57- MANUEL L. LEE, Complainant versus ATTY. REG N! ". TAM"AG!, Respon#ent $A.C. No.

o. 5%&', (e)ruar* '%, %++&, C!R!NA ,.T!. C/ Formal Requisites of a Will, The Notary Public 0!CTR NE/ As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to faithfully obser e the formalities of a will and those of notari!ation" These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the degree of importance and e identiary weight attached to notari!ed documents" A notary public, especially a lawyer, is bound to strictly obser e these elementary requirements" (ACT1/ '. #omplainant $anuel %" %ee charged respondent Atty" Regino &" Tambago with iolation of the Notarial %aw and the ethics of the legal profession for notari!ing a spurious last will and testament %. #omplainant a erred that his father, the decedent 'icente %ee, (r") a" Ne er e*ecuted the contested will b" The spurious will contained the forged signatures of #ayetano Noynay and %oreto +ra,o, the purported witnesses to its e*ecution c" The residence certificate of the testator noted in the acknowledgment of the will was dated -anuary ., /012

d" The signature of the testator was not the same as his signature as donor in a deed of donation 3containing his purported genuine signature4 e" The absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported witnesses Noynay and +ra,o f" No copy of such purported will was on file in the archi es di ision of the Records $anagement and Archi es 5ffice of the National #ommission for #ulture and the Arts 3N##A4 2. 6n the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife %im 7ock %ee, sa e for a parcel of land which he de ised to 'icente %ee, -r" and 8lena %ee, half9 siblings of complainant 3. Respondent claimed that the complaint against him contained false allegations" 7e alleged that) a" The complainant was not a legitimate son of 'icente %ee, (r" b" The last will and testament was alidly e*ecuted and actually notari!ed by respondent per affida it of +loria Nebato, common9law wife of 'icente %ee, (r" and corroborated by the ,oint affida itof the children of 'icente %ee, (r", namely 8lena N" %ee and 'icente N" %ee, -r" c" The complaint was filed simply to harass him because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the 5ffice of the 5mbudsman :did not prosper";

d" The complainant had no alid cause of action against him as he 3complainant4 did not first file an action for the declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the inheritance" 5. The #ourt referred the case to the 6ntegrated &ar of the Philippines 36&P4 for in estigation, report and recommendation" 4. The in estigating commissioner found respondent guilty of iolation of pertinent pro isions of the old Notarial %aw as found in the Re ised Administrati e #ode" 7. The iolation constituted an infringement of legal ethics 11UE '/ Whether there was a iolation of the Notarial %aw 11UE %/ Whether respondent was under the legal obligation to furnish a copy of the notari!ed will to the archi es di ision 5EL0 '/ YE1 &. 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" A will may either be notarial or holographic" 6. The law pro ides for certain formalities that must be followed in the e*ecution of wills" The ob,ect of solemnities surrounding the e*ecution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to a oid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity
2

'+. 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" 6n addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another ''. The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and +ra,o" 5n this circumstance alone, the will must be considered oid" This is in consonance with the rule that acts e*ecuted against the pro isions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be oid, e*cept when the law itself authori!es their alidity" '%. The #i il #ode likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" '2. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was segregated from the other requirements under Article <=. and embodied in a distinct and separate pro ision '3. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has e*ecuted a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed" 6t in ol es an e*tra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to the notary public that the same is his or her own free act and deed" The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two9fold purpose) 3/4 to safeguard the testator>s wishes long after his demise and 324 to assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done"

'5. A cursory e*amination 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 +ra,o in the acknowledgment" (imilarly, the notation of the testator>s old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law" These omissions by respondent in alidated the will" '4. As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to faithfully obser e the formalities of a will and those of notari!ation" '7. These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the degree of importance and e identiary weight attached to notari!ed documents" A notary public, especially a lawyer, is bound to strictly obser e these elementary requirements" '&. The Notarial %aw then in force required the e*hibition of the residence certificate upon notari!ation of a document or instrument '6. 6n 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 ta*es for the current year" &y ha ing allowed decedent to e*hibit an e*pired residence certificate, respondent failed to comply with the requirements of both the old Notarial %aw and the Residence Ta* Act" As much could be said of his failure to demand the e*hibition of the residence certificates of Noynay and +ra,o"

%+. Article <=1" 8 ery will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witness" T7e notar* pu)li8 s7all not )e re9uire# to retain a 8op* o: t7e ;ill, or :ile anot7er ;it7 t7e o::i8e o: t7e Cler< o: Court. %'. Respondent>s failure, inad ertent or not, to file in the archi es di ision a copy of the notari!ed will was therefore not a cause for disciplinary action" %%. Ne ertheless, respondent should be faulted for ha ing failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register" %2. 6n an effort to pro e that he had complied with the abo ementioned 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 certification stating that the archi es di ision had no copy of the affida it of &artolome Ramire!" %3. A photocopy is a mere secondary e idence" 6t is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is una ailable" Thus, the photocopy of respondent>s notarial register was not admissible as e idence of the entry of the e*ecution of the will because it failed to comply with the requirements for the admissibility of secondary e idence"

%5. 6n the same ein, respondent>s attempt to contro ert the certification dated (eptember 2/, /000 must fail" Not only did he present a mere photocopy of the certification dated $arch /., 2===? its contents did not squarely pro e the fact of entry of the contested will in his notarial register" %4. Notaries public must obser e with utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notari!ed deeds will be undermined" %7. @efects in the obser ance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will in alid" %&. Respondent must be held accountable for his acts" The alidity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty" %6. Atty" Regino &" Tambago is hereby 1U1.EN0E0 from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission RE=!>E0" &ecause he has not li ed up to the trustworthiness e*pected of him as a notary public and as an officer of the court, he is .ER.ETUALLY 0 1?UAL ( E0 from reappointment as a notary public"

THE PEOPLE OF THE PH L PP NE!, P"a#n$#%%-&''(""((, ). L* ! TO !&N PE+RO, E$ &"., &,,u-(.. &RTE/ O 0&N&! H&N, +(%(n.an$-&''(""an$. TOP 12 H. The Notary Public, ART 806 +O1TR NE2 The documentary stam may be a!!i"ed at the time the ta"able document is resented in e#idence. $! the romissory note does not bear a documentary stam , the court should ha#e allo%ed lainti!!&s tender o! a stam to su ly the de!iciency. The lac' o! the documentary stam on a document does not in#alidate such document. N&T*RE2 Petition !or mandamus F&1T!2 1. This case is about the dismissal o! a etition !or the robate o! a notarial %ill on the (round that it does not bear a thirty)centa#o documentary stam . 2. The *+$ o! *ami(uin in its ,decision, o! -ecember 28, 1.// in 0 ecial Proceedin( !or the robate o! the %ill o! the late Ro(aciano 1abucan, dismissed the roceedin( 2erroneously characteri3es as an ,action,4. 3. $t %as dismissed because the re5uisite documentary stam %as not a!!i"ed to the notarial ac'no%led(ment in the %ill and, hence, accordin( to res ondent 6ud(e, it %as not admissible in e#idence, citin( section 238 o! the Ta" *ode, no% section 270 o! the 1.// Ta" *ode, %hich reads8 09*. 238. 9!!ect o! !ailure to stam ta"able document. : An instrument, document, or a er %hich is re5uired by la% to be stam ed and %hich has been si(ned, issued, acce ted, or trans!erred %ithout bein( duly stam ed, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any co y thereo! or any record o! trans!er o! the same be admitted or used in e#idence in any court until the re5uisite stam or stam s shall ha#e been a!!i"ed thereto and cancelled. ;. No notary ublic or other o!!icer authori3ed to administer oaths shall add his <urat or ac'no%led(ment to any document sub<ect to documentary

58 - [G.R. No. L-44274. January 22, 1980.]

stam ta" unless the ro er documentary stam s are a!!i"ed thereto and cancelled. 7. The robate court assumed that the notarial ac'no%led(ment o! the said %ill is sub<ect to the thirty)centa#o documentary stam ta" !i"ed in section 227 o! the Ta" *ode, no% section 23/ o! the 1.// Ta" *ode. 6. Res ondent 6ud(e re!used to reconsider the dismissal in s ite o! etitioner&s mani!estation that he had already attached the documentary stam to the ori(inal o! the %ill. /. The case %as brou(ht to this *ourt by means o! a etition !or mandamus to com el the lo%er court to allo% etitioner&s a eal !rom its decision. !!*E2 =hether or not the lo%er court erred in the dismissal o! a etition !or the robate o! a notarial %ill on the (round that it does not bear a thirty) centa#o documentary stam . HEL+2 NO. 8. =e hold that the lo%er court mani!estly erred in declarin( that, because no documentary stam %as a!!i"ed to the %ill, there %as ,no %ill and testament to robate, and, conse5uently, the alle(ed ,action must o! necessity be dismissed,. .. =hat the robate court should ha#e done %as to re5uire the etitioner or ro onent to a!!i" the re5uisite thirty)centa#o documentary stam to the notarial ac'no%led(ment o! the %ill %hich is the ta"able ortion o! that document. 10. That rocedure may be im lied !rom the ro#ision o! section 238 that the non)admissibility o! the document, %hich does not bear the re5uisite documentary stam , subsists only ,until the re5uisite stam or stam s shall ha#e been a!!i"ed thereto and cancelled., 11. =H9R9+>R9, the lo%er court&s dismissal o! the etition !or robate is re#ersed and set aside. $t is directed to decide the case on the merits in the li(ht o! the arties& e#idence. No costs.

To ic8 Notary Public 59. Ja)(""ana )-. L(.(-3a 4G.R. No. L-7179. 50 Jun( 19556 +o,$r#n(2 The subse5uent si(nin( and sealin( by the notary o! his certi!ication that the testament %as duly ac'no%led(ed by the artici ants therein is no art o! the ac'no%led(ement itsel! nor o! the testamentary act. Hence their se arate e"ecution out o! the resence o! the testatri" and her %itnesses cannot be said to #iolate the rule that testaments should be com leted %ithout interru tion.

Fa,$-2 1. The *+$ o! $loilo admitted to robate a %ill and codicil e"ecuted by the deceased A olinaria ?edesma in 6uly 1.73. This testament %as deemed e"ecuted on @ay 1.70 and @ay 1.72. The contestant %as the sister and nearest sur#i#in( relati#e o! the deceased. 0he a ealed !rom this decision alle(in( that the %ill %ere not e"ecuted in accordance %ith la%. 2. The testament %as e"ecuted at the house o! the testatri". >ne the other hand, the codicil %as e"ecuted a!ter the enactment o! the Ne% *i#il *ode 2N**4, and there!ore had to be ac'no%led(ed be!ore a notary ublic. No%, the contestant, %ho ha ens to be one o! the instrumental %itnesses asserted that a!ter the codicil %as si(ned and attested at the 0an Pablo hos ital, that 1imotea 2the notary4 si(ned and sealed it on the same occasion. 1imotea, ho%e#er, said that he did not do so, and that the act o! si(nin( and sealin( %as done a!ter%ards. 3. >ne o! the alle(ations %as that the certi!icate o! ac'no%led(ement to the codicil %as si(ned some%here else or in the o!!ice o! the notary. The i" and the %itnesses at the 7

hos ital, %as si(ned and sealed by the notary only %hen he brou(ht it in his o!!ice. --u(7H(".2 =hether or not the si(nin( and sealin( o! the %ill or codicil in the absence o! the testator and %itnesses a!!ects the #alidity o! the %ill ) N>

si(natures and the #oluntariness o! their actions in e"ecutin( the testamentary dis osition. 3. This %as done in this case. The subse5uent si(nin( and sealin( by the notary o! his certi!ication that the testament %as duly ac'no%led(ed by the artici ants therein is no art o! the ac'no%led(ment itsel! nor o! the testamentary act. Hence their se arate e"ecution out o! the resence o! the testatri" and her %itnesses cannot be said to #iolate the rule that testaments should be com leted %ithout interru tion. $t is note%orthy that Article 806 o! the ne% *i#il *ode does not contain %ords re5uirin( that the testator and the %itnesses should ac'no%led(e the testament on the same day or occasion that it %as e"ecuted.
80 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE WILL OF GREGORIO GATCHALIAN, deceased. PEDRO REYES GARCIA, petitioner-appellant, vs. FELIPE GATCHALIAN, AURORA G. CAMINS, ANGELES G. COSCA, FEDERICO G. TUBOG, VIRGINIA G. TALANAY and ANGELES G. TALANAY, oppositors-appellees. [G.R. N . L!"#$%& N 'e()e* "%, +,-&.

Ra$#o2 1. The instrumental %itnesses 2%ho ha en to be the same ones %ho attested the %ill o! 1.704 asserted that a!ter the codicil had been si(ned by the testatri" and the %itnesses at the 0an Pablo Hos ital, the same %as si(ned and sealed by notary ublic 1imotea on the same occasion. >n the other hand, 1imotea a!!irmed that he did not do so, but brou(ht the codicil to his o!!ice, and si(ned and sealed it there. The #ariance does not necessarily im ly conscious er#ersion o! truth on the art o! the %itnesses, but a ears rather due to a %ell)established henomenon, the tendency o! the mind, in recallin( ast e#ents, to substitute the usual and habitual !or %hat di!!ers sli(htly !rom it. 2. =hether or not the notary si(ned the certi!ication o! ac'no%led(ment in the resence o! the testatri" and the %itnesses, does not a!!ect the #alidity o! the codicil. The ne% *i#il *ode does not re5uire that the si(nin( o! the testator, %itnesses and notary should be accom lished in one sin(le act. A com arison o! Articles 807 and 806 o! the ne% *i#il *ode re#eals that %hile testator and %itnesses si(n in the resence o! each other, all that is therea!ter re5uired is that ,e#ery %ill must be ac'no%led(ed be!ore a notary ublic by the testator and the %itnesses, 2Art. 8064A i.e., that the latter should a#o% to the certi!yin( o!!icer the authenticity o! their 6

T /0c1 V. H. T2e N 3a*4 P5)60c D c3*0ne1 T2e a33es30n7 803nesses (5s3 ac9n 86ed7e 32e 8066 )e: *e a n 3a*4 /5)60c Fac3s1 1. This is an appeal taken by Pedro Reyes Garcia from the decision of the CFI of Ri al in denyin! the allo"ance of the "ill of the late Gre!orio Gatchalian, on the !ro#nd that the a33es30n7 803nesses d0d n 3 ac9n 86ed7e 03 )e: *e a n 3a*4 /5)60c, as re$#ired by la". %. G*e7 *0 Ga3c2a60an, a "ido"er of &1 years of a!e, died in Pasi!, Ri al, 6ea'0n7 n : *ced 2e0*s. '. A//e66an3 :06ed a /e3030 n : * 32e /* )a3e of said alle!ed "ill "herein he "as instit#ted as sole heir.

(. Felipe Gatchalian, )#rora G. Camins, )n!eles G. Cosca, Federico G. T#bo!, *ir!inia G. Talanay and )n!eles G. Talanay, a//e66ees 2e*e0n, // sed the petition on the !ro#nd, amon! others+ a. that the "ill "as proc#red by fra#d, b. that the deceased did not intend the instr#ment si!ned by him to be as his "ill, c. and that the deceased "as physically and mentally incapable of makin! a "ill at the time of the alle!ed e-ec#tion of said "ill. %. The co#rt rendered the appealed decision findin! the doc#ment to be the a532en30c 6as3 8066 of the deceased )53 d0sa66 80n7 03 : * :a065*e 3 c (/64 8032 32e (anda3 *4 *e;50*e(en3 : A*30c6e <#: 32e Ne8 C0'06 C de = 32a3 32e 8066 (5s3 )e ac9n 86ed7ed )e: *e a n 3a*4 /5)60c )4 32e 3es3a3 * and 32e 803nesses. a. )n e-amination of the doc#ment sho"s that 32e sa(e 8as ac9n 86ed7ed )e: *e a n 3a*4 /5)60c )4 32e 3es3a3 * )53 n 3 )4 32e 0ns3*5(en3a6 803nesses. Iss5e>s1 WON 03 0s 32e a33es30n7 803nesses 82 (5s3 ac9n 86ed7e 32e 8066 )e: *e a n 3a*4 /5)60c? He6d1 YES R560n71 '. )rticle ./0 of the 1e" Civil Code reads as follo"s+ E'e*4 8066 (5s3 )e ac9n 86ed7ed )e: *e a n 3a*4 /5)60c )4 32e 3es3a3 * and 32e 803nesses. T2e n 3a*4 /5)60c s2a66 n 3 )e *e;50*ed 3 *e3a0n a c /4 : 32e 8066, * :06e an 32e* 8032 32e ::0ce : 32e C6e*9 : C 5*3. (. 2e have held heretofore 32a3 c (/60ance 8032 32e *e;50*e(en3 c n3a0ned 0n 32e a) 'e 6e7a6 /* '0s0 n 3 32e e::ec3 32a3 a 8066 (5s3 )e ac9n 86ed7ed )e: *e a n 3a*4 /5)60c )4 32e 3es3a3 * and a6s )4 32e 803nesses 0s 0nd0s/ensa)6e : * 03s 'a60d034. 3. )s the doc#ment #nder consideration does not comply "ith this re$#irement, it is obvio#s that the sa(e (a4 n 3 )e /* )a3ed.

A@apita CruA vs. 5on. ,u#@e Guillermo =illasor B Manuel Lu@a* No. L-2%%'2 C%4 Novem)er '672D
-+ !

Topi8/ 7" The Notary Public 0o8trine/ Art" <=1 requires that the testator and the three 3A4 witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public" The function of a notary public is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements" That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting witnesses" For then he would be interested in sustaining the alidity of the will as it directly in ol es himself and the alidity of his own act" 6t would place him in an inconsistent position and the ery purpose of the acknowledgement, which is to minimise fraud would be thwarted" (a8ts/ /" Agapita #ru!, sur i ing spouse of 'alente #ru!, opposed the allowance of the will alleging that) a4 the will was e*ecuted through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence? b4 the instrument was e*ecuted without the testator ha ing been fully informed of the contents, particularly as to what properties he was disposing? and c4 the supposed last will and testament was not e*ecuted in accordance with law 3i"e" Arts" <=. and <=1 of the #i il #ode4" 9 The instrumental witnesses namely, @eogracias -amaoas, -r", @r" Francisco Panares, and Atty" Angel Te es, -r"? Atty Te es, -r", one of the witnesses, is at the same time the Notary Public
/

before whom the will was supposed to ha e been acknowledged" 2" Regardless of Agapita>s ob,ections, the #F6 of #ebu allowed the probate of the last will and testament" 9 They ruled that there was substantial compliance with the legal requirement of ha ing at least A attesting witnesses e en if the Notary Public acted as one of them" ssue/ Whether the will is alid in accordance with Articles <=. and <=1 of the #i il #ode" 5el#/ The (upreme #ourt had ruled that the will is not alid" 9 They reasoned that the Notary Public cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his ha ing signed the will" 9 An acknowledging officer, such as the Notary Public, cannot ser e as a witness as the same time" To acknowledge before means to a ow? to own as genuine, to assent, to admit? and :before; means in front or preceding in space or ahead of" 9 6f the third witness were the Notary Public, he would ha e to a ow, assent, or admit his ha ing signed the will in front of himself" The Notary Public cannot do this because he cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to
8

acknowledge his participation in the making of the will" To permit such a situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity" Also, the function of a Notary Public is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements" That function would be defeated if the Notary Public were one of the attesting witnesses" For then he would be interested in sustaining the alidity of the will as it directly in ol es himself and the alidity of his own act" 6t would place him in an inconsistent position and the ery purpose of the acknowledgement, which is to minimise fraud would be thwarted" To allow the Notary Public to as the third witness, or one of the attesting and acknowledging witnesses, would ha e the effect of ha ing only 2 attesting witnesses to the will" 9 This would be in contra ention of the pro isions of Article <=. 3requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as such4 and of Article <=1 3which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will4"

0%. Garcia v *as$#e

REV. FATHER LUCIO V. GARCIA, ANTONIO JESUS DE PRAGA, MARIA NATIVIDAD DE JESUS AND DR. JAIME ROSARIO, Petitioners, v. HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, as Judge ! "#e C u$" ! F%$s" I&s"a&'e ! Ma&%(a, )$a&'# a&d CONSUELO GONZALES VDA. DE PRECILLA,Respondents.

Reyes, 4.5.6., 4. --- )pril '/, 17&/ 8T"o "ills alle!edly e-ec#ted by the decedent "ho s#ffered from poor eyesi!ht.

T9PIC+ *. Formal Re$#irements 9f ) 2ill :pecial Re$#irements For ;andicapped Testators, )RT ./&, ./. <9CTRI1=+ If the testator be blind, the "ill shall be read to him t"ice, once by one of the s#bscribin! "itnesses, and a!ain by the notary p#blic before "hom the "ill is ackno"led!ed. The aim of the la" is to ens#re that the dispositions of the "ill are properly comm#nicated to and #nderstood by the handicapped testator, th#s makin! them tr#ly reflective of his desire. Fac3s1 1. Gliceria )velino del Rosario died #nmarried, leavin! no descendants, ascendants, brother or sister. %. ;er niece, C ns5e6 S. G n@a6es G n@a6es 'da de P*ec066a :06ed a /e3030 n 3 32e C 5*3 : F0*s3 Ins3ance : Man06a : * 32e /* )a3e : 2e* AG60ce*0aB 6as3 8066 and 3es3a(en3 eCec53ed n Dece()e* ",, +,-#. '. Cons#elo also filed a petition for her appointment as special administratri- of the decedent>s estate val#ed at P1//,///. (. Se'e*a6 7* 5/s : a66e7ed 2e0*s // sed 32e /e3030 n. They contend that+ a? The instr#ment e-ec#ted "as not intended by the deceased to be her tr#e "ill, b? There "as a 1730 "ill e-ec#ted by Gliceria "ere the oppositors "ere named as le!atees. c? The si!nat#re of the deceased appearin! in the "ill "as proc#red thro#!h #nd#e and improper press#re and infl#ence on the part of the beneficiaries and@or other persons. d? The testatri- did not kno" the obAect of her bo#nty e? The instr#ment itself reveals irre!#larities in its e-ec#tion, and that the formalities. 3. It appears that G60ce*0a A. de6 R sa*0 eCec53ed 38 8066s1 ne n D5ne , +,%- c ns0s30n7 : +" /a7es and 8*033en 0n S/an0s2, a 6an75a7e 32a3 s2e 9ne8 and s/ 9e and an 32e*
.

ne da3ed Dece()e* ",, +,-# ,c ns0s30n7 : + /a7e and 8*033en 0n Ta7a6 7. 0. W03nesses : * 32e /e3030 ne* 3es30:0ed 32a3 + a? They "ere individ#ally re$#ested by the late h#sband of Cons#elo to "itness the e-ec#tion of the 170/ "ill, b? Gliceria at the time "as apparently of clear and so#nd mind. c? <oBa Gliceria "as be able to !reet her !#ests on her birthday, arran!e flo"ers and attend to kitchen tasks shortly prior to the alle!ed e-ec#tion of the 170/ "ill. :he "as also able to si!n checks. d? The "ill, "hich "as already prepared, "as first read CsilentlyC by the testatri- herself before she si!ned it, e? The three "itnesses thereafter si!ned the "ill in the presence of the testatri- and the notary p#blic and of one another. f? )fter the testatri- and the "itnesses to the "ill ackno"led!ed the instr#ment to be their vol#ntary act and deed, the notary asked for their respective residence certificates "hich "ere handed to him by Cons#eloDs h#sband, clipped to!ether. &. The c 5*3 *56ed 0n :a' * : C ns5e6 and 0ss5ed an *de* ad(0330n7 3 /* )a3e 32e +,-# 8066 : G60ce*0a A. de6 R sa*0 . .. The // s03 *s!a//e66an3s c n3end 32a3 n Dece()e* ",, +,-#, 32e e4es0723 : G60ce*0a 8as s / * and de:ec30'e 32a3 s2e c 56d n 3 2a'e *ead 32e /* '0s0 ns : 32e 8066. 7. D*. Des5s V. Ta(es0s, an ophthalmolo!ist, 3es30:0ed 32a3 G60ce*0aEs 6e:3 e4e s5::e*ed :* ( ca3a*ac3 0n +,-# 820c2 (ade 2e* '0s0 n (a0n64 : * '0e80n7 d0s3an3 )Fec3 )53 n 3 : * *ead0n7 /*0n3s. Iss5e1 2as the lo"er co#rt correct in allo"in! the probate of the 170/ "illE He6d1 1o, there is n e'0dence 32a3 G60ce*0aEs e4es0723 0(/* 'ed )4 Dece()e* ",, +,-# 32e*e: *e, s2e 8as 0nca/a)6e : *ead0n7, and c 56d n 3 2a'e *ead 32e /* '0s0 ns : 32e 8066 s5// sed64 s07ned )4 2e* n sa0d da3e. Dec0s0 n1 9rder of the co#rt reversed and set aside.

R560n71 1. 5ased on the testimony of <r. Tamesis, des/03e 32e /e*a30 n and *e( 'a6 : 32e ca3a*ac3 0n G60ce*0aEs 6e:3 e4e and 2e* )e0n7 :033ed 8032 a/2a90c 6ens A5sed )4 ca3a*ac3 /a30en3sB, 2e* '0s0 n *e(a0ned (a0n64 : * '0e80n7 d0s3an3 )Fec3s and n 3 : * *ead0n7 /*0n3. %. It is "orth notin! that the instr#mental "itnesses stated that she read the instr#ment CsilentlyC "hich is a concl#sion and not a fact. '. The a//ea*ance : 32e +,-# 8066 ac;50*es s3*090n7 s07n0:0cance+ a? The testamentary provisions, the attestation cla#se and ackno"led!ement "ere crammed to!ether into a sin!le sheet of paper "hich means that it 8as n 3 /*e/a*ed 8032 an4 *e7a*d : * 32e de:ec30'e '0s0 n : 32e deceased. b? :everal typo!raphical errors remained #ncorrected indicatin! that 03s eCec530 n (5s3 2a'e )een c2a*ac3e*0@ed )4 2as3e. (. If Gliceria had act#ally retained the ability to read the said "ill, she "o#ld have noticed the errors mentioned. 3. Greetin! !#ests and "ritin! checks is not indicative of the ability to see at normal readin! distances. 0. Therefore, 32e C0'06 C de /* '0s0 n *e7a*d0n7 a )60nd 3es3a3 * 0s a//60ca)6e 0n 32e case1 A*3. <#<. I: 32e 3es3a3 * )e )60nd, 32e 8066 s2a66 )e *ead 3 20( 380ceG nce )4 ne : 32e s5)sc*0)0n7 803nesses, and a7a0n )4 32e n 3a*4 /5)60c )e: *e 82 ( 32e 8066 0s ac9n 86ed7ed. &. The aim of the la" is to ens5*e 32a3 32e d0s/ s030 ns : 32e 8066 a*e /* /e*64 c ((5n0ca3ed 3 and 5nde*s3 d )4 32e 2and0ca//ed 3es3a3 *, 325s (a90n7 32e( 3*564 *e:6ec30'e : 20s des0*e. There is n 320n7 n 32e *ec *ds 32a3 s2 8s c (/60ance 8032 32e *e;50s03es /* '0ded )4 A*3. <#< : 32e C0'06 C de. T20s 6eads 3 32e c nc65s0 n 32a3 32e +,-# 8066 s5::e*s :* ( 0n:0*(034 32a3 a::ec3s 03s d5e eCec530 n.

-$. In 32e Ma33e* : 32e P* )a3e : 32e Las3 W066 and Tes3a(en3 : 32e Deceased B*070d A6'a*ad , CESAR ALVARADO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, DR., P*es0d0n7 D5s30ce, HON. MA. ROSARIO HUETULIO LOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Ass c0a3e D5s30ces, In3e*(ed0a3e A//e66a3e C 5*3, F0*s3 D0'0s0 n AC0'06 CasesB, and BAYANI MA. RINO, respondents. [G.R. N . &I-,% Se/3e()e* +I, +,,$ BELLOSILLO, J.:. TOPIC1 Formal Re$#irements 9f ) 2ill - :pecial Re$#irements For ;andicapped Testators DOCTRINE1 The term FblindG applies to the testator in the present case for have poor, defective and bl#rred vision d#e to his !la#coma. )s for the re$#irement of the la", s#bstantial compliance may be allo"ed as lon! as it served the p#rpose of the re$#irement. NATURE1 )ppeal from C) decision FACTS1 1. &7-year old 5ri!ido )lvarado e-ec#ted a notarial "ill entitled C;#lin! ;abilinC "herein he disinherited an ille!itimate son petitioner Cesar )lvarado and e-pressly revoked a previo#sly e-ec#ted holo!raphic "ill at the time a"aitin! probate. %. The ' "itnesses, notary p#blic and 5ayani Ha. Rino "ho "as present at the time of the e-ec#tion of the "ill all testified that the testator did not read the final draft of the "ill himself a. It "as Rino as the la"yer "ho drafted the .-pa!ed doc#ment o#t lo#d in the presence of the testator, the three instr#mental "itnesses and the notary p#blic. b. The "itnesses and notary p#blic follo"ed the readin! "ith their o"n respective copies previo#sly f#rnished them %. 5ri!idoDs "ill "as admitted to probate and on the same month a codicil entitled CIas#latan n! Pa!baba!o sa Ilan! Pa!papasiya na 1asasaad sa ;#lin! ;abilin na may Petsa 1obiembre 3, 17&& ni 5ri!ido )lvaradoC "as e-ec#ted a. The codicil chan!ed some dispositins in the the notarial "ill to !enerate cash for the testator>s eye operation beca#se she "as s#fferin! from !la#coma

10

b. The disinheritance and revocatory cla#ses "ere #nchan!ed c. Testator did not read the final draft of the codicil and like the "ill it "as read o#t lo#d by Rino. '. Rino filed the probate of the notarial "ill, and Cesar )lvardo filed an 9pposition on the follo"in! !ro#nds+ a. the "ill so#!ht to be probated "as not e-ec#ted and attested as re$#ired by la", ). 32e 3es3a3 * 8as 0nsane * 32e*80se (en3a664 0nca/ac03a3ed 3 (a9e a 8066 a3 32e 30(e : 03s eCec530 n d5e 3 sen06034 and 6d a7e c. "ill "as e-ec#ted #nder d#ress, or infl#ence of fear and threats, that it "as proc#red by #nd#e and improper press#re and infl#ence on the part of the beneficiary "ho stands to !et the lion>s share of the testator>s estate, d. that the si!nat#re of the testator "as proc#red by fra#d or trick. (. RTC allo"ed the "ill to probate 3. C) r#led that 5ri!ido "as not FblindG at the time the "ill and codicil "ere e-ec#ted, the )rt ./. cannot apply a. ass#min! his blindness, the readin! *e;50*e(en3 : A*3. <#< 8as s5)s3an30a664 c (/60ed 8032 "hen both doc#ments "ere read alo#d to the testator "ith each of the three instr#mental "itnesses and the notary p#blic follo"in! the readin! "ith their respective copies of the instr#ments. ISSUE1 2hether 5ri!idoDs condition "o#ld fall as a FblindG testator #nder )rt. ./., th#s its re$#irements sho#ld be follo"edE HELD1 5ri!ido )lvarado "as not totally blind at the time the "ill and codicil "ere e-ec#ted, b#t )rticle ./. sho#ld apply to him and the re$#irements #nder )rticle ./. "as s#bstantially complied "ith. Petition denied. 1" 5ri!idoDs vision on both eyes "as only of Cco#ntin! fin!ers at three J'? feetC by reason of the !la#coma "hich he had been s#fferin! from for several years and even prior to his first cons#ltation "ith an eye specialist on 1( <ecember 17&&. &. 5ri!ido did not read the "ill so beca#se of his Cpoor,C Cdefective,C or Cbl#rredC vision makin! it necessary for Rino to do the act#al readin! for him .. Garcia vs. Vasquez+ the re$#irement of readin! the "ill 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 kno"n to him, so that he may be able to obAect if they are not in accordance "ith his "ishes . . .

7. 1/.

11.

1%.

a. A*3. <#< a//60es n 3 n64 3 )60nd 3es3a3 *s )53 a6s 3 32 se 82 , : * ne *eas n * an 32e*, a*e J0nca/a)6e : *ead0n7 32e0* 8066s In 32e /*esen3 case1 5ri!ido )lvarado comes "ithin the scope of the term CblindC as it is #sed in )rt. ./.. T2e PURPOSE : 32e *e;50*e(en3 : *ead0n7 32e 8066 380ce 3 32e 3es3a3 *s, once, by one of the instr#mental "itnesses and, a!ain, by the notary p#blic before "hom the "ill "as ackno"led!ed 0s 3 (a9e 9n 8n 3 32e 0nca/ac03a3ed 3es3a3 * 32e c n3en3s : 32e d c5(en3 )e: *e s07n0n7 and 3 70'e 20( an // *35n034 3 )Fec3 0: an4320n7 0s c n3*a*4 3 20s 0ns3*5c30 ns. In 32e /*esen3 case 32e *e;50*e(en3 : A*30c6e <#< 8as NOT s3*0c364 : 66 8ed )53 32e*e 8as SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIACE a. s#bstantial compliance is acceptable "here the p#rpose of the la" has been satisfied beca#se solemnities s#rro#ndin! the e-ec#tion of "ills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fra#d and trickery b#t are ne'e* 0n3ended 3 )e s *070d and 0n:6eC0)6e as 3 des3* 4 32e 3es3a(en3a*4 /*0'06e7e T2e : 66 80n7 :ac3s a33es3 3 32e s5)s3an30a6 c (/60ance1 a. Rino read the testator>s "ill and codicil alo#d in the presence of the testator, his three instr#mental "itnesses, and the notary p#blic. b. Prior and s#bse$#ent thereto, the testator affirmed, #pon bein! asked, that the contents read corresponded "ith his instr#ctions. 9nly after the testator si!ned and ackno"led!ed. c. it "as not only )tty. Rino "ho read the doc#ments, the notary p#blic and the three instr#mental "itnesses like"ise read the "ill and codicil, albeit silently. )ll of them asked the testator if the "ill "ere his "ishes to "hich he affirmed. d. The notary p#blic and "itnesses also read their o"n copies.

-I ! TESTATE es3a3e : Ca*6 s G06, deceased. ISABEL HERREROS VDA. DE GIL, administratri--appellee, vs. PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO, oppositor-appellant. G.R. N . L!$$-" 11 Ma*c2 +, +,%+ [D57 , D..

TOPIC1 R56e n S5)s3an30a6 C (/60ance DOCTRINE1 The fact that the attestation cla#se did not state that the alle!ed testator si!ned the "ill is a fatal defect. The precise p#rpose of the attestation cla#se is to certify that the testator si!ned the "ill, this bein! the most essential element of the cla#se. 2itho#t it there is no attestation at all It is said that the r#les of stat#tory constr#ction are applicable to doc#ments and "ills. This is tr#e, b#t said r#les apply to the body of the "ill, containin! the testamentary provisions, b#t not to the attestation cla#se, "hich m#st be so clear that it sho#ld not re$#ire any constr#ction. KPLEASE TALE NOTE1 2hile this may be the doctrine of the case, s#ch is no lon!er the r#le. The Resol#tion fo#nd herein is a restatement of the dissentin! opinion of 4. T#a on in this case.

0. The attestation cla#se does not state that the alle!ed testator si!ned the "ill. It declares only that it "as si!ned by the "itnesses &. The last of the compo#nd sentence is tr#ncated and meanin!less .. This defect is the main basis of the appellantDs sole assi!nment of error 7. The phrase Cha sido firmado por el testadorC or e$#ivalent e-pression bet"een the "ords Cdel mismoC and the "ords Cen n#estra presenciaC sho#ld be inserted if the sentence is to be complete and have sense

ISSUE1 2hether the s#bAect "ill may be probated altho#!h the attestation cla#se failed to state that the alle!ed testator si!ned the "ill HELD1 NO
1/. In the instant case, essential "ords "ere omitted

FACTS1
1. ) "ill "as presented for probate in 17(' "ith Roberto Toledo, decedentDs nephe", and Pilar Gil de H#rciano, decedentDs sister opposin! the application %. In 17(3, the "ill "as destroyed by fire or looters, necessitatin! its reconstit#tion '. In the probate proceedin! after liberation, the parties s#bmitted a statement of facts in "hich the "ill "as reprod#ced as copied in the record on appeal (. They a!reed that it is the tr#e and a correct copy 3. The "ill consisted of only t"o pa!es

11. The fact that the attestation cla#se did not state that the alle!ed testator si!ned the "ill is a fatal defect. The precise p#rpose of the attestation cla#se is to certify that the testator si!ned the "ill, this bein! the most essential element of the cla#se. 2itho#t it there is no attestation at all 1%. It is said that the r#les of stat#tory constr#ction are applicable to doc#ments and "ills. This is tr#e, b#t said r#les apply to the body of the "ill, containin! the testamentary provisions, b#t not to the attestation cla#se, "hich m#st be so clear that it sho#ld not re$#ire any constr#ction. 1'. The ri!ht to dispose of property by "ill is not nat#ral b#t stat#tory, and stat#tory re$#irements sho#ld be satisfied

12

Se/a*a3e O/0n0 ns TUAMON, J., dissentin! RESOLUTION Ma*c2 "#, +,%$ TUASON, J.1 1. The problem posed by the omission in $#estion is !overned, not by the la" of "ills "hich re$#ires certain formalities to be f#lfilled in the e-ec#tion, b#t by the r#les of constr#ction applicable to stat#tes and doc#ments in !eneral. %. W *ds (033ed :* ( a 8066 (a4 )e s5//60ed )4 32e c 5*3 "henever necessary to effect#ate the testator>s intention as e-pressed in the "ill+ b#t not "here the effect of insertin! the "ords in the "ill "o#ld alter or defeat s#ch intention, or chan!e the meanin! of "ords that are clear and #ne$#ivocal. '. W2en 32e a33es3a30 n c6a5se 0s s07ned )4 32e 803nesses 3 32e 0ns3*5(en3s, )es0des 32e 3es3a3 *, s5c2 a33es3a30 n c6a5se 0s 'a60d and c ns30353es a s5)s3an30a6 c (/60ance "ith the provisions of section 1 of )ct 1o. %0(3, e'en 32 572 32e :ac3s *ec03ed 0n sa0d a33es3a30 n c6a5se a//ea* 3 2a'e )een (ade )4 32e 3es3a3 * 20(se6:. (. If the "itnesses here p#rposely omitted or for!ot that the testator si!ned the "ill in their presence, the testator said that he did and the "itnesses by their si!nat#res in the "ill itself said it "as so. 1o e-traneo#s proof "as necessary and none "as introd#ced or taken into consideration. 3. T2e 8066 (a4 )e ad(033ed 3 /* )a3e.

-% ! TEODORO CANEDA, LORENMA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, DUAN CABALLERO, AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO, PABLO CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, HUIRICA RAGA, RUPERTO ABAPO, *e/*esen3ed 2e*e0n )4 20s A33 *ne4!0n!Fac3, ARMSTICIA K ABAPO VELANO, and CONSESO CANEDA, *e/*esen3ed 2e*e0n )4 20s 2e0*s, DESUS CANEDA, NATIVIDAD CANEDA and ARTURO CANEDA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as S/ec0a6 Ad(0n0s3*a3 * : 32e Es3a3e : Ma3e Ca)a66e* , respondents. KG.R. N . +#$%%I Ma4 "<, +,,$ REGALADO, J.: .

T /0c1 Formal Re$#irements J4. R#le 9f :#bstantial Compliance? Na35*e1 petition for revie" on certiorari

D c3*0ne1 Lnder )rticle ./7, the defects and imperfections m#st only be "ith respect to the form of the attestation or the lan!#a!e employed therein. The complete omission of a re$#irement, s#ch as the phrase, that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. is not only a defect in form or lan!#a!e b#t the total absence of a specific element renderin! the "ill, n#ll and void.

FACTS1 1. Hateo Caballero, a "ido"er "itho#t any children e-ec#ted a last "ill and testament before three attestin! "itnesses, namely, Cipriano 6ab#ca, Gre!orio Cabando and Flaviano Tore!osa. %. The said testator "as d#ly assisted by his la"yer, )tty. =milio 6#montad, and a notary p#blic, )tty. Filoteo Hani!os, in the preparation of that last "ill. JThe testator left his properties to 0 people "ho appears not to be related to him.?

13

'. Fo#r months later, the Testator himself filed a petition seekin! the probate of his last "ill and testament. The probate co#rt set the petition for hearin! b#t "as postponed m#ltiple times. (. 9n Hay %7, 17./, the testator passed a"ay before his petition co#ld finally be heard by the probate co#rt. 3. Petitioners, claimin! to be nephe"s and nieces of the testator, instit#ted a second petition, and opposed thereat the probate of the Testator>s "ill and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate. 0. 1ote+ There are % proceedin!s no". First one is the Testate Proceedin!s Jfiled by the Testator himself? and the other one is an Intestat Proceedin! Jfiled by the petitioners?. &. In the co#rse of the Probate Proceedin!s, petitoners alle!ed that the testator "as already in poor health at the time of the e-ec#tion and co#ld not have possibly e-ec#ted the same. They also challen!e the !en#ineness of the si!nat#re of the testator J"hich they later abandoned?. .. 9n the other hand, one of the attestin! "itnesses, Cipriano 6ab#ca, and the notary p#blic )tty. Filoteo Hani!os, testified that the testator e-ec#ted the "ill in $#estion in their presence "hile he "as of so#nd and disposin! mind and that the testator "as in !ood health. ,. La)5ca a6s 3es30:0ed 32a3 2e and 32e 32e* 803nesses An 8 a6s deceasedB a33es3ed and s07ned 32e 8066 0n 32e /*esence : 32e 3es3a3 * and : eac2 32e*. 1/. P* )a3e C 5*3 R560n71 The probate co#rt rendered a decision in favor of the respondents, statin! that the testimony of )tty. Hani!os and 2itness 6ab#ca has more bearin! and that the Testator "as in !ood health. 11. Petitioners appealed to the C) and asserted that the 2ill "as n#ll and void beca#se the A33es3a30 n c6a5se 8as de:ec30'e s0nce 03 :a06ed 3 s3a3e 32a3 the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. 1%. R560n7 : 32e CA+ The C) affirmed the A#d!ment of the Trial Co#rt statin! that the attestation cla#se "as s#bstantially compliant "ith )rticle ./3 of the Civil Code. 2hat appears in the attestation cla#se "hich the oppositors claim to be

defective is C"e do certify that the testament "as read by him and the attestator, Hateo Caballero, has p#blished #nto #s the fore!oin! "ill consistin! of T;R== P)G=:, incl#din! the ackno"led!ment, each pa!e n#mbered correlatively in letters of the #pper part of each pa!e, as his 6ast 2ill and Testament, and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of us Jemphasis s#pplied?. ISSUE1 W2e32e* * n 3 32e a33es3a30 n c6a5se c n3a0ned 0n 32e 6as3 8066 and 3es3a(en3 c (/60es 8032 32e *e;50*e(en3s : A*30c6e <#%, 0n *e6a30 n 3 A*30c6e <#,, : 32e C0'06 C de. HELD1 NO, 32e A33es3a30 n C6a5se 0s de:ec30'e. Pe3030 n 0s G*an3ed. 1'. Lnder the third para!raph of )rticle ./3, s#ch a cla#se, the complete lack of "hich "o#ld res#lt in the invalidity of the "ill, sho#ld state J1? the number of the pages used #pon "hich the "ill is "ritten, J%? that the testator signed, or e-pressly ca#sed another to si!n, the "ill and every pa!e thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses , and J'? that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and a66 03s /a7es, and 32a3 said witnesses also signed the will and e'e*4 /a7e 32e*e : in the presence of the testator and of one another. 1(. It "ill be noted that )rticle ./3 re$#ires that the "itness sho#ld both attest and s#bscribe to the "ill in the presence of the testator and of one another. C)ttestationC and Cs#bscriptionC differ in meanin!. )ttestation is the act of senses, "hile s#bscription is the act of the hand. 13. )ltho#!h it can be clearly seen that the "itnesses did si!n, the presence of said si!nat#res only establishes the fact that it "as indeed si!ned, b#t it does not prove that the attestin! "itnesses did s#bscribe to the "ill in the presence of the testator and of each other. 10. The phrase on the "ill and he has signed the same and every page thereof! on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin! obviously refers to the testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words as his "ast #ill and $estament. 1&. 9n the other hand, altho#!h the "ords in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of us m#st be interpreted as referrin! only to the testator si!nin! in the presence of the "itnesses since said phrase immediately follo"s the "ords C he has si!ned the same and every pa!e thereof, on the spaces

1;

provided for his si!nat#re and on the left hand mar!in.C W2a3 0s 32en c6ea*64 6ac90n7 0s the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.N 1.. Petitioners are correct in pointin! o#t that the aforestated defect in the attestation cla#se obvio#sly cannot be characteri ed as merely involvin! the form of the "ill or the lan!#a!e #sed therein "hich "o#ld "arrant the application of the s#bstantial compliance r#le, as contemplated in )rticle ./7 of the Civil Code. 17. )s stated by former 4#stice 456 Reyes+ 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 chec% against per&ury in the probate proceedings. %/. <efects in the )ttestation Cla#se may only be e-c#sed by s#bstantial compliance if the said defects "ere in FFormG. 5#t in this case,the defect is not only in the form or lan!#a!e b#t it "as a total absence of a specific element re$#ired by )rticle ./3 to be specifically stated in the attestation cla#se of a "ill. %1. 1ote+ The :C in this case also !oes into the history of )rticle ./7. It stated that since there "as do ens of cases involvin! constant flipfloppin! decisions of the :C "ith re!ards to defects in the 2ill Jb#t leanin! for liberal constr#ction?. The Code Commission recommended the codification of the s#bstantial compliance r#le, as it believed this r#le to be in accord "ith the modern tendency to !ive a liberal approach to the interpretation of "ills. :aid r#le th#s became "hat is no" )rticle ./7 of the Civil Code. %%. Pe3030 n 0s 7*an3ed, the decisions of the 6o"er Co#rts set-aside and the Testate Proceedin!s Jfiled ori!inally by the testator? be stopped and dismissed. The Intestate Proceedin!s Jfiled by the petitioners earlier? be reinstated.

Topic) Requirements for a 7olographic Will @octrine) As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established the Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance Facts) 1. This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order of respondent Hon. Jose C. Colayco, Presiding Judge Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI disallowing the probate of the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. 2. After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Special Proceeding No. 81503 case was filed by petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. 3. On March 26, 1973, petitioner Simeon R. Roxas was appointed administrator. He then delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. Judge Jose Colayco set the hearing of the probate of the holographic Win on July 21, 1973. 4. Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that after his appointment as administrator, he found a notebook belonging to the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus and that on pages 21, 22, 23 and 24 thereof, a letter-will addressed to her children and entirely written and signed in the handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found. The will is dated "FEB./61 " and states: "This is my will which I want to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer. 5. The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Jesus and Manuel Roxas de Jesus who likewise testified that the letter dated "FEB./61 " is the holographic Will of their deceased mother 6. They further testified that their deceased mother understood English, the language in which the holographic Will is written, and that the date "FEB./61 " was the date when said Will was executed by their mother 7. Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir filed an "opposition to probate" assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana R. de Jesus because (a) it was not executed in accordance with law, (b) it was executed through force, intimidation and/or under duress, undue influence and improper pressure, and (c) the alleged testatrix acted by mistake and/or did not intend, nor could have intended the said Will to be her last Will and testament at the time of its execution. 8. August 24, 1973 - Judge Jose C. Colayco issued an order allowing the probate of the holographic w/c he found to have been duly executed in 17

44- N T5E MATTER !( T5E NTE1TATE E1TATE !( AN0RE1 G. 0E ,E1U1 AN0 " " ANA R!EA1 0E ,E1U1, 1 ME!N R. R!EA1 B .E0R! R!EA1 0E ,E1U1, petitioners, s"AN0RE1 R. 0E ,E1U1, ,R., respondent" G.R. No. L-2&22&, ,anuar* %&, '6&5, GUT ERREF, ,R., J

accordance with law 9. Respondent Luz Roxas de Jesus filed a MR stating that the will was not dated as required byArticle 810 of the Civil Code. She contends that the law requires that the Will should contain the day, month and year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied with. 10. December 10, 1973 Judge disallowed the probate of the holographic Will on the ground that the word "dated" has generally been held to include the month, day, and year 6ssue) Whether or not the date "FEB./61 on the will is a valid compliance with theArticle 810 of the Civil Code. 7eld) Bes Ratio) 1. The petitioners contend that whileArticle 685 of the Spanish Civil Code andArticle 688 of the Old Civil Code require the testator to state in his holographic Win the "year, month, and day of its execution," the present Civil Code omitted the phrase Ao mes y dia and simply requires that the holographic Will should be dated. The petitioners submit that the liberal construction of the holographic Will should prevail. 2. Respondent Luz Henson says the will is void for non-compliance withArticle 810 of the 3. New Civil Code in that the date must contain the year, month, and day of its execution. The respondent further contends that the petitioner cannot plead liberal construction of Article 810 of the Civil Code because statutes prescribing the formalities to be observed in the execution of holographic Wills are strictly construed. 4. The prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the legal requirements in order to guard against fraud and bad faith but without undue or unnecessary curtailment of testamentary privilege 5. If a Will has been executed in substantial compliance with the formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith and fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said Win should be admitted to probate 6. The Court found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there any substitution of Wills and Testaments 7. As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established the Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial 16

compliance &. .ET T !N GRANTE0

-& ! IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MELECIO LABRADOR. SAGRADO LABRADOR ADeceasedB, s5)s30353ed )4 ROSITA LABRADOR, ENRICA LABRADOR, and CRISTOBAL LABRADOR,petitioners-appellants, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, and DESUS LABRADOR, respondents-appellees. [G.R. N s. <$<I$!II A/*06 %, +,,#. T /0c1 V. L. T2e *e;50*e(en3s : * a H 6 7*a/20c W066 D c3*0ne1 In this case , the date "as indicated in the body of the "ill as part of the narration. Is this validE Mes. It is not necessary that the "ill be separate from the body. In fact, it can be any"here in the "ill as lon! as the date appears in the "ill. The re$#ired date "hich m#st be indicated in a holo!raphic "ill is s#bstantially complied "ith if the date "ere incorporated as part of the body of the "ill. Fac3s1 1. 9n 4#ne 1/, 17&%, Me6ec0 La)*ad * d0ed in the H#nicipality of Iba, Nambales leavin! behind a parcel of land, and the follo"in! heirs, namely+ :a!rado, =nrica, Cristobal, 4es#s, Ga#dencio, 4osefina, 4#liana, ;ilaria and 4ovita, all s#rnamed 6abrador, and a holo!raphic "ill. 2" 9n 4#ly %., 17&3, Sa7*ad 6abrador Jno" deceased b#t s#bstit#ted by his heirs?, En*0ca La)*ad * and C*0s3 )a6 La)*ad *, :06ed 0n 32e c 5*3 a quo a /e3030 n : * 32e /* )a3e of the alle!ed holo!raphic "ill of the late Helecio 6abrador.

'. :#bse$#ently, on :eptember '/, 17&3, Des5s 6abrador Jno" deceased b#t s#bstit#ted by his heirs?, and Ga5denc0 La)*ad * :06ed an // s030 n 3 32e /e3030 n on the !ro#nd that the "ill has been e-tin!#ished or revoked by implication of la", a. alle!in! therein that on :eptember '/, 17&1, that is, before Helecio>s death, for the consideration of P0,/// , 3es3a3 * Me6ec0 eCec53ed a Deed : A)s 653e Sa6e , sellin!, transferrin! and conveyin! in favor of oppositors 4es#s and Ga#dencio. b. =arlier ho"ever, in 17&', 4es#s 6abrador sold said parcel of land to 1avat for only P3,/// %. Sa7*ad 32e*e5/ n :06ed a7a0ns3 20s )* 32e*s , Ga#dencio and 4es#s, : * 32e ann56(en3 : sa0d /5*/ *3ed Deed : A)s 653e Sa6e over a parcel of land "hich :a!rado alle!edly had already ac$#ired by devise from their father Helecio 6abrador #nder a 2 6 7*a/20c 8066 eCec53ed n Ma*c2 +&, +,-< , the complaint for ann#lment, bein! premised on the fact that the aforesaid <eed of )bsol#te :ale is fictitio#s. '. The 3*0a6 c 5*3 *ende*ed a F 0n3 dec0s0 n a66 80n7 32e /* )a3e : 32e 2 6 7*a/20c 8066 and dec6a*0n7 n566 and ' 0d 32e Deed : A)s 653e sa6e. a. The co#rt a quo had also directed the respondents to reimb#rse to the petitioners the s#m of P3,///.// representin! the redemption price for the property paid by the plaintiff-petitioner :a!rado "ith le!al interest thereon from <ecember %/, 17&0, "hen it "as paid to vendee a retro. b. Res/ nden3s a//ea6ed 32e F 0n3 dec0s0 n 3 32e C 5*3 : A//ea6s,

iii. Petitioners> Hotion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid decision "as denied by the C) AN 3e1 32e case /* '0ded : * an En760s2 0n3e*/*e3a30 n : 32e 8066 820c2 8as *070na664 8*033en 0n I6 can B Iss5e>s1 WON 32e a66e7ed 2 6 7*a/20c 8066 : ne Me6ec0 La)*ad * 0s da3ed, as /* '0ded : * 0n A*30c6e <+# : 32e Ne8 C0'06 C de. He6d1 YES, 03 0s da3ed R560n71 (. The petition, "hich principally alle!es that the holo!raphic "ill is really dated, altho#!h the date is not in its #s#al place, is impressed "ith merit. ." The 8066 2as )een da3ed 0n 32e 2and : 32e 3es3a3 * 20(se6: 0n /e*:ec3 c (/60ance 8032 A*30c6e <+#. It is "orthy of note to $#ote the first para!raph of the second pa!e of the holo!raphic "ill, viz+ a. F)nd this is the day in "hich "e a!reed that "e are makin! the partitionin! and assi!nin! the respective assi!nment of the said fishpond, and this bein! in the month of March, 1 th day, in the year 1!"# , and this decision and or instr#ction of mine is the matter to be follo"ed. )nd the one "ho made this "ritin! is no other than H=6=CI9 6)5R)<9R, their father.G 0. T2e 6a8 d es n 3 s/ec0:4 a /a*30c56a* 6 ca30 n 82e*e 32e da3e s2 56d )e /6aced 0n 32e 8066. a. T2e n64 *e;50*e(en3s a*e 32a3 32e da3e )e 0n 32e 8066 03se6: and eCec53ed 0n 32e 2and : 32e 3es3a3 *. T2ese *e;50*e(en3s a*e /*esen3 0n 32e s5)Fec3 8066.

i"

C" The intention to sho" '( )arch '*+, as the date of the e-ec#tion of
"hich modified said Aoint decision of the co#rt a quo by den40n7 32e a66 8ance : 32e /* )a3e : 32e 8066 : * )e0n7 5nda3ed and the "ill is plain from the tenor of the s#cceedin! "ords of the para!raph.

ii. reversin! the order of reimb#rsement.

1/

a. )s aptly p#t by petitioner, the 8066 8as n 3 an a7*ee(en3 )53 a 5n06a3e*a6 ac3 : Me6ec0 La)*ad * 82 /6a0n64 9ne8 32a3 82a3 2e 8as eCec530n7 8as a 8066. b. The act of partitionin! and the declaration that s#ch partitionin! as the testator>s instr#ction or decision to be follo"ed reveal that Helecio 6abrador "as f#lly a"are of the nat#re of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means to control the disposition of his estate.

Fa,$-2 1. +ortunata Bda de Cance died. 2. +rancisco A3aola !iled a etition !or robate o! the holo(ra hic %ill, submitted the said holo(ra hic %ill %hereby @aria @ila(ros A3aola %as made the sole heir as a(ainst the ne he% o! the deceased. 3. As a %itness, +rancisco A3aola testi!ies that8 He sa% the holo(ra hic %ill one month, more or less be!ore the death o! the testrati"A The holo(ra hic %ill %as handed to him and his %i!eA H( r(,o9n#:(. $;a$ a"" $;( -#9na$ur(a''(ar#n9 #n $;( ;o"o9ra';#, <#"" a- $;( ;an.<r#$#n9 o% $;( $(-$ra$#= $o r(#n%or,( $;( -$a$(3(n$ #n $;( <#"". 2to ro#e the si(nature he resented a deed o! sale, a!!ida#it and t%o residence certi!icates4 ;. A3oala %hen as'ed by his counsel admitted that the holo(ra hic %ill %as handed to him by the testrati" and apparently it must have been written by her but on the same transcri t o! the steno(ra hic notes, %hen the %itness %as as'ed by the by the counsel i! he %as !amiliar %ith the enmanshi and hand%ritin( o! the testrati" he ans%ered DI would definitely says it is hers. 7. The o osition to the robate %as on the (round that8 The e"ecution o! the %ill %as rocured by undue and im ro er ressure and in!luence on the art o! the etitioner and his %i!e That the testrati" did not seriously intend the instrument to be her last %ill and that the same %as actually %ritten either on the 7th or 6th day o! Au(ust 1.7/ and not on No#ember 20, 1.76 as a ears on the %ill 6. The 'ro>a$( <a- .(n#(. on the (round that under Article 811 o! the *i#il *ode, the ro onent must 'r(-(n$ $;r(( <#$n(--(- %ho could declare that the %ill and the si(nature are in the %ritin( o! the testrati", the robate bein( contestedA and because the lone %itness resents by the ro onent Ddid 18

.. )nent the second iss#e of findin! the reimb#rsement of the P3,/// representin! the redemption price as erroneo#s, respondent co#rt>s concl#sion is incorrect. a. 2hen private respondents sold the property Jfishpond? "ith ri!ht to rep#rchase to 1avat for P3,///, they "ere act#ally sellin! property belon!in! to another and "hich they had no a#thority to sell, renderin! s#ch sale n#ll and void. b. Petitioners, th#s CredeemedC the property from 1avat for P3,///, to immediately re!ain possession of the property for its disposition in accordance "ith the "ill. Pe3030 ne*s 32e*e: *e dese*'e 3 )e *e0()5*sed 32e P%,###. 7. The holo!raphic "ill of Helecio 6abrador is )PPR9*=< and )6692=< probate. 1/. The private respondents are directed to R=IH5LR:= the petitioners the s#m of P3,///.//.

-< ! FEDERICO AMAOLA, petitioner-appellant, vs. CESARIO SINGSON, oppositor-appellee. G.R. N . L!+I##$ A575s3 %, +,-# To'#,2 Holo(ra hic =illA Probate o! Holo(ra hic =ill +o,$r#n(2 The r#le of the first para!raph of )rticle .11 of the Civil Code is merely directory and is not mandatory.

not ro#e su!!iciently that the body o! the %ill %as %ritten in in the hand%ritin( o! the testrati". /. Pro'on(n$ a''(a"(.. 214 he %as not bound to roduce more than one %itness because the %illEs authencity %as not 5uestioned 426 &r$#,"( 811 .o(- no$ 3an.a$or#"y r(?u#r( $;( 'ro.u,$#on o% $;r(( <#$n(--(- $o #.(n$#%y $;( ;an.<r#$#n9 an. -#9na$ur( o% a ;o"o9ra';#, <#"", ()(n #% #$au$;(n$#,#$y -;ou". >( .(n#(. >y $;( a.)(r-( 'ar$y. !!*E2 =hether or not the %ill should be (ranted to robate e#en i! there is only one %itnessF HEL+2 Ces. The %ill should be (ranted to robate. R&T ON&LE2 !1 ru"(. $;a$ -#n,( $;( au$;(n$#,#$y o% $;( <#"" <ano$ ,on$(-$(., ;( <a- no$ r(?u#r(. $o 'ro.u,( 3or( $;an on( <#$n(--A but e#en i! the (enuineness o! the holo(ra hic %ill %ere contested, %e are o! the o inion that Article 811 o! the Ne% *i#il *ode can not inter reted as to re5uire the com ulsory resentation o! three %itnesses to identi!y the hand%ritin( o! the testator, under enalty o! ha#in( the robate denied. 0ince no %itness may ha#e been resent at the e"ecution o! a holo(ra hic %ill, none bein( re5uired by la%, it becomes ob#ious that the e"istence o! %itness ossessin( the re5uisite 5uali!ications is a matter beyond the control o! the ro onent. +or it is not merely a 5uestion o! !indin( and roducin( any three %itnessesA they must be %itnesses D%ho 'no% the hand%ritin( and si(nature o! the testatorG and %ho can declare that the %ill and the si(nature are in the hand%ritin( o! the testator. There may be no a#ailable %itness o! the testator&s handA or e#en i! so !amiliari3ed, the %itnesses may be un%illin( to (i#e a ositi#e o inion. 1.

R(a-on %or $;( -(,on. 'ara9ra';8 the la% !oresees the ossibility that no 5uali!ied %itness may be !ound 2or %hat amounts to the same thin(, that no com etent %itness may be %illin( to testi!y to the authenticity o! the %ill4, and ro#ides !or resort to e" ert e#idence to su ly the de!iciency.

1a>an9 )-. +("%#na.o, 45 P;#"., 291 an. To"(n$#no )-. Fran,#-,o, 57 P;#"., ruled that $t may be true that the rule o! this article 2re5uirin( that three %itnesses be resented i! the %ill is contested and only one i! no contest is had4 %as deri#ed !rom the rule established !or ordinary testaments.

Hut it can not be i(nored that the re5uirement can be considered mandatory only in the case o! ordinary testaments, recisely because the resence o! at least three %itnesses at the e"ecution o! ordinary %ills is made by la% essential to their #alidity.

T2e *56e : 32e :0*s3 /a*a7*a/2 : A*30c6e <++ : 32e C0'06 C de 0s (e*e64 d0*ec3 *4 and 0s n 3 (anda3 *4. Article 811 o! the *i#il *ode o! the Phili e!!ect8 ines is to the !ollo%in(

ART. 811. $n the robate o! a holo(ra hic %ill, it shall be necessary that at least one %itness %ho 'no%s the hand%ritin( and si(nature o! the testator e" licitly declare that the %ill and the si(nature are in the hand%ritin( o! the testator.

$! the %ill is contested, at least three o! such %itnesses shall be re5uired. $n the absence o! any com etent %itnesses re!erred to in the recedin( ara(ra h, and i! the court deems it necessary, e" ert testimony may be resorted to. 26.1a4. 6. ) 9I19N$A RA@>NA? *>->C, and @ANI9? RA@>NA?, etitioners, #s. 9BAN19?$N9 R. *A?I1AC, 6>09PH$N9 0A?*9->, and 9I+9@$A PAT$1A0, res ondents. J1.R. No. 123;86. Au(ust 12, 1..., PAR->, 6.K T>P$*8 L. The Holo(ra hic =ill, ART 810, Probate o! Holo(ra hic =ill, ART 811, 812, 813, 81;. ->*TR$N98 The *ourt cannot eliminate the ossibility o! a !alse document bein( ad<ud(ed as the %ill o! the testator, %hich is %hy i! the holo(ra hic %ill is contested, that la% re5uires three %itnesses to declare that the %ill %as in the hand%ritin( o! the deceased.

M Petitioners o osed ar(uin( that the re eated dates incor orated or a earin( on the %ill a!ter e#ery dis osition is out o! the ordinary. $! the deceased %as the one %ho e"ecuted the %ill, and %as not !orced, the dates and the si(nature should a ear at the bottom a!ter the dis ositions, as re(ularly done and not a!ter e#ery dis osition. They alle(ed that such %as rocured by undue and im ro er ressure and in!luence on the art o! the bene!iciaries, or throu(h !raud and tric'ery. M Res ondents resented si" 264 %itnesses and #arious documentary e#idence. Petitioners !iled a demurrer to e#idence claimin( that res ondents !ailed to establish su!!icient !actual and le(al basis. M RT* denied the etition !or robate !or insu!!iciency o! e#idence and lac' o! merits. *A re#ersed the RT*Es decision and sustained the authenticity o! the holo(ra hic %ill and the hand%ritin( and si(nature therein, and allo%ed the %ill to robate. Hence, this etition.

$00I98 =hether the holo(ra hic %ill should be allo%ed to robate. +A*T08 M >n A ril 6, 1..0, the res ondents %ere de#isees and le(atees o! the holo(ra hic %ill 2%ritten in Bisayas4 o! the deceased @atilde 0eNo Bda. de Ramona. M They !iled %ith the RT* @isamis >riental, a etition !or robate o! the holo(ra hic %ill o! the deceased, %ho died on 6anuary 16, 1..0 claimin( that the deceased @atilde 0eNo Bda. de Ramonal, %as o! sound and dis osin( mind %hen she e"ecuted the %ill on Au(ust 30, 1./8, that there %as no !raud, undue in!luence, and duress em loyed in the erson o! the testator, and the %ill %as %ritten #oluntarily. 20 H9?-8 No. -ecision set aside. *ase is remanded to the court o! ori(in %ith instructions to allo% etitioners to adduce e#idence in su ort o! their o osition to the robate o! the holo(ra hic %ill o! the deceased @atilde 0eNo Bda. de Ramonal. M Article 811 ro#ides, as a re5uirement !or the robate o! a contested holo(ra hic %ill, that at least three %itnesses e" licitly declare that the si(nature in the %ill is the (enuine si(nature o! the testator. Hased on the lan(ua(e used, said article o! the *i#il *ode is mandatory. The %ord DshallG connotes a mandatory order.

$n this case, it %ill be noted that not all the %itnesses resented by the res ondents testi!ied e" licitly that they %ere !amiliar %ith the hand%ritin( o! the testator. M The %ill %as !ound not in the ersonal belon(in(s o! the deceased but %ith @s. Hinanay, %ho re#ealed that the %ill %as in her ossession as early as 1.87, or !i#e years be!ore the death o! the deceased. M There %as no o ortunity !or an e" ert to com are the si(nature and the hand%ritin( o! the deceased %ith other documents si(ned and e"ecuted by her durin( her li!etime. M The only chance at com arison %as durin( the cross) e"amination o! @s. Hinanay %hen the la%yer o! etitioners as'ed @s. Hinanay to com are the documents %hich contained the si(nature o! the deceased %ith that o! the holo(ra hic %ill and she is not a hand%ritin( e" ert. 9#en the !ormer la%yer o! the deceased e" ressed doubts as to the authenticity o! the si(nature in the holo(ra hic %ill. M A #isual e"amination o! the holo(ra hic %ill sho%s that the stro'es are di!!erent %hen com ared %ith other documents %ritten by the testator. The si(nature o! the testator in some o! the dis osition is not readable. There %ere une#en stro'es, retracin( and erasures on the %ill. M *om arin( the si(nature in the holo(ra hic %ill dated Au(ust 30, 1./8, and the si(natures in se#eral documents such as the a lication letter !or asture ermit dated -ecember 30, 1.80, and a letter dated 6une 16, 1./8, the stro'es are di!!erent. $n the letters, there are continuous !lo%s o! the stro'es, e#idencin( that there is no hesitation in %ritin( unli'e that o! the holo(ra hic %ill. M The *ourt, there!ore, cannot be certain that the holo(ra hic %ill %as in the hand%ritin( by the deceased. 21

&# ! DOSE RIVERA petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ADELAIDO D. RIVERA, respondents. [G.R. N s. &%##%!#-1 Fe)*5a*4 +%, +,,# CRUM, J.:. T /0c1 Probate of a ;olo!raphic "ill D c3*0ne1 ) mere stran!er, he had no personality to contest the "ills and his opposition thereto did not have the le!al effect of re$#irin! the three "itnesses. Na35*e1 s#bAect of this petition, "hich #r!es the reversal of the respondent co#rt. Fac3s1 1. %. ) prominent and "ealthy resident of that to"n named *enancio Rivera died. D se R0'e*a, claimin! to be the only s#rvivin! le!itimate son of the deceased, filed a petition for the iss#ance of letters of administration over *enancio>s estate. a. D c9e3ed as SP N . +#&-, 320s /e3030 n 8as // sed )4 Ade6a0d D. R0'e*a, 82 den0ed 32a3 D se 8as 32e s n : 32e deceden3.

%.

)delaido averred that *enancio "as his father and did not die intestate b#t in fact left t"o holo!raphic "ills. )delaido 4. Rivera filed, also "ith the Re!ional Trial Co#rt of )n!eles City, a petition for the probate of the holo!raphic "ills. The petition "as in t#rn opposed by 4ose Rivera, "ho reiterated that he "as the sole heir of *enancio>s intestate estate. a. .)delaido 4. Rivera "as later appointed special administrator.

'.

(.

3.

)fter Aoint trial, 4#d!e =liodoro 5. G#into fo#nd that 4ose Rivera "as not the son of the decedent b#t of a different *enancio Rivera "ho "as married to Haria *ital. T2e Venanc0 R0'e*a 82 se es3a3e 8as 0n ;5es30 n 8as (a**0ed 3 Ma*0a D cs n, )4 82 ( 2e 2ad se'en c206d*en, 0nc65d0n7 Ade6a0d . D se R0'e*a 2ad n c6a0( 3 320s es3a3e )eca5se 32e deceden3 8as n 3 20s :a32e*. T2e 2 6 7*a/20c 8066s 8e*e a6s ad(033ed 3 /* )a3e.

-.

&.

In s#pport of 4oseDs claim that he "as the sole heir of the late *enancio Rivera, 4ose so#!ht to sho" that the said person "as married in 17%. to Haria *ital, "ho "as his mother. ;e s#bmitted for this p#rpose =-hibit ), the marria!e certificate of the co#ple, and =-hibit 5, his o"n baptismal certificate "here the co#ple "as indicated as his parents. The petitioner also presented <omin!o :antos, "ho testified that 4ose "as indeed the son of the co#ple and that he sa" *enancio and 4ose to!ether several times. a. )s *enancio>s le!itimate "ife O if indeed she "as O she sho#ld have obAected "hen her h#sband abandoned her and fo#nded another family by another "oman, and in the same to"n at that. Haria *ital did not file a complaint for bi!amy or conc#bina!e a!ainst *enancio Rivera and Haria 4ocson, the alle!ed partners in crime and sin. Haria *ital "as completely passive and complaisant.

O ass#min! the claims to be tr#e O that 4ose "as the oldest and, by his o"n acco#nt, the only le!itimate child of *enancio Rivera. Iss5e1 <oes 4ose Rivera have a personality to contest the "illsE He6d1 T2e /e3030 n 0s DENIED and 32e c2a66en7ed dec0s0 n 0s AFFIRMED 1. The fla" in this ar!#ment is that, as "e have already determined, 4ose Rivera is not the son of the deceased *enancio Rivera "hose estate is in $#estion. Hence, )e0n7 a (e*e s3*an7e*, 2e 2ad n /e*s na6034 3 c n3es3 32e 8066s and 20s // s030 n 32e*e3 d0d n 3 2a'e 32e 6e7a6 e::ec3 : *e;50*0n7 32e 32*ee 803nesses. a. 2e find from the evidence of record that the respondent co#rt did not err in holdin! that the *enancio Rivera "ho married Haria 4ocson in 17(% "as not the same person "ho married Haria *ital, 4ose>s le!itimate mother, in 17%.. 4ose belon!ed to a h#mbler family "hich had no relation "hatsoever "ith the family of *enancio Rivera and Haria *ital. This "as more prospero#s and prominent.

b.

..

4ose insists that Ha!no and Florencio are one and the same person, ar!#in! that it is not #ncommon for a person to be called by different names. The Co#rt is not convinced. There is no evidence that *enancio>s father "as called either Ha!no or Florencio.

7.

1/. 2hat is more likely is that t"o or more persons may live at the same time and bear the same name, even in the same comm#nity. That is "hat the co#rts belo" fo#nd in the cases at bar. 11. 2hat this Co#rt considers partic#larly intri!#in! is "hy, if it is tr#e that he "as the le!itimate son of *enancio Rivera, 4ose did not assert his ri!ht as s#ch "hen his father "as still alive. a. 5y his o"n acco#nt, 4ose s#pported himself O and pres#mably also his mother Haria *ital O as a !asoline attendant and driver for many years. )ll the time, his father "as residin! in the same to"n O and obvio#sly prosperin! O and available for s#pport. ;is alle!ed father "as openly livin! "ith another "oman and raisin! another family, b#t this "as apparently accepted by 4ose "itho#t protest, takin! no step "hatsoever to invoke his stat#s If, as he insists, he and *enancio Rivera "ere on cordial terms, there is no reason "hy the father did not help the son and instead left 4ose to fend for himself as a h#mble "orker "hile his other children by Haria 4ocson enAoyed a comfortable life. :#ch paternal discrimination is diffic#lt to #nderstand, especially if it is considered

%.

1o" for the holo!raphic "ills. The respondent co#rt considered them valid beca#se it fo#nd them to have been "ritten, dated and si!ned by the testator himself in accordance "ith )rticle .1/ of the Civil Code. a. It also held there "as no necessity of presentin! the three "itnesses re$#ired #nder )rticle .11 beca#se the a#thenticity of the "ills had not been $#estioned.

$.

T2e eC0s3ence and 32e*e: *e a6s 32e a532en30c034 : 32e 2 6 7*a/20c 8066s 8e*e ;5es30 ned )4 D se R0'e*a. In his o"n petition in :P 1o. 1/&0, he declared that *enancio Rivera died intestate, and in :P 1o. 1/71, he denied the e-istence of the holo!raphic "ills presented by )delaido Rivera for probate. In ) 32 /* ceed0n7s, D se R0'e*a // sed 32e 2 6 7*a/20c 8066s s5)(033ed )4 Ade6a0d R0'e*a and c6a0(ed 32a3 32e4 8e*e s/5*0 5s. Conse$#ently, it may be ar!#ed, the respondent co#rt sho#ld have applied )rticle .11 of the Civil Code, providin! as follo"s+

(.

b.

3.

0.

22

i.

In the probate of a holo!raphic "ill, it shall be necessary that at least one "itness "ho kno"s the hand"ritin! and si!nat#re of the testator e-plicitly declare that the "ill and the si!nat#re are in the hand"ritin! of the testator. I: 32e 8066 0s c n3es3ed, a3 6eas3 32*ee : s5c2 803nesses s2a66 )e *e;50*ed.

&.

The testimony of Nenaida and *enancio Rivera, 4r., "ho a#thenticated the "ills as havin! been "ritten and si!ned by their father, "as s#fficient.

&+ ! IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RICARDO B. BONILLA deceased, MARCELA RODELAS, /e3030 ne*! a//e66an3, 's. AMPARO ARANMA, ET AL., // s03 *s!a//e66ees, ATTY. LORENMO SUMULONG, 0n3e*'en *. [G.R. N . L!%<%#,. Dece()e* &, +,<", Re6 'a, J.1. T /0c1 F *(a6 Re;50*e(en3s O: A W066 !T2e H 6 7*a/20c W066 !P* )a3e : H 6 7*a/20c W066 D c3*0ne1 ) photostatic copy or -ero- copy of the holo!raphic "ill may be allo"ed beca#se comparison can be made "ith the standard "ritin!s of the testator. In the case of Gan v. Map, 1/( Phil. 3/7, the Co#rt r#led that Cthe e-ec#tion and the contents of a lost or destroyed holo!raphic "ill may not be proved by the bare testimony of "itnesses "ho have seen and@or read s#ch "ill. The "ill itself m#st be presented, other"ise, it shall prod#ce no effect. The la" re!ards the doc#ment itself as material proof of a#thenticity.C 5#t, in Footnote . of said decision, it says that CPerhaps it may be proved by a photo!raphic or photostatic copy. =ven a mimeo!raphed or carbon copy, or by other similar means, if any, "hereby the a#thenticity of the hand"ritin! of the deceased may be e-hibited and tested before the probate co#rt.C =vidently, the photostatic or -ero- copy of the lost or destroyed holo!raphic "ill may be admitted beca#se then the a#thenticity of the hand"ritin! of the deceased can be determined by the probate co#rt. Fac3s1 1. 9n 4an#ary 11, 17&&, appellant filed a petition "ith the Co#rt of First Instance of Ri al for the probate of the holo!raphic "ill of Ricardo 5. 5onilla and the iss#ance of letters testamentary in her favor.

P This petition "as opposed by the appellees )mparo )ran a 5onilla, 2ilferine 5onilla Treyes =-pedita 5onilla Frias and =phraim 5onilla on the follo"in! !ro#nds+ a? )ppellant "as estopped from claimin! that the deceased left a "ill by failin! to prod#ce the "ill "ithin t"enty days of the death of the testator as re$#ired by R#le &3, section % of the R#les of Co#rt, b? The alle!ed copy of the alle!ed holo!raphic "ill did not contain a disposition of property after death and "as not intended to take effect after death, and therefore it "as not a "ill c? The alle!ed hollo!raphic "ill itself, and not an alle!ed copy thereof, m#st be prod#ced, other"ise it "o#ld prod#ce no effect, as held in Gam v. Map, 1/( Phil. 3/7 d? The deceased did not leave any "ill, holo!raphic or other"ise, e-ec#ted and attested as re$#ired by la". %. The appellees moved for the consolidation of the case "ith a spec pro case, "hich "as allo"ed. '. The appellees then moved a!ain to dismiss the petition for the probate of the "ill. They ar!#ed that+ a? The alle!ed holo!raphic "as not a last "ill b#t merely an instr#ction as to the mana!ement and improvement of the schools and colle!es fo#nded by decedent Ricardo 5. 5onilla b? 6ost or destroyed holo!raphic "ills cannot be proved by secondary evidence #nlike ordinary "ills. '. H< of the appellees "as denied b#t the co#rt. (. The appellees then filed an HR on the !ro#nd that the order "as contrary to la" and settled prono#ncements and r#lin!s of the :C, to "hich the appellant in t#rn filed an opposition. 3. The co#rt set aside its previo#s order and dismissed the probate of the "ill of Ricardo 5. 5onilla. The co#rt said+ ... It is o#r considered opinion that once the ori!inal copy of the holo!raphic "ill is lost, a copy thereof cannot stand in lie# of the ori!inal. In the case of Gam vs. Map, 1/( Phil. 3/7, 3%%, the :#preme Co#rt held that >in the matter of holo!raphic "ills the la", it is reasonable to s#ppose, re!ards the doc#ment itself as the material proof of a#thenticity of said "ills. H9R=9*=R, this Co#rt notes that the alle!ed holo!raphic "ill "as e-ec#ted on 4an#ary %3, 170% "hile Ricardo 5. 5onilla died on Hay 1', 17&0. In vie" of the lapse of more than 1( years from the time of the e-ec#tion of the "ill to the death of the decedent, the fact that the ori!inal of the "ill co#ld not be located sho"s to o#r mind that the decedent

23

had discarded before his death his alle!edly missin! ;olo!raphic 2ill. 0. The HR of the appellant "as denied. :o he filed an appeal "ith the C). &. C) dismissed the appeal hence this case "as certified to this Trib#nal by the Co#rt of )ppeals for final determination p#rs#ant to :ection ', R#le 3/ of the R#les of Co#rt Iss5e1 2hether a holo!raphic "ill "hich "as lost or cannot be fo#nd can be proved by means of a photostatic copy. He6d1 P#rs#ant to )rticle .11 of the Civil Code, probate of holo!raphic "ills is the allo"ance of the "ill by the co#rt after its d#e e-ec#tion has been proved. The probate may be #ncontested or not. If #ncontested, at least one Identifyin! "itness is re$#ired and, if no "itness is available, e-perts may be resorted to. If contested, at least three Identifyin! "itnesses are re$#ired. H 8e'e*, 0: 32e 2 6 7*a/20c 8066 2as )een 6 s3 * des3* 4ed and n 32e* c /4 0s a'a06a)6e, 32e 8066 can n 3 )e /* )a3ed )eca5se 32e )es3 and n64 e'0dence 0s 32e 2and8*030n7 : 32e 3es3a3 * 0n sa0d 8066. I3 0s necessa*4 32a3 32e*e )e a c (/a*0s n )e38een sa(/6e 2and8*033en s3a3e(en3s : 32e 3es3a3 * and 32e 2and8*033en 8066. B53, a /2 3 s3a30c c /4 * Ce* C c /4 : 32e 2 6 7*a/20c 8066 (a4 )e a66 8ed )eca5se c (/a*0s n can )e (ade 8032 32e s3anda*d 8*030n7s : 32e 3es3a3 *. In 32e case : Ga( 's. Ya/, +#I PHIL. %#,, 32e C 5*3 *56ed 32a3 J32e eCec530 n and 32e c n3en3s : a 6 s3 * des3* 4ed 2 6 7*a/20c 8066 (a4 n 3 )e /* 'ed )4 32e )a*e 3es30( n4 : 803nesses 82 2a'e seen and> * *ead s5c2 8066. T2e 8066 03se6: (5s3 )e /*esen3edG 32e*80se, 03 s2a66 /* d5ce n e::ec3. T2e 6a8 *e7a*ds 32e d c5(en3 03se6: as (a3e*0a6 /* : : a532en30c034.J B53, 0n F 3n 3e < : sa0d dec0s0 n, 03 sa4s 32a3 JPe*2a/s 03 (a4 )e /* 'ed )4 a /2 3 7*a/20c * /2 3 s3a30c c /4. E'en a (0(e 7*a/2ed * ca*) n c /4G * )4 32e* s0(06a* (eans, 0: an4, 82e*e)4 32e a532en30c034 : 32e 2and8*030n7 : 32e deceased (a4 )e eC20)03ed and 3es3ed )e: *e 32e /* )a3e c 5*3,J E'0den364, 32e /2 3 s3a30c * Ce* C c /4 : 32e 6 s3 * des3* 4ed 2 6 7*a/20c 8066 (a4 )e ad(033ed )eca5se 32en 32e a532en30c034 : 32e 2and8*030n7 : 32e deceased can )e de3e*(0ned )4 32e /* )a3e c 5*3.

/2 ) 1.R. No. 106/20 0e tember 17, 1..; 0P>I090 R>H9RT> AN- TH9?@A A69R>, etitioners, #s. TH9 *>IRT >+ APP9A?0 AN- *?9@9NT9 0AN-, res ondents. T>P$*8 Probate o! Holo(ra hic =ill, ART 811, 812, 813, 81; ->*TR$N98 $n a etition to admit a holo(ra hic %ill to robate, the only issues to be resol#ed are8 214 %hether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent&s last %ill and testamentA 224 %hether said %ill %as e"ecuted in accordance %ith the !ormalities rescribed by la%A 234 %hether the decedent had the necessary testamentary ca acity at the time the %ill %as e"ecutedA and, 2;4 %hether the e"ecution o! the %ill and its si(nin( %ere the #oluntary acts o! the decedent. NATIR98 A +A*T08 1. $n the %ill, decedent named as de#isees, the !ollo%in(8 etitioners Roberto and Thelma A<ero, ri#ate res ondent *lemente 0and, @eriam 0. Aron(, ?eah 0and, ?ilia 0and, 9d(ar 0and, +e 0and, ?isa 0. 0and, and -r. 6ose A<ero, 0r., and their children. 2. Petitioners instituted a s ecial roc. !or allo%ance o! decedent&s holo(ra hic %ill. They alle(ed that at the time o! its e"ecution, she %as o! sound and dis osin( mind, not actin( under duress, !raud or undue in!luence, and %as in e#ery res ect ca acitated to dis ose o! her estate by %ill. 3. Pri#ate res ondent o osed the etition on the (rounds that8 neither the testament&s body nor the si(nature therein %as in decedent&s hand%ritin(A it contained alterations and corrections %hich %ere not duly si(ned by decedentA and, the %ill %as rocured by etitioners throu(h im ro er ressure and undue in!luence. 2; eal by certiorari

;. The etition %as li'e%ise o osed by -r. 6ose A<ero. He contested the dis osition in the %ill o! a house and lot located in *abadbaran, A(usan -el Norte. He claimed that said ro erty could not be con#eyed by decedent in its entirety, as she %as not its sole o%ner. 7. T*8 Admitted the decedent&s holo(ra hic %ill to robate.

Art. 81;. $n case o! insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holo(ra hic %ill, the testator must authenticate the same by his !ull si(nature. .. $t alluded to certain dis ositions in the %ill %hich %ere either unsi(ned and undated, or si(ned but not dated. $t also !ound that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated by decedent. $00I98 =hether or not the *A erred in dismissin( the etition !or robate o! decedent&s %ill. H9?-8 C90. 10. $n a etition to admit a holo(ra hic %ill to robate, the only issues to be resol#ed are8 214 %hether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent&s last %ill and testamentA 224 %hether said %ill %as e"ecuted in accordance %ith the !ormalities rescribed by la%A 234 %hether the decedent had the necessary testamentary ca acity at the time the %ill %as e"ecutedA and, 2;4 %hether the e"ecution o! the %ill and its si(nin( %ere the #oluntary acts o! the decedent. 11. There!ore, it %as erroneous !or the *A to hold that8 0ince the holo(ra hic %ill o! Anne 0and %as not e"ecuted in accordance %ith the !ormalities rescribed by la%, and that A813 and A81; N** %ere not com lied %ith, the robate o! said %ill is disallo%ed. 12. $n the case o! holo(ra hic %ills, %hat assures authenticity is the re5uirement that they be totally auto(ra hic or hand%ritten by the testator himsel!, as ro#ided under Article 810 o! the Ne% *i#il *ode, thus8

6. *onsiderin( then that the robate roceedin(s herein must decide only the 5uestion o! identity o! the %ill, its due e"ecution and the testamentary ca acity o! the testatri", this robate court !inds no reason at all !or the disallo%ance o! the %ill !or its !ailure to com ly %ith the !ormalities rescribed by la% nor !or lac' o! testamentary ca acity o! the testatri". /. No e#idence %as resented to sho% that the %ill in 5uestion is di!!erent !rom the %ill actually e"ecuted by the testatri". The only ob<ections raised by the o ositors . . . are that the %ill %as not %ritten in the hand%ritin( o! the testatri" %hich ro erly re!ers to the 5uestion o! its due e"ecution, and not to the 5uestion o! identity o! %ill. 8. *A8 -ecision %as re#ersed, and the etition !or robate o! decedent&s %ill %as dismissed. The *A !ound that, ,the holo(ra hic %ill !ails to meet the re5uirements !or its #alidity., $t held that the decedent did not com ly %ith Articles 813 and 81; o! the Ne% *i#il *ode. Art. 813. =hen a number o! dis ositions a earin( in a holo(ra hic %ill are si(ned %ithout bein( dated, and the last dis osition has a si(nature and date, such date #alidates the dis ositions recedin( it, %hate#er be the time o! rior dis ositions.

Art. 810. A erson may e"ecute a holo(ra hic %ill %hich must be entirely %ritten, dated, and si(ned by the hand o! the testator himsel!. 27

$t is sub<ect to no other !orm, and may be made in or out o! the Phili ines, and need not be %itnessed. 13. +ailure to strictly obser#e other !ormalities %ill not result in the disallo%ance o! a holo(ra hic %ill that is un5uestionably hand%ritten by the testator. 1;. A readin( o! Article 813 o! the Ne% *i#il *ode sho%s that its re5uirement a!!ects the #alidity o! the dis ositions contained in the holo(ra hic %ill, but not its robate. $! the testator !ails to si(n and date some o! the dis ositions, the result is that these dis ositions cannot be e!!ectuated. 0uch !ailure, ho%e#er, does not render the %hole testament #oid. 17. A holo(ra hic %ill can still be admitted to robate, not%ithstandin( non)com liance %ith the ro#isions o! Article 81; 2Lala% #s. Relo#a 132 0*RA 23/ 2;2 21.8;44. Inless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions %ere made on the date o! the holo(ra hic %ill or on testator&s si(nature, their resence does not in#alidate the %ill itsel!. The lac' o! authentication %ill only result in disallo%ance o! such chan(es. 16. The re5uirements o! authentication o! chan(es and si(nin( and datin( o! dis ositions a ear in ro#isions 2Articles 813 and 81;4 se arate !rom that %hich ro#ides !or the necessary conditions !or the #alidity o! the holo(ra hic %ill 2Article 8104. 1/. The *ourt o! A eals !urther held that decedent Annie 0and could not #alidly dis ose o! the house and lot located in *abadbaran, A(usan del Norte, in its entirety. This is correct and must be a!!irmed. 18. As a (eneral rule, courts in robate roceedin(s are limited to ass only u on the e"trinsic #alidity o! the %ill sou(ht to be robated. Ho%e#er, in e"ce tional instances, courts are not o%erless to do %hat the situation constrains them to do, and ass u on certain ro#isions o! the %ill. 11 $n the case at bench, decedent hersel! 26

indubitably stated in her holo(ra hic %ill that the *abadbaran ro erty is in the name o! her late !ather, 6ohn H. 0and 2%hich led o ositor -r. 6ose A<ero to 5uestion her con#eyance o! the same in its entirety4. Thus, as correctly held by res ondent court, she cannot #alidly dis ose o! the %hole ro erty, %hich she shares %ith her !ather&s other heirs. 1.. $N B$9= =H9R9>+, the instant etition is 1RANT9-. The -ecision o! the *ourt o! A eals in *A)1.R. *B No. 228;0, dated @arch 30, 1..2, is R9B9R09- and 09T A0$-9, e"ce t %ith res ect to the in#alidity o! the dis osition o! the entire house and lot in *abadbaran, A(usan del Norte. The -ecision o! the Re(ional Trial *ourt o! Oue3on *ity, Hranch .; in 0 . Proc. No. O)3/1/1, dated No#ember 1., 1.88, admittin( to robate the holo(ra hic %ill o! decedent Annie 0and, is hereby R9$N0TAT9-, %ith the abo#e 5uali!ication as re(ards the *abadbaran ro erty. No costs.

To ic8 Probate o! Holo(ra hic =ill 75. @a"a< ). R("o)a 4G.R. No. L-40207. 28 !('$(3>(r 19846 +o,$r#n(2 =hen the holo(ra hic %ill had only one substantial ro#ision, %hich %as altered by substitutin( the ori(inal heir %ith another, and the same did not carry the re5uisite !ull si(nature o! the testator, the entirety o! the %ill is #oided or re#o'ed. 0ince %hat %as cancelled here %as the #ery essence o! the %illA it amounted to the re#ocation o! the %ill. There!ore, neither the altered te"t nor the ori(inal unaltered te"t can be (i#en e!!ect.

Fa,$-2

1. 1re(orio Lala%, the ri#ate res ondent, claimin( to be the sole heir o! sister Nati#idad, !iled a etition !or robate o! the latter&s holo(ra hic %ill in 1.68. The %ill contained 2 alterations8 a. Rosa&s name, desi(nated as the sole heir %as crossed out and instead ,Rosario, %as %ritten abo#e it. 0uch %as not initialed b. Rosa&s name %as crossed out as sole e"ecutri" and 1re(orio&s name %as %ritten abo#e it. This alteration %as initialed by the testator. 2. Rosa contended that the %ill as !irst %ritten should be (i#en e!!ect so that she %ould be the sole heir. 3. The lo%er court denied the robate due to the unauthenticated alterations and additions. --u(7H(".2 =hether the ori(inal unaltered te"t a!ter subse5uent alterations and insertions %ere #oided by the Trial *ourt !or lac' o! authentication by the !ull si(nature o! the testatri", should be robated or not, %ith Rosa as sole heir ) N>

did not carry the re5uisite o! !ull authentication by the !ull si(nature o! the testator, the e!!ect must be that the entire =ill is #oided or re#o'ed !or the sim le reason that nothin( remains in the =ill a!ter that %hich could remain #alid. To state that the =ill as !irst %ritten should be (i#en e!!icacy is to disre(ard the seemin( chan(e o! mind o! the testatri". Hut that chan(e o! mind can neither be (i#en e!!ect because she !ailed to authenticate it in the manner re5uired by la% by a!!i"in( her !ull si(nature, 3. The rulin( in Belasco, su ra, must be held con!ined to such insertions, cancellations, erasures or alterations in a holo(ra hic =ill, %hich a!!ect only the e!!icacy o! the altered %ords themsel#es but not the essence and #alidity o! the =ill itsel!. As it is, %ith the erasures, cancellations and alterations made by the testatri" herein, her real intention cannot be determined %ith certitude. /;. PAI?A -9 ?A *9RNA, 9T A?., etitioners, #s. @ANI9?A R9HA*A P>T>T, 9T A?., and TH9 H>N>RAH?9 *>IRT >+ APP9A?0, res ondents. To ic8 =hat $s Prohibited +or All =ills -octrine8 The !inal decree entered in 1.3. by the *+$ *9HI has a conclusi#e e!!ect as to his last %ill and testament. A !inal <ud(ment rendered on a etition !or the robate o! a %ill is bindin( u on the %hole %orld. +acts 1. 0 ouses Hernabe de la 0erna and 1er#asia Rebaca e"ecuted a <oint last %ill and testament in the local dialect %hereby they %illed that8

Ra$#o2 1. >rdinarily, %hen a number o! erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holo(ra hic =ill ha#e not been noted under his si(nature, """ the =ill is not thereby in#alidated as a %hole, but at most only as res ects the articular %ords erased, corrected or interlined. 2. Ho%e#er, %hen as in this case, the holo(ra hic =ill in dis ute had only one substantial ro#ision, %hich %as altered by substitutin( the ori(inal heir %ith another, but %hich alteration 2/

Dour 2 arcels o! land ac5uired durin( our marria(e to(ether %ith all im ro#ements thereon shall be (i#en to @anuela Rebecca, our niece, %hom %e ha#e nurtured since childhood, because 1od did not (i#e us any child un our union, @anuela Rebecca bein( married to Nicolas Poto and that %hile each o! the testators is yet li#in(, he or she %ill continue to en<oy the !ruits o! the 2 landsG 2. Hernabe dela 0erna died and that 1er#asia and @anuela submitted the %ill to robate. There %as no o osition. *+$ >+ *9HI 1.3.8 $t has been admitted to robate by !inal order o! a *ourt o! com etent <urisdiction 3. I on the death o! 1er#asia Rebaca, another etition !or robate o! the same %ill inso!ar as 1er#asia %as concerned %as !iled. Ho%e#er, the case %as dismissed because @anuela Potot and her attorney !iled to a ear be!ore the court. ;. *+$ >+ *9HI 1.72 ruled that the testament %as null and #oid !or bein( e"ecuted contrary to the rohibition o! <oint %ills in the *i#il *ode 7. *A re#ersed the decision on the (round that the decree o! robate in 1.3. %as issued by a court o! robate <urisdiction and conclusi#e on the due e"ecution o! the testament. D>ne such <oint last %ill and testament has been admitted to robate by !inal order o! a *ourt o! com etent <urisdictionG $00I98 =hether or not the !inal decree entered in 1.3. by the *+$ *9HI has a conclusi#e e!!ect as to his last %ill and testament des ite the !act that e#en then the *i#il *ode already decreed the in#alidity o! <oint %illsF

H9?-8 Ces. The !inal decree entered in 1.3. by the *+$ *9HI has a conclusi#e e!!ect as to his last %ill and testament. RAT$>NA?98 The error thus committed by the robate court %as an error o! la%, that should ha#e been corrected by a eal, but %hich did not a!!ect the <urisdiction o! the robate court, nor the conclusi#e e!!ect o! its !inal decision, ho%e#er erroneous. 2@analo #s. Paredes, ;/ Phil. .38A $n re 9states o! 6ohnson, 3. Phil. 1764 A !inal <ud(ment rendered on a etition !or the robate o! a %ill is bindin( u on the %hole %orldA and ublic olicy and sound ractice demand that at the ris' o! occasional errors <ud(ment o! courts should become !inal at some de!inite date !i"ed by la% " " " Petitioners, as heirs and successors o! the late Hernabe de la *erna, are concluded by the 1.3. decree admittin( his %ill to robate. The contention that bein( #oid the %ill cannot be #alidated, o#erloo's that the ultimate decision on =hether an act is #alid or #oid rests %ith the courts, and here they ha#e s o'en %ith !inality %hen the %ill %as robated in 1.3.. The dismissal o! their action !or artition %as correct. Ho%e#er, $t could not include the dis osition o! the share o! the %i!e, 1er#asia Rebaca, %ho %as then still ali#e, and o#er %hose interest in the con<u(al ro erties the robate court ac5uired no <urisdiction, recisely because her estate could not then be in issue. He it remembered that rior to the ne% *i#il *ode, a %ill could not be robated durin( the testator&s li!etime.

28

There!ore, the undi#ided interest o! 1er#asia Rebaca should ass u on her death to her heirs intestate, and not e"clusi#ely to the testamentary heir, unless some other #alid %ill in her !a#or is sho%n to e"ist, or unless she be the only heir intestate o! said 1er#asia. $t is unnecessary to em hasi3e that the !act that <oint %ills should be in common usa(e could not ma'e them #alid %hen our *i#il *odes consistently in#alidated them, because la%s are only re ealed by other subse5uent la%s, and no usa(e to the contrary may re#ail a(ainst their obser#ance.

9 2nd will was e*ecuted on 2= -une /0A0? this latter will contains a clause which e*pressly re okes the will e*ecuted in /0/<" A" 5n C February /0D/, -uana -uan filed in the #F6 of Ri!al a petition seeking the probate of the will e*ecuted by $ariano on 2= -une /0A0" 9 There being no opposition, the will was probated" 9 7owe er, upon petition filed by the appellants, the order of the #F6 admitting the will to probate was set aside and the case reopened" 9 After hearing, the #F6 rendered a decision denying the probate of the will on the ground that -uana -uan had failed to pro e that the same was e*ecuted in accordance with law" D" 6n iew of the disallowance of the will e*ecuted on 2= -une /0A0, -uana -uan had filed another petition for the probate of the will e*ecuted by $ariano on /C August /0/<" 9 Again, the appellants opposed the petition on A grounds) a4 That -uana -uan is now estopped from seeking the probate of the will of /0/<? b4 The will has not been e*ecuted in the manner required by law? and c4 That the will has been subsequently re oked" ." 7owe er, before the second petition could be heard, the battle for liberation came and the records of the case were destroyed" 1" -uana -uan filed a new petition on /D (eptember /0D1, but this was opposed by the appellants based on the same grounds" 9 The #F6 had issued an order admitting the /0/< will to probate"
2.

75 - Testate Estate o: t7e 0e8ease# Mariano Molo, ,uana ,uan =#a. 0e Molo vs. LuA, Gli8eria, B Cornelio Molo No. L-%52& C%' 1eptem)er '65'D Topi8/ '66" Re ocation of Wills and Testamentary @isposition 0o8trine/ A subsequent will containing a clause re oking a pre ious will, ha ing been disallowed for the reason that it was not e*ecuted in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of annulling the pre ious will, inasmuch as the said re ocatory clause is oid" (a8ts/ /" $ariano $olo died on 2/ -anuary /0D/, in the municipality of Pasay, Ri!al, without lea ing any forced heir either in the descending or ascending line" 9 7e was sur i ed by his wife, -uana -uan 3petitioner4, and by his nieces and nephew, %u!, +liceria, and #ornelio 3appellants4" 2" $ariano $olo left 2 wills 9 /st will was e*ecuted on /C August /0/<

9 The appellants had appealed asserting that despite the disallowance of the /0A0 will, the re ocation clause is still alid, hence it effecti ely nullified the /0/< will" ssue/ Whether the /0/< will can still be alid despite the re ocation clause of the subsequent disallowed /0A0 will" 5el#/ 6n deciding this case, the (upreme #ourt had cited the ruling in (amson s" Na al, in which they ruled that) A subsequent will containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the reason that it was not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will, inasmuch as the said revocatory clause is void. Ender the principle of the :@ependent Relati e Re ocation;, this is applied where the testator cancels or destroys a will or e*ecutes an instrument intended to re oke a will with a present intention to make a new testamentary disposition as a substitute for the old, and the new disposition is not made or, if made, fails of effect for some reason" Furthermore, under this doctrine) The rule is established that where the act of destruction is connected with the making of another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of a new disposition intended to be substituted, the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new disposition; and if, for any reason, the new will intended to be made
30

as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the original will remains in full force. This is the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. The failure of a new testamentary disposition upon whose validity the revocation depends, is equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive conditions, and hence prevents the revocation of the original will. ut a mere intent to make at some time a will in the place of that destroyed will not render the destruction conditional. !t must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will. 7ence, basing from this doctrine, there was no alid re ocation" There was no e idence which shows that the testator deliberately destroyed the original /0/< will because of his knowledge of the re ocatory clause contained in the will e*ecuted in /0A0" 9 6f it can be inferred that the testator deliberately destroyed the /0/< will because of the re ocatory clause of the /0A0 will, and ga e a duplicate copy to -uana -uan, the most logical step for the testator to take is to recall the duplicate copy in order that it may be destroyed" &ut this was not done due to the fact that the copy remained in the possession of -uana -uan"

78. +#a: ) +( L(on, G.R. No. 17714, /ay 51, 1922 n $;( 3a$(r o% $;( (-$a$( o% J(-u- .( L(on. GN&1 & + &A, '($#$#on(r-a''(""an$,)-.&N& +E LEON, o''on(n$-a''(""((.

T>P$*8 B$$. Re#ocation >! =ills And Testamentary -is ositionA A. Re#ocation Hy Physical -estruction
->*TR$N98 The intention o! re#o'in( the %ill is mani!est !rom the established !act that the testator %as an"ious to %ithdra% or chan(e the ro#isions he had made in his !irst %ill. The destruction o! a %ill animo revocandi constitutes, in itsel!, a su!!icient re#ocation. 20ec. 623, *ode o! *i#il Procedure.4 +A*T08 1. 6esus de ?eon e"ecuted 2 %ills, the second will %as not deemed in con!ormance to the re5uirements under the la%. 2. >n the matter o! the +$R0T =$??8 The testator, 6esus de ?eon, shortly a!ter the e"ecution o! the first will in 5uestion, as'ed that the same be returned to him. 3. The instrument %as returned to the testator %ho ordered his ser#ant to tear the document. ;. This %as done in his resence and be!ore a nurse %ho testi!ied to this e!!ect. A!ter some time, the testator, bein( as'ed by -r. *ornelio @a a about the %ill, said that it had been destroyed. 7. The etitioner denies such re#ocation, %hile the contestant a!!irms the same by alle(in( that the testator re#o'ed his %ill by destroyin( it, and by e"ecutin( another %ill e" ressly re#o'in( the !ormer. $00I98 =hether or to the %ill e"ecuted by 6esus de ?eon, no%, %as re#o'ed by him. H9?-8 C90

RI?$N18 His intention to re#o'e is mani!est !rom the !acts that he %as an"ious to %ithdra% or chan(e the ro#isions he made in the !irst %ill. This !act %as sho%n !rom his o%n statements to the %itnesses and the mother su erior o! the hos ital %here he %as subse5uently con!ined. The ori(inal %ill %hich %as resented !or robate is deemed destroyed hence, it cannot be robated as the last %ill and testament o! testator.

The destruction o! a %ill animo revocandi constitutes, in itsel!, a su!!icient re#ocation.

&&. Es3a3e : M075e6 Ma(54ac, deceased. FRANCISCO GAGO, petitionerappellant, vs. CORNELIO MAMUYAC, AMBROSIO LARIOSA, FELICIANA BAUMON, and CATALINA MAMUYAC, opponents-appellees. [G.R. N . L!"-$+& Dan5a*4 ",, +,"& DOHNSON, J.:$

TOP 12 R()o,a$#on O% B#""- &n. T(-$a3(n$ary +#-'o-#$#on - Hy Physical -estruction

DOCTRINE1 2here a "ill "hich cannot be fo#nd is sho"n to have been in the possession of the testator, "hen last seen, the pres#mption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same "as cancelled or destroyed. FACTS1 1. Ham#yac e-ec#ted a last "ill and testament J171. 2I66? on 4#ly %& 171. and died on 4an#ary %, 17%% in the m#nicipality of )!oo, 6a Lnion %. Francisco Ga!o filed a petition in the CFI of 6a Lnion for probation of the "ill a. Cornelio Ham#yac, )mbrosio 6ariosa, Feliciana 5a# on, and Catalina Ham#yac opposed %. 4#d!e C. H. *illareal denied the probation of the 2ill ) beca#se the deceased e-ec#ted a ne" "ill and testament J1717 2I66? on )pril 10, 1717

31

'. 4#d!e )nastacio Teodoro denied the probation of 2ill 5 beca#se it "as cancelled and revoked in 17%/. It f#rther r#led that+ a. 1717 2ill is a mere carbon of its ori!inal "hich remained in the possession of the deceased testator Hi!#el Ham#yac, b. Testator revoked it before his death as per testimony of "itness 4ose Fenoy, "ho typed the "ill of the testator on )pril 10, 1717, and Carlos 5eAar, "ho sa" on <ecember '/, 17%/, the ori!inal act#ally cancelled by the testator c. Hi!#el Ham#yac, "ho ass#red Carlos 5eAar that inasm#ch as he had sold him a ho#se and the land "here the ho#se "as b#ilt, he had to cancel 1717 2ill e-ec#tin! thereby a ne" testament. d. Ga7 c ** ) *a3ed 32e 3es30( n4 : D se Fen 4 )4 ad(0330n7 32a3 32e 8066 eCec53ed )4 32e deceased 0n +,+, 8as : 5nd 0n 32e / ssess0 n : :a32e* M075e6 Ma(54ac. e. The sister of the deceased 1arcisa Ga!o also testified that 32e *070na6 +,+, W066 c 56d n 3 )e : 5nd ISSUE1 2hether the 1717 2ill has been revokedE HELD1 Mes, it has been cancelled in 17%/. 4#d!ment of lo"er co#rt affirmed. +. W2e*e a 8066 820c2 cann 3 )e : 5nd 0s s2 8n 3 2a'e )een 0n 32e / ssess0 n : 32e 3es3a3 *, 82en 6as3 seen, 32e /*es5(/30 n 0s, 0n 32e a)sence : 32e* c (/e3en3 e'0dence, 32a3 32e sa(e 8as cance66ed * des3* 4ed. a. T2e sa(e /*es5(/30 n a*0ses 82e*e 03 0s s2 8n 32a3 32e 3es3a3 * 2ad *ead4 access 3 32e 8066 and 03 cann 3 )e : 5nd a:3e* 20s dea32. %. It "ill not be pres#med that s#ch "ill has been destroyed by any other person "itho#t the kno"led!e or a#thority of the testator. The force of the pres#mption of cancellation or revocation by the testator, "hile varyin! !reatly, bein! "eak or stron! accordin! to the circ#mstances, is never concl#sive, b#t may be overcome by proof that the "ill "as not destroyed by the testator "ith intent to revoke it. $. In 32e /*esen3 case1 32e*e 8e*e / s030'e /* : 32a3 32e 8066 2as )een cance66ed )4 32e 3es3a3 *. a. The ori!inal "ill of 1717 co#ld not be fo#nd after the death of the testator Hi!#el Ham#yac (. in "hich "ills are destroyed for the p#rpose of revokin! them there is no "itness to the act of cancellation or destr#ction and all evidence of its cancellation perishes "ith the testator 3. Copies of "ills sho#ld be admitted by the co#rts "ith !reat ca#tion.

a. 2hen "ills are e-ec#ted in d#plicate and each copy "as e-ec#ted "ith all the formalities and re$#irements of the la", then the d5/60ca3e (a4 )e ad(033ed 0n e'0dence 82en 03 0s (ade 3 a//ea* 32a3 32e *070na6 2as )een 6 s3 and 8as n 3 cance66ed * des3* 4ed )4 32e 3es3a3 *.

&< ! TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ALDINA MALOTO CASIANO, CONSTANCIO MALOTO, PURIFICACION MIRAFLOR, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MOLO, AND ASILO DE MOLO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PANFILO MALOTO AND FELINO MALOTO, respondents. G.R. N . &-I-I Fe)*5a*4 ",, +,<< SARMIENTO, J.: TOPIC1 Revocation by Physical <estr#ction DOCTRINE1 It is clear that the physical act of destr#ction of a "ill, like b#rnin! in this case, does not per se constit#te an effective revocation, #nless the destr#ction is co#pled "ith animus revocandi on the part of the testator. FACTS1 1. )driana Haloto died leavin! as heirs her niece and nephe"s+ a. Petitioners )ldina and Constancio b. Respondents Panfilo and Felino %. 5elievin! that the deceased did not leave behind a last "ill and testament, these fo#r heirs commenced an intestate proceedin! for the settlement of their a#ntDs estate

32

'. 2hile the case "as still in pro!ress, they e-ec#ted an a!reement of e-traA#dicial settlement of )drianaDs estate "herein they a!reed to divide the estate into fo#r e$#al parts (. Three years later, )tty. Palma, the former associate of )drianaDs co#nsel, the late )tty. ;ervas, discovered a doc#ment entitled FI)T)PL:)1 1G) P)G5L6LT-)1G p#rportin! to be the last "ill and testament of )driana 3. )tty. Palma claimed to have fo#nd the testament "hile he "as !oin! thro#!h some materials inside the cabinet of )tty. ;ervas. 0. The doc#ment "as s#bmitted to the office of the clerk &. Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs, "hile )ldina and Constacio are be$#eathed m#ch bi!!er and more val#able shares .. Petitioners filed for a motion for reconsideration and for the allo"ance of the "ill 7. C)+ fo#nd that the "ill had been revoked a. The doc#ment or papers "ere a66e7ed64 b#rned by The ho#sehelp of )driana, G#adal#pe Haloto, #pon the instr#ctions of the testatrib. The presence of anim#s revocandi in the destr#ction of the "ill had, nevertheless, been s#fficiently proven c. The doc#ment "as not in the t"o safes in )driana>s residence, by the testatri- !oin! to the residence of )tty. ;ervas to retrieve a copy of the "ill left in the latter>s possession, and, her seekin! the services of )tty. Palma in order to have a ne" "ill dra"n #p. ISSUE1 2hether or not the "ill "as revoked by )driana HELD1 NO

1/. It is clear that the /24s0ca6 ac3 : des3*5c30 n : a 8066, 609e )5*n0n7 0n 320s case, d es n 3 /e* se c ns30353e an e::ec30'e *e' ca30 n, 5n6ess 32e des3*5c30 n 0s c 5/6ed 8032 animus revocandi n 32e /a*3 : 32e 3es3a3 *. 11. It is not imperative that the physical destr#ction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by another person b#t #nder the e-press direction and in the presence of the testator. 9f co#rse, it !oes "itho#t sayin! that the doc#ment destroyed m#st be the "ill itself.

/2" In this case, 8206e animus revocandi * 32e 0n3en30 n 3

*e' 9e, (a4 )e c nceded, : * 32a3 0s a s3a3e : (0nd, 4e3 32a3 *e;50s03e a6 ne 8 56d n 3 s5::0ce. 1'. %nimus revocandi 0s n64 ne : 32e necessa*4 e6e(en3s : * 32e e::ec30'e *e' ca30 n : a 6as3 8066 and 3es3a(en3. T2e 0n3en30 n 3 *e' 9e (5s3 )e acc (/an0ed )4 32e 'e*3 /24s0ca6 ac3 : )5*n0n7, 3ea*0n7, )603e*a30n7, * cance660n7 32e 8066 ca**0ed 53 )4 32e 3es3a3 * * )4 an 32e* /e*s n 0n 20s /*esence and 5nde* 20s eC/*ess d0*ec30 n. +I. T2e*e 0s /a5c034 : e'0dence 3 s2 8 c (/60ance 8032 32ese *e;50*e(en3s. a. For one, the doc#ment or papers b#rned by )driana>s maid, G#adal#pe, "as not satisfactorily established to be a "ill at all, m#ch less the "ill of )driana Haloto. b. For another, the b#rnin! "as not proven to have been done #nder the e-press direction of )driana. c. )nd then, the b#rnin! "as not in her presence. d. 5oth "itnesses, G#adal#pe and =ladio, "ere one in statin! that they "ere the only ones present at the place "here the stove Jpres#mably in the kitchen? "as located in "hich the papers proffered as a "ill "ere b#rned.

33

&, ! In 32e (a3e* : 32e es3a3e : Des5s de Le n. IGNACIA DIAM, petitioner-appellant, vs. ANA DE LEON, opponent-appellee.
KG.R. N . +&&+I Ma4 $+, +,"" ROMUALDEM, J.: Q

3. )ccordin! to the stat#te !overnin! the s#bAect in this A#risdiction, 32e des3*5c30 n : a 8066 animo revocandi c ns30353es, 0n 03se6:, a s5::0c0en3 *e' ca30 n. J:ec. 0%', Code of Civil Proced#re.? 0. The intention of revokin! the "ill is manifest from the established fact that the testator "as an-io#s to "ithdra" or chan!e the provisions he had made in his first "ill. &. This fact is disclosed by the testator>s o"n statements to the "itnesses Canto and the Hother :#perior of the ;ospital "here he "as confined. .. The ori!inal "ill herein presented for probate 2a'0n7 )een des3* 4ed 8032 animo revocandi, cann 3 n 8 )e /* )a3ed as 32e 8066 and 6as3 3es3a(en3 : Des5s de Le n. 7. 4#d!ement is affirmed "ith costs a!ainst the petitioner. :o ordered.

T /0c1 VII. Re' ca30 n O: W066s And Tes3a(en3a*4 D0s/ s030 n AA. Re' ca30 n B4 P24s0ca6 Des3*5c30 nB

D c3*0ne1 The destr#ction of a 2ill animo revocandi constit#tes, in itself, a s#fficient revocation

FACTS1 1. The testator, shortly after the e-ec#tion of the first "ill in $#estion, asked that the same be ret#rned to him. %. The instr#ment "as ret#rned to 32e 3es3a3 * 82 *de*ed 20s se*'an3 3 3ea* 32e d c5(en3. This "as done in his presence and before a n#rse "ho testified to this effect. '. )fter some time, the testator, bein! asked abo#t the "ill, said that it had been destroyed. (. The petitioner denies s#ch revocation, "hile the defendant affirms the same by alle!in! that the testator revoked his "ill by destroyin! it, and by e-ec#tin! another "ill e-pressly revokin! the former. ISSUE1 W2e32e* * n 3 32e 8066 eCec53ed )4 Des5s de Le n 8as a6s *e' 9ed )4 20(.

<# ! TE1TATE E1TATE !( ,!1E(A TANGC!, ,!1E 0E "!R,A, a#ministrator-appelleeG ,!1E 0E "!R,A, as a#ministrator, CAYETAN! 0E "!R,A, MAT L0E 0E "!R,A an# CR 1ANT! 0E

"!R,A C#e8ease#D as C7il#ren o: ,ose:a Tan@8o, appellees, s"TA1 ANA =0A. 0E 0E "!R,A, 1pe8ial A#ministratriH o: t7e Testate Estate o: (ran8is8o #e "orIa, appellant"

G.R. No. L-%&+3+, Au@ust '&, '67%, REYE1, ,.".L., J

TE1TATE E1TATE !( T5E LATE (RANC 1C! 0E "!R,A, TA1 ANA !. =0A. 0E 0E "!R,A, special Administratri* appellee, s" ,!1E 0E "!R,A, oppositor9appellant" G.R. No L-%&54&, Au@ust '&, '67%, REYE1, ,.".L., J
HELD1 Yes. T2e :0*s3 W066 8as *e' 9ed. AA632 572 32e sec nd W066 0s a6s ' 0d : * 32e* de:ec3s.B

TA1 ANA +. =0A. 0E "!R,A, as A#ministratriH o: t7e Testate Estate 3;

o: t7e late (ran8is8o #e "orIa, plaintiff9appellee, s",!1E 0E "!R,A, as A#ministrator o: t7e Testate Estate o: t7e late ,ose:a Tan@8o, defendant9 appellant" G.R. No. L-%&4'', Au@ust '&, '67%, REYE1, ,.".L., J

Ratio) 1. The agree"ent stip!lated that Tasiana will recei'e /011,111 as f!ll pa."ent for her hereditar. share in the estate of Francisco and Josefa. $. There was here no atte"pt to settle or distrib!te the estate of Francisco de Borja a"ong the heirs thereto before the probate of his will. The clear object of the contract was "erel. the con'e.ance b. Tasiana 2ngsingco of an. and all her indi'id!al share and interest, act!al or e'ent!al, in the estate of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco. There is no stip!lation as to an. other clai"ant, creditor or legatee. ). 3nd as a hereditar. share in a decedent4s estate is trans"itted or 'ested i""ediatel. fro" the "o"ent of the death of s!ch ca!sante or predecessor in interest 5Ci'il Code of the /hilippines, 3rt. 6667 there is no legal bar to a s!ccessor 5with re8!isite contracting capacit.7 disposing of her or his hereditar. share i""ediatel. after s!ch death, e'en if the act!al e tent of s!ch share is not deter"ined !ntil the s!bse8!ent li8!idation of the estate.

Topic) Probate of a Will @octrine) An heir may dispose of hisFher interest in the estate e en if a will has not yet been probates since there isn>t an attempt to settle or distribute the estate of the deceased"

Facts) 1. Francisco de Borja filed a petition for probate of the will of his wife who died, Josefa Tangco, with the CFI of Rizal. He was appointed e ec!tor and ad"inistrator, !ntil he died# his son Jose beca"e the sole ad"inistrator. $. Francisco had ta%en a $nd wife Tasiana before he died# she instit!ted testate proceedings with the CFI of &!e'a (cija !pon his death and was appointed special ad"inistatri . ). Jose and Tasiana entered !pon a co"pro"ise agree"ent, b!t Tasiana opposed the appro'al of the co"pro"ise agree"ent. *. +he arg!es that it was no 'alid, beca!se the heirs cannot enter into s!ch %ind of agree"ent witho!t first probating the will of Francisco, and at the ti"e the agree"ent was "ade, the will was still being probated with the CFI of &!e'a (cija. 6ssue) ,-& the co"pro"ise agree"ent is 'alid, e'en if the will of Francisco has not .et been probated. 7eld) Bes 37

<+ ! MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU, MELITON CABALU, SPS. ANGELA CABALU and RODOLFO TALAVERA, and PATRICIO ABUS, Petitioners, vs. SPS. RENATO DOLORES TABU and LAOAMANA, M5n0c0/a6 T*0a6 C 5*3 0n C030es, Ta*6ac C034, B*anc2 II,Respondents. [G.R. N . +<<I+&, Se/3e()e* "I, "#+".
T /0c1 VIII. P* )a3e : a W066 D c3*0ne1

Lnder A*30c6e +$I& : 32e C0'06 C de, C1o contract may be entered into #pon f#t#re inheritance e-cept in cases e-pressly a#thori ed by la".C Para!raph % of )rticle 1'(&, characteri es a c n3*ac3 en3e*ed 0n3 5/ n

:535*e 0n2e*03ance as ' 0d. The la" applies "hen the follo"in! re$#isites conc#r+ J1? the s#ccession has not yet been opened, J%? the obAect of the contract forms part of the inheritance, and J'? the promissor has, "ith respect to the obAect, an e-pectancy of a ri!ht "hich is p#rely hereditary in nat#re. If any one party to a s#pposed contract "as already dead at the time of its e-ec#tion, s#ch contract is #ndo#btedly sim#lated and false and, therefore, n#ll and void by reason of its havin! been made after the death of the party "ho appears as one of the contractin! parties therein. The death of a person terminates contract#al capacity.
Fac3s1

%. T 70'e e::ec3 3 32e 2 6 7*a/20c 8066, 32e : *ced and 6e7030(a3e 2e0*s : Fa5s30na eCec53ed a Deed : EC3*a! D5d0c0a6 S5ccess0 n 8032 Pa*3030 n. a. The said deed imparted ,,### s;5a*e (e3e*s 6and 3 D (0n7 . : 32e

b. Thereafter, <omin!o sold (,3// s$#are meters of the 7,/// s$#are meters to his nephe", =lea ar Tabamo. The doc#ment "as captioned <eed of :ale of a Portion of 6and. c. The remainin! (,3// s$#are meters of <omin!oDs share in the partition "as re!istered #nder his name '. 9n )#!#st (, 1770, D (0n7 /assed a8a4. (. T"o months after his death, D (0n7 /5*/ *3ed64 eCec53ed a Deed : A)s 653e Sa6e in favor of respondent Renato Tab# JTab#?. a. :#bse$#ently, Tab# and his "ife, <olores 6a-amana Jrespondent spo#ses?, s#bdivided the said lot into t"o 3. respondent <olores 6a-amana-Tab#, to!ether "ith 4#lieta T#bilan-6a-amana, Teresita 6a-amana, =rlita 6a-amana, and Gretel 6a-amana, 32e 2e0*s : D (0n7 , :06ed an 5n6a8:56 de3a0ne* ac30 n a!ainst Heliton Cabal#, Patricio )b#s, Ro!er Talavera, 4es#s *illar, Harcos Pere , )rth#r <i on, and all persons claimin! ri!hts #nder them. a. The heirs claimed that the de:endan3s 8e*e (e*e64 a66 8ed 3 cc5/4 32e s5)Fec3 6 3 )4 32e0* 6a3e :a32e*, D (0n7 , )53, 82en as9ed 3 'aca3e 32e /* /e*34, 32e4 *e:5sed 3 d s . b. The case "as r#led in favor of <omin!oDs heirs and a "rit of e-ec#tion "as s#bse$#ently iss#ed.

/" This is a CPetition for Revie" on Certiorari J#nder R#le (3?C of the
R9C assailin! the 4#ne 10, %//7 <ecision of the C) in C)-GR. C* 1o. .1(07 entitled CHila!ros <e 5elen *da de Cabal# v. Renato Tab#.C %. The property s#bAect of the controversy is a lot sit#ated in Hari"alo, Tarlac, "hich "as a portion of a property re!istered in the name of the late Fa#stina Hasl#m JFa#stina? '. 9n <ecember ., 17(1, Fa5s30na d0ed 8032 53 an4 c206d*en. (. S2e 6e:3 a 2 6 7*a/20c 8066, dated 4#ly %&, 17'7, ass07n0n7 and d0s3*0)530n7 2e* /* /e*34 3 2e* ne/2e8s and n0eces. a. The said holo!raphic "ill, ho"ever, "as n 3 /* )a3ed. b. 9ne of the heirs "as the father of <omin!o 6a-amana J<omin!o?, 5enAamin 6a-amana, "ho died in 170/. i. D (0n7 a66e7ed64 eCec53ed a Deed : Sa6e : Und0'0ded Pa*ce6 : Land d0s/ s0n7 : 20s ,,### s;5a*e (e3e* s2a*e : 32e 6and 3 La5*ean Ca)a65.

36

0. Petitioners Hila!ros de 5elen *da. <e Cabal#, Heliton Cabal#, :po#ses )n!ela Cabal# and Rodolfo Talavera, and Patricio )b#s A/e3030 ne*sB, :06ed a case : * Dec6a*a30 n : N566034 : Deed : A)s 653e Sa6e, D 0n3 A::0da'03 : N566034 : T*ans:e* Ce*30:0ca3e : T036e, H50e30n7 : T036e, Rec n'e4ance, A//60ca30 n : * Res3*a0n0n7 O*de*, InF5nc30 n and Da(a7es a7a0ns3 *es/ nden3 s/ 5ses )e: *e 32e RTC. &. In their complaint, /e3030 ne*s c6a0(ed 32a3 32e4 8e*e 32e 6a8:56 8ne*s : 32e s5)Fec3 /* /e*34 )eca5se 03 8as s 6d 3 32e0* :a32e*, La5*ean Ca)a65, )4 D (0n7 , 32* 572 a Deed : A)s 653e Sa6e, dated Harch 3, 17&3. ;ence, bein! the *0723:56 8ne*s )4 8a4 : s5ccess0 n , they co#ld not be eAected from the s#bAect property. .. Res/ nden3 s/ 5ses c 5n3e*ed 32a3 32e deed : sa6e :* ( 820c2 32e /e3030 ne*s anc2 *ed 32e0* *0723 'e* 32e ,,### s;5a*e (e3e* /* /e*34 8as n566 and ' 0d )eca5se 0n +,&%, D (0n7 8as n 3 4e3 32e 8ne* : 32e /* /e*34, as 32e sa(e 8as s3066 *e70s3e*ed 0n 32e na(e : Fa5s30na. a. <omin!o became the o"ner of the property only on )#!#st 1, 177(, by virt#e of the <eed of =-tra-4#dicial :#ccession "ith Partition e-ec#ted by the forced heirs of Fa#stina. b. In addition, they averred that <omin!o "as of #nso#nd mind havin! been confined in a mental instit#tion for a time.

1/. 5oth parties appealed to the C). )ltho#!h the C) fo#nd <omin!o
to be of so#nd mind at the time of the sale on Harch 3, 17&3, it s#stained the RTCDs declaration of n#llity of the sale on the !ro#nd that the deed of sale "as sim#lated. a. The C) f#rther held that the RTC erred in cancelin! TCT 1o. %003.' in the name of <omin!o and in orderin! the restoration of TCT 1o. 10&&/, re!istered in the name of Fa#stina, to its former validity, <omin!o bein! an #ndisp#ted heir of Fa#stina. Iss5e>s1

1? 291 the <eed of :ale of Lndivided Parcel of 6and coverin! the 7,/// s$#are meter property e-ec#ted by <omin!o in favor of 6a#reano Cabal# on Harch 3, 17&3, is valid, and %? 291 the <eed of :ale, dated 9ctober ., 1770, coverin! the (,3// s$#are meter portion of the 7,/// s$#are meter property, e-ec#ted by <omin!o in favor of Renato Tab#, is n#ll and void.
He6d1 +B NO "B YES R560n71

7. RTC d0s(0ssed 32e c (/6a0n3 as 03 : 5nd 32e Deed : A)s 653e Sa6e, da3ed Ma*c2 %, +,&%, n566 and ' 0d : * 6ac9 : ca/ac034 3 se66 n 32e /a*3 : D (0n7 . a. 6ike"ise, 32e Deed : A)s 653e Sa6e , dated 9ctober ., 1770, coverin! the remainin! (,3// s$#are meters of the s#bAect property 8as dec6a*ed 0ne::ec30'e 2a'0n7 )een eCec53ed )4 D (0n7 38 ( n32s a:3e* 20s dea32 n A575s3 I, +,,-.

11. It is "ell to note that both the RTC and the C) fo#nd that the evidence established that the Harch 3, 17&3 <eed of :ale of Lndivided Parcel of 6and e-ec#ted by <omin!o in favor of 6a#reano Cabal# "as a fictitio#s and sim#lated doc#ment. )s e-po#nded by the C), vi + 1%. 1evertheless, since 32e*e a*e d0sc*e/anc0es 0n 32e s07na35*e of the notary p#blic, his PTR and the doc#ment n#mber on the lo"er-most portion of the doc#ment, as "ell as the said deed of sale bein! fo#nd only after the plaintiffs-appellants "ere eAected by the defendants-appellants, a. that they "ere alle!edly not a"are that the said property "as bo#!ht by their father,

3/

b. and that they never $#estioned the other half of the property not occ#pied by them, 03 0s a//a*en3 32a3 32e sa6e da3ed Ma*c2 %, +,&% 2ad 32e ea*(a*9s : a s0(56a3ed deed 8*033en a66 'e* 03. c. The lo"er co#rt did not err in prono#ncin! that it be declared n#ll and void. 1'. =ven on the ass#mption that the Harch 3, 17&3 deed "as not sim#lated, s3066 32e sa6e cann 3 )e dee(ed 'a60d )eca5se, a3 32a3 30(e, D (0n7 8as n 3 4e3 32e 8ne* : 32e /* /e*34. a. There is no disp#te that the ori!inal and re!istered o"ner of the s#bAect property from "hich the s#bAect 7,/// s$#are meter lot came from, "as Fa#stina, "ho d#rin! her lifetime had e-ec#ted a "ill, dated 4#ly %&, 17'7. b. In the said "ill, the name of 5enAamin, father of <omin!o, appeared as one of the heirs. Th#s, and as correctly fo#nd by the RTC, e'en 0: BenFa(0n d0ed s (e30(e 0n +,-#, D (0n7 0n +,&% c 56d n 3 4e3 'a60d64 d0s/ se : 32e 82 6e * e'en a / *30 n 32e*e : : * 32e *eas n 32a3 2e 8as n 3 32e s 6e 2e0* : BenFa(0n, as 20s ( 32e* n64 d0ed s (e30(e 0n +,<#. 1(. 5esides, #nder A*30c6e +$I& : 32e C0'06 C de, C1o contract may be entered into #pon f#t#re inheritance e-cept in cases e-pressly a#thori ed by la".C a. Para!raph % of )rticle 1'(&, characteri es a c n3*ac3 en3e*ed 0n3 5/ n :535*e 0n2e*03ance as ' 0d. b. The la" applies "hen the follo"in! re$#isites conc#r+ i. J1? the s#ccession has not yet been opened, ii. J%? the obAect of the contract forms part of the inheritance, and

iii. J'? the promissor has, "ith respect to the obAect, an e-pectancy of a ri!ht "hich is p#rely hereditary in nat#re.

13. In this case, a3 32e 30(e 32e deed 8as eCec53ed, Fa5s30naEs
8066 8as n 3 4e3 /* )a3ed , the obAect of the contract, 32e ,,### s;5a*e (e3e* /* /e*34, s3066 : *(ed /a*3 : 32e 0n2e*03ance : 20s :a32e* :* ( 32e es3a3e : Fa5s30naG and D (0n7 2ad a (e*e 0nc2 a3e 2e*ed03a*4 *0723 32e*e0n.
1&wphi1

10. D (0n7 )eca(e 32e 8ne* : 32e sa0d /* /e*34 n64 A575s3 +, +,,I, 32e 30(e : eCec530 n : 32e Deed EC3*aF5d0c0a6 S5ccess0 n 8032 Pa*3030 n )4 32e 2e0*s Fa5s30na, "hen the 7,/// s$#are meter lot "as adA#dicated him.

n : : to

1&. D (0n7 Es s3a35s as an 2e0* : Fa5s30na )4 *0723 : *e/*esen3a30 n )e0n7 5nd0s/53ed, 32e RTC s2 56d 2a'e (a0n3a0ned 32e 'a60d034 : TCT N . "--%<$ c 'e*0n7 32e ,,### s;5a*e (e3e* s5)Fec3 /* /e*34. )s correctly concl#ded by the C), 320s se*'ed as 32e 0n2e*03ance : D (0n7 :* ( Fa5s30na. 1.. Re!ardin! the deed of sale coverin! the *e(a0n0n7 I,%## s;5a*e (e3e*s : 32e s5)Fec3 /* /e*34 eCec53ed 0n :a' * : Rena3 Ta)5, 03 0s e'0den364 n566 and ' 0d. a. The doc#ment itself, the <eed of )bsol#te :ale, readily sho"s that 03 8as eCec53ed n A575s3 I, +,,- ( *e 32an 38 ( n32s a:3e* 32e dea32 : D (0n7 . b. if any one party to a s#pposed contract "as already dead at the time of its e-ec#tion, s#ch contract is #ndo#btedly sim#lated and false and, therefore, n#ll and void by reason of its havin! been made after the death of the party "ho appears as one of the contractin! parties therein. c. The death of a person terminates contract#al capacity.

38

17. T2e c n3*ac3 )e0n7 n566 and ' 0d, 32e sa6e 3 Rena3 Ta)5 /* d5ced n 6e7a6 e::ec3s and 3*ans(033ed n *0723s 82a3s e'e*.

and other reli(ious ob<ects !ound in the residence o! the testatorG an. $o ;#- .au9;$(r Ro-ar#o, a 'a#r o% (arr#n9- <or$; P120.00D

<". ERNESTO M. GUEVARA, petitioner-appellant, vs. ROSARIO GUEVARA and 2e* 25s)and PEDRO BUISON, respondent-appellees. Topic: Probate Of A Will Doctrine: The la% states that the resentation o! a %ill to the court !or robate is mandatory and its allo%ance by the court is essential and indis ensable to its e!!icacy. Fa,$1. 9rnesto 1ue#ara and Rosario 1ue#ara, le(itimate son and natural dau(hter o! the deceased Bictorino 1ue#ara are liti(atin( o#er their inheritance !rom the latter 2. 1.3/8Rosario 1ue#ara !iled an action to reco#er !rom 9rnesto 1ue#ara %hat she claims to be her strict le(itime as an ac'no%led(ed natural dau(hter o! the deceased. 2a ortion o! ;23,;.2 s5 m o! a arcel o! land, issued in the name o! 9rnesto4 5. 9rnesto ans%ered that %hate#er ri(ht or ri(hts the lainti!! mi(ht ha#e had, had been barred by o erations o! la%. 4. 1.318 C#,$or#no L Gu()ara (=(,u$(. a <#"" a arently %ith all the !ormalities o! the la%, be5uests8 D" " " t> his son, 9rnesto, a (old rin( %orth P180.00 and all the !urniture, ictures statutes 3.

5. He also made the !ollo%in( de#ises8 +or his 'ids Rosario and 9rnesto " " " a r(-#.(n$#a" "o$ <#$; #$- #3'ro)(3(n$ -#$ua$(. #n Pan9a-#nan ;a)#n9 an ar(a o% 980 -?, 3. To his %i!e he con!irmed the donation propter nuptias there!ore made by him to her o! a ortion o! 27 hectares o! the lar(e arcel o! land . 8. He set aside 100 hectares o! the same arcel o! land to be dis osed o! either by him durin( his li!etime or by his attorney) in)!act 9rnesto in order to ay all his endin( debts. 7. +or the remainders o! the land, the land %ill be le!t and distributed to the !ollo%in( heirs8 D/y "(9#$#3a$( -on, Ern(-$o 8 108 acres, 8 areas and 7;, to%ard the ad<oinin( %est o! the 100 hectares o! this %ill a- #$- -o"( an. (=,"u-#)( 'ro'(r$y. /y na$ura" .au9;$(r, Ro-ar#o <#"" 9($ $;( r(3a#n#n9 'ar$ and 9rnesto %ill be a ointed as e"ecutor.

8. Bictorino, throu(h a deed o! sale, dis oses o! and con#eys to 9rnesto @. 1ue#ara the southern hal! o! Bictorino ?. 1ue#ara&s hacienda o! 27.)odd hectares in consideration o! P1 and other #aluable consideration 2 ayment o! other e" enses li'e health and !uneral e" enses4 .. As to the northern hal! o! the same land he reco(ni3ed my son 9rnesto @. 1ue#ara as o%ner o! the northern hal! o! the totality. 2The northern art %as urchased !rom Ra!ael Pu3on4 10. *+$ Pan(asinan issued a !inal declaration o! re(istration in !a#or o! 9rnesto 1ue#era o#er the %hole arcel o! land described in the deed o! sale .

11. 9#er since the death o! Bictorino ?. 1ue#ara, his only le(itimate son 9rnesto @. 1ue#ara a ears to ha#e ossessed the land ad<udicated to him in the re(istration roceedin( and to ha#e dis osed o! #arious ortions thereo! !or the ur ose o! ayin( the debts le!t by his !ather. 12. C#,$or#no Gu()ara .#(.. H#- "a-$ <#"" an. $(-$a3(n$ <an()(r 'r(-(n$(. $o $;( ,our$ %or 'ro>a$( nor ;a- any a.3#n#-$ra$#on 'ro,((.#n9 ()(r >((n #n-$#$u$(. %or $;( -($$"(3(n$ o% ;#- (-$a$(. 15. Ro-ar#o Gu()ara, <;o a''(ar- $o ;a)( ;a. ;(r %a$;(rE"a-$ <#"" an. $(-$a3(n$ #n ;(r ,u-$o.y, .#. no$;#n9 Fu.#,#a""y $o #n)oG( $;( $(-$a3(n$ary .#-'o-#$#on- 3a.( $;(r(#n #n ;(r %a)or, <;(r(>y $;( $(-$a$or a,Gno<"(.9(. ;(r a- ;#- na$ura" .au9;$(r an., a-#.( %ro3 ,(r$a#n "(9a,#(- an. >(?u(-$-, .()#-(. $o ;(r a 'or$#on o% 21.8171 ;(,$ar(- o% $;( "ar9( 'ar,(" o% "an. .(-,r#>(. #n $;( <#"". 1;. 4 y(ar- a%$(r $;( $(-$a$orH- .#(., Ro-ar#o 'r(-(n$(. $;( <#"" $o $;( ,our$, no$ %or $;( 'ur'o-( o% ;a)#n9 #$ 'ro>a$(. >u$ on"y $o 'ro)( $;a$ $;( .(,(a-(. C#,$#r#no L. Gu()ara ;a. a,Gno<"(.9(. ;(r a- ;#- na$ura" .au9;$(r. *'on $;a$ 'roo% o% a,Gno<"(.93(n$ -;( ,"a#3(. ;(r -;ar( o% $;( #n;(r#$an,( %ro3 ;#3, but on the theory or assum tion that he died intestate, because the %ill had not been robated, !or %hich reason, -;( a--(r$(., $;( >($$(r3(n$ $;(r(#n 3a.( >y $;( $(-$a$or #n %a)or o% ;#- "(9#$#3a$( -on Ern(-$o /. Gu()ara -;ou". >( .#-r(9ar.(.. 17. T*8 The resentation o! a %ill to the court !or robate is mandatory and its allo%ance is essential and indis ensable to its e!!icacy. T;( <#"" un"(-- 'ro>a$(. #- 3an.a$ory. 16. *A8 Re#ersed the decision. Rosario as the custodian o! the %ill!ailed to com ly %ith her duty. !!*E =hether or not it is mandatory to robate the %illF

I(-. $t is mandatory to robate the %ill. R&T ON&LE2

The roceedin( !or the robate o! a %ill is one in rem, %ith notice by ublication to the %hole %orld and %ith ersonal notice to each o! the 'no%n heirs, le(atees, and de#isees o! the testator. Althou(h not contested 2section 7, Rule //4, the due e"ecution o! the %ill and the !act that the testator at the time o! its e"ecution %as o! sound and dis osin( mind and not actin( under duress, menace, and undue in!luence or !raud, must be ro#ed to the satis!action o! the court, and only then may the %ill be le(ali3ed and (i#en e!!ect by means o! a certi!icate o! its allo%ance, si(ned by the <ud(e and attested by the seal o! the courtA and %hen the %ill de#ises real ro erty, attested co ies thereo! and o! the certi!icate o! allo%ance must be recorded in the re(ister o! deeds o! the ro#ince in %hich the land lies. 20ection 12, Rule //, and section 62;, *. *. P.4

T;( "a< -$a$(- $;a$ $;( 'r(-(n$a$#on o% a <#"" $o $;( ,our$ %or 'ro>a$( #- 3an.a$ory an. #$- a""o<an,( >y $;( ,our$ #- (--(n$#a" an. #n.#-'(n-a>"( $o #$- (%%#,a,y. To assure and com el the robate o! a %ill, the la% unishes a erson %ho ne(lects his duty to resent it to the court %ith a !ine not e"ceedin( P2,000, and i! he should ersist in not resentin( it, he may be committed to rison and 'e t there until he deli#ers the %ill.

0* ruled that i! the decedent le!t a %ill and no debts and the heirs and le(atees desire to ma'e an e"tra<udicial artition o! the estate, they must !irst resent that %ill to the court !or robate and di#ide the estate in accordance %ith the %ill. They may not disre(ard the ;0

HEL+2

ro#isions o! the %ill unless those ro#isions are contrary to la%. Neither may they do a%ay %ith the resentation o! the %ill to the court !or robate, because such su ression o! the %ill is contrary to la% and ublic olicy.

liabilities created by la% and a licable to unre(istered land 2sec. /0, ?and Re(istration ?a%4. The lainti!! is not, then, in esto el, nor can the doctrine o! res <udicata be in#o'ed a(ainst her claim. Inder these circumstances, she has the ri(ht to com el the de!endant to deli#er her corres ondin( share in the estate le!t by the deceased, Bictorino ?. 1ue#ara.

The la% en<oins the robate o! the %ill and ublic olicy re5uires it, because unless the %ill is robated and notice thereo! (i#en to the %hole %orld, the ri(ht o! a erson to dis ose o! his ro erty by %ill may be rendered nu(atory, as is attem ted to be done in the instant case. Absent le(atees and de#isees, or such o! them as may ha#e no 'no%led(e o! the %ill, could be cheated o! their inheritance thru the collusion o! some o! the heirs %ho mi(ht a(ree to the artition o! the estate amon( themsel#es to the e"clusion o! others.

EKTR&J*+ 1 &L !ETTLE/ENT !!*E H>*>H>, 6., concurrin(8 ,on,ur #n $;( r(-u"$. E=$raFu.#,#a" -($$"(3(n$ >y a9r((3(n$ a3on9 $;( ;(#r- #- au$;or#:(. >y -(,$#on 1 o% Ru"( 74. on"y L#% $;( .(,(.(n$ "(%$ no .(>$-., $n this case, accordin( to the !indin(s o! the *ourt o! A eals, 9rnesto @. 1ue#ara ,has been ayin( the debts le!t by his !ather., $t is true that said 9rnesto @. 1ue#ara, in consideration o! the con#eyance to him o! the southern hal! o! the hacienda, assumed all the debts o! the deceased, but this a(reement is bindin( only u on the arties to the contract but not u on the creditors %ho did not consent thereto. 2Art. 1207, *i#il *ode.4 There bein( debts %hen the !ather died, section 1 o! Rule /; is not a licable.
<$ ! CRESENCIANA TUBO RODRIGUEM An 8 deceasedB, s5)s30353ed )4 SUSANA A. LLAGAS, Pe3030 ne*, 's. EVANGELINE RODRIGUEM, BELEN RODRIGUEM and BUENAVENTURA RODRIGUEM, Res/ nden3s. [G.R. N . +&%&"#, Se/3e()e* ++, "##&, YNARES!SANTIAGO, D.. TOPIC1 Probate 9f ) 2ill, )rt .'., R#le &0, Rrc, )rt. .'7, )rt ./( R ./7, .1/- .1(, .1. R .17 DOCTRINE1 5efore any "ill can have force or validity it m#st be probated. This cannot be dispensed "ith and is a matter of p#blic policy. FACTS1

!!*E &! REG&R+! THERE ! &LRE&+I & +EE+ OF !&LEJ NO NEE+ TO PRO0&TE THE B LL $t is a arent that the de!endant 9rnesto @. 1ue#ara, %ho %as named e"ecutor in said %ill, did not ta'e any ste to ha#e it resented to the court !or robate and did not si(ni!y his acce tance o! the trust or re!usal to acce t it as re5uired by section 3 o! Rule /6 2!ormerly section 62/ o! the *ode o! *i#il Procedure4, because his contention is that said %ill, inso!ar as the lar(e arcel o! land in liti(ation is concerned, has been su erseded by the deed o! sale e"hibit 2 and by the subse5uent issuance o! the Torrens certi!icate o! title in his !a#or.

0* RI?9- The re(istration o! land under the Torrens system does not ha#e the e!!ect o! alterin( the la%s o! succession, or the ri(hts o! artition bet%een co arceners, <oint tenants, and other cotenants nor does it chan(e or a!!ect in any other %ay any other ri(hts and ;1

4#anito Rodri!#e o"ned a five-door apartment. ;e e-ec#ted a C;#lin! ;abilin at TestamentoC !ivin! o petitioner Cresenciana, his live-in partner, apartments < and =, and o his children 5enAamin Rodri!#e Jthe deceased h#sband of respondent =van!eline?, apartment ), o respondent 5#enavent#ra Rodri!#e , apartment 5, and o respondent 5elen Rodri!#e , apartment C. ;o"ever, on 4#ne 1(, 17.(, 4#anito e-ec#ted a <eed of )bsol#te :ale over the property in favor of petitioner. Th#s, petitioner filed a complaint for #nla"f#l detainer a!ainst the respondents. In their )ns"er, respondents claimed o"nership over the s#bAect property by s#ccession alle!in! that petitioner is not the la"f#l o"ner beca#se the 4#ne 1(, 17.( <eed of )bsol#te :ale "as sim#lated and void. Respondents maintained that petitioner e-erted #nd#e infl#ence over their father, "ho at that time "as serio#sly ill, to a!ree to the sale of the property for only P%/,///.//. HTC rendered a A#d!ment in favor of the respondents and held that the deed of sale "as sim#lated. 9n appeal, the RTC reversed the decision of the HTC holdin! that the HTC erred "hen it relied heavily on the C;#lin! ;abilin at Testamento,C "hich "as not probated, hence, has no effect and no ri!ht can be claimed therein. The Partition )!reement sho#ld not also be considered. Co#rt of )ppeals reversed and set aside RTCDs decision. ;ence, this case.

)s the "ill "as not probated, the Partition )!reement "hich "as e-ec#ted p#rs#ant thereto cannot be !iven effect. Th#s, the fact that petitioner "as a party to said a!reement becomes immaterial in the determination of the iss#e of possession. Horeover, at the time the deed of sale "as e-ec#ted in favor of the petitioner, 4#anito Rodri!#e remained the o"ner thereof since o"nership "o#ld only pass to his heirs at the time of his death. Th#s, as o"ner of the property, he had the absol#te ri!ht to dispose of it d#rin! his lifetime.

<I ! Lasa( 's. U(en7an [G.R. N . +-<+%- 1 Dece()e* -, "##-, CALLEDO, SR., J.1. T /0c1 Probate of a "ill D c3*0ne1 the p#rported last "ill and testament of Isabel C#ntapay co#ld not properly be relied #pon to establish petitionersD ri!ht to possess the s#bAect lot beca#se, "itho#t havin! been probated, the said last "ill and testament co#ld not be the so#rce of any ri!ht. Na35*e1 petition for revie" on certiorari Fac3s1 1. %. The lot s#bAect of the #nla"f#l detainer case sit#ated in T#!#e!arao City. In an instr#ment denominated as <eed of Confirmation and ackno"led!ed before a notary p#blic on 4#ne 1(, 17&7, the heirs of the said spo#ses conveyed the o"nership of 6ots 1os. 77/ and 3(%& in favor of their t"o children, Irene C#ntapay and Isabel C#ntapay. The lot s#bAect of the #nla"f#l detainer case is sit#ated in T#!#e!arao City, Ca!ayan. It is the eastern half portion of 6ot 1o. 3(%& and 6ot 1o. 77/. a. These lots are re!istered in the names of the ori!inal o"ners, spo#ses Pedro C#ntapay and 6eona 5#na!an.

ISSUE+ 2hether the C;#lin! ;abilin at TestamentoC is valid. HELD1 1o. C)Ds decision reversed and set aside. RTCDs decision reinstated. Respondents failed to prove their ri!ht of possession, as the ;#lin! ;abilin at Testamento and the Partition )!reement have no le!al effect since the "ill has not been probated. Be: *e an4 8066 can 2a'e : *ce * 'a60d034 03 (5s3 )e /* )a3ed . This cannot be dispensed "ith and is a matter of p#blic policy. A*30c6e <$< : 32e C0'06 C de mandates that Cn 8066 s2a66 /ass e032e* *ea6 * /e*s na6 /* /e*34 5n6ess 03 0s /* 'ed and a66 8ed 0n acc *dance 8032 32e R56es : C 5*3.C

'.

;2

%.

In an instr#ment denominated as <eed of Confirmation and ackno"led!ed before a notary p#blic on 4#ne 1(, 17&7, the heirs of the said spo#ses conveyed the o"nership of 6ots 1os. 77/ and 3(%& in favor of their t"o children, Irene C#ntapay and Isabel C#ntapay. In another instr#ment entitled Partition )!reement and ackno"led!ed before a notary p#blic on <ecember %., 17&7, it "as a!reed that the eastern half portion Js#bAect lot? of 6ots 1os. 77/ and 3(%& shall belon! to the heirs of Isabel C#ntapay. a. 9n the other hand, the remainin! portion thereof Jthe "est portion? shall belon! to the heirs of Irene C#ntapay. The s#bAect lot Jeastern half portion? has an area of 33( s$ m.

..

'.

In her )ns"er "ith Co#nterclaim, *icenta Lmen!an specifically denied the material alle!ations in the complaint. :he co#ntered that "hen Isabel C#ntapay passed a"ay, the s#bAect lot "as inherited by her si- children by her first and second marria!es thro#!h intestate s#ccession. =ach of the sichildren alle!edly had a pro indiviso share of 1@0 of the s#bAect lot. )ccordin! to *icenta Lmen!an, the children of Isabel C#ntapay by her second h#sband JRosendo and Trinidad 6asam? o"n only %@0 portion of the s#bAect lot. :he th#s prayed that the complaint for eAectment be dismissed and that the heirs of Rosendo 6asam be ordered to pay her dama!es.

7.

1/. The HTCC rendered A#d!ment in favor of the heirs of Rosendo 6asam and directed the eAectment of *icenta Lmen!an. a. In so r#lin!, the HTCC !ave credence to the ne"ly discovered last "ill and testament Jentitled Testamento )bierto? p#rportedly e-ec#ted by Isabel C#ntapay "here she be$#eathed the s#bAect lot to her son, Rosendo 6asam The HTCC reasoned that the heirs of Rosendo 6asam anchored their claim over the s#bAect lot on the last "ill and testament of Isabel C#ntapay "hile *icenta Lmen!an hin!ed hers on intestate s#ccession and le!al conveyances.

(.

Isabel C#ntapay had fo#r children by her first h#sband, <omin!o T#rin!an, namely+ )bdon, :ado Jdeceased?, R#fo and Haria. 2hen <omin!o T#rin!an passed a"ay, Isabel C#ntapay remarried Hariano 6asam. :he had t"o other children by him, namely+ Trinidad and Rosendo. :ometime in 4an#ary %//1, the heirs of Rosendo 6asam Json of Isabel C#ntapay by her second h#sband? filed "ith the HTCC a complaint for #nla"f#l detainer a!ainst *icenta Lmen!an, "ho "as then occ#pyin! the s#bAect lot. *icenta Lmen!an is the da#!hter of )bdon T#rin!an Json of Isabel C#ntapay by her first h#sband?. In their complaint, the heirs of Rosendo 6asam alle!ed that they are the o"ners of the s#bAect lot, havin! inherited it from their father. a. Rosendo 6asam "as alle!edly the sole heir of the deceased Pedro C#ntapay thro#!h Isabel C#ntapay. <#rin! his lifetime, Rosendo 6asam alle!edly temporarily allo"ed *icenta Lmen!an to occ#py the s#bAect lot sometime in 1733.

3.

b.

0.

11. 9n appeal, the RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the HTCC. The RTC echoed the reasonin! of the HTCC that the testamentary disposition of the property of Isabel C#ntapay sho#ld be respected, and that the heirs of Rosendo 6asam have a better ri!ht to possess the s#bAect lot. 1%. C) declared that the RTC, as "ell as the HTCC, erred in r#lin! that, by virt#e of the p#rported last "ill and testament of Isabel C#ntapay, the heirs of Rosendo 6asam have a better ri!ht to the s#bAect lot over *icenta Lmen!an. a. The C) e-plained that the said last "ill and testament did not comply "ith the formal re$#irements of the la" on "ills. i. :pecifically, the C) fo#nd that the pa!es of the p#rported last "ill and testament "ere not n#mbered in accordance "ith the la". 1either did it contain the re$#isite attestation cla#se.

b.

&.

The latter and her h#sband alle!edly promised that they "o#ld vacate the s#bAect lot #pon demand. a. ;o"ever, despite "ritten notice and demand by the heirs of Rosendo 6asam, *icenta Lmen!an alle!edly #nla"f#lly ref#sed to vacate the s#bAect lot and contin#ed to possess the same. i. )ccordin!ly, the heirs of Rosendo 6asam "ere constrained to instit#te the action for eAectment.

;3

ii.

Isabel C#ntapay as testator and the "itnesses to the "ill did not affi- their respective si!nat#res on the second pa!e thereof. The said instr#ment "as like"ise not ackno"led!ed before a notary p#blic by the testator and the "itnesses. The C) even raised do#bts as to its a#thenticity, notin! that "hile Isabel C#ntapay died in 17(& and the heirs of Rosendo 6asam claimed that they discovered the same only in 177&, a date R Hay 17, 1730 R appears on the last pa!e of the p#rported "ill. The C) opined that if this "as the date of e-ec#tion, then the "ill "as obvio#sly sp#rio#s. 9n the other hand, if this "as the date of its discovery, then the C) e-pressed bafflement as to "hy the heirs of Rosendo 6asam, thro#!h their mother, declared in the Partition )!reement dated <ecember %., 17&7 that Isabel C#ntapay died intestate.

3.

)rticle .'. of the Civil Code is instr#ctive+ a. )rt. .'.. 1o "ill shall pass either real or personal property #nless it is proved and allo"ed in accordance "ith the R#les of Co#rt.

iii.

%.

The testator himself may, d#rin! his lifetime, petition the co#rt havin! A#risdiction for the allo"ance of his "ill. a. In s#ch case, the pertinent provisions of the R#les of Co#rt for the allo"ance of "ills after the testatorDs death shall !overn.

iv.

'.

The :#preme Co#rt shall form#late s#ch additional R#les of Co#rt as may be necessary for the allo"ance of "ills on petition of the testator. :#bAect to the ri!ht of appeal, the allo"ance of the "ill, either d#rin! the lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be concl#sive as to its d#e e-ec#tion. In CaBi a v. Co#rt of )ppeals, the Co#rt r#led that+ FKaQ "ill is essentially amb#latory, at any time prior to the testatorDs death, it may be chan!ed or revoked, and #ntil admitted to probate, it has no effect "hatever and no ri!ht can be claimed there #nder, the la" bein! $#ite e-plicit+ T1o "ill shall pass either real or personal property #nless it is proved and allo"ed in accordance "ith the R#les of Co#rt.DG <r. Tolentino, an eminent a#thority on civil la", also e-plained that FKbQefore any "ill can have force or validity it m#st be probated. To probate a "ill means to prove before some officer or trib#nal, vested by la" "ith a#thority for that p#rpose, that the instr#ment offered to be proved is the last "ill and testament of the deceased person "hose testamentary act it is alle!ed to be, and that it has been e-ec#ted, attested and p#blished as re$#ired by la", and that the testator "as of so#nd and disposin! mind. It is a proceedin! to establish the validity of the "ill.G Horeover, the presentation of the "ill for probate is mandatory and is a matter of p#blic policy. F 66 80n7 32e a) 'e 3*50s(s, 32e MTCC and RTC, 32e*e: *e, e** ne 5s64 *56ed 32a3 /e3030 ne*s 2a'e a )e33e* *0723 3 / ssess 32e s5)Fec3 6 3 n 32e )as0s : 32e /5*/ *3ed 6as3 8066 and 3es3a(en3 : Isa)e6 C5n3a/a4, 820c2, 3 da3e, 2as n 3 )een /* )a3ed. a. :tated in another manner, Isabel C#ntapayDs last "ill and testament, "hich has not been probated, has no effect "hatever and petitioners cannot claim any ri!ht there#nder.

(.

3.

Iss5e1 Co#ld the p#rported last "ill and testament of Isabel C#ntapay co#ld properly be relied #pon to establish petitionersD ri!ht to possess the s#bAect lotE He6d1 19S 1. The C) correctly held that, as bet"een the respective claims of petitioners and respondent, the latter has a better ri!ht to possess the s#bAect lot. )s earlier stated, petitioners rely on the last "ill and testament of Isabel C#ntapay that they had alle!edly ne"ly discovered. 9n the basis of this instr#ment, the HTCC and RTC r#led that petitioners have a better ri!ht to the possession of the s#bAect lot beca#se, follo"in! the la" on s#ccession, it sho#ld be respected and sho#ld prevail over intestate s#ccession. H 8e'e*, c n3*a*4 3 32e *560n7 : 32e MTCC and RTC, 32e /5*/ *3ed 6as3 8066 and 3es3a(en3 : Isa)e6 C5n3a/a4 c 56d n 3 /* /e*64 )e *e60ed 5/ n 3 es3a)60s2 /e3030 ne*sE *0723 3 / ssess 32e s5)Fec3 6 3 )eca5se, 8032 53 2a'0n7 )een /* )a3ed, 32e sa0d 6as3 8066 and 3es3a(en3 c 56d n 3 )e 32e s 5*ce : an4 *0723. 0.

%.

'.

&.

I.

;;

..

;ence, the C) correctly held that, as a!ainst petitionersD claim, respondent has sho"n a better ri!ht of possession over the s#bAect lot as evidenced by the deeds of conveyances e-ec#ted in her favor by the children of Isabel C#ntapay by her first marria!e.

<% ! PAULA DE LA CERNA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MANUELA REBACA POTOT, ET AL., and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. N . L!"#"$I Dece()e* "$, +,-I Re4es, D.B.L.. Na35*e1 )ppeal from the decision of the C), that reversed that of the CFI R that ordered the dismissal of the action for partition. D c3*0ne1 The probate decree in 17.7 co#ld only affect the share of the deceased h#sband, 5ernabe de la Cerna. It co#ld not incl#de the disposition of the share of the "ife, Gervasia Rebaca, "ho "as then still alive, and over "hose interest in the conA#!al properties the probate co#rt ac$#ired no A#risdiction, precisely beca#se her estate co#ld not then be in iss#e. 5e it remembered that prior to the ne" Civil Code, a "ill co#ld not be probated d#rin! the testator>s lifetime. It follo"s that the validity of the Aoint "ill, in so far as the estate of the "ife "as concerned, m#st be, on her death, ree-amined and adA#dicated de novo, since a Aoint "ill is considered a separate "ill of each testator. Therefore, the #ndivided interest of Gervasia Rebaca sho#ld pass #pon her death to her heirsD intestate, and not e-cl#sively to the testamentary heir, #nless some other valid "ill in her favor is sho"n to e-ist, or #nless she be the only heir intestate of said Gervasia. Fac3s1 1. The spo#ses, 5ernabe de la :erna and Gervasia Rebaca, e-ec#ted a Aoint last "ill and testament in the local dialect P They "illed that Co#r t"o parcels of land ac$#ired d#rin! o#r marria!e to!ether "ith all improvements thereon shall be !iven to Han#ela Rebaca, o#r niece, "hom "e have n#rt#red since childhood, beca#se God did not !ive #s any child in o#r #nion, Han#ela Rebaca bein! married to 1icolas PototC, and that C"hile each of the testators is yet livin!, he or she "ill contin#e to enAoy the fr#its of the t"o lands aforementionedC, the said t"o parcels of land sit#ated in sitio 5#cao, barrio 6#!o, m#nicipality of 5orbon, province of Ceb#. %. 5ernabe dela :erna died in 17'7

'. The aforesaid "ill "as s#bmitted to probate by Gervasia and Han#ela before the CFI "hich, after d#e p#blication as re$#ired by la" and there bein! no opposition, heard the evidence P their order in the special proceedin!s Jthe follo"in! are in :panish in the f#ll te-t, I #sed !oo!le translate on it?+ Fstates le!ali ed doc#ment as =-hibit ) last "ill and testament of the late 5ernabe de la :erna "ith entitled by his "ido" and other s#perstite Gervaise Rebaca testatri- at the same time accordin! to =-hibit ) to enAoy the fr#its of the land Jthe case says terrano "hen it sho#ld have been terreno, I think? described in said doc#ments , and been consideration to the rates of s#ch property, the s#mmary distrib#tion of the same in favor of #niversal le!atee Jcase says lo!ataria b#t it sho#ld be le!ataria? Han#ela Rebaca Potot provision by it of a bond in the s#m of P3//.// is enacted to respond to any is s#bmitted claims a!ainst the estate of the late 5ernabe de la :erna the years from this date (. )nother petition for the probate of the "ill "as filed #pon the death of Gervasia Rebaca insofar as Gervasia "as concerned P the :pecpro "as dismissed for fail#re of the petitioner, Han#ela R. Potot and her attorney, Han#el Potot to appear 3. The CFI ordered the petition heard and declared the testament n#ll and void, for bein! e-ec#ted contrary to the prohibition of Aoint "ills in the Civil Code J)rt. 007, Civil Code of 1..7 and )rt. .1., Civil Code of the Philippines?, 0. 9n appeal by the testamentary heir, the C) reversed, on the !ro#nd that the decree of probate in 17'7 "as iss#ed by a co#rt of probate A#risdiction and concl#sive on the d#e e-ec#tion of the testament. JI s#ppose this means that the probate then "as in connection "ith 5ernabe "hich "as okay, b#t no" it is in connection "ith Gervasia "hich is "as not allo"ed -I T;I1I? P declared that+ ... . It is tr#e the la" J)rt. 007, old Civil Code, )rt. .1., ne" Civil Code?. prohibits the makin! of a "ill Aointly by t"o or more persons either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. ;o"ever, 320s : *( : 8066 2as 6 n7 )een sanc30 ned )4 5se, and 32e sa(e 2as c n30n5ed 3 )e 5sedG and 82en, as 0n 32e /*esen3 case, ne s5c2 F 0n3 6as3 8066 and 3es3a(en3 2as )een ad(033ed 3 /* )a3e )4 :0na6 *de* : a C 5*3 : c (/e3en3 F5*0sd0c30 n, 32e*e see(s 3 )e n a63e*na30'e eCce/3 3 70'e e::ec3 3 32e /* '0s0 ns 32e*e : 32a3 a*e n 3 c n3*a*4 3 6a8 , as "as done in the case of )acrohon vs. .aavedra, 31 Phil. %0&, "herein o#r :#preme Co#rt !ave effect to the provisions of the Aoint "ill therein mentioned, sayin!, Cass#min! that the Aoint "ill in $#estion is valid.C &. ;ence this appeal by the heirs intestate of the deceased h#sband, 5ernabe de la Cerna.

;7

Iss5e1 2hether or not the Aoint "ill is valid or can be #pheld in the probate proceedin!s of Gervasia "hen it "as erroneo#sly #pheld in the probate of 5ernabe. He6d1 +. Va60d : * Be*na)e, 0n'a60d : * Ge*'as0a. T2e a//ea6ed dec0s0 n c **ec364 2e6d 32a3 32e :0na6 dec*ee : /* )a3e, en3e*ed 0n +,$, )4 32e CFI A82en 32e 3es3a3 *, Be*na)e de 6a Ce*na, d0edB, 2as c nc65s0'e e::ec3 as 3 20s 6as3 8066 and 3es3a(en3 des/03e 32e :ac3 32a3 e'en 32en 32e C0'06 C de a6*ead4 dec*eed 32e 0n'a60d034 : F 0n3 8066s, 82e32e* 0n :a' * : 32e F 0n3 3es3a3 *s, *ec0/* ca664, * 0n :a' * : a 320*d /a*34 AA*3. --,, 6d C0'06 C deB. T2e e** * 325s c ((033ed )4 32e /* )a3e c 5*3 8as an e** * : 6a8, 32a3 s2 56d 2a'e )een c **ec3ed )4 a//ea6, )53 820c2 d0d n 3 a::ec3 32e F5*0sd0c30 n : 32e /* )a3e c 5*3, n * 32e c nc65s0'e e::ec3 : 03s :0na6 dec0s0 n, 2 8e'e* e** ne 5s. A :0na6 F5d7(en3 *ende*ed n a /e3030 n : * 32e /* )a3e : a 8066 0s )0nd0n7 5/ n 32e 82 6e 8 *6d AMana6 's. Pa*edes, I& P206. ,$<G In *e Es3a3es : D 2ns n, $, P206. +%-BG and /5)60c / 60c4 and s 5nd /*ac30ce de(and 32a3 a3 32e *0s9 : ccas0 na6 e** *s F5d7(en3 : c 5*3s s2 56d )ec (e :0na6 a3 s (e de:0n03e da3e :0Ced )4 6a8. /nterest rei publicae ut finis set litium J<y Cay vs. Crossfield, '. Phil, 3%1, and other cases cited in % Horan, Comments on the R#les of Co#rt J170' =d., p. '%%?. J!oo!le translate "as #nable to translate this so I have no idea if itDs impt or notS? Pe3030 ne*s, as 2e0*s and s5ccess *s : 32e 6a3e Be*na)e de 6a Ce*na, a*e c nc65ded )4 32e +,$, dec*ee ad(0330n7 20s 8066 3 /* )a3e . The contention that bein! void the "ill cannot be validated, overlooks that the #ltimate decision on 2hether an act is valid or void rests "ith the co#rts, and here they have spoken "ith finality "hen the "ill "as probated in 17'7. 9n this co#rt, the dismissal of their action for partition "as correct. 5#t the Co#rt of )ppeals sho#ld have taken into acco#nt also, 3 a' 0d :535*e (0s5nde*s3and0n7, 32a3 32e /* )a3e dec*ee 0n +,<, c 56d n64 a::ec3 32e s2a*e : 32e deceased 25s)and, Be*na)e de 6a Ce*na. I3 c 56d n 3 0nc65de 32e d0s/ s030 n : 32e s2a*e : 32e 80:e, Ge*'as0a Re)aca, 82 8as 32en s3066 a60'e, and 'e* 82 se 0n3e*es3 0n 32e c nF57a6 /* /e*30es 32e /* )a3e c 5*3 ac;50*ed n F5*0sd0c30 n, /*ec0se64 )eca5se 2e* es3a3e c 56d n 3 32en )e 0n 0ss5e. Be 03 *e(e()e*ed 32a3 /*0 * 3 32e ne8 C0'06 C de, a 8066 c 56d n 3 )e /* )a3ed d5*0n7 32e 3es3a3 *Ps 60:e30(e. I3 : 66 8s 32a3 32e 'a60d034 : 32e F 0n3 8066, 0n s :a* as 32e es3a3e : 32e 80:e 8as c nce*ned, (5s3 )e, n 2e* dea32, *eeCa(0ned and adF5d0ca3ed de novo, s0nce a F 0n3 8066 0s c ns0de*ed a se/a*a3e 8066 : eac2 3es3a3 *. T25s *e7a*ded, 32e 2 6d0n7 : 32e CFI 32a3 32e F 0n3 8066 0s

ne /* 20)03ed )4 6a8 8as c **ec3 as 3 32e /a*30c0/a30 n : 32e deceased Ge*'as0a Re)aca 0n 32e /* /e*30es 0n ;5es30 n , for the reasons e-tensively disc#ssed in o#r decision in 0ilbao vs. 0ilbao, .& Phil. 1((, that e-plained the previo#s holdin! in )acrohon vs. .aavedra, 31 Phil. %0&. T2e*e: *e, 32e 5nd0'0ded 0n3e*es3 : Ge*'as0a Re)aca s2 56d /ass 5/ n 2e* dea32 3 2e* 2e0*s 0n3es3a3e, and n 3 eCc65s0'e64 3 32e 3es3a(en3a*4 2e0*, 5n6ess s (e 32e* 'a60d 8066 0n 2e* :a' * 0s s2 8n 3 eC0s3, * 5n6ess s2e )e 32e n64 2e0* 0n3es3a3e : sa0d Ge*'as0a. I3 0s 5nnecessa*4 3 e(/2as0@e 32a3 32e :ac3 32a3 F 0n3 8066s s2 56d )e 0n c (( n 5sa7e c 56d n 3 (a9e 32e( 'a60d 82en 5* C0'06 C des c ns0s3en364 0n'a60da3ed 32e(, )eca5se 6a8s a*e n64 *e/ea6ed )4 32e* s5)se;5en3 6a8s, and n 5sa7e 3 32e c n3*a*4 (a4 /*e'a06 a7a0ns3 32e0* )se*'ance J)rt. 3, Civ. Code of 1..7, )rt. &, Civil Code of the Philippines of 173/?.

88 - G.R. No. L-55509 &'r#" 27, 1984 ETHEL GR // RO0ERT!, '($#$#on(r, )-. J*+GE TO/&! R. LEON +&!, 0ran,; 58, 1our$ o% F#r-$ n-$an,( o% /an#"aJ /&K NE T&TE-GR //, E+B&R+ / LLER GR // an. L N+& GR //, r(-'on.(n$-.

TOP 12 B$$$. Probate >! A =ill, Art 838, Rule /6, Rrc, Art. 83., Art 80; P 80., 810) 81;, 818 P 81.

+O1TR NE2 The robate o! the %ill is mandatory. $t is anomalous that the estate o! a erson %ho died testate should be settled in an intestate roceedin(. There!ore, the intestate case should be consolidated %ith the testate roceedin( and the <ud(e assi(ned to the testate roceedin( should continue hearin( the t%o cases.

N&T*RE2 Petition !or certiorari and rohibition

;6

F&1T!2 1. 9d%ard @. 1rimm an American resident o! @anila, died at /8 in the @a'ati @ed. on No#ember 2/, 1.//. He %as sur#i#ed by his second %i!e, @a"ine Tate 1rimm and their t%o children, named 9d%ard @iller 1rimm $$ 2Pete4 and ?inda 1rimm and by 6uanita 1rimm @orris and 9thel 1rimm Roberts 2@c+adden4, his t%o children by a !irst marria(e %hich ended in di#orce. 2. He e"ecuted on 6anuary 23, 1.7. t%o %ills in 0an +rancisco, *ali!ornia. >ne %ill dis osed o! his Phili ine estate %hich he described as con<u(al ro erty o! himsel! and his second %i!e. The second %in dis osed o! his estate outside the Phili ines. 3. $n both %ills, the second %i!e and t%o children %ere !a#ored. The t%o children o! the !irst marria(e %ere (i#en their le(itimes in the %ill dis osin( o! the estate situated in this country. ;. on A ril 27, 1./8, @a"ine and her t%o children ?inda and Pete, as the !irst arties, and 9thel, 6uanita 1rimm @orris and their mother 6uanita Le(ley 1rimm as the second arties, %ith 'no%led(e o! the intestate roceedin( in @anila, entered into a com romise a(reement in Itah re(ardin( the estate. 7. $n that a(reement, it %as sti ulated that @a"ine, Pete and 9thel %ould be desi(nated as ersonal re resentati#es 2administrators4 o! 1rimm&s Phili ine estate. $t %as also sti ulated that @a"ine&s one)hal! con<u(al share in the estate should be reser#ed !or her and that %ould not be less than Q1,700,000 lus the homes in Itah and 0anta @esa, @anila. The a(reement indicated the com utation o! the ,net distributable estate,. 6. $t %as sti ulated that the decedent&s !our children ,shall share e5ually in the Net -istributable 9state, and that 9thel and 6uanita @orris should each recei#e at least 12)1R2S o! the total o! the net distributable estate and marital share. /. 9thel !iled %ith the *+$ o! @anila intestate roceedin( !or the settlement o! his estate. 0he %as named s ecial administratri".

8. @a"ine !iled an o osition and motion to dismiss the intestate roceedin( on the (round o! the endency o! Itah o! a roceedin( !or the robate o! 1rimm&s %ill. 0he also mo#ed that she be a ointed s ecial administratri". 0he submitted to the court a co y o! 1rimm&s %ill dis osin( o! his Phili ine estate. .. The intestate court in its orders noted that @a"ine %ithdre% that o osition and motion to dismiss and, at the behest o! @a"ine, 9thel and Pete, a ointed them <oint administrators. A arently, this %as done ursuant to the Itah com romise a(reement. The court i(nored the %ill already !ound in the record. 10. The three administrators submitted an in#entory. =ith the authority and a ro#al o! the court, they sold the so)called Pala%an Pearl Pro<ect, a business o%ned by the deceased. ?inda and 6uanita alle(edly con!ormed %ith the sale. 11. Also %ith the court&s a ro#al and the consent o! ?inda and 6uanita, they sold 1.3,26/ shares o! stoc' o! the deceased. 12. Actin( on the declaration o! heirs and ro<ect o! artition si(ned and !iled by la%yers 2not si(ned by @a"ine and her t%o children4, 6ud(e @olina in his order ad<udicated to @a"ine onehal! 2;R84 o! the decedent&s Phili ine estate and one)ei(hth 21R84 each to his !our children or 12) 1R2S. No mention at all %as made o! the %ill in that order. 13. +or a eriod o! more than !i#e months, there %as no mo#ement or acti#ity in the intestate case. A!ter%ards, 6uanita 1rimm @orris !iled a motion !or accountin( ,so that the 9state ro erties can be artitioned amon( the heirs and the resent intestate estate be closed., @a"ine&s la%yer %as noti!ied o! that motion. 1;. He!ore that motion could be heard, @a"ine, Pete and ?inda, !iled in the lo%er court a etition rayin( !or the robate o! 1rimm&s t%o %ills 2already robated in Itah4, that the 1./. artition a ro#ed by the intestate court be set aside and the letters o! administration re#o'ed, that @a"ine be a ointed e"ecutri" and that 9thel and 6uanita @orris be ordered to account !or the ro erties recei#ed by them and to return the same to @a"ine.

;/

17. The second %i!e and t%o children alle(ed that they %ere de!raud due to the machinations o! the Roberts s ouses, that the 1./8 Itah com romise a(reement %as ille(al, that the intestate roceedin( is #oid because 1rimm died testate and that the artition %as contrary to the decedent&s %ills. 16. 9thel !iled a motion to dismiss the etition. 6ud(e ?eonidas denied it !or lac' o! merit. 9thel then !iled a etition !or certiorari and rohibition in this *ourt, rayin( that the testate roceedin( be dismissed, or. alternati#ely that the t%o roceedin(s be consolidated and heard and that the matter o! the annulment o! the Itah com romise a(reement be heard rior to the etition !or robate.

To ic8 Probate o! a =ill 87. Ga""ano-a ). &r,an9(" 4G.R. No. L-29500. 21 Jun( 19786 +o,$r#n(2 A !inal decree o! robate is conclusi#e as to the due e"ecution o! the %ill. -ue e"ecution means that the testator %as o! sound and dis osin( mind at the time o! the e"ecution and that he %as not actin( under duress, menace, !raud or undue in!luence. +inally, that it %as e"ecuted in accordance %ith the !ormalities ro#ided by la%.

Fa,$-2
!!*E2 =hether or not the res ondent <ud(e committed any (ra#e abuse o! discretion, amountin( to lac' o! <urisdiction in denyin( the @T- !iled by 9thel.

1. +lorentino 1allanosa e"ecuted a %ill in 1.38 %hen he %as 80 years old. He o%ned 61 arcels o! land at that time. He died in 1.3. childless and sur#i#ed by his brother ?eon. 2. $n his %ill, he be5uethed his 1R2 share o! the con<u(al estate to his second %i!e Tecla and i! she redecease him 2as %hat occurred4, the said share shall be assi(ned to the s ouses 1allanosa 2Pedro T *ora3on4. Pedro is Tecla&s son by her 1st marria(e. He also (a#e 3 arcels o! land to Adol!o, his rotU(U. 3. The said %ill %as admitted to robate %ith 1allanosa as e"ecutor. $n 1.72, the le(al heirs !iled an action !or the reco#ery o! said 61 arcels o! land. The action %as dismissed on the (round o! res <udicata. Then, 28 years a!ter robate, another action a(ainst 1allanosa !or annulment o! the %ill, reco#ery o! the lands alle(in( !raud and deceit, %as !iled. As a result, the lo%er court set aside the 1.3. decree o! robate. --u(7H(".2

HEL+2 NO. 1/. A testate roceedin( is ro er in this case because 1rimm died %ith t%o %ills and ,no %ill shall ass either real or ersonal ro erty unless it is ro#ed and allo%ed, 2Art. 838, *i#il *odeA sec. 1, Rule /7, Rules o! *ourt4. 18. 9thel may !ile %ithin t%enty days !rom notice o! the !inality o! this <ud(ment an o osition and ans%er to the etition unless she considers her motion to dismiss and other leadin(s su!!icient !or the ur ose. 6uanita 1. @orris, %ho a eared in the intestate case, should be ser#ed %ith co ies o! orders, notices and other a ers in the testate case. 1.. =H9R9+>R9 the etition is dismissed. The tem orary restrainin( order is dissol#ed. No costs.

;8

 Ratio8

=hether or not a %ill %hich has been robated may still be annulled ) N>

the declaration o! the ine"istence o! a contract does not rescribe4 cannot a ly to last %ills and testaments. 8. The Rules o! *ourt does not sanction an action !or DannulmentG o! a %ill. A !inal decree o! robate is conclusi#e as to the due e"ecution o! the %ill. .. A decree o! ad<udication in a testate roceedin( is bindin( on the %hole %orld. A!ter the eriod !or see'in( relie! !rom a !inal order or <ud(ment under Rule 38 o! the Rules o! court has e" ired, a !inal <ud(ment or order can be set aside only on the (rounds o!8 2a4 lac' o! <urisdiction or lac' o! due rocess o! la% or 2b4 that the <ud(ment %as obtained by means o! e"trinsic or collateral !raud. $n the latter case, the eriod !or annullin( the <ud(ment is !our 2;4 years !rom the disco#ery o! !raud. 10. The *i#il ?a% rule that an action !or declaration o! ine"istence o! a contract does not rescribe cannot be a lied to last %ills and testaments.

1. The 0* held that the lo%er court committed a (ra#e abuse o! discretion in settin( aside its order o! dismissal and i(norin( the testamentary case and the !irst ci#il case %hich is the same as the instant case. $t is e#ident that second ci#il case is barred by res <udicata and by rescri tion. 2. The decree o! robate is conclusi#e as to the due e"ecution or !ormal #alidity o! the %ill. That means that the testator %as o! sound and dis osin( mind at the time he e"ecuted the %ill and %as not actin( under duress, menace, !raud, or undue in!luenceA that the %ill %as si(ned by him in the resence o! the re5uired number o! %itnesses, and that the %ill is (enuine. 3. Accordin(ly, these !acts cannot a(ain be 5uestioned in a subse5uent roceedin(, not e#en in a criminal action !or the !or(ery o! the %ill. ;. A!ter the !inality o! the allo%ance o! a %ill, the issue as to the #oluntariness o! its e"ecution cannot be raised anymore. 7. The 0* also held that the decree o! ad<udication, ha#in( rendered in a roceedin( in rem, is bindin( u on the %hole %orld. 6. @oreo#er, the dismissal o! the !irst ci#il case, %hich is a <ud(ment in ersonam, %as an ad<udication on the merits. Thus. $t constitutes a bar by !ormer <ud(ment under the Rules o! *ourt. /. The 0* also held that the lo%er court erred in sayin( that the action !or the reco#ery o! the lands had not rescribed. The 0* ruled that the Art. 1;10 o! N** 2the action or de!ense !or ;.