, on the assumption that this is what a French court would do. If it accepts the socalled renvoidoctrine, it will follow the latter course, thus applying its own law. This is one type of renvoi. A jural matter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the forum refers to a foreign law, the conflict-of-laws rule of which, in turn, refers the matter back again to the law of the forum. This is renvoi in the narrower sense. The German term for this judicial process is 'Ruckverweisung.'" (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 31, pp. 523571.) After a decision has been arrived at that a foreign law is to be resorted to as governing a particular case, the further question may arise: Are the rules as to the conflict of laws contained in such foreign law also to be resorted to? This is a question which, while it has been considered by the courts in but a few instances, has been the subject of frequent discussion by textwriters and essayists; and the doctrine involved has been descriptively designated by them as the "Renvoyer" to send back, or the "Ruchversweisung", or the "Weiterverweisung", since an affirmative answer to the question postulated and the operation of the adoption of the foreign law in toto would in many cases result in returning the main controversy to be decided according to the law of the forum. ... (16 C.J.S. 872.) Another theory, known as the "doctrine of renvoi", has been advanced. The theory of the doctrine of renvoiis that the court

of the forum, in determining the question before it, must take into account the whole law of the other jurisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual question which the rules of the other jurisdiction prescribe. This may be the law of the forum. The doctrine of therenvoi has generally been repudiated by the American authorities. (2 Am. Jur. 296) The scope of the theory of renvoi has also been defined and the reasons for its application in a country explained by Prof. Lorenzen in an article in the Yale Law Journal, Vol. 27, 1917-1918, pp. 529-531. The pertinent parts of the article are quoted herein below: The recognition of the renvoi theory implies that the rules of the conflict of laws are to be understood as incorporating not only the ordinary or internal law of the foreign state or country, but its rules of the conflict of laws as well. According to this theory 'the law of a country' means the whole of its law. xxx xxx xxx

Von Bar presented his views at the meeting of the Institute of International Law, at Neuchatel, in 1900, in the form of the following theses: (1) Every court shall observe the law of its country as regards the application of foreign laws. (2) Provided that no express provision to the contrary exists, the court shall respect: (a) The provisions of a foreign law which disclaims the right to bind its nationals abroad as regards their personal statute, and desires that said personal statute shall be determined by the law of the domicile, or even by the law of the place where the act in question occurred.

(b) The decision of two or more foreign systems of law, provided it be certain that one of them is necessarily competent, which agree in attributing the determination of a question to the same system of law. xxx xxx xxx

If, for example, the English law directs its judge to distribute the personal estate of an Englishman who has died domiciled in Belgium in accordance with the law of his domicile, he must first inquire whether the law of Belgium would distribute personal property upon death in accordance with the law of domicile, and if he finds that the Belgian law would make the distribution in accordance with the law of nationality that is the English law he must accept this reference back to his own law. We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule, while the rule applied in In re Kaufman, Supra, its internal law. If the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited In re Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions. The rule laid down of resorting to the law of the domicile in the determination of matters with foreign element involved is in accord with the general principle of American law that the domiciliary law should govern in most matters or rights which follow the person of the owner. When a man dies leaving personal property in one or more states, and leaves a will directing the manner of distribution of the property, the law of the state where he was domiciled at the time of his death will be looked to in deciding legal questions about the will, almost as completely as the law of situs is consulted in questions about the devise of land. It is logical that, since the domiciliary rules control devolution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession, the same rules should determine the validity of an attempted testamentary dispostion of the property. Here, also, it is not that the domiciliary has

effect beyond the borders of the domiciliary state. The rules of the domicile are recognized as controlling by the Conflict of Laws rules at the situs property, and the reason for the recognition as in the case of intestate succession, is the general convenience of the doctrine. The New York court has said on the point: 'The general principle that a dispostiton of a personal property, valid at the domicile of the owner, is valid anywhere, is one of the universal application. It had its origin in that international comity which was one of the first fruits of civilization, and it this age, when business intercourse and the process of accumulating property take but little notice of boundary lines, the practical wisdom and justice of the rule is more apparent than ever. (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 164, pp. 442-443.) Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed out as the national law is the internal law of California. But as above explained the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. Reason demands that We should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled abroad. If we must enforce the law of California as in comity we are bound to go, as so declared in Article 16 of our Civil Code, then we must enforce the law of California in accordance with the express mandate thereof and as above explained, i.e., apply the internal law for residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws rule for those domiciled abroad. It is argued on appellees' behalf that the clause "if there is no law to the contrary in the place where the property is situated" in Sec. 946 of the California Civil Code refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and that the law to the contrary in the Philippines is the provision in said Article 16 that the national law of the deceased should govern. This contention can not be sustained. As explained in the various authorities cited above the national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference

or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a citizen and the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them. The Philippine cases (In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; Riera vs. Palmaroli, 40 Phil. 105; Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867; Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock, 52 Phil. 130; and Gibbs vs. Government, 59 Phil. 293.) cited by appellees to support the decision can not possibly apply in the case at bar, for two important reasons, i.e., the subject in each case does not appear to be a citizen of a state in the United States but with domicile in the Philippines, and it does not appear in each case that there exists in the state of which the subject is a citizen, a law similar to or identical with Art. 946 of the California Civil Code. We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California.. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case returned to the lower court with instructions that the partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides. Judgment reversed, with costs against appellees.

The facts of the case are as follows: Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States." By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had five legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman; by his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis. On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that after all taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following order and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; (b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each and (c) after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis, in equal shares.1wph1.t Subsequently, or on July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was admitted to probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 15, 1958. The People's Bank and Trust Company, as executor of the will, paid all the bequests therein including the amount of $240,000.00 in the form of shares of stock to Mary E. Mallen and to the three (3) illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis, various amounts totalling P40,000.00 each in satisfaction of their respective legacies, or a total of P120,000.00, which it released from time to time according as the lower court approved and allowed the various motions or petitions filed by the latter three requesting partial advances on account of their respective legacies.

G.R. No. L-23678

June 6, 1967

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased. PEOPLE'S BANK and TRUST COMPANY, executor. MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, vs. EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees. Vicente R. Macasaet and Jose D. Villena for oppositors appellants. Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno for heirs-appellees E. A. Bellis, et al. Quijano and Arroyo for heirs-appellees W. S. Bellis, et al. J. R. Balonkita for appellee People's Bank & Trust Company. Ozaeta, Gibbs and Ozaeta for appellee A. B. Allsman. BENGZON, J.P., J.: This is a direct appeal to Us, upon a question purely of law, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated April 30, 1964, approving the project of partition filed by the executor in Civil Case No. 37089 therein.1wph1.t

On January 8, 1964, preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted and filed its "Executor's Final Account, Report of Administration and Project of Partition" wherein it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the legacy of Mary E. Mallen by the delivery to her of shares of stock amounting to $240,000.00, and the legacies of Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis in the amount of P40,000.00 each or a total of P120,000.00. In the project of partition, the executor pursuant to the "Twelfth" clause of the testator's Last Will and Testament divided the residuary estate into seven equal portions for the benefit of the testator's seven legitimate children by his first and second marriages. On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased. Amos Bellis, Jr. interposed no opposition despite notice to him, proof of service of which is evidenced by the registry receipt submitted on April 27, 1964 by the executor.1 After the parties filed their respective memoranda and other pertinent pleadings, the lower court, on April 30, 1964, issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the executor's final account, report and administration and project of partition. Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes. Their respective motions for reconsideration having been denied by the lower court on June 11, 1964, oppositors-appellants appealed to this Court to raise the issue of which law must apply Texas law or Philippine law. In this regard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even discuss, the doctrine of renvoi, applied by this Court in Aznar v. Christensen Garcia, L-16749, January 31, 1963. Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country, and a domicile of another. In the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent was

both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death.2 So that even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of the domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law. Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the application of the law of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the Philippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours.3 Appellants' position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As stated, they never invoked nor even mentioned it in their arguments. Rather, they argue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 17 in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code. Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. They provide that ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may he the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.

Appellants would however counter that Art. 17, paragraph three, of the Civil Code, stating that Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code aforequoted. This is not correct. Precisely, Congressdeleted the phrase, "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art. 11 of the old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the new Civil Code, while reproducing without substantial change the second paragraph of Art. 10 of the old Civil Code as Art. 16 in the new. It must have been their purpose to make the second paragraph of Art. 16 a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succession. As further indication of this legislative intent, Congress added a new provision, under Art. 1039, which decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent. It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our System of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent's national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones. Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two wills one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate arguing from this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. Assuming that such was the decedent's intention in executing a separate Philippine will, it would not alter the law, for as this Court ruled in Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867, 870, a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those

matters that Article 10 now Article 16 of the Civil Code states said national law should govern. The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis. Wherefore, the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against appellants. So ordered.

whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a merejurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection. There is a distinct and consequential reason the Civil Code provides a comprehensive catalog of imperatives for the proper execution of a notarial will. Full and faithful compliance with all the detailed requisites under Article 805 of the Code leave little room for doubt as to the validity in the due execution of the notarial will. Article 806 likewise imposes another safeguard to the validity of notarial wills that they be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. A notarial will executed with indifference to these two codal provisions opens itself to nagging questions as to its legitimacy. The case stems from a petition for probate filed on 10 April 1984 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The petition filed by petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo, which was notarized on 10 June 1981. Petitioner is the son of the cousin of the decedent. The will, consisting of two (2) pages and written in the vernacular Pilipino, read in full: HULING HABILIN NI EUGENIA E. IGSOLO TINGA, J.: SA NGALAN NG MAYKAPAL, AMEN: The core of this petition is a highly defective notarial will, purportedly executed by Eugenia E. Igsolo (decedent), who died on 16 December 1982 at the age of 80. In refusing to give legal recognition to the due execution of this document, the Court is provided the opportunity to assert a few important doctrinal rules in the execution of notarial wills, all self-evident in view of Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code. A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will AKO, si EUGENIA E. IGSOLO, nakatira sa 500 San Diego St., Sampaloc, Manila, pitongput siyam (79) na gulang, nasa hustong pagi-isip, pag-unawa at memoria ay nag-hahayag na ito na ang aking huling habilin at testamento, at binabali wala ko lahat ang naunang ginawang habilin o testamento: Una-Hinihiling ko na ako ay mailibing sa Sementerio del Norte, La Loma sang-ayong sa kaugalian at patakaran ng simbahang katoliko at

NOTARIAL WILL

G.R. No. 122880

April 12, 2006

FELIX AZUELA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO substituted by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, Respondents. DECISION

ang taga-pag-ingat (Executor) ng habiling ito ay magtatayo ng bantayog upang silbing ala-ala sa akin ng aking pamilya at kaibigan; Pangalawa-Aking ipinagkakaloob at isinasalin ang lahat ng karapatan sa aking pamangkin na si Felix Azuela, na siyang nag-alaga sa akin sa mahabang panahon, yaong mga bahay na nakatirik sa lote numero 28, Block 24 at nakapangalan sa Pechaten Korporasyon, ganoon din ibinibigay ko ang lahat ng karapatan sa bahay na nakatirik sa inoopahan kong lote, numero 43, Block 24 na pag-aari ng Pechaten Corporation. Ipinagkakaloob kong buong buo ang lahat ng karapatan sa bahay at lupa na nasa 500 San Diego St., Lot 42, Block 24, Sampaloc, Manila kay Felix Azuela at ang pagkakaloob kong ito ay walang pasubalit at kondiciones; Pangatlo- Na ninunumbrahan ko si VART PAGUE na siyang nagpapatupad ng huling habiling ito at kagustuhan ko rin na hindi na kailanman siyang mag-lagak ng piyansiya. Aking nilagdaan ang Huling Habilin na ito dito sa Maynila ika 10 ng Hunyo, 1981. (Sgd.) EUGENIA E. IGSOLO (Tagapagmana) PATUNAY NG MGA SAKSI Ang kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng ____ dahon pati ang huling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa amin ni Eugenia E. Igsolo, tagapagmana na siya niyang Huling Habilin, ngayon ika-10 ng Hunyo 1981, ay nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapagmana sa ilalim ng kasulatang nabanggit at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawat dahon, sa harap ng lahat at bawat sa amin, at kami namang mga saksi ay lumagda sa harap ng nasabing tagapagmana at sa harap ng lahat at bawat isa sa amin, sa ilalim ng nasabing kasulatan at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at b awat dahon ng kasulatan ito.

EUGENIA E. IGSOLO address: 500 San Diego St. Sampaloc, Manila Res. Cert. No. A-7717-37 Issued at Manila on March 10, 1981. QUIRINO AGRAVA address: 1228-Int. 3, Kahilum Pandacan, Manila Res. Cert. No. A-458365 Issued at Manila on Jan. 21, 1981 LAMBERTO C. LEAO address: Avenue 2, Blcok 7, Lot 61, San Gabriel, G.MA., Cavite Res. Cert. No. A-768277 issued at Carmona, Cavite on Feb. 7, 1981 JUANITO ESTRERA address: City Court Compound, City of Manila Res. Cert. No. A574829 Issued at Manila on March 2, 1981. Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10, 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila. (Sgd.) PETRONIO Y. BAUTISTA Doc. No. 1232 ; NOTARIO PUBLIKO Page No. 86 ; Until Dec. 31, 1981 Book No. 43 ; PTR-152041-1/2/81-Manila Series of 1981 TAN # 1437-977-81 The three named witnesses to the will affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will, but not at the bottom of the attestation clause. The probate petition adverted to only two (2) heirs, legatees and devisees of the decedent, namely: petitioner himself, and one Irene Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided abroad. Petitioner

prayed that the will be allowed, and that letters testamentary be issued to the designated executor, Vart Prague. The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo (Geralda Castillo), who represented herself as the attorney-in-fact of "the 12 legitimate heirs" of the decedent.2 Geralda Castillo claimed that the will is a forgery, and that the true purpose of its emergence was so it could be utilized as a defense in several court cases filed by oppositor against petitioner, particularly for forcible entry and usurpation of real property, all centering on petitioners right to occupy the properties of the decedent.3 It also asserted that contrary to the representations of petitioner, the decedent was actually survived by 12 legitimate heirs, namely her grandchildren, who were then residing abroad. Per records, it was subsequently alleged that decedent was the widow of Bonifacio Igsolo, who died in 1965,4 and the mother of a legitimate child, Asuncion E. Igsolo, who predeceased her mother by three (3) months.5 Oppositor Geralda Castillo also argued that the will was not executed and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed out that decedents signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not properly acknowledged. These twin arguments are among the central matters to this petition. After due trial, the RTC admitted the will to probate, in an Order dated 10 August 1992.6 The RTC favorably took into account the testimony of the three (3) witnesses to the will, Quirino Agrava, Lamberto Leano, and Juanito Estrada. The RTC also called to fore "the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution of a will x x x with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes;"7 and from this perspective, rebutted oppositors arguments that the will was not properly executed and attested to in accordance with law. After a careful examination of the will and consideration of the testimonies of the subscribing and attesting witnesses, and having in mind the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution of a will, i.e., the liberalization of the interpretation of the law

on the formal requirements of a will with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes, this Court is persuaded to rule that the will in question is authentic and had been executed by the testatrix in accordance with law. On the issue of lack of acknowledgement, this Court has noted that at the end of the will after the signature of the testatrix, the following statement is made under the sub-title, "Patunay Ng Mga Saksi": "Ang kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng _____ dahon pati ang huling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa amin ni Eugenia N. Igsolo, tagapagmana na siya niyang Huling Habilin, ngayong ika-10 ng Hunyo 1981, ay nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapagmana sa ilalim ng kasulatang nabanggit at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawat dahon, sa harap ng lahat at bawat sa amin, at kami namang mga saksi ay lumagda sa harap ng nasabing tagapagmana at sa harap ng lahat at bawat isa sa amin, sa ilalim ng nasabing kasulatan at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawat dahon ng kasulatan ito." The aforequoted declaration comprises the attestation clause and the acknowledgement and is considered by this Court as a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. On the oppositors contention that the attestation clause was not signed by the subscribing witnesses at the bottom thereof, this Court is of the view that the signing by the subscribing witnesses on the left margin of the second page of the will containing the attestation clause and acknowledgment, instead of at the bottom thereof, substantially satisfies the purpose of identification and attestation of the will. With regard to the oppositors argument that the will was not numbered correlatively in letters placed on upper part of each page and that the attestation did not state the number of pages thereof, it is worthy to note that the will is composed of only two pages. The first page contains the entire text of the testamentary dispositions, and the second page contains the last portion of the attestation clause and acknowledgement. Such being so, the defects are not of a serious nature as to invalidate the will. For the same reason, the failure of the

testatrix to affix her signature on the left margin of the second page, which contains only the last portion of the attestation clause and acknowledgment is not a fatal defect. As regards the oppositors assertion that the signature of the testatrix on the will is a forgery, the testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses to the will are convincing enough to establish the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix and the due execution of the will.8 The Order was appealed to the Court of Appeals by Ernesto Castillo, who had substituted his since deceased mother-in-law, Geralda Castillo. In a Decision dated 17 August 1995, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate.9 The Court of Appeals noted that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate.10 Hence, the present petition. Petitioner argues that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil Code that "the number of pages used in a notarial will be stated in the attestation clause" is merely directory, rather than mandatory, and thus susceptible to what he termed as "the substantial compliance rule."11 The solution to this case calls for the application of Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code, which we replicate in full. Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the

pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court. The appellate court, in its Decision, considered only one defect, the failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages of the will. But an examination of the will itself reveals several more deficiencies. As admitted by petitioner himself, the attestation clause fails to state the number of pages of the will.12 There was an incomplete attempt to comply with this requisite, a space having been allotted for the insertion of the number of pages in the attestation clause. Yet the blank was never filled in; hence, the requisite was left uncomplied with. The Court of Appeals pounced on this defect in reversing the trial court, citing in the process Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca13 and In re: Will of Andrada.14 In Uy Coque, the Court noted that among the defects of the will in question was the failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages contained in the will.15 In ruling that the will could not be admitted to probate, the Court made the following consideration which remains highly relevant to this day: "The purpose of requiring the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause

is obvious; the document might easily be so prepared that the removal of a sheet would completely change the testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence of a statement of the total number of sheets such removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and changing the numbers at the top of the following sheets or pages. If, on the other hand, the total number of sheets is stated in the attestation clause the falsification of the document will involve the inserting of new pages and the forging of the signatures of the testator and witnesses in the margin, a matter attended with much greater difficulty."16 The case of In re Will of Andrada concerned a will the attestation clause of which failed to state the number of sheets or pages used. This consideration alone was sufficient for the Court to declare "unanim[ity] upon the point that the defect pointed out in the attesting clause is fatal."17 It was further observed that "it cannot be denied that the x x x requirement affords additional security against the danger that the will may be tampered with; and as the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe this requirement, it must be considered material."18 Against these cited cases, petitioner cites Singson v. Florentino19 and Taboada v. Hon. Rosal,20 wherein the Court allowed probate to the wills concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation clause did not state the number of pages of the will. Yet the appellate court itself considered the import of these two cases, and made the following distinction which petitioner is unable to rebut, and which we adopt with approval: Even a cursory examination of the Will (Exhibit "D"), will readily show that the attestation does not state the number of pages used upon which the will is written. Hence, the Will is void and undeserving of probate. We are not impervious of the Decisions of the Supreme Court in "Manuel Singson versus Emilia Florentino, et al., 92 Phil. 161 and Apolonio [Taboada] versus Hon. Avelino Rosal, et al., 118 SCRA 195," to the effect that a will may still be valid even if the attestation does not contain the number of pages used upon which the Will is

written. However, the Decisions of the Supreme Court are not applicable in the aforementioned appeal at bench. This is so because, in the case of "Manuel Singson versus Emilia Florentino, et al., supra," although the attestation in the subject Will did not state the number of pages used in the will, however, the same was found in the last part of the body of the Will: "x x x The law referred to is article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, which requires that the attestation clause shall state the number of pages or sheets upon which the will is written, which requirement has been held to be mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or omission of some of the pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to whom the property is intended to be bequeathed (In re Will of Andrada, 42 Phil. 180; Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., 405; Gumban vs. Gorcho, 50 Phil. 30; Quinto vs. Morata, 54 Phil. 481; Echevarria vs. Sarmiento, 66 Phil. 611). The ratio decidendi of these cases seems to be that the attestation clause must contain a statement of the number of sheets or pages composing the will and that if this is missing or is omitted, it will have the effect of invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot be supplied, not by evidence aliunde, but by a consideration or examination of the will itself. But here the situation is different. While the attestation clause does not state the number of sheets or pages upon which the will is written, however, the last part of the body of the will contains a statement that it is composed of eight pages, which circumstance in our opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of construction and places it within the realm of similar cases where a broad and more liberal view has been adopted to prevent the will of the testator from being defeated by purely technical considerations." (page 165-165, supra) (Underscoring supplied) In "Apolonio Tabaoda versus Hon. Avelino Rosal, et al." supra, the notarial acknowledgement in the Will states the number of pages used in the: "x x x

We have examined the will in question and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in writing the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire will that it is really and actually composed of only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. As earlier stated, the first page which contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions is signed by the testatrix at the end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin. The other page which is marked as "Pagina dos" comprises the attestation clause and the acknowledgment. The acknowledgment itself states that "this Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including this page" (pages 200-201, supra) (Underscoring supplied). However, in the appeal at bench, the number of pages used in the will is not stated in any part of the Will. The will does not even contain any notarial acknowledgment wherein the number of pages of the will should be stated.21 Both Uy Coque and Andrada were decided prior to the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950, at a time when the statutory provision governing the formal requirement of wills was Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.22 Reliance on these cases remains apropos, considering that the requirement that the attestation state the number of pages of the will is extant from Section 618.23 However, the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950 did put in force a rule of interpretation of the requirements of wills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned, that may vary from the philosophy that governed these two cases. Article 809 of the Civil Code states: "In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805." In the same vein, petitioner cites the report of the Civil Code Commission, which stated that "the underlying and fundamental

objective permeating the provisions on the [law] on [wills] in this project consists in the [liberalization] of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more [freedom] in [expressing] his last wishes. This objective is in accord with the [modern tendency] in respect to the formalities in the execution of wills."24 However, petitioner conveniently omits the qualification offered by the Code Commission in the very same paragraph he cites from their report, that such liberalization be "but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator."25 Caneda v. Court of Appeals26 features an extensive discussion made by Justice Regalado, speaking for the Court on the conflicting views on the manner of interpretation of the legal formalities required in the execution of the attestation clause in wills.27 Uy Coque and Andrada are cited therein, along with several other cases, as examples of the application of the rule of strict construction.28 However, the Code Commission opted to recommend a more liberal construction through the "substantial compliance rule" under Article 809. A cautionary note was struck though by Justice J.B.L. Reyes as to how Article 809 should be applied: x x x The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every page; whether the subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized. All these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded. But the total number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially appear in the attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings.29 (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals did cite these comments by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in its assailed decision, considering that the failure to state the number of pages of the will in the attestation clause is one of the defects which

cannot be simply disregarded. In Caneda itself, the Court refused to allow the probate of a will whose attestation clause failed to state that the witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other,30 the other omission cited by Justice J.B.L. Reyes which to his estimation cannot be lightly disregarded. Caneda suggested: "[I]t may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omission which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself."31 Thus, a failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can be liberally construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual examination; while a failure by the attestation clause to state that the witnesses signed in one anothers presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the only textual guarantee of compliance.32 The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the will was written remains a fatal flaw, despite Article 809. The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages.33 The failure to state the number of pages equates with the absence of an averment on the part of the instrumental witnesses as to how many pages consisted the will, the execution of which they had ostensibly just witnessed and subscribed to. Following Caneda, there is substantial compliance with this requirement if the will states elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised of, as was the situation inSingson and Taboada. However, in this case, there could have been no substantial compliance with the requirements under Article 805 since there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which comprise the will.

At the same time, Article 809 should not deviate from the need to comply with the formal requirements as enumerated under Article 805. Whatever the inclinations of the members of the Code Commission in incorporating Article 805, the fact remains that they saw fit to prescribe substantially the same formal requisites as enumerated in Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, convinced that these remained effective safeguards against the forgery or intercalation of notarial wills.34 Compliance with these requirements, however picayune in impression, affords the public a high degree of comfort that the testator himself or herself had decided to convey property post mortem in the manner established in the will.35 The transcendent legislative intent, even as expressed in the cited comments of the Code Commission, is for the fruition of the testators incontestable desires, and not for the indulgent admission of wills to probate. The Court could thus end here and affirm the Court of Appeals. However, an examination of the will itself reveals a couple of even more critical defects that should necessarily lead to its rejection. For one, the attestation clause was not signed by the instrumental witnesses. While the signatures of the instrumental witnesses appear on the left-hand margin of the will, they do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause which after all consists of their averments before the notary public. Cagro v. Cagro36 is material on this point. As in this case, "the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, although the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin."37 While three (3) Justices38 considered the signature requirement had been substantially complied with, a majority of six (6), speaking through Chief Justice Paras, ruled that the attestation clause had not been duly signed, rendering the will fatally defective. There is no question that the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, although the

page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin. We are of the opinion that the position taken by the appellant is correct. The attestation clause is "a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will" required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their participation. The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on the left-hand margin conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation clause. This is untenable, because said signatures are in compliance with the legal mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If an attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the bottom thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.39 The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro. Article 805 particularly segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the will, from the requisite that the will be "attested and subscribed by [the instrumental witnesses]." The respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct from each other. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause itself. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal.

The Court may be more charitably disposed had the witnesses in this case signed the attestation clause itself, but not the left-hand margin of the page containing such clause. Without diminishing the value of the instrumental witnesses signatures on each and every page, the fact must be noted that it is the attestation clause which contains the utterances reduced into writing of the testamentary witnesses themselves. It is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are required under Article 805 to state the number of pages used upon which the will is written; the fact that the testator had signed the will and every page thereof; and that they witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The only proof in the will that the witnesses have stated these elemental facts would be their signatures on the attestation clause. Thus, the subject will cannot be considered to have been validly attested to by the instrumental witnesses, as they failed to sign the attestation clause. Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition should also hinge. The requirement under Article 806 that "every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" has also not been complied with. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it had been segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and entrusted into a separate provision, Article 806. The non-observance of Article 806 in this case is equally as critical as the other cited flaws in compliance with Article 805, and should be treated as of equivalent import. In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila."40 By no manner of contemplation can those words be construed as an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed.41 It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.

It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat, even though it does not hew to the usual language thereof. A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before him/her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor.42 Ordinarily, the language of the jurat should avow that the document was subscribed and sworn before the notary public, while in this case, the notary public averred that he himself "signed and notarized" the document. Possibly though, the word "ninotario" or "notarized" encompasses the signing of and swearing in of the executors of the document, which in this case would involve the decedent and the instrumental witnesses. Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will would nonetheless remain invalid, as the express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and not merely subscribed and sworn to. The will does not present any textual proof, much less one under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental witnesses executed or signed the will as their own free act or deed. The acknowledgment made in a will provides for another all-important legal safeguard against spurious wills or those made beyond the free consent of the testator. An acknowledgement is not an empty meaningless act.43 The acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed. Such declaration is under oath and under pain of perjury, thus allowing for the criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free consent of the testator. It also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to those persons he/she had designated in the will. It may not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, selfevident as it is under Article 806. A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public.

There are two other requirements under Article 805 which were not fully satisfied by the will in question. We need not discuss them at length, as they are no longer material to the disposition of this case. The provision requires that the testator and the instrumental witnesses sign each and every page of the will on the left margin, except the last; and that all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. In this case, the decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both pages of the will on the left margin, her only signature appearing at the socalled "logical end"44 of the will on its first page. Also, the will itself is not numbered correlatively in letters on each page, but instead numbered with Arabic numerals. There is a line of thought that has disabused the notion that these two requirements be construed as mandatory.45 Taken in isolation, these omissions, by themselves, may not be sufficient to deny probate to a will. Yet even as these omissions are not decisive to the adjudication of this case, they need not be dwelt on, though indicative as they may be of a general lack of due regard for the requirements under Article 805 by whoever executed the will. All told, the string of mortal defects which the will in question suffers from makes the probate denial inexorable. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

1983 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, admitting to probate the last will and testament 3 with codicil 4 of the late Brigido Alvarado. On 5 November 1977, the 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled "Huling Habilin" wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate before Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of sta. Cruz, Laguna. As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public and by private respondent who were present at the execution, the testator did not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter four followed the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them. Meanwhile, Brigido's holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate on 9 December 1977. On the 29th day of the same month, a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng Pagbabago sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testator's eye operation. Brigido was then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of the notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading using their own copies. A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the testator's death on 3 January 1979 by private respondent as executor with the Court of First Instance, now Regional Trial Court, of Siniloan, Laguna. 5Petitioner, in turn, filed an Opposition on the following grounds: that the will sought to be probated was not

BLIND TESTATOR

G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993 In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIO LOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, Intermediate Appellate Court, First Division (Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA. RINO, respondents. Vicente R. Redor for petitioner. Bayani Ma. Rino for and in his own behalf.

BELLOSILLO, J.: Before us is an appeal from the Decision dated 11 April 1986 1 of the First Civil Cases Division of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Order dated 27 June

executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapacitated to make a will at the time of its execution due to senility and old age; that the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear and threats; that it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary who stands to get the lion's share of the testator's estate; and lastly, that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick. When the oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiate the grounds relied upon in the Opposition, a Probate Order was issued on 27 June 1983 from which an appeal was made to respondent court. The main thrust of the appeal was that the deceased was blind within the meaning of the law at the time his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached thereto was executed; that since the reading required by Art. 808 of the Civil Code was admittedly not complied with, probate of the deceased's last will and codicil should have been denied. On 11 April 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review with the following findings: that Brigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will and codicil were executed; that assuming his blindness, the reading requirement of Art. 808 was substantially complied with when both documents were read aloud to the testator with each of the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public following the reading with their respective copies of the instruments. The appellate court then concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to the letter, there was substantial compliance since its purpose of making known to the testator the contents of the drafted will was served. The issues now before us can be stated thus: Was Brigido Alvarado blind for purpose of Art, 808 at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil were executed? If so, was the double-reading requirement of said article complied with? Regarding the first issue, there is no dispute on the following facts: Brigido Alvarado was not totally blind at the time the will and codicil were executed. However, his vision on both eyes was only of "counting fingers at three (3) feet" by reason of the glaucoma which he

had been suffering from for several years and even prior to his first consultation with an eye specialist on 14 December 1977. The point of dispute is whether the foregoing circumstances would qualify Brigido as a "blind" testator under Art. 808 which reads: Art. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged. Petitioner contends that although his father was not totally blind when the will and codicil were executed, he can be so considered within the scope of the term as it is used in Art. 808. To support his stand, petitioner presented before the trial court a medical certificate issued by Dr. Salvador R. Salceda, Director of the Institute of Opthalmology (Philippine Eye Research Institute), 6 the contents of which were interpreted in layman's terms by Dr. Ruperto Roasa, whose expertise was admitted by private respondent. 7 Dr. Roasa explained that although the testator could visualize fingers at three (3) feet, he could no longer read either printed or handwritten matters as of 14 December 1977, the day of his first consultation. 8 On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, contrary to the medical testimony, held that the testator could still read on the day the will and the codicil were executed but chose not to do so because of "poor eyesight." 9 Since the testator was still capable of reading at that time, the court a quo concluded that Art. 808 need not be complied with. We agree with petitioner in this respect. Regardless of respondent's staunch contention that the testator was still capable of reading at the time his will and codicil were prepared, the fact remains and this was testified to by his witnesses, that Brigido did not do so because of his "poor," 10 "defective," 11 or "blurred" 12 vision making it necessary for private respondent to do the actual reading for him.

The following pronouncement in Garcia vs. Vasquez 13 provides an insight into the scope of the term "blindness" as used in Art. 808, to wit: The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes . . . Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for one reason or another, are "incapable of reading the(ir) will(s)." Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due to his "poor," "defective," or "blurred" vision, there can be no other course for us but to conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope of the term "blind" as it is used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so confortably with his instructions. Hence, to consider his will as validly executed and entitled to probate, it is essential that we ascertain whether Art. 808 had been complied with. Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his instructions. That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary public and an instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who drafted the eight-paged will and the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to the testator, and read them only once, not twice as Art. 808 requires. Private respondent however insists that there was substantial compliance and that the single reading suffices for purposes of the

law. On the other hand, petitioner maintains that the only valid compliance or compliance to the letter and since it is admitted that neither the notary public nor an instrumental witness read the contents of the will and codicil to Brigido, probate of the latter's will and codicil should have been disallowed. We sustain private respondent's stand and necessarily, the petition must be denied. This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege. 14 In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, and petitioner does not so allege, that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator. On the contrary, with respect to the "Huling Habilin," the day of the execution was not the first time that Brigido had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the contents of the draft. The uncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado already acknowledged that the will was drafted in accordance with his expressed wishes even prior to 5 November 1977 when Atty. Rino went to the testator's residence precisely for the purpose of securing his conformity to the draft. 15 Moreover, it was not only Atty. Rino who read the documents on 5 November and 29 December 1977. The notary public and the three instrumental witnesses likewise read the will and codicil, albeit silently. Afterwards, Atty. Nonia de la Pena (the notary public) and Dr. Crescente O. Evidente (one of the three instrumental witnesses and the testator's physician) asked the testator whether the contents of the

document were of his own free will. Brigido answered in the affirmative. 16 With four persons following the reading word for word with their own copies, it can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to him (those which he affirmed were in accordance with his instructions), were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents. This is especially true when we consider the fact that the three instrumental witnesses were persons known to the testator, one being his physician (Dr. Evidente) and another (Potenciano C. Ranieses) being known to him since childhood. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testator's will. 17 As a final word to convince petitioner of the propriety of the trial court's Probate Order and its affirmance by the Court of Appeals, we quote the following pronouncement in Abangan v. Abangan, 18 to wit: The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid the substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on the subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's will, must be disregarded (emphasis supplied). Brigido Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and unmistakable terms in his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached

thereto. We are unwilling to cast these aside fro the mere reason that a legal requirement intended for his protection was not followed strictly when such compliance had been rendered unnecessary by the fact that the purpose of the law, i.e., to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the draft of his will, had already been accomplished. To reiterate, substantial compliance suffices where the purpose has been served. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated 11 April 1986 is AFFIRMED. Considering the length of time that this case has remained pending, this decision is immediately executory. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

II Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became American citizens, established a successful medical practice in New York, U.S.A. The Cunanans lived at No. 2896 Citation Drive, Pompey, Syracuse, New York, with their children, Jocelyn, 18; Jacqueline, 16; and Josephine, 14. On August 23, 1979, Dr. Cunanan executed a last will and testament, bequeathing to his wife "all the remainder" of his real and personal property at the time of his death "wheresoever situated" (Rollo, p. 35). In the event he would survive his wife, he bequeathed all his property to his children and grandchildren with Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee. He appointed his wife as executrix of his last will and testament and Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as substitute executor. Article VIII of his will states: If my wife, EVELYN PEREZ-CUNANAN, and I shall die under such circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our deaths, then it shall be presumed that I predeceased her, and my estate shall be administered and distributed, in all respects, in accordance with such presumption (Rollo, p. 41). Four days later, on August 27, Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan executed her own last will and testament containing the same provisions as that of the will of her husband. Article VIII of her will states: If my husband, JOSE F. CUNANAN, and I shall die under such circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our deaths, then it shall be presumed that he predeceased me, and my estate shall be administered and distributed in all respects, in accordance with such presumption. (Rollo, p. 31).

HEIRS

G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994 SALUD TEODORO VDA. DE PEREZ, petitioner, vs. HON. ZOTICO A. TOLETE in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC, Bulacan, respondent. Natividad T. Perez for petitioner. Benedicto T. Librojo for private respondents.

QUIASON, J.: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the Order dated November 19, 1986 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Bulacan presided by respondent Judge Zotico A. Tolete, in Special Proceedings No. 1793-M. We grant the petition.

On January 9, 1982, Dr. Cunanan and his entire family perished when they were trapped by fire that gutted their home. Thereafter, Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee and substitute executor of the two wills, filed separate proceedings for the probate thereof with the Surrogate Court of the County of Onondaga, New York. On April 7, these two wills were admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued in his favor. On February 21, 1983, Salud Teodoro Perez, the mother of Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan, and petitioner herein, filed with the Regional P. Cunanan, and petitioner herein, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan a petition for the reprobate of the two bills ancillary to the probate proceedings in New York. She also asked that she be appointed the special administratrix of the estate of the deceased couple consisting primarily of a farm land in San Miguel, Bulacan. On March 9, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Malolos, Bulacan, presided by Judge Gualberto J. de la Llana, issued an order, directing the issuance of letters of special administration in favor of petitioner upon her filing of a P10,000.00 bond. The following day, petitioner posted the bond and took her oath as special administration. As her first act of administration, petitioner filed a motion, praying that the Philippine Life Insurance Company be directed to deliver the proceeds in the amount of P50,000.00 of the life insurance policy taken by Dr. Jose F. Cunanan with Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan and their daughter Jocelyn as beneficiaries. The trial court granted the motion. Counsel for the Philippine American Life Insurance Company then filed a manifestation, stating that said company then filed a manifestation, stating that said company had delivered to petitioner the amount of P49,765.85, representing the proceeds of the life insurance policy of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan. In a motion dated May 19, 1983, petitioner asked that Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr. be ordered to deliver to her a Philippine Trust Company

passbook with P25,594.00 in savings deposit, and the Family Savings Bank time deposit certificates in the total amount of P12,412.52. On May 31, Atty. Federico Alday filed a notice of appearance as counsel for the heirs of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, namely, Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr., Priscilla Cunanan Bautista, Lydia Cunanan Ignacio, Felipe F. Cunanan and Loreto Cunanan Concepcion (Cunanan heirs). He also manifested that before receiving petitioner's motion of May 19, 1983, his clients were unaware of the filing of the testate estate case and therefore, "in the interest of simple fair play," they should be notified of the proceedings (Records, p. 110). He prayed for deferment of the hearing on the motions of May 19, 1983. Petitioner then filed a counter manifestation dated June 13, 1983, asserting: (1) that the "Cunanan collaterals are neither heirs nor creditors of the late Dr. Jose F. Cunanan" and therefore, they had "no legal or proprietary interests to protect" and "no right to intervene"; (2) that the wills of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, being American citizens, were executed in accordance with the solemnities and formalities of New York laws, and produced "effects in this jurisdiction in accordance with Art. 16 in relation to Art. 816 of the Civil Code"; (3) that under Article VIII of the two wills, it was presumed that the husband predeceased the wife; and (4) that "the Cunanan collaterals are neither distributees, legatees or beneficiaries, much less, heirs as heirship is only by institution" under a will or by operation of the law of New York (Records, pp. 112-113). On June 23, the probate court granted petitioner's motion of May 19, 1983. However, on July 21, the Cunanan heirs filed a motion to nullify the proceedings and to set aside the appointment of, or to disqualify, petitioner as special administratrix of the estates of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan. The motion stated: (1) that being the "brothers and sisters and the legal and surviving heirs" of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, they had been "deliberately excluded" in the petition for the probate of the separate wills of the Cunanan spouses thereby misleading the Bulacan court to believe that petitioner was the sole heir of the spouses; that such "misrepresentation" deprived them of their right to "due process in violation of Section 4, Rule 76 of the

Revised Rules of Court; (2) that Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr., the executor of the estate of the Cunanan spouses, was likewise not notified of the hearings in the Bulacan court; (3) that the "misrepresentation and concealment committed by" petitioner rendered her unfit to be a special administratrix; (4) that Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. had, by virtue of a verified power of attorney, authorized his father, Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr., to be his attorney-in-fact; and (5) that Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr. is qualified to be a regular administrator "as practically all of the subject estate in the Philippines belongs to their brother, Dr. Jose F. Cunanan" (Records, pp. 118-122). Hence, they prayed: (1) that the proceedings in the case be declared null and void; (2) that the appointment of petitioner as special administratrix be set aside; and (3) that Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr. be appointed the regular administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. Thereafter, the Cunanan heirs filed a motion requiring petitioner to submit an inventory or accounting of all monies received by her in trust for the estate. In her opposition, petitioner asserted: (1) that she was the "sole and only heir" of her daughter, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan to the exclusion of the "Cunanan collaterals"; hence they were complete strangers to the proceedings and were not entitled to notice; (2) that she could not have "concealed" the name and address of Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. because his name was prominently mentioned not only in the two wills but also in the decrees of the American surrogate court; (3) that the rule applicable to the case is Rule 77, not Rule 76, because it involved the allowance of wills proved outside of the Philippines and that nowhere in Section 2 of Rule 77 is there a mention of notice being given to the executor who, by the same provision, should himself file the necessary ancillary proceedings in this country; (4) that even if the Bulacan estate came from the "capital" of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, he had willed all his worldly goods to his wife and nothing to his brothers and sisters; and (5) that Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. had unlawfully disbursed $215,000.00 to the Cunanan heirs, misappropriated $15,000.00 for himself and irregularly assigned assets of the estates to his American lawyer (Records, pp. 151-160).

In their reply, the Cunanan heirs stressed that on November 24, 1982, petitioner and the Cunanan heirs had entered into an agreement in the United States "to settle and divide equally the estates," and that under Section 2 of Rule 77 the "court shall fix a time and place for the hearing and cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance" (Records, pp. 184-185). Petitioner asked that Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. be cited for contempt of court for failure to comply with the Order of June 23, 1983 and for appropriating money of the estate for his own benefit. She also alleged that she had impugned the agreement of November 24, 1982 before the Surrogate Court of Onondaga, New York which rendered a decision on April 13, 1983, finding that "all assets are payable to Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanans executor to be then distributed pursuant t o EPTL4-1.1 subd [a] par [4]" (Rollo, p. 52). On their part, the Cunanan heirs replied that petitioner was estopped from claiming that they were heirs by the agreement to divide equally the estates. They asserted that by virtue of Section 2 of Rule 77 of the Rules of Court, the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 76 on the requirement of notice to all heirs, executors, devisees and legatees must be complied with. They reiterated their prayer: (1) that the proceedings in the case be nullified; (2) that petitioner be disqualified as special administratrix; (3) that she be ordered to submit an inventory of all goods, chattels and monies which she had received and to surrender the same to the court; and (4) that Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr. be appointed the regular administrator. Petitioner filed a rejoinder, stating that in violation of the April 13, 1983 decision of the American court Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. made "unauthorized disbursements from the estates as early as July 7, 1982" (Records, p. 231). Thereafter, petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings as she had "to attend to the settlement proceedings" of the estate of the Cunanan spouses in New York (Records, p. 242). The Cunanans heirs opposed this motion and filed a manifestation, stating that petitioner had received $215,000.00 "from the Surrogates Court as part of legacy" based on the aforesaid agreement of November 24, 1982 (Records, p. 248).

On February 21, 1984, Judge de la Llana issued an order, disallowing the reprobate of the two wills, recalling the appointment of petitioner as special administratrix, requiring the submission of petitioner of an inventory of the property received by her as special administratrix and declaring all pending incidents moot and academic. Judge de la Llana reasoned out that petitioner failed to prove the law of New York on procedure and allowance of wills and the court had no way of telling whether the wills were executed in accordance with the law of New York. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption is that the law of succession of the foreign country is the same as the law of the Philippines. However, he noted, that there were only two witnesses to the wills of the Cunanan spouses and the Philippine law requires three witnesses and that the wills were not signed on each and every page, a requirement of the Philippine law. On August 27, 1985, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated February 21, 1984, where she had sufficiently proven the applicable laws of New York governing the execution of last wills and testaments. On the same day, Judge de la Llana issued another order, denying the motion of petitioner for the suspension of the proceedings but gave her 15 days upon arrival in the country within which to act on the other order issued that same day. Contending that the second portion of the second order left its finality to the discretion of counsel for petitioner, the Cunanans filed a motion for the reconsideration of the objectionable portion of the said order so that it would conform with the pertinent provisions of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 and the Interim Rules of Court. On April 30, 1985, the respondent Judge of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court, Malolos, to which the reprobate case was reassigned, issued an order stating that "(W)hen the last will and testament . . . was denied probate," the case was terminated and therefore all orders theretofore issued should be given finality. The same Order amended the February 21, 1984 Order by requiring petitioner to turn over to the estate the inventoried property. It considered the proceedings for all

intents and purposes, closed (Records, p. 302). On August 12, petitioner filed a motion to resume proceedings on account of the final settlement and termination of the probate cases in New York. Three days later, petitioner filed a motion praying for the reconsideration of the Order of April 30, 1985 on the strength of the February 21, 1984 Order granting her a period of 15 days upon arrival in the country within which to act on the denial of probate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses. On August 19, respondent Judge granted the motion and reconsidered the Order of April 30, 1985. On August 29, counsel for petitioner, who happens to be her daughter, Natividad, filed a motion praying that since petitioner was ailing in Fort Lee, New Jersey, U.S.A. and therefore incapacitated to act as special administratrix, she (the counsel) should be named substitute special administratrix. She also filed a motion for the reconsideration of the Order of February 21, 1984, denying probate to the wills of the Cunanan spouses, alleging that respondent Judge "failed to appreciate the significant probative value of the exhibits . . . which all refer to the offer and admission to probate of the last wills of the Cunanan spouses including all procedures undertaken and decrees issued in connection with the said probate" (Records, pp. 313-323). Thereafter, the Cunanans heirs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order of August 19, 1985, alleging lack of notice to their counsel. On March 31, 1986, respondent Judge to which the case was reassigned denied the motion for reconsideration holding that the documents submitted by petitioner proved "that the wills of the testator domiciled abroad were properly executed, genuine and sufficient to possess real and personal property; that letters testamentary were issued; and that proceedings were held on a foreign tribunal and proofs taken by a competent judge who inquired into all the facts and circumstances and being satisfied with his findings issued a decree admitting to probate the wills in question." However, respondent Judge said that the documents did not establish the law of New York on the procedure and allowance of wills (Records, p. 381).

On April 9, 1986, petitioner filed a motion to allow her to present further evidence on the foreign law. After the hearing of the motion on April 25, 1986, respondent Judge issued an order wherein he conceded that insufficiency of evidence to prove the foreign law was not a fatal defect and was curable by adducing additional evidence. He granted petitioner 45 days to submit the evidence to that effect. However, without waiting for petitioner to adduce the additional evidence, respondent Judge ruled in his order dated June 20, 1986 that he found "no compelling reason to disturb its ruling of March 31, 1986" but allowed petitioner to "file anew the appropriate probate proceedings for each of the testator" (Records, p. 391). The Order dated June 20, 1986 prompted petitioner to file a second motion for reconsideration stating that she was "ready to submit further evidence on the law obtaining in the State of New York" and praying that she be granted "the opportunity to present evidence on what the law of the State of New York has on the probate and allowance of wills" (Records, p. 393). On July 18, respondent Judge denied the motion holding that to allow the probate of two wills in a single proceeding "would be a departure from the typical and established mode of probate where one petition takes care of one will." He pointed out that even in New York "where the wills in question were first submitted for probate, they were dealt with in separate proceedings" (Records, p. 395). On August 13, 1986, petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of the Order of July 18, 1986, citing Section 3, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, which provides that no party may institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. She pointed out that separate proceedings for the wills of the spouses which contain basically the same provisions as they even named each other as a beneficiary in their respective wills, would go against "the grain of inexpensive, just and speedy determination of the proceedings" (Records, pp. 405-407). On September 11, 1986, petitioner filed a supplement to the motion for reconsideration, citing Benigno v. De La Pea, 57 Phil. 305 (1932)

(Records, p. 411), but respondent Judge found that this pleading had been filed out of time and that the adverse party had not been furnished with a copy thereof. In her compliance, petitioner stated that she had furnished a copy of the motion to the counsel of the Cunanan heirs and reiterated her motion for a "final ruling on her supplemental motion" (Records, p. 421). On November 19, respondent Judge issued an order, denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner on the grounds that "the probate of separate wills of two or more different persons even if they are husband and wife cannot be undertaken in a single petition" (Records, pp. 376-378). Hence, petitioner instituted the instant petition, arguing that the evidence offered at the hearing of April 11, 1983 sufficiently proved the laws of the State of New York on the allowance of wills, and that the separate wills of the Cunanan spouses need not be probated in separate proceedings. II Petitioner contends that the following pieces of evidence she had submitted before respondent Judge are sufficient to warrant the allowance of the wills: (a) two certificates of authentication of the respective wills of Evelyn and Jose by the Consulate General of the Philippines (Exhs. "F" and "G"); (b) two certifications from the Secretary of State of New York and Custodian of the Great Seal on the facts that Judge Bernard L. Reagan is the Surrogate of the Country of Onondaga which is a court of record, that his signature and seal of office are genuine, and that the Surrogate is duly authorized to grant copy of the respective wills of Evelyn and Jose (Exhs. "F-1" and "G-1");

(c) two certificates of Judge Reagan and Chief Clerk Donald E. Moore stating that they have in their records and files the said wills which were recorded on April 7, 1982 (Exhs. "F-2" and "G-2"); (d) the respective wills of Evelyn and Jose (Exhs. "F-3", "F-6" and Exh. "G-3" "G-6"); (e) certificates of Judge Reagan and the Chief Clerk certifying to the genuineness and authenticity of the exemplified copies of the two wills (Exhs. "F-7" and "F7"); (f) two certificates of authentication from the Consulate General of the Philippines in New York (Exh. "H" and "F"). (g) certifications from the Secretary of State that Judge Reagan is duly authorized to grant exemplified copies of the decree of probate, letters testamentary and all proceedings had and proofs duly taken (Exhs. "H-1" and "I-1"); (h) certificates of Judge Reagan and the Chief Clerk that letters testamentary were issued to Rafael G. Cunanan (Exhs. "H-2" and "I-2"); (i) certification to the effect that it was during the term of Judge Reagan that a decree admitting the wills to probate had been issued and appointing Rafael G. Cunanan as alternate executor (Exhs. "H-3" and "I-10"); (j) the decrees on probate of the two wills specifying that proceedings were held and proofs duly taken (Exhs. "H4" and "I-5");

(k) decrees on probate of the two wills stating that they were properly executed, genuine and valid and that the said instruments were admitted to probate and established as wills valid to pass real and personal property (Exhs. "H-5" and "I-5"); and (l) certificates of Judge Reagan and the Chief Clerk on the genuineness and authenticity of each others signatures in the exemplified copies of the decrees of probate, letters testamentary and proceedings held in their court (Exhs. "H-6" and "I-6") (Rollo, pp. 13-16). Petitioner adds that the wills had been admitted to probate in the Surrogate Courts Decision of April 13, 1983 and that the proceedings were terminated on November 29, 1984. The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, will only be effective in this country upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines: Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes. Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New York laws or by Philippine laws is imperative. The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills (III Moran Commentaries on the Rules of Court, 1970 ed., pp. 419-429; Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 [1954]; Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610 [1930]).

Except for the first and last requirements, the petitioner submitted all the needed evidence. The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them (Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266 [1974]). Petitioner must have perceived this omission as in fact she moved for more time to submit the pertinent procedural and substantive New York laws but which request respondent Judge just glossed over. While the probate of a will is a special proceeding wherein courts should relax the rules on evidence, the goal is to receive the best evidence of which the matter is susceptible before a purported will is probated or denied probate (Vda. de Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 393 [1978]). There is merit in petitioners insistence that the separate wills of the Cunanan spouses should be probated jointly. Respondent Judges view that the Rules on allowance of wills is couched in singular terms and therefore should be interpreted to mean that there should be separate probate proceedings for the wills of the Cunanan spouses is too literal and simplistic an approach. Such view overlooks the provisions of Section 2, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court, which advise that the rules shall be "liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." A literal application of the Rules should be avoided if they would only result in the delay in the administration of justice (Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 100 [1987]; Roberts v. Leonidas, 129 SCRA 33 [1984]). What the law expressly prohibits is the making of joint wills either for the testators reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person (Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 818). In the case at bench, the Cunanan spouses executed separate wills. Since the two wills contain essentially the same provisions and pertain to property which in all

probability are conjugal in nature, practical considerations dictate their joint probate. As this Court has held a number of times, it will always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation (Motoomull v. Dela Paz, 187 SCRA 743 [1990]). This petition cannot be completely resolved without touching on a very glaring fact petitioner has always considered herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez Cunanan and because she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably failed to notify his heirs of the filing of the proceedings. Thus, even in the instant petition, she only impleaded respondent Judge, forgetting that a judge whose order is being assailed is merely a nominal or formal party (Calderon v. Solicitor General, 215 SCRA 876 [1992]). The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with regard to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will that is presented for probate for the first time. Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, which require publication and notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines" and to the executor, if he is not the petitioner, are required. The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioner's claim, are entitled to notices of the time and place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court, the "court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator, . . . " WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge shall allow petitioner reasonable time within which to submit evidence needed for the joint probate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses and see to it that the brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F.

Cunanan are given all notices and copies of all pleadings pertinent to the probate proceedings. SO ORDERED.