Case 6 : SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

76464 February 29, 1988

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.
One Adriana Maloto died on October 20, 1963 in Iloilo City, her place of residence.
Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Panfilo Maloto, and Felino Maloto, niece
and nephews, respectively, of Adriana Maloto, the niece and nephew of the latter in
the belief that the decedent died intestate, commenced an intestate proceeding In
the course of said intestate proceeding they executed an extrajudicial partition of
the estate. On April 1, 1967, a document dated January 3, 1940 purporting to be the
last with and testament of Adriana Maloto was delivered to the CFI of Iloilo. It
appears that Aldina Maloto Casiano Consent Maloto, Panfilo Maloto, and Felino
Maloto are named as heirs but Maloto Casiano and Constancio Maloto allegedly
have shares in said with which are bigger, different and more valuable than what
they obtained in the extrajudicial partition. The said will also allegedly made
dispositions to certain devisees and/or legatees, among whom being the Asilo de
Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor. On May 24,
1967, Aldina Maloto Casiano and Constancio Maloto filed for the probate of the will.
Panfilo and Felino opposed on the ground that that the document was allegedly
burned by the househelp of Adriana upon the instruction of the testatrix.
Issue: WON the will has been revoked.
Held: It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case,
does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled
with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the
physical destruction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by
another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator.
Of course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will
itself.
In this case, while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke, may be conceded,
for that is a state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice. "Animus
revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last
will and testament. The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt
physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the
testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. There
is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. For one, the
document or papers burned by Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily
established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For another, the
burning was not proven to have been done under the express direction of Adriana.
And then, the burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses, Guadalupe and
Eladio, were one in stating that they were the only ones present at the place where
the stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which the papers proffered as
a will were burned.

Case 7: FIRST DIVISION G.R. Nos. 89224-25 January 23, 1992

Sayson vs CA
Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot five children, namely, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa,
Remedios and Teodoro. Eleno died on November 10, 1952, and Rafaela on May 15,
1976. Teodoro, who had married Isabel Bautista, died on March 23, 1972. His wife
died nine years later, on March 26, 1981. Their properties were left in the
possession of Delia, Edmundo, and Doribel, all surnamed Sayson, who claim to be
their children. On April 25, 1983, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, and Remedios, together
with Juana C. Bautista, Isabel's mother, filed a complaint for partition and
accounting of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson. The action was
resisted by Delia, Edmundo and Doribel Sayson, who alleged successional rights to
the disputed estate as the decedents' lawful descendants. On July 11, 1983, Delia,
Edmundo and Doribel filed their own complaint against the couple's four surviving
children asserting that Delia and Edmundo were the adopted children and Doribel
was the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and Isabel. As such, they were entitled to
inherit Teodoro's share in his parents' estate by right of representation. Both cases
were decided in favor of the respondents and excluding the plaintiff from sharing in
their estate. Case was appealed to CA but the latter affirmed the decision of the
lower court. Hence the petition.
Issue: WON Doribel can succeed by was of representation.
Held: we hold that Doribel, as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson,
and Delia and Edmundo, as their adopted children, are the exclusive heirs to the
intestate estate of the deceased couple, conformably to the following Article 979 of
the Civil Code:
Art. 979. Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other
ascendants, without distinction as to sex or age, and even if they should come from
different marriages.
An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same
manner as a legitimate child.
Coming now to the right of representation, we stress first the following pertinent
provisions of the Civil Code:
Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the
representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented, and
acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have
inherited.
Art. 971. The representative is called to the succession by the law and not by the
person represented. The representative does not succeed the person represented
but the one who the person represented would have succeeded.
Art. 981. Should children of the deceased and descendants of other children who
are dead, survive, the former shall inherit in their own right, and the latter by right
of representation.

There is no question that as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and thus the
granddaughter of Eleno and Rafaela, Doribel has a right to represent her deceased
father in the distribution of the intestate estate of her grandparents. Under Article
981, quoted above, she is entitled to the share her father would have directly
inherited had he survived, which shall be equal to the shares of her grandparents'
other children.