Maloto v.

CA Digest

Maloto v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988
Sarmiento, J. (Ponente)

Facts: 
1. Petitioners and respondents are the neices/nephews or Adriana Maloto who died in
1963. The four heirs believed that the deceased  did not leave a will, hesnce they filed an
intestate proceeding. However, the parties executed an extrajudicial settlement of the
estate dividing it into four equal parts.

2. In 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, ex-associate of the deceased's counsel allegedly

discovered her last will which was purportedly dated 1940, inside a cabinet. Hence the
annulment of the proceedings and a probate petition was filed by the devisees and
legatees. The said will was allegedly burned by the househelp under the   instruction of the
deceased

3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground that the animus revocandi in the
burning of the will was sufficiently proven.

Issue: Whether or not there was valid revocation of the will

RULING: No, there was no revocation.  For a valid revocation to occur,the  'corpus' and
'animus' must concur, one without the other will not produce a valid revocation. The
physical act of destruction of a will must come with an intention to revoke (animus
revocandi). In this case, there's paucity of evidence to comply with the said requirement.
The paper burned was not established to be the will and the burning though  done under
her express direction was not done in her presence.

Under Art. 830, the physical act of destruction, in this case the burning of the will, does not
constitute an effective revocation, unless it is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of
the testator. Since animus is a state of mind, it has to be accompanied by an overt physical
act of burning, tearing, obliterating or cancelling done by the testator himself or by another
under his express direction and  presence.

Gago vs. Mamuyac 

G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927
Johnson, J. (Ponente)

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.