Maloto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988

Facts:

Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and the private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate. However, while the case was still in progress the parties - Aldina, Constancio, Panfilo, and Felino - executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate. The agreement provided for the division of the estate into four equal parts among the parties. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial court for approval which the court did approved.

Three years later Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adriana's counseldiscovered a document entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. Atty. Palma claimed to have found the testament, the original copy, while he was going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer formerly used by Atty. Hervas.

Incidentally, while Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, 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. The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties.

Subsequently, Aldina and Constancio, joined by the other devisees and legatees named in the will, fileda motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings in the intestate proceedings of Adriana and for the allowance of the will.

Trial court denied their motion,

The petitioner came to SC by way of a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of the trial court. SC dismissed that petition and advised to file a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will. By that petitioner file a separate proceeding for probate of the will.

Significantly, during the investigation the appellate court found out that the will was allegedly burned by the househelp of Adriana, Guadalupe Maloto Vda. de Coral, upon instructions of the testatrix, and found that the will had been revoked. The CA stated that the presence of animus revocandi in the destruction of the will had, nevertheless, been sufficiently proven.

Issue:

Whether or not the will was revoked by Adriana

Ruling:

Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:

Xxx

(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express direction of the testator, the will may still be established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution, and the

fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court.

It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. Of course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself.

"Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. For one, the document or papers burned by Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the express direction of Adriana. And then, the burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses, Guadalupe and Eladio, 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.

SC approved the allowance of Adriana Maloto's last will and testament.