Jan Michael D.

Lorenzo

Comparative Study

Joint Wills The cases of Dela Cerna v. Rebaca-Potot and Vda. De Perez v. Tolete involves the issue of execution of Joint wills. In the case of Dela Cerna v. Rebaca-Potot, a couple wrote their last will and testament on a single instrument in favor of their niece. Here the court, ruled that this this a void will as this is expressly prohibited by law, the will they executed was considered a joint will. Unlike in the case of Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, the couple wrote their last will and testament in favor of each other on a different instrument. Such, Will according to the court does not constitute joint Will. In addition to this case, as an exception to the rule on joint Wills carry which carries with it the prohibition on joint probate was reached to. When the circumstances provides a joint probate may be allowed when one Will pertains to another Will as to insure just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the action.

Dela Cerna v. Rebaca-Potot

Bernabe Dela Serna and his wife Gervasia Rebaca executed a joint will and testament in favor of their niece Manuela Rebaca. When Bernabe died, the will was submitted for probate. The probate court declares that the will was duly executed. At a later time, upon the death of Gervasia, another probate proceedings was brought to the probate court. After the petition was heard the court declared the testament to be null and void, for being contrary to the prohibition of joint wills.

Ruling: The court ruled there was an error of law on the decision declaring the will of Bernabe as validly executed. Because even then the Civil Code decreed that joint wills are void. Here, though the previous court declared with finality the validity of the joint will of Bernabe-Gervasia, such validity is conclusive only to the share of Bernade and could not have included the share of Gervasia, his wife. Cause back then during the probate proceeding of Bernabe, Gervasia was alive. The probate coud not have acquired jurisdiction over her estate, for it was not then the issue. And prior to the new Civil Code, a will could not be probated during the testator's lifetime. Hence, it folows that the validity of the joint will of Bernabe-Gervaisa, in so far as the estate of Gervasia, is not valid, as joint will is one prohibited by the law.

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete

Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanans became American citizens, and are working in New York. On a certain date Jose executed a last will and testament leaving all his real and personal property to his wife Evelyn. Included in the will was a provision that incase it cannot be determine the order of the couples deaths, it shall be presume that Jose predeceased Evelyn. After four days, Evelyn also executed a last will and testament infavor this time to her husband and with the same presumption that if the order of their death cannot be determined, Jose predeceased her.

On a later date, the entire family of Dr. Cunanan perished. Dr. Rafael Cunanan Jr. as trustee and substitute executor of the two wills filed separate proceedings for the probate in New York. The two wills were admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued in his favor. Meanwhile, Salud

Teodoro Perez, the mother of Evelyn filed with Regional Trial Court, a petition for the reprobate of the two bills ancillary to the probate proceedings in New York. The reprobate case was denied probate, holding that to allow the probate of the two wills in a single proceeding would be a departure from the established mode of probate where one petition takes care of one will. Ruling: The court ruled that what is expressly prohibited by the law is the making of joint wills either for the testators reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. In this case, the Cunanan couples executed their own individual wills. Since the two wills contain the same provisions and pertains to property which conjugal in nature, in favor of each other, the court was believes that there should be a joint probate. The court will always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation, to obtain just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the action.

Probate Courts Inquiry Limitation on Extrinsic Validity The three case of Nuguid v. Nuguid, Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court, and Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals involves the issue on the limitation of the authority of the Probate Court on the extrinsic validity. In all three cases, the court ruled that the limitation is not absolute. In the case of Nuguid v. Nuguid, a testator executed a holographic Will in favor of one of her sibling only, in deprivation of her ascendance of their right to legitime. As the will is invalid as it contains provision prohibited by the law on preterition, this does not prevent the probate court to ruled on the intrinsic validity if upon the face of the Will it is intrinsically invalid. The same rule applies on the case of Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court, wherein the adopted daughter and the widow of the testator are deprived of their legitime, thought the rule on preterition does not apply to the widow but only to the adopted daughter the same the Will, on its face is intrinsically invalid and it would cost time, effort, expenses, plus added futility if the same would be tolerated by the daughter till after the court has decided on its extrinsic validity. While in the case Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals it involves a different ground whereby the Will is intrinsically invalid as this concerned Will, in favor of a concubine which the law expressly prohibits. The same, the court may rule on to the intrinsic validity before establishing the formal validity of the will.

Nuguid v. Nuguid

Rosario Nuguid died any without descendants, surviving her was her parents, and her siblings. Remedios Nuguid one of the Rosario's siblings presented to the court a holographic Will executed by Rosario, which was oppose by their parents. The contention of the parents of Rosario was that the institution of Remedios as universal heir of the decedent, without mentioning decedent's parents, who are compulsory heirs in the direct ascending line were illegally preterited and thus, in consequence the institution is void.

Ruling The question here was with regards to the intrinsic validity of the will, but the case was filed for the probate of the will. In a case of probate of the will, the court's area of inquiry is limited only to the examination and resolution on the extrinsic validity of the will. This is with regards to the testamentary capacity of the testator, its compliance of the requisites in forms and solemnities as prescribe by the law and its due execution thereof. At this stage, the court is not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will. Normally, questions of validity of the provision, comes after the will is duly authenticated. But in this case, the court believes, in order to prevent waste of time, effort, expense, and added anxiety for clearly the same questions on intrinsic validity will be brought up again to the high court, rather than remanded it to the probate court, the court took jurisdiction. Hence, because it involves preterition as against to the parents of Rosario, the same is void as it is intrinsically invalid on the face of the Will.

Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court

Nemesio Acain executed a will where he leaves all his properties to his brother Segundo and in case Segundo predecease him, shall be given to the children of Segundo. Since Segundo predecease the testator, the petitioner Constantino Acain, one of the children of Segundo, filed for the probate of the will. The probate of the will was oppose by Virginia, the adopted daughter of the testator, and Rosa the latter's widow. They contend that they have been pretirited. The said opposition was denied by the court, stating that it's authority is limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will.

Ruling: The court ruled that, the general rule is that the probate court's authority is limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will and that the intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the Court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. But such rule is not absolute; in this case if the respondents have to tolerate the probate eventhough on the face of the will it appears to be intrinsically invalid, it would only waste time, effort, expenses, plus added futility. Hence, when the circumstances demand that the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision be passed upon before the extrinsic validity of the will is resolved, the probate court should meet the issue.

Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals

Martin Jugo left a last will in favor of his legal wife Rufina and his children the entire estate and the free portion thereof to Sofia. In his will he admits that he has been cohabiting with Sofia eventhough he was legally married to Rufina. When Sofia, filed for the probate of the will, Rufina oppose to the same, as the will was procured by undue and improper influence on the part of Sofia. Hence, the court denied probate of the will. Sofia appeal the decision of the probate court, contending that the intrinsic validity of the will cannot be passed upon and decided in the probate proceedings but in some other proceedings because the purpose of the probate of a will is to establish the conclusiveness that the will was duly executed, as to the formalities and capacity to execute a will by the testator.

Ruling: The general rule is that in the probate proceedings, the court's area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will. But such rule is not absolute, given the circumstances; the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation demands them to do. Even before establishing the formal validity of the will, the Court can pass upon the intrinsic validity of the provision. 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, which the law expressly prohibits.

The Probate of the Will is Mandatory The two cases of Balanay v. Martinez and Gallanosa vs. Arcangel involve issue with regards to the requirement of probate proceedings. In the case of Balanay v. Martinez, where the Will was assume by the judge that the heirs wishes that the probate to be withdrawn, cannot proceed into an intestate proceedings without probating the will as to the extrinsic validity eventhough the Will upon its face is intrinsically invalid. The same rule is required in the case of Gallanosa v. Arcangel, the Will must be probate in order for the Will to take effect. And such after probate, the conclusiveness as to duly execution of the Will, is conclusive to any subsequent proceedings inregards to the formal validity.

Balanay v. Martinez

Leodegaria died testate, she was survived by her husband Felix Balanay, Sr. and her children. Felix Jr. one of her children, filed for the probate of her notarial will. In her will he declared that she owned the southern half on the conjugal lots; and that her properties should not be divided among the heirs during her husband's lifetime and that thier legitime should be satisfied out of the fruits of her porperties. She also stated the upon the dead of her husband, her paraphernal lands and all conjugal lands should be divided as set forth in her will, including the husbands half share of the conjugal assets. At first Felix Sr. has oppose the probate as there was preterition to his, and due to improper partition as to the conjugal estate. Felix Sr. later withdraws his opposition, and renounced his hereditary rights in her estate. Later on two of the children, Avelina and Delia, prayed that the probate of the will be withdrawn and that the proceedings be converted into an intestate proceeding, to which the court approve assuming that the parties had agreed on that point.

Ruling: The court ruled erred in not proceeding with the probate of the will. Generally, the probate of the will is mandatory. Even in the extreme case where the will on its face is intrinsically void, it is still the duty of the court to pass on the extrinsic validity of the will. The court should not have proceeded into the intestate proceeding, whereby there was conformity of the husband as to the provision of the Will, in renunciation of his hereditary rights. The court should remember that Testacy is favored as to intestacy.

Gallanosa vs. Arcangel

Florentino Hitosis, a childless widower, executed a Will infavor of Tecla, his second wife, in case his wife predeceased him to the spouses Pedro Gallanosa, Teclas son by her first marriage. The probate of the Will was opposed by the testators legal heir. Because of the failure of the opposition to present any evidence, the Will was admitted. The legal heir fails to appeal the decisions after fifteen years the legal heirs seek for the annulment of the probate of the Will.

Ruling The court ruled that, the procedural law does not sanction an action for the annulment of a will. In order that a will may take effect, it has to be probated, legalized or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. Hence, the probate of the Will is mandatory. The testamentary proceedings as a special proceeding for the settlement of the testators estate, any decision of the court with regards to the conclusiveness as to the due execution or formal validity, the same cannot again be question in any subsequent proceedings.