G.R. No.

L-7188

August 9, 1954

In re: Will and Testa ent o! t"e de#eased R$%$R$N& 'AN()* A+A&IA. '$%$RINA A. %&A. &$ $NRI,-$., $T AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. /IG-$L A+A&IA, $T AL., oppositors-appellants. Manuel A. Zosa, Luis B. Ladonga, Mariano A. Zosa and B. G. Advincula for appellants. C. de la Victoria for appellees. /*NT$/A0*R, J.: On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisa , !eb", e#ec"ted a doc"ment p"rportin$ to be his %ast &ill and Testament no' mar(ed )#hibit *A*. +esident of the !it of !eb", he died on ,an"ar 1-, 19-3, in the m"nicipalit of Alo$"insan, !eb", 'here he 'as an evac"ee. .e left properties estimated at /0,111 in val"e. On October 2, 19-6, one Andres )nri2"e3, one of the le$atees in )#hibit *A*, filed a petition for its probate in the !o"rt of First 4nstance of !eb". Some co"sins and nephe's 'ho 'o"ld inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no 'ill, filed opposition. 5"rin$ the hearin$ one of the attestin$ 'itnesses, the other t'o bein$ dead, testified 'itho"t contradiction that in his presence and in the presence of his co-'itnesses, Father Sancho 'rote o"t in lon$hand )#hibit *A* in Spanish 'hich the testator spo(e and "nderstood6 that he 7testator8 si$ned on he left hand mar$in of the front pa$e of each of the three folios or sheets of 'hich the doc"ment is composed, and n"mbered the same 'ith Arabic n"merals, and finall si$ned his name at the end of his 'ritin$ at the last pa$e, all this, in the presence of the three attestin$ 'itnesses after tellin$ that it 'as his last 'ill and that the said three 'itnesses si$ned their names on the last pa$e after the attestation cla"se in his presence and in the presence of each other. The oppositors did not s"bmit an evidence. The learned trial co"rt fo"nd and declared )#hibit *A* to be a holo$raphic 'ill6 that it 'as in the hand'ritin$ of the testator and that altho"$h at the time it 'as e#ec"ted and at the time of the testator9s death, holo$raphic 'ills 'ere not permitted b la' still, beca"se at the time of the hearin$ and 'hen the case 'as to be decided the ne' !ivil !ode 'as alread in force, 'hich !ode permitted the e#ec"tion of holo$raphic 'ills, "nder a liberal vie', and to carr o"t the intention of the testator 'hich accordin$ to the trial co"rt is the controllin$ factor and ma override an defect in form, said trial co"rt b order dated ,an"ar 2-, 19:2, admitted to probate )#hibit *A*, as the %ast &ill and Testament of Father Sancho Abadia. The oppositors are appealin$ from that decision6 and beca"se onl 2"estions of la' are involved in the appeal, the case 'as certified to "s b the !o"rt of Appeals. The ne' !ivil !ode 7+ep"blic Act ;o. 3068 "nder article 011 thereof provides that a person ma e#ec"te a holo$raphic 'ill 'hich m"st be entirel 'ritten, dated and si$ned b the testator himself and need not be 'itnessed. 4t is a fact, ho'ever, that at the time that )#hibit *A* 'as e#ec"ted in 1923 and at the time that Father Abadia died in 19-3, holo$raphic 'ills 'ere not permitted, and the la' at the time imposed certain re2"irements for the e#ec"tion of 'ills, s"ch as n"mberin$ correlativel each pa$e 7not folio or sheet8 in letters and si$nin$ on the left hand mar$in b the testator and b the three attestin$ 'itnesses, re2"irements 'hich 'ere not complied 'ith in )#hibit *A* beca"se the bac( pa$es of the first t'o folios of the 'ill 'ere not si$ned b an one, not even b the testator and 'ere not n"mbered, and as to the three front pa$es, the 'ere si$ned onl b the testator. 4nterpretin$ and appl in$ this re2"irement this !o"rt in the case of 4n re )state of Sa$"insin, -1 /hil., 0<:, 0<9, referrin$ to the fail"re of the testator and his 'itnesses to si$n on the left hand mar$in of ever pa$e, said= . . . . This defect is radical and totall vitiates the testament. 4t is not eno"$h that the si$nat"res $"aranteein$ a"thenticit sho"ld appear "pon t'o folios or leaves6 three pa$es havin$ been 'ritten on, the a"thenticit of all three of them sho"ld be $"aranteed b the si$nat"re of the alle$ed testatri# and her 'itnesses. And in the case of Aspe vs. Prieto, -6 /hil., <11, referrin$ to the same re2"irement, this !o"rt declared= From an e#amination of the doc"ment in 2"estion, it appears that the left mar$ins of the si# pa$es of the doc"ment are si$ned onl b >ent"ra /rieto. The noncompliance 'ith section 2 of Act ;o. 26-: b the attestin$ 'itnesses 'ho omitted to si$n 'ith the testator at the left mar$in of each of the five pa$es of the doc"ment alle$ed to be the 'ill of >ent"ra /rieto, is a fatal defect that constit"tes an obstacle to its probate.

&hat is the la' to appl to the probate of )#h. *A*? @a 'e appl the provisions of the ne' !ivil !ode 'hich not allo's holo$raphic 'ills, li(e )#hibit *A* 'hich provisions 'ere invo(ed b the appellee-petitioner and applied b the lo'er co"rt? A"t article <9: of this same ne' !ivil !ode e#pressl provides= *The validit of a 'ill as to its form depends "pon the observance of the la' in force at the time it is made.* The above provision is b"t an e#pression or statement of the 'ei$ht of a"thorit to the affect that the validit of a 'ill is to be B"d$ed not b the la' enforce at the time of the testator9s death or at the time the s"pposed 'ill is presented in co"rt for probate or 'hen the petition is decided b the co"rt b"t at the time the instr"ment 'as e#ec"ted. One reason in s"pport of the r"le is that altho"$h the 'ill operates "pon and after the death of the testator, the 'ishes of the testator abo"t the disposition of his estate amon$ his heirs and amon$ the le$atees is $iven solemn e#pression at the time the 'ill is e#ec"ted, and in realit , the le$ac or be2"est then becomes a completed act. This r"lin$ has been laid do'n b this co"rt in the case of 4n re &ill of +iosa, 39 /hil., 23. 4t is a 'holesome doctrine and sho"ld be follo'ed. Of co"rse, there is the vie' that the intention of the testator sho"ld be the r"lin$ and controllin$ factor and that all ade2"ate remedies and interpretations sho"ld be resorted to in order to carr o"t said intention, and that 'hen stat"tes passed after the e#ec"tion of the 'ill and after the death of the testator lessen the formalities re2"ired b la' for the e#ec"tion of 'ills, said s"bse2"ent stat"tes sho"ld be applied so as to validate 'ills defectivel e#ec"ted accordin$ to the la' in force at the time of e#ec"tion. .o'ever, 'e sho"ld not for$et that from the da of the death of the testator, if he leaves a 'ill, the title of the le$atees and devisees "nder it becomes a vested ri$ht, protected "nder the d"e process cla"se of the constit"tion a$ainst a s"bse2"ent chan$e in the stat"te addin$ ne' le$al re2"irements of e#ec"tion of 'ills 'hich 'o"ld invalidate s"ch a 'ill. A parit of reasonin$, 'hen one e#ec"tes a 'ill 'hich is invalid for fail"re to observe and follo' the le$al re2"irements at the time of its e#ec"tion then "pon his death he sho"ld be re$arded and declared as havin$ died intestate, and his heirs 'ill then inherit b intestate s"ccession, and no s"bse2"ent la' 'ith more liberal re2"irements or 'hich dispenses 'ith s"ch re2"irements as to e#ec"tion sho"ld be allo'ed to validate a defective 'ill and thereb divest the heirs of their vested ri$hts in the estate b intestate s"ccession. The $eneral r"le is that the %e$islat"re can not validate void 'ills 7:< Am. ,"r., &ills, Sec. 231, pp. 192-1938. 4n vie' of the fore$oin$, the order appealed from is reversed, and )#hibit *A* is denied probate. &ith costs.

G.R. No. L-41214 A3ril 1, 1994 '-L5I(IA 6I/$N$. and T*RI+I* /ATIA', petitioners, vs. %I($NT$ 7$RNAN&$. alias )*'5I(I* 7$RNAN&$. and T$*&*RA GRA&*, respondents. Antonio E. Bengzon III for petitioners. Agustin . Cruz for private respondents. 5ARA', J.: Aefore Cs is a petition for revie' on certiorari of the follo'in$ 5ecision 1 and +esol"tion 8 of the .onorable !o"rt of Appeals= 718 5ecision, dated @arch 1, 19<< in !.A.-D.+. ;o. -91<0-+ entitled *S"lpicia ,imene3, et al., v. >icente Fernande3, et al.* affirmin$ in toto the B"d$ment of the !o"rt of First 4nstance of /an$asinan, Third ,"dicial 5istrict in !ivil !ase ;o. 1-012-4 bet'een the same parties and 728 +esol"tion dated ,"ne 3, 19<< den in$ plaintiffs-appellants9 motion for reconsideration. As $athered from the records, the fact"al bac($ro"nd of this case is as follo's= The land in 2"estion is the )astern portion 'ith an area of Fo"r ."ndred Thirt Si# 7-368 s2"are meters of that parcel of residential land sit"ated in Aarrio 5"li$ 7no' @a$sa sa 8, @"nicipalit of %abrador, /an$asinan act"all covered b Transfer !ertificate of Title ;o. 022<: 7)#hibit A8 iss"ed in the name of S"lpicia ,imene3. The entire parcel of land 'ith an area of 2,932 s2"are meters, formerl belon$ed to Fermin ,imene3. Fermin ,imene3 has t'o 728 sons named Fort"nato and !arlos ,imene3. This Fort"nato ,imene3 'ho predeceased his father has onl one child, the petitioner S"lpicia ,imene3. After the death of Fermin ,imene3, the entire parcel of land 'as re$istered "nder Act -96 in the name of !arlos ,imene3 and S"lpicia ,imene3 7"ncle and niece8 in e2"al shares pro-indiviso. As a res"lt of the re$istration case Ori$inal !ertificate of Title ;o. :1933 7)#hibit 08 'as iss"ed on Febr"ar 20, 1933, in the names of !arlos ,imene3 and S"lpicia ,imene3, in e2"al shares pro-indiviso.

!arlos ,imene3 died on ,"l 9, 1936 and his ille$itimate da"$hter, @elecia !a ab ab, also (no'n as @elecia ,imene3, too( possession of the eastern portion of the propert consistin$ of -36 s2"are meters. On ,an"ar 21, 19--, @elecia ,imene3 sold said -36 s2"are meter-portion of the propert to )dilberto !a$ampan and defendant Teodora Drado e#ec"ted a contract entitled *)#chan$e of +eal /roperties* 'hereb the former transferred said -36 s2"are meter-portion to the latter, 'ho has been in occ"pation since. On A"$"st 29, 1969, plaintiff S"lpicia ,imene3 e#ec"ted an affidavit adB"dicatin$ "nto herself the other half of the propert appertainin$ to !arlos ,imene3, "pon manifestation that she is the onl heir of her deceased "ncle. !onse2"entl Transfer !ertificate of Title ;o. 022<: 'as iss"ed on October 1, 1969 in petitioner9s name alone over the entire 2,932 s2"are meter propert . On April 1, 19<1, S"lpicia ,imene3, Boined b her h"sband, instit"ted the present action for the recover of the eastern portion of the propert consistin$ of -36 s2"are meters occ"pied b defendant Teodora Drado and her son. After trial on the merits, the lo'er co"rt rendered B"d$ment, the dispositive portion of 'hich reads= &.)+)FO+), decision is hereb rendered dismissin$ the complaint and holdin$ the defendant, Teodora Drado, the absol"te o'ner of the land in 2"estion6 orderin$ the plaintiffs to pa to the defendant the amo"nt of /:11.11 as dama$es, as attorne 9s fees, and to pa the costs of s"it. SO O+5)+)5. 7!ollo, p. 218 /etitioner appealed the above B"d$ment to the respondent !o"rt of Appeals and on @arch 1, 19<<, respondent !o"rt of Appeals rendered a decision affirmin$ the same in toto. Said decision 'as rendered b a special division of five 7:8 B"stices, 'ith the .on. %o"rdes San 5ie$o, dissentin$. /etitioners 'ithin the re$lementar period $ranted b the .onorable !o"rt of Appeals, filed there'ith a motion for reconsideration. A"t said motion for reconsideration 'as denied b the !o"rt of Appeals in its resol"tion dated ,"ne 3, 19<<. 4n their appeal to the respondent !o"rt of Appeals from the afore2"oted decision of the trial co"rt, herein petitioner raised the follo'in$ assi$nments of error to 'it= ASS4D;@);TS OF )++O+ 4 T.) %O&)+ !OC+T )++)5 4; ;OT 5)!%A+4;D T.AT @)%)!4A !AEAAEAA, A%SO F;O&; AS @)%)!4A ,4@);)G, 4S ;OT T.) 5ACD.T)+ OF !A+%OS ,4@);)G. 44 T.) %O&)+ !OC+T )++)5 4; ;OT 5)!%A+4;D T.AT @)%)!4A !AEAAEAA, A%SO F;O&; AS @)%)!4A ,4@);)G, .AS ;O +4D.T TO S)%% T.) %A;5 4; HC)ST4O; TO )54%A)+TO !ADA@/A;. 444 T.) %O&)+ !OC+T )++)5 4; ;OT 5)!%A+4;D T.AT )54%A)+TO !ADA@/A; 545 ;OT A)!O@) T.) O&;)+ OF T.) %A;5 4; HC)ST4O; AE >4+TC) OF T.) 5))5 OF SA%) 7)I.. *1*8 )I)!CT)5 AE @)%)!4A !AEAAEAA, A%4AS @)%)!4A ,4@);)G, 4; .4S FA>O+. 4> T.) %O&)+ !OC+T )++)5 4; ;OT 5)!%A+4;D T.AT T)O5O+A D+A5O 545 ;OT A)!O@) T.) O&;)+ OF T.) %A;5 4; HC)ST4O; AE >4+TC) OF T.) 5))5 OF )I!.A;D) 7)I.. *<*8 )I)!CT)5 AE .)+ A;5 )54%A)+TO !ADA@/A;.

> T.) %O&)+ !OC+T )++)5 4; ;OT 5)!%A+4;D T.AT T.) T4T%) OF A//)%%A;T SC%/4!4A ,4@);)G O>)+ T.) %A;5 4; HC)ST4O; !A; ;OT A) 5)F)AT)5 AE T.) A5>)+S) O/); A;5 ;OTO+4OCS /OSS)SS4O; OF A//)%%)) T)O5O+A D+A5O. >4 T.) %O&)+ !OC+T )++)5 4; 5)!%A+4;D T.AT T.) A//)%%)) T)O5O+A D+A5O 4S T.) AASO%CT) O&;)+ OF T.) %A;5 4; HC)ST4O; 4; T.) %4D.T OF T.) 5)!4S4O; OF T.) SC/+)@) !OC+T 4; T.) !AS) OF %OC+5)S A+!C4;O, )T A%., >. +CF4;A A/A+4S A;5 !AS4A;O /C+AE, D.+. ;O. %-23-2-, /+O@C%DAT)5 ,A;CA+E 31, 1960, &.4!. !AS) 4S ;OT A//%4!AA%) TO T.) !AS) AT AA+. >44 T.) %O&)+ !OC+T )++)5 4; 54S@4SS4;D T.) !O@/%A4;T A;5 O+5)+4;D T.) A//)%%A;TS TO /AE T.) A//)%%))S T.) SC@ OF /:11.11 AS ATTO+;)ES F))S /%CS T.) !OSTS. From the fore$oin$, this petition for revie' 'as filed. &e find merit in the petition. From the start the respondent co"rt erred in not declarin$ that @elecia ,imene3 !a ab ab also (no'n as @elecia ,imene3, is not the da"$hter of !arlos ,imene3 and therefore, had no ri$ht over the propert in 2"estion. +espondents failed to present concrete evidence to prove that @elecia !a ab ab 'as reall the da"$hter of !arlos ,imene3. ;onetheless, ass"min$ for the sa(e of ar$"ment that @elecia !a ab ab 'as the ille$itimate da"$hter of !arlos ,imene3 there can be no 2"estion that @elecia !a ab ab had no ri$ht to s"cceed to the estate of !arlos ,imene3 and co"ld not have validl ac2"ired, nor le$all transferred to )dilberto !a$ampan that portion of the propert s"bBect of this petition. 4t is 'ell-settled in this B"risdiction that the ri$hts to the s"ccession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent 7Art. <<<, !ivil !ode8. @oreover, Art. 2263 of the !ivil !ode provides as follo's= +i$hts to the inheritance of a person 'ho died 'ith or 'itho"t a 'ill, before the effectivit of this !ode, shall be $overned b the !ivil !ode of 1009, b other previo"s la's, and b the +"les of !o"rt . . . 7 !ollo, p. 1<8 Th"s, since !arlos ,imene3, o'ner of one-half pro-indiviso portion of that parcel of land then covered b Ori$inal !ertificate of title ;o. :1933, died on ,"l 9, 1936 7)#hibit *F*8 'a before the effectivit of the !ivil !ode of the /hilippines, the s"ccessional ri$hts pertainin$ to his estate m"st be determined in accordance 'ith the !ivil !ode of 1009. !itin$ the case of !id v. A"rnaman 72- S!+A -3-8 'herein this !o"rt cate$oricall held that= To be an heir "nder the r"les of !ivil !ode of 1009 7'hich 'as the la' in force 'hen !arlos ,imene3 died and 'hich sho"ld be the $overnin$ la' in so far as the ri$ht to inherit from his estate 'as concerned8, a child m"st be either a child le$itimate, le$itimated, or adopted, or else an ac(no'led$ed nat"ral child J for ille$itimate not nat"ral are dis2"alified to inherit. 7!ivil !ode of 1009, Art. 01<, 93:8 )ven ass"min$ that @elecia !a ab ab 'as born o"t of the common-la'-relationship bet'een her mother 7@aria !a ab ab8 and !arlos ,imene3, she co"ld not even be considered an ac(no'led$ed nat"ral child beca"se !arlos ,imene3 'as then le$all married to S"sana Abalos and therefore not 2"alified to marr @aria !a ab ab and conse2"entl @elecia !a ab ab 'as an ille$itimate sp"rio"s child and not entitled to an s"ccessional ri$hts in so far as the estate of !arlos ,imene3 'as concerned. @elecia !a ab ab in the absence of an vol"ntar conve ance to her b !arlos ,imene3 or S"lpicia ,imene3 of the liti$ated portion of the land co"ld not even le$all transfer the parcel of land to )dilberto !a$ampan 'ho accordin$l , co"ld not also le$all transfer the same to herein private respondents.

Anal 3in$ the case before Cs in this manner, &e can immediatel discern another error in the decision of the respondent co"rt, 'hich is that the said co"rt s"stained and made applicable to the case at bar the r"lin$ in the case of Arc"ino, et al., v. Aparis and /"ra , ;o. %-23-2-, ,an"ar 31, 1960, 22 S!+A -1<, 'herein &e held that= . . . it is tr"e that the lands re$istered "nder the Torrens S stem ma not be ac2"ired b prescription b"t plaintiffs herein are not the re$istered o'ners. The merel claim to have ac2"ired b s"ccession, their alle$ed title or interest in lot ;o. 3::. At an rate plaintiffs herein are $"ilt of laches. The respondent co"rt rel in$ on the Arc"ino case, concl"ded that respondents had ac2"ired the propert "nder liti$ation b prescription. &e cannot a$ree 'ith s"ch concl"sion, beca"se there is one ver mar(ed and important difference bet'een the case at bar and that of the Arc"ino case, and that is, that since 1933 petitioner S"lpicia ,imene3 'as a title "older, the propert then bein$ re$istered in her and her "ncle !arlos ,imene39 name. 4n the Arc"ino case, this S"preme !o"rt held. *748t is tr"e that lands re$istered "nder the Torrens S stem ma not be ac2"ired b prescription b"t plaintiffs herein are not the re$istered o'ners.* 7 !ollo, p. 308 )ven in the said cited case the principle of imprescriptibilit of Torrens Titles 'as respected. @elecia !a ab ab9s possession or of her predecessors-in-interest 'o"ld be "navailin$ a$ainst the petitioner S"lpicia ,imene3 'ho 'as the holder pro-indiviso 'ith !arlos ,imene3 of the Torrens !ertificate of Title coverin$ a tract of land 'hich incl"des the portion no' in 2"estion, from Febr"ar 20, 1933, 'hen the Ori$inal !ertificate of Title ;o. :1933 7)#hibit 08 'as iss"ed. ;o possession b an person of an portion of the land covered b said ori$inal certificate of titles, co"ld defeat the title of the re$istered o'ner of the land covered b the certificate of title. 7Aenin v. T"ason, %-2612<, ,"ne 20, 19<-, :< S!+A :318 S"lpicia9s title over her one-half "ndivided propert remained $ood and contin"ed to be $ood 'hen she se$re$ated it into a ne' title 7T.!.T ;o. 022<:, )#hibit *A*8 in 1969. S"lpicia9s o'nership over her one-half of the land and 'hich is the land in disp"te 'as al'a s covered b a #orrens title, and therefore, no amo"nt ofpossession thereof b the respondents, co"ld ever defeat her proprietar ri$hts thereon. 4t is apparent, that the ri$ht of plaintiff 7no' petitioner8 to instit"te this action to recover possession of the portion of the land in 2"estion based on the Torrens Title of S"lpicia ,imene3, T.!.T. ;o. 022<: 7)#hibit *A*8 is imprescriptible and not barred "nder the doctrine of laches. 7,.@. T"ason K !o. v. @acalindon$, %-1:390, 5ecember 29, 1962, Francisco v. !r"3, et al., -3 O.D. :11:8 !ollo, p. 398 The respondent !o"rt of Appeals declared the petitioner S"lpicia ,imene3 $"ilt of laches and citin$ the r"lin$ in the case of .eirs of %acamen v. .eirs of %ar"an 76: S!+A 61:8, held that, since petitioner S"lpicia ,imene3 e#ec"ted her Affidavit of Self-AdB"dication onl in 1969, she lost the ri$ht to recover possession of the parcel of land s"bBect of the liti$ation. 4n this instance, a$ain &e r"le for the petitioner. There is no absol"te r"le as to 'hat constit"tes laches or staleness of demand6 each case is to be determined accordin$ to its partic"lar circ"mstances. The 2"estion of laches is addressed to the so"nd discretion of the co"rt and since laches is an e2"itable doctrine, its application is controlled b e2"itable considerations. 4t cannot be 'or(ed to defeat B"stice or to perpetrate fra"d and inB"stice. 4t 'o"ld be ran( inB"stice and patentl ine2"ito"s to deprive the la'f"l heirs of their ri$htf"l inheritance. /etitioner S"lpicia ,imene3 is entitled to the relief pra ed for, declarin$ her to be the sole and absol"te o'ner of the land in 2"estion 'ith ri$ht to its possession and enBo ment. Since her "ncle !arlos ,imene3 died in 1936, his pro-indiviso share in the properties then o'ned in co-o'nership 'ith his niece S"lpicia descended b intestac to S"lpicia ,imene3 alone beca"se !arlos died 'itho"t an iss"e or other heirs. After all, the professed obBective of Act ;o. -96, other'ise (no'n as the %and +e$istration Act or the la' 'hich established the Torrens S stem of %and +e$istration in the /hilippines is that the stabilit of the landholdin$ s stem in the /hilippines depends on the confidence of the people in the titles coverin$ the properties. And to this end, this !o"rt has invariabl "pheld the indefeasibilit of the Torrens Title and in, amon$ others, ,.@. T"ason and !o., 4nc. v. @acalindon$ 76 S!+A 9308, held that *the ri$ht of the appellee to file an action to recover possession based on its Torrens Title is i$prescripti%le and not %arred under t"e doctrine of lac"es . &.)+)FO+), the /etition for +evie' is hereb D+A;T)5. The 5ecision and +esol"tion dated @arch 1, 19<< and ,"ne 3, 19<< in !A D.+. ;o. %--91<0-+ are S)T AS45). SO O+5)+)5.