MONICA BONA, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
HOSPICIO BRIONES, ET AL., objectorsappellees.
JULY 6, 1918

Johnson, Carson,
Fisher, JJ., concur.

Street,

Malcolm,

Avancea

Francisco Briones
Monica Bona

and

NATURE OF CASE: Appeal of the denial of petition

for the probate of the will of Francisco Briones

Hospico Briones
Gregoria Briones
Carmen Briones
Gregorio Bustilla
Sixto Barrameda
Domingo de la
Fuente*

Decedent
Widow by the 2nd
marriage
Legit children of
Francisco from 1st
marriage
Subscribing witnesses
*Was a notary public

FACTS
16 SEP 1911 Francisco Briones executed a will in the presence of Gregorio, Sixto, and Domingo
Domingo was a notary public whom Briones asked to draft the will under his express direction.
14 AUG 1913 Briones died.
20 JAN 1915 Monica petitioned for probate was granted.
5 MAR 1915 Legit children Hospicio, Gregoria, and Carmen opposed the probate alleging said will
was executed before two witnesses only and under unlawful and undue pressure or influence
exercised upon the person of the testator who thus signed through fraud and deceit; and prayed
that for that reason the said will be declared null and of no value
27 MAR 1915 Probate of will was denied, Monica appealed and prayed to be allowed to sue
further as pauper litigant
31 MAR 1915 Appeal was admitted and Monica was declared pauper
ISSUE --- Validity of execution of will
Observance of solemnities prescribed by Act. No. 190 Sec.618 (requirement of 3 or more
credible witnesses)
Act No. 2645 amending said section 618 took effect 1 JUL 1916 (Civil Procedure)
RULING YES.
Solemnities prescribed by Act. No. 190 Sec.618 since will was drafted in 1911 and Briones died
1913 (prior effectivity of Act No. 2645)
Law applicable is the provision contained in section 618 of Act No. 190,
Will should be probated it has been presented to the court many months before the
amendatory act went into effect.

Not proper nor just to invalidate the will of merely because of some small defect in form which is
not essential nor of great importance (failure to state that Domingo was also a witness to the said
will when he signed it twice)

The principle that a new law shall not have retroactive effect only governs the rights arising from
acts done under the rule of the former law; but if the right be declared for the first time by a
subsequent law it shall take effect from that time even though it has arisen from acts subject to the
former laws, provided that it does not prejudice another acquired right of the same origin.

In the matter of the probation of the will

of Jose Riosa.
MARCELINO CASAS, applicant-appellant

Jose Riosa
Marcelino Casas

Decedent

NOVEMBER 17, 1918

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street, Avancea and

Fisher, JJ., concur.

NATURE OF CASE: Appeal of the disallowance of the will of Jose Riosa

FACTS
JAN 1908 Jose Riosa made a will disposing estate > P35,000.
Riosa's will was in accordance with Sec. 618 of the Code of Civ Pro.
17 APR 1917 Riosa died
In writing, signed by the testator, and attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in
the presence of the testator and of each other
BUT was not signed by the testator and the witnesses on the left margin of each and every
page, nor did the attestation state these facts.
The new law went into effect after the making of the will and before the death of the
testator, without the testator having left a will that conforms to the new requirements.
*Act No. 2645 amending 618 took effect 1 JUL 1916 (promulgated 24 FEB 1916)
29 DEC 1917 CFI Albay disallowed will
SC previously ruled:
Will made after the date Act No. 2645 went into effect must comply with the provisions of this
law
Will executed by a testator whose death took place prior to the operative date of Act No. 2645,
the amendatory act is inapplicable
ISSUE
1. Validity of the will of Jose Riosa
2. Law applicable during probate in the Philippinesexisting on date of execution of will or at death of
testator?

RULING
1. YES the will is valid
There was compliance with Sec. 618 of Act 190
2. Law existing on date of execution of will (as to extrinsic validity)
"the general rule as to testaments is, that the time of the testament, and not the testator's
death, is regarded."
The language of Act No. 2645 gives no indication of retrospective effect. Such, likewise, has
been the uniform tendency of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands on cases having
special application to testamentary succession

ANTONIO CASTAEDA, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

Doa Juana Moreno

Antonio Castaeda
Jose Alemany

Decedent

JOSE E. ALEMANY, defendant-appellant.

March 19, 1904

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa, McDonough and

Johnson, JJ., concur.

NATURE OF CASE: Appeal of the trial courts decision allowing the will of the decedent
FACTS
Doa Juana Moreno executed a will
Typewritten in the office of the lawyer for her
Duly signed by herself in the presence of three witnesses, who signed it as witnesses in her
presence and of each other
Alemany contends that proof shows will was not written in the presence and under the express
direction of the testatrix as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that there
was no testimony in the court below to show that the will executed by the deceased was the same
will presented to the court

ISSUE --- Validity of execution of will in compliance with Sec. 618

RULING YES. The will was executed in confirmity with law.

Who does the mechanical work of writing the will is a matter of indifference (it was typewritten in
the office of the lawyer for her)
Purpose of probate is to verify if a will was executed with formalities required by law and that the
testator was in a condition to make a will

ISIDRO SANTOS, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
LEANDRA MANARANG, administratrix,
defendant-appellee.

Don Lucas de Ocampo

Isidro Santos
Leandra Manarang

Decedent
Creditor
Administrator of the
estate of Santos

MARCH 19, 1914

Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

NATURE OF CASE: Appeal of the dismissal of the action for recovery of the sums mentioned in the will due
to Santos.
FACTS
26 JUL 1906 Don Lucas de Ocampo executed a will leaving certain property to his three children .
His will likewise said his contracted debts shall be paid by his wife and executors in the form and at
the time agreed upon with his creditors
18 NOV 1906 Don Lucas died
27 JUN 1908 Committee on Claims submitted its report to the probate court
Isidro Santos is a creditor of who 2 debts were due:
P5000 (14 APR 1907)
P2,454 (different dates but not given)
14 JUL 1909 Santos filed a petition asking that the committee be required to reconvene and pass
upon his claims against the estate which were recognized in the will of testator (PETITION DENIED)
21 NOV 1910 Santos instituted action for recovery of the sums mentioned in the will against the
administratix (DENIED)
Santos contended:
It does not appear in the committee's report that the publications required by section 687 of
the Code of Civil Procedure had been duly made
At the time he presented his petition the court had not approved the report of the committee
(administration proceedings not yet terminated)
1 AUG 1912 account of the administratrix was approved after reducing final payments of some of
the claims against the estate to agree with the amounts allowed by the committee

ISSUES
1. Validity of the denial of the petition asking comittee to reconvene to consider his claim.
2. Validity of dismissal of the action for recovery against the administratix.
3. Question if the sum of money prayed for in the complaint is a debt or a legacy.

RULING
1. YES. Denial was valid
Committee did make the publications required by law.
Claims of Santos were proper to be considered by the committee provided that:
Creditors to present their claims the committee for examination and allowance
Claims must be presented within 6-12mos courts may extended but not more than
18mos.
Santos filed his claimed BEYOND 12mos (committee already submitted report 27 JUN 1908)
There was proper notice and Santos belatedly filed his claim.

2. YES. Dimissal is valid

Administrator not permitted or directed to deal with a creditor of the estate.
Santos should have timely filed the claim with the committee
Sec. 699 (Code of Civ. Pro)
"When a committee is appointed as herein provided, no action or suit shall be
commenced or prosecute against the executor or administrator upon a claim against
the estate to recover a debt due from the state; but actions to recover the seizing
and possession of real estate and personal chattels claimed by the estate may be
commenced against him."
3. NO. It is not a legacy.
The creation of a legacy depends upon the will of the testator, is an act of pure
beneficence, has no binding force until his death, and may be avoided in whole or in part
by the mere with whim of the testator, prior to that time.
In order to collect as legacy the sum mentioned in the will as due him, the plaintiff must
show that it is in fact a legacy and not a debt (Plaintiff's claim is described by the
testator as a debt)