Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

No
.
31

Title
Rodelas vs. Aranza

Case digest
Petitioner-appellant: Marcela Rodelas
Oppositor-appelles: Amparo Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes, Expedita
Bonilla Frias and Ephraim Bonilla
Intervenor: Atty. Lorenzo Sumulong

FACTS:
Ricardo B. Bonilla deceased; left a holographic will
Marcela Rodelas filed Petition for Probate
Amparo et al opposed
Lower Court dismissed the petition for the probate of the will of Ricardo B.
Bonilla:
-

once the original copy of the holographic will is lost, a copy thereof cannot
stand in lieu of the original. In the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, 522,
the Supreme Court held that, 'in the matter of holographic wills the law, it is
reasonable to suppose, regards the document itself as the material proof of
authenticity of said wills.

Rodelas filed for a Motion for Reconbut denied.

CA reversed the lower courts decision (Rodelas case dismissal is contrary to
law and well-settled jurisprudence)

ISSUE:

WON a lost or cannot be found holographic will can be proved by

means of a photostatic copy

HELD: Yes, a lost, destroyed or cannot be found holographic will can be proved
by means of a photostatic, mimeographed or carbon copy or by other similar
means.
If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available,
the will cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is the
handwriting of the testator in said will.

It is necessary that there be a

Page | 1

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and

the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic
will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings
of the testator.
In the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and
the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare
testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must
be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the
document itself as material proof of authenticity."
SC approved the Will for probate.

32

Ajero vs. CA

Petitioners: Spouses Roberto and Thelma Ajero

Respondents: CA and Clemente Sand

FACTS:
Sps. Ajero instituted a case for allowance of Annie Sands holographic will.
Celemente Sand et al, opposed the petition on the grounds that:
- neither the testament's body nor the signature therein was in decedent's
handwriting;
- it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by
decedent; and,
- the will was procured by Sps. Ajero through improper pressure and undue
influence.
The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero:
- he contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot in Cabadbaran,
Agusan Del Norte could not be conveyed by Annie Sand in its entirety, as
she was not its sole owner.
Lower Court approved the probate of the will.
CA reversed the decision and petition for probate of decedent's (Annie Sands)
Page | 2

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

will was dismissed. CA found that, "the holographic will fails to meet the
requirements for its validity (did not comply with Articles 813 and 814, NCC).
CA further held that Annie Sand could not validly dispose of the house in
Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, in its entirety.

This is correct and must be

affirmed.

ISSUE: WON requirements of Art 813 and 814 is necessary for the probate of a
will or is it Art 810s requirement that should be followed for the probate of a will.

HELD:
SC reversed and set aside the CA decision except for the disposition of the entire
house and lot in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. The RTC of Quezon City,
admitting to probate the holographic will of decedent Annie Sand, is hereby
REINSTATED.
SC explained that the requirements of authentication of changes and
signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and 814)
separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the validity
of the holographic will (Article 810).
Article 813, NCC 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.

33

Nepomuceno vs. CA

Petitioner: SOFIA J. NEPOMUCENO

Respondents: CA, Rufina Gomez, Oscar Jugo and Carmelita Jugo

FACTS:
Martin Jugo died in Malabon, Rizal; legally married to Rufina Gomez with 2
legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita
-

left a last Will and Testament, signed by him at the end of the Will (page
3), on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4
Page | 3

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

in the presence of Celestina Alejandro, Myrna C. Cortez, and Leandro

Leao, who in turn, affixed their signatures below the attestation clause
and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 of the Will in the presence of
the testator and of each other and the Notary Public.

Martin named and appointed Sofia J. Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of
his estate.
Martin lived with Sofia Nepomuceno as husband and wife
Martin Sofia were married in Victoria, Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace. Martin
gave to his legal 2 children his entire estate and the free portion to Sofia.
Sofia filed a petition for the probate of the last Will and Testament of deceased
Martin Jugo
Rufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition alleging that:
-

the execution of the Will was procured by undue and improper influence on the

part of the petitioner;

that at the time of the execution of the Will, Martin was already very sick and
that petitioner having admitted her living in concubinage with the testator, she is
wanting in integrity and thus letters testamentary should not be issued to her.

Lower Court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that as the testator
admitted in his Will to cohabiting with the Sofia until Martins death
Sofia appealed to CA.
CA set aside the decision of the Lower Court of Rizal, declared the Will to be valid
except that the devise in favor of the appellant which is declared null and void. The
properties so devised are instead passed on in intestacy to Rufina and children in
equal shares.
ISSUE: WON CA is correct in declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased
Martin Jugo validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the
testamentary provision in favor of herein petitioner.
HELD: Yes. SC affirmed CA decision that the Will is valid but the donation is null
and void.
The SC explained that the prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against
Page | 4

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

the making of a donation between persons who are living in adultery or

concubinage. It is the donation which becomes void. The giver cannot give even
assuming that the recipient may receive. The very wordings of the Will invalidate the
legacy because the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a person
with whom he had been living in concubinage.

34

Cayetano vs.

Petitioner: Polly Cayetano

Leonidas

Respondents: Hon. Tomas T. Leonidas, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge

of Branch XXXVIII, Court of First Instance of Manila and Nenita Campos
Paguia

FACTS:
Hermogenes Campos + wife (deceased) = Adoracion C. Campos (deceased),
Nenita C. Paguia, Remedios C. Lopez and Marieta C. Medina (3 sisters left,
heirs)
Hermogenes Campos - the only compulsory heir,
- he executed an Affidavit of Adjudication pronouncing himself as the
ownership of the entire estate of Adoracion (deceased).
Nenita C. Paguia - filed a petition for the reprobate of a will of the deceased,
Adoracion Campos, which was allegedly executed in US and for her
appointment as administratrix.
Hermogenes died and left a will appointing Polly Cayetano as the executrix of his
last will and testament. Cayetano was granted by the Court to substitute herself
as petitioner in the instant case.

ISSUE: WON the will of Adoracion Campos, an American citizen & temporarily
sojourned in the Philippines during her death is correctly filed for probate in the
Manila, Philippines or in Pennsylvania, US.

HELD: Yes, the settlement of the estate of Adoracion Campos was correctly filed
in Manila.
As a general rule, the probate court's authority is limited only to the extrinsic
Page | 5

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

validity of the will, the due execution thereof, Adoracion's testamentary capacity
and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. The
intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the court has
declared that the will has been duly authenticated. However, where practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even
before it is probated, the court should meet the issue.
The law which governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania,
U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent, as per Art. 16 (par.2) and 1039.

35

Vda. De Molo vs.

Petitioner-appellee: Testate Estate of the Deceased Mariano Molo Y Legaspi,

Molo

Juana Juan Vda. De Molo

Oppositor-appellants: Luz, Gliceria and Cornelio Molo

FACTS:
Mariano Molo y Legaspi + Juana Juan Vda. De Molo
Mariano Molo y Legaspi died in Rizal, without leaving any forced heir, in the
descending or ascending line.
- Luz and Gliceria (nieces) and Cornelio Molo (nephew) --- legitimate
children of Candido Molo y Legaspi (deceased brother of Mariano).
Mariano Molo y Legaspi left two wills. The 2nd will contains a clause which
expressly revokes the 1st will.
Juana filed the probate of the 2nd will, being no opposition, the will was probated.
The case was reopened due to opposition of Luz, Gliceria and Cornelio. Court
Page | 6

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

denied probate of the 2nd will.

Juana filed another petition for the probate of the 1st will. Again, the same
oppositors filed an opposition to the petition

ISSUE:
1) WON the 2nd will revoked the 1st will made by Mariano Molo
2) WON assuming the 2nd Will did not revoked the 1st will, is the 1st will still valid
and can be allowed for probate

HELD:
1) No. In the case at bar, the 2nd will did not revoked the 1st will. The SC
explained that in the case of Samson vs. Naval, the court laid down the
doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation that a subsequent will,
containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed, for the
reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of the law
(previously Sec. 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure) as to the making of wills,
cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will, inasmuch as said
revocatory clause is void.
2) Yes. The 1st will is still valid and can be admitted to probate under the
principle of dependent relative revocation. The failure of the new
testamentary disposition upon whose validity the revocation depends, is
equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive condition, and hence prevents
the revocation of the original will. But a mere intent to make at some time a
will in the place of that destroyed will not render the destruction conditional. It
must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a
new will.

36

The Heirs of the Late

Petitioner: The Heirs of the late Jesus Fran and Carmen Mejia Rodriguez

Jesus Fran vs. Salas

Respondent:

Hon. Bernardo Ll. Salas, Concepcion Mejia Espina and Maria

Mejia Gandiongco

Page | 7

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

FACTS:

Remedios M. Vda. de Tiosejo widow; died in Cebu City;

-

no descendants or ascendants;

left real and personal properties in Cebu, Ormoc and Leyte.

executed a last will and testament

she left her properties to her relatives (brothers, sisters, nephews and
nieces) all her properties

designated Rosario Tan as executor or, upon Tan's death, Jesus Fran, as
replacement executor

Jesus Fran filed a petition for the probate of Remedios' last will and testament.
-

He was the 2nd and also the last witness in the original and English
translation of the will. He enumerated the names of the surviving heirs of
the deceased.

Court admitted the will for probate.

Project of Partition was filed in Court.

Concepcion Mejia Espina and Maria Mejia Gandiongco filed Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration of the probate judgment.

The Court ordered the testamentary dispositions of the will void, finding the
signature of the late Remedios Media Vda. de Tiosejo to be a forgery.
Page | 8

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

Jesus Fran died, substituted by his heirs.

ISSUE:

HELD:

37

Caneda vs. CA

Petitioners: Teodoro Caneda, Lorenza Caneda, Teresa Caneda, Juan Caballrto,

Aurea Caballero, Oscar Larosa, Helen Caballero, Santos Caballero, Pablo
Caballero, Victor Raga, Mauricia Raga, Quirica Raga, Ruperto Abapo,
represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, Armsticia * Abapo Velano, and
Conseso Caneda, represented herein by his heirs, Jesus Candea, Natividad
Caneda and Arturo Caneda
Page | 9

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

Respondents: CA and William Cabrera, as Special Administrator of the Estate of

Mateo Caballero

FACTS:
Mateo Caballero - a widower w/o any children; already in his twilight years
-

executed a last will and testament in Cebu

leaving his real and personal properties to Presentacion Gaviola, Angel
Abatayo, Rogelio Abatayo, Isabelito Abatayo, Benoni G. Cabrera and

Marcosa Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator

he himself filed a petition seeking the probate of his last will and testament.
He died before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court.

Benoni Cabrera - one of the legatees was appointed by the probate court as special administrator
of Mateo Caballeros estate
Petitioners, claiming to be testators nephews and nieces - instituted a second petition, opposed
probate of the testator's will and the appointment of Benoni as special administrator
Benoni Cabrera died on February 8, 1982 hence the probate court, now known as Branch XV of
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, appointed William Cabrera as special administrator on June 21,
1983. Thereafter, on July 20, 1983, it issued an order for the return of the records of Special
Proceeding No. 3965-R to the archives since the testate proceedings for the probate of the will had
to be heard and resolved first. On March 26, 1984 the case was reraffled and eventually assigned
to Branch XII of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu where it remained until the conclusion of the
probate proceedings. 6
In the course of the hearing in Special Proceeding No. 3899-R, herein petitioners appeared as
oppositors and objected to the allowance of the testator's 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. Petitioners likewise reiterated the issue as to the genuineness of the
signature of the testator therein. 7
On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses, Cipriano Labuca, and the notary public, Atty.
Filoteo Manigos, testified that the testator executed the will in question in their presence while he
was of sound and disposing mind and that, contrary to the assertions of the oppositors, Mateo
Caballero was in good health and was not unduly influenced in any way in the execution of his will.
Labuca also testified that he and the other witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of
the testator and of each other. The other two attesting witnesses were not presented in the probate
hearing as they had died by then. 8

Page | 10

Case Digests on Wills and Succession | Prepared by: Ruby Sumague-Garcia

Page | 11