succession cases (midterms)

8/9/2019 Succession Cases (Midterms)

1/34

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927

Estat o! M"#u$ Ma%uya&, '&as'.

(R)NC*SCO G)GO,petitioner-appellant,

vs.

CORNEL*O M)MU+)C, )MROS*O L)R*OS),

(EL*C*)N) )UON, an' C)T)L*N) M)MU+)C,opponents-appellees.

Nicanor Tavora for appellant.

Jose Rivera for appellees.

JONSON, J.:

The purpose of this action was to obtain the probation of a last will and testaent of Mi!uel

Mau"ac, who died on the #d da" of $anuar", %#, in the unicipalit" of A!oo of the Province of 'a

(nion. )t appears fro the record that on or about the #*th da" of $ul", %&%+, the said Mi!uel

Mau"ac eecuted a last will and testaent Ehibit A. )n the onth of $anuar", %#, the said

/rancisco 0a!o presented a petition in the Court of /irst )nstance of the Province of 'a (nion for the

probation of that will. The probation of the sae was opposed b" Cornelio Mau"ac, Abrosio

'ariosa, /eliciana Bau1on, and Catalina Mau"ac civil cause No. %%22, Province of 'a (nion. After

hearin! all of the parties the petition for the probation of said will was denied b" the 3onorable C. M.

4illareal on the #d da" of Noveber, %, upon the !round that the deceased had on the %6th da"of April, %&%&, eecuted a new will and testaent.

7n the #%st da" of /ebruar", %, the present action was coenced. )ts purpose was to secure

the probation of the said will of the %6th da" of April, %&%& Ehibit %. To said petition Cornelio

Mau"ac, Abrosio 'ariosa, /eliciana Bau1on, and Catalina Mau"ac presented their oppositions,

alle!in! a that the said will is a cop" of the second will and testaent eecuted b" the said Mi!uel

Mau"ac9 b that the sae had been cancelled and revo:ed durin! the lifetie of Mi!uel Mau"ac

and c that the said will was not the last will and testaent of the deceased Mi!uel Mau"ac.

(pon the issue thus presented, the 3onorable Anastacio R. Teodoro, ;ud!e, after hearin! the

respective parties, denied the probation of said will of April %6, %&%&, upon the !round that the saehad been cancelled and revo:ed in the "ear %


2/34

The appellant contends that the lower court coitted an error in not findin! fro the evidence that

the will in @uestion had been eecuted with all the foralities re@uired b" the law9 that the sae had

been revo:ed and cancelled in %< before his death9 that the said will was a ere carbon cop" and

that the oppositors were not estopped fro alle!in! that fact.

ith reference to the said cancellation, it a" be stated that there is positive proof, not denied,which was accepted b" the lower court, that will in @uestion had been cancelled in %


3/34


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2/30 St%r 21, 19/1

Tstat Estat o! t 4&as' M)R*)NO MOLO + LEG)SP*. JU)N) JU)N 54). 4E

MOLO,petitioner-appellee,

vs.

LU, GL*CER*) an' CORNEL*O MOLO,oppositors-appellants.

Claro M. Recto and Serafin C. izon for appellants.

el!ado " #lores for appellee.

)UT*ST) )NGELO,J.:

This is an appeal fro an order of the Court of /irst )nstance of Ri1al adittin! to probate the last

will and testaent of the deceased Mariano Molo " 'e!aspi eecuted on Au!ust %*, %&%+. The

oppositors-appellants brou!ht the case on appeal to this Court for the reason that the value of the

properties involved eceeds P8


4/34

)). The court a $uo erred in not holdin! that the petitioner is now estopped fro see:in! the

probate of Molos alle!ed will of %&%+.

))). The lower court erred in not holdin! that petitioner herein has coe to court with ?unclean

hands? and as such is not entitled to relief.

)4. The probate court erred in not holdin! that Molos alle!ed will of Au!ust %*, %&%+ was not

eecuted in the anner re@uired b" law.

4. The probate court erred in not holdin! that the alle!ed will of %&%+ was deliberatel"

revo:ed b" Molo hiself.

4). The lower court erred in not holdin! that Molos will of %&%+ was subse@uentl" revo:ed b"

the decedents will of %&5&.

)n their first assi!nent of error, counsel for oppositors contend that the probate court erred in not

holdin! that the petitioner voluntaril" and deliberatel" frustrated the probate of the will dated $une #


5/34

reopened. The reopenin! was ordered because of the stron! opposition of the oppositors who

contended that he will had not been eecuted as re@uired b" law. After the evidence of both parties

had been presented, the oppositors filed an etensive eorandu wherein the" reiterated their

view that the will should be denied probate. And on the stren!ht of this opposition, the court

disallowed the will.

)f petitioner then :new that the %&5& will was inherentl" defective and would a:e the testaentar"

disposition in her favor invalid and ineffective, because it is a ?disposicion captatoria?, which

:nowled!e she a" easil" ac@uire throu!h consultation with a law"er, there was no need her to !o

throu!h the order of filin! the petition for the probate of the will. he could accoplish her desire b"

erel" suppressin! the will or tearin! or destro"in! it, and then ta:e steps leadin! to the probate of

the will eecuted in %&%+. But for her conscience was clear and bade her to ta:e the onl" proper step

possible under the circustances, which is to institute the necessar" proceedin!s for the probate of

the %&5& will. This she did and the will was aditted to probate. But then the unepected happened.

7ver her vi!orous opposition, the herein appellants filed a petition for reopenin!, and over her

vi!orous ob;ection, the sae was !ranted and the case was reopened. 3er otion for

reconsideration was denied. )s it her fault that the case was reopenedD )s it her fault that the orderadittin! the will to probate was set asideD That was a contin!enc" which petitioner never epected.

3ad appellants not filed their opposition to the probate of the will and had the" liited their ob;ection

to the intrinsic validit" of said will, their plan to defeat the will and secure the intestac" of the

deceased would have perhaps been accoplished. But the" failed in their strate!". )f said will was

denied probate it is due to their own effort. )t is now unfair to ipute bad faith petitioner sipl"

because she eerted ever" effort to protect her own interest and prevent the intestac" of the

deceased to happen.

3avin! reached the fore!oin! conclusions, it is obvious that the court did not coit the second and

third errors iputed to it b" the counsel for appellants. )ndeed, petitioner cannot be considered !uilt"

or estoppel which would prevent her fro see:in! the probate of the %&%+ will sipl" because of hereffort to obtain the allowance of the %&5& will has failed considerin! that in both the %&%+ and %&5&

wills she was in b" her husband as his universal heir. Nor can she be char!ed with bad faith far

havin! done so because of her desire to prevent the intestac" of her husband. he cannot be

blaed bein! 1ealous in protectin! her interest.

The net contention of appellants refers to the revocator" clause contained in %&5& will of the

deceased which was denied probate. The" contend that, notwithstandin! the disallowance of said

will, the revocator" clause is valid and still has the effect of nullif"in! the prior of %&%+.

Counsel for petitioner eets this ar!uent b" invo:in! the doctrine laid down in the case of Samson

vs. Naval, 2% Phil., +5+. 3e contends that the facts involved in that case are on all fours with thefacts of this case. 3ence, the doctrine is that case is here controllin!.

There is erit in this contention. e have carefull" read the facts involved in the ason case we

are indeed ipressed b" their stri:in! siilarit" with the facts of this case. e do not need to recite

here what those facts are9 it is enou!h to point out that the" contain an" points and circustances

in coon. No reason, therefore, is seen b" the doctrine laid down in that case which we @uote

hereunder should not appl" and control the present case.

A subse@uent will, containin! a clause revo:in! a previous will, havin! been disallowed, for

the reason that it was not eecuted in conforit" with the provisions of section 6%+ of the

Code of Civil Procedure as to the a:in! of wills, cannot produce the effect of annullin! theprevious will, inasuch as said revocator" clause is void. 2% Phil., +5+.

Apropos of this @uestion, counsel for oppositors a:e the rear: that, while the" do not disa!ree

with the soundness of the rulin! laid down in the ason case, there is reason to abandon said

rulin! because it is archaic or anti@uated and runs counter to the odern trend prevailin! in

Aerican ;urisprudence. The" aintain that said rulin! is no lon!er controllin! but erel" represents

the point of view of the inorit" and should, therefore, be abandoned, ore so if we consider the


6/34

fact that section 6#5 of our Code of Civil Procedure, which !overns the revocation of wills, is of

Aerican ori!in and as such should follow the prevailin! trend of the a;orit" view in the (nited

tates. A lon! line of authorities is cited in support of this contention. And these authorities hold the

view, that ?an epress revocation is iediatel" effective upon the eecution of the subse@uent will,

and does not re@uire that it first under!o the foralit" of a probate proceedin!?. p. 65, appellants

brief .

hile the" are an" cases which uphold the view entertained b" counsel for oppositors, and that

view appears to be in controllin! the states where the decisions had been proul!ated, however, we

are reluctant to fall in line with the assertion that is now the prevailin! view in the (nited tates. )n

the search we have ade of Aerican authorities on the sub;ect, we found ourselves in a pool of

conflictin! opinions perhaps because of the peculiar provisions contained in the statutes adopted b"

each tate in the sub;ect of revocation of wills. But the ipression we !athered fro a review and

the stud" of the pertinent authorities is that the doctrine laid down in the ason case is still a !ood

law. 7n pa!e 5#+ of the Aerican $urisprudence 4ol. 8*, which is a revision Published in %&2+, we

found the followin! passa!es which in our opinion trul" reflect the present trend of Aerican

;urisprudence on this atter affectin! the revocation of wills=

EC. 2*%. Observance of #ormalities in %&ecution of 'nstrument. 7rdinaril", statutes

which perit the revocation of a will b" another writin! provide that to be effective as a

revocation, the writin! ust be eecuted with the sae foralities which are re@uired to be

observed in the eecution of a will. Accordin!l", where, under the statutes, attestation is

necessar" to the a:in! of a valid will, an unattested non testaentar" writin! is not

effective to revo:e a prior will. )t has been held that a writin! fails as a revo:in! instruent

where it is not eecuted with the foralities re@uisite for the eecution of a will, even thou!h

it is inscribed on the will itself, althou!h it a" effect a revocation b" cancellation or

obliteration of the words of the will. A testator cannot reserve to hiself the power to odif" a

will b" a written instruent subse@uentl" prepared but not eecuted in the anner re@uiredfor a will.

EC, 2*#. Subse$uent (ne&ecuted, 'nvalid, or 'neffective )ill or Codicil. A will which is

invalid because of the incapacit" of the testator, or of undue influence can have no effect

whatever as a revo:in! will. Moreover, a will is not revo:ed b" the uneecuted draft of a later

one. Nor is a will revo:ed b" a defectivel" eecuted will or codicil, even thou!h the latter

contains a clause epressl" revo:in! the forer will, in a ;urisdiction where it is provided b" a

controllin! statute that no writin! other than a testaentar" instruent is sufficient to revo:e

a will, for the siple reason that there is no revo:in! will. iilarl" where the statute provides

that a will a" be revo:ed b" a subse@uent will or other writin! eecuted with the sae

foralities as are re@uired in the eecution of wills, a defectivel" eecuted will does notrevo:e a prior will, since it cannot be said that there is a writin! which coplies with the

statute. Moreover, a will or codicil which, on account of the anner in which it is eecuted, is

sufficient to pass onl" personall" does not affect dispositions of real estate ade b" a forer

will, even thou!h it a" epressl" purport to do so. The intent of the testator to revo:e is

iaterial, if he has not coplied with the statute. 8* A. $ur., 5#+, 5#&.

e find the sae opinion in the Aerican 'aw Reports, Annotated, edited in %&5&. 7n pa!e %2


7/34

These treaties cannot be ista:en. The" uphold the view on which the rulin! in the ason case is

predicated. The" reflect the opinion that this rulin! is sound and !ood and for this reason, we see no

;ustification for abondonin! it as now su!!ested b" counsel for the oppositors.

)t is true that our law on the atter sec. 6#5, Code Civil Procedure provides that a will a" be

soe will, codicil, or other writin! eecuted as proved in case of wills? but it cannot be said that the%&5& will should be re!arded, not as a will within the eanin! of said word, but as ?other writin!

eecuted as provided in the case of wills?, sipl" because it was denied probate. And even if it be

re!arded as an" ot*er +ritin! within the eanin! of said clause, there is authorit" for holdin! that

unless said writin! is aditted to probate, it cannot have the effect of revocation. ee 8* A. $ur.

pp. 5#&-55


8/34

to depend upon the efficac" of a new disposition intended to be substituted, the revocation

will be conditional and dependent upon the efficac" of the new disposition9 and if, for an"

reason, the new will intended to be ade as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails

and the ori!inal will reains in full force. 0ardner, pp. #5#, #55.

This is the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. The failure of a new testaentar"disposition upon whose validit" the revocation depends, is e@uivalent to the non-fulfillent of

a suspensive conditions, and hence prevents the revocation of the ori!inal will. But a ere

intent to a:e at soe tie a will in the place of that destro"ed will not render the

destruction conditional. )t ust appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid

eecution of a new will. % Aleander, p. *8%9 0ardner, p. #85.

e hold therefore, that even in the supposition that the destruction of the ori!inal will b" the testator

could be presued fro the failure of the petitioner to produce it in court, such destruction cannot

have the effect of defeatin! the prior will of %&%+ because of the fact that it is founded on the

ista:en belief that the will of %&5& has been validl" eecuted and would be !iven due effect. The

theor" on which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not intend to die intestate. And thisintention is clearl" anifest when he eecuted two wills on two different occasion and instituted his

wife as his universal heir. There can therefore be no ista:e as to his intention of d"in! testate.

The reainin! @uestion to be deterined refers to the sufficienc" of the evidence to prove the due

eecution of the will.

The will in @uestion was attested, as re@uired b" law, b" three witnesses, 'oren1o Morales, Rufino

Enri@ue1, and An!el Cuenca. The first two witnesses died before the coenceent of the present

proceedin!s. o the onl" instruental witness available was An!el Cuenca and under our law and

precedents, his testion" is sufficient to prove the due eecution of the will. 3owever, petitioner

presented not onl" the testion" of Cuenca but placed on the witness stand $uan alcedo, thenotar" public who prepared and notari1ed the will upon the epress desire and instruction of the

testator, The testion" of these witnesses shows that the will had been eecuted in the anner

re@uired b" law. e have read their testion" and we were ipressed b" their readiness and

sincerit". e are convinced that the" told the truth.

herefore, the order appealed fro is hereb" affired, with costs a!ainst the appellants. +p


9/34


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23/ Jun 23, 1966

REME4*OS NUGU*4,petitioner and appellant,

vs.

(EL* NUGU*4 an' P) S)LONG) NUGU*4,oppositors and appellees.

Custodio O. artade for petitioner and appellant.

/eltran, /eltran and /eltran for oppositors and appellees.

S)NCE, J.:

Rosario Nu!uid, a resident of Fue1on Cit", died on >eceber 5


10/34

e pause to reflect. )f the case were to be reanded for probate of the will, nothin! will be !ained.

7n the contrar", this liti!ation will be protracted. And for au!ht that appears in the record, in the

event of probate or if the court re;ects the will, probabilit" eists that the case will coe up once

a!ain before us on the sae issue of the intrinsic validit" or nullit" of the will. Result= waste of tie,

effort, epense, plus added aniet". These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief

that we i!ht as well eet head-on the issue of the validit" of the provisions of the will [email protected] all, there eists a ;usticiable controvers" cr"in! for solution.

#. Petitioners sole assi!nent of error challen!es the correctness of the conclusion below that the

will is a coplete nullit". This eacts fro us a stud" of the disputed will and the applicable statute.

Reproduced hereunder is the will=

Nov. %*, %&8%

), R7AR)7 N(0()>, bein! of sound and disposin! ind and eor", havin! aassed a certain

aount of propert", do hereb" !ive, devise, and be@ueath all of the propert" which ) a" have when) die to " beloved sister Reedios Nu!uid, a!e 52, residin! with e at 5+-B )ri!a, F.C. )n witness

whereof, ) have si!ned " nae this seventh da" of Noveber, nineteen hundred and fift"-one.

!d. )lle!ible

TG R7AR)7 N(0()>

The statute we are called upon to appl" in Article +82 of the Civil Code which, in part, provides=

ART. +82. The preterition or oission of one, soe, or all of the copulsor" heirs in the

direct line, whether livin! at the tie of the eecution of the will or born after the death of thetestator, shall annul the institution of heir9 but the devises and le!acies shall be valid insofar

as the" are not inofficious. ...

Ecept for inconse@uential variation in ters, the fore!oin! is a reproduction of Article +%2 of the

Civil Code of pain of %++&, which is siilarl" herein copied, thus

Art. +%2. The preterition of one or all of the forced heirs in the direct line, whether livin! at the

tie of the eecution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall void the institution

of heir9 but the le!acies and betterents2shall be valid, in so far as the" are not

inofficious. ...

A coprehensive understandin! of the terpreteritioneplo"ed in the law becoes a necessit".

7n this point Manresa coents=

'a pretericion consiste en oitar al heredero en el testaento. 7 no se le nobra si@uiera o

aun nobrandole coo padre, hi;o, etc., no se le institu"a heredero ni se le deshereda

epresaente ni se le asi!na parte al!una de los bienes, resultando privado de un odo

tacito de su derecho a le!itia.

Para @ue eista pretericion, con arre!lo al articulo +%2, basta @ue en el testaento oita el

testador a uno cual@uiera de a@uellos a @uienes por su uerte corresponda la herencia

for1osa.

e necesita, pues, a Fue la oision se refiera a un heredero for1oso. b Fue la oision

sea copleta9 @ue el heredero for1oso nada reciba en el testaento.

)t a" now appear trite bat nonetheless helpful in !ivin! us a clear perspective of the proble before

us, to have on hand a clear-cut definition of the word annul=


11/34

To ?annul? eans to abro!ate, to a:e void ... 'n reMorrows Estate, 82 A. 52#, 525, #ebe, pues, entenderse @ue la anulacion es copleta o total, " @ue este articulo coo

especial en el caso @ue le otiva ri!e con preferencia al +%*. %erecho constitu"ente, ha" ra1on para convereste;uicio en re!la de interpretacion, desvirtuando " anulando por este procediiento lo @ue el

le!islador @uiere establecer. %#

5. e should not be led astra" b" the stateent in Article +82 that, annullent notwithstandin!, ?the

devises and le!acies shall be valid insofar as the" are not inofficious?. 'e!acies and devises erit

consideration onl" when the" are so epressl" !iven as such in a will. Nothin! in Article +82

su!!ests that the mereinstitution of a universal heir in a will void because of preterition would

!ive the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance. As to hi, the will is ineistent. There ust be,

in addition to such institution, a testaentar" disposition !rantin! hi be@uests or le!acies apart and

separate fro the nullified institution of heir. anche1 Roan, spea:in! of the two coponent parts

of Article +%2, now +82, states that preterition annuls the institution of the heir ?totalente por lapretericion?9 but added in reference to le!acies and be@uests ?pero subsistiendo ... todas a@uellas

otras disposiciones @ue no se refieren a la institucion de heredero ... . %5As Manresa puts it,

annulent throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance includin! ?la porcion libre @ue

no hubiese dispuesto en virtud de le!ado, e;ora o donacion. %2

As aforesaid, there is noot*er provisionin the will before us ecept the institution of petitioner as

universal heir. That institution, b" itself, is null and void. And, intestate succession ensues.

2. Petitioners ainsta" is that the present is ?a case of ineffective disinheritance rather than one of

preterition?. %8/ro this, petitioner draws the conclusion that Article +82 ?does not appl" to the case

at bar?. This ar!uent fails to appreciate the distinction between pretention and disinheritance.

Preterition ?consists in the oission in the testators will of the forced heirs or an"one of the, either

because the" are not entioned therein, or, thou!h entioned, the" are neither instituted as heirs

nor are epressl" disinherited.? %6>isinheritance, in turn, ?is a testamentar4disposition deprivin! an"

copulsor" heir of his share in the le!itimefor a cause authori1ed b" law. ? %*)n Manresas own

words= ?'a privacion epresa de la le!itia constitu"e la des*eredacion.'a privacion tacita de la

isa se denoinapretericion.? %+anche1 Roan ephasi1es the distinction b" statin! that

disinheritance ?es siepre voluntaria?9 preterition, upon the other hand, is presued to be

?involuntaria?. %&Epress as disinheritance should be, the sae ust be supported b" a le!al cause

specified in the will itself. #ivision

C.A.-0.R. No. #5*65-R reversin! that of the Court of /irst )nstance of Cebu Civ. Case No. R-5+%&

and orderin! the disissal of an action for partition.

The factual bac:!round appears in the followin! portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals

Petition, Anne A, pp. #-2=

)t appears that on Ma" &, %&5&, the spouses, Bernabe de la erna and 0ervasia Rebaca,

eecuted a ;oint last will and testaent in the local dialect whereb" the" willed that ?our two

parcels of land ac@uired durin! our arria!e to!ether with all iproveents thereon shall be!iven to Manuela Rebaca, our niece, who we have nurtured since childhood, because 0od

did not !ive us an" child in our union, Manuela Rebaca bein! arried to Nicolas Potot?, and

that ?while each of the testators is "et livin!, he or she will continue to en;o" the fruits of the

two lands aforeentioned?, the said two parcels of land bein! covered b" Ta No. 26*6 and

Ta No. 66**, both situated in sitio Bucao, barrio 'u!o, unicipalit" of Borbon, province of

Cebu. Bernabe dela erna died on Au!ust 5


23/34

;urisdiction and conclusive on the due eecution of the testaent. /urther, the Court of Appeals

declared that=

... . )t is true the law Art. 66&, old Civil Code9 Art. +%+, new Civil Code. prohibits the a:in!

of a will ;ointl" b" two or ore persons either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a

third person. 3owever, this for of will has lon! been sanctioned b" use, and the sae hascontinued to be used9 and when, as in the present case, one such ;oint last will and

testaent has been aditted to probate b" final order of a Court of copetent ;urisdiction,

there sees to be no alternative ecept to !ive effect to the provisions thereof that are not

contrar" to law, as was done in the case of Macro*on vs. Saavedra, 8% Phil. #6*, wherein

our upree Court !ave effect to the provisions of the ;oint will therein entioned, sa"in!,

?assuin! that the ;oint will in @uestion is valid.?

hence this appeal b" the heirs intestate of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la Cerna.

The appealed decision correctl" held that the final decree of probate, entered in %&5& b" the Court of

/irst )nstance of Cebu when the testator, Bernabe de la Cerna, died, has conclusive effect as to hislast will and testaent despite the fact that even then the Civil Code alread" decreed the invalidit" of

;oint wills, whether in favor of the ;oint testators, reciprocall", or in favor of a third part" Art. 66&, old

Civil Code. The error thus coitted b" the probate court was an error of law, that should have

been corrected b" appeal, but which did not affect the ;urisdiction of the probate court, nor the

conclusive effect of its final decision, however erroneous. A final ;ud!ent rendered on a petition for

the probate of a will is bindin! upon the whole world Manalo vs. Paredes, 2* Phil. &5+9 )n re Estates

of $ohnson, 5& Phil. %869 and public polic" and sound practice deand that at the ris: of occasional

errors ;ud!ent of courts should becoe final at soe definite date fied b" law. 'nterest rei

publicae ut finis set litium>" Ca" vs. Crossfield, 5+ Phil, 8#%, and other cases cited in # Moran,

Coents on the Rules of Court %&65 Ed., p. 5##.

Petitioners, as heirs and successors of the late Bernabe de la Cerna, are concluded b" the %&5&

decree adittin! his will to probate. The contention that bein! void the will cannot be validated,

overloo:s that the ultiate decision on hether an act is valid or void rests with the courts, and here

the" have spo:en with finalit" when the will was probated in %&5&. 7n this court, the disissal of

their action for partition was correct.

But the Court of Appeals should have ta:en into account also, to avoid future isunderstandin!, that

the probate decree in %&+& could onl" affect the share of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la

Cerna. )t could not include the disposition of the share of the wife, 0ervasia Rebaca, who was then

still alive, and over whose interest in the con;u!al properties the probate court ac@uired no

;urisdiction, precisel" because her estate could not then be in issue. Be it reebered that prior tothe new Civil Code, a will could not be probated durin! the testators lifetie.

)t follows that the validit" of the ;oint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, ust be,

on her death, reeained and ad;udicated de novo, since a ;oint will is considered a separate will of

each testator. Thus re!arded, the holdin! of the court of /irst )nstance of Cebu that the ;oint will is

one prohibited b" law was correct as to the participation of the deceased 0ervasia Rebaca in the

properties in @uestion, for the reasons etensivel" discussed in our decision in /ilbao vs. /ilbao, +*

Phil. %22, that eplained the previous holdin! in Macro*on vs. Saavedra, 8% Phil. #6*.

Therefore, the undivided interest of 0ervasia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs

intestate, and not eclusivel" to the testaentar" heir, unless soe other valid will in her favor isshown to eist, or unless she be the onl" heir intestate of said 0ervasia.

)t is unnecessar" to ephasi1e that the fact that ;oint wills should be in coon usa!e could not

a:e the valid when our Civil Codes consistentl" invalidated the, because laws are onl"

repealed b" other subse@uent laws, and no usa!e to the contrar" a" prevail a!ainst their

observance Art. 8, Civ. Code of %++&9 Art. *, Civil Code of the Philippines of %&8


24/34

)T3 T3E /7RE07)N0 M7>)/)CAT)7N, the ;ud!ent of the Court of Appeals in CA-0.R. No.

#5*65-R is affired. No Costs.


25/34


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EC7N> >)4))7N

G.R. No. L-29388 Jun 21, 1970

PE4RO 4. . G)LL)NOS), COR)ON GREC*)-G)LLONOS) an' )4OL(O (ORT)J)4), t

'&as' P'ro Ga$$anosa "n# sust"tut' y "s $#a$ "rs, na%$y "s ao-na%'

:"'o: an' "s &"$'rn, *S*4RO G)LL)NOS) an' LE4+ G)LL)NOS), an' #ran'&"$'rn

na%' *MEL4) TECL) G)LL)NOS) an' ROS)R*O R*G*4) G)LL)NOS), &"$'rn o! t

$at S*;)TUN) G)LL)NOS), son o! P'ro 4.. G)LLONOS), petitioners,

vs.

ON. U)L4O +. )RC)NGEL, Ju'# o! ran& * o! t Court o! ("rst *nstan& o! Sorso#on

an' (LORENT*NO G. *TOS*S, C)S*)NO G. *TOS*S, TEOT*MO G. *TOS*S, 5*CTOR*O G.

*TOS*S, EM*L*) G. *TOS*S 54). 4E CRU, JO)


26/34

spouses Pedro 0allanosa and Cora1on 0recia, the reason bein! that Pedro, Teclas son b" her first

arria!e, !rew up under the care of /lorentino9 he had treated Pedro as his foster child, and Pedro

has rendered services to /lorentino and Tecla. /lorentino li:ewise be@ueathed his separate

properties consistin! of three parcels of abaca land and parcel of riceland to his prote!e

sasacu4an! ataman, Adolfo /orta;ada, a inor.

5. 7pposition to the probate of the will was re!istered b" the testators le!al heirs, nael", his

survivin! brother, 'eon, trial his nephews trial nieces. After a hearin!, wherein the oppositors did not

present an" evidence in support of their opposition, $ud!e Pablo . Rivera, in his decision of

7ctober #*, %&5&, aditted the will to probate and appointed 0allanosa as eecutor. $ud!e Rivera

specificall" found that the testator eecuted his last will ?!o1ando de buena salud " facultades

entales " no obrando en virtud de aena1a, fraude o influencia indebida.?

2. 7n 7ctober #2, %&2%, the testaentar" heirs, the 0allanosa spouses trial Adolfo /orta;ada,

subitted a pro;ect of partition coverin! sit"-one parcels of land located in various parts of

orso!on, lar!e cattle trial several pieces of personal propert" which were distributed in accordance

with /lorentinos will. The heirs assued the obli!ations of the estate aountin! to P*,%#&.#* in theportion of P#,5*6.2# for Adolfo /orta;ada and P2,*8#.+8 for the 0allanosa spouses. The pro;ect of

partition was approved b" $ud!e >oroteo Aador in his order of March %5, %&25, thus confirin! the

heirs possession of their respective shares. The testators le!al heirs did not appeal fro the decree

of probate trial fro the order of partition trial distribution.

8. 7n /ebruar" #


27/34

the late /lorentino 3itosis9 conse@uentl", their present clai to the ownership trial

possession of the 6% parcels of land in @uestion is without an" le!al erit or basis.

*. The plaintiffs did not appeal fro that order of disissal which should have set the atter at rest.

But the sae plaintiffs or oppositors to the probate of the will, trial their heirs, with a persistence

befittin! a ore eritorious case, filed on epteber #%, %&6*, or fifteen "ears after the disissal ofCivil Case No. 6&6 trial twent"-ei!ht "ears after the probate of the will another action in the sae

court a!ainst the 0allanosa spouses trial Adolfo /orta;ada for the ?annulent? of the will of

/lorentino 3itosis trial and for the recover" of the sae sit"-one parcels of land. The" pra"ed for the

appointent of a receiver.

+. As basis of their coplaint, the" alle!ed that the 0allanosa spouses, throu!h fraud trial deceit,

caused the eecution trial siulation of the docuent purportin! to be the last will trial testaent of

/lorentino 3itosis. hile in their %&8# coplaint the !ae plaintiffs alle!ed that the" were in

possession of the lands in @uestion, in their %&6* coplaint the" aditted that since %&5&, or fro

the death of /lorentino 3itosis, the defendants now the petitioners have been in possession of the

disputed lands Par. J)4 of the coplaint, p. *


28/34

The testaentar" proceedin! is a special proceedin! for the settleent of the testators estate. A

special proceedin! is distinct trial different fro an ordinar" action ecs. % trial #, Rule # trial sec. %,

Rule *#, Rules of Court.

e sa" that the defense of res 5udicata, as a !round for the disissal of plaintiffs %&6* coplaint, is

a two-pron!ed defense because % the %&5& trial %&25 decrees of probate trial distribution inpecial Proceedin! No. 5%*% trial # the %&8# order of disissal in Civil Case No. 6&6 of the lower

court constitute bars b" forer ;ud!ent, Rule 5& of the Rules of Court provides=

EC. 2&. %ffect of 5ud!ments. The effect of a ;ud!ent or final order rendered b"

a court or ;ud!e of the Philippines, havin! ;urisdiction to pronounce the ;ud!ent or

order, a" be as follows=

a )n case of a ;ud!ent or order a!ainst a specific thin!, or in respect to the

probate of a will or the adinistration of the estate of a deceased person, or in

respect to the personal, political, or le!al condition or status of a particular person or

his relationship to another, the ;ud!ent or order is conclusive upon the title to thethin! the will or adinistration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person9

however, the probate of a will or !rantin! of letters of adinistration shall onl" be

pria facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate9

b )n other cases the ;ud!ent or order is, with respect to the atter directl"

ad;ud!ed or as to an" other atter that could have been raised in relation thereto,

conclusive between the parties trial their successors in interest b" title subse@uent to

the coenceent of the action or special proceedin!, liti!atin! of the sae thin!

trial under the sae title trial in the sae capacit"9

c )n an" other liti!ation between the sae parties or their successors in interest,that onl" is deeed to have been ad;ud!ed in a forer ;ud!ent which appears

upon its face to have been so ad;ud!ed, or which was actuall" trial necessaril"

included therein or necessar" thereto.

The %&5& decree of probate is conclusive as to the due eecution or foral validit" of the will ec.

6#8, Act %&


29/34

for appeals in ordinar" actions9 but without decidin! whether or not an order

adittin! a will to probate will be opened for fraud, after the tie allowed for an

appeal has epired, when no appeal is ta:en fro an order probatin! a will, the heirs

can not, in subse@uent liti!ation in the sae proceedin!s, raise @uestions relatin! to

its due eecution. The probate of a will is conclusive as to its due eecution trial as to

the testaentar" capacit" of The testator. ee Austria vs. 3eirs of 4entenilla. &&Phil. %" Ca" vs. Crossfield and 7Brien, 5+ Phil. 8#%= PeHalosa vs.

Tuason, ## Phil, 5e la Cerna vs. Potot, supra.

After the period for see:in! relief fro a final order or ;ud!ent under Rule 5+ of the Rules of Court

has epired, a final ;ud!ent or order can be set aside onl" on the !rounds of a lac: of ;urisdiction

or lac: of due process of law or b that the ;ud!ent was obtained b" eans of etrinsic or

collateral fraud. )n the latter case, the period for annullin! the ;ud!ent is four "ears fro the

discover" of the fraud # Morans Coents on the Rules of Court, %&*< Edition, pp. #28-#269

Mauricio vs. 4illanueva, %


30/34


31/34


SUPREME COURT

Manila

/)RT >)4))7N

G.R. No. 180/01 4&%r 0, 1999

LOUR4ES L. 4OROTEO, petitioner,

vs.

COURT O( )PPE)LS, N*L4) 4. orotheo, $ose >orotheo and Nilda >orotheo Fuintana as the onl" heirs of

the late spouses Ale;andro >orotheo and Aniceta Re"es, whose respective estates

shall be li@uidated and distributed accordin! to the laws on intestac" upon pa"ent

of estate and other taes due to the !overnent.1

Petitioner oved for reconsideration ar!uin! that she is entitled to soe copensation since she

too: care of Ale;andro prior to his death althou!h she aditted that the" were not arried to each

other. (pon denial of her otion for reconsideration, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but

the sae was disissed for failure to file appellants brief within the etended period

!ranted.2This disissal becae final and eecutor" on /ebruar" 5, %&+& and a correspondin! entr" of

;ud!ent was forthwith issued b" the Court of Appeals on Ma" %6, %&+&. A writ of eecution was issued

b" the lower court to ipleent the final and eecutor" 7rder. Conse@uentl", private respondents filed

several otions includin! a otion to copel petitioner to surrender to the the Transfer Certificates of

Titles TCT coverin! the properties of the late Ale;andro. hen petitioner refused to surrender the TCTs,

private respondents filed a otion for cancellation of said titles and for issuance of new titles in their

naes. Petitioner opposed the otion.

An 7rder was issued on Noveber #&, %&&< b" $ud!e Oain B. An!as settin! aside the final and

eecutor" 7rder dated $anuar" 5


32/34


33/34

which will no lon!er be disturbed. Not that this Court finds the will to be intrinsicall" valid, but that a final

and eecutor" decision of which the part" had the opportunit" to challen!e before the hi!her tribunals

ust stand and should no lon!er be reevaluated. /ailure to avail of the reedies provided b" law

constitutes waiver. And if the part" does not avail of other reedies despite its belief that it was a!!rieved

b" a decision or court action, then it is deeed to have full" a!reed and is satisfied with the decision or

order. As earl" as %&%+, it has been declared that public polic" and sound practice deand that, at the

ris: of occasional errors, ;ud!ents of courts ust at soe point of tie fied b" law 1becoe final

otherwise there will be no end to liti!ation. 'nteres rei publicae ut finis sit litium the ver" ob;ect of which

the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies. 1/To fulfill this purpose and to do so

speedil", certain tie liits, ore or less arbitrar", have to be set up to spur on the slothful. 16The onl"

instance where a part" interested in a probate proceedin! a" have a final li@uidation set aside is when

he is left out b" reason of circustances be"ond his control or throu!h ista:e or inadvertence not

iputable to ne!li!ence, 17which circustances do not concur herein.

Petitioner was priv" to the suit callin! for the declaration of the intrinsic invalidit" of the will, as she

precisel" appealed fro an unfavorable order therefro. Althou!h the final and eecutor" 7rder of

$anuar" 5


34/34

3ERE/7RE, the petition is >EN)E> and the decision appealed fro is A//)RME>.

7 7R>ERE>.

succession cases (midterms)

Documents