succession digested cases

7/21/2019 Succession Digested cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/succession-digested-cases 1/48

1 SUCCESSION

Testate Estate of Cagro vs. Cagro

G.R. L-5826

FACTS:

The case is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from a decision of the CFI of Samar which

admitted to probate a will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who died in Pambujan Samar onFeb! 1" 1#"#!

The appellants insisted that the will is defecti$e because the attestation was not signed by the

witnesses at the bottom although the page containing the same was signed by the witnesses onthe left hand margin!

Petitioner contended that the signatures of the % witnesses on the left hand margin conform

substantially to law and may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation clause!

ISSUE:

&hether or not the will is $alid

HELD'

&ill is not $alid! The attestation clause is a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will! It is re(uired by law to be made by the attesting witnesses and it must necessarily bear

their signatures!

)n unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses since the omission

of their signatures at the bottom negati$es their participation!

*oreo$er the signatures affixed on the let hand margin is not substantial conformance to thelaw! The said signatures were merely in conformance with the re(uirement that the will must be

signed on the left+hand margin of all its pages! If the attestation clause is unsigned by the %

witnesses at the bottom it would be easier to add clauses to a will on a subse(uent occasion andin the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses!

The probate of the will is denied!



, SUCCESSION

BAGUU vs. !IEDAD

GR" #$%&'5(

De)e*+er %8( 2%%%

FACTS:

)ugusto -! Piedad died without any direct descendants or ascendants! .espondent is thematernal aunt of the decedent a %rd degrees relati$e! *eantime petitioner is the daughter of a

first cousin of the decedent or a /th degree relati$e of the decedent! Citing )rticles 100# and

1010 CC petitioner claims that she is also entitled to succeed to the decedent2s estate!

ISSUE:

&3 petitioner is entitled to succeed!

HELD:

The rule on proximity is a concept that fa$ors the relati$es nearest in degree to the decedent and

excludes the more distant ones except when and to the extent that the right of representation can

apply! In the direct line right of representation is proper only in the descending ne$er in theascending line! In the collateral line this right may only ta4e place in fa$or of the children of the

decedent2s siblings when such children sur$i$e with their aunts5 uncles! )pplying )!#66CC

respondent being a relati$e within the %rd ci$il degree of decedent excludes petitioner a relati$eof the /th degree from succeeding ab intestato to the decedent2s estate! )mong other collateral

relati$es i!e! the 6th in the line of succession to which the parties belong no preference or

distinction should be obser$ed 7by reason of relationship by the whole blood!8 In fine a

maternal aunt can inherit alongside a paternal uncle and a 1st cousin of the full blood can inherite(ually with a first cousin of the half blood but an uncle5 aunt being a %rd degree relati$e

excludes the decedent2s cousin being in the "th degree of relationship9 the latter in turn would

ha$e priority in succession to a /th degree relati$e!



% SUCCESSION

,a e Ra*os vs CA Gr o L-$%8%$

FACTS:

)n )ppeal by way of certiorari of the decision of the Court of )ppeals denying and disallowing

the probate of the second last will and codicil of the late :ugenia ;anila pre$iously probated bythe Court of First Instance of <aguna on the gound that e$idence failed to establish that the

testatrix :ugenia ;anila signed her will in the presence of the instrumental witness in accordance

with )rticle =0/ of the Ci$il Code as testified to by the two sur$i$ing instrumental witnesses!The petitioners argue that the attestation clauses of the will and codicil which were signed by the

instrumental witnesses are admissions of due execution of the deeds thus pre$enting the said

witnesses from pre$aricating later on by testifying against due execution! Petitioners further maintain that it is error for the Court of )ppeals to gi$e credence to the testimony of the biased

witnesses as against their own attestation to the fact of due execution and o$er the testimonial

account of the otary Public who was also present during the execution and before whom rightafter the deeds were ac4nowledged!Pri$ate respondents on the other hand reiterate in their contention the declaration of the two sur$i$ing witnesses 3don Sarmiento and .osendo Pa>

that the will was not signed by the testatrix before their presence which is strengthened by two

photographic e$idence showing only the two witnesses in the act of signing there being no picture of the same occasion showing the testatrix signing the will! .espondent court holds the

$iew that where there was an opportunity to ta4e pictures it is not understandable why pictures

were ta4en of the witnesses and not of the testatrix! It concludes that the absence of the latter?s picture to complete the e$idence belies the testimony of )tty! @arcenas that the testatrix and the

witnesses did sign the will and the codicil in the presence of each other!

ISSUE'&hether the last testament and its accompanying codicil were executed in accordance with the

formalities of the law

RULIG:

Aes! The Supreme Court said that the oppositors? argument is untenable! There is ample andsatisfactory e$idence to con$ince the court that the will and codicil were executed in accordance

with the formalities re(uired by law! It appears positi$ely and con$incingly that the documents

were prepared by a lawyer )tty! *anuel )l$ero The execution of the same was e$identlysuper$ised by his associate )tty! .icardo @arcenas and before whom the deeds were also

ac4nowledged! The solemnity surrounding the execution of a will is attended by some intricaciesnot usually within the comprehension of an ordinary layman!! Conse(uently respondent court

failed to consider the presumption of regularity in the execution of the (uestioned documents!There were no incidents brought to the attention of the trial court to arouse suspicion of anomaly!

&hile the opposition alleged fraud and undue influence no e$idence was presented to pro$e

their occurrence! There is no (uestion that each and e$ery page of the will and codicil carry theauthentic signatures of :ugenia ;anila and the three B% attesting witnesses! Similarly the

attestation claim far from being deficient were properly signed by the attesting witnesses!



" SUCCESSION

either is it disputed that these witnesses too4 turns in signing the will and codicil in the

presence of each other and the testatrix! @oth instruments were duly ac4nowledged before a

otary Public who was all the time present during the execution! The absence of a photograph of the testator :ugenia ;anila in the act of signing her will the fact that the only pictures a$ailable

are those which show the witnesses signing the will in the presence of the testatrix and of eachother does not belie the probability that the testatrix also signed the will before the presence of

the witnesses! &e must stress that the pictures are worthy only of what they show and pro$e andnot of what they did not spea4 of including the e$ents they failed to capture! The probate of a

will is a proceeding not embued with ad$erse character wherein courts should relax the rules on

e$idence Dto the end that nothing less than the best e$idence of which the matter is susceptibleDshould be presented to the court before a reported will may be probated or denied probate! The

court finds that the failure to imprint in photographs all the stages in the execution of the will

does not ser$e any persuasi$e effect nor ha$e any e$identiary $alue to pro$e that one $ital andindispensable re(uisite has not been acted on! *uch less can it defeat by any ordinary or special

reason the presentation of other competent e$idence intended to confirm a fact otherwise

existent but not confirmed by the photographic e$idence! The probate court ha$ing satisfied itself that the will and codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities re(uired by law andthere being no indication of abuse of discretion on its part the court finds no error committed or

any exceptional circumstance warranting the subse(uent re$ersal of its decision allowing the

probate of the deeds in (uestion!



/ SUCCESSION

A/0e1a vs CA

Gr o. #2288%

FACTS:

The case stems from a petition for probate filed on 10 )pril 1#=" with the .egional Trial CourtB.TC of *anila! The petition filed by Felix )>uela the son of the cousin of the decedentsought

to admit to probate the notarial will of :ugenia :! Igsolo which was notari>ed on 10 Eune 1#=1!

The will consisted of two pages and written in the $ernacular Pilipino its three named witnessesaffixed their signatures on the left+hand margin of both pages but not at the bottom of the

attestation clause!The petition was opposed by eralda )ida Castillo who represented herself as

the attorney+in+fact of the 1, legitimate heirs of the decedent!3ppositor eralda Castillo arguedthat the will was not executed and attested to in accordance with law because the decedent2s

signature did not appear on the second page of the will and the will was not properly

ac4nowledged! )fter due trial the .TC admitted the will to probate! 3n the issue of lac4 of ac4nowledgement the .TC has noted that at the end of the will after the signature of thetestatrix a statement is made under the sub+title DPatunay g *ga Sa4siD a declaration

comprising the attestation clause and the ac4nowledgement and is considered by the .TC as a

substantial compliance with the re(uirements of the law!3n the oppositor2s contention that theattestation clause was not signed by the subscribing witnesses at the bottom thereof the .TC is

of the $iew that the signing by the subscribing witnesses on the left margin of the second page of

the will containing the attestation clause and ac4nowledgment instead of at the bottom thereofsubstantially satisfies the purpose of identification and attestation of the will!&ith regard to the

oppositor2s argument that the will was not numbered correlati$ely in letters placed on upper part

of each page and that the attestation did not state the number of pages thereof it is worthy to note

that the will is composed of only two pages! The first page contains the entire text of thetestamentary dispositions and the second page contains the last portion of the attestation clause

and ac4nowledgement! Such being so the defects are not of a serious nature as to in$alidate the

will! For the same reason the failure of the testatrix to affix her signature on the left margin of the second page which contains only the last portion of the attestation clause and

ac4nowledgment is not a fatal defect!)s regards the oppositor2s assertion that the signature of the

testatrix on the will is a forgery the testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses to the will arecon$incing enough to establish the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix and the due

execution of the will!The 3rder was appealed to the Court of )ppeals by :rnesto Castillo who

had substituted his since deceased mother+in+law eralda Castillo! The Court of )ppealsre$ersed the trial court and ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate on the ground that

that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in the will thus rendering thewill $oid and undeser$ing of probate! -ence the petition to the Supreme Court!



6 SUCCESSION

ISSUES:

1!&hether a will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages9 not signed bythe instrumental witnesses and which does not contain an ac4nowledgment but a mere jurat is

fatally defecti$e and is sufficient to deny probate!,!&hat is the difference between a jurat and an ac4nowledgmentG

RULIG:

1!Aes! The Supreme Court said that a will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages not signed by the instrumental witnesses and which does not contain an

ac4nowledgment but a mere jurat is fatally defecti$e! )ny one of these defects is sufficient to

deny probate! ) notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection! The purpose of re(uiring the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause is that the

document might easily be so prepared that the remo$al of a sheet would completely change the

testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence of a statement of the total number of sheets such remo$al might be effected by ta4ing out the sheet and changing the numbers at thetop of the following sheets or pages! If on the other hand the total number of sheets is stated in

the attestation clause the falsification of the document will in$ol$e the inserting of new pages

and the forging of the signatures of the testator and witnesses in the margin a matter attendedwith much greater difficulty!The defect pointed out in the attesting clause is fatal! It was further

obser$ed that it cannot be denied that the re(uirement affords additional security against the

danger that the will may be tampered with9 and as the <egislature has seen fit to prescribe thisre(uirement it must be considered material! In some other cases a will was admitted to probate

when upon an examination of the will itself pro$ides the number of pages the will has although it

has not been numbered! -owe$er in this case there could ha$e been no substantial compliance

with the re(uirements under )rticle =0/ since there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which comprise the will!

,!The difference between a jurat and an ac4nowledgement an ac4nowledgment is the act of onewho has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be

his act or deed! It in$ol$es an extra step underta4en whereby the signor actually declares to the

notary that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his5her own freeact and deed while a jurat is that part of an affida$it where the notary certifies that before

him5her the document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor! 3rdinarily the language of

the jurat should a$ow that the document was subscribed and sworn before the notary publicwhile in this case the notary public a$erred that he himself Dsigned and notari>edD the document!

Possibly though the word DninotarioD or Dnotari>edD encompasses the signing of and swearing inof the executors of the document which in this case would in$ol$e the decedent and the

instrumental witnesses!) notarial will that is not ac4nowledged before a notary public by thetestator and the witnesses is fatally defecti$e e$en if it is subscribed and sworn to before a

notary public! Therefore the petition was denied!



H SUCCESSION

GARCIA ,. GATCHALIA

2# SCRA #%56

FACTS:

regorio atchalian a widower of H1 years of age died in the municipality of PasigPro$ince of .i>al lea$ing no forced heir! 3n the same year Pedro arcia filed with the Court of

First Instance of .i>al for the probate of an alleged will instituting him as sole heir! Felipe

atchalian )urora ! Camins )ngeles ! Cosca Federico ! Tubog Virginia ! Talanay and)ngeles C! Talanay opposed the petition on the ground among others that the will was procured

by fraud9 that the deceased did not intend the instrument signed by him to be as his will9 and that

the deceased was physically and mentally incapable of ma4ing a will at the time of the allegedexecution of said will! The trial court denied the allowance of the will on the ground that the

attesting witnesses did not ac4nowledge it before a notary public as re(uired by law!

arcia appealed the decision!

ISSUE:

&hether or not the will was executed in accordance with )rticle =06 of the CC!

RULIG:

o! It is indispensable for its $alidity that a will must be ac4nowledge before a notary

public by the testator and also by the witnesses! )s the document under consideration does notcomply with this re(uirement the same may not be probated!



= SUCCESSION

AL,ARAD vs. GA,ILA

Se3te*+er #$( #&&4

FACTS:

The testator did not read the final draft of the will himself! Instead pri$ate respondent as the

lawyer who drafted the =+paged document read the same aloud in the presence of the testator

the % instrumental witnesses and the notary public! The latter " followed the reading with theirown respecti$e copies pre$iously furnished them!

Said will was admitted to probate! <ater on a codicil was executed and by that time thetestator was already suffering from glaucoma! @ut the disinheritance and re$ocatory clauses

were unchanged! )s in the case of the notarial will the testator did not personally read the final

draft of the codicil! Instead it was pri$ate respondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses Bsame as those of the notarial will and the notary public who followed the reading using their own copies!

ISSUE:

&as there substantial compliance to the reading of the willG

HELD:

)rticle =0= not only applies to blind testators but also to those who for one reason or another

are incapable of reading their wills! -ence the will should ha$e been read by the notary publicand an instrumental witness! -owe$er the spirit behind the law was ser$ed though the letter was

not! In this case there was substantial compliance! Substantial compliance is acceptable where

the purpose of the law has been satisfied the reason being that the solemnities surrounding theexecution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all 4inds of fraud and tric4ery but are

ne$er intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary pri$ilege!

In this case pri$ate respondent read the testator?s will and codicil aloud in the presence of

the testator his three instrumental witnesses and the notary public! Prior and subse(uent

thereto the testator affirmed upon being as4ed that the contents read corresponded with hisinstructions! 3nly then did the signing and ac4nowledgement ta4e place!



# SUCCESSION

Teoro CAEDA( et a1.3ettoers vs. Ho. CURT F A!!EALS a 11a*

CABRERA( as S3e)a1 A*strator of t7e Estate of ateo Ca+a11ero( res3oets.

FACTS:

3n ;ecember / 1#H= *ateo Caballero a widower without any children already in the twilight

years of his life executed a last will and testament before three attesting witnesses and he wasduly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public! It was declared therein that among other things

that the testator was lea$ing by way of legacies and de$ises his real and personal properties to

specific persons all of whom do not appear to be related to *ateo! ot long after he himself filed a petition before the CFI see4ing the probate of his last will and testament but the scheduled

hearings were postponed until the testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard

by the probate court! @enoni Cabrera one of the legatees named in the will sought hisappointment as special administrator of the testator2s estate but due to his death he was

succeeded by &illiam Cabrera who was appointed by .TC which is already the probate court!

P:TITI3:.S' The petitioners assail to the allowance of the testator2s will on the ground that itwas not executed in accordance with all the re(uisites of law since the testator was already in a poor state of health such that he could not ha$e possibly executed the same! Petitioners li4ewise

contend that the will is null and $oid because its attestation clause is fatally defecti$e since it

fails to specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signingthe 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!

.:SP3;:TS' The respondent on the other hand argue that *ateo was of sound anddisposing mind and in good health when he executed his will! Further they also contend that the

witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other!

ISSUE:

&hether or not the attestation clause in the last will of *ateo Caballero is fatally defecti$e such

that whether or not it affects the $alidity of the will!

RULIG:

)n 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 of the

same! It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of executionand once signed by the witnesses9 it gi$es affirmation to the fact that compliance with the

essential formalities re(uired by law has been obser$ed! In the absence of bad faith forgery or fraud or undue and improper pressure and influence defects and imperfection in the form of

attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will in$alid if it is not pro$ed thatthe will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the re(uirements of

)rticle =0/!

The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the

language employed therein! Such defects or imperfection would not render a will in$alid should



10 SUCCESSION

it be pro$ed that the will was really executed and attested in compliance with )rticle =0/! These

considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting

witnesses signed each and e$ery page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other!In such a situation the defect is not only in the form or language of the attestation clause but the

total absence of a specific element re(uired by )rticle =0/ to be specifically stated in theattestation clause of a will! That is precisely the defect complained of in the present case since

there is no plausible way by which it can be read into the (uestioned attestation clause statementor an implication thereof that the attesting witness did actually bear witness to the signing by the

testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instrumental witnesses also signed the will

and e$ery page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another!



11 SUCCESSION

TESTATE ESTATE F THE LATE ALI!I ABADA( BELIDA CA!G-BLE

vs

ALI!I ABA9A AD EL ABELLAR

GR o. #$'#$5. 9a0ar 4#( 2%%5

FACTS:

)bada and his wife Toray died without legitimate children! )baja filed with CFI of

egros 3ccidental a petition for probate of the will of )bada! The latter allegedly named his

testamentary heirs his natural children :ulogio )baja and .osario Cordo$a Brespondent )bajawas the son of :ulogio! 3ne Caponong opposed the position on the ground that )baja left no

will when he died and if such was really executed by him it should be disallowed for the

following reasons' 1 it was not executed and attested as re(uired by law9 , it was not intendedas the last will of the testator9 and % it was procured by undue and improper pressure and

influence on the part of the beneficiaries! Citing the same grounds in$o4ed by Caponong the

alleged intestate heirs of )bada Eoel )bada et! al! also opposed the petition! The oppositors arethe nephews nieces and grandchildren of )bada and Toray!

.espondent )baja filed another petition for the probate of the will of Toray! Caponog and

Eoel )bada et! al! opposed the position on the same grounds! Caponong li4ewise filed a petition praying for the issuance in his name of letters of administration of the intestate estate of )bada

and Toray!

;uring the proceeding the judge found out that the matter on hand was already submitted

for decision by another judge admitting the probate will of )bada! Since proper notices to the

heirs has been complied with as well as other re(uirements the judge ruled in fa$or of the

$alidity of the probate will!

.TC ruled only on the issue raised by the oppositors in their motions to dismiss the

petition for probate that is wheather the will of )bada has an attestation clause as re(uired bylaw! It held that the failure of the oppositors to raise any other matter forcloses all other issues!

Caponog+oble filed a notice of appeal! C) affirmed .TC2s decision!

ISSUE:

&hether or not the attestation clause complies with the re(uirements of the applicablelaw!

RULIG:

)bada executed his will on " Eune1#%,! The laws in force at that time are the Ci$il Code

of 1#=# or the 3ld Ci$il Code and )ct o! 1#0 or the Code of Ci$il Priocedure which go$ernedthe execution of wills before enactment of the ew Ci$il Code! The matter in dispute in the

present case is the attestation clause of )bada2s will!



1, SUCCESSION

)n attestation clause is made for the purpose of preser$ing in permanent form a record

of the facts attending the execution of the will so that in case of failure of the memory of thesubscribing witnesses or other casualty they may still be pro$ed! ) will therefore should not be

rejected where its attestation clause ser$es the purpose of the law!

The Supreme Court rule to apply the liberal construction in the probate of )bada2s will!)bada2s will clearly show four signatures' that of )bada and of three other persons! It is

reasonable to conclude that there are three witnesses to the will! The (uestion on the number of

witness is answered by an examination of the will itself and without the need for presentation of e$idence aliunde! The Court explained the extent and limits of the rule on the liberal

construction! Precision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is desirable! -owe$er

it is not imperati$e that a parrot+li4e copy of the words of the statute be made! It is sufficient if from the language employed it can reasonably be deduced that the attestation clause fulfills what

the law expects of it!



1% SUCCESSION

I THE ATTER F THE !ETITI T A!!R,E THE ILL F RICARD B.

BILLA( ARCELA RDELAS

$s

A!AR ARA;A( ET AL.(GR o. L-585%&. De)e*+er '(#&82

FACTS'

Petitioner+appellant filed a petition w ith the CFI+.i>al for probate of the holographic willof .icardo @! @onilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her fa$or! The petition was

opposed by appellees )mparo )ran>a @onilla &ilferene @onilla Treyes :xpedita @onilla Frias

and :phraim @onilla! The grounds of their opposition are as follows' 1 )ppellant was stoppedfrom claiming that the deceased left a will by failing to produce the will within twenty days of

the death of the testator9 , The alleged copy of the will did not contain a disposition of property

after death and was not intended to ta4e effect9 % The original must be presented not the copythereof9 and " The deceased did not lea$e any will!

The appellees also mo$e for dismissal of the petition for the probate of the will! The

appellee2s motions were denied! They filed a *otion for .econsideration which was then

appro$ed! )ppellant2s *otion for .econsideration was denied! )ppellant appealed the case to theC) which was certified the case to the SC on the ground that the appeal does not in$ol$e

(uestions of fact!

ISSUE:

7et7er or ot a 7o1ogra37) <11 <7)7 <as 1ost or )aot +e fo0 )a +e 3rove

+ *eas of a 37otostat) )o3.

RULIG:

) photostatic copy or erox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because

comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator! In the case of an $s Aap 10"

Phil /0# the Court ruled that 7the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographicwill may not be pro$ed by the bare testimony of witnesses who ha$e seen and5or read such will!

The will itself must be presented9 otherwise it shall produce no effect! The law regards the

document itself as material proof of authenticity!8 @ut in Footnote = of said decision it says that7Perhaps it may be pro$ed by a photographic or photostatic copy! :$en a mimeographed or

carbon copy9 or by other similar means if any whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of thedeceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court 7:$idently the photostatic or

erox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then theauthenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court!



1" SUCCESSION

G.R. o. #26'%'. Fe+r0ar 25( #&&&.

BLA=UITA E. DELA ERCED( LUISIT E. DELA ERCED( BLA=UITA .

ACATAGA>( A. LI,IA . !AREDES( TERESITA !. RU!ISA( RUBE .

ADRIA( HERII . ADRIA( 9SELIT . ADRIA( RGELI .

ADRIA( ILFRED . ADRIA( ,ICTR . ADRIA( CRA; A.GC( 9ASI A. ED;A a CSTATI . ADRIA( 3ettoers( vs.

9SELIT !. DELA ERCED( res3oet.

FACTS:

:$arista dela *erced died intestate lea$ing behind fi$e B/ parcels of land situated in 3ramboPasig City! She was sur$i$ed by three sets of heirs $i>' B1 Francisco *! dela *erced her

legitimate brother 9 B, Teresita P! .upisan her niece who is the only daughter of her deceased

sister .osa de la *erced+Platon9 and B% the legitimate children of another deceased sister of hers :ugenia dela *erced+)driano! )lmost a year later Francisco dela *erced died! -e was

sur$i$ed by his wife @lan(uita :rrea dela *erced and their three legitimate children namely

<uisito :! dela *erced @lan(uita *! *acatangay and *a! 3li$ia *! Paredes!These three sets of heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement on the :state of :$arista *! dela*erced! @ut respondent Eoselito P! ;ela *erced an illegitimate son of the late Francisco de la

*erced objected to the extrajudicial settlement and sought its annulment! -e alleged that he

was fraudulently omitted from the said settlement despite his relation to the late Francisco!Therefore he as4ed for his inclusion as one of the beneficiaries to the share of one+third B15%

pro+indi$iso share in the estate of the deceased :$arista corresponding to the heirs of Francisco!

The trial court denied Eoselito2s petition! The trial court noted that Francisco ;ela *erced is alegitimate child not an illegitimate child9 while Eoselito ;ela *erced is an illegitimate child of

the late Francisco ;ela *erced! -ence it ruled that Eoselito cannot represent his alleged father

in the succession of the latter in the intestate estate of the late :$arista ;ela *erced because of

the barrier in Art. 992 of the New Civil Code which states that' An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and

relatives of his father or mother, nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same

manner from the illegitimate child.Eoselito appealed and obtained a fa$ourable judgement! The Court of )ppeals cancelled

extrajudicial settlement and allowed Eoselito to inherit from :$arista! In coming up with this

judgment it relied on )rticle HHH of the ew Ci$il Code in allowing! It ruled that the rights tosuccession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent so that Francisco dela

*erced inherited 15% of his sisters estate at the moment of the latter2s death! Said 15% of

:$arista2s estate formed part of Francisco2s estate which was subse(uently transmitted upon hisdeath on *arch ,% 1#=H to his legal heirs among whom is Eoselito his illegitimate child!

Eoselito became entitled to his share in Francisco2s estate from the time of the latter2s death in1#=H! The extrajudicial settlement therefore is $oid!

ISSUE AD RULIG:

#? 7et7er or ot res3oet 9ose1to !. De1a er)e )a 7ert fro* Evarsta . De1a

er)e@



1/ SUCCESSION

Eoselito P! dela *erced can inherit from :$arista *! dela *erced not by right of

representation but by his own right as the heir of the late Franscisco :$arista who is a

legitimate heir of the latter! )rticle HHH of the ew Ci$il Code pro$ides that the rights tosuccession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent! @y $irtue of this

article Eoselito dela *erced has a rightful and undisputed right of an heir to the share of hisfather in the estate of :$arista dela *erced!

Jpon the death of :$arista dela *erced her brother Franciso dela *erced inherited a

portion of the state of the former as one of her heirs! Conse(uently when Francisco

subse(uently died his heirs including Eoselito dela *erced who is his illegitmate childautomatically inherited from Francisco dela *erced2s share in the estate of :$arista dela

*erced!

)rticle ##, of the ew Ci$il Code is not applicable in this case because this case is not a

situation where an illegitimate child would inherit ab intestato from a legitimate sister of his

father which is prohibited by the aforesaid pro$ision of law! .ather it is a scenario wherean illegitimate child inherits from his father9 the latter2s share in or portion of what the latter already inherited from the deceased sister :$arista!



16 SUCCESSION

G.R. o. L-#2#&%. A0g0st 4%( #&58.

TESTATE ESTATE F FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALT->A! e)ease. FAUST E.

GA( !ettoer-A33e11at( v. ILDEFS >A!( 33ostor-A33e11ee. Bee)to C.

Ba1erra*a( Crs3 D. Ba/as a Ro+erto H. Bete/ for A33e11at. Art0ro . To1eto

for A33e11ee.

FACTS:

Felicidad :sguerra )lto Aap died lea$ing properties in Pulilan @ulacan and in the City of

*anila! )mong her sur$i$ing heirs are Ildefonso Aap her husband and Fausto :! an her first

cousin! Fausto initiated probate proceedings on the alleged will left by deceased to whichIldefonso opposed! Ildefonso asserted that the deceased had not left any will nor executed any

testament during her lifetime!

The probate proceedings ensued with both Fausto and Ildefonso presenting their e$idence!Fausto was not able to exhibit the alleged will to the court the alleged will of Felicidad! So in

order to establish the contents and due execution of the alleged will he offered in e$idence the

testimonies of Felina :sguerra Primiti$o .eyes Socorro 3larte and .osario an Eimene>!

t7e ot7er 7a( I1efoso )o0tere t7e eve)e of Fa0sto <t7 t7e test*oes of t7e t<o

3ersos <7o <ere )ostat1 at t7e se of rs. Fe1)a( a*e1: ;r! Tanjua(uio and *rs!

@anti(ue the attending physician and personal attendant of *rs! Felicidad respecti$ely! They

s<ore t7at rs. Fe1)a Esg0erra >a3 *ae o <11 a )o01 7ave *ae o <11 o t7at

a!

)fter hearing the parties and considering their e$idence the trial court judge refused to probate

the alleged will! -ence this case!

ISSUE AD RULIG:

#? 7et7er or ot a 7o1ogra37) <11 )a +e 3ro+ate 03o t7e test*o of <tesses <7o

7ave a11ege1 see t a e)1are t7at t <as t7e 7a<rtg of t7e testator

ot<t7stag t7e fa10re of 3ro0)to of t7e 7o1ogra37) <11 +efore t7e tra1 )o0rt@

The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be pro$ed by

the bare testimony of witnesses who ha$e seen and5or read such will! The will itself must be presented9 otherwise it shall produce no effect! The law regards the document itself asmaterial proof of authenticity!

Tedoro C):;) et al!petitioners $s! -on! C3J.T 3F )PP:)<S and &illiam C)@.:.) asSpecial )dministrator of the :state of *ateo Caballero respondents!

Facts'



1H SUCCESSION

3n ;ecember / 1#H= *ateo Caballero a widower without any children already in the twilight

years of his life executed a last will and testament before three attesting witnesses and he was

duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public! It was declared therein that among other thingsthat the testator was lea$ing by way of legacies and de$ises his real and personal properties to

specific persons all of whom do not appear to be related to *ateo! ot long after he himselffiled a petition before the CFI see4ing the probate of his last will and testament but the scheduled

hearings were postponed until the testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court! @enoni Cabrera one of the legatees named in the will sought his

appointment as special administrator of the testator2s estate but due to his death he was

succeeded by &illiam Cabrera who was appointed by .TC which is already the probate court!P:TITI3:.S' The petitioners assail to the allowance of the testator2s will on the ground that it

was not executed in accordance with all the re(uisites of law since the testator was already in a

poor state of health such that he could not ha$e possibly executed the same! Petitioners li4ewisecontend that the will is null and $oid because its attestation clause is fatally defecti$e 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!.:SP3;:TS' The respondent on the other hand argue that *ateo was of sound and

disposing mind and in good health when he executed his will! Further they also contend that the

witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other!

ISSUE:

&hether or not the attestation clause in the last will of *ateo Caballero is fatallydefecti$e such that whether or not it affects the $alidity of the will!

RULIG:

)n attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attestingwitnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before them and to the manner of the

execution of the same! It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the

conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses9 it gi$es affirmation to the fact thatcompliance with the essential formalities re(uired by law has been obser$ed! In the absence of

bad faith forgery or fraud or undue and improper pressure and influence defects and

imperfection in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the willin$alid if it is not pro$ed that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance

with all the re(uirements of )rticle =0/!

The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form of the attestation or thelanguage employed therein! Such defects or imperfection would not render a will in$alid should

it be pro$ed that the will was really executed and attested in compliance with )rticle =0/! Theseconsiderations do not apply where the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting

witnesses signed each and e$ery page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other!In such a situation the defect is not only in the form or language of the attestation clause but the

total absence of a specific element re(uired by )rticle =0/ to be specifically stated in the

attestation clause of a will! That is precisely the defect complained of in the present case sincethere is no plausible way by which it can be read into the (uestioned attestation clause statement

or an implication thereof that the attesting witness did actually bear witness to the signing by the



1= SUCCESSION

testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instrumental witnesses also signed the will

and e$ery page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another!

FEDERICO AZAOLA vs. CESARIO SINGSON

G.R. No. L-14003; 109 Phil 102 | 5 August 1960

REYES, J. B. L., J.

Facts:

9 September 1957: Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance, testatrix, died at Quezon City, leaving a

holographic will whereby Maria Milagros Azaola was made the sole heir as against hernephew, Cesario Singson (Cesario).

Francisco Azaola (Francisco) submitted the holographic will and testified that: (1) he saw

the holographic will one month, more or less, before the death of testatrix; (2) he

recognized all the signatures appearing in the holographic will as the handwriting of the

testatrix; (3) the penmanship and signatures appearing in the documentary evidence are in

the handwriting of the testatrix; (4) the holographic will was handed to him, and that,

“apparently it must have been written by her”; and (5) he was familiar with the

penmanship and handwriting of the testatrix.

When asked if the penmanship referred to in the previous answer as appearing in the

holographic will was the testatrix, Francisco answered, “I would definitely say it is hers.”

Francisco presented the mortgage, special power of attorney, general power of attorney,

deed of sale, an affidavit, and two resident certificates for comparison of signatures.

Cesario opposed the probate on the following grounds: (1) the will was procured by

undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of Francisco and his wife; and (2)

the testatrix did not intend the instrument to be her last will, and that the instrument was

written on a date different from what appears on the will.

Issue:

Whether Art. 811, par. 1 of the Civil Code – particularly that requiring at least three

witnesses – is mandatory or merely directory in nature.

Ruling:

Short Answer: Art. 811, par. 1 of the Civil Code is merely directory in nature. The law

foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may be found, and provides for resort to

expert evidence to supply the deficiency.

We agree with the appellant, that since the authenticity of the will was not contested, he

was not required to produce more than one witness.



1# SUCCESSION

Art. 811 cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three

witnesses to identify the testator, under the penalty of having the probate denied.

The rule of this article was derived from the rule established for ordinary testaments. It

cannot be ignored that the requirement can only be considered mandatory in the case of

ordinary testaments where three witnesses are required at the execution of the will (Art.805). Where the will is holographic, no witness need be present (Art. 10), and the rule

requiring production of three witnesses must be deemed merely permissive if absurd

results are to be avoided .

The law leaves it to the trial court if experts are still needed, i.e., the court should resort to

expert testimony if no competent witness is available; hence, no unfavourable inference

can be drawn from a party's failure to offer expert evidence, until and unless the court

expresses dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay witnesses.

Considering, however, that this is the first time the Court has been called upon to

construe the import of said article, the interest of justice would be better served [xxx] by

giving the parties ample opportunity to adduce additional evidence, including expertwitnesses, should the Court deem them necessary.

Disposition: Decision appealed from is SET ASIDE, records are REMANDED to the

Court of origin, with instructions to HOLD A NEW TRIAL in conformity with this

opinion.



,0 SUCCESSION

EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL vs. EVANGELINE

CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and EUFEMIA PATIGAS

G.R. No. 123486 | 12 August 1999

PARDO, J.

Facts:

6 August 1990: Evangeline Calugay (Calugay), Josephine Salcedo (Salcedo), and

Eufemia Patigas (Patigas), (hereinafter referred to as respondents) devisees and legatees

in the holographic will of deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed with the

Regional Trial Court a petition for probate of the holographic will of the deceased, who

died on January 16, 1990.

28 June 1990: Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal (hereinafter referred to as

petitioners) filed an opposition alleging that the holographic will was a forgery and that

the same is even illegible. Some of their arguments were as follows: (1) the repeated

dates appearing on the will after every disposition is out of the ordinary, and that itshould appear at the end as regularly done; and (2) assuming the holographic will is in the

handwriting of the deceased, it was procured by undue and improper pressure and

influence, or through fraud and trickery.

Respondents presented six (6) witnesses and various documentary evidence. Petitioners

filed a demurrer to evidence.

The lower court granted the demurrer to evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals

reversed the ruling of the lower court, citing the case of Azaola v. Singson.

Issue:

Whether the provisions of Art. 811 of the Civil Code are permissive or mandatory.

Whether the case of Azaola v. Singson is applicable to the case.

Ruling:

Based on the language used, Art. 811 is mandatory. The word “shall” denotes an

imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion, and that the

presumption is that the word “shall,” when used in a statute is mandatory.

Paramount consideration in this case is the intent of the deceased; to establish this, an

exhaustive and objective consideration of evidence is imperative.

In this case, not all the witnesses presented by the respondents testified explicitly that

they were familiar with the handwriting of the testator.

In spite of Azaola v. Singson, in the case of Ajero v. Court of Appeals, the SC said, “theobject of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against

bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their

truth and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a

way as to attain these primordial ends. But on the other hand, 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. [xxx] However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document



,1 SUCCESSION

being adjudged as the will of the testator, which is why if the holographic will is

CONTESTED, that law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the

handwriting of the deceased .”

Other findings which convinced the SC that there’s a need to adduce additional evidence:

[1] the holographic was in the possession of one of the respondents five (5) years beforethe death of the testator; [2] there was no opportunity for an expert to compare the

handwriting of the testator with other documents signed and executed by her during her

lifetime; [3] a visual examination of the holographic will, when compared with the other

documents show that the strokes are different; and [4] comparing the signature in the

holographic will with those in the other documents, the Court cannot be certain in ruling

that the holographic will was in the handwriting of the deceased.

Disposition: Decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. Case is REMANDED to the Court

of origin to allow petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their opposition to the

probate.



,, SUCCESSION

!AULA DE LA CERA( ET AL. v. AUELA REBACA !TT( ET AL.( a THEHRABLE CURT F A!!EALS

!.! o! <+,0,%" ;ecember ,% 1#6"

FACTS

3n *ay # 1#%# the spouses @ernabe de la Serna and er$asia .ebaca executed a joint

last will and testament in the local dialect whereby they willed that two parcels of land ownedand ac(uired by them during their marriage together with all impro$ements thereon shall be

gi$en to a niece *anuela .ebaca! @ernabe de la Serna died on )ugust %0 1#%# and the

aforesaid will was submitted to probate by said er$asia and *anuela before the Court of FirstInstance of Cebu which by order of 3ctober %1 1#%# admitted it for probate!

Jpon death of er$asia .ebaca on 3ctober 1" 1#/, another petition for the probate of

the same will insofar as er$asia was concerned was filed on o$ember 6 1#/,! For failure of *anuela .! Potot and her attorney to appear the case was dismissed on *arch %0 1#/"!

The Court of First Instance declared the testament null and $oid for being executed

contrary to the prohibition of joint wills in the Ci$il Code but on appeal by the testamentary heir

the Court of )ppeals re$ersed on the ground that the decree of probate in 1#%# was issued by acourt of probate jurisdiction and conclusi$e on the due execution of the testament!

ISSUE&hether the final decree of probate entered in 1#%# by the Court of First Instance of Cebu has

conclusi$e effect as to his last will and testament despite the fact that e$en then the Ci$il Code already

decreed the in$alidity of joint wills whether in fa$or of the joint testators reciprocally or in fa$or of a

third party!

RULIG

Aes! The appealed decision correctly held that the final decree of probate entered in 1#%# by the Court of First Instance of Cebu has conclusi$e effect as to his last will and testament

despite the fact that e$en then the Ci$il Code already decreed the in$alidity of joint wills

whether in fa$or of the joint testators reciprocally or in fa$or of a third party! The error thuscommitted by the probate court was an error of law that should ha$e been corrected by appeal

but which did not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court nor the conclusi$e effect of its final

decision howe$er erroneous! ) final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world and public policy and sound practice demand that at ris4 of

occasional errors judgment of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law!

@ut the Court of )ppeals should ha$e ta4en into account also to a$oid futuremisunderstanding that the probate decree in 1#%# could only affect the share of the deceasedhusband @ernabe de la Cerna! It could not include the disposition of the share of the wife

er$asia .ebaca who was then still ali$e and o$er whose interest in the conjugal properties the

probate court ac(uired no jurisdiction precisely because her estate could not then be in issue! @eit remembered that prior to the new Ci$il Code a will could not be probated during the testator2s

lifetime!



,% SUCCESSION

It follows that the $alidity of the joint will in so far as the estate of the wife was

concerned must be on her death reexamined and adjudicated de no$o since a joint will is

considered a separate will of each testator! Thus regarded the holding of the court of FirstInstance of Cebu that the joint will is one prohibited by law was correct as to the participation of

the deceased er$asia .ebaca in the properties in (uestion!Go/a1es v. CA

G.R. o. L-4'$54. a 25( #&'&

F)CTS'

Petitioner .i>alina on>ales and <utgarda Santiago BPri$ate respondent are the nieces of the deceased Isabel abriel who died a widow! ) will was thereafter submitted to probate! The

said will was typewritten in Tagalog and appeared to ha$e been executed in )pril 1#61 or two

months prior to the death of Isabel! It consisted of / pages including the attestation andac4nowledgment with the signature of testatrix on page " and the left margin of all the pages!

<utgarda was named as the uni$ersal heir and executor! The petitioner opposed the

probate!The lower court denied the probate on the ground that the will was not executed and

attested in accordance with law on the issue of the competency and credibility of the witnesses!

ISSJ:'&hether or not the credibility of the subscribing witnesses is material to the $alidity of a

will!

.J<I'

o! The law re(uires only that witnesses possess the (ualifications under )rt! =,0 of the

CC and none of the dis(ualifications of )rt! =,1! There is no re(uirement that they are of good

standing or reputation in the community for trustworthiness honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony is belie$ed and accepted in court! For the testimony to be credible it is not

mandatory that e$idence be established on record that the witnesses ha$e good standing in the

community! Competency is distinguished from credibility the former being determined by )rt!=,0 while the latter does not re(uire e$idence of such good standing! Credibility depends on the

con$incing weight of his testimony in court!



," SUCCESSION

Hers of Urarte vs. CA

G.R. o. ##6''5. 9a0ar 22( #&&8

FACTS:

Pri$ate respondent @enedicto is the nephew of Eusta by her half sister )gatonica while

Petitioners are grandchildren the relati$es within the fifth degree of consanguinity of Eusta by

her cousin Primiti$a )rnaldo Jriarte!Pri$ate respondent @enedicto :strada brought this case in the .egional Trial Court for the

partition of the land left by Eusta )rnaldo+Sering! Pri$ate respondent claimed to be the sole

sur$i$ing heir of Eusta on the ground that the latter died without issue! -e complained thatPascasio Jriarte who he claimed wor4ed the land as Eustas tenant refused to gi$e him his share

of the har$est! -e contended that Pascasio had no right to the entire land of Eusta but could claim

only one+half of the 0!/ hectare land which Eusta had inherited from her parents!

They claimed among others that pri$ate respondent did not ha$e any right to the property because he was not an heir of )mbrocio )rnaldo the original owner of the property!

ISSUE:

&ho among the petitioners and the pri$ate respondent are entitled to Eusta2s estate as her

nearest relati$es within the meaning of )rt! #6, of the Ci$il Code!

RULIG:The manner of determining the proximity of relationship are pro$ided by )rticles #6% +

#66 of the Ci$il Code! They pro$ide'

).T! #6%! Proximity of relationship is determined by the number of generations! :achgeneration forms a degree!

).T! #6"! ) series of degrees forms a line which may be either direct or collateral!

) direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants anddescendants!

) collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not

ascendants and descendants but who come from a common ancestor!).T! #6/! The direct line is either descending or ascending!

The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him!The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends!

).T! #66! In the line as many degrees are counted as there are generations or personsexcluding the progenitor!

In the direct line ascent is made to the common ancestor! Thus the child is one degree

remo$ed from the parent two from the grandfather and three from the great+grandparent!In the collateral line ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent is made to

the person with whom the computation is to be made! Thus a person is two degrees remo$ed



,/ SUCCESSION

from his brother three from his uncle who is the brother of his father four from his first cousin

and so forth!

In this case plaintiff is the son of )gatonica the half+sister of Eusta! -e is thus a thirddegree relati$e of Eusta!

3n the other hand defendants and inter$enors are the sons and daughters of Eustascousin! They are thus fifth degree relati$es of Eusta!

)pplying the principle that the nearest excludes the farthest then plaintiff is the lawfulheir of Eusta! The fact that his mother is only a half+sister of Eusta is of no moment!

e$ertheless petitioners ma4e much of the fact that pri$ate respondent is not an )rnaldo

his mother being Jrsulas daughter not by Euan )rnaldo but by Pedro )rre>a! They claim that this being the case pri$ate respondent is not an heir of Eusta and thus not (ualified to share in her

estate!

Petitioners misappreciated the relationship between Eusta and pri$ate respondent! )salready stated pri$ate respondent is the son of Eustas half+sister )gatonica! -e is therefore Eustas

nephew! ) nephew is considered a collateral relati$e who may inherit if no descendant

ascendant or spouse sur$i$e the decedent!



,6 SUCCESSION

G.R. o. '6$6$ Fe+r0ar 2&( #&88CASIA ,. CA

FACTS:

• 3n 3ctober ,0 1#6% )driana *aloto died lea$ing as heirs her niece and nephews the *alotos!

@elie$ing that the deceased did not lea$e behind a last will and testament these four heirs commenced

on o$ember " 1#6% an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt?s estate! The *alotos

then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial court for appro$al which the court did

on *arch ,1 1#6"! That should ha$e signalled the end of the contro$ersy but unfortunately it had

not!

• *arch 1#6H )tty! Sulpicio Palma a former associate of )driana?s counsel the late )tty! :liseo

-er$as disco$ered a document entitled DK)T)PJS) ) P)@J@J<)T+) BTestamentoDdated Eanuary %1#"0 and purporting to be the last will and testament of )driana! )tty! Palma claimed

to ha$e found the testament the original copy while he was going through some materials inside the

cabinet drawer formerly used by )tty! -er$as!

• The document was submitted to the office of the cler4 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on )pril

1 1#6H! Incidentally while Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will )ldina and

Constancio are be(ueathed much bigger and more $aluable shares in the estate of )driana than what

they recei$ed by $irtue of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed!

• The will li4ewise gi$es de$ises and legacies to other parties among them being the petitioners )silo

de *olo the .oman Catholic Church of *olo and Purificacion *iraflor!

• 3n *ay ," 1#6H )ldina and Constancio joined by the other de$isees and legatees named in the will

filed in Special Proceeding o! 1H%6 a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings

therein and for the allowance of the will &hen the trial court denied their motion the petitioner came

to us by way of a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of the trial court

Significantly the appellate court while finding as inconclusi$e the matter on whether or not the

document or papers allegedly burned by the househelp of )driana uadalupe *aloto Vda! de Coral

upon instructions of the testatrix was indeed the will contradicted itself and found that the will had

been re$o4ed! The respondent court stated that the presence of animus revocandi in the destruction of

the will had ne$ertheless been sufficiently pro$en!

ISSUE:

&hether or not the will was re$o4ed by )driana

RULIG:

• There is no doubt as to the testamentary capacity of the testatrix and the due execution of the will! The

heart of the case lies on the issue as to whether or not the will was re$o4ed by )driana! The pro$isions

of the new Ci$il Code pertinent to the issue can be found in )rticle =%0! o will shall be re$o4ed

except in the following cases'



,= SUCCESSION

Hers of G0o vs. De1 Rosaro

4%$ SCRA #8 GR. o. #2$42%

Fa)ts:

Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the late uido and Isabel Aaptinchay the owners+

claimants of <ot o! 11%1 with an area of /,06%= and <ot o! 11%, with an area of #6,%/s(uare meters more or less situated in @ancal Carmona Ca$ite!

3n *arch 1H 1##" petitioners executed an :xtra+Eudicial Settlement of the estate of the

deceased uido and Isabel Aaptinchay!

3n )ugust ,6 1##" petitioners disco$ered that a portion if not all of the aforesaid properties

were titled in the name of respondent olden @ay .ealty and ;e$elopment CorporationBDolden @ayD under Transfer Certificate of Title os! BDTCTD ,,/,/" and ,,/,//! &ith the

disco$ery of what happened to subject parcels of land petitioners filed a complaint for

)J<*:T and5or ;:C<).)TI3 3F J<<ITA 3F TCT 3! "#%%6% "#%%6" "#%66/

"#%%66 "#%%6H9 and its ;eri$ati$es9 )s )lternati$e .econ$eyance of .ealty &IT- ) P.)A:. F3. ) &.IT 3F P.:<I*I).A IEJCTI3 and5or .:ST.)II 3.;:. &IT-

;)*):S doc4eted as .TC @CV+#"+1,H before @ranch ,1 of the .egional Trial Court in

Imus Ca$ite!

Jpon learning that Dolden @ayD sold portions of the parcels of land in (uestion petitioners filed

with the D.TCD an )mended Complaint to implead new and additional defendants and tomention the TCTs to be annulled! @ut the respondent court dismissed the )mended Complaint!

Petitioners mo$ed for reconsideration of the 3rder dismissing the )mended Complaint! Themotion was granted by the .TC in an 3rder 1 dated Euly H 1##/ which further allowed the

herein petitioners to file a Second )mended Complaint , which they promptly did!

3n )ugust 1, 1##/ the pri$ate respondents presented a *otion to ;ismiss % on the grounds thatthe complaint failed to state a cause of action that plaintiffs did not ha$e a right of action that

they ha$e not established their status as heirs that the land being claimed is different from that of

the defendants and that plaintiffs? claim was barred by laches! The said *otion to ;ismiss wasgranted by the respondent court in its 3rder " dated 3ctober ,/ 1##/ holding that petitioners

Dha$e not shown any proof or e$en a semblance of it L except the allegations that they are the



,# SUCCESSION

legal heirs of the abo$e+named Aaptinchays L that they ha$e been declared the legal heirs of the

deceased couple!D

Petitioners interposed a *otion for .econsideration / but to no a$ail! The same was denied by

the .TC in its 3rder 6 of February ,% 1##6!

Jndaunted petitioners filed before the supreme court a petition for certiorari $ia rule 6/ of therules of court attac4ing the ruling made by the respondent court!

Iss0e:

&hether or not the issue of heirship should first be determined before trial of the case could

proceed!

R01g:

oThe trial court cannot ma4e a declaration of heirship in the ci$il action for the reason that such adeclaration can only be made in a special proceeding! Jnder Section % .ule 1 of the 1##H

.e$ised .ules of Court a ci$il action is defined as Done by which a party sues another for the

enforcement or protection of a right or the pre$ention or redress of a wrongD while a special proceeding is Da remedy by which a party see4s to establish a status a right or a particular fact!D

It is then decisi$ely clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special

proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are see4ing the establishment of a status or right! &etherefore hold that the respondent court did the right thing in dismissing the Second )mended

Complaint which stated no cause of action! In Tra$el &ide )ssociated Sales BPhils! Inc! $!

Court of )ppeals 11 it was ruled that' ! ! ! If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the

real party in interest a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states nocause of action!

&-:.:F3.: for lac4 of merit the Petition under consideration is hereby ;IS*ISS:;!



%0 SUCCESSION

Aga3a vs. !a1ag

26' SCRA 4$#

F)CTS'

*iguel Palang contracted his first marriage in 1#"# with pri$ate respondentCarlina Bor Cornelia Vallesterol in Pangasinan! ) few months after the wedding he leftto wor4 in -awaii! *iguel and Carlina?s only child -erminia Palang was born on *ay

1, 1#/0! In 1#/" *iguel returned but did not stay with his wife and child! :$entually

in 1#H% *iguel contracted his second marriage with petitioner :rlinda )gapay! Twomonths earlier *iguel and :rlinda jointly purchased a parcel of agricultural land in

Pangasinan! ) house and lot was also purchased by :rlinda in his own name! *iguel and

Carlina then executed a ;eed of ;onation as a form of compromise agreement to settleand end a case filed by the latter! The parties therein agreed to donate their conjugal

property consisting of six parcels of land to their only child -erminia! Thereafter *iguel

and :rlinda2s cohabitation produced a son and his parents were con$icted of concbunage!

Subse(uently *iguel died! Carlina and -eminia instituted an action for the reco$ery ofownership and possession with damages against petitioner before the .egional Trial Court

in Jrdaneta Pangasinan to get bac4 the riceland and the house and lot both located at

@inalonan Pangasinan allegedly purchased by *iguel during his cohabitation with petitioner!

ISSJ:'

&hether -eirship and Filiation should be Ventilated in Proper Probate Court!

.J<I'

-eirship and filiation inasmuch as (uestions as to who are the heirs of the

decedent proof of filiation of illegitimate children and the determination of the estate ofthe latter and claims thereto should be $entilated in the proper probate court or in a

special proceeding instituted for the purpose and cannot be adjudicated in the instant

ordinary ci$il action which is for reco$ery of ownership and possession!



%1 SUCCESSION

ALLES II ,S. !HILI!S 9AUAR> 4#( 2%%%? ALLES II ,S. !HILI!S

G.R. . #2&5%5( 9AUAR> 4#( 2%%%?

FACTS:

In 1##/ ;r! )rturo ;e <os Santos filed a petition for probate of his will! -e declared thathe has no compulsory heirs and that he is naming as sole de$isee and legatee the )rturo de

Santos Foundation Inc! B)SF! The named executrix is Pacita ;e <os .eyes Phillips! The

petition was granted! Shortly after he died! 3cta$io his nephew filed a *otion for Inter$ention!-e argued that as the nearest of 4in and creditor of the testator his interest in the matter is

material and direct!

ISSUE:

&hether or not 3cta$io *aloles II has the right to inter$ene in the probate proceeding!

RULIG:

o! In order for a person to be allowed to inter$ene in a proceeding he must ha$e an

interest in the estate or in the will or in the property to be affected by it! -e must be an interested

party or one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim againstthe estate li4e a creditor and whose interest is material and direct! 3cta$io is not an heir or

legatee under the will of the decedent! either is he a compulsory heir of the decedent! )s the

only and nearest collateral relati$e of the decedent he may only inherit if a person dies intestate!:$en if petitioner is the nearest next of 4in of ;r! ;e Santos he cannot be considered an 7heir8

of the testator! It is a fundamental rule of testamentary succession that one who has nocompulsory or forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by will!



%, SUCCESSION

9*ee/ vs. IAC

1=" SC.) %6H or !.! o! H/HH% )pril 1H 1##0

FACTS

Petitioners are siblings from the second marriage of the decedent to one eno$e$a

Caolboy after the death of decedent?s first marriage to one Consolacion Jngson that resulted to

four B" offspring!;uring the subsistence of the first marriage decedent bought fi$e B/ parcels of land!

)fter the death of petitioner?s parents petitioner Virginia offspring from the second marriage

filed a petition before the Court of First Instance praying to be appointed as administratrix of the properties belonging to the second marriage! &hen assigned thereafter she filed an in$entory of

the estate wherein she included the fi$e B/ parcels of land belonging to the first marriage! )s a

conse(uence respondent <eonardo Er Boffspring from first marriage presented documentary

and testimonial e$idence in support of his opposition!The Probate Court ordered the exclusion of the fi$e B/ parcels of land! Petitioner

Virginia appealed the decision to the Court of )ppeals but the same dismissed the appeal! This

decision by the Court of )ppeals become final and executory! Two years therefrom petitioner went to the .TC to reco$er the said parcels of land but again the action was dismissed on the

ground of res judicata! )n appeal again of the decision of .TC was done but failed! Thus this

petition!

ISSUE

&hether or not the in a settlement proceedings Btestate or intestate the lower court has the jurisdiction to settle (uestions of ownership

RULIG

The Supreme Court ruled in the negati$e! It held that the Probate Court?s limited jurisdiction on (uestion of title or ownership which result in inclusion or exclusion from the

in$entory of the property can only be settled in a separate action!

The Court opined that all that the Probate Court can do as regards said properties isdetermine whether they should or should not be included in the in$entory to be administered by

the administrator! If there is a dispute as to ownership the parties and the administrator ha$e to



%% SUCCESSION

resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because

according to the Supreme Court the Probate Court cannot do so!

!astor( 9r. vs. CA

1,, SC.) ==%!.! o! <+/6%"0 Eune ," 1#=%

FACTS

Petitioner )l$aro Pastor Er! BP)ST3. Er! is one of the two B, legitimate children of the

decedent who died in Eune / 1#66! -is mother is also a Spanish subject and died later on thesame year with the death of his father! Petitioner is naturali>ed in 1#%H but his sister Sofia Pastor

de *idgely BS3FI) is a Spanish subject! -is Father had one illegitimate child named <ewellyn

@arlito Muemada BMJ:*);) the pri$ate respondent herein a Filipino by his mother?sciti>enship!

The decedent was in$ol$ed in mining Bthru )T<)S in Cebu and after his death

MJ:*);) filed a petition for probate of a holographic will of the decedent with the Court of

First Instance BCFI of Cebu BP.3@)T: C3J.T doc4eted as SP o! %1,=+.! The willcontained only one testamentary disposition' a legacy in favor of $%&'A(A consisting of )*+

of decedents -2+ share in the operation by A/A0.

The crux of the case was on the issuance of the P.3@)T: C3J.T dated )ugust ,01#=0 of an order of :xecution and arnishment resol$ing the (uestion of ownership of the

royalties payable by )T<)S and ruling effect that the legacy to MJ:*);) was not

inofficious! The petitioners assailed this order as it resol$ed the issues of ownership and intrinsic$alidity of the will! Petitioner argued that before the pro$isions of the holographic will can be

implemented (uestion on ownership of mining properties and $alidity of the will must first be

resol$ed with finality!

ISSUE&hether or not the probate court can resol$ed the issue of ownership of the property!

RULIG

Supreme Court ruled on the negati$e! It held that as a rule the (uestion of ownership is

an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resol$e with finality! It said that in a special proceeding for the probate of the will the issue by and large is restricted to the etrinsic validity



%" SUCCESSION

of the will i!e! whether the testator being of sound mind freely executed the will in accordance

with the formalities prescribed by law! N.ules of Court .ule H/ Section 19 .ule H6 Section #O!

G.R. o. #2$'#5. 9a0ar 2$( 2%%%

RUFIA LU> LI 3ettoer(

vs.

CURT F A!!EALS( AUT TRUC TBA CR!RATI( S!EED DISTRIBUTIG(

IC.( ACTI,E DISTRIBUTRS( ALLIACE ARETIG CR!RATI(

ACTIC!A>( IC. res3oets.

F)CTS'

Petitioner .ufina <uy <im is the sur$i$ing spouse of the late Pastor A! <im who diedintestate and whose estate is the subject of probate proceedings! Petitioner filed for the

administration of the estate of her husband before the .TC of Mue>on City! -erein Pri$ate

respondent corporations whose properties were included in the in$entory of the estate of Pastor

A! <im then filed a motion for the lifting of lis pendens and motion for exclusion of certain properties from the estate of the decedent!

The .TC of Mue>on City sitting as probate court appointed petitioner as special administrator!)fter which letters of administration were accordingly issued and denied pri$ate respondent2s

new motion for exclusion! Pri$ate .espondents then filed a separate ci$il action for certiorari

before the C) and rendered decision in fa$or of them! -ence petitioner filed before the SCraising that the respondent C) arrogating unto itself the power to repeal to disobey or to ignore

the clear and explicit pro$isions of .ules =1 =% =" and =H of the .ules of Court and thereby

pre$enting the petitioner from performing her duty as special administrator of the estate asexpressly pro$ided in the said .ules! Petitioner relies hea$ily on the principle that a probate

court may pass upon title to certain properties albeit pro$isionally for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the in$entory!

ISSJ:'

&3 probate court has jurisdiction in the determination of the (uestion of title in probate proceedings!



%/ SUCCESSION

.J<I'

3! In *3.)<:S $s! CFI 3F C)VIT: citing CJI3 $s! .)*3<:T: SC made anexposition on the probate court2s limited jurisdiction' DIt is a well+settled rule that a probate

court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determinetitle to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are e(ually claimed to belong to

outside parties! )ll that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine

whether they should or should not be included in the in$entory or list of properties to beadministered by the administrator! If there is no dispute well and good9 but if there is then the

parties the administrator and the opposing parties ha$e to resort to an ordinary action for a final

determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so!D

Inasmuch as the real properties included in the in$entory of the estate of the late Pastor A! <im

are in the possession of and are registered in the name of pri$ate respondent corporations whichunder the law possess a personality separate and distinct from their stoc4holders and in theabsence of any cogency to shred the $eil of corporate fiction the presumption of conclusi$eness

of said titles in fa$or of pri$ate respondents should stand undisturbed!

)ccordingly the probate court was remiss in denying pri$ate respondents2 motion for

exclusion! &hile it may be true that the .egional Trial Court acting in a restricted capacity and

exercising limited jurisdiction as a probate court is competent to issue orders in$ol$inginclusion or exclusion of certain properties in the in$entory of the estate of the decedent and to

adjudge albeit pro$isionally the (uestion of title o$er properties it is no less true that such

authority conferred upon by law and reinforced by jurisprudence should be exercised

judiciously with due regard and caution to the peculiar circumstances of each indi$idual case!

otwithstanding that the real properties were duly registered under the Torrens system in the

name of pri$ate respondents and as such were to be afforded the presumpti$e conclusi$enessof title the probate court ob$iously opted to shut its eyes to this gleamy fact and still

proceeded to issue the impugned orders! @y its denial of the motion for exclusion the probate

court in effect acted in utter disregard of the presumption of conclusi$eness of title in fa$or of pri$ate respondents! Certainly the probate court through

such bra>en act transgressed the clear pro$isions of law and infringed settled jurisprudence on

this matter!



%6 SUCCESSION

G.R. o. L-2$465 90e 4%( #&66I THE ATTER F THE ITESTATE ESTATE F EDARD E. CHRISTESE( e)ease.

ADLF C. A;AR( ee)0tor a a33e11ee( vs. ARIA LUC> CHRISTESE

DUCA( o33ostor a a33e11at. ARIA HELE CHRISTESE( o33ostor a a33e11ee.

FACTS:

:dward :! Christensen a California citi>en domiciled in the Philippines left a will

designating his daughter *aria <ucy Christensen ;uncan also referred to herein as <ucy;uncan appellant as his sole heir! -owe$er the court has declared that the named de$isee in the

contested will *aria -elen Christensen also referred to herein as -elen arcia appellee is also

a natural child of the deceased! )ppellee *aria -elen now a$ers that said contested will must bein$alidated on the ground of preterition! )ppellant in response a$ers that this is not a case of

preterition rather go$erned by )rticle #06 and a defecti$e disinheritance go$erned by )rticle

#1= and therefore be entitled only to the completion of appellee2s legitime!

ISSUE:

&hether there has been preterition conse(uently in$alidating the will or merelyineffecti$e disinheritance thereby only reduction of the instituted heir for the completion of

legitime on the forced heir!

RULIG:

The Court ruled that the inheritance of <ucy ;uncan herein appellant must only bereduced to co$er the legitime of -elen arcia!

&hile the classical $iew pursuant to the .oman law ga$e an affirmati$e answer to the

(uestion according to both *anresa B6 *anresa Hth %rd! "%6 and Sanche> .oman BTomo VIVol! ,!0 L p! #%H that $iew was changed by )rticle 6"/ of the DProyecto de Codigo de 1=/1D

later on copied in )rticle #06 of our own Code! *anresa cites particularly three decisions of the

Supreme Court of Spain dated Eanuary 16 1=#/ *ay ,/ 1#1H and )pril ,% 1#%, respecti$ely!

In each one of those cases the testator left to one who was a forced heir a legacy worth less thanthe legitime but without referring to the legatee as an heir or e$en as a relati$e and willed the

rest of the estate to other persons! It was held that )rticle =1/ applied and the heir could not as4



%H SUCCESSION

that the institution of heirs be annulled entirely but only that the legitime be completed! B6

*anresa pp! "%= ""1!

*anresa cites particularly three decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain dated Eanuary16 1=#/ *ay ,/ 1#1H and )pril ,% 1#%, respecti$ely! In each one of those cases the testator

left to one who was a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime but without referring tothe legatee as an heir or e$en as a relati$e and willed the rest of the estate to other persons! It

was held that )rticle =1/ applied and the heir could not as4 that the institution of heirs beannulled entirely but only that the legitime be completed! B6 *anresa pp! "%= ""1!

The foregoing solution is indeed more in consonance with the expressed wishes of the

testator in the present case as may be gathered $ery clearly from the pro$isions of his will! -erefused to ac4nowledge -elen arcia as his natural daughter and limited her share to a legacy of

P%600!00! The fact that she was subse(uently declared judicially to possess such status is no

reason to assume that had the judicial declaration come during his lifetime his subjecti$e attitudetowards her would ha$e undergone any change and that he would ha$e willed his estate e(ually

to her and to <ucy ;uncan who alone was expressly recogni>ed by him!

The decision of this Court in Neri, et al. v. Akutin H" Phil! 1=/ is cited by appellees insupport of their theory of preterition! That decision is not here applicable because it referred to awill where Dthe testator left all his property by uni$ersal title to the children by his second

marriage and Bthat without expressly disinheriting the children by his first marriage he left

nothing to them or at least some of them!D In the case at bar the testator did not entirely omitoppositor+appellee -elen arcia but left her a legacy of P%600!00!



%= SUCCESSION

REEDIS UGUID

vs

FELI UGUID AD !A; SALGA UGUID

GR o. L-24$$. 90e 24( #&66

FACTS'

.osario uguid single died in ;ecember %0 1#6,! She was without descendants butwas sur$i$ed by her parents and siblings! 3n *ay 1=1#6% .emedios uguidher sister filed in

CFI a holographic will allegedly executed by .osario on o$ember 1H 1#/1 or 11 years ago

said will instituted .emedios as the uni$ersal heir thereby compulsory heirs the ascendants of the decendent filed their opposition to the probate proceeding! They contend that they were

illegally preterited and as a conse(uence the institution is $oid! The court2s order held that 7the

will in (uestion is a complete nullity8!

ISSUE'

&hether or not the compulsory heirs were preterited thereby rendering the holographicwill $oid!

RULIG'

)rticle =/" of the Ci$il Code states that the preterition or omission of one some or all of

the compulsory heirs in the direct time whether li$ing at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator shall annul the institution of heir9 but the de$ises and legacies

shall be $alid insofar as they are not inofficious!

The forced heirs parents of the deceased were recei$ed nothing by the testament! Theone+sentence will institute petitioner as the uni$ersal heir! o specific legacies or be(uest are

therein pro$ided for! It is in this posture that the Supreme Court says that the nullity is complete!

Preterition consist in the omission in the testator2s will of the forced heirs or anyone of

them either because they are not mentioned therein or though mentioned they are neither



%# SUCCESSION

instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited as heirs nor are expressly disinherited!

;isinheritance is a testamentary disposition depri$ing any compulsory heir his5her share in the

legitime for a cause authori>ed by law!

ACAI vs. IAC

3ctober ,H 1#=H

FACTS:

Constantino filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late emesio! The will

pro$ided that all his shares from properties he earned with his wife shall be gi$en to his brother Segundo Bfather of Constantino! In case Segundo dies all such property shall be gi$en to

Segundo2s children! Segundo pre+deceased emesio!

The oppositors Virginia a legally adopted daughter of the deceased and the latter?s

widow .osa filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds'

B1 the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings9

B, he is merely a uni$ersal heir and

B% the widow and the adopted daughter ha$e been preterited!

ISSUE:

&as there preteritionG

HELD:

!reterto consists in the omission in the testator?s will of the forced heirs or anyone of

them either because they are not mentioned therein or though mentioned they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited! Insofar as the widow is concerned )rticle

=/" may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator although she is a

compulsory heir! Eve f t7e s0rvvg s3o0se s a )o*301sor 7er( t7ere s o 3reterto

eve f s7e s o*tte fro* t7e 7erta)e( for s7e s ot t7e re)t 1e !



"0 SUCCESSION

The same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia whose legal adoption by

the testator has not been (uestioned by petitioner! Ao3to gves to t7e ao3te 3erso t7e

sa*e rg7ts a 0tes as f 7e <ere a 1egt*ate )71 of t7e ao3ter a *aes t7e

ao3te 3erso a 1ega1 7er of t7e ao3ter. It cannot be denied that she was totally omitted and

preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were depri$ed of at least their legitime! either can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited! This is a

clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child!

Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate

succession the entire inheritance! The only pro$isions which do not result in intestacy are thelegacies and de$ises made in the will for they should stand $alid and respected except insofar as

the legitimes are concerned!

The uni$ersal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire

inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such

institution of uni$ersal heirs + without any other testamentary disposition in the will + amounts toa declaration that nothing at all was written!

In order that a person may be allowed to inter$ene in a probate proceeding he must ha$e

an interest in the estate or in the will or in the property to be affected by it! Petitioner is not the

appointed executor neither a de$isee or a legatee there being no mention in the testamentary

disposition of any gift of an indi$idual item of personal or real property he is called upon to

recei$e! )t the outset he appears to ha$e an interest in the will as an heir! -owe$er intestacy

ha$ing resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the uni$ersal institution of

heirs petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator! -e has no legal standing to petition for the

probate of the will left by the deceased!



"1 SUCCESSION

GARCIA va. e A!A et. a1.( vs. CA et. a1.

Fa)ts:

Concepcion *apa de -idrosollo died lea$ing a will and designating her spouse <udo$ico

-idrosollo as the uni$ersal heir of her estate ha$ing died without any descendant or ascendant!

<udo$ico -idrosollo was designated as uni$ersal heir but with the obligation to hold the residueof her estate in trust for their nephews and nieces!

Iss0e:

1! &3 a trust is created,! &3 a trust can be created without consideration of the legitimes of the compulsory heirs

He1:

)lthough the word DtrustD itself does not appear in the &ill the testatrix?s intent to create one is

nonetheless clearly demonstrated by the stipulations in her &ill! In designating her husband

<udo$ico -idrosollo as uni$ersal and sole heir with the obligation to deli$er the properties to petitioners and pri$ate respondents she intended that the legal title should $est in him and in

significantly referring to petitioners and pri$ate respondents as DbeneficiariosD she intended that

the beneficial or e(uitable interest to these properties should repose in them! To our mind thesedesignations coupled with the other pro$isions for co+ownership and joint administration of the

properties as well as the other conditions imposed by the testatrix effecti$ely created a trust in

fa$or of the parties o$er the properties ad$erted to in the &ill! Do particular words are re(uiredfor the creation of an express trust it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended! D B)rt! 1""%

Ci$il Code of the Philippines!

-owe$er we must not lose sight of the fact that as the sur$i$ing spouse of the testatrix<udo$ico -idrosollo was entitled to a legitime of one+half B15, of her hereditary estate! )s that

portion is reser$ed by law for the compulsory heirs no burden encumbrance condition orsubstitution of any 4ind whatsoe$er may be imposed upon the legitime by the testator! The trust

created by Concepcion should therefore be as it is hereby declared to be effecti$e only on thefree portion of her estate i!e! that portion not co$ered by <udo$ico -idrosollo?s legitime!



", SUCCESSION

G.R. o. L-28'4$. ar)7 28( #&6&.

EETERI A. RDRIGUE; s0+stt0to of RUFI A. RDRIGUE;( <7o e

0rg t7e 3ee) of t7s )ase t7e Co0rt of A33ea1s?( a 9SE A>ALA( ee)0tors-

3ettoers( v. THE H. CURT F A!!EALS a !ETRA RDRIGUE;( ATIA

RDRIGUE; a RSA RDRIGUE;( o33ostors-res3oets.

9ose A. Gar)a a Is*ae1 . Estre11a for ee)0tors-3ettoers.

ago a !arees for o33ostors-res3oets.

F)CTS'

;oQa *argarita .odrigue> died in the City of *anila on Euly 1# 1#60 lea$ing a last will and

testament under date of September %0 1#/1 and that said last will and testament was legali>ed

by $irtue of the resolution or order of the Court of First Instance of *anila under date of September ,% 1#60 without the appellant2s opposition in Special Proceeding o! %="/ hence

the extrinsic $alidity of the will was substantially not in (uestion! 3n )ugust ,H 1#6, the

executor of the last will and testament of the late ;oQa *argarita .odrigue> presented a project

of partition and the same was appro$ed by the Court of First Instance of *anila again withoutthe opposition of the appellants! -ence the intrinsic $alidity of the will could ne$er be again

(uestioned and raised as issue in the trusteeship proceedings o! /1=H, of the same court!R

The aforesaid decision of the Court of )ppeals would write finish to this litigation!

Jnfortunately it was not so! It ought not to ha$e been the case for as admitted the deceased to

(uote from the language of the Eanuary 1= 1#6H decision of the Court of )ppeals Dat the time of her death left no compulsory heirs or forced heirs and conse(uently NwasO free to dispose of her

properties e$en to strangers at will as pro$ided in her will!D It was li4ewise noted therein that the

testatrix created a trust which was objected to by pri$ate respondents who claimed to be firstcousins of the deceased! Such an objection was o$erruled by the lower court which granted

letters of trusteeship to petitioners who were the executors under the will! Such an order of thelower court was appealed by respondent to the Court of )ppeals which in the original decision

of Eanuary 1= 1#6H affirmed the action ta4en by the Court of First Instance!

ISSJ:'

&hether or not the first cousins of the deceased are the rightful heir of ;oQa *argarita

.odrigue>!



"% SUCCESSION

-:<;'

3!

In the resolution setting aside the original decision of Eanuary 1= 1#6H the Court of )ppealsheld that the abo$e Dperpetual prohibition to alienateD the property mentioned constitutes a clear

$iolation of )rticle =6H and )rticle =H0 of the Ci$il Code! It was further stated in the aforesaid

resolution that the Court of )ppeals did arri$e Dat the considered $iew that the trust in (uestion isa nullity for being in $iolation of the aforestated rules Bagainst perpetuities and the limitation

regarding the inalienability of the hereditary estate!D / There being then no institution of heirs as

regards the properties co$ered by the trust the Court of )ppeals held that Dthere should beintestate succession concerning the same with the nearest relati$e of the deceased entitled to

inherit the properties in accordance with the law on intestacy!

The contention of NpetitionerO that there had already been a project partition appro$ed by thelower court NwhichO operates as a wai$er on the part of the NrespondentsO to raise the issue of the

in$alidity of the (uestioned pro$ision of the will which &e ha$e sustained in our decision seems

to be not well ta4en!

*oreo$er so compelling is the principle that intestacy should be a$oided and the wishes of the

testator allowed to pre$ail that &e could e$en $ary the language of the will for the purpose of gi$ing it effect! Thus' D&here the testator2s intention is manifest from the context of the will and

surrounding circumstances but is obscured by inapt and inaccurate modes of expression the

language will be subordinated to the intention and in order to gi$e effect to such intention as far

as possible the court may depart from the strict wording and read a word or phrase in a sensedifferent from that which is ordinarily attributed to it and for such purpose may would or change

the language of the will such as restricting its application or supplying omitted words or phrases!



"" SUCCESSION

RABADILLA vs. CA 90e 2&( 2%%%

FACTS:

) certain testatrix )leja @elle>a instituted in his will ;r! Eorge .abadilla predecessor+in+interest

of the herein petitioner Eohnny S! .abadilla as a de$isee to a /11 =// hectare land! ) Codicilwas appended to his <ast &ill and Testament and under the said Codicil the following conditionwere imposed to the effect that' 1! The na4ed ownership shall transfer to ;r! .abadilla9 ,! -e

shall deli$er the fruits of said land e$ery year to *aria *arlina Coscolluela y @elle>a sister of

)leja the BH/ Bsic piculs of :xport sugar and B,/ piculs of ;omestic sugar until the said *aria*arlina Coscolluela y @elle>a dies! %! That in case ;r! .abadilla shall die before *aria @elle>a

the near descendants shall continue deli$ering the fruits to *aria @elle>a9 "! That the said land

may only be encumbered mortgaged or sold only to a relati$e of @elle>a! &hen ;r! Eorge.abadilla died in 1#=%! *aria @elle>a sued Eohnny .abadilla in order to compel him to recon$ey

the said land to the estate of )leja @elle>a because it is alleged that Eohnny failed to comply with

the terms of the will9 that since 1#=/ Eohnny failed to deli$er the fruits9 and that the land was

mortgaged to the Philippine ational @an4 which is a $iolation of the will! In his defenseEohnny a$ers that the term 7near descendants8 in the will of )leja pertains to the near

descendants of )leja and not to the near descendants of ;r! .abadilla hence since )leja had no

near descendants at the time of his death no can substitute ;r! .abadilla on the obligation todeli$er the fruits of the de$ised land!

ISSUE:

&hether or not the obligations of Eorge .abadilla under the Codicil are inherited by his heirs!

HELD:

Aes! The contention of Eohnny .abadilla is bereft of merit! The 7near descendants8 being

referred to in the will are the heirs of ;r! .abadilla! 3wnership o$er the de$ised property wasalready transferred to ;r! .abadilla when )leja died! -ence when ;r! .abadilla himself died

ownership o$er the same property was transmitted to Eohnny .abadilla by $irtue of succession!

Jnder )rticle HH6 of the Ci$il Code inheritance includes all the property rights and obligationsof a person not extinguished by his death! Conformably whate$er rights ;r! Eorge .abadilla had

by $irtue of subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs at the time of his death! )nd



"/ SUCCESSION

since obligations not extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the decedent9

corollarily the obligations imposed by the Codicil on the deceased ;r! Eorge .abadilla were

li4ewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death! It is clear therefore that Eohnnyshould ha$e continued complying with the terms of the &ill! -is failure to do so shall gi$e rise

to an obligation for him to recon$ey the property to the estate of )leja

,a Dor vs Ro*11o

#4& SCRA #4&

F)CTS'

)lice .eyes Van ;orn a Filipino Citi>en and pri$ate respondent .ichard Jpton a JSciti>en was married in -ong Kong in 1#H#! They established their residence in the Philippinesand had , children! They were di$orced in e$ada JS) in 1#=, and petitioner remarried this

time with Theodore Van ;orn! ) suit against petitioner was filed on Eune = 1#=% stating that

petitioner2s business in :rmita *anila the alleon Shop is a conjugal property with Jpton and

prayed therein that )lice be ordered to render an accounting of the business and he be declaredas the administrator of the said property!

ISSJ:'

&hether or not the foreign di$orce between the petitioner and pri$ate respondent in e$ada is

binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citi>en!

-:<;'

It is not binding!



"6 SUCCESSION

Pri$ate respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner! -e would ha$e no standing

to sue petitioner to exercise control o$er conjugal assets! -e is estopped by his own

representation before the court from asserting his right o$er the alleged conjugal property!Furthermore aliens may obtain di$orces abroad which may be recogni>ed in the Philippines

pro$ided they are $alid according to their national law! Petitioner is not bound to her maritalobligations to respondent by $irtue of her nationality laws! She should not be discriminated

against her own country if the end of justice is to be ser$ed!

,a. De T03as v. RTC

FACTS:

:pifanio .! Tupas died on )ugust ,0 1#H= in @acolod City childless lea$ing his widow

Parten>a <ucerna as his only sur$i$ing compulsory heir! -e also left a win dated *ay 1= 1#H6which was admitted to probate on September %0 1#=0 in Special Proceedings o! 1%##" of the

Court of First Instance of egros 3ccidental! )mong the assets listed in his will were lots os!

=%H =%= and =%# of the Sagay Cadastre admittedly his pri$ate capital! -owe$er at the time of his death these lots were no longer owned by him he ha$ing donated them the year before Bon

)ugust , 1#HH to the Tupas Foundation Inc! which had thereafter obtained title to said lots!

Claiming that said donation had left her practically destitute of any inheritance Tupas? widow brought suit against Tupas Foundation Inc! in the same Court of First Instance of egros

3ccidental Bdoc4eted as Ci$il Case o! 160=# to ha$e the donation declared inofficious insofar

as it prejudiced her legitime therefore reducible D !!! by one+half or such proportion as !!! Bmight be deemed justified !!! and D !!! the resulting deduction !!! D restored and con$eyed or deli$ered to

her! The complaint also prayed for attorney?s fees and such other relief as might be proper!

ISSUE:

&3 the donation of the deceased is $alid!

-:<;'



"H SUCCESSION

The fact that the donated property no longer actually formed part of the estate of the

donor at the time of his death cannot be asserted to pre$ent its being brought to collation! Indeed

it is an ob$ious proposition that collation contemplates and particularly applies to gifts inter $i$os!

Since it is clear that the (uestioned donation is collationable and that ha$ing been made to astranger Bto the donor it is by law chargeable to the freely disposable portion of the donor?s

estate to be reduced insofar as inofficious!If the $alue of the donation at the time it was made does not exceed that difference then it must

be allowed to stand! @ut if it does the donation is inofficious as to the excess and must be

reduced by the amount of said excess! In this case if any excess be shown it shall be returned or re$erted to the petitioner+appellant as the sole compulsory heir of the deceased!



"= SUCCESSION

succession digested cases

Documents