cases 5-8 succession

8/9/2019 CASES 5-8 Succession

1/9

5 CAGRO V CAGRO

FACTS:

Vicente Cagro died on Feb. 14, 1949 in Samar.Since thedecedent allegedl made a !ill "rior to hi# death,the !ill !a#"robated be$ore the CF% o$ Samar. &o!e'er, theo""o#itor#(a""ellant ob)ected the "robate "roceedingalleging that the !ill i#$atall de$ecti'e beca*#e it#atte#tation cla*#e i# not #igned b theatte#ting!itne##e#. %t i# *ndi#"*ted that

the #ignat*re# o$ the three!itne##e# to the !ill donot a""ear at the bottom o$ the atte#tationcla*#e,altho*gh the "age containing the #ame i# #ignedb the!itne##e# on the le$t(hand margin.

%SS+:-/ the !ill ma be "robated e'en i$ the#ignat*re# o$ the!itne##e# do not a""ear at the bottom o$ theatte#tation cla*#e,and in#tead, the !ere "laced

on the le$t(hand margin o$ the "agecontaining the#ame

&0:/o. The "o#ition ta2en b the o""o#itor(a""ellanti# correct.

The atte#tation cla*#e i# 3a memorand*m o$ the$act# attending the eec*tion o$ the !ill3 re*ired

b la! to be made b the atte#ting !itne##e#, andit m*#t nece##aril bear their #ignat*re#. An*n#igned atte#tation cla*#e cannot be con#idereda# an act o$ the !itne##e#, #ince the omi##ion o$

their #ignat*re# at the bottom thereo$ negati'e#their "artici"ation.

The "etitioner(a""ellee contend# that #ignat*re#o$ the three !itne##e# on the le$t(hand margincon$orm #*b#tantiall to the la! and ma bedeemed a# their #ignat*re# to the atte#tationcla*#e. Thi# i# *ntenable, beca*#e #aid #ignat*re#are in com"liance !ith the legal mandate that the!ill be #igned on the le$t(hand margin o$ all it#

"age#. %$ an atte#tation cla*#e not #igned b thethree !itne##e# at the bottom thereo$, beadmitted a# #*6cient, it !o*ld be ea# to add#*ch cla*#e to a !ill on a #*b#e*ent occa#ionand in the ab#ence o$ the te#tator and an or allo$ the !itne##e#.

&ence, the "robate o$ the !ill in *e#tion i#denied

7 /RA V. R%8A/O

FACTS %SS+ )oined beca*#e it !a# 'er #hort:

The onl *e#tion rai#ed b the e'idence in thi#ca#e a# to the d*e eec*tion o$ the in#tr*ment"ro"o*nded a# a !ill in the


2/9

co*rt belo!, i# !hether one o$ the #*b#cribing!itne##e# !a#"re#ent in the #mall room !here it !a# eec*tedat the time !hen the te#tator and the other

#*b#cribing !itne##e# attached their #ignat*re#or !hether at that time he !a# o*t#ide, #omeeight or ten $eet a!a, in a large roomconnecting !ith the #maller room b a door!a,acro## !hich !a# h*ng a c*rtain !hich made itim"o##ible $or one in the o*t#ide room to #ee thete#tator and the other #*b#cribing !itne##e# inthe act o$ attaching their #ignat*re# to thein#tr*ment.

&0:Citing ;aboneta '. G*#tilo, the co*rt held that *t it i# e#"eciall to be noted that the "o#ition o$the"artie# !ith relation to each other at the momento$ the#*b#cri"tion o$ each #ignat*re, m*#t be #*ch thatthe ma #ee each other #ign i$ the choo#e to do#o.

The e'idence #ho!ed that at the moment !henthe !itne## ;a'ellana #igned the doc*ment, he!a# act*all and "h#icall "re#ent and in #*ch"o#ition !ith relation to ;aboneta that he co*ld

#ee e'erthing that too2 "lace b merel ca#tinghi# ee# in the "ro"er direction and !itho*t an"h#ical ob#tr*ction to "re'ent hi# doing #o.

To etend the doctrine $*rther !o*ld o"en thedoor to the "o##ibilit o$ all manner o$ $ra*d,#*b#tit*tion, and the li2e, and !o*ld de$eat the"*r"o#e $or !hich thi# "artic*lar condition i#"re#cribed in the code a# one o$ the re*i#ite# inthe eec*tion o$ a !ill.

&ence, the *e#tioned la#t !ill and te#tament o$the late ?edro Rimando i# to be admitted.

@ CA/A '. CA

FACTS:

On ecember 5, 19@, 8ateo Caballero, a!ido!er !itho*tan children and alread in the t!ilight ear# o$hi# li$e, eec*ted a la#t !ill and te#tament at hi#re#idence be$ore B !itne##e#.&e !a# a##i#ted bhi# la!er, Att. milio 0*montad.%n the !ill, it !a#declared that the te#tator !a# lea'ing b !a o$legacie# and de'i#e# hi# real and "er#onal


3/9

"ro"ertie# to #e'eral "eo"le all o$ !hom do nota""ear to be related to the te#tator.

4 month# later, 8ateo Caballero him#el$ led a

ca#e #ee2ingthe "robate o$ hi# la#t !ill and te#tament, b*tn*mero*#"o#t"onement# "*#hed bac2 the initial hearing o$the "robate co*rt regarding the !ill.

On 8a D9, 19E, the te#tator "a##ed a!a be$orehi#"etition co*ld nall be heard b the "robateco*rt.

Therea$ter one o$ the legatee#, >enoni Cabrera,#o*ght hi#a""ointment a# #"ecial admini#trator o$ thete#tator# e#tate.

Therea$ter, the "etitioner#, claiming to bene"he!# andniece# o$ the te#tator, in#tit*ted a #econd "etition$or inte#tate "roceeding#. The al#o o""o#ed the"robate o$ the te#tator# !ill and the a""ointment

o$ a #"ecial admini#trator $or hi# e#tate.

>enoni Cabrera died and !a# re"laced b -illiamCabreraa# #"ecial admini#trator and ga'e an order thatthe te#tate"roceeding# $or the "robate o$ the !ill had to beheard and

re#ol'ed r#t. %n the co*r#e o$ the "roceeding#,"etitioner# o""o#ed to the allo!ance o$ thete#tator# !ill on the gro*nd that on the allegeddate o$ it# eec*tion, the te#tator !a# alread in

"oor #tate o$ health #*ch that he co*ld not ha'e"o##ibl eec*ted the #ame. Al#o the gen*inene##o$ the #ignat*re o$ the te#tator i# in do*bt.

On the other hand, one o$ the atte#ting !itne##e#and thenotar "*blic te#tied that the te#tator eec*tedthe !ill in*e#tion in their "re#ence !hile he !a# o$ #o*ndand di#"o#ing mind and that the te#tator !a# in

good health and !a# not *nd*l in*enced in an!a in the eec*tion o$ hi# !ill.?robate co*rt thenrendered a deci#ion declaring the !ill in *e#tiona# the la#t !ill and te#tament o$ the late 8ateoCaballero.

CA a6rmed the "robate co*rt# deci#ion #tatingthat it#*b#tantiall com"lie# !ith Article E5. &ence thi#a""eal.

%SS+:-/ the atte#tation cla*#e in the !ill o$ thete#tator i# $atallde$ecti'e or can be c*red *nder the art. E9.

&0:/o. %t doe# not com"l !ith the "ro'i#ion# o$ thela!.


4/9

Ordinar or atte#ted !ill# are go'erned b Art#.E4 to E9.

The !ill m*#t be ac2no!ledged be$ore a notar"*blic b the

te#tator and the atte#ting !itne##e#. Theatte#tation cla*#e need not be !ritten in alang*age 2no!n to the te#tator or e'en to theatte#ting !itne##e#.

%t i# a #e"arate memorand*m or record o$ the$act##*rro*nding the cond*ct o$ eec*tion and once#igned b the!itne##e# it gi'e# a6rmation to the $act that

com"liance !ith the e##ential $ormalitie# re*iredb la! ha# been ob#er'ed. The atte#tation cla*#e, there$ore, "ro'ide# #tronglegalg*arantie# $or the d*e eec*tion o$ a !ill and toin#*re thea*thenticit thereo$. %t i# contended b "etitioner#that the atte#tation cla*#e in the !ill $ailed to#"ecicall #tate the $act that the atte#ting!itne##e# !itne##ed the te#tator #ign the !ill and

all it# "age# in their "re#ence and that the, the!itne##e#, li2e!i#e #igned the !ill and e'er "agethereo$ in the "re#ence o$ the te#tator and o$ eachother. And the Co*rt agree#.

The atte#tation cla*#e doe# not e"re##l #tatetherein thecirc*m#tance that #aid !itne##e# #*b#cribed theirre#"ecti'e

#ignat*re# to the !ill in the "re#ence o$ thete#tator and o$ each other.

The "hra#e,


5/9

There$ore, the "robate o$ the !ill i# #et a#ide andthe ca#e$or the inte#tate "roceeding# #hall be re'i'ed.

Article E9 cannot be *#ed to c*re the de$ect# o$the !ill!hen it doe# not "ertain to the $orm or lang*ageo$ the !ill. Thi# i# beca*#e there i# not #*b#tantialcom"liance !ith Article E5.

AH+0A V. CA

FACTS:

The core o$ the "etition i# the totall de$ecti'enotarial !ill "*r"ortedl eec*ted b *genia.%g#olo !ho died onn ec 17, 19D at the age o$E. The "etition $or "robate !a# led on 194 !iththe RTC o$ 8anila b Feli AI*ela !ho !a# the#o"n o$ the co*#in o$ the decedent. The !ill i#!ritten in ?ili"ino and con#i#t# o$ D "age#. The

"robate "etition ad'erted to onl D heir#, legatee#and de'i#ee# o$ decedent: "etitioner, one %rene%g#olo !ho !a# alleged to ha'e re#ided abroad.

The "etition !a# o""o#ed b Geralda Ca#tillo a#attornein$act o$ the 0 %/TR?O0AT%O/ OR

O8%SS%O/ OF 1 OR SO8OF %TS ?AGS A/

?RV/T %/CRAS OR CRAS %/ ?AGSN

• -itne##e# did not #ign the Atte#tation Cla*#e

MO/0K A??AR O/ T& 0FT(8ARG%/ OF T&

-%00 %S %/S+FF%C%/TN M?+R?OS %S TO

STA>0%S& T&AT T& -%T/SSS AR

RFRR%/G TO T& STAT8/TS CO/TA%/ %/

T& ATTSTAT%O/ C0A+S %TS0FN


6/9

• /o ac2no!ledgment b a notar onl a )*rat

!a# a6ed MV/ %F S+>SCR%> A/ S-OR/

TO >K A /OTARK ?+>0%C, -%T&O+T

AC/O-0G8/T %S FAT00K FCT%V

"*r#*ant to Art. E7N

16. Aznar vs. Garcia

Facts:

Edward Christensen is a citizen of the stateof California and domiciled in the Philippines. In191! he e"ec#ted a will in $anila declarin% thathe onl& has one child! $aria '#c& Christensen. Inthe said will he devised and (e)#eathed all theincome from the rest! remainder! and resid#e of his properties. *e also stated in his will that he is

devisin% and (e)#eathin% +6,, to $aria *elenChristensen! tho#%h she is not related to him.

*elen opposed said will claimin% that she isentitled to a le%itime #nder the Philippines 'awssince the Co#rt ac-nowled%ed and declared heras a nat#ral child of Edward Christensen.

Iss#e: hether or not the Co#rt sho#ld appl& thePhilippines laws in this case.

*eld:

Article 16 of the /ew Civil Code states thatintestate and testamentar& s#ccessions! (oth withrespect to the order of s#ccession and to theamo#nt of s#ccessional ri%hts and to the intrinsic

validit& of testamentar& provisions! shall (ere%#lated (& the national law of the person whoses#ccession is #nder consideration! whatever ma&(e the nat#re of the propert& and re%ardless of the co#ntr& where said propert& ma& (e fo#nd. Inthe %iven case! since the decedent is a citizen of the 0tate of California! it sho#ld (e the law of California that sho#ld %overn. *owever!California provided two laws on s#ccession. Firstis for those domiciled in California! and second isfor those domiciled elsewhere. In this case! theinternal laws of California sho#ld %overn onl&with re%ard to the rst sit#ation! and the con2ictof laws r#le shall appl& to the second.

3his case #sed the 4envoi 5octrine whereinthe Philippine Co#rts can ta-e co%nizance of acase once it is referred (ac- (& the other 0tatewith a law con2ictin% with that of the Philippines.

Art. 96 of the Civil Code of California referredthe case (ac- to the Philippines (& statin% thatthe law of the place where the decedent isdomiciled sho#ld (e applied! hence thePhilippines sho#ld ta-e co%nizance of the case sothat it wo#ld (e capa(le of determination.

In appl&in% the Philippines laws! *elen isentitled to le%itimes.


7/9

17. Ancheta vs. 5ala&%on

Facts:

0po#ses A#dre& 8/eill and 4ichardG#erse& are American citizens (#t resided in thePhilippines for +, &ears and adopted a da#%hternamed &le. hen A#dre& died! she left a will(e)#eathin% all her properties to her h#s(and.;con c#rrent acco#nt in A#dre&s namewith a cash (alance of Php 1?!17.97> 6!

shares of stoc- in A@G Interiors! Inc worth Php6!.,,. 3he co#rt named Att&. Ancheta asancillar& administrator. 4ichard marriedCandelaria 5ala&%on and had two childrennamel& im(erl& and evin. hen 4ichard died!he stated in his will that he is (e)#eathin% all hisproperties to Candelaria e"cept the shares of stoc-s! which he %ave to &le.

3he petitioner! however! led a special

proceedin% to declare 4ichard and &le as heirsof A#dre&. 3his was opposed (& the respondentstatin% that the laws of the 0tate of $ar&landstates that le%ac& passes to le%atee the entireinterest of the testator in the propert& s#(


8/9

1=. da de Perez vs. 3olete

Facts:

5r. ose F. C#nanan and 5ra. Evel&n PerezHC#nanan (ecame American citizens. 3he&esta(lished a s#ccessf#l medical career in /ew

or-.3he& had + children namel&! ocel&n! ac)#eline! and osephine.

In 1979 ose e"ec#ted his last will statin%that he is (e)#eathin% to his wife all remainder of his real and personal properties at the time of his

death. 3here is also a stip#lation that #nder s#chcirc#mstances wherein there are no eno#%hevidence so as to determine the order of theirdeaths! it shall (e pres#med that he predeceasedhis wife. 5a&s later! Evel&n also e"ec#ted her ownwill (#t the stip#lations therein are e"actl& thesame with that of her h#s(and. In 19=?! 5r.C#nanan and his entire famil& perished whenthe& were trapped (& the re that %#tted theirhome. 5r. 4afael C#nanan! r. led a separate

proceedin% for the pro(ate thereof in /ew or-.

0al#d Perez! the petitioner! led for therepro(ate of the ? wills ancillar& to the pro(ateproceedin%s in /. 0he claims that she is the onl&heir of Evel&n to the e"cl#sion of the C#nanancollaterals! and the latter are complete stran%ersto the proceedin%s.

4espondent #d%e allowed petitioner to leanew the appropriate pro(ate proceedin%s foreach of the testators. 3he respondent


9/9

attainin%

cases 5-8 succession

Documents