Succession Reviewer

WILLS AND SUCCESSION I.CONCEPT OF SUCCESSION Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. (n) II. KINDS OF SUCCESSION: A. TESTAMENTARY Art. 779. Testamentary succession is that which results from the designation of an heir, made in a will executed in the form prescribed by law. (n) B. LEGAL OR INTESTATE Art. 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place: 1. If a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one which has subsequently lost its validity; 2. When the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose of all the property belonging to the testator. In such case, legal succession shall take place only with respect to the property of which the testator has not disposed; 3. If the suspensive condition attached to the institution of heir does not happen or is not fulfilled, or if the heir dies before the testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there being no substitution, and no right of accretion takes place; 4. When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding, except in cases provided in this Code. (912a) C. MIXED Art. 780. Mixed succession is that effected partly by will and partly by operation of law. D. CONTRACTUAL (superseded by Art. 84 of the Family Code) III. TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION A. WILLS 1. DEFINITION 1 Art. 783. A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of this estate, to take effect after his death. (667a) B. CHARACTERISTICS OF WILLS 1. Purely statutory, formal Art. 783 2. Free and voluntary Art. 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases: 1. 2. If the formalities required by law have not been complied with; If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution; 3. If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; 4. 5. If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person; If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; 6. If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto. (n) 3. Essentially revocable Art. 828. A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void. (737a) 4. Testator must have testamentary capacity a. Not prohibited by law Art. 796. All persons who are not expressly prohibited by law may make a will. (662) b. 18 years old or over Art. 797. Persons of either sex under eighteen years of age cannot make a will. (n) c. Of sound and disposing mind Art. 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its execution. (n) 2 5. Disposition must be mortis causa Art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. (657a) VITUG VS CA 183 SCRA 755 Facts: This case is a chapter in an earlier suit decided by this Court 1 involving the probate of the two wills of the late Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in New York, U. S.A.naming private respondent Rowena Faustino-Corona executrix. In our said decision, we upheld the appointment of Nenita Alonte as co-special administrator of Mrs. Vitug's estate with her (Mrs. Vitug's) widower, petitioner Romarico G. Vitug, pending probate.On January 13, 1985, Romarico G. Vitug filed a motion asking for authority from the probate court to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his advances to the estate in the sum of P667,731.66, plus interests, which he claimed were personal funds.Rowena Corona opposed the motion to sell on the ground that the same funds withdrawn from savings account No. 35342-038 were conjugal partnership properties and part of the estate, and hence, there was allegedly no ground for reimbursement. She also sought his ouster for failure to include the sums in question for inventory and for "concealment of funds belonging to the estate."Vitug insists that the said funds are his exclusive property having acquired the same through a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank on June 19, 1970. The agreement provides: We hereby agree with each other and with the BANK OF AMERICAN NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter referred to as the BANK), that all money now or hereafter deposited by us or any or either of us with the BANK in our joint savings current account shall be the property of all or both of us and shall be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by either or any of us during our lifetime, and after the death of either or any of us shall belong to and be the sole property of the survivor or survivors, and shall be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by such survivor or survivors. We further agree with each other and the BANK that the receipt or check of either, any or all of us during our lifetime, or the receipt or check of the survivor or survivors, for any payment or withdrawal made for our above-mentioned account shall be valid and sufficient release and discharge of the BANK for such payment or withdrawal. The trial courts upheld the validity of this agreement and granted "the motion to sell some of the estate of Dolores L. Vitug, the proceeds of which shall be used to pay the personal funds of Romarico Vitug in the total sum of P667,731.66 ... ." On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, in the petition for certiorari filed by the herein private respondent, held that the above-quoted survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which "did not comply with the formalities of a valid will as prescribed by Article 805 of the Civil 3 The fact that subsequently Stephenson transferred the account to the name of himself and/or Ana Rivera and executed with the latter the survivorship agreement in question although there was no relation of kinship between them but only that of master and servant. their joint holdings: . assuming that it is a mere donation inter vivos. it is a prohibited donation under the provisions of Article 133 of the Civil Code. Gatmaitan in which we sustained the validity of "survivorship agreements" and considering them as aleatory contracts. we rejected claims that a survivorship agreement purports to deliver one party's separate properties in favor of the other. Such conclusion is evidently predicated on the assumption that Stephenson was the exclusive owner of the funds-deposited in the bank." In other words. solemn. In the absence. Gatmaitan. The conveyance in question is not. In his petition. one of the parties or both reciprocally bind themselves to give or do something as an equivalent for 4 .. A will has been defined as "a personal. and in the instant case it also appears that Ana Rivera served her master for about nineteen years without actually receiving her salary from him. one of mortis causa. first of all. then. but simply. we must give full faith and credit to the certificate of deposit which recites in effect that the funds in question belonged to Edgar Stephenson and Ana Rivera. In this case. belonged to the survivor. according to article 1790 of the Civil Code. The petition is meritorious.. which should be embodied in a will. 18 it was held: xxx xxx xxx This Court is of the opinion that Exhibit C is an aleatory contract whereby. the monies subject of savings account No. if any. of clear proof to the contrary. the surviving spouse. Vitug." and secondly. upon the death of either. and that either of them could withdraw any part or the whole of said account during the lifetime of both. nullifies the assumption that Stephenson was the exclusive owner of the bank account. the bequest or device must pertain to the testator. In Macam v.and Macam v. People's Bank and Trust Co.Code." But it not infrequently happens that a person deposits money in the bank in the name of another. 35342-038 were in the nature of conjugal funds In the case relied on. and the balance. that they were joint (and several) owners thereof. which assumption was in turn based on the facts (1) that the account was originally opened in the name of Stephenson alone and (2) that Ana Rivera "served only as housemaid of the deceased. assails the appellate court's ruling on the strength of our decisions in Rivera v.. People's Bank and Trust Co. Rivera v. revocable and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death. Neither is the survivorship agreement a donation inter vivos. has been categorized under the second. As already stated. nder the aforequoted provision. 2010. In this manner Leonarda and Juana reciprocally assigned their respective property to one another conditioned upon who might die first. the time of death determining the event upon which the acquisition of such right by the one or the other depended. Under Article 2010 of the Code: ART. The validity of the contract seems debatable by reason of its "survivortake-all" feature. The conclusion is accordingly unavoidable that Mrs. In either case. 35342-038 of the Bank of America. a transaction stipulating on the value of currency. and Leonarda would become the owner of the automobile and the furniture if Juana were to die first. the sale of a sweepstake ticket. as any other contract. Juana would become the owner of the house in case Leonarda died first. in the same manner as Leonarda would have acquired the ownership of the automobile and of the furniture if Juana had died first. the latter thereupon acquired the ownership of the house. Inasmuch as Leonarda had died before Juana. it forms no more part of the estate of the deceased. 5 . it is not a donation between the spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse's own properties to the other.that which the other party is to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which is uncertain or will happen at an indeterminate time. we hold that the court was in error. the latter has acquired upon her death a vested right over the amounts under savings account No. Such agreements are permitted by the Civil Code. is binding upon the parties thereto. Vitug having predeceased her husband. the term being death. In the case at bar. or which is to occur at an indeterminate time. This contract. Vitug." A survivorship agreement. the fulfillment of an aleatory contract depends on either the happening of an event which is (1) "uncertain. Secondly." (2) "which is to occur at an indeterminate time. that contract imposed a mere obligation with a term. for obvious reasons. one of the parties or both reciprocally bind themselves to give or to do something in consideration of what the other shall give or do upon the happening of an event which is uncertain. By virtue of Exhibit C. and insurance have been held to fall under the first category. while a contract for life annuity or pension under Article 2021. because it was to take effect after the death of one party. Insofar as the respondent court ordered their inclusion in the inventory of assets left by Mrs. Being the separate property of petitioner. but in reality. et sequentia. By an aleatory contract. Leonarda was the owner of the house and Juana of the Buick automobile and most of the furniture. the risk was the death of one party and survivorship of the other. the element of risk is present. or devisee. unless a clear intention to use them in another sense can be gathered. 2. When there is an imperfect description of the gift being given. If a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations. Interpretation of words Art. there are two or more who fit the description. (675a) 4. Testator must have animus testandi – purpose is to transfer title via a testamentary disposition in contemplation of death. as to the application of any of its provisions. it is evident that it is not clear. b. By examining the will itself. When there is an imperfect description. the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will. 790. to take effect upon testator’s death. Latent or intrinsic ambiguity – that which does not appear on the face of the will and is discovered only by extrinsic evidence. that interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred. b. When there is an imperfect description of the heir. When only one recipient is designated but it turns out. in case of doubt. and that other can be ascertained. by examining the provisions itself. In case of ambiguities Art. unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention. mistakes and omissions must be corrected. legatee. Patent or extrinsic ambiguity – that which appears on the face of the will itself. 789. Extrinsic evidence such as written declarations of the testator (oral declarations not allowed since contrary to the dead mans statute) 3. or unless it satisfactorily appears that he was unacquainted with such technical sense. C. INTERPRETATION OF WILLS 1. In favor of validity Art. Technical words in a will are to be taken in their technical sense. Interpretation as a whole 6 . and when an uncertainty arises upon the face of the will. or when no person or property exactly answers the description. if the error appears from the context of the will or from extrinsic evidence. 1. taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. excluding the oral declarations of the testator as to his intention. 788. excluding such oral declarations. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense.6. 2. (n) a. 3. How to cure ambiguities: a. LAW GOVERNING FORM a. 795. rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative. 791. b. The invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions. ii. he can observe Philippine laws. (n) 5. he can follow the law of his nationality or the laws of the Philippines. laws of the country where he executes the will. or his nationality. 794. Every devise or legacy shall cover all the interest which the testator could device or bequeath in the property disposed of. iii. D. What must be observed is the law in force at the time the will is executed. he can follow the law of his domicile. unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made. or the laws of the country where he may be. or Philippine laws. and of two modes of interpreting a will. 792. unless it clearly appears from the will that he intended to convey a less interest. 793. After-acquired property Art. as if the testator had possessed it at the time of making the will. What law of the land must be observed depends: i. (n) Kinds of validity A.Art. since he executes the will here. If the testator is an alien in the Philippines. As to the time of execution Art. The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made. should it expressly appear by the will that such was his intention. (n) 7. not more not less. Intrinsic validity – refers to the legality of the provisions in an instrument 7 . Extrinsic validity – refers to the forms and solemnities needed a. If the testator is an alien who is abroad. Property acquired after the making of a will shall only pass thereby. that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. Extent of interest covered Art. (n) The entire interest of the testator in the property is given. or where he executes the will. If the testator is a Filipino. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect. Separability of invalid provisions Art. B. (n) 6. or according to the formalities observed in his country. law of his country or nationality. The amount of successional rights 3. dated. iii. 688a) Art. (n) Art. 815. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written. RENVOI DOCTRINE: referring back to the forum of the problem 1. b. and may be made in or out of the Philippines. It is subject to no other form. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country. and need not be witnessed. and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. Such will may be probated in the Philippines. either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. ii. 818.a. 810. Wills. (678. executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in the Philippines. Successional rights are governed by the law in force at the TIME OF THE DECEDENT’S DEATH. prohibited by the preceding article. (733a) 8 . The order of succession 2. Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly. whatever may be the nature of the property. 816. (n) Art. b. or in the same instrument. Where the conflict rules under the decedent’s national law refers the matter to the law of the domicile. The forms and solemnities of contracts. (669) Art. regardless of the place of execution and the place of death. When a Filipino is in a foreign country. 17. And the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions Shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. 817. As to the place of execution Art. or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes. National law of the decedent. he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be. and signed by the hand of the testator himself. and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country. shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines. Laws that must be observed depends: under Philippine Law: i. Art. 819. (n) Art. Intestate and testamentary succession both with respect to: 1. wills. and regardless of the country where said property may be found. even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been executed. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides. which is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject. legitimes. Nenita C. petitioner Hermogenes Campos and her sisters. even before it is probated. Adoracion Campos. but the testamentary provisions shall be carried out insofar as they may be permitted by this Code. die after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code. the probate court's authority is limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will. the testatrix's testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. Nenita alleged that the testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and was a permanent resident of 4633 Ditman Street. 2263. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated. As to successional rights Art. and by the Rules of Court.. by other previous laws. 1977. (Maninang vs. (Rule 12a) b. Lopez and Marieta C. However. Adoracion C. As to time Art. shall be adjudicated and distributed in accordance with this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court. on November 25. Medina as the surviving heirs. an American citizen and a permanent resident of 9 . the private respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion was. As Hermogenes Campos was the only compulsory heir. betterments. CAYETANO VS LEONIDES 129 SCRA 524 On January 31.S. The inheritance of those who. their amount shall be reduced if in no other manner can every compulsory heir be given his full share according to this Code. 1977. the due execution thereof. U. Paguia filed a petition for the reprobate of a will of the deceased. at the time of her death. Pennsylvania. shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889. private respondent Nenita C. 16. Philadelphia. Court of Appeals. where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon. Eleven months after. leaving her father. As a general rule. however. which was allegedly executed in the United States and for her appointment as administratrix of the estate of the deceased testatrix. legacies and bequests shall be respected. the court should meet the issue. LAW GOVERNING CONTENT a. with or without a will.E. Remedios C.In her petition. 114 SCRA 478). Rights to the inheritance of a person who died. Campos died. Therefore. Paguia. The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated.A. with or without a will. before the effectivity of this Code. he executed an Affidavit of Adjudication under Rule 74. Section I of the Rules of Court whereby he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the deceased Adoracion Campos. Therefore. 16 par. Accordingly. Bellis (20 SCRA 358) wherein we ruled: It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes.S. as provided for by Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code. Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. there are no forced heirs or legitimes. (2).A. Art.. This was squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions. and under the law of Texas. U. shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration.Philadelphia. intestate and testamentary successions. U. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones. the petitioner argues that such law should not apply because it would be contrary to the sound and established public policy and would run counter to the specific provisions of Philippine Law. inter alia. under Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code which respectively provide: Art. 1039. Pennsylvania. For it has specifically chosen to leave. Amos G. the amount of successional rights. the law which governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania.A. F. SOLEMNITIES OF WILLS 10 . xxx xxx xxx However. Bellis. which is the national law of the decedent. the Philippine Law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. the national law of the decedent must apply. since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law. Bellis.S. U. was a citizen of the State of Texas. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. xxx xxx xxx The parties admit that the decedent. whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will.. Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger.A. to the decedent's national law.S. on the left margin. Proc. and which is probably a forged will because she and the attesting witnesses did not appear before the notary as admitted by the notary himself? Mauro Suroza. They were childless. Spec. as aforesaid. No. shall also sign. Army (Philippine Scouts). except the last. 15. and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. Rollo of Testate Case showing that Agapito was 5 years old when Mauro married Marcelina in 1923). They reared a boy named Agapito who used the surname Suroza and who considered them as his parents as shown in his 1945 marriage contract with Nenita de Vera (p. 7816). If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written. p. (n) SONOZA VS HONRADO Should disciplinary action be taken against respondent judge for having admitted to probate a will.S. 11 . (n) b. No. each and every page thereof.a. Fort McKinley. and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. 806. 150. in the presence of the instrumental witnesses. 148. or file another with the Office of the Clerk of Court. or caused some other person to write his name. Specific requirements Art. under his express direction. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will. Rollo of CA-G. must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence. 805. and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will. and by his express direction. 804.R. 08654-R. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. it shall be interpreted to them. General requirements Art. which on its face is void because it is written in English. and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof. (n) Art. other than a holographic will. a corporal in the 45th Infantry of the U. a language not known to the illiterate testatrix. Every will. married Marcelina Salvador in 1923 (p. 1973. They alleged that the decedent's son Agapito was the sole heir of the deceased. Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will in Manila on July 23. 1975.R. In an order dated March 31.R. 16. the spouses Antonio Sy and Hermogena Talan begot a child named Marilyn Sy. who. Marilyn used the surname Suroza. that Nenita was Agapito's guardian and that Marilyn was not Agapito's daughter nor the decedent's granddaughter (pp. instructing a deputy sheriff to eject the occupants of the testatrix's house. when she was 73 years old. Rollo of CA-G. they questioned the probate court's jurisdiction to issue the ejectment order. was entrusted to Arsenia de la Cruz (apparently a girl friend of Agapito) and who was later delivered to Marcelina Salvador Suroza who brought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapito and as her granddaughter (pp. She was illiterate. Her letters in English to the Veterans Administration were also thumbmarked by her (pp. Marcelina bequeathed all her estate to her supposed granddaughter Marilyn.SP-08654-R). 38-39. She stayed with Marcelina but was not legally adopted by Agapito.Upon motion of Marina. Suroza. that he has a daughter named Lilia. Judge Honrado issued another order dated April 11. 1975. Nenita further alleged that the institution of Marilyn as heir is void because of the preterition of Agapito and that Marina was not qualified to act as executrix. In a motion dated December 5. She and the other occupants of the decedent's house filed on April 18 in the said proceeding a motion to set aside the order of April 11 ejecting them. when a few days old. No. 1807 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. On a date not indicated in the record. That order alerted Nenita to the existence of the testamentary proceeding for the settlement of Marcelina's estate. He was disabled and his wife Nenita was appointed as his guardian in 1953 when he was declared an incompetent in Special Proceeding No. 1975. RULING: We hold that disciplinary action should be taken against respondent judge for his improper disposition of the testate case which might have resulted in a miscarriage 12 . Nenita V. No. 52-68. among whom was Nenita V. Rollo of CA-G. 08654-R). Suroza reiterated her contention that the alleged will is void because Marcelina did not appear before the notary and because it is written in English which is not known to her .Agapito and Nenita begot a child named Lilia who became a medical technologist and went abroad. Later. 23-26. CA Rollo). That will which is in English was thumbmarked by her. and to place Marina in possession thereof. Agapito also became a soldier. In that wig. for the consolidation of all pending incidents. Pasig Branch I (p. Judge Honrado appointed Marina as administratrix. Record of testate case). on perusing the will and noting that it was written in English and was thumbmarked by an obviously illiterate testatrix. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero Mercado. by these presents to declare that the foregoing testament of Antero Mercado was signed by himself and also by us below his name and of this attestation clause and that of the left margin of the three pages thereof. reversing the judgement of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. 660). therefore. it was stated that English was a language "understood and known" to the testatrix. followed below by "A reugo del testator" and the name of Florentino Javier. and the witnesses in the presence of the testator and all and each and every one of us witnesses. respondent judge. which was not known to the Igorot testator. Thus. Record of testate case). GARCIA VS LACUESTA 90 PHIL 489 This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals disallowing the will of Antero Mercado dated January 3. a will written in English. In the opening paragraph of the will. is void and was disallowed (Acop vs. But in its concluding paragraph. That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix and. this will is written in Ilocano dialect which is spoken and understood by the testator. 52 Phil. Had respondent judge been careful and observant. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. he could have noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will but also that there was something wrong in instituting the supposed granddaughter as sole heiress and giving nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive. the undersigned. could have readily perceived that the will is void.of justice because the decedent's legal heirs and not the instituted heiress in the void win should have inherited the decedent's estate. (p. 16. Piraso. The Court of Appeals. The will is written in the Ilocano dialect and contains the following attestation clause: We. ruled that the attestation 13 . Antero Mercado is alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name. it is void because of the mandatory provision of article 804 of the Civil Code that every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. respondent judge could have noticed that the notary was not presented as a witness. The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is repeatedly referred to as the "testator" instead of "testatrix". Furthermore. 1943. Page three the continuation of this attestation clause. and it bears the corresponding number in letter which compose of three pages and all them were signed in the presence of the testator and witnesses. it was stated that the will was read to the testatrix "and translated into Filipino language". In this case. after the hearing conducted by respondent deputy clerk of court. and on the second page appears the signature of three (3) instrumental witnesses Blas Sebastian. and attested and subscribed by three or more 14 . On the second page. . 1951. The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark. must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence. On the first page on the left margin of the said instrument also appear the signatures of the instrumental witnesses. Enero 20. also appears the signature of the three (3) instrumental witnesses and on that second page on the left margin appears the signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears handwritten the following phrase. and the reason is obvious. we are not prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark. de los Santos and below his signature is his official designation as the notary public who notarized the said testament. It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the ways by which he signed his name. and by his express direction. Javier at the former's request said testator has written a cross at the end of his name and on the left margin of the three pages of which the will consists and at the end thereof. The first page is signed by Juan Bello and under his name appears typewritten "Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana. "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana'. Every will. is written in the Spanish language and consists of two (2) typewritten pages (pages 4 and 5 of the record) double space. Juan A.clause failed (1) to certify that the will was signed on all the left margins of the three pages and at the end of the will by Atty. at the bottom of which appears the signature of T. Abello above the typewritten statement "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana ." comply with the requirements of law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed? Art. other than a holographic will. (2) to certify that after the signing of the name of the testator by Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under his express direction. . (Emphasis supplied) The appeal squarely presents the following issue: Does the signature of Dr.. The will is duly acknowledged before Notary Public Attorney Timoteo de los Santos. the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. which is sought to be probated. (3) to certify that the three witnesses signed the will in all the pages thereon in the presence of the testator and of each other. residence Certificate A-1167629. Ciudad de Zamboanga'. Florentino Javier at the express request of the testator in the presence of the testator and each and every one of the witnesses. BALONAN VS ABELLANA 109 PHIL 358 It appears on record that the last Will and Testament (Exhibit "A"). as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. which is the last page of said last Will and Testament. Ciudad de Zamboanga. In our opinion. Faustino Macaso and Rafael Ignacio. After mature reflection. 805. which. some eight or ten feet away. 700: It will be noticed from the above-quoted section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure that where the testator does not know how.) Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. real or personal. Juan Abello.. or is unable. and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. in a large room connecting with the smaller room by a doorway. . NERA VS RIMANDO 18 PHIL 450 The only question raised by the evidence in this case as to the due execution of the instrument propounded as a will in the court below. There is. or whether at that time he was outside. across which was hung a curtain which made it impossible for one in the outside room to see the testator and the other subscribing witnesses in the act of attaching their signatures to the instrument. a failure to comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will. unless it be in writing and signed by the testator. it will not be sufficient that one of the attesting witnesses signs the will at the testator's request. Anacleta Abellana. A majority of the members of the court is of opinion that this subscribing witness was in the small room with the testator and the other subscribing witnesses at the 15 . was modified by section 618 above referred to.. or by Dr. the notary certifying thereto as provided in Article 695 of the Civil Code. . or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence. to sign.credible witness in the presence of the testator and of one another. in this respect. and this in the testator's presence and by his express direction. (Emphasis supplied). (Emphasis supplied. or that his name be affixed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his express direction. . but it is necessary that the testator's name be written by the person signing in his stead in the place where he could have signed if he knew how or was able to do so. therefore. Applying this provision this Court said in the case of Ex Parte Pedro Arcenas. does not appear written under the will by said Abellana herself. except as provided in the preceding section shall be valid to pass any estate. Phil. so that a will signed in a manner different than that prescribed by law shall not be valid and will not be allowed to be probated. In the case at bar the name of the testatrix. and by his express direction. 190) which reads as follows: No will. et al. is whether one of the subscribing witnesses was present in the small room where it was executed at the time when the testator and the other subscribing witnesses attached their signatures. nor charge or affect the same. considering their mental and physical condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature.Y. The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign. but that at that moment existing conditions and their position with relation to each other were such that by merely casting the eyes in the proper direction they could have seen each other sign. and this finding. The first page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is signed at the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three (3) instrumental 16 . 328) it was held that it is sufficient if the witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing the execution of the will. of course. considering his mental and physical condition and position at the time of the subscription. But it is especially to be noted that the position of the parties with relation to each other at the moment of the subscription of each signature. must be such that they may see each other sign if they choose to do so. and the generally accepted tests of presence are vision and mental apprehension. does not mean that the testator and the subscribing witnesses may be held to have executed the instrument in the presence of each other if it appears that they would not have been able to see each other sign at that moment. but whether he might have seen him sign. TABOADA VS ROSAL 118 SCRA 195 In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court. This. and there are many cases which lay down the rule that the true test of vision is not whether the testator actually saw the witness sign. but whether they might have been seen each other sign. disposes of the appeal and necessitates the affirmance of the decree admitting the document to probate as the last will and testament of the deceased.).time when they attached their signatures to the instrument. without changing their relative positions or existing conditions (In the case of Jaboneta vs Gustilo: The purpose of a statutory requirement that the witness sign in the presence of the testator is said to be that the testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument subscribed by the witness and himself. if they choose to do so. In the matter of Bedell (2 Connoly (N. and in a position to actually see the testator write. of course. Written in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect.) And the decision merely laid down the doctrine that the question whether the testator and the subscribing witnesses to an alleged will sign the instrument in the presence of each other does not depend upon proof of the fact that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the moment of its subscription by each of them. the petitioner attached the alleged last will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez. had they chosen to do so. the will consists of two pages. must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence. and by his express direction. If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses. and that the lacier witnesses and signed the will and the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. or caused some other person to write his name. for a notarial will to be valid. and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. the new Judge denied the motion for reconsideration as well as the manifestation and/or motion filed ex parte. thru then Presiding Judge Ramon C.witnesses. Subsequently. and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. the will must be subscribed or signed at its end by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by another person in his presence. The trial court. We find the petition meritorious. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will. and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. except the last. as aforesaid. shall also sign. It must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed Attestation consists in witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see and take note mentally that those things are. each and every page thereof. under Article 805 of the Civil Code. The respondent Judge interprets the above-quoted provision of law to require that. other than a holographic will. done which the statute requires for the 17 . the motion for the appointment of special administrator was likewise denied because of the petitioner's failure to comply with the order requiring him to submit the names of' the intestate heirs and their addresses. Pamatian issued the questioned order denying the probate of the will of Dorotea Perez for want of a formality in its execution. under his express direction. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written. on the left margin. and by his express direction. in the presence of the testatrix and of one another because the attesting witnesses to a will attest not merely the will itself but also the signature of the testator. For the validity of a formal notarial will. it is not enough that only the testatrix signs at the "end" but the three subscribing witnesses must also sign at the same place or at the end. in the presence of the instrumental witnesses. where the end of the will is found. it shall be interpreted to them. The second page which contains the attestation clause and the acknowledgment is signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof. It is not sufficient compliance to sign the page. In the same order of denial. does Article 805 of the Civil Code require that the testatrix and all the three instrumental and attesting witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence of the testatrix and of one another? Article 805 of the Civil Code provides: Every will. at the left hand margin of that page. Undoubtedly. Judge Ramon Icasiano and a little girl. Insofar as the requirement of subscription is concerned. Natividad. (Ragsdale v. 90 Phil. published before and attested by three instrumental witnesses. the late Josefa Villacorte executed a last will and testament in duplicate at the house of her daughter Mrs. On the other hand. but by a consideration or examination of the will itself. subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same paper for the purpose of Identification of such paper as the will which was executed by the testator. namely: attorneys Justo P. that the will was acknowledged by the testatrix and by the said three instrumental witnesses on the same date before attorney Jose Oyengco Ong. who was also present during the execution and signing of the decedent's last will and testament. it is our considered view that the will in this case was subscribed in a manner which fully satisfies the purpose of Identification. Vinicio B. Hill. and Mr. Torres. and Jose V. While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable. 449). 103). attorneys Torres and Natividad were in the Philippines at the time of 18 . Of the said three instrumental witnesses to the execution of the decedent's last will and testament. In Singson vs Florentino: The ratio decidendi of these cases seems to be that the attestation clause must contain a statement of the number of sheets or pages composing the will and that if this is missing or is omitted. together with former Governor Emilio Rustia of Bulacan. "the underlying and fundamental objective permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. and that the will was actually prepared by attorney Fermin Samson. 1958. that on June 2. (Gonzales v. This objective is in accord with the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution of a will" (Report of the Code commission. Manila. not by evidence aliunde. it will have the effect of invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot be supplied. The law is to be liberally construed. The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. 444. Felisa Icasiano at Pedro Guevara Street.execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. 269 SW 2d 911). Diy. Gonzales. 1956. Notary Public in and for the City of Manila. unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be ignored. p. especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed. ICASIANO VS ICASIANO 11SCRA 422 The evidence presented for the petitioner is to the effect that Josefa Villacorte died in the City of Manila on September 12. Jr. and the evidence on record attests to the full observance of the statutory requisites. but the duplicate copy attached to the amended and supplemental petition and marked as Exhibit "A-1" is signed by the testatrix and her three attesting witnesses in each and every page. Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the defective page. If an attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the bottom thereof. The attestation clause is 'a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will' required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses. where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained. 1459. vs. it does not contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses. we hold that the inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament. Jose V. On the question of law. because its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses. retaining one unsigned copy in Bulacan. de Gil. but he brought only one original and one signed copy to Manila. be admitted as sufficient. The records show that the original of the will. which was surrendered simultaneously with the filing of the petition and marked as Exhibit "A" consists of five pages.the hearing. and also attorneys Fermin Samson. it would be easy to add such clause to a 19 . due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing. no intentional or deliberate deviation existed. who actually prepared the document. There is no question that the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause. is not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate. Murciano. Bulacan. Gaz. and both testified as to the due execution and authenticity of the said will. Natividad. Otherwise. but also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by testatrix and all three witnesses. at 1479 (decision on reconsideration) "witnesses may sabotage the will by muddling or bungling it or the attestation clause". although the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin. 49 Off. The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control. and it must necessarily bear their signatures. The latter also testified upon cross examination that he prepared one original and two copies of Josefa Villacorte last will and testament at his house in Baliuag. We are of the opinion that the position taken by the appellant is correct. on page three (3) thereof. and while signed at the end and in every page. So did the Notary Public before whom the will was acknowledged by the testatrix and attesting witnesses. CAGRO VS CAGRO 92 PHIL 1032 The main objection insisted upon by the appellant in that the will is fatally defective. Atty. since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negates their participation. as stated in Vda. 50 0. CRUZ VS VILLASOR 54 SCRA 31 Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto. G. or one of the attesting and acknowledging witnesses. the law would not be duly in observed. Furthermore. For then he would be interested in sustaining the validity of the will as it directly involves him and the validity of his own act. De Leon. Teves. Jr. as has been said. (40 Phil. the function of a notary public is. the requirement of the signatures on the left hand margin was not necessary because the purpose of the law — which is to avoid the substitution of any of the sheets of the will. would be thwarted. to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement Balinon v. In the case of Abangan vs. petitioner argues that the result is that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public to acknowledge the will. As the third witness is the notary public himself. one of them. It would place him in inconsistent position and the very purpose of acknowledgment. would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 80 be requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will. We may say the same thing in connection with the will under consideration because while the three instrumental witnesses did not sign immediately by the majority that it may have been only added on a subsequent occasion and not at the uncontradicted testimony of said witnesses to the effect that such attestation clause was already written in the will when the same was signed.. Dr.will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses. that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public for or that purpose.their signatures on the left margin of said sheet would be completely purposeless.) That function would defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting instrumental witnesses." In such a case.. 476). Bautista. To allow the notary public to act as third witness. In the circumstances. 106-107). is at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have been acknowledged. Francisco Pañares and Atty. The result would be. namely Deogracias T. among others. the last named. dissenting: This objection is too technical to be entertained. The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. 20 . Abangan. Angel H. 583.. the court said. thereby changing the testator's dispositions — has already been accomplished. Jamaloas Jr. this court said that when the testamentary dispositions "are wholly written on only one sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses (as the instant case). Angelo. which is to minimize fraud (Report of Code Commission p. document. there was "no will and testament to probate" and. Jeanjaquet 12 Phil. hence.) JAVELLANA VS LEDESMA 97 PHIL 258 By order of July 23. the alleged "action must of necessity be dismissed".GABUCAN VS MANTA 95 SCRA 752 This case is about the dismissal of a petition for the probate of a notarial will on the ground that it does not bear a thirty-centavo documentary stamp. 637.The contestant. which reads: SEC. that the lack of the documentary stamp on a document does not invalidate such document. appealed from the decision." Note the holding in Azarraga vs. citing section 238 of the Tax Code. 403. sister and nearest surviving relative of said deceased. 1953. subsists only "until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled. Amenabar 16 Phil. See Cia. the Court of First Instance of Iloilo admitted to probate the documents in the Visayan dialect. 9 Phil. insisting that the said exhibits were not executed in conformity with law. according to respondent Judge. The proceeding was dismissed because the requisite documentary stamp was not affixed to the notarial acknowledgment in the will and. Da. nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled. No notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths shall add his jurat or acknowledgment to any document subject to documentary stamp tax unless the proper documentary stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled. General de Tabacos vs. issued. That procedure may be implied from the provision of section 238 that the non-admissibility of the document. Matea Ledesma. 195. now section 250 of the 1977 Tax Code. which does not bear the requisite documentary stamp. consequently. — An instrument. because no documentary stamp was affixed to the will. 238. Rodriguez. The issue was concentrated into three specific questions: (1) whether the testament of 1950 was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the instrumental witnesses. it was not admissible in evidence. What the probate court should have done was to require the petitioner or proponent to affix the requisite thirty-centavo documentary stamp to the notarial acknowledgment of the will which is the taxable portion of that document. (2) whether the acknowledgment clause was signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary without the presence of 21 . We hold that the lower court manifestly erred in declaring that. 405-6. 201-2 and Delgado and Figueroa vs. accepted. or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed. Effect of failure to stamp taxable document. or transferred without being duly stamped. shall not be recorded. 22 . CANEDA VS CA 222 SCRA 781 The records show that on December 5. and contrary to usage. 884). an infirm lady then over 80 years old. It is squarely contradicted by the concordant testimony of the instrumental witnesses. Ramon Tabiana. A comparison of Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil Code reveals that while testator and witnesses sign in the presence of each other.. Iloilo City. and his wife Gloria Montinola. Both claim to have heard the word "testamento" for the first time when Yap used it. Atty. Emilio Lumontad. a widower without any children and already in the twilight years of his life. who asserted under oath that the testament was executed by testatrix and witnesses in the presence of each other. the new Civil Code does not require that the signing of the testator. and a notary public. whether the codicil was thereby rendered invalid and ineffective. when all three witnesses could have easily repaired thither for the purpose. It is well known that what is to be remembered must first be rationally conceived and assimilated (II Moore on Facts. 699). 1. the cross-examination has revealed fatal flaws in the testimony of Contestant's witnesses. all that is thereafter required is that "every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" (Art. should leave her own house in order to execute her will.the testatrix and the witnesses. At any rate. i.e. namely. Moreover. It is noteworthy that Article 806 of the new Civil Code does not contain words requiring that the testator and the witnesses should acknowledge the testament on the same day or occasion that it was executed. despite the fact that the term meant nothing to either. Cipriano Labuca. p. and (3) if so. that either Tabiana or Yap should have insisted that Da. that the latter should avow to the certifying officer the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions in executing the testamentary disposition. as observed by the Court below.. witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one single act. And it is highly unlikely. The said testator was duly assisted by his lawyer. Apolinaria. 806). These questions are the same ones presented to us for resolution. on March 30. Vicente Yap. Mateo Caballero. Our examination of the testimony on record discloses no grounds for reversing the trial Court's rejection of the improbable story of the witnesses. whether or not the notary signed the certification of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses. 2. Gregorio Cabando and Flaviano Toregosa. Hence their separate execution out of the presence of the testatrix and her witnesses cannot be said to violate the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption. and they claimed ability to recall that word four years later. executed a last will and testament at his residence in Talisay. at the house of the decedent on General Hughes St. 1978. does not affect the validity of the codicil. 1950. Atty. The subsequent signing and sealing by the notary of his certification that the testament was duly acknowledged by the participants therein is no part of the acknowledgment itself nor of the testamentary act. Unlike the Code of 1889 (Art. Cebu before three attesting witnesses. Atty. Filoteo Manigos, in the preparation of that last will. 1 It was declared therein, among other things, that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises 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. Thereafter, herein petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a second petition, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Mateo Caballero" and docketed as Special Proceeding No. 3965-R, before Branch IX of the aforesaid Court of First Instance of Cebu. On October 18, 1982, herein petitioners had their said petition intestate proceeding consolidated with Special Proceeding No. 3899-R in Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and opposed thereat the probate of the Testator's will and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate. Undaunted by the said judgment of the probate court, petitioners elevated the case in the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 19669. They asserted therein that the will in question is null and void for the reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before them and to the manner of the execution the same. It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses, it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by law has been observed. It is made for the purpose of preserving in a permanent form a record of the facts that attended the execution of a particular will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the attesting witnesses, or other casualty, such facts may still be proved. Under the third paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of which would result in the invalidity of the will, should state (1) the number of the pages used upon which the will is written; (2) that the testator signed, or expressly caused another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3) that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that said witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The attestation in the will of testator states: We, the undersigned attesting Witnesses, whose Residences and postal addresses appear on the Opposite of our respective names, we do hereby certify that the Testament was read by him and the testator, MATEO CABALLERO; has published unto us the foregoing Will consisting of THREE PAGES, including the Acknowledgment, each page numbered correlatively in the letters on the upper part of each page, as his Last Will and Testament and he has the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left 23 hand margin, in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of us. What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The so-called liberal rule, the Court said in Gil vs. Murciano, "does not offer any puzzle or difficulty, nor does it open the door to serious consequences. The later decisions do tell us when and where to stop; they draw the dividing line with precision. They do not allow evidence aliunde to fill a void in any part of the document or supply missing details that should appear in the will itself. They only permit a probe into the will, an exploration into its confines, to ascertain its meaning or to determine the existence or absence of the requisite formalities of law. This clear, sharp limitation eliminates uncertainty and ought to banish any fear of dire results." It may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omissions which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself. CALDE VS CA June 27, 1994 The records show that decedent left behind nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00) worth of property. She also left a Last Will and Testament, dated October 30, 1972, and a Codicil thereto, dated July 24, 1973. Both documents contained the thumbmarks of decedent. They were also signed by three (3) attesting witnesses each, and acknowledged before Tomas A. Tolete, then the Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt. Province. Nicasio Calde, the executor named in the will, filed a Petition for its allowance before the RTC of Bontoc, Mt. Province, Br. 36. He died during the pendency of the proceedings, and was duly substituted by petitioner. Private respondents, relatives of decedent, opposed the Petitioner filed by Calde, on the following grounds: that the will and codicil were written in Ilocano, a dialect that decedent did not know; that decedent was mentally incapacitated to execute the two documents because of her advanced age, illness and deafness; that decedent’s thumbmarks were procured through fraud and undue influence; and that the codicil was not executed in accordance with law. On June 23, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment on the case, approving and allowing decedent’s will and its codicil. The decision was appealed to and reversed by the respondent Court of Appeals. It held: 24 . . . (T)he will and codicil could pass the safeguards under Article 805 of the New Civil Code but for one crucial factor of discrepancy in the color of ink when the instrumental witnesses affixed their respective signatures. The question in the case at bench is one of fact: whether or not, based on the evidence submitted, respondent appellate court erred in concluding that both decedent’s Last Will and Testament, and its Codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses on separate occasions. As a general rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are considered final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this court. In the present instance, however, there is reason to make an exception to that rule, since the finding of the respondent court is contrary to that of the trial court. In the case at bench, the autoptic preference (From the point of view of the litigant party furnishing this source of belief, it may be termed Autoptic Proference) contradicts the testimonial evidence produced by petitioner. The will and its codicil, upon inspection by the respondent court, show in black and white — or more accurately, in black and blue — that more than one pen was used by the signatories thereto. Thus, it was not erroneous nor baseless for respondent court to disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both testamentary documents in question were subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of Art. 805 of the Civil Code. Neither did respondent court err when it did not accord great weight to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. Tolete. It is true that his testimony contains a narration of how the two testamentary documents were subscribed and attested to, starting from decedent’s thumbmarking thereof, to the alleged signing of the instrumental witnesses thereto in consecutive order. Nonetheless, nowhere in Judge Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of explanation for the differentcolored signatures on the testaments. c. Special requirements Art. 807. If the testator be deaf, or a deaf-mute, he must personally read the will, if able to do so; otherwise, he shall designate two persons to read it and communicate to him, in some practicable manner, the contents thereof. (n) If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged. (n) Art. 808. GARCIA VS VASQUEZ 32 SCRA 489 25 consisting only of one page to which the provisions were crammed. 809. for the precise purpose of the attestation clause is to certify that the testator signed the will. (n) GIL VS MURCIANO 88 PHIL 260 The Court of First Instance of Manila admitted to probate the alleged will and testament of the deceased Carlos Gil. — Erro finalmente a legalizar el referido testamento. or fraud. That the special administratrix is removed in so far as with respect to her interest in the testamentary succession but doesn’t invalidate the previous sale of property between her and the testatrix. It declares only that it was signed by the witnesses. Oppositors to the will alleged that the will was secured through fraud or undue influence as when the testatrix condition may be considered as similar to that of a blind man. defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805. Court held: Testator’s condition is similar to that of a blind man thus under Art. — El Juzgado inferior erro al dejar de declarar que el alegado testamento de Carlos Gil no ha sido otogar de acuerdo con la ley. It is said that the court may correct a mere clerical error. Segundo Error. one during 1956. The oppositor Pilar Gil Vda. This is a fatal defect. the other on 1960. (HIJO DE PUTA!!! DO I SPEAK SPANISH?! NO ME HABLE ESPAŇOL ESE!!!) It will be noted that the attestation clause above quoted does not state that the alleged testor signed the will. This is too much of a clerical error for it affects the very essence of the clause. the provisions of the will should’ve been read to her twice. was executed. raising only question of law. 808. In the absence of bad faith. this being the most essential element of the clause. Without it there is no attestation at all. forgery. Alleged errors may be 26 . de Murciano appealed to this Court. d. or undue and improper pressure and influence. they seek to oust the special administratrix for having conflict of interest for having previously bought the property of the testatrix for only 30k when it was more that 300k in value. Testatrix was suffering from glaucoma when the subsequent 1960 will. Likewise.Facts: Two wills were executed. Substantial compliance Art. Her counsel assigns the two following alleged errors: Primer Error. implication. Gorecho (50 Phil. Quintana. For the court to supply alleged deficiencies would be against the evident policy of the law. 1916. ID. Where said clause fails to show on its face a full compliance with those requirements. Gumban vs. Sioca. But the absence of such form of attestation shall not render the will invalid if it proven that the will was in fact signed and attested as in this section provided. ID. as amended. In the case of Gumban vs.). This would show that the purpose of the amending act was to surround the execution of a will with greater guarantees and solemnities. Quintana.. It is said that the rules of statutory construction are applicable to documents and wills. This is true. and internal circumstantial evidence? Even in ordinary cases the law requires certain requisities for the conclusiveness of circumstantial evidence. containing the testamentary provisions. and where said evidence has been admitted it should not be given the effect intended. 43 Phil. in view of this. ID. language of the statute as to how the attestation clause should be made. 506.overlooked or correct only in matters of form which do not affect the substance of the statement. ID. Could we. implications. 190. supra. 2645 of the Philippine Legislature. 30). EVIDENCE TO SUPPLY DEFECTS OF. which must be so clear that it should not require any construction. Section 618 of Act No. It is to be supposed that the drafter of the alleged will read the clear words of the statute when he prepared it.. 405. If we cure a deficiency by means of inferences. when are we going to stop making inferences to supply fatal deficiencies in wills? Where are we to draw the line? Following that procedure we would be making interpolations by inferences. but not to the attestation clause. uniquivocal. hold that the court can cure alleged deficiencies by inferences. the defect constitutes sufficient ground for the disallowance of the will. — An attestation clause which does not recite that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator is defective. entirely suppressed the abovequoted provision. Navas L. before it was amended. and even by internal circumtantial evidence.. the court had the following to say: 4. ATTESTATION CLAUSE. . Act No. This would be done in the face of the clear.) The Supreme Court fully affirmed the decision. (Uy Coque vs. Gorecho. 50 Phil.. — The attestation clause must be made in strict conformity with the requirements of section 618 of Act No. 31).. It is claimed that the correction may be made by inference. 30. 27 . WILLS. (Sano vs. However. Evidence aliunde should not be admitted to establish facts not appearing on the attestation clause.. (Sano vs. contained the following provision: . passed on July 1. and such a defect annuls the will. besides increasing the contents of the attestation clause. 409. but said rules apply to the body of the will. . 190.. laying down the following doctrine: 1. 48 Phil. I sign this testament or last will in the municipality of Iba. Philippines. Zambales. (Sgd. and Mr. as amended.. but the latter certified it to this Court on the ground that it involves purely questions of law. Courts cannot supply the defensive execution of will. 1079. leaving a will. his widow and Rosario Asera Venzon. Pilar Achacoso objected to the probate of the second will executed by the deceased on October 10. 1945. After due hearing. p.. ACHACOSO (Sgd. this testament is written in three (3) sheets marked by letter "A". namely Dr.) CUEVAS VS ACHACOSO 88 PHIL 730 On January 19. On February 1. The main error assigned refers to the alleged lack of attestation clause in the will under consideration. in the presence of the three witnesses. should be given a strict interpretation in order to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. the court found that the latter will was executed in accordance with law and ordered that it be admitted to probate. 1946.) JOSE VENZON Witnesses: (Sgd. supra. this 10th day of October. Nestorio Trinidad. "B" and "C" consecutively on top of each sheet and upon my request and in my presence and also in the presence of each of the aforesaid instrumental witnesses. I hereby manifest that every sheet of the aforesaid testament. the same has not been signed by the instrumental witnesses. In said will the deceased instituted as his heirs. after reciting in separate paragraphs. his daughter. they also signed this testament already reffered to.) BALDOMERO L. AS AMENDED. Valentina Cuevas. the provisions of the will. winds up with the following clause: IN WITNESS WHEREOF.) PROCESO CABAL. and it is claimed that this defect has the effect of invalidating the will. 190. among them petitioner Pilar Achacoso. In the previous will there are other heirs instituted. (40 Cyc. — Section 618 of Act No. 1946. one Pilar Achacoso filed an alternative petition for the probate of a previous will executed by the deceased praying therein that. Proceso Cabal as instrumental witnesses to my signing. Zambales. The will in question.. the other will be admitted to probate in lieu thereof. 28 . 1946. Jose Venzon died in Iba. Pilar Achacoso took the case to the Court of Appeals. but by the testator himself. Uy Coque vs. ID. Statutes prescribing formalities to be observed in the execution of wills are very strictly construed. On May 10. 190.) NESTORIO TRINIDAD (Sgd.2. and under correlative numbers. 1945. or to the fact that. ID. Don Baldomero Achacoso. if there is such attestation clause. if the will submitted by the widow be rejected. Navas L. on the left-hand margin as well as the testament itself have been signed by me as also each of the witnesses has also signed in my presence and in the presence of each other. Sioca. Valentina Cuevas filed a petition for the probate of said will. He named therein his widow as executrix of the will. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 618 OF ACT NO. (n) The following are disqualified from being witnesses to a will: 1. But on the other hand. Who are competent Art. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends. substantially complies with its requirements. and able to read and write. having been born in 1876. that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary. therefore. Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more. 4. province of Rizal her place of residence. may be a witness to the execution of a will mentioned in Article 805 of this Code. Any person not domiciled in the Philippines. The only apparent anomaly we find is that it appears to be an attestation made by the testator himself more than by the instrumental witnesses. (n) GONZALES VS CA 90 SCRA 183 There is no dispute in the records that the late Isabel Andres Gabriel died as a widow and without issue in the municipality of Navotas. it appearing that right under the signature of the testator. does not merely attest to the signature of the testator but also to the proper execution of the will. It is likewise not controverted that herein private respondent Lutgarda Art.. 29 . must be disregarded. 807. deaf or dumb. perjury or false testimony. Vol. is one who takes part in the execution of an instrument or writing" (In re will of Tan Diuco. This apparent anomaly. as to affect the validity of the will. 820. 2. on June 7. in our opinion. 809). As was said in one case.The clause above quoted is the attestation clause reffered to in the law which. 1961 at the age of eighty-five (85). also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. useless and frustrative of the testator's will. p. "Instrumental witness. and not blind. Therefore the laws on this subject should be intrepreted in such a way as to attain this premordial ends. there appear the signatures of the three instrumental witnesses. Witnesses to wills 1. shows that they have in fact attested not only to the genuineness of his signature but also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. 45 Phil. any other interpretation whatsoever." e. 821. to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. "the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of the wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud. Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document. An instrumental witness. 1115. The fact that the three instrumental witnesses have signed the will immediately under the signature of the testator. as define by Escriche in his Diccionario Razonado de Legislacion y Jurisprudencia. The petitioner in her brief makes the following assignment of errors: I. In other words. lived with the deceased at the latters residence prior an. the instrumental witnesses must be competent and their testimonies must be credible before the court allows the probate of the will they have attested. for a person is presumed to be such unless the contrary is established otherwise. CRUZ VS VILLASOR 54 SCRA 31 To allow the notary public to act as third witness. it is not mandatory that evidence be first established on record that the witnesses have a good standing in the community or that they are honest and upright or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. or one of the attesting and acknowledging witnesses. 810. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. the law would not be duly in observed. 812. would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 80 be requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will. dated. the dispositions of the testator written below his signature must be dated and signed by him in order to make them valid as testamentary dispositions.Santiago and petitioner Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales are nieces of the deceased. f. and that private respondent. (678. Specific requirements Art. with her husband and children. (n) Art. In the circumstances. Holographic wills 1. 30 . 688a) In holographic wills. The respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the document. Exhibit "F" was executed and attested as required by law when there was absolutely no proof that the three instrumental witnesses were credible witness In fine. 804. We state the rule that the instrumental witnesses in Order to be competent must be shown to have the qualifications under Article 820 of the Civil Code and none of the disqualifications under Article 821 and for their testimony to be credible. and may be made in or out of the Philippines. that is worthy of belief and entitled to credence. and signed by the hand of the testator himself.d up to the time of her death. (n) 2. The result would be. and need not be witnessed. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written. It is subject to no other form. that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public for or that purpose. In general Art. as has been said. Respondent Luz Henson on the other hand submits that the purported holographic Will is void for non-compliance with Article 810 of the New Civil Code in that the date must contain the year. We agree with the petitioner. and day of its execution. 22./61 " and states: "This is my win which I want to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer. a letter-win addressed to her children and entirely written and signed in the handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. he found a notebook belonging to the deceased Bibiana R. 23 and 24 thereof. de Jesus. (n) In case of any insertion. Henson. and may be made in or out of the Philippines. de Jesus because a it was not executed in accordance with law. Roxas was corroborated by the testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Jesus and Manuel Roxas de Jesus who likewise testified that the letter dated "FEB. nor could have intended the said Will to be her last Will and testament at the time of its execution. cancellation. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written./61 " was the date when said Will was executed by their mother. and signed by the hand of the testator himself. 813. The will is dated "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code which reads: ART. and the last disposition has a signature and a date. (n) Art. Roxas testified that after his appointment as administrator. They further testified that their deceased mother understood English. de Jesus and that on pages 21. 31 . the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature.. (b) it was executed through force.. 810. and that the date "FEB.Art. de Jesus was found. erasure or alteration in a holographic will. 814. month./61 " is the holographic Will of their deceased mother. whatever be the time of prior dispositions. The only issue is whether or not the date "FEB. Bibiana R. ROXAS VS DE JESUS 134 SCRA 245 Petitioner Simeon R. dated. When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without being dated. . It is subject to no other form. such date validates the dispositions preceding it. and (c) the alleged testatrix acted by mistake and/or did not intend. the language in which the holographic Will is written. and need not be witnessed. Respondent Luz R. intimidation and/or under duress. The testimony of Simeon R. another compulsory heir filed an "opposition to probate" assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana R. Both recognized the handwriting of their mother and positively Identified her signature. undue influence and improper pressure. However. private respondent GREGORIO K. in case of doubt is to prevent intestacy — The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the provisions of the law on wigs in this Project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes. on November 10. The holographic Will reads in full as follows: My Last will and Testament In the name of God. when as in the case at bar. Lipa City. claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister. a sister of the testatrix as her sole heir. 1. there is no appearance of fraud. and that my executrix hereinafter named provide and erect at the expose of my state a suitable monument to perpetuate my memory. bad faith. do hereby declare thus to be my last will and testament. Kalaw Filipino 63years of age. probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance. month. but with sufficien safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. KALAW. It is my will that I'll be burried in the cemetery of the catholic church of Lipa City. the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day. Hence. 1971. In accordance with the rights of said Church. the purpose of which. corrections. Amen. named ROSA K. that the holographic Will contained alterations./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. Kalaw opposed probate alleging. and a resident of Lipa City. single. and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code reading: 32 . as first written. As a general rule. Kalaw. undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not the date "FEB. We should not overlook the liberal trend of the Civil Code in the manner of execution of Wills. in substance. and year of its execution. 1971. I Natividad K. Natividad K. KALAW VS RELOVA 132 SCRA 237 On September 1. 1968. Branch VI. filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Batangas. xxx xxx xxx The holographic Will. for the probate of her holographic Will executed on December 24. being of sound and disposing mind and memory.This will not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literal application of the statutory requirements regarding the due execution of Wills. petitioner ROSA K. Kalaw. but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator. erasure or alteration in a holographic will the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. corrected or interlined. A revocation done outside the Philippines. and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will litem not been noted under his signature. 829. by a person who does not have his domicile in this country. when as in this case... G. Law governing revocation Art. is valid when it is done according to the law of the place where the will was made. In case of any insertion. A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death. (737a) b. the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could remain valid. when a number of erasures. should be given effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder. which was altered by substituting the original heir with another. the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision. as first written. ROSA's position was that the holographic Will. . cancellation. REVOCATION OF WILLS a. 814. but at most only as respects the particular words erased.Art. When effected Art. the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole. corrections. segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1895. 828.1 Manresa gave an Identical commentary when he said "la omision de la salvedad no anula el testamento. or 33 . Any waiver or restriction of this right is void. Ordinarily." However. To state that the Will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature. Manuela Lipana. If burned. that the will had not been executed in accordance with law. torn. Such copy was attached to the application merely to corroborate the allegation as to the existence of its original and not to establish a full compliance with the requirements of the law as to the execution of the will. or other writing executed as provided in case of wills. and the fact of its unauthorized destruction. codicil. without the express direction of the testator. when it is in accordance with the provisions of this Code. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases: 1. (n) c. By implication of law. after inspecting the copy of the will. cancelled. or obliterated by some other person. By some will. or by some other person in his presence. cancellation. and due execution. Such requirements are alleged in the application to have been complied with and may be proved at the hearing. or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court. and by his express direction. (n) LIPANA VS LIPANA 70 PHIL 865 One Eliodora Lipana filed in the respondent court an application for the probate of a will supposedly executed by the deceased. 34 . and if the revocation takes place in this country. and her "oposicion supletoria" she claimed that evidence was unnecessary upon the facts alleged in the application. 3. the will may still be established. or By burning. in itself. There can be no doubt that the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in rendering a judgment upon the merits of the case without a previous hearing. dismissed the application on the ground that such copy could not be admitted to probate. it not having been signed by the testatrix and the attesting witnesses at the end thereof and on the left margin of each page. a carbon copy of which was attached to the application. 830. cancelling.according to the law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the time. or 2. or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it. if its contents. by the testator himself. Natividad Lipana filed an opposition. is founded undoubtedly on the erroneous assumption that the probate of the carbon copy of the will was being applied for. Modes of revocation Art. the copy of the will attached thereto showing. The respondent court. and the estate distributed in accordance therewith. The pronouncement made by the respondent court that the will had not been executed in accordance with law. tearing. It is against this order of dismissal that the petition for certiorari has been filed with this court. It is apparent from the application that what is sought to be admitted to probate is the original of the will. that will in question had been cancelled in 1920. it may be admitted to probate. On the 21st day of February. • that the same had been revoked and cancelled in 1920 before his death. if its contents. The fact that such cancellation or revocation has taken place must either 35 . executed a new will and testament. therefore. which was accepted by the lower court. if a will is shown to have been torn by some other person without the express direction of the testator. 1919. and Catalina Mamuyac. The probation of the same was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac. (b) that the same had been cancelled and revoked during the lifetime of Miguel Mamuyac and (c) that the said will was not the last will and testament of the deceased Miguel Mamuyac. was entitled to hearing to prove the due execution of the original will and its loss or destruction. After hearing all of the parties the petition for the probation of said will was denied upon the ground that the deceased had on the 16th day of April. Held: • With reference to the said cancellation. The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation of a will to be preserved. • that the said will was a mere carbon copy and that the oppositors were not estopped from alleging that fact. It therefore becomes difficult at times to prove the revocation or cancellation of wills. It is alleged therein that the original was in the possession of a third person or that it was either lost or destroyed by some person other than the testatrix. Feliciana Bauzon. 1919. Ambrosio Lariosa. due execution and its unauthorized destruction are established by satisfactory evidence. It appears from the record that on or about the 27th day of July. Under Section 623 of Act No. • • The appellant contends that the lower court committed an error: • in not finding from the evidence that the will in question had been executed with all the formalities required by the law. 190. it may be stated that there is positive proof. not denied. Ambrosio Lariosa. Francisco Gago presented a petition for the probation of that will. 1918. the present action was commenced to secure the probation of the said will of the 16th day of April. Feliciana Bauzon. and the respondent court had no statutory authority to dismiss the application without such hearing. alleging (a) that the said will is a copy of the second will and testament executed by the said Miguel Mamuyac. The applicant. and Catalina Mamuyac presented their oppositions. To said petition Cornelio Mamuyac. GAGO VS MAMUYAC 49 PHIL 902 • • • • • The purpose of this action was to obtain the probation of a last will and testament of Miguel Mamuyac. 1925. the said Miguel Mamuyac executed a last will and testament. discovered a document entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento). Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator. Atty. but may be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it. then the duplicate may be admitted in evidence when it is made to appear that the original has been lost and was not cancelled or destroyed by the testator. Three years later. or sometime in March 1967. Sulpicio Palma. Having proved its execution by the proponents. these four heirs commenced on November 4. In a proceeding to probate a will the burden of proofs is upon the proponent clearly to establish not only its execution but its existence. In a great majority of instances in which wills are destroyed for the purpose of revoking them there is no witness to the act of cancellation or destruction and all evidence of its cancellation perish with the testator. While Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will. The force of the presumption of cancellation or revocation by the testator. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. the original copy. being weak or strong according to the circumstances. when last seen. MALOTO VS CA 153 SCRA 451 • • • On October 20.1940. however. When it is proven. Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much bigger and more valuable shares in the estate of Adriana than what they received by virtue of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed. Eliseo Hervas. that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties. Copies of wills should be admitted by the courts with great caution. 1963. Palma claimed to have found the testament. Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament.• • • remain unproved of be inferred from evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be found. while varying greatly. in the absence of other competent evidence. 1963 an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate. the late Atty. a former associate of Adriana's counsel. and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. • • • 36 . and the private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Hervas. the burden is on the contestant to show that it has been revoked. by proper testimony that a will was executed in duplicate and each copy was executed with all the formalities and requirements of the law. is never conclusive. Maloto. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. the presumption is." dated January 3. Atty. the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio. while he was going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer formerly used by Atty. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the testator himself. codicil. by the testator himself. much less the will of Adriana Maloto. and due execution. 830. The appellate court based its finding on the facts that: • The document was not in the two safes in Adriana's residence. tearing. the will may still be established. Palma in order to have a new will drawn up Held: • There is no doubt as to the testamentary capacity of the testatrix and the due execution of the will. or (2) By some will. without the express direction of the testator. There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. The respondent court stated that the presence of animus revocandi in the destruction of the will had. and the estate distributed in accordance therewith.• • • Significantly. Art. does not per se constitute an effective revocation. or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court. Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. the burning was not proven to have been done under the express 37 . The heart of the case lies on the issue as to whether or not the will was revoked by Adriana. was indeed the will. was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all. the appellate court while finding as inconclusive the matter on whether or not the document or papers allegedly burned by the househelp of Adriana. or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it. or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction.) • • • It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will. For one. the document or papers burned by Adriana's maid. and. upon instructions of the testatrix. tearing. or other writing executed as provided in case of wills: or (3) By burning. • Her seeking the services of Atty. The provisions of the new Civil Code pertinent to the issue can be found in Article 830. been sufficiently proven. and by his express direction. It may be performed by another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself. contradicted itself and found that the will had been revoked. Guadalupe Maloto Vda. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases: (1) By implication of law. or by some other person in his presence. de Coral. (Emphasis Supplied. Hervas to retrieve a copy of the will left in the latter's possession. torn cancelled. • By the testatrix going to the residence of Atty. If burned. cancelling. like burning in this case. The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning. or obliterated by some other person. if its contents. cancellation. unless the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. obliterating. nevertheless. and the fact of its unauthorized destruction. For another. Guadalupe. Of course. which expressly revokes the will executed in 1918. and by his nieces and nephew Luz. • The oppositors filed an opposition to the petition contending that. • Juana Molo filed in the CFI a petition seeking the probate of the will executed in 1939.. • The will of 1918 was admitted to probate. ISSUE: Was the admittance into probate proper? What is the doctrine of dependent relative revocation? HELD: 38 . 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. Both witnesses. 1939." d. the burning was not in her presence. the very institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its very foundations . • In view of the disallowance of the will. • The latter will contains a clause. Doctrine of dependent relative revocation MOLO VS MOLO 90 PHIL 37 FACTS: • Mariano Molo died on January 24. 1918 and another executed on June 20. notwithstanding the disallowance of the 1939 will. • Mariano left two wills. regardless of the revocatory clause. 1941 without leaving any forced heir either in the descending or ascending line. all surnamed Molo (oppositors-appellants). And then. • Hence this appeal. we reiterate that "(it) is an important matter of public interest that a purported win is not denied legalization on dubious grounds. said will of 1918 cannot still be given effect because of the presumption that the testator himself deliberately revoked it.• direction of Adriana. • The court rendered a decision denying the probate of said will on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the same was executed in accordance with law. the revocatory clause is valid and still has the effect of nullifying the prior will of 1918. the widow filed another petition for the probate of the will executed by the deceased on August 18. Gliceria and Cornelio. one executed on August 17. Otherwise. • In both the 1918 and 1939 wills Juana was instituted as his universal heir. At this juncture. Guadalupe and Eladio. • Oppositors – appellants were the legitimate children of a deceased brother of the testator... • His wife Juana Molo (petitioner) survived him. 1918. • Likewise. and even though the person so instituted 39 . The doctrine of dependent relative revocation is usually applied where the testator cancels or destroys a will or executed an instrument intended to revoke a will with a present intention to make a new testamentary disposition as a substitute for the old. therefore. that the revoking will was valid. Institution of heir is an act by virtue of which a testator designates in his will the person or persons who are to succeed him in his property and transmissible rights and obligations. or such institution should not comprise the entire estate. INSTITUTION OF HEIRS a. and hence prevents the revocation of the original will. for the reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of law as to the making of wills. Even in the supposition that the destruction of the original will by the testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to produce it in court. There can therefore be no mistake as to his intention of dying testate. If will institutes no heirs Art. having been disallowed.A subsequent will containing a clause revoking a previous will. fails to effect for same reason. H. upon whose validity the revocation depends. 841. 840. the revocation by overt act did not really materialize. The theory on which the “principle of dependent relative revocation “ is predicated on that the testator did not intend to die intestate. inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void. namely. cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will. and the new disposition is not made or. if made. The conditioned was not fulfilled. A will shall be valid even though it should not contain an institution of an heir. The failure of the new testamentary disposition. such destruction cannot have the effect of defeating the prior will of 1918 because of the fact that it is founded on the mistaken belief that the will of 1939 has been validly executed and would be given due effect. Definition Art. is equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive condition. And this intention is clearly manifest when he executed two wills on different occasions and instituted his wife as his universal heir. (n) b. Doctrine of dependent relative revocation – the revocation by destruction or overt act was good only if this condition is fulfilled. But a mere intent to make at some time a will in place of that destroyed will does not render the destruction conditional. It must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will. (n) Substitution of heirs may be: 1. (n) 40 . Brief or compendious. 2. excluding the oral declarations of the testator as to his intention. as to the application of any of its provisions. (772) Cross-reference: Art. 858. (764) c. In such cases the testamentary dispositions made in accordance with law shall be complied with and the remainder of the estate shall pass to the legal heirs. Concept Art. Manner of designation of heir Art. Even though the testator may have omitted the name of the heir. he shall indicate some circumstance by which the instituted heir may be known.should not accept the inheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed. the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will. should he designate him in such manner that there can be no doubt as to who has been instituted. When there is an imperfect description. (n) I. if the error appears from the context of the will or from extrinsic evidence. and when there are two persons having the same names. SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS a. excluding such oral declarations. Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted. the institution shall be valid. 857. Simple or common. or 4. Fideicommissary. Art. or when no person or property exactly answers the description. 3. The testator shall designate the heir by his name and surname. 789. and when an uncertainty arises upon the face of the will. taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. 843. Reciprocal. mistakes and omissions must be corrected. The testator may designate one or more persons to substitute the heir or heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him. (781a) A fideicommissary substitution can never burden the legitime. that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at the time of the death of the testator. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance. the substitute shall acquire the share of the heir who dies. 865. and one person for two or more heirs. (779a) 4. and provided further. (783) Art. Fideicommissary Art. If there are more than one substitute. 866. shall comprise the three mentioned in the preceding paragraph. (782a) Art. The right of the second heir shall pass to his heirs. provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. Two or more persons may be substituted for one. Simple substitution Art. 860. 861. If heirs instituted in unequal shares should be reciprocally substituted. save in the case where the testator has provided otherwise. credits and improvements. 864. Reciprocal Art. unless the testator has otherwise provided. 863. Brief or compendious Art. or should be incapacitated to accept the inheritance. without a statement of the cases to which it refers. even though he should die before the fiduciary. 859. (774) 2. (784) 41 . The fiduciary shall be obliged to deliver the inheritance to the second heir. (778) 3.1. or is incapacitated. The second heir shall acquire a right to the succession from the time of the testator's death. without other deductions than those which arise from legitimate expenses. they shall have the same share in the substitution as in the institution. Art. shall be valid and shall take effect. renounces. unless it clearly appears that the intention of the testator was otherwise. or should not wish. Every fideicommissary substitution must be expressly made in order that it may be valid. A simple substitution. shall be valid. Those which leave to a person the whole part of the hereditary property in order that he may apply or invest the same according to secret instructions communicated to him by the testator. the provisions of Article 863 shall apply. 869. 2. beyond the limit prescribed in article 863. 867. beyond the limit fixed in article 863. and even a temporary one. while the companion Wanda is an Austrian who lives in Spain. RAMIREZ VS RAMIREZ 111 SCRA 704 The main issue in this appeal is the manner of partitioning the testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez among the principal beneficiaries. his two grandnephews Roberto and Jorge Ramirez. The task is not trouble-free because the widow Marcelle is a French who lives in Paris. Those which impose upon the heir the charge of paying to various persons successively. Fideicommissary substitutions which are not made in an express manner. the fideicommissary clause shall simply be considered as not written. Provisions which contain a perpetual prohibition to alienate. either by giving them this name. or imposing upon the fiduciary the absolute obligation to deliver the property to a second heir. 3. the testator provided for substitutions. The following shall not take effect: 1. (786) A provision whereby the testator leaves to a person the whole or part of the inheritance. 4. 868. Hodges as the first heir designated. but successively. not simultaneously. PCIB VS ESCOLIN 56 SCRA 266 The substitution provided for by paragraph four of the Will of Linnie Jane Hodges is not fideicommissary substitution. because there is clearly no obligation on the part of C. (787a) Art. to preserve the properties for the substitute heirs. N. a certain income or pension.Art. and his companion Wanda de Wrobleski. 42 . (785a) Art. namely: his widow Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez. and to another the usufruct. Moreover. The nullity of the fideicommissary substitution does not prejudice the validity of the institution of the heirs first designated. If he gives the usufruct to various persons. 900 of the Civil Code "If the only survivor is the widow or widower. His will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila. They allege that the substitution in its vulgar aspect as void because Wanda survived the testator or stated differently because she did not predecease the testator. with respect to Wanda's usufruct are invalid because the first heirs Marcelle and Wanda) survived the testator. the other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez "en nuda propriedad. Ramirez) are not related to Wanda. or transmission. The substitutes (Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Hence. the vulgar substitution is valid. Ramirez. To give Marcelle more than her legitime will run counter to the testator's intention for as stated above his dispositions even impaired her legitime and tended to favor Wanda. They admit that the testator's dispositions impaired his widow's legitime. It is the one-third usufruct over the free portion which the appellants question and justifiably so. 43 . 1965.Jose Eugenio Ramirez. 1964. there can be only one tranmission or substitution. on July 27. (b) that the provisions for fideicommissary substitutions are also invalid because the first heirs are not related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree. the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of the deceased is to be divided into two parts. as provided in Article 863 of the Civil Code. under Art." 2. a Filipino national. and the substitute need not be related to the first heir. But dying before the testator is not the only case for vulgar substitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity to accept the inheritance as provided in Art. From this point of view. with only his widow as compulsory heir. It appears that the court a quo approved the usufruct in favor of Marcelle because the testament provides for a usufruct in her favor of one-third of the estate. and Traviesas construe "degree" as designation. On June 23. 859 of the Civil Code. Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the grounds: (a) that the provisions for vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda de Wrobleski with respect to the widow's usufruct and in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio V. 3." Furthermore. died in Spain on December 11. 1966. 863 of the Civil Code validates a fideicommissary substitution "provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the estate. substitution. The Supreme Court of Spain has decidedly adopted this construction. supra. 4. The appellant's do not question the legality of giving Marcelle one-half of the estate in full ownership. One part shall go to the widow 'en pleno dominio" in satisfaction of her legitime. she or he shall be entitled to one-half of the hereditary estate. the heir originally instituted. Branch X. one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with the widow's usufruct and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda." What is meant by "one degree" from the first heir is explained by Tolentino as follows: Scaevola Maura. Art. Indeed. 1. 26. 865 and 867 of the Civil Code." The Code thus clearly indicates that the second heir must be related to and be one generation from the first heir. These are the only relatives who are one generation or degree from the fiduciary (Op. There is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufruct to the substitutes as required by Arts. cit.Manresa.) PEREZ VS GARCHITORENA 54 PHIL 431 44 . however. by providing that the substitution shall not go beyond one degree "from the heir originally instituted. p. construe the word "degree" as generation." (Brief.) 5. 193-194. From this. pp.. Morell and Sanchez Roman. and the present Code has obviously followed this interpretation. it follows that the fideicommissary can only be either a child or a parent of the first heir. the appellee admits "that the testator contradicts the establishment of a fideicommissary substitution when he permits the properties subject of the usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuaries and the naked owners. In fact. Mrs. the sheriff pursuant to the writ of execution issued in said judgment. Should my aforesaid heiress. Josefa Laplana. 1909. but does not say she may dispose of it. and eleventh. that is to say the heiress is required to 45 . Carmen G. …my estate shall never pass out of the hands of my heiress or her children in so far as it is legally possible. A second heir. is not incompatible with a fideicommissary substitution (it certainly is incompatible with the idea of simple substitution.• The amount of P21. she may enjoy it. • The plaintiff. 142 and 143.428. Eleventh. and in her default. between the parties are the ninth. as the final payment of the liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara. namely that the fideicommissarius be entitled to the estate from the time the testator dies.). Carmen Garchitorena. The illustrious Manresa. where the heiress instituted does not receive the inheritance). This is an indication of the usufruct inherent in fideicommissary substitution. as held in the Resolution of June 25.) • • It should also be noted that said clause IX vests in the heiress only the right to enjoy but not the right to dispose of the estate. I order that my estate be administered by my executrix. since he is to inherit from the latter and not from the fiduciary. says: Or. Should my heiress Carmen Garchitorena die. 1899. It says. the fideicommissary substitution. the decision of November 18. (Emphasis ours. Issue: whether such deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs. alleging that said deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs of the decedent Ana Maria Alcantara. • The defendants contend that the plaintiff is the decedent's universal heiress. die after me while her children are still in their minority. 2. …that she may enjoy them with God's blessing and my own. Ruling: The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute. 5th ed. 1918 adds another. 3. de Perez. Another clear and outstanding indication of fideicommissary substitution in clause X is the provision that the whole estate shall pass unimpaired to the heiress's children. requires three things: 1. To these requisites. by Attorney Ramon Salinas and in his default. husband of the plaintiff. 6. February 10. • The disposition contained in clause IX. what amounts to the same thing. in his Civil Code (Vol. secured a preliminary injunction. Tenth.23 against Joaquin Perez Alcantara. tenth. A first heir called primarily to the enjoyment of the estate. I order that my whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her surviving children. by his son Ramon Salinas.872. • Mariano Garchitorena held a judgment for P7. deceased. pp.58 is on deposit in the plaintiff's name with the association known as La Urbana in Manila. and pray for the dissolution of the injunction. that said heiress shall receive and enjoy the estate. whose heiress is said plaintiff. quoted below: Ninth. and July 19. An obligation clearly imposed upon him to preserve and transmit to a third person the whole or a part of the estate. levied an attachment on said amount. 1895. and that. As already stated. shall only enjoy usufructuary rights over the property bequeathed to her. clause XI more clearly indicates the idea of fideicommissary substitution. By virtue of this consequence. the plaintiff herein. CONCEPT • 46 . or their forced heirs. should anyone of them die ahead of Consolacion Florentino. said clause anticipates the case where the instituted heiress should die after the testatrix and after receiving and enjoying the inheritance. without diminution. Evaristo. as her absolute property. Leona Singson. therefore. Ilocos Sur. during her lifetime.• • preserve the whole estate. Manuel and Dionisio. nor does it contain a clear statement to the effect that appellee. Lastly.. J. LEGITIME 1. when a provision is therein made in the event the heiress should die after the testatrix. • Held: • It is clear that the particular testamentary clause under consideration provides for a substitution of the heir named therein in this manner: that upon the death of Consolacion Florentino — whether this occurs before or after that of the testatrix — the property bequeathed to her shall be delivered ("se dara") or shall belong in equal parts to the testatrix's three brothers. but to her children. in order to pass it on in due time to the fideicommissary heirs. Defendant's defense was that Consolacion Florentino was a mere usufructuary of. A careful perusal of the testamentary clause under consideration shows that the substitution of heirs provided for therein is not expressly made of the fideicommissary kind. and not owner of one-half pro-indiviso of the property in question. Vigan. it merely provides that upon appellee's death — whether this happens before or after that of the testatrix — her share shall belong to the brothers of the testatrix. Their complaint alleged that Singson owned one-half pro-indiviso of said property and that Consolacion Florentino owned the other half by virtue of the provisions of the duly probated last will of Dña. That is. the inheritance in question does not belong to the heiress instituted. from the moment of the death of the testatrix. Ana Maria Alcantara. she was not entitled to demand partition thereof. the original owner. naked ownership thereof being vested in the brothers of the testatrix. CRISOLOGO VS SINGSON 49 SCRA 491 • • Action for partition commenced by the spouses Consolacion Florentino and Francisco Crisologo against Manuel Singson in connection with a residential lot located a Plaridel St. son of the deceased. 886. with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants. 4. Rosales. Irenea Rosales insisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity as the surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales. claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law together with her son. The following are compulsory heirs: 1. their filiation must be duly proved. In default of the foregoing. leaving behind a child. called compulsory heirs. 3.Art. 2. and his widow Irenea C. (806) 2. (843a) ROSALES VS ROSALES 148 SCRA 69 • Mrs. Macikequerox Rosales. 1 and 2. Another child. 3. Macikequerox Rosales. Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. Who are entitled Art. a resident of Cebu City. died intestate. and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. the herein petitioner. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287. 5. neither do they exclude one another. whether legitimate or illegitimate. The widow or widower. therefore. predeceased her. Legitimate children and descendants. 887. with respect to their legitimate children and descendants. 4. Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are. 902. Rosales. legitimate parents and ascendants. (807a) Art. The rights of illegitimate children set forth in the preceding articles are transmitted upon their death to their descendants. Petra V. shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code. Rosales and their two (2) children Magna Rosales Acebes and Antonio Rosales. Acknowledged natural children. • ISSUE: Is a widow (surviving spouse) an intestate heir of her mother-in-law? 47 . and natural children by legal fiction. Carterio Rosales. The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned. She was survived by her husband Fortunate T. In all cases of illegitimate children. . It does not apply to the estate of a parent-in-law. Parañaque (hereafter Parañaque property) using a portion of the proceeds of sale of the Valenzuela property. were killed on June 30. Carterio Rosales (the person represented) who predeceased his grandmother. Carmela and Jennifer. an intestate heir can only inherit either by his own right. and Ricardo Nicolas. as in the order of intestate succession provided for in the Civil Code.. The following year an unfortunate event in petitioner's life occurred. Four Hundred Five Thousand. He does not succeed his father.HELD: • Our answer to the first question is in the negative. Petra Rosales. The aforesaid provision of law refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in which case the surviving spouse (widow or widower) is a compulsory heir. 1991.00). Inc. and those who inherit by the right of representation. Estrellita sold the Valenzuela property to Amelia Lim and Maria Natividad Balictar Chiu for Three Million. and their four children. • Petitioner cannot assert the same right of representation as she has no filiation by blood with her mother-in-law. • Intestate or legal heirs are classified into two (2) groups. Estrellita bought from Premier Homes. Bulacan. namely. a parcel of land with improvements situated at Vinzon St. located at Valenzuela. Six Hundred Twelve Pesos (P3. Teresita Nicolas de Leon.612. Ramon Nicolas. an incident popularly known as the "Vizconde Massacre". • Petitioner argues that she is a compulsory heir in accordance with the provisions of Article 887 of the Civil Code. Estrellita. Estrellita purchased from Rafael a parcel of land with an area of 10.405. is one of the five siblings of spouses Rafael Nicolas and Salud Gonzales-Nicolas. Estrellita and her two daughters. BF Homes. • The surviving spouse is considered a third person as regards the estate of the parent-in-law. an incompetent. • • • 48 . m. or by the right of representation provided for in Article 981 of the same law. • Restated. those who inherit by their own right.110 sq. but the latter whom his father would have succeeded. The remaining amount of the proceeds was used in buying a car while the balance was deposited in a bank. The other children of Rafael and Salud are Antonio Nicolas. • Article 971 explicitly declares that Macikequerox Rosales is called to succession by law because of his blood relationship. LAURO VIZCONDE VS CA • Petitioner's wife. Antonio predeceased his parents and is now survived by his widow. Zenaida. In June of the same year. a son-in-law of Rafael. that Estrellita was given the Valenzuela property by Rafael which she sold for not less than Six Million Pesos (P6. 1993. with the subsequent death of Carmela and Jennifer. On November 18. 1992." Ramon. Estrellita's parents. petitioner entered into an "Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde With Waiver of Shares". among others. Additionally. and Ricardo. Teresita instituted an intestate estate proceeding. Herein private respondent Ramon filed an opposition dated March 24. so that the division may be made according to law and the will of the testator. docketed as Sp. Collation is only required of compulsory heirs succeeding with other compulsory heirs and involves property or rights received by donation or gratuitous title during the lifetime of the decedent. the property which they received from him. through a motion dated February 14. C1699. • The attendant facts herein do not make a case of collation. her incompetent brother. Held: • Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or other forced heirs who intervene in the division of the inheritance of an ascendant bring into the common mass.• • • • The findings of the investigation conducted by the NBI reveal that Estrellita died ahead of her daughters. Ramon filed his own petition. 1994. To settle Rafael's estate. now senile. Nicolas" and averred that their legitime should come from the collation of all the properties distributed to his children by Rafael during his lifetime. Carmela. Rafael died. No. Barely three weeks passed. Accordingly. Petitioner. as well as the car and the balance of the proceeds of the sale of the Valenzuela property. Proc. with Rafael and Salud. Nicolas and Ricardo G. the probate court may pass upon and determine the title or ownership of a property which may or may not be included in the 49 . moved to include petitioner in the intestate estate proceeding and asked that the Parañaque property. petitioner was left as the sole heir of his daughters. is not one of Rafael's compulsory heirs.000. entitled "In The Matter Of The Guardianship Of Salud G. 1993. be collated. • As a rule. praying to be appointed instead as Salud and Ricardo's guardian.000. she sought to be appointed as guardian ad litem of Salud. Jennifer and herein petitioner succeeded Estrellita and. Nevertheless. Teresita prayed to be appointed Special Administratrix of Rafael's estate. as well as respondent Court of Appeals.00) before her gruesome murder. We find that the probate court. committed reversible errors. On May 12. Ramon stated that herein petitioner is one of Rafael's children "by right of representation as the widower of deceased legitimate daughter of Estrellita. Ramon filed another opposition alleging. Issue: Whether or not the transfer of the Valenzuela property from Rafael to Estrellita and declaring the Parañaque property as subject to collation is valid. 80 driven by petitioner Edgar Bitancor and owned and operated by petitioner Jose Baritua. The Nacario spouses prayed that the defendants. Hence. 1981. and not to herein petitioner who does not have any interest in Rafael's estate. • Even on the assumption that collation is appropriate in this case the probate court. 1979.000. In consideration of the amount she received. or about one year and ten months from the date of the accident on November 7. who are the parents of Bienvenido Nacario. as a consequence of the extrajudicial settlement of the matter negotiated by the petitioners and the bus insurer — Philippine First Insurance Company.00.000. it was Rafael who inherited from Estrellita an amount more than the value of the Valenzuela property. Camarines Sur.000. is the Valenzuela property. filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners with the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. Rafael. P5. nonetheless. BARITUA VS CA 183 SCRA 565 • In the evening of November 7. the private respondents. Estrellita. received P18. 1980. Thus. 1979. Alicia executed on March 27.00 for the damaged tricycle.000. P10. In fact. by way of deed of sale.00 for attorney's fees. it is futile for the probate court to ascertain whether or not the Valenzuela property may be brought to collation. the decedent. it should be stressed. Indeed. • Subsequently.500. be ordered to indemnify them in the amount of P25. the probate court's order of collation against petitioner is unwarranted for the obligation to collate is lodged with Estrellita. • Finally. the tricycle then being driven by Bienvenido Nacario along the national highway at Barangay San Cayetano.00 for compensatory and exemplary damages. Incorporated (PFICI for brevity) — Bienvenido Nacario's widow. the heir. Alicia Baracena Vda. petitioners herein. 50 . made a reversible error in ordering collation of the Parañaque property. No criminal case arising from the incident was ever instituted. P25. and petitioner who inherited and is now the present owner of the Parañaque property is not one of Rafael's heirs. on March 27. even assuming that the Valenzuela property may be collated collation may not be allowed as the value of the Valenzuela property has long been returned to the estate of Rafael. 1980 a "Release of Claim" in favor of the petitioners and PFICI. Such determination is provisional in character and is subject to final decision in a separate action to resolve title. died ahead of Rafael. The Parañaque property which Estrellita acquired by using the proceeds of the sale of the Valenzuela property does not become collationable simply by reason thereof. de Nacario. has no participation therein. collation of the Parañaque property has no statutory basis.00 for the death of their son Bienvenido. We note that what was transferred to Estrellita. As a result of that accident Bienvenido and his passenger died and the tricycle was damaged. in Baao.estate proceedings. figured in an accident with JB Bus No. and for moral damages. • On September 2. Determination or computation • Art. (819a) Art. To the net value of the hereditary estate. On the other hand. the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be considered. 908. at the time he made them. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted. 909. 3. Art 1240. It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate descendant. • Certainly there can be no question that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in interest referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive payment. shall be added the value of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation. or any person authorized to receive it. (818a) Art. Should they exceed the portion that can be freely disposed of. Donations which an illegitimate child may have received during the lifetime of his father or mother. shall be charged to his legitime. This is so even if Alicia had been estranged from Bienvenido. or his successor in interest. the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs. To determine the legitime.00 despite the agreement of extrajudicial settlement between the petitioners and the victim's compulsory heirs. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse. 910. HELD: • Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Philippines enumerates the persons to whom payment to extinguish an obligation should be made. deducting all debts and charges. they shall be reduced in the manner prescribed by this Code. which shall not include those imposed in the will. Donations made to strangers shall be charged to that part of the estate of which the testator could have disposed by his last will. Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed the disposable portion.505. Donations given to children shall be charged to their legitime.ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent appellate court erred in holding that the petitioners are still liable to pay the private respondents the aggregate amount of P20. (847a) 51 . they shall be reduced according to the rules established by this Code. 913. If the devise subject to reduction should consist of real property. should the latter not make use of it. any heir or devisee who did not have such right may exercise it. The reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro rata. Donations shall be respected as long as the legitime can be covered. if necessary.e. The spouses being childless. and in a contrary case. but the former and the latter shall reimburse each other in cash for what respectively belongs to them. The devisee who is entitled to a legitime may retain the entire property. If the heirs or devisees do not choose to avail themselves of the right granted by the preceding article. without any distinction whatever. i. the property shall be sold at public auction at the instance of any one of the interested parties.. the devises or legacies made in the will. to the compulsory heirs. whose value may be considered greater than that of the disposable portion. Mariano's properties would go to his 52 . Catalina. as the sole and universal heir of all his properties. the reduction shall be made as follows: 1. If the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life annuity. 912. 911. it shall not suffer any reduction until the latter have been applied in full to the payment of the legitime. it shall go to the devisee if the reduction does not absorb one-half of its value. (822) LOCSIN VS CA 206 SCRA 383 • Mariano Locsin executed a Last Will and Testament instituting his wife. which cannot be conveniently divided. the compulsory heirs may choose between complying with the testamentary provision and delivering to the devisee or legatee the part of the inheritance of which the testator could freely dispose. (820a) Art. If the testator has directed that a certain devise or legacy be paid in preference to others. (821) Art. After the legitime has been determined in accordance with the three preceding articles. after both of them shall have died should revert to their respective sides of the family. 2.Art. 3. had agreed that their properties. provided its value does not exceed that of the disposable portion and of the share pertaining to him as legitime. reducing or annulling. Doña Catalina began transferring.. treated as donations. ISSUE: Whether or not the nephews and nieces of Doña Catalina J. to his Locsin nephews and nieces. Vda. by sale. the respondents may not invoke: Art. hence. All that the respondents had was an expectancy that in nowise restricted her freedom to dispose of even her entire estate subject only to the limitation set forth in Art. "the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of (the decedent's) death and those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. properties to their respective nephews and nieces. even if it were breached. i. Don Mariano's as well as her own. nine (9) years after his death. In 1989. Civil Code which. alleging that the conveyances were inofficious. and those of Catalina to her "Jaucian relatives. She made the sales and donation of properties which she had received from her husband's estate. and intended solely to circumvent the laws on succession. and it is not pretended that she had any such." • The rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. filed action in the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City to recover the properties which she had conveyed to the Locsins during her lifetime. 750.. Those who were closest to Doña Catalina did not join the action. the right arising under certain circumstances to impugn and compel the reduction or revocation of a decedent's gifts inter vivos does not inure to the respondents since neither they nor the donees are compulsory (or forced) heirs. 750.e. • Property which Doña Catalina had transferred or conveyed to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs may lay claim." Don Mariano relied on Doña Catalina to carry out the terms of their compact. sufficient means for the support of himself. without consideration. and of all 53 . are entitled to inherit the properties which she had already disposed of more than ten (10) years before her death. provided he reserves. or six (6) years after Doña Catalina's demise. one and all. donation or assignment. de Locsin. • Said respondents are not her compulsory heirs. • Even if those transfers were. The donation may comprehend all the present property of the donor or part thereof.e. brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces). and do not vest in his heirs until such time.• • "Locsin relatives" (i. only the property that remained in her estate at the time of her death devolved to her legal heirs. hence there were no legitimes that could conceivably be impaired by any transfer of her property during her lifetime. HELD: • They are not entitled since those properties did not form part of her hereditary estate. in full ownership or in usufruct. some of her Jaucian nephews and nieces who had already received their legacies and hereditary shares from her estate. Had she died intestate. some. Preterition of Compulsory Heirs Art. AZNAR VS DUNCAN 17 SCRA 590 • Edward E. • The said order was based on the proposition that since Helen Garcia had been preterited in the will the institution of Lucy Duncan as heir was annulled. but the devises and legacies and other testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair the legitime. 854. the donation shall be reduced on petition of any person affected. who had been judicially declared as such after his death. shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited. 906. whom the testator had expressly recognized in his will as his daughter and Helen Garcia. (815) The share of a child or descendant omitted in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not disposed of by the will. • The Court of First Instance of Davao issued an order approving the project of partition submitted by the executor. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. (814a) Art. Art. if any. 914. so much as may be necessary must be taken proportionally from the shares of the other compulsory heirs. 918. or for a cause the truth of which. • In that same decision the court declared that Maria Helen Christensen Garcia (hereinafter referred to as Helen Garcia) was a natural child of the deceased. The testator may devise and bequeath the free portion as he may deem fit. if that is not sufficient. are by law entitled to be supported by the donor. (n) K. 54 . Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand that the same be fully satisfied. (634a) 4. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator. The preterition or omission of one. Without such reservation. (1080a) Disinheritance without a specification of the cause. a citizen of California with domicile in the Philippines. died leaving a will which was admitted to probate. without prejudice to the right of representation. Freedom to dispose free portion Art. 855. or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line.relatives who. (851a) Art. shall annul the institution of heir. but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. wherein the properties of the estate were divided equally between Lucy Duncan. is not proved. at the time of the acceptance of the donation. if contradicted. or which is not one of those set forth in this Code. Christensen. the institution shall be effectual. but without referring to the legatee as an heir or even as a relative.and hence the properties passed to both of them as if the deceased had died intestate. (6 Manresa. and six (6) brothers and sisters. 1917. 441. In each one of those cases the testator left to one who was a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime. He refused to acknowledge Helen Garcia as his natural daughter. Conrado. Petitioner • 55 . legitimate or illegitimate. equivalent to 1/4 of the entire estate. petitioner Remedios Nuguid filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid. nor assigning to him some part of the properties. without descendants. 1932. saving only the legacies left in favor of certain other persons. while mentioning him as father. and April 23. either by not naming him at all or. pp.00. Issue: Whether the estate. and limited her share to a legacy of P3. Federico. Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid. It was held that Article 815 applied. by not instituting him as heir without disinheriting him expressly. • • • NUGUID VS NUGUID 17 SCRA 449 • Rosario Nuguid. all surnamed Nuguid. in accordance with Article 908 of the Civil Code. and the heir could not ask that the institution of heirs be annulled entirely. May 25. after deducting the legacies.600. should pertain to her and to Helen Garcia in equal shares. 1895. 1962. which legacies have been duly approved by the lower court and distributed to the legatees. that is. 1963. namely: Alfredo. single. On May 18. Manresa cites particularly three decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain dated January 16. who alone was expressly recognized by him. Held: • Manresa defines preterition as the omission of the heir in the will. or whether the inheritance of Lucy Duncan as instituted heir should be merely reduced to the extent necessary to cover the legitime of Helen Garcia. and willed the rest of the estate to other persons. Lourdes and Alberto. but only that the legitime be completed. by giving to oppositor-appellee Maria Helen Christensen Garcia no more than the portion corresponding to her as legitime. son. respectively. died on December 30. equivalent to one-fourth (1/4) of the hereditary estate.) The foregoing solution is indeed more in consonance with the expressed wishes of the testator in the present case as may be gathered very clearly from the provisions of his will. The case is remanded with instructions to partition the hereditary estate anew as indicated in this decision. 438. The fact that she was subsequently declared judicially to possess such status is no reason to assume that had the judicial declaration come during his lifetime his subjective attitude towards her would have undergone any change and that he would have willed his estate equally to her and to Lucy Duncan. Surviving her were her legitimate parents. after which shall not include those imposed in the will of the decedent.. Remedios. etc. And. 854 provides: ART. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. The preterition or omission of one. Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code. shall annul the institution of heir. This is a clear case of preterition. "shall annul the institution of heir". is null and void. That institution. .. There must be. It simply omits their names altogether. or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line. Nothing in Article 854 suggests that the mere institution of a universal heir in a will — void because of preterition — would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance.• prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to her. concededly the legitimate father and mother of the deceased Rosario Nuguid. some. they were deprived of their legitime. however. the forced heirs. On top of this is the fact that the effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of disinheritance. and nothing more.. As aforesaid. The will here does not explicitly disinherit the testatrix's parents. but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. a testamentary disposition granting him bequests or legacies apart and separate from the nullified institution of heir. now oppositors Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid. Article 854 of the Civil Code in turn merely nullifies "the institution of heir". that the will before us solely provides for the institution of petitioner as universal heir. the will is inexistent. 854. the will completely omits both of them: They thus received nothing by the testament. • • • • The deceased Rosario Nuguid left no descendants. The entire will is null. legitimate or illegitimate. we repeat. Considering. by itself. entered their opposition to the probate of her will on the grounds that being compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending line. Said will rather than be labeled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in which the said forced heirs suffer from preterition. But she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents. intestate succession ensues. they were illegally preterited and that in consequence the institution is void. REYES VS BARRETO-DATU 19 SCRA 85 56 . in addition to such institution. there is no other provision in the will before us except the institution of petitioner as universal heir. As to him. Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid. Issue: Is the holographic will valid insofar as it preterited the compulsory heirs of the decedent? Held: Art. And. the result is the same. tacitly. neither were they expressly disinherited. and Lucia Milagros Barretto and to his widow. as defendant Milagros was the only true heir of Bibiano Barretto. When Bibiano Barretto died. she revoked the same and left all her properties in favor of Milagros Barretto alone. and his wife Maria Teresa Ponce de Leon and his universal heirs. in the second. but of heirs (without distinction between forced. A partition in which a person was believed to be an heir. as her heirs. he left his share of these properties in a will to Salud Barretto. there should be no such heir. she instituted Salud and Milagros. in view of the provisions of Article 1456 of the new Civil Code of the Philippines establishing that property acquired by fraud or mistake is held by its acquirer in implied trust for the real owner. When Maria Gerardo died. This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court. or descendants. at least. then in clause four he named his said father Francisco Escuin. since there was here no preterition. in the first of which. and from the latter's children and successors. During their lifetime they acquired a vast estate. The nullity of the project of partition was decreed on the basis of Article 1081 of the Civil Code of 1889 (then in force) providing as follows: . Nor does the fact that Milagros was allotted in her father's will a share smaller than her legitime invalidate the institution of Salud as heir. or total ommission of a forced heir. that in case he has a duly registered successor. she was entitled to recover from Salud. the later will was allowed and the first rejected. as would probably be the case. they to divide the estate in equal shares between them. Maria Gerardo. and. The lower court held that Salud was not the daughter of the decedent Maria Gerardo by her husband Bibiano Barretto. His natural son was preterited. • • The court a quo further rejected the contention advanced by plaintiffs that since Bibiano Barretto was free to dispose of one-third (1/3) of his estate under the old Civil Code. of such free part. Thus. it was discovered that she had executed two wills. all the Properties received by her from Bibiano's estate. and the fact that Salud happened not to be a daughter of the testator does not preclude her being one of the heirs expressly named in his testament. 57 . Held: • The legal precept (Article 1081) does not speak of children.• • • • • Bibiano Barretto was married to Maria Gerardo. for Bibiano Barretto was at liberty to assign the free portion of his estate to whomsoever he chose. mother of plaintiff's wards. his will was valid in favor of Salud Barretto (nee Lim Boco) to the extent. without being so. both surnamed Barretto. has been included. but that if. voluntary or intestate ones). And it concluded that. which affirmed the same. his child would be his sole and universal heir. • ESCUIN VS ESCUIN 11 PHIL 332 Emilio Antonio Escuin de los Santos executed a will and stated in clause three of his will. shall be null and void. the said designation of heirs became void and so far as it impaired the right of his general heir and deprived him of his legal portions. Notwithstanding the fact that the said designation of heirs annulled and that the law recognizes the title of the minor. Said decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija was. provided the legal portion of his general heir was not thereby impaired. that he be declared a natural child of Maximo Viola. however. • LAJOM VS LEUTERIO (GR NO. 58 • • . Viola. impliedly recognized and acknowledged in accordance with the laws in force prior to the Civil Code. the two former persons being considered as legatees under the will. designating as heirs his natural father. Francisco Escuin. affirmed by this Court. under the law. Maximo Viola. Donato Lajom filed in the Court of First Instance a complaint praying. whereby the properties left by their father. Judicial proceedings of his testate estate were instituted in the Court of First Instance. it is not proper to assert that the late Emilio Escuin de los Santos died intestate since it is clear and unquestionable that it was the wish of the testator to favor his natural father and his wife with certain portions of his property which. as his lawful and general heir. and for the reason that he exceeded his rights. the will. In view thereof. as he has done. Escuin y Batac. that the agreement of partition and distribution executed in 1935 by these three legitimate children of Maximo Viola be declaired null and void. thereby being a co-heir of Jose P. Rafael Viola and Silvio Viola. Maria Teresa Ponce de Leon. were divided among themselves. Rafael Viola and Silvio Viola. 1933. on appeal. L-13557) • • Maximo Viola died on September 3.Is the will valid? • As has been seen. is valid with respect to the two-thirds of the property which the testator freely disposed of. legitimate children of Maximo Viola and Juana Toura. Viola. all together ignoring his recognized natural child who is general heir. he had the right to dispose of by will. and his wife. An agreement of partition and distribution was executed by and between Jose P. to one-third of the property of his natural father. the testator wish to dispose his property in his will. among other things. Maximo Viola to said Rafael Viola. Any order directing what was not required in said decision — and the same contained no pronouncement with respect to the riceland adverted to above — would be in excess of his jurisdiction and therefore. in order that the property may be included in the redistribution of the Viola Estate. Petitioner having been the victim of preterition. Issue: 1. the preterited heir was the surviving spouse. respondent Judge was merely enforcing a decision that had already become final. There might have been merit therein if we were dealing with a special proceedings for the settlement of the testate estate of a deceased person. 59 . BALANAY VS MARTINEZ 64 SCRA 452 • • In the instant case. he signified his conformity to his wife's will and renounced his hereditary rights. But. So. Maximo Viola became ineffective. 8077 is an ordinary civil action. 2. His preterition did not produce intestacy. with jurisdiction over any and all properties of the deceased. 2. with an area of 215 hectares. In any event. Moreover. Lajom asked that Rafael Viola be ordered to include the products of said riceland in his report." The objection was sustained and the petition was denied. and in declaring it void. the institution of heirs made by the deceased Dr. Held: 1. This contention is clearly untenable. allegedly donated by Dr. which.• • When Rafael Viola filed the report required in this order. 8077 was thereby converted into an intestate proceedings for the settlement of his estate. null and void. Rafael Viola objected thereto upon the ground that said property was not "mentioned or included in the complaint filed in this case. would thereby acquire the character of a proceeding for the settlement of an intestate estate. which admittedly do not include the aforementioned riceland. Civil Case No. and the authority of the court having jurisdiction over the same is limited to the properties described in the pleadings. before ruling on its allowance or formal validity. Whether other properties should be collated or not open for future determination. and that Civil Case No. Donato Lajom noticed that nothing was said in the aforementioned report concerning the fruits of a riceland. in consequence of said preterition. The basic issue is whether the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will. Petitioner ZONIA Ana Solano was ordered substituted for the DECEDENT as the only surviving heir mentioned in his Last Will and Testament. which held that where the institution of a universal heir is null and void due to pretention. or doing injustice to the beneficiaries" (95 C. It is a plain that the intention of the testator was to favor ZONIA with certain portions of his property.HELD: • The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.. Civil Code). which.J. is valid subject to that limitation.S. During the pendency of the suit. Akutin. Meliton SOLANO. SOLANO died. even before it is probated. • • SOLANO VS CA 136 SCRA 122 • Bienvenido Garcia and Emeteria Garcia (GARCIAS). et al. reiterating the ruling in Neri. filed an action for recognition against him. "Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and others invalid. vs. 792. therefore. he had a right to dispose of by Will. unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made" (Art. Nuguid. as an adulterous child of the DECEDENT. 873). Testacy is preferable to intestacy. An interpretation that will render a testamentary disposition operative takes precedence over a construction that will nullify a provision of the will (Arts. In his Answer. To give effect to the intention and wishes of the testatrix is the first and principal law in the matter of testaments. like them. said Court affirmed the judgment in declaring all of them as Adulterous Children. the Will is a complete nullity and • 60 . Civil Code). SOLANO denied paternity. so that the disposition in her favor should be upheld as to the one-half (1/2) portion of the property that the testator could freely dispose of.. The GARCIAS impugned the recognition of ZONIA as an acknowledged natural child with the prayer that she be declared instead. under the law. the court should meet the issue The rule is that "the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions. et al. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon. Appealed to the Court of Appeals by ZONIA. The case of Nuguid vs. the valid parts will be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of the testator or interfering with the general testamentary scheme. et al. claiming to be illegitimate children of Dr. • • • ISSUE: Is the will valid? HELD: • The Will. 788 and 791. only a one-sentence Will was involved with no other provision except the institution of the sole and universal heir. filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds (1) for the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings. Said motion was denied by the trial judge. for she is not in the direct line. is not applicable herein because in the Nuguid case. RESERVA TRONCAL 1. Held: • It cannot be denied that she has totally omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime. in the case at bar. there were no specific legacies or bequests. Concept • • • 61 . Pretention annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance.• intestate succession ensues. de Acain. Insofar as the widow is concerned. Fernandez. The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises made in the will for they should stand valid and respected. respondents herein Virginia A. Fernandez. K. supra. there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance. applies merely annulling the "institution of heir". (Art. Civil code) However. there is a specific bequest or legacy so that Article 854 of the Civil Code. the same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia A. 603. The oppositors. Hence. Article 854 of the Civil Code may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator. even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir. Stated otherwise. whose legal adoption by the testator has not been questioned by petitioner. 854. except insofar as the legitimes are concerned. In contrast. although she is a compulsory heir. Quirina and Laura were instituted as heirs. known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code. No. Under Article 39 of P. Concepcion.D. ACAIN VS CA (155 SCRA 100) • • Nemesio Acain died leaving a will in which petitioner and his brothers Antonio. Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. Flores and Jose and his sisters Anita. this is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child. there was no specification of individual property. a legally adopted daughter of the deceased and the latter's Widow Rosa Diongson Vda. adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. (2) he is merely a universal heir and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been pretirited. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the application for registration of her ownership. ascendant of Pedro Sablan. which is by operation of law. and that only property acquired without a valuable consideration." Other issue: Appellant contends that it is not proven that the two parcels of land in question have been acquired by operation of law. Marcelina Edroso. (Act No. is required by law to reserved. (871) EDROSO VS SABLAN (25 PHIL 295) • Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death. • • Held: • Marcelina Edroso. inherited from him these two parcels of land which he had acquired without a valuable consideration — that is. and that only property acquired without a valuable consideration.) All the provision of article 811 of the Civil Code have therefore been fully complied with. is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came. The legal presumption is that the transfer of the two parcels of land was abintestate or by operation of law. Appellant contends that it is not proven that the two parcels of land in question have been acquired by operation of law. "or that if granted to her the right reserved by law to the opponents be recorded in the registration of each parcel. 26. not by operation of law. she is obligated to relatives within the third degree and belong to the line of Mariano Sablan and Maria Rita Fernandez. or a brother or sister. Two legitimate brothers of Victoriano Sablan appeared in the case to oppose the registration. all he left at death would not be required by • • • 62 . his father Victoriano. who at his father's death inherited the two said parcels. whence the lands proceeded. No. Having acquired them by operation of law. is required by law to reserved. unmarried and without issue and by this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother. Pedro also died. which is by operation of law. In this marriage they had a son named Pedro. If Pedro Sablan had instituted his mother in a will as the universal heiress of his property. The case presents no testamentary provision that demonstrate any transfer of property from the son to the mother. claiming one of two things: Either that the registration be denied. by inheritance from another ascendant. sec. 190. but by her son's wish. 891. and not by will or the wish of the predecessor in interest.Art. The trial court's ruling that they partake of the nature property required by law to be reserved is therefore in accordance with the law. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant. 334. the sisters Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso (the Original TCT in their possession). because the vendees — the Esparcia spouses did — not appeal therefrom. half-sisters of Francisco. Cipriana Yaeso. was still alive when Andrea Gutang. died. the person obliged to reserve. albeit conditionally. that he is like a life usufructuary of the reservable property. said alienation transmitting only the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservists. This is all that article 811 of the Civil Code says. Andrea Gutang inherited such land from Francisco. who later sold it to Constancio Sienes. Thereafter. His mother. 1952. because it is what by operation of law could full to the mother from her son's inheritance. In the present case. single and without issue. at the time of his death. became effective because of the occurrence of the resolutory condition. The reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition. of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. SIENES VS ESPACIA 1 SCRA 750 • • • • • Francisco inherited a parcel of land from his father. Francisco died. (1) the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and (2) the survival. The reservee may alienate and dispose of. Thus the former became the absolute owner of the reservable property upon Andrea's death. • • • FLORENTINO VS FLORENTINO 40 PHIL 480 63 . the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista. but only what he would have perforce left her as the legal portion of a legitimate ascendant. sold the land in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes. the other half at free disposal would not have to be reserved. Andrea Gutang died on December 13. namely. the condition being that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee survives the person obliged to reserve. Issue: Whose sale was valid and should be upheld? Held: • • The land in question was reservable property.• law to be reserved. that he may alienate the same but subject to reservation. one of the reservees. 1951 and the lone reservee surviving her being Cipriana Yaeso who died only on January 13. we are not now in a position to reverse the appealed decision. The reserve creates two resolutory conditions. in so far as it orders the reversion of the property in question to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso. While it may be true that the sale made by her and her sister prior to this event. In such case only the half constituting the legal portion would be required by law to be reserved. But the representative should be within the third degree from the prepositus. and the claim was also made that all eleven were entitled to the reversionary property in equal shares. which provisions. and ruled that the nephews and nieces of whole blood were each entitled to a share double that of each of the nephews and nieces of half blood in accordance with Article 1006 of the Civil Code. entitle the sole niece of full blood to a share double that of the nephews and nieces of half blood. the reservatarios do not inherit from the reservista. he contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with whom he had a child by the name of Juanito Frias Chua. Ignacio. Lorenzo and Manuel. Such distinction between whole and half blood relationships with the deceased has been recognized in Dionisia Padura. Consolacion de la Torre died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or ascending line except her brother and sisters. As to the reservable property. . Lorenzo.. December 27.. but from the descendant praepositus. not to all the reservatarios as a class but only to those nearest in degree to the descendant (prepositus). When Jose Frias Chua died. Consolacion. the right of representation operates in favor of nephews. Within the third degree. having no heirs. on his first marriage sired 3 children. The only difference in their right of succession is provided in Art. as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came. excluding those reservatarios of more remote degree. PADUARA VS BALDOVINO (L-11960.• • Upon the death of the ascendant reservista. And within the third degree of relationship from the descendant (prepositus). NCC in relation to Article 1006 of the New Civil Code (supra). When his wife died. Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage died intestate without any issue. 1065 • • • CHUA VS CFI (78 SCRA 412) • • • • • • • Jose Frias Chua. Justice J. nevertheless there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law. DEC. Held: 64 .L. the nearest relatives exclude the more remote subject to the rule of representation. vs. 104 Phil. 1958) • where the reservatario was survived by eleven nephews and nieces of the praepositus in the line of origin. four of whole blood and seven of half blood. Manuel predeceased his father. and Ignacio as heirs. and has his widow. Lorenzo and Ignacio filed a complaint to declare as reservable property the portion of a lot that Consolacion received from Juanito upon his death. No. he left no will. 1958. . et al. speaking through Mr. Melanie Baldovino. and children Juanito. 27.. Reyes. et al. 1008.B. L-11960. declared the principles of intestacy to be controlling. in effect. the reservable property should pass. This Court. 3. that said descendant died without an issue. that the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law. that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which said property came. 44 Phil. While it is true that by giving the 65 . These relatives are Ignacio Frias Chua and Dominador Chua and Remidios Chua. from pure generosity. or by an act of mere liberality of the person making it. • • • Juanito Frias Chua who died intestate had relatives within the third degree. “The essential thing is that the person who transmits it does so gratuitously. 186. without requiring from the transferee any prestation. 2." It matters not whether the property transmitted be or be not subject to any prior charges. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein. reservable property to reservatarios in the third degree and by-pass those in the second? Held: • • • NO. The reservable property does not form part of the reservista’s estate and should be given to all the seven reservatarios or nearest relatives of the prepositus within the third degree. GONZALES VS CFI (104 SCRA 479) Can a reservista convey by will. to wit: 1. and that the person receiving the property gives or does nothing in return. Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus. that the property was acquired by a descendant from an asscendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title. As explained by Manresa which this Court quoted with approval in Cabardo v. what is essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously. who are the petitioners herein.• In order that a property may be impressed with a reservable character the following requisites must exist. the suppose legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias Chua. "The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return. Villanueva. and 4.” It is evident from the record that the transmission of the property in question to Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage upon the death of his father Jose Frias Chua was by means of a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous. without imposing any obligation on the part of the recipient. Issue: Whether. Thereafter.. nevertheless. respectively. Held: • Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession. Issue: Are petitioners innocent purchasers for value? 66 . hold. the plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any right thereto because. first cousins. they are excluded from the succession by his niece. of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus). 1005 and 1009 of the Civil Code of the Philippines Art. the rights of said relatives are subject to.) from the succession. 1001. His mother adjudicated to herself Raul’s properties. To this effect is Abellana vs. Ferraris where Arts. the absence of brothers. 1009. 1004. therefore. in case of intestacy nephews and nieces of the de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles. We.. and should be determined by. The property passes by strict operation of law. • SUMAYA VS IAC 20 SCRA 178 Raul inherited 1/3 of a parcel of land from his father and 1/7 of 10 parcels of land from his maternal grandmother. although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. cousins. . the trial court was correct when it held that. all relatives of the praepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista or. as aunt and uncles. the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. the rules on intestate succession. nor children of brothers and sisters. DE PAPA VS CAMACHO 144 SCRA 281 Plaintiffs and defendant were all relatives within third degree of the praepositus. 1004. etc. nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles. This is readily apparent from Articles 1001. she sold these properties which later came into the hands of petitioners. He died single and without issue.) being called to the succession. 1005 and 1009 of the Civil Code were cited and applied: Nevertheless. that under our laws of succession. it is likewise true that the reservista was only one of the reservatarios and there is no reason founded upon law and justice why the other reservatarios should be deprived of their shares in the reservable property. it did not pass into the hands of strangers. the defendant-appellant. sisters. and so rule. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters.reservable property to only one reservatario. etc. Raul’s brothers and his nephews and niece from a deceased bother now claims the property by virtue of reserve troncal. Under the last article (1009). a decedent's uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to succeed. filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies. be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering. lien attachment. L. 51 of R. 39. 603) Article 39. the latter shall not have more successional rights than an acknowledged natural child: Provided." (emphasis supplied) The cause of action of the reservees did not commence upon the death of the propositus Raul Balantakbo on June 13. 67 .Held: • No. in reserva troncal. 2. order. .The adoption shall: 1. and Make the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter: Provided.A.D. Effects of Adoption. 496) which provides: Sec. That an adopted child cannot acquire Philippine citizenship by virtue of such adoption. should the adopted leave no property other than that received from the adopter. Dissolve the authority vested in the natural parent or parents. lease. Give to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter: Provided. during his lifetime. 3.D. 1529. observing in the case of the illegitimate issue the proportion provided for in Article 895 of the Civil Code. finally. except where the adopter is the spouse of the surviving natural parent. if the adopted is survived by illegitimate issue and a spouse. the rest in any case reverting to the adopter. and this is sufficient notice to the whole world in accordance with Section 52 of the Property Registration Decree (formerly Sec. if registered. the reservor (the ascendant who inherited from a descendant property which the latter inherited from another descendant) has the duty to reserve and therefore. the duty to annotate also. de Balantakbo on June 3. P. such illegitimate issue collectively or the spouse shall receive one-fourth of such property. judgment. CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE UPON REGISTRATION. 1968. and he is survived by illegitimate issue or a spouse. 52. that the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating the source of the properties thereby showing the reservable nature thereof was registered with the Register of Deeds of Laguna. further. • • • Consistent with the rule in reserva viudal where the person obliged to reserve (the widowed spouse) had the obligation to annotate in the Registry of Property the reservable character of the property. — Every conveyance. That if the adopter is survived by legitimate parents or ascendants and by an adopted person. Entitle the adopted person to use the adopter's surname. then the former collectively shall receive one-fourth and the latter also one-fourth. instrument or entry affecting registered land shall. 4. This rule is consistent with the rule provided in the second paragraph of Section 51 of P. alienated such property: Provided. filing or entering. Relatives within the third degree in whose favor the right (or property) is reserved have no title of ownership or of fee simple over the reserved property during the lifetime of the reservor. That any property received gratuitously by the adopted from the adopter shall revert to the adopter should the former predecease the latter without legitimate issue unless the adopted has. RESERVA ADOPTIVA (Art. That in the last case. . which provides that: "The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned . mortgage. 1952 but upon the death of the reservor Consuelo Vda. the fact remains however. . BANAWA VS MIRANO 97 SCRA 517 • • • Maria Mirano received by way of donation inter-vivos parcels of land from Doroteo Banawa and her aunt. except that if the latter are both dead.. Rule 100 of the Old Rules of Court.. . She died with no issue.." Likewise. whose parents by nature shall inherit from him. Juliana Mendoza. Article 992 of our Civil Code provides: "An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. which shall become the property of the latter or their legitimate relatives who shall participate in the order established by the Civil Code for intestate estates. However. his parents and relatives by nature. shall be his legal heirs. Appellant opposed the probate. the adopting parent or parents take the place of the natural parents in the line of succession. Issue: Is she entitled to claim as an illegitimate daughter of the brother of the testatrix or as an adopted daughter of the testatrix sister? Held: • • No. . the rule involved specifically provides for the case of the judicially adopted child. and not by adoption. claiming to be an adopted child of the deceased sister and an illegitimate child of the deceased’s bother. except as to property received or inherited by the adopted child from either of his parents by adoption. 68 . • The submission of the petitioners is that extrajudicial adoption is within the contemplation and spirit of this rule of reversion adoptive. the pertinent portion of which reads: . Maria was never judially adopted. the oppositor cannot also derive comfort from the fact that she is an adopted child of Francisca Mortera because under our law the relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and the adopted and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly provided for by law. TEOTICO VS DEL VAL 13 SCRA 406 Deceased executed a will naming as heirs her niece and the latter’s husband and her grandchildren. It is an elementary rule of construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal. the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. Held: • Section 5.. whether testate or interstate.The adopter shall not be a legal heir of the adopted person. In case of the death of the child. As a consequence. intimidation. (4) When a child or descendant by fraud.Hence. if the accusation has been found groundless. be deprived of his legitime. or undue influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made. DISINHERITANCE Art. Art. if contradicted. if the disinherited heir should deny it. shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited. 69 . but the devises and legacies and other testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair the legitime. (6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed. Art. the adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter. or ascendants. (2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more. descendants. (850) Disinheritance without a specification of the cause. in consequence of disinheritance. for causes expressly stated by law. is not proved. his or her spouse. Art. or which is not one of those set forth in this Code. (849) The burden of proving the truth of the cause for disinheritance shall rest upon the other heirs of the testator. (848a) Disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. (3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator. (7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life. no relationship is created between the adopted and the collaterals of the adopting parents. by the child or descendant. violence. A compulsory heir may. (5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or ascendant who disinherits such child or descendant. 915. Art. 919. M. 918. or for a cause the truth of which. legitimate as well as illegitimate: (1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against the life of the testator. 917. (851a) The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and descendants. 916. or undue influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made. (4) When the spouse has given cause for legal separation. 921. intimidation. 854. or ascendants. When the parent or ascendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more. 4. or attempted against their virtue. intimidation. his or her spouse. violence. violence. (756. When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator. his or her descendants.(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction. if the accusation has been found to be false. and the accusation has been found to be false. 674a) Art. The following shall be sufficient causes for disinheriting a spouse: (1) When the spouse has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator. The loss of parental authority for causes specified in this Code. When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life. descendants. An attempt by one of the parents against the life of the other. 8. or ascendants. unless there has been a reconciliation between them. 70 . The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of parents or ascendants. whether legitimate or illegitimate: 1. 674a) Art. (3) When the spouse by fraud. The refusal to support the children or descendants without justifiable cause. 2. or undue influence cause the testator to make a will or to change one already made. (756. (2) When the spouse has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment of six years or more. 6. 5. When the parent or ascendant by fraud. 853. 7. 920. When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator. 3. the person obliged to pay the legacy or devise shall be liable for eviction if the thing bequeathed should not have been determinate as to its kind. 674a) Art. promulgated on July 31. L-5618 and L-5620. 1954). 957. LEGACIES AND DEVISES Art. thereby rendering it even more doubtful whether in conveying the property to her legatee. 923. the legacy or devise shall not thereafter be valid. The legacy or devise shall be without effect: 1. (869a) FERNANDEZ VS DEMAGIBA (L-23638. and renders ineffectual any disinheritance that may have been made. 922. in accordance with the provisions of Article 928. If the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such a manner that it does not retain either the form or the denomination it had. N. 2. (756. A subsequent reconciliation between the offender and the offended person deprives the latter of the right to disinherit. unless the reacquisition shall have been effected by virtue of the exercise of the right of repurchase.(5) When the spouse has given grounds for the loss of parental authority. as found by the Court of Appeals in its decision annulling these conveyances (affirmed in that point by this Supreme Court in Reyes vs. or after his death without the heir's fault. the testatrix merely intended to comply in advance with 71 . (857) Art. 855. Court of Appeals and Dimagiba. Nevertheless. (6) Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other spouse. If the thing bequeathed is totally lost during the lifetime of the testator. OCT. it being understood that in the latter case the legacy or devise shall be without effect only with respect to the part thus alienated. "no consideration whatever was paid by respondent Dimagiba" on account of the transfers. 12. even if it be by reason of nullity of the contract. but the disinherited parent shall not have the usufruct or administration of the property which constitutes the legitime. 3. (856) The children and descendants of the person disinherited shall take his or her place and shall preserve the rights of compulsory heirs with respect to the legitime. If after the alienation the thing should again belong to the testator. 1967) • In fact. If the testator by any title or for any cause alienates the thing bequeathed or any part thereof. as the quoted passage implies.• • • what she had ordained in her testament. it can not be concluded. with the Courts below. we believe. that in the circumstances of the particular case. but even if it were applicable. does not apply to the case at bar. then the transferor was not expressing her own free will and intent in making the conveyances. either. rather than an alteration or departure therefrom. was free to ordain that the more distant descendants should enjoy the right of representation as in intestate succession. likewise. If the annulment was due to undue influence. if we bear in mind that the findings made in the decision decreeing the annulment of the subsequent 1943 and 1944 deeds of sale were also that it was the moral influence. originating from their confidential relationship. 72 . the testator was at liberty to provide a series of successive substitutions in the order of proximity of relationship to the original legatee. Not only that. the annulment of the conveyances would not necessarily result in the revocation of the legacies. that such conveyances established a decision on her part to abandon the original legacy. Revocation being an exception. BELEN VS BPI (109 PHIL 1008) Unquestionably. Hence. Article 957 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. which was the only cause for the execution of the 1943 and 1944 conveyances. And he.