JURADO- Delatado BALDEMOR vs. MALANGYAON G.R. No. L-8806 March 24, !

6 "ha#ter$ %o#&c$ E''ect o' ()d&c&al *ettle+e,t -A"%*$ To the petition the defendants duly answered, denying generally and specifically the facts stated in the complaint, and alleging: That they were the legitimate descendants of the said Benedicto Bonot, that they were all of lawful age, that they had, prior to the commencement of the present action, mutually made a division among themselves of the property in uestion, that there are no de!ts e"isting against the estate of the said Benedicto Bonot, and that the plaintiff is without authority to maintain said action in support of the allegation that the defendants had mutually divided the estate of their parent# After hearing the respective parties, the $onora!le %ercy &# &oir, 'udge, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was without right to maintain the action in uestion and dismissed the complaint, a!solving the defendants from any lia!ility under the same, without costs, reserving to the defendant, (lara )alcon, the right to maintain an action against her co*heirs form any fraud which they may have committed against her interest# )rom that 'udgment the plaintiff appealed to this court# There was no proof adduced during the trial of the cause, the case having !een su!mitted to the lower court upon the pleadings# .**/E$ +hether or not the special administrator may maintain an action for the purpose of ta,ing possession of said property, there!y depriving the heirs of possession of the same# 0ELD$ -ection ./0 of the (ode of %rocedure in (ivil Actions as amended !y section 1 of Act 2o# 3441 provides that: +henever all the heirs of a person who died intestate are of lawful age and legal capacity, and there are no de!ts due from the estate, or all the de!ts have !een paid the heirs may, !e agreement duly e"ecuted in writing !y all of them, and not otherwise, apportion and divide the estate among themselves, as they may see fit, without proceedings in court# -aid section clearly gives the heirs the right to mutually partition their estate#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B

JURADO* Delatado 1ELA2"O vs# 1.2MANO* G.R. No. L-2 244 -e3r)ar4 5, !24 "ha#ter$ %o#&c$ E''ect o' ()d&c&al *ettle+e,t -A"%*$ 5ncarnacion -aen6 de 7i6manos died intestate on 2ovem!er 10, 1/31, leaving no heirs !y force of law 8 herederos forzosos9# The appellee was appointed the administrator of the estate of the deceased and, in the administration proceedings, the (ourt of )irst :nstance issued an order of distri!ution in which certain collateral relatives of the deceased in the fourth degree were declared heirs# The appellants herein are relatives in the si"th degree and claim participation in the inheritance, !ut were e"cluded there from in the order of the distri!ution# .**/E$ +hether or not the appellants contention of claiming participation in the heritance is valid as they are in the si"th degree; 0ELD$ There is no dispute as to the fact that the persons declared heirs are nearer to the deceased in relationship than are the appellants, !ut counsel for the latter argues strenuously that the former were not properly represented in the administration proceedings and that, therefore, the court had no 'urisdiction over them and could not properly declare them heirs# There is of course, no merit whatever in this contention# Under articles 0.<, 0.=, and 001 of the (ivil (ode, the title to the inheritance is transmitted to the heirs immediately upon the death of the predecessor and, upon sufficient proof that certain persons are the heirs of the deceased, it !ecomes the duty of the court to order the distri!ution of the estate to them in the due course of the administration proceedings no matter whether such persons have formally appeared in the proceedings or not#

The order of distri!ution appealed from is in conformity with article /31 of the (ivil (ode and is here!y affirmed, with the costs against the appellants#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B JURADO* Delatado -/LE vs. -/LE G.R. No. 2 86! *e#te+3er 70, !24 "ha#ter$ %o#&c$ E''ect o' ()d&c&al *ettle+e,t -A"%*$ -aturnino )ule died intestate# (iriaco )ule, one of the heirs, presented a petition in the (ourt of )irst :nstance of the %rovince of >aguna for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of -aturnino )ule, deceased, and prayed specially for the appointment of (ornelio Alcantara as such administrator# The petitioner further prayed that during the pendency of the petition for the appointment of an administrator, the said (ornelio Alcantara !e then and there appointed as special administrator for said estate# The petitioner alleged that at the time of the death of -aturnino )ule, he was the owner of real and personal property located in the municipality of -an %a!lo, %rovince of >aguna, of the value of %.?,??? with a rental value of a!out %=,??? and that, in addition to said real and personal property, he also left a!out %4?,??? in cash# The lower court on the day of the presentation of the petition appointed (ornelio Alcantara as special administrator and re uired him to give a !ond of %=,???# The special administrator presented in court an inventory of the alleged property of the deceased# The petitioner answered the motion of the oppositors and opposed their petition for the revocation of the appointment of a special administrator# He alleged that the oppositors had been requested to make a partition of the property of the deceased@ that no partition of the property of the deceased had !een made during the lifetime of the deceased@ that the property descri!ed in 5"hi!it A attached to the motion of the oppositors was the e"clusive and a!solute property of the petitioner, who had for more than forty years !een in the uiet, pu!lic, and e"clusive possession of the same, as owner@ and prayed that the motion of the oppositors is denied# .**/E$

1# +as the appeal from the decision of the lower court perfected within the time re uired !y law; 3# Did the court a quo commit an error in refusing to appoint and administrator for the estate of -aturnino )ule, deceased;

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B 0ELD$ Upon the issue thus presented, the $onora!le 'udge, revo,ed the appointment of the special administrator and ordered him to render an account# On the same day, the $onora!le Judge denied the appointment of an administrator, and suggested to the petitioner that within thirty days from that date he should amend his petition and present an ordinary action for the partition of the property of the estate of the deceased, and in case he should fail to do so it would !e understood that the petition for the appointment of an administrator is denied# Upon the second uestion, it may !e said 8 a9 that it is admitted !y all of the parties to the present action, that at the time of his death no de!ts e"isted against his estate and 8b9 that all of the heirs of -aturnino )ule were of age# :n this 'urisdiction and !y virtue of the provisions of articles 0.<, 0./ and 001 of the (ivil (ode, all of the property, real and personal, of a deceased person who dies intestate, is transmitted immediately to his heirs# +hen the heirs are all of lawful age and there are no de!ts there is no reason why the estate should !e !urdened with the cost and e"penses of an administrator# The administrator has no right to intervene in any way whatsoever in the division of the estate among the heirs when they are adults and when there are no de!ts against the estate# +hen there are no de!ts and the heirs are all adults, their relation to the property left !y their ancestor is the same as that of any other co*owners in common, and they may recover their individual rights, the same as any other co*owners of undivided property# And even when there are de!ts against the estate, the heirs, all !eing of age, may pay the de!ts and divide the property among themselves according to their respective rights, as heirs or as legatees in case of a will, without pro!ating the same, and the effect of such division is to invest each party with a complete e uita!le title to their particular share of the estate# The right of the heirs in cases li,e the one we are discussing, also e"ists in the division of personal as well as the real property# :f they cannot agree as to the division, then a suit for partition of such personal property among the heirs of the deceased owner is maintaina!le where the estate is not in de!t, the heirs are all of age, and there is no administration upon the estate and no necessity

thereof# :t is difficult to conceive of any one class or item of property suscepti!le of !eing held in common which may not !e divided !y the co* owners# :t may !e of personal property as well as of real estate@ of several parcels as well as of a single parcel, and of non*contiguous as well as of ad'acent tracts@ or of part only of the lands of the co*owners as well as of the whole#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B JURADO* Delatado REYE* vs. BARRE%%O-DA%/ G.R. No. L- 58 8 (a,)ar4 26, !65 "ha#ter$ %o#&c$ E''ect o' .,cl)s&o, o' .,tr)der &, 8art&t&o, -A"%*$ Bi!iano Barretto was married to &aria Aerardo# During their lifetime they ac uired a vast estate, consisting of real properties in &anila, %ampanga, and Bulacan# +hen Bi!iano died, he left his share of these properties in a will to -alud Barretto, mother of plaintiffBs wards, and >ucia &ilagros Barretto and a small portion as legacies to his two sisters Rosa and )elisa and his nephews and nieces# Usufruct was reserved for his widow# The widow then prepared a pro'ect of partition which she signed in her own !ehalf, and as guardian of the minor &ilagros# This was approved !y (): &anila# As a conse uence, -alud Barretto too, immediate possession of her share and secured the cancellation of the originals and the issuance of new titles in her own name# Upon the widowCs death, it was discovered that she had e"ecuted two wills, in the first of which, she instituted -alud and &ilagros as her heirs@ and, in the second, she revo,ed the same and left all her properties in favor of &ilagros alone# Thus, the later will was allowed and the first re'ected# %laintiff then filed an action for the recovery of one*half portion of properties left for them under Bi!ianoCs will# This action afforded the defendant an opportunity to set up her right of ownership, not only of the fishpond under litigation, !ut

of all the other properties willed and delivered to -alud, for !eing a spurious heir, and not entitled to any share in the estate of Bi!iano, there!y directly attac,ing the validity, not only of the pro'ect of partition, !ut of the decision of the court !ased thereon# The defendant contends that the %ro'ect of %artition from which -alud ac uired the fishpond in uestion is void a! initio# This was !ased on Article 1?=1 of the (ivil (ode of 1==/: A partition in which a person was believed to be an heir, without being so, has been included, shall be null and void. (): re'ected plaintiffCs contention that since Bi!iano was free to dispose of one*third 81D49 of his estate under the old (ivil (ode, his will was valid in favor of -alud to the e"tent, at least, of such free part# And it concluded that, as defendant &ilagros was the only true heir of Bi!iano Barretto, she was entitled to recover from -alud, and from the latterBs children and successors, all the %roperties received !y her from Bi!ianoBs estate, in view of the provisions of Art 1E.0 of the new (ivil (ode esta!lishing that property ac uired !y fraud or mista,e is held !y its ac uirer in implied trust for the real owner#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B .**/E$ 1# +O2 the partition !etween -alud and &ilagros in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Bi!iano is void# 3# +O2 there was preterition; 0ELD$ 1# 2O The agreement of partition was not only ratified !y the courtBs decree of distri!ution, !ut actually consummated, so much so that the titles in the name of the deceased were cancelled, and new certificates issued in favor of the heirs, long !efore the decree was attac,ed# The only instance that we can thin, of in which a party interested in a pro!ate proceeding may have a final li uidation set aside is when he is left out !y reason of circumstances !eyond his control or through mista,e or inadvertence not imputa!le to negligence# 5ven then, the !etter practice to secure relief is reopening of the same case by proper motion within the reglementary period , instead of an independent action the effect of which, if successful, would !e, for another court or 'udge to throw out a decision or order already final and e"ecuted and reshuffle properties long ago distri!uted and disposed of# Art# 1?=1 has !een misapplied# -alud admittedly had !een instituted heir in the late

Bi!iano BarrettoBs last will and testament together with defendant &ilagros@ hence, the partition had !etween them could not !e one such had with a party who was !elieved to !e an heir without really !eing one, and was not null and void under said article# 3# 2O# The fact that &ilagros was allotted in her fatherBs will a share smaller than her legitime does not invalidate the institution of -alud as heir# There was no preterition, or total ommission of a forced heir#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B TO>52T:2O*Delatado ABANGAN v ABANGAN 46 8h&l 456 "ha#ter$ 2 *ect&o, $ *)3sect&o, 7 %o#&c$ 9.LL*- -ORM* O- 9.LL* -A"%*$ On -eptem!er 1/, 1/1<, (): of (e!u admitted to pro!ate Ana A!anganBs will e"ecuted July, 1/10# )rom this decision the opponents appealed# The will consists of 3 sheets# The first contains all the disposition of the testatri", duly signed at the !ottom !y &artin &ontal!an and !y three witnesses# The following sheet contains only the attestation clause duly signed at the !ottom !y the three instrumental witnesses# 2either of these sheets is signed on the left margin !y the testatri" and the three witnesses, nor num!ered !y letters# These omissions, according to appellantsB contention, are defects where!y the pro!ate of the will should have !een denied# .**/E$ +hether or not the will was duly admitted to pro!ate# 0ELD$

F5-# :n re uiring that each and every sheet of the will !e signed on the left margin !y the testator and three witnesses in the presence of each other, Act 2o# 30E. evidently has for its o!'ect the avoidance of su!stitution of any of said sheets which may change the disposition of the testatri"# :n a will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the !ottom !y the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also at the !ottom !y the three witnesses, it is not necessary that !oth sheets !e further signed on their margins !y the testator and the witnesses, or !e paged# The o!'ect of the solemnities surrounding the e"ecution of wills is to close the door against !ad faith and fraud, to avoid su!stitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity# Therefore the laws on this su!'ect should !e 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 o!'ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e"ercise of the right to ma,e a will# -o when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing !ut demands more re uisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustration of the testatorBs last will, must !e disregarded# DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B

TO>52T:2O* Delatado GON2ALE2 vs# LA/REL G.R. No. L- !05! (a,)ar4 6, !27 "ha#ter$ 2 *ect&o, $ *)3sect&o, 7 %o#&c$ 9.LL*- -ORM* O- 9.LL* -A"%*$ By an order dated Decem!er 10, 1/31, the (ourt of )irst :nstance of Batangas allowed the document, to pro!ate as the last will and testament of the deceased &aria Tapia, thus granting the petition of %rimitivo ># Aon6ale6 and overruling the opposition presented !y Jovita >aurel# Jovita >aurel now appeals to this court from that ruling of the court !elow, alleging that court erred: 1# The supposed will of the deceased &aria Tapia y (astillo, was e"ecuted with the solemnities prescri!ed !y the law, notwithstanding that there was

no proof of the dialect ,nown !y the said deceased and of the fact that it was the same in which said was written# 3# :n not holding that the signatures of &aria Tapia appearing had !een o!tained through deceit, surprise, fraud, and in an illegal and improper manner# 4# :t was o!tained through unlawful pressure, influence and machinations of the applicant, %rimitivo ># Aon6ale6, one of the legatees, in connivance with Attorney &odesto (astillo# E# :n not finding that the deceased &aria Tapia was physically and mentally incapacitated at the time she is said to have e"ecuted# .# A valid and authentic and allowing it to pro!ate as the will and testament of the deceased &aria Tapia y (astillo# The deceased &aria Tapia was a resident of the %rovince of Batangas, a Tagalog region, where said deceased had real properties for several years# :t also appears that she re uested &odesto (astillo to draw her will in Tagalog# )rom the record ta,en as a whole, a presumption arises that said &aria Tapia ,new the Tagalog dialect, which presumption is now conclusive for not having !een overthrown nor re!utted#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B .**/E$ +hether or not the testatri" acted voluntarily and with full ,nowledge in e"ecuting and signing the will# 0ELD$ The preponderance of evidence in this respect is that said document was e"ecuted and signed !y &aria Tapia voluntarily and with full ,nowledge, without fraud, deceit, surprise, or undue influence or machinations of any!ody, she !eing then mentally capacitated and free# -uch is the fact esta!lished !y the evidence, which we have carefully e"amined#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B

TO>52T:2O* Delatado REYE* vs. 2/:.GA 1DA. DE 1.DAL G.R. No. L-2862 A#r&l 2 , !62 "ha#ter$ 2 *ect&o, $ *)3sect&o, 7 %o#&c$ 9.LL*- -ORM* O- 9.LL* -A"%*$ On 2ovem!er 0, 1/E., a petition for the pro!ate of said will was filed in the (ourt of )irst :nstance of &anila# On Decem!er 31, 1/E., Dolores GuHiga 7da# de 7idal, sister of the deceased, filed an opposition !ased on several grounds# And, after several days of trial, at which !oth parties presented their respective evidence, the court rendered its decision disallowing the will on the ground that the signatures of the deceased appearing therein are not genuine, that it was not proven that the deceased ,new the -panish language in which it was written, and that even if the signatures are genuine, the same reveal that the deceased was not of sound mind when she signed the will# )rom this decision petitioner appealed to this (ourt#

.**/E$ 19 +hether or not the signatures of the deceased appearing in the will are genuine 39 +hether or not there is evidence to show that the testatri" ,new the language in which the will was written 49 +hether or not the testatri" was of sound and disposing mind when she signed the will# 0ELD$ 1# To prove that the will was signed !y the testatri" in accordance with law, petitioner presented as witnesses the three persons who attested to the e"ecution of the will# These witnesses are: (ornelia Aon6ales de Romero, Iuintin Ulpindo and (onsuelo B# de (atindig# These witnesses testified in their own simple and natural way that the deceased signed the will seated on her !ed !ut over a small ta!le placed near the !ed in their presence, and after she had signed it in the places where her signatures appear, they in turn signed it in the presence and in the presence of each other# The standards should, if possi!le, have !een made !y the same time as the suspected document# :t is prefera!le that the standards em!raced the time of the origin of the document, so that one part comes from the time after the origin# :f possi!le less than five or si" signatures should always !e e"amined and prefera!ly dou!le that num!er# DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B 3# Another ground on which the lower court !ase the disallowance of the will is the failure of the petitioner to prove that the testratri" ,new and spo,e the language in which the will in uestion appears to have !een written# According to the lower court, the law re uires that the will should !e written in the dialect or language ,nown to the testator and this fact having !een proven, the pro!ate of the will must fail# And the w:ll was disallowed# 4# The remaining ground which the lower court has considered in disallowing the will is the fact that the deceased was not of sound and disposing mind when she signed the will, and it reached this conclusion, not !ecause of any direct evidence on the matter, !ut simply !ecause the deceased signed the will in a somewhat varied form# They do not reveal a condition of forgery or lac, of genuineness# These differences or irregularities are common in the writings of old people and, far from showing lac, of genuineness, are indicative of the age, sic,ness, or wea, condition of the writer# A comparison of the three disputed signatures in the will readily give this impression#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B

TO>52T:2O* Delatado %estate Estate o' 8&la#&l GR No. L-45!7 (),e 25, !4 "ha#ter$ 2 *ect&o, $ *)3sect&o, 7 %o#&c$ 9.LL*- -ORM* O- 9.LL* -A"%*$ The pro!ate of the will was opposed on the ground that the w i l l w a s n o t p r o p e r l y p a g e d a s i t w a s num!ered with letters# At the foot of the 1st page appears Jpase ala 3K 8pass on to the 3 nd page9# The !ottom of the 3nd page also has the phrase Jpase ala 4K 8pass on the 4rd

page9# The third page contains the will Jis comprised of 3articles, containing 10 dispositions and written in 4 pages# .**/E$ +hether or not the will must !e duly admitted for pro!ate# 0ELD$ T h e w i l l m u s t ! e a d m i t t e d f o r p r o ! a t e # T h e paging in this case was a sufficient compliance with the law# :t is sufficient that the num!er of pages can !e identified# :ndeed, the will in this case, as stated in the 4rd page, contains no more, no less than 3 articles, containing 10 dispositions and written in 4 pages#

DELA%ADO, 1ANE**A (OY, R. LLB ...-B