Wills & Succession Case Digests 2 (of 2)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Wills & Succession Case Digests 2 (of 2)

10. PILAPIL vs. CA

11. CANEDA vs.

CA

At the bottom of the first page of the will

appears the clause Pass on to the second
page; at the bottom of the second page also
appears pass on to the third page; and on
the third page, which is the last, there
appears after the testamentary dispositions,
the following: consisting of two articles,
contain sixteen dispositions, and written on
three pages. As a matter of fact, the will
consists exactly of two articles, sixteen
dispositions, and three pages.
MATEO CABALLERO, a widower without any
children and already in the twilight years of his
life, executed a last will and testament at his
residence in Talisay, Cebu before three
attesting witnesses Cipriano Labuca,
Gregorio Cabando and Flaviano Toregosa and
was duly assisted by his lawyer, Atty.
Lumontad, and a notary public, Atty. Manigos.
It was declared that the testator was leaving
by way of legacies and devises his real and
personal properties to Presentacion Gaviola,
Angel Abatayo, Rogelio Abatayo, Isabelito
Abatayo, Benoni Cabrera and Marcosa
Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be
related to the testator.
Four months later, MATEO CABALLERO himself
filed a petition seeking the probate of his last
will and testament. He passed away before his
petition could finally be heard by the probate
court.
BENONI CABRERA, one of the legatees named
in the will, sought his appointment as special
administrator of the testators estate
Petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces
of the testator, instituted a second petition
and opposed thereat the probate of the
testators will and the appointment of a special
administrator for his estate.
They objected to the allowance of the
testators will on the ground that on the
alleged date of its execution, the testator was
already in a poor state of health such that he
could not have possibly executed the same,
and reiterated the issue as to the genuineness
of the signature of the testator therein.
One of the attesting witnesses CIRPRIANO
LABUCA and the notary public, ATTY. MANIGOS
testified that the testator executed the will in
their presence while he was of sound and
disposing mind and was not unduly influenced
in any way in the execution of his will.
Petitioners asserted that the will in question is
null and void for the reason that its
attestation clause is fatally defective
since it fails to specifically state that 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.

Issue: Whether the attestation clause in question

may be considered as having substantially
complied with the requirements of Art. 805.

The requirement of the law as to the

numbering of pages is sufficiently
complied with.

The phrase 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 what is clearly lacking is the
statement that the witnesses signed
the will and every page thereof in
the presence of the testator and of
one another.
The absence of that statement required
by law is a fatal defect or imperfection
which must necessarily result in the
disallowance of the will that is here
sought to be admitted to probate.
Petitioners are correct in pointing out
that the aforestated defect in the
attestation clause obviously cannot be
characterized as merely involving the
form of the will or the language used
therein which would warrant the
application of the substantial compliance
rule as contemplated in Art. 809.
Art. 809 contemplates the defects or
imperfections must only be with respect
to the form of the attestation or the
language employed therein. Such defects
or imperfections would not render a will
invalid should it be proved that the will
was really executed and attested in
compliance with Art. 805.
Art. 809 cannot be invoked because or
relied on by respondents since it
presupposes that the defects in the
attestation clause can be cured or
supplied by the test of the will or a
consideration of matters apparent
therefrom the defects must be
remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied
by the will itself.
Omissions which can be supplied by an
examination of the will itself, without the
need of resorting to extrinsic evidence,
will not be fatal and correspondingly,
would not obstruct the allowance to
probate of the will being assailed.
However, those omissions which cannot
be supplied except by evidence aliunde
would result in the invalidation of the
attestation clause and ultimately, of the
will itself.

Wills & Succession Case Digests 2 (of 2)

12. CODOY vs.
CALUGAY

Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and

Eufemia Patigas, devisees and legatees of the
holographic will of the deceased MATILDE
SENO VDA. DE RAMONAL, filed for probate.
Respondents claimed that the deceased was
of sound and disposing mind when she
executed the will, and that there was no fraud,
undue influence, and duress employed in the
person of the testator and the will was written
voluntarily.
EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY and MANUEL
RAMONAL filed an opposition alleging that the
holographic will was a forgery and that the
same is even illegible. They argued that the
repeated dates incorporated or appearing on
the will after every disposition is out of the
ordinary.
The witnesses all testified that the handwriting
and signature in the holographic will were
those of the testator herself. However, not all
the witnesses presented testified explicitly
that they were familiar with the handwriting of
the testator.

Art. 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory.

If the holographic will is contested, the
law requires three witnesses to declare
that the will was in the handwriting of the
deceased. There was no opportunity for
an expert to compare the signature and
the handwriting of the deceased with
other documents signed and executed by
her during her lifetime. The only chance
at comparison was during the crossexamination which raised doubts to the
authenticity of the signature of the will.
A visual examination of the holographic
will convince us that the strokes are
different when compared with other
documents written by the testator. The
signature of the testator in some of the
disposition is not readable. There were
even uneven stroked, retracing and
erasures on the will.
It cannot be certain that the holographic
will was in the handwriting of the
deceased.

Issue: Whether the provisions of Art. 811, are

permissive or mandatory.
13. AJERO vs. CA

Decedent, ANNE SAND, named as devisees the

following: petitioners ROBERTO and THELMA
AJERO, private respondent, CELEMENTE SAND,
Meriam Arong, Leah Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe
Sand, Lisa Sand and Dr. Ajero and children.
Petitioners instituted for allowance of
decedents holographic will.
Private respondent opposed the petition on
the grounds that: neither the testaments body
nor the signature therein was in decedents
handwriting; it contained alterations and
corrections which were not duly signed by the
decedent; and, the will was procured by
petitioners through improper pressure and
undue influence.
The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose
Ajero and contested the disposition in the will
of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran. He
claimed that said property could not be
conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she
was not its sole owner.
The Court of Appeals found that the
holographic will fails to meet the requirements
for its validity as it did not comply with Arts.
813-814, and the probate of the will was
dismissed.

Art. 813 shows that its requirement

affects the validity of the dispositions
contained in the holographic will, but not
its probate. If the testator fails to sign
and date some of the dispositions, the
result is that these dispositions cannot be
effectuated. Such failure, however, does
not render the whole testament void.
Likewise, a holographic will can still be
admitted to probate, notwithstanding
non-compliance with the provisions of
Art. 814.
As held in Kalaw vs. Relova: Ordinarily,
when a number of erasures, corrections,
and interlineations made by the testator
in a holographic will have not been noted
under his signature the will is not
thereby invalidated as a whole, but at
most only as respects the particular
words erased, corrected or interlined.
Thus, unless the unauthenticated
alterations, cancellations, or insertions
were made on the date of the
holographic will or on testators
signature, their presence does not
invalidate the will itself. The lack of
authentication will only result in
disallowance of such changes.
The CA further held that decedent could
not validly dispose of the house and lot
located in Cabadbaran, in its entirety.
this is correct and must be affirmed.

As a general rule, courts in probate

proceedings are limited to pass only
upon the extrinsic validity of the will
sought to be probated. However, in
exceptional instances, courts are not
powerless to do what the situation
constrains them to do, and pass
upon certain provisions of the will.
In the case at bench, decedent herself
indubitably stated in her holographic will
that the Cabadbaran property is in the
name of her father, John Sand. Thus, as

Wills & Succession Case Digests 2 (of 2)

correctly held by respondent court, she
cannot validly dispose of the whole
property, which she shares with her
fathers other heirs.
14. AZAOLA vs.
SINGSON

15. NAZARENO vs.

CA

FORTUNATA S. VDA. DE YANCE died leaving a

holographic will.
FRANCISCO AZAOLA, petitioner submitted the
will for probate whereby MARIA MILAGROS
AZAOLA was made the sole heir as against the
nephew of the deceased, CESARIO SINGSON.
FRANCISCO testified that he saw the
holographic will one month, more or less,
before the death of the testatrix, as the same
was handed to him and his wife; that the
witness testified also that he recognized all the
signatures appearing in the will.
The opposition to the probate was on the
ground that: (1) the execution of the will was
procured by undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of the petitioner and his
wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not
seriously intend the instrument to be her last
will, and that the same was not written on the
day as what appears in the will.
The probate was denied on the ground that
under Art. 811, the proponent must present
three witnesses who could declare the will and
the signature are in the writing of the testatrix.
The proponent appealed, urging that he was
not bound to produce more than one witness
because the wills authenticity was not
questioned; and that Art. 811 does not
mandatorily require the production of three
witnesses to identify the handwriting and
signature of a holographic will even if its
authenticity should be denied by the adverse
party.

MAXIMINO NAZARENO and AUREA POBLETE

were husband and wife and had five children:
NATIVIDAD, ROMEO, Jose, Pacifico, and
MAXIMINO JR.

Natividad and Max Jr. as petitioners

Romeo and wife Eliza, and Maximinos

estate as respondents
During their marriage, MAXIMINO and AUREA
acquired properties in Quezon City and Cavite.
After their death, ROMEO filed an intestate
case and was appointed administrator of his
fathers estate. He discovered that his parents
had executed several deeds of sale conveying
a number of real properties in favour is his
sister, NATIVIDAD. One of the deeds involved
6 lots in Quezon City which were allegedly
sold by MAXIMINO to NATIVIDAD.
By virtue of the deed, transfer certificates
were issued to Natividad.
Among the lots covered by the Deed of Sale is
Lot 3-B which Is occupied by ROMEO, his wife
Eliza and by Maximino Jr. Unknown to ROMEO,
NATIVIDAD sold the lot to MAX. JR.
ROMEO filed, on behalf of the estate of
MAXIMINO, annulment of sale with damages
against NATIVIDAD and MAXIMINO JR.
ROMEO sought the declaration of nullity of the
sale on the ground that both sales were void

Since the authenticity of the will was not

contested, he was not required to
produce more than one witness; but even
if the genuineness of the holographic will
were contested, we are of the opinion
that Art. 811 cannot be interpreted as to
require the compulsory presentation of
three witnesses to identify the
handwriting of the testator, under
penalty of having the probate denied.
Since no witness may have been present
at the execution of a holographic will,
none being required by law, it becomes
obvious that the existence of witnesses
possessing the requisites qualifications is
a matter beyond the control of the
proponent. For it is not merely a question
of finding and producing any three
witnesses they must be witnesses who
know the handwriting and signature of
the testator and who can declare that
the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator. There may
be no available witness acquainted with
the testators hand; or even if so
familiarized, the witnesses may be
unwilling to give positive opinion.
Compliance with Par. 1 Art. 811 may thus
become impossibility.
Where the will is holographic, no
witness need be present, and the
rule requiring production of three
witnesses must be deemed merely
permissive if absurd results are to
be avoided.

The lone testimony of a witness, if

credible, is sufficient. In this case, the
testimony of Romeo that no
consideration was ever paid for the sale
of the six lots to Natividad was found to
be credible both by the trial court and by
the Court of Appeals and it has not been
successfully rebutted by petitioners. The
fact that the deed of sale was notarized
is not a guarantee of the validity of its
contents.
The trial court and the CA found that the
Nazareno spouses transferred their
properties to their children by fictitious
sales in order to avoid the payment of
inheritance taxes, it was simulated for
lack of consideration, and therefore
ineffective and void.
A void contract is inexistent from the
beginning, hence, even if the estate of
Maximono alone contests the validity of
the sale, the outcome of the suit will bind
the estate of Aurea as if no sale took
place at all.

Wills & Succession Case Digests 2 (of 2)

for lack of consideration.
16. RIVERA vs.
IAC

17. LABRADOR vs.

CA

18. SEANGIO vs.

REYES

A prominent and wealthy man named

VENANCIO RIVERA, died.
JOSE RIVERA, claiming to be the only surviving
legitimate son of the deceased, filed a petition
for the issuance of letters of administration
over VENANCIOs estate. The petition was
opposed by ADELAIDO RIVER who denied that
Jose was the son of the decedent because
Venancio was his father and his father did not
die intestate but in fact left two holographic
wills.
ADELAIDO filed a petition for probate of the
holographic will and was opposed by JOSE.
After joint trial, it was fond that JOSE RIVERA
was not the son of VENANCIO RIVERA but a
different VENANCIO RIVERA who was married
to Maria Vital. The VENANCIO RIVERA whose
estate was in question was married to MARIA
JOCSON, by whom he had seven children,
including ADELAIDO.
RTC Ruling: in favour of ADELAIDO RIVERA he
could still rely on the presumption of marriage,
since it is not denied that VENANCIO RIVERA
and MARIA JOCSON lived together as husband
and wife, begetting seven children. (Art. 220)

MELECIO LABRADOR died leaving a parcel of

land, and the following heirs: Sagrado, Enrica,
Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana,
Hilaria and Jovita, and a holographic will.
SAGRADO, ENRICA and CRISTOBAL filed in
court a petition for the probate of the
hologprahic will.
JESUS and GAUDENCIO filed an opposition to
the petition on the ground that the will has
been extinguished or revoked by implication of
law alleging that before the death of MELECIO,
the testator executed a Deed of Absolute Sale,
selling, transferring, and conveying in favor of
oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio which Jesus
sold to Navat.

Issue: Whether or not the alleged holographic will

is dated.
Private respondents filed a petition for the
settlement of the intestate estate of the late
SEGUNDO SEANGIO, and praying for the
appointment of private respondent ELISA
SEANGIO-SANTOS as a special administrator
and guardian ad litem of petitioner DY YIENG
SEANGIO.
Petitioner DY YIENG, BARBARA and VIRGINIA
opposed the petition contending that: 1) Dy
Yieng is still very healthy and in full command
of her faculties, 2) the deceased executed a
GPA in favour of Virginia giving her the power
to manage and exercise control and
supervision over his business in the
Philippines, 3) Virginia is the most competent
and qualified to serve as the administrator of
the estate of Segundo because she is a
certified public accountant, and 4) Segundo
left a holographic will, disinheriting one of the
private respondents, ALFREDO SEANGIO.
Private respondents moved for the dismissal of
the probate proceedings primarily on the
ground that the document purporting to be the
holographic will of Segundo does not contain
any disposition of the estate of the deceased
and thus does not meet the definition of a will

The court held that, from evidence of

record, VENANCIO RIVERA who married
MARIA JOCSON was not the same person
who married Maria Vital.
The respondent court considered the
holographic wills valid because it found
them to have been written, dated, and
signed by the testator himself in
accordance with Art. 810 of the Civil
Code. It also held there was no necessity
of presenting the three witnesses
required under Art. 811 because the
authenticity of the wills had not been
questioned.
JOSE RIVERA questioned the existence
and authenticity of the holographic wills
however, as already determined, JOSE
RIVERA is not the son of the deceased
whose estate is in question. Hence, being
a mere stranger, he had no personality to
contest the wills and his opposition
thereto did not have the legal effect of
requiring the three witnesses.

The will has been dated in the hand of

the testator himself in perfect
compliance with Art. 810.
The law does not specify a particular
location where the date should be placed
in the will. The only requirements are
that the date be in the will itself and
executed in the hand of the testator.
There requirements are present in the
will.

The purported holographic will of

SEGUNDO that was presented by
petitioners was dated, signed and
written by him in his own
handwriting. Except on the ground of
preterition, private respondents did not
raise any issue as regards the
authenticity of the document.
The document, entitled Kasulatan ng
Pag-Aalis ng Mana, unmistakably showed
SEGUNDOs intention of excluding his
eldest son, ALFREDO, as an heir to his
estate for the reasons that he cited
therein. In effect, ALFREDO was
disinherited by SEGUNDO.
SEGUNDOs document, although it may
initially come across as a mere
disinheritance instrument, conforms to
the formalities of a holographic will
prescribed by law. It is written, dated,
and signed by the hand of SEGUNDO
himself. An intent to dispose mortis
causa can be clearly deduced from the
terms of the instrument, and while it
does not make an affirmative disposition
of the latters property, the

Wills & Succession Case Digests 2 (of 2)

under Art. 783. According to them, the will

only sows an alleged act of disinheritance by
the decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and
nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs
were not named nor instituted as heir, devisee
or legatee, hence there is preterition which
would results to intestacy. Such being the
case, while procedurally the court is called
upon to rule only on the extrinsic validity of
the will, it is not barred from delving into the
intrinsic validity of the same, ordering the
dismissal of the petition for probate when on
the face of the will, it is clear that it contains
no testamentary disposition of the property.
RTC ruling: the court dismissed the petition for
probate because the will clearly shows that
there is preterition, as the only heirs
mentioned thereat are Alfredo and Virginia.
The other heirs being omitted, Art. 854 of the
Civil Code thus applies. However, insofar as DY
YIENG SEANGIO is concerned, Art. 854 does
not apply, she not being a compulsory heir in
the direct line.

19. CAPITLE vs.

ELBAMBUENA

A Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) was

issued to CRISTOBAL OLAR covering Lot 1849
situated in Barangay Valle, Talavera, Nueva
Ecija.
Respondents FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA and
ROSALINDA OLAR, spouse and daughter-inlaw, respectively, of OLAR, now deceased,
claim that OLAR relinquished one-half of the
lot to ROSALINDA by a Kasunduan dated July
17, 1992 the execution of which was
witnessed by Cirilio Capitle.
Respondents allege that on petitioners
request, petitioners were allowed to occupy
the lot to pursue a means of livelihood. Since
1990, petitioners did not pay rentals despite
demand therefor, and neither did they heed
the demand to return the possession of the lot,
drawing respondents to file a Petition for
Recovery of Possession and Payment of Back
Rentals against petitioners before the DARAB.
Petitioners, on the other hand, claiming that
they have been in possession of the lot since
1960, presented a Waiver of Rights executed
by Olar wherein he renounced in their favour
his rights and participation over the lot; a
Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein Olar
acknowledged that he co-possessed the lot
with petitioner CAPITLE since 1960.
DARAB ruling: Vacate the subject landholding
and deliver the same to FORTUNATA and
ROSALINDA; issuance of CLOA in favour of

disinheritance of Alfredo,
nonetheless, is an act of disposition
in itself. In other words, the
disinheritance results in the disposition of
the property of the testator in favour of
those who would succeed in the absence
of Alfredo.
With regard to the issue on preterition,
the Court believes that the compulsory
heirs in the direct line were not preterited
in the will. It was, Segundos last
expression to bequeath his estate to all
his compulsory heirs, with the sole
exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did
not institute an heir to the exclusion of
his other compulsory heirs. The mere
mention of the name of one of the
petitioners, Virginia, in the document did
not operate to institute her as a universal
heir. Her name was included plainly as a
witness to the altercation between
Segundo and Alfredo. Considering that
the questioned document in Segundos
holographic will, and that the law favors
testacy over intestacy, the probate of the
will cannot be dispensed with. Art. 838
provides that no will she pass either real
or personal property unless it is proved
and allowed in accordance with the Rules
of Court. Thus, unless the will is
probated, the right of a person to dispose
of his property may be rendered
nugatory.
In view of the foregoing, the trial court,
therefore, should have allowed the
hologrpahic will to be probated. It is
settled that testate proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of the decedent
take precedence over intestate
proceedings for the same purpose.
Petitioners argument that it would be
absurd for OLAR to bequeath his property
to his estranged wife not to a relative
who had indeed helped him in tilling the
property and took good care of his needs
is a virtual admission that their
possession was not in the concept of
owners, they having merely helped in
tilling the lot, thereby acknowledging
that OLAR was the actualy possessor and
tiller.
Although estranged from OLAR,
respondent FORTUNATA remained his
wife and legal heir, mere estrangement
not being a legal ground for the
disqualification of a surviving spouse as
an heir of the deceased spouse.
ROSALINDA, on the other hand, is the
surviving spouse of OLARs son. The two
are this real-parties-in-interest who stand
to be injured or benefited by the
judgment on the cancellation of the CLOA
issued in OLARs name.

Wills & Succession Case Digests 2 (of 2)

-

20. PAZSAMANIEGO
vs. ABENA

FORTUNATA and ROSALINDA as legal heirs of

OLAR
Appellate court affirmed the decision of DARAB
which found that petitioners-appeallants
possession of the questioned property since
1960 is of dubious legality. No amount of
possession under whatever claim (actual tilling
and actual possession) can clothe petitionerappellants with any lawful right over the
questioned property.

Petitioner PAZ SAMANIEGO-CELADA was the

first cousin of decedent MARGARITA MAYORES
while respondent, LUCIA ABENA was the
decedents lifelong companion since 1929.
MARGARITA died single and without any
ascending nor descending heirs. She was
survived by her first cousins, Catalina,
Manuelita, Feliza and petitioner.
Before her death, MARGARITA executed a Last
Will and Testament where she bequeathed
one-half of her undivided share of a real
property located at Singalong, Manila, to
respondent, Norma Pahingalo and Florentino
Abena, in equal shares or one-third portion
each. She likewise bequeathed one-half of her
undivided share of a real property located at
San Antonio Village, Makati, to respondent,
Isabelo Abena, and Amanda Abena in equal
share or one-third portion each. MARGARITA
also left all her personal properties to
respondent whom she likewise designated as a
sole executor of her will.
RTC and CA ruling: will to be probated,
declared LUCIA ABENA as executor of the will.

Issue: WON the will complied with the formalities

required under Art. 805.

The RTC correctly held: The oppositors

failed to establish, by preponderance of
evidence, said allegation and contradict
the presumption that testator was of
sound mind. Anent the contestants
submission that the will is fatally
defective for the reason that the
attestation clause states that the will is
composed of 3 pages while in truth and
in fact, the will consist of 2 pages only
because the attestation is not a part of
the notarial will, the same is not
accurate. While it is true that the
attestation clause is not a part of the will,
the court, after examining the totality of
the will is of the considered opinion that
error in the number of pages of the will
as stated in the attestation clause is not
material to invalidate the subject will. It
must be notes that the subject
instrument is constructively lettered with
pages A, B, and C which is a sufficient
safeguard from the possibility of an
omission of some of the pages. The error
must have been brought by the honest
belief that the will is a whole instrument
consisting of 3 pages inclusive of the
attestation clause and the
acknowledgement. The position of the
court is in consonance with the doctrine
of liberal interpretation Art. 809
Petitioner and her siblings are not
compulsory heirs of the decedent under
Art. 887 and as the decedent validly
disposed of her properties in a will duly
executed and probated, petitioner has no
legal right to claim any part of the
decedents estate.