You are on page 1of 7

By VINZ SAVANDO

1.Yuchengco vs Tiaoque
Yuchengco petition the Phil. court to order the allowance of a will executed by Jose tiaoqui at China in 1883 and he be
appointed as administrator of said property while on pendency of the proceeding. Alleged on petition were
1. It was testators last will and testament written in Chinese character, signed and made public by himself, duly signed by 3
attesting witnesses.
2. it was presented to, duly signed and allowed by Chinese court in accordance with the laws of the Chinese empire.
Issue : w/n not said will can be probated/allowed in the Phil court
Held: No, it cannot, because allowance of a will executed in foreign country requires the proof of authenticity of a will (sec
638). The authenticity is proved by the original or copy certified by legal keeper thereof, with certificate under the seal of the
country or sovereign, that country and that copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original. (sec
313 par B). None of such required certifications appeared in the record of this case nor any sort of evidence to prove that
said will is valid document according to Chinese statutes. Absence of such certification will give no absolute grounds of law
or fact on which to declare that the document in question is a will duly authenticated in order that it maybe allowed,
authenticated or recorded in any court of the Phil.

2. nera vs rimando 18 Phil 450 Succession What In the presence of each other means
FACTS: When a certain will was being signed, it was alleged that the testator and some subscribing witnesses were in the
inner room while the other subscribing witnesses were in the outer room. What separates the inner room from the outer room
was a curtain. The trial court ignored this fact in its determination of the case as it ruled that the determination of this
specific fact will not affect the outcome of the case.
ISSUE: What is the true test of the testators or the witness presence in the signing of a will?
HELD: The Supreme Court emphasized that the true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of a
will is not whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might have seen each other sign, had they chosen to
do so, considering their mental and physical condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription
of each signature.
The position of the parties with relation to each other at the moment of the subscription of each signature, must be such that
they may see each other sign if they choose to do so.
The Supreme Court, in this case, determined that all the parties were in the same small room when each other signed.
Hence, they were in each others presence (though the facts of the case didnt elaborate the SC just ruled so). The SC
ruled that if some of the witnesses were really in the outer room (a fact which was not established according to the SC)
separated by a curtain, then the will is invalid, the attaching of those signatures under circumstances not being done in the
presence of the witness in the outer room.

3. ALSUA-BETTS VS CA
FACTS: (1)Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Doa Tinay, together with all their living children, entered into a duly notarized
agreement, (escritura de particion extrajudicial/extra judicial partition) for the inventory and partition of all the spouses
present and existing properties. In the provision of said extra judicial partition, each of the four children was allotted with the
properties considered as their share in the estate or as inheritance left by the deceased where they will be the absolute owner
of the properties assigned in case of death of one of the spouses. (2)Don Jesus and Doa Tinay also separately executed
holographic will with exactly the same terms and conditions in conformity with the executed extra judicial partition naming
each other as an executor without having to post any bond. That in case new properties be acquired same shall be
partitioned one half to the surviving spouse and the other half to children of equal parts.
(3).Spouses subsequently executed separately a codicil of exactly the same terms and conditions, amending and
supplementing their holographic wills stating that they reserved for themselves the other half not disposed of to their
legitimate heirs under the agreement of partition and mutually and reciprocally bequeathed each other their participation as
well all properties which might be acquired subsequently. Doa Tinay died in effect Don Jesus by order of the probate court
was name as executor.
Before Don Jesus died he cancelled his holographic will in the presence of his bookkeeper and secretary and instructed his
lawyer to draft a new will. This was a notarial will and testament of 3 essential features as follows;

1. It expressly cancelled revoked and annulled all the provisions of his holographic will and codicil.
2. It provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four living children by virtue of the Escritura de Partition
Extra judicial.
3. It instituted his children as legatees / devisees of specific properties, and as to the rest of the properties and whatever
may be subsequently acquired in the future, before his death, were to be given to Francisca and Pablo naming Francisca as
executor to serve without a bond.

ISSUE:
1.W/N oppositors to the probate of the will, are in estoppel to question the competence of testator Don Jesus Alsua.
2.Whether testator Don Jesus can or cannot revoke his previous will.
HELD: 1.The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings ( case of Testate Estate of the Late Procopia
Apostol Benedicta Obispo, et al vs. Remedios Obispo, Probate proceedings involve public interest, and the application
therein of the rule of estoppel, when it will block the ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances surrounding the
execution of a testament, would seem inimical to public policy. Over and above the interest of private parties is that of the
state to see that testamentary dispositions be carried out if, and only if, executed conformably to law.
2. We rule that Don Jesus was not forever bound of his previous holographic will and codicil as such, would remain revokable
at his discretion. Art. 828 of the new Civil Code is clear: "A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death.
Any waiver or restriction of this right is void." There can be no restriction that may be made on his absolute freedom to
revoke his holographic will and codicil previously made. This would still hold true even if such previous will had as in the case
at bar already been probated (Palacios v. Palacios, 106 Phil. 739). For in the first place, probate only authenticates the will
and does not pass upon the efficacy of the dispositions therein. And secondly, the rights to the succession are transmitted
only from the moment of the death of the decedent (Article 777, New Civil Code). In fine, Don Jesus retained the liberty of
disposing of his property before his death to whomsoever he chose, provided the legitime of the forced heirs are not
prejudiced, which is not herein claimed for it is undisputed that only the free portion of the whole Alsua estate is being
contested.

4. Roxas v. De Jesus 134 SCRA 245 | Lantion


FACTS: Bibiane Roxas died. Her brother, Simeon Roxas, filed a spec. pro. for partition of the estate of the deceased and
also delivered the holographic will of the deceased. Simeon stated that he found a notebook belonging to deceased, which
contained a letter-will entirely written and signed in deceaseds handwriting. 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. Roxas relatives corroborated the fact that the
same is a holographic will of deceased, identifying her handwriting and signature. Respondent opposed probate on the
ground that it such does not comply with Article 810 of the CC because the date contained in a holographic will must signify
the year, month, and day.
ISSUE: W/N the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid
compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code.
HELD: We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor
was there any substitution of Wins and Testaments. There is no question that the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana
Roxas de Jesus was entirely written, dated, and signed by the testatrix herself and in a language known to her. There is also
no question as to its genuineness and due execution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the genuineness of the
holographic Will of their mother and that she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of said Will. The
objection interposed by the oppositor-respondent Luz Henson is that the holographic Will is fatally defective because the
date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will is not sufficient compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. This
objection is too technical to be entertained.
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 and the only issue is whether or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid
compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of
substantial compliance.

5. Gago vs. Mamuyac

G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927

Facts: 1. Previously, Francisco Gago filed a petition for the probate of a will of Miguel Mamuyac executed on July 27,
1918. The oppositors alleged that the said will was already annulled and revoked. It appeared that on April 16, 1919, the
deceased executed another will. The lower court denied the probate of the first will on the ground of the existence of the
second will.
2. Another petition was filed to seek the probate of the second will. The oppositors alleged that the second will
presented was merely a copy. According to the witnesses, the said will was allegedly revoked as per the testimony of Jose
Tenoy, one of the witnesses who typed the document. Another witness testified that on December 1920 the original will was
actually cancelled by the testator.
3. The lower court denied the probate and held that the same has been annulled and revoked.
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation of the will
RULING: Yes. The will was already cancelled in 1920. This was inferred when after due search, the original will cannot be
found. When the will which cannot be found in shown to be in the possession of the testator when last seen, the presumption
is that in the absence of other competent evidence, the same was deemed cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption
applies when it is shown that the testator has ready access to the will and it can no longer be found after his death.

6. NGO the Hua vs. Kang


FACTS: Chiang Kiat Hua eldest child of the deceased Chung Lui by first wife Tan Hua was appointed by the lower Court as
administrator of the the deceased father estate, after it was found out that NGO The Hua claiming to be the surviving spouse
of the deceased whom also petitioning to be appointed as administrator of subject estate was validly divorced with the
deceased. Chiang Kiat Hua appointment was opposed by Chung Kiat Kang claiming to be nephew of the deceased and also
to be appointed administrator of said estate, citing Sec. 1 Rule 91 of the Rules of Court (declaration of the heirs shall only
take place after all debts expenses and taxes have been paid.)
ISSUE: Whether Kang has a right to intervene in administration proceeding of subject estate.
HELD: NO. It is well settled that for a person to be able to intervene in an administration proceeding concerning the estste of
the deceased, it is necessary for him to have interest in such estate. An interested party has been defined as one who would
be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one who has claim against the estate such as creditor. Appellant Kang is
neither a creditor nor an heir in accordance with the civil code of Rep. of China. Apellant having no interest over the estate
either as creditor or an heir cannot be appointed as co-administrator.

7. JLT AGRO INC. vs BALANSAG


FACTS: Don Julian contracted 2 marriages first w/ Antonia that left him 2 children, after Antonias death He subsequently
married Milagrosa which blessed them four children. Don Julian with his 2 children by first wife after entering into
compromise agreement with regards to partition and division of properties, executed Deed of Assignment of Assets w/
assumption and liabilities in favor of JLT (petitioner), Then subsequently executed Supplemental Deed which supply the
earlier Deed of Assignment to transfer ownership over lot 63 in favor of JLT.
The second wife with her children as the possessor of said property, entered into a yearly lease agreement with spouses
Balansag (respondent). Unaware that subject lot is already titled in the name of the petitioner JLT, respondent bought said
lot from Milagroso Donio. However Balansag discovered that subject property was already titled to JLT, so they filed a
complaint seeking for the declaration of nullity and cancellation of title in the name of JLT. RTC dismissed said complaint,
on appeal to CA such certificate of title in favor of JLT was declared null and void. So now petitioner JLT filed this petition for
review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether Don Julian had validly transferred ownership over the subject lot during his lifetime.
HELD: No, Replacement of OCT no. 5203 in the name of Julian by TCT no. T-375 is marred by a grave irregularity, as it
contravenes the orthodox, conventional and normal process established by law because the transferee relies on a voluntary
instrument to secure the issuance of a new title in his name. Such instrument has to be presented to the Registry of Deeds.

(Sec. 53 and 57 of PD no. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree). As petitioner bases its right on the subject lot on the
Supplemental Deed, It should have presented it to the RD to secure transfer of title in its name. But nothing on OCT no.
5203 or on succeeding TCT no. T-375 either which shows that it had presented the Supplemental Deed. In fact there is no
mention of a reference to said document in the original and TCT. Indeed it fortifies the conclusion that the cancellation of
previous title to new one is not predicated on valid transaction.
Sec 53. Presentation of owners duplicate upon entry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the
Register of Deeds unless the owners duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly
provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court
SEC. 57. Procedure in registration of conveyances. An owner desiring to convey his registered land in fee simple shall
execute and register a deed of conveyance in a form sufficient in law. The Register of Deeds shall thereafter make out in the
registration book a new certificate of title to the grantee and shall prepare and deliver to him an owners duplicate certificate.
The Register of Deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate certificate the date of transfer, the volume and page of the
registration book in which the new certificate is registered and a reference by number to the last preceding certificate. The
original and the owners duplicate of the grantors certificate shall be stamped cancelled. The deed of conveyance shall be
filed and endorsed with the number and the place of registration of the certificate of title of the land conveyed.

8. Lapuz-Sy vs Eufemio

43 SCRA 177

FACTS:
Carmen Lapuz-Sy filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio Eufemio on August 1953. They were married civilly on
September 21, 1934 and canonically after nine days. They had lived together as husband and wife continuously without any
children until 1943 when her husband abandoned her. They acquired properties during their marriage. Petitioner then
discovered that her husband cohabited with a Chinese woman named Go Hiok on or about 1949. She prayed for the
issuance of a decree of legal separation, which among others, would order that the defendant Eufemio should be deprived
of his share of the conjugal partnership profits.
Eufemio counterclaimed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lapuz-Sy on the ground of his prior and subsisting
marriage with Go Hiok. Trial proceeded and the parties adduced their respective evidence. However, before the trial could
be completed, respondent already scheduled to present surrebuttal evidence, petitioner died in a vehicular accident on May
1969. Her counsel duly notified the court of her death. Eufemio moved to dismiss the petition for legal separation on June
1969 on the grounds that the said petition was filed beyond the one-year period provided in Article 102 of the Civil Code and
that the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation. Petitioners counsel moved to substitute the deceased
Carmen by her father, Macario Lapuz.
ISSUE: Whether the death of the plaintiff, before final decree in an action for legal separation, abate the action and will it
also apply if the action involved property rights.
HELD:
An action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff, even if property rights are involved. These rights are
mere effects of decree of separation, their source being the decree itself; without the decree such rights do not come into
existence, so that before the finality of a decree, these claims are merely rights in expectation. If death supervenes during
the pendency of the action, no decree can be forthcoming, death producing a more radical and definitive separation; and
the expected consequential rights and claims would necessarily remain unborn.
The petition of Eufemio for declaration of nullity is moot and academic and there could be no further interest in continuing
the same after her demise, that automatically dissolved the questioned union. Any property rights acquired by either party as
a result of Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines 6 could be resolved and determined in a proper action for partition
by either the appellee or by the heirs of the appellant.

9. FLORENTINO VS FLORENTINO
Facts: Apolonio Florentino II married the first time Antonia and begot 9 children. On becoming a widower he married the
second time Severina and begot 2 children Mercedez and Apolonio III. Apolonio executed a will instituting 10 children as
universal heirs, the posthumos son Apolonio III, and his widow Severina. In one of the paragraph he declared that his
property be divided among his all children in both marriage. Apolonio III, his posthumous son on the 2 nd marriage died and
his mother Severina succeeded to all his property. Severino also died leaving a will instituting as her universal heirs her only
living daughter Mercedez Florentino. The complaint was that since Severina inherited from her deceased son so it is a
reservable property. That, the parties to the complaint are entitled to the fruits of reservable property, with prayer to wit ;
1.indemnity for damages for the unjustifiable retention of the said reservable property and for expences of the suit
2. delivery of the fruits of reservable property.
Issue: Whether the property left at the death of Apolonio the III, posthumos son of Apolinio the II is a reservable property
when it was received by his mother Severina.
Held: Yes. The subject propery of the complaint is without any doubt come from the common ancestor Apolonio II, and
when on the death of Apolonio III without issue the same passed by operation of law into the hands of his legitimate mother,
Severina it became reservable property in accordance with Art. 811 of the Code, with the object that the possession of
which should not fall to persons others than those comprehended within the order of succession traced by law from Apolonio
II, the source of said property. If said property is clothed with the character and condition of reservable property when
Severina inherited same from her son then she did not acquire the dominion or right of ownership but only right of usufruct or
of fiduciary with the obligation to preserve and to deliver or return to her deceased sons relatives within the third degree
among whom is her daughter, Mercedez.
Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and
receives from his descendant, therefore it does not form part of of his own property nor become the legitimate of his forced
heirs. It become his own property only in case that all the relatives of his descendant shall have died (reservista) in which
case said reservable losses such character.
As to complaint of indemnity for damages there is no evidence of any damage which can give rise to the obligation
of refunding. As to the delivery of the fruits produced by the land forming the principal part of the reservable, defendants are
undoubtedly in duty bound to deliver to the plaintiffs the fruits or rents of land claimed in the complaint.

10. CHOING JOC SOY VS JAIME VAO


FACTS: Genova Rosales made her will bequething portion of the 3rd part of the estate of her free disposal to Chiong Joc Soy
the sum of 50,000 pesos mexican currency amounting to 20,000 pesos and the balance of 30,000 pesos for the expenses
of enternment of her late husband. The rest of her property amounted to 800,000 pesos was for her children. After her
death her will was probated in the CFI of Cebu and an administrator was appointed and was ordered to pay debts and
legacies of the deceased within one year. Choing Joc Soy filed petition for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
asking administrator to pay him 50,000 pesos mentioned in the will.
The court directed administrator to pay 20,000 pesos. As to the remainder the court ordered the sum of 30,000 pesos, the
mexican currency or its equivalent in conant money with 6% interest per annum from the date of presentation of the claim.
From this order the petitioner, the administrator and some heirs appealed.
ISSUE:
1.
2.
3.

W/N the will was not executed in accordance with the law
W/N the court should require petitioner to pay a bond
W/N the court erred in ordering payment of interest from the date of the presentation of the petition

HELD:
1. Validity of the will was conclusively established by the order of the court admitting it to probate.
probate court stands like any other decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Judgement of the

2. A bond shall be required if the testator expressly or impliedly imposed condition to its legacy or device. In this case we
think the testratrix did not intend to impose upon the legatee any condition in making a gift of 30,000 pesos so Art. 797 is
not applicable.
3. No. In this case testratrix did not expressly provide that the legatee should be entitled to the interest from her death. Same
question was presented in the case of Fuentes vs Canon there we held that the legatee was entitle to interest from the date
of his demand from payment. We follow same rule.
Art. 882 When the legacy relates to a specific article the legatee is entitled to the income and rents from the date
of the deceased.
Art. 884 If the bequest should not be of specific and determined thing, but generic or of quantity, its fruits and
interest from the date of the testator shall belong to the legatee

11. BAGUNU VS PIEDAD


FACTS: Petitioner Bagunu moved to intervene in Special Proceedings entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Proceeding in the
Estate of Agusto Piedad. Agusto Piedad died without any direct ascendants or descendants. Respondent Pastora Piedad is
the maternal aunt of the decedent within the 3rd degree relative, while petitioner Bagunu is the daughter of the 1st cousin of
Agusto Piedad, a 5th degree relative. Petitioner assailed the finality of the order of the trial court awarding the entire estate to
respondent Pastora Piedad.
ISSUE: W/N a collateral relative within the 5th civil degree can inherit.
HELD: Yes, The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line."
(Article 1010) but in this case the rule of proximity applies. Respondent, being a relative within the 3rd civil degree, of the
late Agusto H. Piedad excludes petitioner, a relative of the 5th degree, from succeeding ab intestato to the estate of the
decedent. The rule on proximity is a concept that favors the relatives nearest in degree to the decedent and excludes the
more distant ones except when right of representation apply (Art 962).
The provisions of Article 1009 and Article 1010 of the Civil Code
"Article 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral relatives
shall succeed to the estate.
"The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood."
"Article 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line." invoked by petitioner do not at all support her cause. The law means only that among the other collateral relatives (the sixth
in the line of succession), no preference or distinction shall be observed "by reason of relationship by the whole blood." In
fine, a maternal aunt can inherit alongside a paternal uncle, and a first cousin of the full blood can inherit equally with a first
cousin of the half blood, but an uncle or an aunt, being a third-degree relative, excludes the cousins of the decedent, being
in the fourth-degree of relationship; the latter, in turn, would have priority in succession to a fifth-degree relative.

12. SERAFIA TOLENTINO VS. PARAS


FACTS: Amado Tolentino contracted second marriage with private respondent Maria Clemente while his marriage with
petitioner Serafia Tolentino was still subsisting. Petitioner charge Amado with bigamy. He pleaded guelty and served the
prison sentence. After serving the penalty he continued to live with Maria Clemente until his death. His death certificate
carried the entry Name of Surviving Spouse Clemente. In special proceeding petitioner sought for Correction of Entry to
corect the name of surviving spouse in the death certificate from Maria Clemente to Serafia Tolentino. It was dismissed
in the lower court. So she filed a case against private respondent and the local civil registrar for her declaration as lawful
surviving spouse and correction of the death certificate of Amado. Same was dismissed.
ISSUE: W/N the correction of entry is a proper remedy.

HELD: Yes. Because she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is a lawful surviving spouse of Amado in order to lay
the basis for the correction of entry in his late husbands death certificate. A claim of right is asserted against the one who
has an interest in contesting it. As to rule 108 which requires the publication, publication in the herein case is not absolutely
necessary for no other partties are involved. For the merit, Amados pleading guelty and conviction for bigamy furnishes the
necessary proof of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased. Serafia Tolentino hereby declared the surviving
spouse.
13. TORRES VS. LOPEZ
FACTS: Tomas Rodriguez executed his last will and testament instituting as the only and universal heirs of all his property his
cousin Vicente Lopez and the latters daughter Luz Lopez de Bueno. Testator had been placed under the care of his cousin
Vicente Lopez as guardian. Four days after the will was made Vicente Lopez died, and a month thereafter testator also died.
Margaret Lopez was a cousin and nearest relative of the decedent.
ISSUE: W/N a will made by a ward instituting his guradian as heir be valid
HELD: The general rule no testamentary provision shall be valid when made by a ward in favor of his guardian before the
final accounts of the latter have been approved.
But the provision made in the will of the testator in favor of Vicente Lopez was not any general incapacity on his part but
special incapacity due to accidental relation of guardian and ward existing between the parties. It is there declared that
accretion takes place in a testamentary succession. As defined accretion takes place when;
a). Two or more persons are called to the same inheritance or the same portion thereof without special designation of shares
b).when one of the person dies, before the testator or renounces the inheritance or is disqualified to receive it.
In this case Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter, Luz Lopez de Bueno, has been called to the same inheritance without special
designation of shares. In addition to this, one of the persons named as heir has predeceased the testator, this person being
also disqualified to receive the estate even if he had been alive at the time of the testator's death. The right of accretion is
therefore of exact application to the case in hand; and its effect is to give to the survivor, Luz Lopez de Bueno, not only the
undivided half which she would have received in conjunction with her father if he had been alive and qualified to take, but
also the half which pertained to him. There was no error whatever, therefore, in the order of the trial court declaring Luz
Lopez de Bueno entitled to the whole estate.

You might also like