URSULINA GANUELAS, METODIO GANUELAS and ANTONIO GANUELAS, vivos.

vivos. The RTC ruled that the Deed of Donation is a disposition mortis causa, In the donation subject of the present case, there is nothing therein
Petitioner thus, void for failure to comply with the formalities of wills and testaments. which indicates that any right, title or interest in the donated properties was to be
vs. transferred to Ursulina prior to the death of Celestina. The phrase ―to become
HON. ROBERT T. CAWED, Judge of the RTC of San Fernando, La Union ISSUE: effective upon the death of the DONOR admits of no other interpretation but that
(Branch 29), LEOCADIA G. FLORES, FELICITACION G. AGTARAP, Celestina intended to transfer the ownership of the properties to Ursulina on her
CORAZON G. SIPALAY and ESTATE OF ROMANA GANUELAS DE LA ROSA, death, not during her lifetime.
represented by GREGORIO DELA ROSA, Administrator, Respondents Is the Deed of Donation void for failure to comply with the formalities
of wills and testaments, which is necessary in a disposition mortis causa? GONZALO VILLANUEVA, Petitioner
G.R. No. 123968             April 24, 2003
RULING: vs.
SPOUSES FROILAN and LEONILA BRANOCO, Respondents
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Yes. The donation is mortis causa. Crucial in the resolution of the G.R. No. 172804 January 24, 2011
issue is the determination of whether the donor intended to transfer the
Case Digest by: Jean Marie L. Abellana ownership over the properties upon the execution of the deed. Donation inter CARPIO, J.
vivos differs from donation mortis causa in that in the former, the act is
immediately operative even if the actual execution may be deferred until the Case Digest by: Jean Marie L. Abellana
DOCTRINE: If the donation is made in contemplation of the donor‘s death, death of the donor, while in the latter, nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the
meaning that the full or naked ownership of the donated properties will pass to donee until the death of the donor-testator.
the donee only because of the donor‘s death, then it is at that time that the DOCTRINE: The transfers inter vivos, consistent with the principle that "the
donation takes effect, and it is a donation mortis causa which should be If the donation is made in contemplation of the donor‘s death, designation of the donation as mortis causa, or a provision in the deed to the
embodied in a last will and testament. But if the donation takes effect during the meaning that the full or naked ownership of the donated properties will pass to effect that the donation is ‘to take effect at the death of the donor’ are not
donor‘s lifetime or independently of the donor‘s death, meaning that the full or the donee only because of the donor‘s death, then it is at that time that the controlling criteria but are to be construed together with the rest of the
naked ownership (nuda proprietas) of the donated properties passes to the donation takes effect, and it is a donation mortis causa which should be instrument, in order to give effect to the real intent of the transferor." Indeed,
donee during the donor‘s lifetime, not by reason of his death but because of the embodied in a last will and testament. But if the donation takes effect during the doubts on the nature of dispositions are resolved to favor inter vivos transfers "to
deed of donation, then the donation is inter vivos. donor‘s lifetime or independently of the donor‘s death, meaning that the full or avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the property subject of the deed.
naked ownership (nuda proprietas) of the donated properties passes to the
donee during the donor‘s lifetime, not by reason of his death but because of the FACTS:
FACTS:
deed of donation, then the donation is inter vivos.
Gonzalo Villanueva represented by his heirs, sued spouses Branoco
Celestina Ganuelas Vda. de Valin executed a Deed of Donation of The distinction between a transfer inter vivos and mortis causa is to recover a subject parcel of land. Petitioner claimed ownership over the
Real Property in favor of petitioner Ursulina Ganuelas. The pertinent portion of important as the validity or revocation of the donation depends upon its nature. If Property through purchase in July 1971 from Casimiro Vere (Vere), who, in turn,
the Deed of Donation reads: ―That for and in consideration of the love and the donation is inter vivos, it must be executed and accepted with the formalities bought the Property from Alvegia Rodrigo in August 1970. Spouses Branoco
affection which the DONOR has for the DONEE, and of the faithful services the prescribed by Articles 748 and 749 of the Civil Code, except when it is onerous similarly claimed ownership over the Property through purchase in July 1983
latter has rendered in the past to the former, the said DONOR does by these in which case the rules on contracts will apply. If it is mortis causa, the donation from Eufracia Rodriguez to whom Rodrigo donated the Property in May 1965
presents transfer and convey, by way of DONATION, unto the DONEE the must be in the form of a will, with all the formalities for the validity of wills, evidenced by a deed of donation. The Deed of Donation contained the following
property above, described, to become effective upon the death of the DONOR; otherwise it is void and cannot transfer ownership. stipulations:
but in the event that the DONEE should die before the DONOR, the present
donation shall be deemed rescinded and of no further force and effect. The distinguishing characteristics of a donation mortis causa are the I give (devise) said land in favor of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ, her
following: heirs, successors, and assigns together with all the improvements existing
However, more than a month before Celestina died, she executed a thereon, ….
document revoking such donation. After her death, Ursulina claimed ownership 1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death It is now in the possession of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ since May 21, 1962 in
over the donated properties and refused to give private respondents Leocadia G. of the transferor; or, what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should the concept of an owner, but the Deed of Donation or that ownership be vested
Flores, et al., niece of Celestina any share in the produce of the properties retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the property while alive; on her upon my demise.
despite repeated demands. Thus, prompting Flores, et al. to file a complaint
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), challenging the validity of the Deed of 2. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the THAT I FURTHER DECLARE, and I reiterate that the land above
Donation. They alleged that such donation is void for failure to comply with the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by described, I already devise in favor of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ since May 21,
formalities of wills and testaments, which is necessary in a disposition mortis means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed; 1962, her heirs, assigns, and that if the herein Donee predeceases me, the
causa. same land will not be reverted to the Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of
3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ;
On the other hand, Ursulina maintains that there is no need to comply transferee.
with the formalities of wills and testaments because such donation was inter

1|Page
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. It treated Deed as a donation Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of x x x Rodriguez," signaling the dispositions, the Court, after going over the deeds, eventually considered the
mortis causa which Rodrigo effectively cancelled by selling the Property to Vere irrevocability of the passage of title to Rodriguez’s estate, waiving Rodrigo’s right transfers inter vivos, consistent with the principle that "the designation of the
in 1970. Thus, by the time Rodriguez sold the Property to respondents in 1983, to reclaim title. This transfer of title was perfected the moment Rodrigo learned of donation as mortis causa, or a provision in the deed to the effect that the
she had no title to transfer. Rodriguez’s acceptance of the disposition which, being reflected in the Deed, donation is ‘to take effect at the death of the donor’ are not controlling criteria
took place on the day of its execution on 3 May 1965. Rodrigo’s acceptance of [but] are to be construed together with the rest of the instrument, in order to give
The CA found the Deed as donation inter vivos because Rodriguez the transfer underscores its essence as a gift in presenti, not in futuro, as only effect to the real intent of the transferor." Indeed, doubts on the nature of
had been in possession of the Property as owner since 21 May 1962, subject to donations inter vivos need acceptance by the recipient. Indeed, had Rodrigo dispositions are resolved to favor inter vivos transfers "to avoid uncertainty as to
the delivery of part of the produce to Apoy Alve; the Deed’s consideration was wished to retain full title over the Property, she could have easily stipulated, as the ownership of the property subject of the deed.
not Rodrigo’s death but her "love and affection" for Rodriguez, considering the the testator did in another case, that "the donor, may transfer, sell, or encumber
services the latter rendered; Rodrigo waived dominion over the Property in case to any person or entity the properties here donated x x x" or used words to that
Rodriguez predeceases her, implying its inclusion in Rodriguez’s estate; and effect. Instead, Rodrigo expressly waived title over the Property in case JARABINI G. DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner, 
Rodriguez accepted the donation in the Deed itself, an act necessary to Rodriguez predeceases her. vs.
effectuate donations inter vivos, not devises. ASUNCION G. FERRER, substituted by her heirs, VICENTE, PILAR,
Second, what Rodrigo reserved for herself was only the beneficial title ANGELITO, FELIXBERTO, JR., all surnamed G. FERRER, and MIGUELA
ISSUE: to the Property, evident from Rodriguez’s undertaking to "give one [half] x x x of FERRER ALTEZA, Respondents.
What is the contract between the parties’ predecessors-in-interest, the produce of the land to Apoy Alve during her lifetime." Thus, the Deed’s G.R. No. 187056               September 20, 2010
Rodrigo and Rodriguez? stipulation that "the ownership shall be vested on [Rodriguez] upon my demise,"
taking into account the non-reversion clause, could only refer to Rodrigo’s ABAD, J.:
RULING: beneficial title. We arrived at the same conclusion in Balaqui v. Dongso where,
Case Digest by: Jean Marie L. Abellana
as here, the donor, while "b[inding] herself to answer to the [donor] and her heirs
The contract was a perfected donation inter vivos because the naked x x x that none shall question or disturb [the donee’s] right," also stipulated that
title passed from Rodrigo to Rodriguez under a perfected donation. The the donation "does not pass title to [the donee] during my lifetime; but when I die,
Supreme Court said that Post-mortem dispositions typically – [the donee] shall be the true owner" of the donated parcels of land. In finding the DOCTRINE:The express "irrevocability" of the donation is the "distinctive
disposition as a gift inter vivos, the Court reasoned: standard that identifies the document as a donation inter vivos." The reservation
(1) Convey no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of of the "right, ownership, possession, and administration of the property" and
the transferor; or, what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor Taking the deed as a whole, it is noted that in the same deed [the made the donation operative upon the donor’s death in the context of an
should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the property donor] guaranteed to [the donee] and her heirs and successors, the right to said irrevocable donation simply means that the donors parted with their naked title,
while alive; property thus conferred. From the moment [the donor] guaranteed the right maintaining only beneficial ownership of the donated property while they lived.
granted by her to [the donee] to the two parcels of land by virtue of the deed of Moreover, an acceptance clause indicates that the donation is inter vivos, since
(2) That before the [donor’s] death, the transfer should be revocable gift, she surrendered such right; otherwise there would be no need to guarantee
by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided acceptance is a requirement only for such kind of donations.Donations mortis
said right. Therefore, when [the donor] used the words upon which the causa, being in the form of a will, need not be accepted by the donee during the
for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of appellants base their contention that the gift in question is a donation mortis
the properties conveyed; donor’s lifetime.
causa [that the gift "does not pass title during my lifetime; but when I die, she
(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the shall be the true owner of the two aforementioned parcels"] the donor meant
transferee. nothing else than that she reserved of herself the possession and usufruct of FACTS:
said two parcels of land until her death, at which time the donee would be able to
[4] The specification in a deed of the causes whereby the act may be dispose of them freely. The spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales executed a
revoked by the donor indicates that the donation is inter vivos, rather document entitled "Donation Mortis Causa" in favor of their two children,
than a disposition mortis causa; Indeed, if Rodrigo still retained full ownership over the Property, it Asuncion and Emiliano, and their granddaughter, Jarabini (daughter of their
[5] That the designation of the donation as mortis causa, or a was unnecessary for her to reserve partial usufructuary right over it. predeceased son, Zoilo) covering the spouses’ 126-square meter lot and the
provision in the deed to the effect that the donation is "to take effect at house in equal shares. The deed of donation reads:
the death of the donor" are not controlling criteria; such statements Third, the existence of consideration other than the donor’s death,
are to be construed together with the rest of the instrument, in order such as the donor’s love and affection to the donee and the services the latter
It is our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall be irrevocable
to give effect to the real intent of the transferor; and, rendered, while also true of devises, nevertheless "corroborates the express
and shall be respected by the surviving spouse.
irrevocability of [inter vivos] transfers."
(6) That in case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed
donation inter vivos rather than mortis causa, in order to avoid It will not do, therefore, for petitioner to cherry-pick stipulations from It is our will that Jarabini Gonzales-del Rosario and Emiliano
uncertainty as to the ownership of the property subject of the deed. the Deed tending to serve his cause (e.g. "the ownership shall be vested on Gonzales will continue to occupy the portions now occupied by
[Rodriguez] upon my demise" and "devise"). Dispositions bearing contradictory them.
It is immediately apparent that Rodrigo passed naked title to
stipulations are interpreted wholistically, to give effect to the donor’s intent. In no
Rodriguez under a perfected donation inter vivos. First, Rodrigo stipulated that "if
less than seven cases featuring deeds of donations styled as "mortis causa"
the herein Donee predeceases me, the [Property] will not be reverted to the
2|Page
It is further our will that this DONATION MORTIS CAUSA shall In Austria-Magat v. Court of Appeals , the Court held that acceptance of the donation. The acceptance makes the donee the absolute
not in any way affect any other distribution of other properties "irrevocability" is a quality absolutely incompatible with the idea of owner of the property donated.
belonging to any of us donors whether testate or intestate and conveyances mortis causa, where "revocability" is precisely the essence of the
where ever situated. act. A donation mortis causa has the following characteristics: Given that the donation in this case was irrevocable or one given inter
vivos, Leopoldo’s subsequent assignment of his rights and interests in the
It is our further will that any one surviving spouse reserves the 1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death property to Asuncion should be regarded as void for, by then, he had no more
right, ownership, possession and administration of this property of the transferor; or, what amounts to the same thing, that the rights to assign. He could not give what he no longer had. Nemo dat quod non
herein donated and accepted and this Disposition and Donation transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of habet.
shall be operative and effective upon the death of the the property while alive;
DONORS. The trial court cannot be faulted for passing upon, in a petition for
2. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the probate of what was initially supposed to be a donation mortis causa, the validity
Although denominated as a donation mortis causa, which in law is the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for of the document as a donation inter vivos and the nullity of one of the donor’s
equivalent of a will, the deed had no attestation clause and was witnessed by indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the subsequent assignment of his rights and interests in the property. The Court has
only two persons. The named donees, however, signified their acceptance of the properties conveyed; and held before that the rule on probate is not inflexible and absolute. Moreover, in
donation on the face of the document. opposing the petition for probate and in putting the validity of the deed of
3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the assignment squarely in issue, Asuncion or those who substituted her may not
Guadalupe, the donor wife, died and a few months later, Leopoldo, transferee. now claim that the trial court improperly allowed a collateral attack on such
the donor husband, executed a deed of assignment of his rights and interests in assignment.
subject property to their daughter Asuncion. Leopoldo died subsequently. So, The Court thus said in Austria-Magat that the express "irrevocability"
Jarabini filed a "petition for the probate of the August 27, 1968 deed of of the donation is the "distinctive standard that identifies the document as a UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 
donation mortis causa" before the Regional Trial Court to which Asuncion donation inter vivos." Here, the donors plainly said that it is "our will that this vs.
opposed, invoking his father Leopoldo’s assignment of his rights and interests in Donation Mortis Causa shall be irrevocable and shall be respected by the EDMUND SANTIBAÑEZ and FLORENCE SANTIBAÑEZ
the property to her. surviving spouse." The intent to make the donation irrevocable becomes even ARIOLA, Respondents.
clearer by the proviso that a surviving donor shall respect the irrevocability of the G.R. No. 149926             February 23, 2005
The RTC rendered a decision finding that the donation was in fact donation. Consequently, the donation was in reality a donation inter vivos.
one made inter vivos, the donors’ intention being to transfer title over the CALLEJO, SR., J.
property to the donees during the donors’ lifetime, given its irrevocability. The donors in this case of course reserved the "right, ownership,
Consequently, Leopoldo’s subsequent assignment of his rights and interest in
Case Digest by: Jean Marie L. Abellana
possession, and administration of the property" and made the donation operative
the property was void since he had nothing to assign. The RTC thus directed the upon their death. But this Court has consistently held that such reservation
registration of the property in the name of the donees in equal shares. DOCTRINE:As a general rule, the responsibility of the heirs for the debts of their
(reddendum) in the context of an irrevocable donation simply means that the
donors parted with their naked title, maintaining only beneficial ownership of the
decedent cannot exceed the value of the inheritance they receive from him and
The CA held that Jarabini cannot, through her petition for the probate donated property while they lived.
that the heirs succeed not only to the rights of the deceased but also to his
of the deed of donation mortis causa, collaterally attack Leopoldo’s deed of
obligations. However, the filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate
assignment in Asuncion’s favor. The CA held that the donation, being one
in the probate court is mandatory. This requirement is for the purpose of
Notably, the three donees signed their acceptance of the donation, protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator
given mortis causa, did not comply with the requirements of a notarial which acceptance the deed required. This Court has held that an acceptance
will rendering the same void.
of the claims against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and to
clause indicates that the donation is inter vivos, since acceptance is a determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed. The plain and
requirement only for such kind of donations.Donations mortis causa, being in the obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased
ISSUE: form of a will, need not be accepted by the donee during the donor’s lifetime. and the early delivery of the property to the distributees, legatees, or heirs. `The
Is the donation made by spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe to law strictly requires the prompt presentation and disposition of the claims against
Asuncion, Emiliano, and Jarabini a donation mortis causa or in fact a donation Finally, as Justice J. B. L. Reyes said in Puig v. Peñaflorida, in case the decedent's estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as
inter vivos? of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed a donation inter vivos rather possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue.
than mortis causa, in order to avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the
RULING: property subject of the deed.
The donation is inter vivos. That the document in question in this case
FACTS:
was captioned "Donation Mortis Causa" is not controlling. The Court has held
that, if a donation by its terms is inter vivos, this character is not altered by the Since the donation in this case was one made inter vivos, it was
immediately operative and final. The reason is that such kind of donation is The First Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC) and Efraim M.
fact that the donor styles it mortis causa.
deemed perfected from the moment the donor learned of the donee’s Santibañez entered into a loan agreement for the payment of the purchase price
of one (1) unit Ford 6600 Agricultural All-Purpose Diesel Tractor then executed a

3|Page
promissory note in favor of the FCCC. Then, FCCC and Efraim entered into … This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased
another loan agreement, which was intended to pay the balance of the purchase ISSUE: by informing the executor or administrator of the claims against it, thus enabling
price of another unit of Ford 6600 Agricultural All-Purpose Diesel Tractor, with Can Florence S. Ariola be held accountable for any liability incurred him to examine each claim and to determine whether it is a proper one which
accessories, and one (1) unit Howard Rota motor Model AR 60K. Again, thy by her late father? should be allowed. The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy
executed a promissory note for the said amount in favor of the FCCC. settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the property to
RULING: the distributees, legatees, or heirs. `The law strictly requires the prompt
When Efraim died he left a holographic will. A testate proceedings No. Perusing the joint agreement, it provides that the heirs as parties presentation and disposition of the claims against the decedent's estate in order
commenced. During the pendency of the testate proceedings, the surviving thereto "have agreed to divide between themselves and take possession and to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and
heirs, Edmund and his sister Florence Santibañez Ariola, executed a Joint use the above-described chattel and each of them to assume the indebtedness distribute the residue.
Agreement wherein they agreed to divide between themselves and take corresponding to the chattel taken as hereinafter stated which is in favor of First
possession of the three (3) tractors. Each of them was to assume the Countryside Credit Corp." The assumption of liability was conditioned upon the Perusing the records of the case, nothing therein could hold Florence
indebtedness of their late father to FCCC, corresponding to the tractor happening of an event, that is, that each heir shall take possession and use of S. Ariola accountable for any liability incurred by her late father. The
respectively taken by them. their respective share under the agreement. It was made dependent on the documentary evidence presented, particularly the promissory notes and the
validity of the partition, and that they were to assume the indebtedness continuing guaranty agreement, were executed and signed only by the late
A Deed of Assignment with Assumption of Liabilities was executed by corresponding to the chattel that they were each to receive. The joint Efraim Santibañez and his son Edmund. As the petitioner failed to file its money
and between FCCC and Union Savings and Mortgage Bank, wherein the FCCC agreementexecuted by Edmund and Florence, partitioning the tractors among claim with the probate court, at most, it may only go after Edmund as co-maker
as the assignor, among others, assigned all its assets and liabilities to Union themselves, is invalid, specially so since at the time of its execution, there was of the decedent under the said promissory notes and continuing guaranty, of
Savings and Mortgage Bank. Demand letters for the settlement of his account already a pending proceeding for the probate of their late father’s holographic course, subject to any defenses Edmund may have as against the petitioner.
were then sent by Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP) to Edmund, but the latter will covering the said tractors. Being invalid as earlier discussed, the heirs in
failed to heed the same and refused to pay. Thus, UBP filed a Complaint for sum effect did not receive any such tractor. It follows then that the assumption of
of money against the heirs Edmund and Florence before the RTC of Makati. liability cannot be given any force and effect. The Supreme Court agrees with the finding of the trial court that UBP
Summonses were issued against both, but the one intended for Edmund was not had not sufficiently shown that it is the successor-in-interest of the Union
served since he was in the United States and there was no information on his Savings and Mortgage Bank to which the FCCC assigned its assets and
The loan was contracted by the decedent. UBP, purportedly a creditor liabilities. UBP in its complaint alleged that "by virtue of the Deed of Assignment
address or the date of his return to the Philippines. In her answer, Florence of the late Efraim Santibañez, should have thus filed its money claim with the
alleged that the loan documents did not bind her since she was not a party dated August 20, 1981 executed by and between First Countryside Credit
probate court in accordance with Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Corporation and Union Bank of the Philippines …" however, the documentary
thereto. Considering that the joint agreement signed by her and her brother Court, which provides:
Edmund was not approved by the probate court, hence it was null and void. evidence clearly reflects that the parties in the deed of assignment with
assumption of liabilities were the FCCC, and the Union Savings and Mortgage
The RTC found that the claim of the Union Bank should have been Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed Bank, with the conformity of Bancom Philippine Holdings, Inc. Nowhere can
filed with the probate court before which the testate estate of the late Efraim barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the decedent, arising from UBP’s participation therein as a party be found. Furthermore, no documentary or
Santibañez was pending, as the sum of money being claimed was an obligation contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, testimonial evidence was presented during trial to show that Union Savings and
incurred by the said decedent. The trial court also found that the Joint all claims for funeral expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and Mortgage Bank is now, in fact, petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines. As the
Agreement apparently executed by his heirs, Edmund and Florence, was in judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in trial court declared in its decision:
effect, a partition of the estate of the decedent. However, the said agreement the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth
was void, considering that it had not been approved by the probate court, and as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring … [T]he court also finds merit to the contention of defendant that plaintiff failed to
that there can be no valid partition until after the will has been probated. (This against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an prove or did not present evidence to prove that Union Savings and Mortgage
was affirmed by the CA). action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his Bank is now the Union Bank of the Philippines. Judicial notice does not apply
lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the here. "The power to take judicial notice is to [be] exercised by the courts with
UBP claims that the obligations of the deceased were transmitted to decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as herein caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every
the heirs as provided in Article 774 of the Civil Code; there was thus no need for provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; reasonable doubt upon the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative."
the probate court to approve the joint agreement where the heirs partitioned the and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so
tractors owned by the deceased and assumed the obligations related thereto. determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though
Since Florence signed the joint agreement without any condition, she is now the claim had been presented directly before the court in the administration ESTATE OF K. H. HEMADY, deceased
estopped from asserting any position contrary thereto. In her comment to the proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at their vs.
petition, Florence maintains that UBP is trying to recover a sum of money from present value. LUZON SURETY CO., INC., claimant-Appellant
the deceased Efraim Santibañez; thus the claim should have been filed with the G.R. No. L-8437 November 28, 1956
probate court. She points out that at the time of the execution of the joint The filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate in the REYES, J. B. L., J.
agreement there was already an existing probate proceedings of which UBP probate court is mandatory. As the Court held in the vintage case of Py Eng
knew about. However, to avoid a claim in the probate court which might delay Chong v. Herrera:
payment of the obligation, UBP opted to require them to execute the said Case Digest by: Jean Marie L. Abellana
agreement

4|Page
DOCTRINE: The responsibility of the heirs for the debts of their decedent cannot New Civil Code) Under our law, therefore, the general rule is that a party's FACTS:
exceed the value of the inheritance they receive from him, the principle remains contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors.
intact that these heirs succeed not only to the rights of the deceased but also to 2 real properties involved:
his obligations. Under our law, therefore, the general rule is that a party's What did the creditor Luzon Surety Co. expect of K. H. Hemady when
contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors. it accepted the latter as surety in the counterbonds? Nothing but the
reimbursement of the moneys that the Luzon Surety Co. might have to disburse 1. Lot 773-A
on account of the obligations of the principal debtors.
FACTS: 2. Lot 773-B
Luzon Surety Co. had filed a claim against the Estate based on The contracts of suretyship entered into by K. H. Hemady in favor of
twenty different indemnity agreements, or counter bonds, each subscribed by a Luzon Surety Co. not being rendered intransmissible due to the nature of the **Both lots above were originally known as Lot 773 of the cadastral survey of
distinct principal and by the deceased K. H. Hemady, who was a surety solidary undertaking, nor by the stipulations of the contracts themselves, nor by provision Murcia, Negros Occidental.
guarantor, in consideration of the Luzon Surety Co.'s of having guaranteed. The of law, his eventual liability thereunder necessarily passed upon his death to his
Luzon Surety Co., prayed for allowance, as a contingent claim, of the value of heirs. The contracts, therefore, give rise to contingent claims provable against
the twenty bonds it had executed in consideration of the counterbonds, and his estate. Lot 773- registered in the name of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes
further asked for judgment for the unpaid premiums and documentary stamps
affixed to the bonds. There are, however, three exceptions to the transmissibility of Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children, Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. Private
obligations: respondents in this case are the children of Rufino who died in 1962 while the
Before answer was filed, and upon motion of the administratrix of other private respondents, Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe.
Hemady's estate, the lower court dismissed the claims of Luzon Surety Co., on Of the three exceptions fixed by Article 1311, the nature of the Teodora was survived by her child, Jovita Alib.
two grounds: obligation of the surety or guarantor does not warrant the conclusion that his
(1) that the premiums due and cost of documentary stamps were not peculiar individual qualities are contemplated as a principal inducement for the
Fortunato D. Santiago was issued a TCT covering Lot 773-A and 773-B. On
contemplated under the indemnity agreements to be a part of the undertaking of contract. This reimbursement is a payment of a sum of money, resulting from an
May 1955, Santiago sold Lots 773-A and 773-B to Fuentebella, Jr.
the guarantor (Hemady), since they were not liabilities incurred after the obligation to give; and to the Luzon Surety Co., it was indifferent that the
execution of the counter-bonds; and (2) that "whatever losses may occur after reimbursement should be made by Hemady himself or by someone else in his
Hemady's death, .are not chargeable to his estate, because upon his death he behalf, so long as the money was paid to it. After Fuentebella's death, his wife, as the administratrix thereof, filed a Special
ceased to be guarantor." Proceeding requesting authority to sell Lots 773-A and 773-B. Hence, Lots 773-
The second exception of Article 1311, is intransmissibility by A and 773-B were respectively issued and sold to Rosendo Alvarez.
The lower court has given merit to the contention of the administrator stipulation of the parties. A person who enters into a contract is deemed to have
saying that upon the death of Hemady, his liability as a guarantor terminated, contracted for himself and his heirs and assigns, it is unnecessary for him to The Yaneses filed a complaint against Santiago, Fuentebella’s wife, Alvarez and
and therefore, in the absence of a showing that a loss or damage was suffered, expressly stipulate to that effect; hence, his failure to do so, is no sign that he the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the “return” of the ownership and
the claim cannot be considered contingent. Upon the death of Hemady, his intended his bargain to terminate upon his death. possession of the lots, and prayed for an accounting of the produce of the land
integrity was not transmitted to his estate or successors. from 1944 up to the filing of the complaint, and that the share or money
The third exception exists when they are "not transmissible by equivalent due the heirs be delivered to them, and damages. During the
ISSUE: operation of law". The provision makes reference to those cases where the law pendency of the case, Alvarez sold the lots to Dr. Siason.
Can a solidary guarantor’s liability extinguished by his death? expresses that the rights or obligations are extinguished by death, as is the case
in legal support (Article 300), parental authority (Article 327), usufruct (Article
Lower court - found that Siason, who purchased the properties in question thru
RULING: 603), contracts for a piece of work (Article 1726), partnership (Article 1830 and
an agent as he was then in Mexico pursuing further medical studies, was a
No.The solidary guarantor's liability is not extinguished by his death, agency (Article 1919). By contract, the articles of the Civil Code that regulate
buyer in good faith for a valuable consideration.
and that in such event, the Luzon Surety Co., had the right to file against the guaranty or suretyship (Articles 2047 to 2084) contain no provision that the
estate a contingent claim for reimbursement. guaranty is extinguished upon the death of the guarantor or the surety.
Although the Yaneses were negligent in their failure to place a notice of lis
Under the present Civil Code (Article 1311), as well as under the Civil ALVAREZ V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT pendens "before the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental in order to protect
Code of 1889 (Article 1257), the rule is that: "Contracts take effect only as G.R. NO. L-68053 MAY 7, 1990 their rights over the property in question" in Civil Case No. 5022, equity
between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in the case where the rights FERNAN, C.J. demanded that they recover the actual value of the land because the sale
and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or thereof executed between Alvarez and Siason was without court approval.
by stipulation or by provision of law." Digested by: Kelvinn Banuelos
While in our successional system the responsibility of the heirs for the Alvarez appealed to the then IAC which in its decision affirmed the lower court's
debts of their decedent cannot exceed the value of the inheritance they receive DOCTRINE: The general rule is that a party’s contractual rights and obligations decision.
from him, the principle remains intact that these heirs succeed not only to the are transmissible to the successors.
rights of the deceased but also to his obligations. (Articles 774 and 776 of the

5|Page
ISSUE: Is the sale of the lots made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo Siason Ramona Patricia Alcaraz. On the same date, plaintiff-appellee Concepcion D. Having represented themselves as the true owners of the subject property at the
should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate or to his Alcaraz, mother of Ramona, paid the down payment of P50,000.00 Pesos. time of sale, petitioners cannot claim now that they were not yet the absolute
heirs also? owners thereof at that time.
On February 18, 1985, the Coronels sold the property to intervenor-appellant
RULING: It will be transmissible to his heirs. The general rule is that a party’s Catalina B. Mabanag (hereinafter referred to as Catalina) for P1,580,000.00 CELESTINO BALUS, V. SATURNINO BALUS AND LEONARDA BALUS VDA.
contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors. The after the latter has paid P300,000.00. For this reason, Coronels canceled and DE CALUNOD.
pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state: rescinded the contract with Ramona. Concepcion, et al., filed a complaint for G.R. NO. 168970 JANUARY 15, 2010
specific performance against the Coronels and caused the annotation of a notice PERALTA, J.
Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, of lis pendens. They executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property Digested by: Kelvinn Banuelos
rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person in favor of Catalina.
are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by DOCTRINE: The rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the
operation of law. A judgment was handed down for a specific performance ordering defendant to moment of his death. In addition, the inheritance of a person consists of the
execute in favor of plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale covering that parcel of land. property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his
Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner before the new presiding death, as well as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the
person which are not extinguished by his death. judge of the Quezon City RTC but the same was denied. succession.

Art. 1311. Contract stake effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs ISSUE: Is the petitioners the absolute owners of the property at the moment of FACTS: Herein petitioner and respondents are the children of the spouses Rufo
except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not the contested sale? and Sebastiana Balus. Sebastiana died on September 6, 1978, while Rufo died
transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is on July 6, 1984.
not liable beyond the value of the property received from the decedent. RULING: YES.Article 774 of the Civil Code defines Succession as a mode of
transferring ownership as follows: On January 3, 1979, Rufo mortgaged a parcel of land, which he owns, as
In the case of Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. it was held that: security for a loan he obtained from the Rural Bank of Maigo, Lanao del Norte
Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, (Bank).
Under our law, therefore. the general rule is that a party's contractual rights and rights and obligations to be extent and value of the inheritance of a person are
obligations are transmissible to the successors. transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by operation of Rufo failed to pay his loan. As a result, the mortgaged property was foreclosed
law. and was subsequently sold to the Bank as the sole bidder at a public auction
Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they cannot escape the held for that purpose. A Certificate of Sale was executed by the sheriff in favor of
legal consequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to the present Petitioners-sellers in the case at bar being the sons and daughters of the the Bank. The property was not redeemed within the period allowed by law. The
claim for damages. That petitioners did not inherit the property involved herein is decedent Constancio P. Coronel are compulsory heirs who were called to sheriff executed a Definite Deed of Sale in the Bank's favor. Thereafter, a new
of no moment because by legal fiction, the monetary equivalent thereof devolved succession by operation of law. Thus, at the point their father drew his last title was issued in the name of the Bank.
into the mass of their father's hereditary estate, and we have ruled that the breath, petitioners stepped into his shoes insofar as the subject property is
hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for the payment of the debts of concerned, such that any rights or obligations pertaining thereto became binding Petitioner and respondents executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
the estate. and enforceable upon them. It is expressly provided that rights to the succession adjudicating to each of them a specific one-third portion of the subject property.
are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. The Extrajudicial Settlement also contained provisions wherein the parties
It must, however, be made clear that petitioners are liable only to the extent of admitted knowledge of the fact that their father mortgaged the subject property
the value of their inheritance. With this clarification and considering petitioners' Be it also noted that petitioners' claim that succession may not be declared to the Bank and that they intended to redeem the same at the soonest possible
admission that there are other properties left by the deceased which are unless the creditors have been paid is rendered moot by the fact that they were time.
sufficient to cover the amount adjudged in favor of private respondents, we see able to effect the transfer of the title to the property from the decedent's name to
no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. their names on February 6, 1985. Three years after the execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement, herein
respondents bought the subject property from the Bank. Meanwhile, petitioner
ROMULO A. CORONEL, ET. AL., V. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Aside from this, petitioners are precluded from raising their supposed lack of continued possession of the subject lot.
G.R. NO. 103577 OCTOBER 7, 1996 capacity to enter into an agreement at that time and they cannot be allowed to
MELO, J. now take a posture contrary to that which they took when they entered into the Respondents filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages
Digested by: Kelvinn Banuelos agreement with private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz. The Civil Code against petitioner, contending that they had already informed petitioner of the
expressly states that: fact that they were the new owners of the disputed property, but the petitioner
DOCTRINE: It is expressly provided that rights to the succession are transmitted still refused to surrender possession of the same to them.
from the moment of death of the decedent. Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered
conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as Petitioner posits that the subject Extrajudicial Settlement is, in and by itself, a
FACTS: On January 19, 1985, defendants-appellants Romulo Coronel, et al. against the person relying thereon. contract between him and respondents, because it contains a provision whereby
executed a document entitled "Receipt of Down Payment" in favor of plaintiff the parties agreed to continue their co-ownership of the subject property by
"redeeming" or "repurchasing" the same from the Bank. This agreement,
6|Page
petitioner contends, is the law between the parties and, as such, binds the SICAD V. COURT OF APPEALS Accordingly, a new proviso was inserted in the deed reading: "however, the
respondents. As a result, petitioner asserts that respondents' act of buying the donees shall not sell or encumber the properties herein donated within 10 years
disputed property from the Bank without notifying him inures to his benefit as to G.R. NO. 125888 AUGUST 13, 1998 after the death of the donor."
give him the right to claim his rightful portion of the property, comprising 1/3
thereof, by reimbursing respondents the equivalent 1/3 of the sum they paid to NARVASA,C.J. Not only did Aurora Montinola order the insertion in the deed of that restrictive
the Bank. Digested by: Kelvinn Banuelos proviso, but also, after recordation of the deed of donation, she never stopped
treating the property as her own. She continued, as explicity authorized in the
ISSUE: Does co-ownership exists the moment the respondents bought back the deed itself, to possess the property, enjoy its fruits and otherwise exercise the
foreclosed property as part of the inheritance? DOCTRINE: A donation which purports to be one inter vivos but withholds from rights of dominion, paying the property taxes as they fell due — all these she did
the donee the right to dispose of the donated property during the donor's lifetime until she transferred the Property to the Sicad Spouses on July 10, 1990. She
RULING: NO. Petitioner and respondents are arguing on the wrong premise that, is in truth one mortis causa. In a donation mortis causa "the right of disposition is did not give the new certificate of title to the ostensible donees but retained it,
at the time of the execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement, the subject property not transferred to the donee while the donor is still alive." too, until she delivered it to the Sicads on the occasion of the sale of the property
formed part of the estate of their deceased father to which they may lay claim as to them. In any event, the delivery of the title to the donees would have served
his heirs. FACTS:A deed of donation was executed by the late Aurora Virto DA. de no useful purpose since, as just stated, they were prohibited to effect any sale or
Motinola of the City of Iloilo. It named as donees her grandchildren, namely: encumbrance thereof for a period of ten (10) years after the ostensible donor's
At the outset, it bears to emphasize that there is no dispute with respect to the Catalino Valderrama, Judy Cristina Valderrama and Jesus Antonio Valderrama: decease. And consistent with these acts denoting retention of ownership of the
fact that the subject property was exclusively owned by petitioner and and treated of a parcel of land. The deed also contained the signatures of the property was Montinola's openly expressed view that the donation was
respondents' father, Rufo, at the time that it was mortgaged in 1979. This was donees in acknowledgment of their acceptance of the donation. ineffectual and could not be given effect even after ten (10) years from her
stipulated by the parties during the hearing conducted by the trial court on The Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. T-16105 (the donor's title) and, in its death. For this view she sought to obtain judicial approval.
October 28, 1996. Evidence shows that a Definite Deed of Sale was issued in place, issued TCT No. T-16622 in the names of the donees.2 Montinola
favor of the Bank on January 25, 1984, after the period of redemption expired. however retained the owner's duplicate copy of the new title (No. T-16622), as A donation which purports to be one inter vivos but withholds from the donee the
There is neither any dispute that a new title was issued in the Bank's name well as the property itself, until she transferred the same ten (10) years later, on right to dispose of the donated property during the donor's lifetime is in truth one
before Rufo died on July 6, 1984. Hence, there is no question that the Bank July 10, 1990, to the spouses, Ernesto and Evelyn Sicad. mortis causa. In a donation mortis causa "the right of disposition is not
acquired exclusive ownership of the contested lot during the lifetime of Rufo. transferred to the donee while the donor is still alive."
On March 12, 1987, Aurora Montinola drew up a deed of revocation of the
The rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the moment of his donation, 3 and caused it to be annotated as an adverse claim the filed a In the instant case, nothing of any consequence was transferred by the deed of
death. In addition, the inheritance of a person consists of the property and petition with the RTC for the cancellation of TCT No. 16622 and the donation in question to Montinola's grandchildren, the ostensible donees. They
transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, as well as reinstatement of TCT No. T- 16105 (in her name). Her petition was founded on did not get possession of the property donated. They did not acquire the right to
those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. In the the theory that the donation to her three (3) grandchildren was one mortis causa the fruits thereof, or any other right of dominion over the property. More
present case, since Rufo lost ownership of the subject property during his which thus had to comply with the formalities of a will; and since it had not, the importantly, they did not acquire the right to dispose of the property — this would
lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land no donation was void and could not effectively serve as basis for the cancellation of accrue to them only after ten (10) years from Montinola's death. Indeed, they
longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim. Stated TCT No. T-16105 and the issuance in its place of TCT No. T-16622. never even laid hands on the certificate of title to the same. They were therefore
differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject lot from their simply "paper owners" of the donated property. All these circumstances,
father. The donees (Montinola's grandchildren) opposed the petition. They averred that including, to repeat, the explicit provisions of the deed of donation — reserving
the donation in their favor was one inter vivos which, having fully complied with the exercise of rights of ownership to the donee and prohibiting the sale or
Petitioner and respondents, therefore, were wrong in assuming that they became the requirements therefor set out in Article 729 of the Civil Code. encumbrance of the property until ten (10) years after her death — ineluctably
co-owners of the subject lot. Thus, any issue arising from the supposed right of lead to the conclusion that the donation in question was a donation mortis causa,
petitioner as co-owner of the contested parcel of land is negated by the fact that, Trial court: the donation was indeed one inter vivos, and dismissing Aurora contemplating a transfer of ownership to the donees only after the donor's
in the eyes of the law, the disputed lot did not pass into the hands of petitioner Montinola's petition for lack of merit. demise.
and respondents as compulsory heirs of Rufo at any given point in time. Montinola appealed. She died pending appeal. The donation in question, though denominated inter vivos, is in truth one mortis
causa; it is void because the essential requisites for its validity have not been
For petitioner to claim that the Extrajudicial Settlement is an agreement between CA: affirmed RTC complied with.
him and his siblings to continue what they thought was their ownership of the The Sicad Spouses appealed.
subject property, even after the same had been bought by the Bank, is stretching
the interpretation of the said Extrajudicial Settlement too far. ISSUE: Is the donation mortis cause or inter vivos? MARIA USON, v. MARIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.
In the first place, as earlier discussed, there is no co-ownership to talk about and RULING: MORTIS CAUSA. The evidence establishes that on December 11, G.R. No. L-4963 January 29, 1953
no property to partition, as the disputed lot never formed part of the estate of 1979, when the deed of donation prepared by Montinola's lawyer (Atty. Treñas) BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.
their deceased father. was read and explained by the latter to the parties, Montinola expressed her Digested by: Kelvinn Banuelos
wish that the donation take effect only after ten (10) years from her death, and
that the deed include a prohibition on the sale of the property for such period.

7|Page
DOCTRINE: The provisions of the NCC shall be given retroactive effect even disposing of her or his hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the
though the event which gave rise to them may have occurred under the prior actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of
legislation only if no vested rights are impaired. the estate.
On the other hand, Jose de Borja stresses that at the time it was entered into,
the governing provision was Section 1, Rule 74 of the original Rules of Court of
FACTS: This is an action for the recovery of the ownership and possession of
1940, which allowed the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of a deceased
five (5) parcels of land in Pangasinan, filed by Maria Uson against Maria del
person regardless of whether he left a will or not. He also relies on the dissenting
Rosario and her four illegitimate children. Maria Uson was the lawful wife of
FACTS:Francisco de Borja, upon the death of his wife Josefa Tangco, filed a opinion of Justice Moran, in Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479, wherein was
Faustino Nebreda who upon his death in 1945 left the lands involved in this
petition for the probate of her will. The will was probated on 2 April 1941. While a expressed the view that if the parties have already divided the estate in
litigation. Faustino Nebreda left no other heir except his widow Maria Uson.
widower, Francisco de Borja allegedly took unto himself a second wife, Tasiana accordance with a decedent's will, the probate of the will is a useless ceremony;
However, plaintiff claims that when Faustino Nebreda died in 1945, his common-
Ongsingco. Upon Francisco's death, Tasiana instituted testate proceedings and if they have divided the estate in a different manner, the probate of the will is
law wife Maria del Rosario took possession illegally of said lands thus depriving
where she was appointed special administratrix. worse than useless.
her of their possession and enjoyment. Defendants in their answer set up as
special defense that Uson and her husband, executed a public document
whereby they agreed to separate as husband and wife and, in consideration of
which Uson was given a parcel of land and in return she renounced her right to
inherit any other property that may be left by her husband upon his death. CFI ISSUE: Whether the prerequisite previous probate of the will is applicable in this
A compromise agreement was entered into by and between "The heir and son of
found for Uson. Defendants appealed. case.
Francisco de Borja by his first marriage, namely, Jose de Borja personally and
as administrator of the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco," and "The heir and
ISSUE: Does the illegitimate children and his common law wife have
surviving spouse of Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana
successional rights over the estate?
Ongsingco Vda. de Borja. 
RULING:NO. The provisions of the NCC shall be given retroactive effect even HELD: NO. The doctrine of Guevara vs. Guevara is not applicable to the case at
though the event which gave rise to them may have occurred under the prior bar. This is apparent from an examination of the terms of the agreement
legislation only if no vested rights are impaired. Hence, since the right of between Jose de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco. Paragraph 2 of said agreement
ownership of Maria Uson over the lands in question became vested in 1945 Jose de Borja submitted the agreement for Court approval. Tasiana Ongsingco specifically stipulates that the sum of P800,000 payable to Tasiana Ongsingco
upon the death of her late husband, the new right recognized by the new Civil Vda. de de Borja opposed in both instances. The genuineness and due —shall be considered as full — complete payment — settlement of her
Code in favor of the illegitimate children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be execution of the compromised agreement is not disputed, but its validity is, hereditary share in the estate of the late Francisco de Borja as well as the estate
asserted to the impairment of the vested right of Maria Uson over the lands in nevertheless, attacked by Tasiana Ongsingco on the ground that: (1) the heirs of Josefa Tangco, and to any properties bequeathed or devised in her favor by
dispute. cannot enter into such kind of agreement without first probating the will of the late Francisco de Borja by Last Will and Testament or by Donation Inter
Francisco de Borja; (2) that the same involves a compromise on the validity of Vivos or Mortis Causa or purportedly conveyed to her for consideration or
the marriage between Francisco de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco; and (3) that otherwise.
even if it were valid, it has ceased to have force and effect.

G.R. No. L-28040 August 18, 1972

This provision evidences beyond doubt that the ruling in the Guevara case is not
TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEFA TANGCO, JOSE DE BORJA, administrator-
Tasiana Ongsingco and the Probate Court of Nueva Ecija rely on this Court's applicable to the case at bar. There was here no attempt to settle or distribute
appellee; JOSE DE BORJA, as administrator, CAYETANO DE BORJA, the estate of Francisco de Borja among the heirs thereto before the probate of
decision in Guevara vs. Guevara. 74 Phil. 479, wherein the Court's majority held
MATILDE DE BORJA and CRISANTO DE BORJA (deceased) as Children of his will. The clear object of the contract was merely the conveyance by Tasiana
the view that the presentation of a will for probate is mandatory and that the
Josefa Tangco, vs. settlement and distribution of an estate on the basis of intestacy when the Ongsingco of any and all her individual share and interest, actual or eventual in
TASIANA VDA. DE DE BORJA, Special Administratrix of the Testate Estate of decedent left a will, is against the law and public policy. It is likewise pointed out the estate of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco. There is no stipulation as to
Francisco de Borja by appellant Tasiana Ongsingco that Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Revised Rules any other claimant, creditor or legatee. And as a hereditary share in a decedent's
explicitly conditions the validity of an extrajudicial settlement of a decedent's estate is transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the death of
Digested by: Terry Louise P. Boligor estate by agreement between heirs, upon the facts that "(if) the decedent left no such causante or predecessor in interest (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 777)
will and no debts, and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by there is no legal bar to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity)
their judicial and legal representatives ..." The will of Francisco de Borja having disposing of her or his hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the
been submitted to the Nueva Ecija Court and still pending probate when the actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of
1963 agreement was made, those circumstances, it is argued, bar the validity of the estate. Of course, the effect of such alienation is to be deemed limited to
DOCTRINE:Hereditary share in a decedent's estate is transmitted or vested the agreement. what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir. However, the aleatory character
immediately from the moment of the death of such predecessor in interest. of the contract does not affect the validity of the transaction; neither does the
There is no legal bar to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity) coetaneous agreement that the numerous litigations between the parties (the

8|Page
approving order of the Rizal Court enumerates fourteen of them, Rec. App. pp. DOCTRINE:The heirs instantaneously became co-owners of the Marcos
79-82) are to be considered settled and should be dismissed, although such properties upon the death of the President. The property rights and obligations
stipulation, as noted by the Rizal Court, gives the contract the character of a to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted to
ISSUE: Whether the children of the deceased, Fortuna Barcena, be allowed to
compromise that the law favors, for obvious reasons, if only because it serves to another through the decedent’s death.
substitute the deceased plaintiff.
avoid a multiplicity of suits.

FACTS: After the EDSA Revolution, President Corazon C. Aquino mandated

HELD: YES. While it is true that a person who is dead cannot sue in court, yet he PCGG to recover all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Marcos.
It is likewise worthy of note in this connection that as the surviving spouse of
can be substituted by his heirs in pursuing the case to its completion. The The PCGG, acting on behalf of the Republic, filed a Complaint for Reversion,
Francisco de Borja, Tasiana Ongsingco was his compulsory heir under article
records of this case show that the death of Fortunata Barcena took place on July Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting and Damages against Marcos, who was
995 et seq. of the present Civil Code. Wherefore, barring unworthiness or valid
9, 1975 while the complaint was filed on March 31, 1975. This means that when later substituted by his estate upon his death and his heirs. PCGG amended its
disinheritance, her successional interest existed independent of Francisco de
the complaint was filed on March 31, 1975, Fortunata Barcena was still alive, Complaint, and added personalities as defendants.
Borja's last will and testament and would exist even if such will were not
and therefore, the court had acquired jurisdiction over her person. If thereafter
probated at all. Thus, the prerequisite of a previous probate of the will, as
she died, the Rules of Court prescribes the procedure whereby a party who died
established in the Guevara and analogous cases, can not apply to the case of
during the pendency of the proceeding can be substituted.
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja.
Closely analyzing petitioner’s Complaint and the present Petition for Review, it is
G.R. No. L-41715 June 18, 1976 clear that the Marcos siblings are being sued in two capacities: first, as co-
conspirators in the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth; and second, as the
Article 777 of the Civil Code provides "that the rights to the succession are compulsory heirs of their father, Ferdinand E. Marcos. To prove the general
ROSALIO BONILLA (a minor) SALVACION BONILLA (a minor) and PONCIANO
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent." From the moment of allegations against the Marcos siblings, petitioner primarily relied on the Sworn
BONILLA (their father) who represents the minors v. LEON BARCENA, MAXIMA
the death of the decedent, the heirs become the absolute owner of his property, Statement and the Deposition of one of the financial advisors of President
ARIAS BALLENA, ESPERANZA BARCENA, MANUEL BARCENA, AGUSTINA
subject to the rights and obligations of the decedent, and they cannot be Marcos, Rolando C. Gapud, taken in Hong Kong on various dates.
NERI, widow of JULIAN TAMAYO and HON. LEOPOLDO GIRONELLA of the
deprived of their rights thereto except by the methods provided for by law. The
Court of First Instance of Abra
moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs acquire a definite right
to the inheritance whether such right be pure or contingent. The right of the heirs
Digested by: Terry Louise P. Boligor to the property of the deceased vests in them even before judicial declaration of
their being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings. When Fortunata The Pantranco Employees Association-PTGWO moved to intervene before the
DOCTRINE:Rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the Barcena, therefore, died her claim or right to the parcels of land in litigation in Sandiganbayan alleging that the trust funds in the account of Pantranco
death of the decedent." From the moment of the death of the decedent, the heirs Civil Case No. 856, was not extinguished by her death but was transmitted to her amounting to 55 million rightfully belonged to the Pantranco employees,
become the absolute owner of his property, subject to the rights and obligations heirs upon her death. Her heirs have thus acquired interest in the properties in pursuant to the money judgment awarded by NLRC.
of the decedent, and they cannot be deprived of their rights thereto except by litigation and became parties in interest in the case. There is, therefore, no
the methods provided for by law. The moment of death is the determining factor reason for the respondent Court not to allow their substitution as parties in
when the heirs acquire a definite right to the inheritance whether such right be interest for the deceased plaintiff.
pure or contingent.
On 11 March 2002, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution admitting the pieces
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner, vs.
of evidence while expressing some reservation. Respondents subsequently filed
their respective Demurrers to Evidence and all were granted except the one filed
MA. IMELDA "IMEE" R. MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND "BONGBONG" R. by Imelda R. Marcos. Primarily because she had categorically admitted that she
FACTS: On March 31, 1975 Fortunata Barcena, mother of minors Rosalio MARCOS, JR., GREGORIO MA. ARANETA III, IRENE R. MARCOS-ARANETA, and her husband owned properties enumerated in the Complaint, while stating
Bonilla and Salvacion Bonilla and wife of Ponciano Bonilla, instituted a civil YEUNG CHUN FAN, YEUNG CHUN HO, YEUNG CHUN KAM, and that these properties had been lawfully acquired. The court held that the
action in the Court of First Instance of Abra, to quiet title over certain parcels of PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA)-PTGWO evidence presented by petitioner constituted a prima facie case against her,
land located in Abra. On August 4, 1975, the defendants filed another motion to considering that the value of the properties involved was grossly disproportionate
dismiss the complaint on the ground that Fortunata Barcena is dead and, G. R. No. 171701 February 8, 2012 to the Marcos spouses’ lawful income. Thus, this admission and the fact that
therefore, has no legal capacity to sue. During the hearing, counsel for the Imelda R. Marcos was the compulsory heir and administratrix of the Marcos
plaintiff confirmed the death of Fortunata Barcena, and asked for substitution by Digested by: Terry Louise P. Boligor estate were the primary reasons why the court held that she was responsible for
her minor children and her husband, the petitioners herein; but the court after the accounting for the funds and properties alleged to be ill-gotten.
hearing immediately dismissed the case on the ground that a dead person
cannot be a real party in interest and has no legal personality to sue.

9|Page
ISSUE:Are the compulsory heirs of former President Marcos obliged to render G.R. No. 174727 August 12, 2013 ISSUE:Whether the court erred in reversing the decision of the trial court on the
an accounting and return the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses? ground that Lucimo Francisco repudiated the co-ownership only on February
Del Castillo, J. 9,1979?

Digested by: Terry Louise P. Boligor

HELD: YES. The Marcos siblings are maintained as respondents, because (1)
the action pending before the Sandiganbayan is one that survives death, and, HELD:NO. The finding that Leon did not sell the property to Lucimo Sr. had long
therefore, the rights to the estate must be duly protected; (2) they allegedly been settled and had become final for failure of petitioners to appeal. Thus, the
control, possess or own ill-gotten wealth, though their direct involvement in property remained part of Leon’s estate.
accumulating or acquiring such wealth may not have been proven. Since the DOCTRINE: One who is merely related by affinity to the decedent does not
pending case before the Sandiganbayan survives the death of Ferdinand E. inherit from the latter and cannot become a co-owner of the decedent’s property.
Marcos, it is imperative therefore that the estate be duly represented.  Consequently, he cannot effect a repudiation of the co-ownership of the estate
that was formed among the decedent’s heirs.
Leon died without issue; he had siblings, Romana and Gregoria. Since Leon
died without issue, his heirs are his siblings, Romana and Gregoria, who thus
inherited the property in equal shares. In turn, Romana’s and Gregoria’s heirs –
Under the rules of succession, the heirs instantaneously became co-owners of the parties herein – became entitled to the property upon the sisters’ passing.
the Marcos properties upon the death of the President. The property rights and FACTS:Leon Roldan, married to Rafaela Menez, is the owner of a parcel of land
Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted
obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are in Kalibo, Aklan covered by Original Certificate of Title. Leon and Rafaela died
from the moment of death.
transmitted to another through the decedent’s death. In this concept, nothing without issue. Leon was survived by his siblings Romana Roldan and Gregoria
prevents the heirs from exercising their right to transfer or dispose of the Roldan Ining, who are now both deceased.
properties that constitute their legitimes, even absent their declaration or absent
the partition or the distribution of the estate.
Gregoria’s and Romana’s heirs are co-owners of the subject property. Thus,
having succeeded to the property as heirs of Gregoria and Romana, petitioners
Romana was survived by her daughter Anunciacion Vega and grandson, herein
and respondents became co-owners thereof. As co-owners, they may use the
respondent Leonardo R. Vega. Leonardo in turn is survived by his wife Lourdes
property owned in common, provided they do so in accordance with the purpose
Article 440 of the Civil Code provides that "the possession of hereditary property and children Restonilo I. Vega, Crispulo M. Vega, Milbuena Vega-Restituto and
for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-
is deemed to be transmitted to the heir without interruption from the instant of the Lenard Vega, the substituted respondents.
ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. 
death of the decedent, in case the inheritance be accepted." And Manresa states
that upon the death of a person, each of his heirs "becomes the undivided owner
of the whole estate left with respect to the part or portion which might be
adjudicated to him, a community of ownership being thus formed among the co-
In 1997, acting on the claim that one-half of subject property belonged to him as
owners of the estate while it remains undivided." For prescription to set in, the repudiation must be done by a co-owner. It has
Romana’s surviving heir, Leonardo filed for partition against Gregoria’s heirs.
been held that "a co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other
Leonardo alleged that on several occasions, he demanded the partition of the
co-owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co-ownership. In order that the
property but Gregoria’s heirs refused to heed his.
title may prescribe in favor of a co-owner, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an
In order to reach a final determination of the matters concerning the estate of ouster of the other co-owners; (2) such positive acts of repudiation have been
Ferdinand E. Marcos – that is, the accounting and the recovery of ill-gotten made known to the other co-owners; and (3) the evidence thereof is clear and
wealth – the present case must be maintained against Imelda Marcos and herein convincing."
respondent Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos, Jr., as executors of the Marcos In their Answer, Teodora, Camilo, Adolfo, Lucimo Jr. and Herminigildo claimed
estate pursuant to Sec. 1 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. While it was not that Leonardo had no cause of action against them. They have become the sole
proven that respondents conspired in accumulating ill-gotten wealth, they may owners of the subject property through Lucimo Sr. who acquired the same in
be in possession, ownership or control of such ill-gotten properties or the good faith by sale from Juan Enriquez, who in turn acquired the same from Leon,
proceeds thereof as heirs of the Marcos couple. Thus, their lack of participation and Leonardo was aware of this fact.
However, it may be argued that Lucimo Sr. performed acts that may be
in any illegal act does not remove the character of the property as ill-gotten and, characterized as a repudiation of the co-ownership, the fact is, he is not a co-
therefore, as rightfully belonging to the State. owner of the property. Indeed, he is not an heir of Gregoria; he is merely
Antipolo’s son-in-law, being married to Antipolo’s daughter Teodora.42 Under
ANTIPOLO INING v. LEONARDO R. VEGA the Family Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for succession,
exclude relations by affinity.
10 | P a g e
Art. 150. Family relations include those: children who are the herein respondents, namely: Lourdes P. Orfinada, Alfonso inheritance but the decedent had managed to register them in his name. They
"Clyde" P. Orfinada, Nancy P. Orfinada-Happenden, Alfonso James P. Orfinada, also raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not the real parties-in-
(1) Between husband and wife; Christopher P. Orfinada, Alfonso Mike P. Orfinada (deceased) and Angelo P. interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency
Orfinada. of the administration proceedings. Petitioners then filed a Motion to Set
Affirmative Defenses for Hearing on the aforesaid ground.
(2) Between parents and children;

(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and

Apart from the respondents, the demise of the decedent left in mourning his
paramour and their children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero, who became a The lower court denied the motion on the ground that respondents, as heirs, are
(4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.
part of his life when he entered into an extra-marital relationship and co- the real parties-in-interest especially in the absence of an administrator who is
petitioners Veronica, Alberto and Rowena. yet to be appointed.
In point of law, therefore, Lucimo Sr. is not a co-owner of the property; Teodora
is. Consequently, he cannot validly effect a repudiation of the co-ownership,
which he was never part of. For this reason, prescription did not run adversely
against Leonardo, and his right to seek a partition of the property has not been
lost. November 14, 1995- respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes Orfinada This prompted petitioners to file before the Court of Appeals their Petition for
discovered that on June 29, 1995, petitioner Teodora Rioferio and her children Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court arguing that the RTC committed
executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order which denied the
G.R. No. 129008             January 13, 2004 Quitclaim involving the properties of the estate of the decedent located in dismissal of the case on the ground that the proper party to file the complaint for
Dagupan City and that accordingly, the Registry of Deeds in Dagupan issued the annulment of the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the deceased is the
TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, VERONICA O. EVANGELISTA assisted by her Certificates of Titles Nos. 63983, 63984 and 63985 in favor of petitioners estate of the decedent and not the respondents. The Court of Appeals stated
husband ZALDY EVANGELISTA, ALBERTO ORFINADA, and ROWENA O. Teodora, Veronica, Alberto and Rowena. Respondents also found out that that it discerned no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
UNGOS, assisted by her husband BEDA UNGOS, petitioners,vs. petitioners were able to obtain a loan of P700,000.00 from the Rural Bank of jurisdiction by the public respondent judge when he denied petitioners’ motion to
Mangaldan Inc. by executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties subject set affirmative defenses for hearing in view of its discretionary nature.
COURT OF APPEALS, ESPERANZA P. ORFINADA, LOURDES P. ORFINADA, of the extra-judicial settlement.
ALFONSO ORFINADA, NANCY P. ORFINADA, ALFONSO JAMES P.
ORFINADA, CHRISTOPHER P. ORFINADA and ANGELO P.
ORFINADA,respondents. ISSUE:Whether the heirs may bring suit to recover property of the estate
December 1, 1995- respondent Alfonso "Clyde" P. Orfinada III filed a Petition for pending the appointment of an administrator is the issue in this case.
Digested by: Terry Louise P. Boligor Letters of Administration  before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City,
praying that letters of administration encompassing the estate of Alfonso P.
Orfinada, Jr. be issued to him.

HELD: YES.Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without

DOCTRINE: Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent
doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code "that the
in accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code "that the December 4, 1995- respondents filed a Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the of Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim, Real decedent." The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that the
decedent." The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that the Estate Mortgage and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Titles with Nos. property, rights and obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a
property, rights and obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a 63983, 63985 and 63984 and Other Related Documents with Damages against person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by
person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by petitioners, the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc. and the Register of Deeds of operation of law.
operation of law. Dagupan City.

Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs

FACTS: May 13, 1995- Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will in Angeles February 5, 1996- petitioners filed their Answer to the aforesaid complaint may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed.This is the
City leaving several personal and real properties located in Angeles City, interposing the defense that the property subject of the contested deed of extra- proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on
Dagupan City and Kalookan City. He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza P. judicial settlement pertained to the properties originally belonging to the parents party representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3 and Section 2, Rule 87 of the
Orfinada, whom he married on July 11, 1960 and with whom he had seven of Teodora and that the titles thereof were delivered to her as an advance Rules of Court. In fact, in the case of Gochan v. Young, this Court recognized
11 | P a g e
the legal standing of the heirs to represent the rights and properties of the time the sale was entered into, provides that all property of the marriage is
attested through the intervention of a notary public is evidence of the facts in a
decedent under administration pending the appointment of an administrator. presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it is proved that it
Thus: pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Proof of acquisition during the clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed.
marriage is a condition sine qua non in order for the presumption in favor of
The above-quoted rules, while permitting an executor or administrator to conjugal ownership to operate.
While the deed of sale between Tomas and Narcisa was never registered nor
represent or to bring suits on behalf of the deceased, do not prohibit the heirs
from representing the deceased. These rules are easily applicable to cases in FACTS: annotated on the title, respondents had knowledge of the possession of
which an administrator has already been appointed. But no rule categorically petitioners of the northern half portion of the property. Obviously, respondents
addresses the situation in which special proceedings for the settlement of an On December 19, 1959, Patricio Prado, Sr. died leaving a residential land
situated in Quezon City. Narcisa subsequently married Bonifacio Calpatura. In recognized the ownership of Tomas, petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest.
estate have already been instituted, yet no administrator has been appointed. In
such instances, the heirs cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of an order to support her six (6) minor children with her first husband, Narcisa and her
administrator; then wait further to see if the administrator appointed would care brother-in-law, Tomas Calpatura, Sr., executed an Agreement of Purchase and The property being conjugal, upon the death of Patricio Prado, Sr., one-half of
enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the interests of the deceased; and Sale whereby the former agreed to sell to the latter the northern half portion of the subject property was automatically reserved to the surviving spouse,
in the meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties of the decedent the property for the sum of P10,500.00. Subsequently, Narcisa executed a Deed
are violated or dissipated. Narcisa, as her share in the conjugal partnership. Particio’s rights to the other
of Absolute Sale in favor of Tomas over the said property.
half, in turn, were transmitted upon his death to his heirs, which includes his
Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two Tomas’ daughter, Flordeliza Calpatura Flora, then built a two-storey duplex with widow Narcisa, who is entitled to the same share as that of each of the legitimate
exceptions: (1) if the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring
firewall on the northern half portion of the property. Respondents, who occupied
suit; and (2) when the administrator is alleged to have participated in the act children. Thus, as a result of the death of Patricio, a regime of co-ownership
complained of and he is made a party defendant. Evidently, the necessity for the the southern half portion of the land, did not object to the construction. Likewise,
Maximo Calpatura, the son of Tomas’ cousin, built a small house on the northern arose between Narcisa and the other heirs in relation to the property. The
heirs to seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as compelling
when there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where there is an portion of the property. remaining one-half was transmitted to his heirs by intestate succession. By the
appointed administrator but he is either disinclined to bring suit or is one of the law on intestate succession, his six children and Narcisa Prado inherited the
guilty parties himself.
Respondents (The Prados) filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of sale and same at one-seventh (1/7) eachpro indiviso. Inasmuch as Narcisa inherited one-
delivery of possession of the northern half portion of the subject property against seventh (1/7) of her husband's conjugal share in the said property and is the
petitioners Flordeliza Calpatura Flora, Dominador Calpatura and Tomas owner of one-half (1/2) thereof as her conjugal share, she owns a total of 9/14 of
All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue for the Calpatura. Petitioners countered that Narcisa owned 9/14 of the property, the subject property. Hence, Narcisa could validly convey her total undivided
recovery of property of the estate during the pendency of administration consisting of 1⁄2 as her share in the conjugal partnership with her first husband
proceedings has three exceptions, (3) the third being when there is no appointed share in the entire property to Tomas. Narcisa and her children are deemed co-
administrator such as in this case. and 1/7 as her share in the estate of her deceased husband; that the owners of the subject property.
consideration of the sale in the amount of P10,500.00 had been fully paid as of
FLORDELIZA CALPATURA FLORA, DOMINADOR CALPATURA and TOMAS April 1, 1968. On April 2, 1997, the RTC dismissed the complaint and found that Finally, no particular portion of the property could be identified as yet and
CALPATURA, JR., Heirs of TOMAS CALPATURA, SR.,  delineated as the object of the sale considering that the property had not yet
the sale was valid.
vs.
been partitioned in accordance with the Rules of Court. While Narcisa could
ROBERTO, ERLINDA, DANIEL, GLORIA, PATRICIO, JR. and EDNA, all
surnamed PRADO and NARCISA PRADO ISSUE: Was the sale was valid? validly sell one half of the subject property, her share being 9/14 of the same,
she could not have particularly conveyed the northern portion thereof before the
G.R. No. 156879     January 20, 2004 RULING: partition, the terms of which was still to be determined by the parties before the
trial court.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Yes. The sale was valid. The subject property belongs to the conjugal
partnership of Patricio and Narcisa. EDUARDO FELIPE VS HEIRS OF MAXIMO ALDON
Digested by: Janice Dahiroc

The Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Narcisa in favor of Tomas is contained G.R. No. L-60174 February 16, 1983
DOCTRINE: It is well-settled that in civil cases, the party that alleges a fact has in a notarized document. It was held that a public document executed and
the burden of proving it. Article 160 of the Civil Code, which was in effect at the ABAD SANTOS, J.:

12 | P a g e
Digested by: Janice Dahiroc G.R. No. L-60101 August 31, 1983
RULING:

ESCOLIN, J.:
NO.The voidable contract of Gimena was subject to annulment by her husband Digested by: Janice Dahiroc
DOCTRINE: The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. (Art.
165, Civil Code.) Subject to certain exceptions, the husband cannot alienate or only during the marriage because he was the victim who had an interest in the
encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's DOCTRINE: a preponderance of evidence from the telegraph messages and the
contract. Gimena, who was the party responsible for the defect, could not ask for fact that the vessel was not heard of again show that it can be logically inferred
consent. (Art. 166, Idem.) And the wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership
without the husband's consent, except in cases provided by law. its annulment. Their children could not likewise seek the annulment of the that the vessel has sunk, and the crew perished
contract while the marriage subsisted because they merely had an inchoate right
FACTS:
to the lands sold. The termination of the marriage and the dissolution of the
FACTS: Capt. Julio J. Lucero, Jr. was appointed by Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc.,
conjugal partnership by the death of Maximo Aldon did not improve the situation
Company for short, as master/captain to its vessel M/V Eastern Minicon plying
of Gimena. What she could not do during the marriage, she could not do the Hong Kong-Manila route, with the salary of P5,560.00 exclusive of ship
Maximo Aldon married Gimena Almosara in 1936. The spouses bought several
thereafter. board allowances and other benefits. Under the contract, his employment was
parcels of land sometime between 1948 and 1950. In 1960-62 the lands were good for one (1) round trip only, i.e., the contract would automatically terminate
divided into three lots, 1370, 1371 and 1415 of the San Jacinto Public upon arrival of the vessel at the Port of Manila, unless renewed. It was further
The case of Sofia and Salvador Aldon is different. After the death of Maximo agreed that part of the captain's salary, while abroad, should be paid to Mrs.
Subdivision, San Jacinto Masbate. Josephine Lucero, his wife, in Manila.
they acquired the right to question the defective contract insofar as it deprived
them of their hereditary rights in their father's share in the lands. The father's While the vessel was enroute from Hongkong to Manila, Captain Lucero sent
In 1951, Gimena Almosara sold the lots to the spouses Eduardo Felipe and
share is one-half (1/2) of the lands and their share is two-thirds (2/3) thereof, three distress messages to the company on the following dates: February
Hermogena V. Felipe. The sale was made without the consent of her husband, l6,1980 7am; February l6/80 3:30pm; FEBRUARY 16/809:50pm. On the third
one-third (1/3) pertaining to the widow. message he stated that sea water was entering the vessel and they were
Maximo.
preparing to abandon ship.
The petitioners have been in possession of the lands since 1951. It was only in The company notified the coast guard. Search results were negative.
On April 26, 1976, the heirs of Maximo Aldon, namely his widow Gimena and The insurers of the company confirmed the loss of the vessel. Thereafter, the
1976 when the respondents filed action to recover the lands. In the meantime, Company paid the corresponding death benefits to the heirs of the crew
their children Sofia and Salvador Aldon, filed a complaint in the CFI of Masbate
Maximo Aldon died. members, except respondent Josephine Lucero, who refused to accept.
against the Felipes. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were the owners of  
lots 1370, 1371 and 1415; that they had orally mortgaged the same to the Mrs. Lucero filed a complaint for payment of the accrued salary allotment of her
The children's cause of action accrued from the death of their father in 1959 and husband which the Company had stopped since March 1980 and for continued
defendants; and an offer to redeem the mortgage had been refused so they filed payment of said allotments until the M/V Minicon shall have returned to the port
they had thirty (30) years to institute it.They filed action in 1976 which is well
the complaint in order to recover the three parcels of land. of Manila. She contended that the contract of employment entered into by her
within the period. husband with the Company was on a voyage-to-voyage basis, and that the same
was to terminate only upon the vessel's arrival in Manila.
The defendants asserted that they had acquired the lots from the plaintiffs by The company refused to pay. The National Seamen Board upheld the complaint
purchase and subsequent delivery to them. The Trial Court sustained the claim and the decision was affirmed by the NLRC.
Judgment is entered awarding to Sofia and Salvador their shares of the lands as
of the defendants and rendered that they are the lawful owners of the subject ISSUE: When will the presumption of death arise?
stated in the body of this decision; and the petitioners as possessors in bad faith
property.
shall make an accounting of the fruits corresponding to the share HELD:
aforementioned from 1959 and solidarity pay their value to Sofia and Salvador The NLRC based its judgment on Art 391regarding the presumption of death at
The CA reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the sea. They argue that it was too early to presume that Mr. Lucero has died
Aldon. because under the law, four (4) years have not yet passed. Art. 391. The
defendants to surrender the lots in question as well as the muniments of title
following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the
thereof. estate among the heirs: (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage,
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., 
vs. or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since
ISSUE: Is the right of action of Sofia and Salvador Aldon was barred by the JOSEPHINE LUCERO the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;
statute of limitation.

13 | P a g e
The Supreme Court ruled however that a preponderance of evidence from the Among the assets to be distributed were five (5) fishing boats, six (6) WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED.
telegraph messages and the fact that the vessel was not heard of again show vehicles, two (2) parcels of land located at Sto. Niño and Talisay, Negros
that it can be logically inferred that the vessel has sunk, and the crew perished.  Occidental, and cash deposits in the local branches of the Bank of the Philippine PUNO V. PUNO ENTERPRISES
There is thus enough evidence to show the circumstances attending the loss and
Islands and Prudential Bank.
disappearance of the M/V Eastern Minicon and its crew. The foregoing facts,
quite logically. are sufficient to lead Us to a moral certainty that the vessel had G.R. NO. 177066 SEPTEMBER 11, 2009
Throughout the existence of the partnership, and even after Vicente
sunk and that the persons aboard had perished with it. upon this premise, the
rule on presumption of death under Article 391 (1) of the Civil Code must yield to Tabanao’s untimely demise in 1994, petitioner failed to submit to Tabanao’s NACHURA, J.:
the rule of preponderance of evidence. As this Court said in Joaquin vs. heirs any statement of assets and liabilities of the partnership, and to render an
Navarro” Where there are facts, known or knowable, from which a rational accounting of the partnership’s finances. Digested by: Janice Dahiroc
conclusion can be made, the presumption does not step in, and the rule of
preponderance of evidence controls. Petitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over to Tabanao’s heirs
DOCTRINE: Upon the death of a stockholder, the heirs do not automatically
the deceased’s 1/3 share in the total assets of the partnership, amounting to
The decision of the NLRC subject of this petition is hereby set aside, and the become stockholders of the corporation; neither are they mandatorily entitled to
P30,000,000.00, or the sum of P10,000,000.00, despite formal demand for the rights and privileges of a stockholder. 
complaint of respondent Josephine Lucero dismissed. However, Mrs. Lucero is
entitled to death benefits. No costs. payment thereof.

Consequently, Tabanao’s heirs, respondents herein, filed against

petitioner an action for accounting, payment of shares, division of assets and
FACTS:
damages.

The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents. Petitioner then Carlos L. Puno, who died on June 25, 1963, was an incorporator of
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which was dismissed. respondent Puno Enterprises, Inc. On March 14, 2003, Joselito Musni Puno
claiming to be an heir of Carlos, initiated a complaint for specific performance
Hence, this petition. against Puno Enterprises. He claimed that as an illegitimate child of his father,
EMILIO EMNACE vs. CA, ESTATE OF VICENTE TABANAO, SHERWIN
he should have entitlement to the rights and privileges of his late father as
TABANAO, VICENTE WILLIAM TABANAO, JANETTE TABANAO DEPOSOY, stockholder of the Enterprise. Puno Enterprises filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that Joselito had no legal personality to sue because he did not properly
VICENTA MAY TABANAO VARELA, ROSELA TABANAO AND VINCENT ISSUE: Does the surviving spouse of Vicente Tabanao have the legal capacity to proved his filiation to Carlos. After sending the corrected birth certificate to the
TABANAO sue even if she was never appointed as administratrix or executrix of his estate. court, the Court ordered Puno Enterprises to file an answer. It decided in favor of
Joselito.
G. R. No. 126334. November 23, 2001
CA reversed the ruling of the RTC holding that Joselito was not able
HELD: YES. Emnace’s objection in this regard is misplaced. to establish the paternity of and his filiation to Carlos since his birth certificate
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
was prepared without the intervention of and the participatory acknowledgment
The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as executrix or
Digested by: Janice Dahiroc of paternity by Carlos.
administratrix of the estate before she can file the action. She and her children
DOCTRINE: The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as executrix are complainants in their own right as successors of Vicente Tabanao. From the ISSUE: Can the stocks of a corporation can be transferred automatically to an
or administratrix of the estate before she can file the action. very moment of Vicente Tabanao’s death, his rights insofar as the partnership illegitimate child upon the death of the decedent?
was concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. HELD:
FACTS:        
Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had against the
Emilio Emnace, Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto Divinagracia were NO. Joselito needed to prove his filiation to Carlos so that he can claim to be an
partnership and Emnace were transmitted to respondents by operation of law,
partners in a business concern known as Ma. Nelma Fishing Industry. Sometime heir of the latter. Upon the death of a shareholder, the heirs do not automatically
more particularly by succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which
in January of 1986, they decided to dissolve their partnership and executed an become stockholders of the corporation and acquire the rights and privileges of
the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of
agreement of partition and distribution of the partnership properties among the deceased as shareholder of the corporation. The stocks must be distributed
a person are transmitted. Moreover, respondents became owners of their
them.   first to the heirs in estate proceedings, and the transfer of the stocks must be
respective hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died.
recorded in the books of the corporation. Section 63 of the Corporation Code
14 | P a g e
provides that no transfer shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the funds and assets of Zenith Insurance Corporation. Oscar moved to declare the necessarily make them stockholders of the corporation. Unless and until there is
transfer is recorded in the books of the corporation. During such interim period, complaint as nuisance. Oscar argued that it is not a bona fide derivative suit as it compliance with Section 63 of the Corporation Code on the manner of
the heirs stand as the equitable owners of the stocks, the executor or partakes the nature of a petition for the settlement of estate of the deceased transferring shares, the heirs do not become registered stockholders of the
administrator duly appointed by the court being vested with the legal title to the Anastacia. The RTC denied Oscar’s Motion to Declare Complaint as Nuisance. corporation.
stock. Until a settlement and division of the estate is effected, the stocks of the Oscar appealed before the Supreme Court.
decedent are held by the administrator or executor. Consequently, during such No shares of stock against which the corporation holds any unpaid claim shall be
time, it is the administrator or executor who is entitled to exercise the rights ISSUE: Does the RTC, sitting as a special commercial court, has jurisdiction transferable in the books of the corporation.
deceased as stockholder. over Rodrigos’ complaint? What is the nature of the action?
Simply stated, the transfer of title by means of succession, though effective and
Thus, even if petitioner presents sufficient evidence in this case to establish that RULING: No, the complaint is about the protection and enforcement of valid between the parties involved (i.e., between the decedent’s estate and her
he is the son of Carlos L. Puno, he would still not be allowed to inspect Successional Rights. heirs), does not bind the corporation and third parties. The transfer must be
respondent’s books and be entitled to receive dividends from respondent, absent registered in the books of the corporation to make the transferee
The complaint contained no sufficient allegation that justified the need for an
any showing in its transfer book that some of the shares owned by Carlos L.
accounting other than to determine the extent of Anastacia’s shareholdings for
Puno were transferred to him. This would only be possible if petitioner has been
purposes of distribution.
recognized as an heir and has participated in the settlement of the estate of the
deceased Another significant indicator that points us to the real nature of the complaint are
Rodrigo’s repeated claims of illegal and fraudulent transfers of Anastacia’s
shares by Oscar to the prejudice of the other heirs of the decedent; he cited
these allegedly fraudulent acts as basis for his demand for the collation and
distribution of Anastacia’s shares to the heirs. These claims tell us unequivocally
that the present controversy arose from the parties’ relationship as heirs of
Anastacia and not as shareholders of Zenith. Rodrigo, in filing the complaint, is
enforcing his rights as a co-heir and not as a stockholder of Zenith. The injury he
seeks to remedy is one suffered by an heir (for the impairment of his
REYES VS RTC OF MAKATI BRANCH 142 successional rights) and not by the corporation nor by Rodrigo as a shareholder HIERS OF SANDEJAS VS ALEX A. LINA
on record. G.R. no. 141634 February 5, 2001
GR NO. 165744, AUGUST 11, 2008
That an accounting of the funds and assets of Zenith to determine the extent and Digested by: Paulo Villarin
Digested by: Jan ione R. Salveron value of Anastacia’s shareholdings will be undertaken by a probate court and not
by a special commercial court is completely consistent with the probate court’s DOCTRINE: In settling the estate of the deceased, a probate court has
DOCTRINE: A probate court has the power to enforce an accounting as a limited jurisdiction. It has the power to enforce an accounting as a necessary jurisdiction over matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized
necessary means to its authority to determine the properties included in the means to its authority to determine the properties included in the inventory of the powers.
inventory of the estate to be administered, divided up, and distributed. estate to be administered, divided up, and distributed. Beyond this, the
determination of title or ownership over the subject shares (whether belonging to FACTS:
FACTS: Anastacia or Oscar) may be conclusively settled by the probate court as a
question of collation or advancement. We had occasion to recognize the court’s On February 17, 1981 EliodoroSandejas, Sr. Filed a petition in the lower court
Oscar Reyes and Rodrigo Reyes are two of the four children of Sps. Pedro and praying that letters of administration be issued in his favour for the settlement of
authority to act on questions of title or ownership in a collation or advancement
Anastacia Reyes. Pedro, Anastacia, Oscar and Rodrigo each owned shares of the estate of his wife Remedios, who died on April 17, 1995. The letters of
situation
stocks of Zenith Insurance Corporation. In 1964, Pedro died. His estate was administration were issued and EliodoroSandejas was appointed as
judicially partitioned sometime in 1970s. in 1993, Anastacia died. However there Article 777 of the Civil Code declares that the successional rights are transmitted administrator.
was no settlement/partition of her estate. As of June 1990, Anastacia owned from the moment of death of the decedent. Accordingly, upon Anastacia’s death,
136,598 shares of Zenith, which was part of her estate. Oscar then owned her children acquired legal title to her estate (which title includes her On November 19, 1981 the 4th floor of Manila City hall was burned and among
8,715,637 shares; while Rodrigo has 4,250. Then Rodrigo sued Oscar, alleging shareholdings in Zenith), and they are, prior to the estate’s partition, deemed co- the records burned were the records of branch XI of the CFI of Manila. As a
that the latter fraudulently appropriated for himself the shares of their parents. owners thereof. This status as co-owners, however, does not immediately and result, EliodoroSandejas filed a motion for reconstitution of the records of the
The complaint was designated as a derivative suit to obtain an accounting of the case. On February 16, 1983, the lower court granted such motion.
15 | P a g e
On April 19, 1983, an Omnibus Pleading for motion to intervene and petition-in- contracted by the decedent while still alive. In contrast with Sections 2 and 4 of suspensive condition in the present conditional sale was imposed only for this
intervention was filed by Alex A. Lina alleging among others that on June 7, the same Rule, the said provision does not limit to the executor or administrator reason.
1982, EliodoroSandejas sold to him 4 parcels of land all located in Makati, the right to file the application for authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise
Province of Rizal. encumber realty under administration. The standing to pursue such course of Probate jurisdiction covers all matters relating to the settlement of estates (Rules
action before the probate court inures to any person who stands to be benefited 74 & 86-91) and the probate of wills (Rules 75-77) of deceased persons,
On January 7, 1985 the counsel for EliodoroSandejas filed a manifestation or injured by the judgment or to be entitled to the avails of the suit. including the appointment and the removal of administrators and executors
alleging among others that he died sometime in November 1984 in Canada and (Rules 78-85). It also extends to matters incidental and collateral to the exercise
said counsel is still waiting for official word on the fact of the death of the Petitioners argue that the CA erred in ordering the conveyance of the disputed of a probate court’s recognized powers such as selling, mortgaging or otherwise
administrator. The counsel also alleged thath the matter of the claim of Alex A. 3/5 of the parcels of land, despite the nonfulfillment of the suspensive condition encumbering realty belonging to the estate. Indeed, the rules on this point are
Lina becomes a money claim to be filed in the estate of the late — court approval of the sale — as contained in the “Receipt of Earnest Money intended to settle the estate in a speedy manner, so that the benefits that may
EliodoroSandejas. On February 15, 1985, the lower court issued an order with Promise to Sell and to Buy” (also referred to as the “Receipt”). Instead, they flow from such settlement may be immediately enjoyed by the heirs and the
directing that the counsel for the heirs to move for the appointment of a new assert that because this condition had not been satisfied, their obligation to beneficiaries.
administrator within 15 days from receipt of order. deliver the disputed parcels of land was converted into a money claim.
Petitioners’ computation is correct. The CA computed Eliodoro’s share as an
On January 1986, Alex filed a Motion for his appointment as a new administrator We disagree. Petitioners admit that the agreement between the deceased heir based on one tenth of the entire disputed property. It should be based only
of the Intestate Estate of Remedios R. Sandejas on the following reasons: that EliodoroSandejas Sr. and respondent was a contract to sell. Not exactly. In a on the remaining half, after deducting the conjugal share.
Alex has not received any motion for the appointment of an administrator in contract to sell, the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive
place of Eliodoro; that his appointment would be beneficial to the heirs; that he is condition. The vendor’s obligation to convey the title does not become effective Succession laws and jurisprudence require that when a marriage is dissolved by
willing to give away his being an administrator as long as the heirs has found in case of failure to pay. the death of the husband or the wife, the decedent’s entire estate – under the
one. The heirs chose SixtoSandejas as new administrator. They were reasoning concept of conjugal properties of gains — must be divided equally, with one half
out that it was only at a later date that Sixto accepted the appointment. The On the other hand, the agreement between Eliodoro Sr. and respondent is going to the surviving spouse and the other half to the heirs of the deceased.
lower court substituted Alex Lina with SixtoSandejas as administrator. subject to a suspensive condition — the procurement of a court approval, not full After the settlement of the debts and obligations, the remaining half of the estate
payment. There was no reservation of ownership in the agreement. In is then distributed to the legal heirs, legatees and devices.
On November 1993, Alex filed an Omnibus Motion to approve the deed of accordance with paragraph 1 of the Receipt, petitioners were supposed to deed
conditional sale executed between Alex A. Lina and Elidioro and to compel the the disputed lots over to respondent. This they could do upon the court’s
heirs to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of Alex. The lower court granted approval, even before full payment. Hence, their contract was a conditional sale,
Alex's motion.  rather than a contract to sell as determined by the CA.

Overturning the RTC ruling, the CA held that the contract between When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth or effectivity can
EliodoroSandejas Sr. and respondent was merely a contract to sell, not a take place only if and when the condition happens or is fulfilled. Thus, the G.R. No. 169129             March 28, 2007
perfected contract of sale. It ruled that the ownership of the four lots was to intestate court’s grant of the Motion for Approval of the sale filed by respondent
remain in the intestate estate of Remedios until the approval of the sale was resulted in petitioners’ obligation to execute the Deed of Sale of the disputed lots SPS. VIRGILIO F. SANTOS & ESPERANZA LATI SANTOS, SPS.VICTORINO
obtained from the settlement court.  in his favor. The condition having been satisfied, the contract was perfected. F. SANTOS, & LAGRIMAS SANTOS, ERNESTO F. SANTOS, and TADEO F.
Henceforth, the parties were bound to fulfill what they had expressly agreed SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. SPS. JOSE LUMBAO and PROSERFINA LUMBAO,
ISSUE: Was the order of conveyance of the disputed 3/5 parcel of land proper. upon.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
RULING: YES. Court approval is required in any disposition of the decedent’s estate per Rule 89 Digested by: Terry Louis Boligor
of the Rules of Court. Reference to judicial approval, however, cannot adversely
A contract of sale is not invalidated by the fact that it is subject to probate court affect the substantive rights of heirs to dispose of their own pro indiviso shares in DOCTRINE: The right to seek reconveyance does not prescribe as long as the
approval. The transaction remains binding on the seller-heir, but not on the the co-heirship or co-ownership. In other words, they can sell their rights, party claiming it have been and is still in actual possession and occupation as
other heirs who have not given their consent to it. In settling the estate of the interests or participation in the property under administration. A stipulation owner of the property sought to be reconveyed.
deceased, a probate court has jurisdiction over matters incidental and collateral requiring court approval does not affect the validity and the effectivity of the sale
to the exercise of its recognized powers. Such matters include selling, as regards the selling heirs. It merely implies that the property may be taken out FACTS: SpousesLumbao filed an action for reconveyance with damages against
mortgaging or otherwise encumbering realty belonging to the estate. Rule 89, of custodialegis, but only with the court’s permission. It would seem that the petitioners. Petitioners are survivors and legitimate heirs of Rita Santos who
Section 8 of the Rules of Court, deals with the conveyance of real property
16 | P a g e
allegedly sold 2 parcels of land to Sps. Lumbao when she was alive by virtue of lot had not been partitioned yet. Inexplicably, after the partition of the entire interest has the effect of registration as to him. Hence, the "BilihanngLupa"
a document called ‘bilihannglupa’, The respondents even claimed that the estate of Maria, petitioners still included the 107-square meter lot in their documents dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981, being valid and
execution of the documen t was signed and witnessed by petitioners Virgilio and inheritance which they divided among themselves despite their knowledge of the enforceable, herein petitioners are bound to comply with their provisions. In
Tadeo. contracts of sale between their mother and the SpousesLumbao. short, such documents are absolutely valid between and among the parties
thereto.
After having acquired the subject property,SpousesLumbao took actual It is noteworthy that at the time of the execution of the documents denominated
possession and built a house which they occupied as exclusive owners up to the as "BilihanngLupa," the entire property owned by Maria, the mother of Rita, was Finally, the general rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their
present. The Spouses made several verbal demands upon Rita, during her not yet divided among her and her co-heirs and so the description of the entire predecessors-in-interest applies in the present case. Article 1311 of the NCC is
lifetime, and thereafter upon herein petitioners, to execute the necessary estate is the only description that can be placed in the "BilihanngLupa, dated 17 the basis of this rule. It is clear from the said provision that whatever rights and
documents to effect the issuance of a separate title in their  favor. Spouses August 1979 and 9 January 1981" because the exact metes and bounds of the obligations the decedent have over the property were transmitted to the heirs by
Lumbao alleged that prior to her death, Rita informed respondent subject property sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao could not be possibly way of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and obligations of
ProserfinaLumbao she could not deliver the title to the subject property because determined at that time. Nevertheless, that does not make the contract of sale the decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs. Thus, the
the entire property inherited by her and her co-heirs from Maria had not yet been between Rita and respondents Spouses Lumbao invalid because both the law heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their
partitioned.  and jurisprudence have categorically held that even while an estate remains predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the property subject to the
undivided, co-owners have each full ownership of their respective aliquots or liability affecting their common ancestor. Being heirs, there is privity of interest
Finally, the respondents Lumbao claimed that petitioners, acting fraudulently and undivided shares and may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage them. between them and their deceased mother. They only succeed to what rights their
in conspiracy with one another, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, mother had and what is valid and binding against her is also valid and binding as
adjudicating and partitioning among themselves and the other heirs, the estate  The co-owner, however, has no right to sell or alienate a specific or determinate against them. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a
left by Maria, which included the lot already sold to  them. Due to refusal of part of the thing owned in common, because such right over the thing is contract which involves a property right and the rights and obligations thereunder
petitioners to convey the said property, the spouses filed the action. The lower represented by an aliquot or ideal portion without any physical division. In any pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. Similarly, nonperformance
court (RTC) dismissed the complaint of ground of lack of cause of action as the case, the mere fact that the deed purports to transfer a concrete portion does not is not excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property
spouses allegedly did not comply with the required barangay conciliation. The per se render the sale void. The sale is valid, but only with respect to the aliquot interest in the subject matter of the contract.
CA granted and ordered the petitioners  to convey the land to the spouses, share of the selling co-owner. Furthermore, the sale is subject to the results of
hence this petition. the partition upon the termination of the co-ownership. In the end, despite the death of the petitioners’ mother, they are still bound to
comply with the provisions of the "BilihanngLupa," dated 17 August 1979 and 9
ISSUE: Are the heirs bound by the contract (BilihanngLupa)? In the case at bar, when the estate left by Maria had been partitioned on 2 May January 1981. Consequently, they must reconvey to herein respondents
1986 by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, the 107- square meter lot Spouses Lumbao the 107-square meter lot which they bought from Rita,
RULING: YES. sold by the mother of the petitioners to respondents Spouses Lumbao should be petitioners’ mother. And as correctly ruled by the appellate court, petitioners
deducted from the total lot, inherited by them in representation of their deceased must pay respondents Spouses Lumbao attorney’s fees and litigation expenses
In "BilihanngLupa," dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981, it is clear that mother, which in this case measures 467 square meters. The 107-square meter for having been compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect their interest.
there was only one estate left by Maria upon her death. And this fact was not lot already sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao can no longer be inherited by On this matter, we do not find reasons to reverse the said findings.
refuted by the petitioners. Besides, the property described in Tax Declaration No. the petitioners because the same was no longer part of their inheritance as it
A-018-01674 and the property mentioned in TCT No. 3216 are both located in was already sold during the lifetime of their mother. Rodriguez v. Borja
Barrio Rosario, Municipality of Pasig, Province of Rizal, and almost have the
same boundaries. It is, thus, safe to state that the property mentioned in Tax Under the above premises, this Court holds that the "BilihanngLupa" documents G.R. No. L-21993, June 21, 1966 (17 SCRA 418)
Declaration No. A-018-01674 and in TCT No. 3216 are one and the same. dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981 are valid and enforceable and can be
made the basis of the respondents Spouses Lumbao’s action for reconveyance. Digested by: Janice Dahiroc
In the case at bar, the right of the respondents Spouses Lumbao to seek The failure of Spouses Lumbao to have the said documents registered does not
reconveyance does not prescribe because the latter have been and are still in affect its validity and enforceability. It must be remembered that registration is DOCTRINE: As long as there is a will, even if that will is found later and even if the
actual possession and occupation as owners of the property sought to be not a requirement for validity of the contract as between the parties, for the effect proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a person with a will is filed later,
reconveyed. Furthermore, SpousesLumbao cannot be held guilty of laches of registration serves chiefly to bind third persons. The principal purpose of that should be preferred
because from the very start that they bought the 107-square meter lot from the registration is merely to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a
mother of the petitioners, they have constantly asked for the transfer of the transaction involving the property had been entered into. Where the party has FACTS:
certificate of title into their names but Rita, during her lifetime, and the knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he
petitioners, after the death of Rita, failed to do so on the flimsy excuse that the In this case, there were 2 proceedings.  First was an intestate
acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered
proceeding instituted meaning, a proceeding to settle the estate of a deceased
17 | P a g e
person who died without a will. But subsequently, a will was found and again ISSUE: Which proceeding should be preferred?   BALANAY V. MARTINEZ
another proceeding was instituted, this time, testate proceeding wherein the G.R. NO. L-39247 JUNE 27, 1975
estate of the deceased person is settled if that person has left a will.   We are RULING:   AQUINO, J.
confronted here of 2 proceedings, one was instituted ahead of the other.   Digested by: Arczft Ran Fuentes
As long as there is a will, even if that will is found later and even if the
Petitioners Angela, Maria, Abelardo and Antonio, surnamed proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a person with a will is filed later, DOCTRINE: Mixed succession is that effected partly by will and partly by
Rodriguez, petition this Court for a writ of certiorari and prohibition to the Court of that should be preferred.  The will should be probated.  The will should be given operation of law.
First Instance of Bulacan, for its refusal to grant their motion to dismiss its effect as much as possible in order to give effect to the wishes of the testator. 
Special Proceeding No. 1331, which said Court is alleged to have taken The wishes of the testator must be given such preference first.  Probate of the FACTS:
cognizance of without jurisdiction. will is needed in order to determine whether or not the will was indeed valid, Leodegaria Julian died and survived by her husband, Felix Balanay Sr, and 6
whether or not the will was executed in observance with the formalities required legitimate children. She left a will which her son Felix Jr, petitioned for probate.
Fr. Celistino Rodriguez died on Feb 12, 1963 in Manila. A month by law and whether or not the testator executed it with a sound mind.   She stated in her will that 1. She was the owner of southern-half of 9 parcels of
later, Apolonia Pangilinan and AdelaidaJacalan delivered to the Clerk of Court of land, 2. She’s the absolute owner of 2 parcels of land which she inherited, 3.
Bulacan a last will and testament of Fr. Rodriguez.Days later, Maria Rodriguez If later on in the probate proceeding, the will is found not to have
That her properties should not be divided if her husband is still alive, and 4. That
and Angela Rodriguez, through counsel filed a petition for leave of court to allow validly executed, then you go to intestate proceeding.  But first you go to testate. 
the legitimes of her heirs should be satisfied by fruits of her properties (by
them to examine the alleged will. Later on, before the Court could act on the money).
petition, the same was withdrawn. Subsequently, Maria and Angela Rodriguez The jurisdiction of a probate court became vested upon the delivery
filed before the CFI of Rizal a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of thereto of the will, even if no petition for its allowance was filed until later,
because upon the will being deposited the court could, motuproprio, have taken Also, she added that upon her husband’s death, all of the conjugal assets should
Fr. Rodriguez alleging, among other things, that Fr. Rodriguez was a resident of be owned by her and be distributed according to the one stipulated above.
Parañaque, Rizal, and died without leaving a will and praying that Maria steps to fix the time and place for proving the will, and issued the corresponding
notices conformably to what is prescribed by section 3, Rule 76, of the Revised Thereafter, her daughter, Avelina and Felix Sr. opposed the probate of the will
Rodriguez be appointed as Special Administratrix of the estate; and that on on several grounds. Felix Jr, replied to the opposition and attached an affidavit
March 12, 1963 Apolonia Pangilinan and AdelaidaJacalan filed a petition in this Rules of Court (Section 3, Rule 77, of the old Rules).  The use of the disjunctive
in the words "when a will is delivered to OR a petition for the allowance of a will stating that his Father, Felix Sr, withdrew his opposition and conform to the will
Court for the probate of the will delivered by them on March 4, 1963. They left by Leodegaria. Felix Sr also renounced his hereditary rights in favor of his 6
stipulated that Fr. Rodriguez was born in Parañaque, Rizal; that he was Parish is filed" plainly indicates that the court may act upon the mere deposit therein of
a decedent's testament, even if no petition for its allowance is as yet filed. Where children.
priest of the Catholic Church of Hagonoy, Bulacan, from the year 1930 up to the
time of his death in 1963; that he was buried in Parañaque, and that he left real the petition for probate is made after the deposit of the will, the petition is
deemed to relate back to the time when the will was delivered. Avelina, in her rejoinder contended that the said affidavit was void. That
properties in Rizal, Cavite, Quezon City and Bulacan. Leodegaria invalidly claimed to be the owner of the southern portion of the lots
The power to settle decedents' estates is conferred by law upon all and she cannot partition the conjugal estate by allocation. Several series of
Rodriguez argues: that since the intestate proceedings in the CFI of
courts of first instance, and the domicile of the testator only affects the venue but litigation happened and the RTC dismissed the petition for probate thus it
Rizal was filed at 8:00 A.M. on March 12, 1963 while the petition for probate was
not the jurisdiction of the Court ( In re Kaw Singco, 74 Phil. 239; Reyes vs. Diaz, converted it to intestate proceedings.
filed in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan at 11:00 A.M. on the same date,
the latter Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for probate, citing 73 Phil. 484; Bernabe vs. Vergara, 73 Phil. 676).
ISSUE:
OngsingcoVda. deBorja vs. Tan and De Borja.
Where the estate proceedings were initiated in the Bulacan Court of First Was it proper for the RTC to declare the whole will void?
Pangilinan and Jacalan argue: CFI of Bulacan acquired jurisdiction Instance ahead of any other, that court is entitled to assume jurisdiction to the
over the case upon delivery by them of the will to the Clerk of Court on March 4, exclusion of all other courts, even if it were a case of wrong venue. (Sec.1, Rule HELD:
1963, and that the case in this Court therefore has precedence over the case 73, Revised Rules of Court) NO. "Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and others invalid, the valid
filed in Rizal on March 12, 1963. parts will be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid without defeating
the intention of the testator or interfering with the general testamentary scheme,
CFI: denied Rodriguez’ MTD, reasoning that a difference of a few or doing injustice to the beneficiaries"
Intestate succession is only subsidiary or subordinate to the testate since
hours did not entitle one proceeding to preference over the other; that, as early
intestacy only takes place in the absence of a valid operative will.  Only after final The statement of the testatrix that she owned the "southern half of the conjugal
as March 7, movants were aware of the existence of the purported will of Father
decision as to the nullity of testate succession could an intestate succession be lands is contrary to law because, although she was a coowner thereof, her share
Rodriguez, and that they only filed the case to prevent the court from exercising
instituted.  The institution of intestacy proceedings in Rizal may not thus proceed was inchoate and pro indiviso but this illegal declaration does not nullify the
jurisdiction over the probate proceedings
while the probate of the purported will of Father Rodriguez is pending. entire will. It may be disregarded.

18 | P a g e
The case is between the children of spouses Rufo and Sebastiana Balus. In the first place, as earlier discussed, there is no co-ownership to talk about and
The provision of the will that the properties of the testatrix should not be divided Sebastiana died on Sept 1978, while Rufo died on July 1984. no property to partition, as the disputed lot never formed part of the estate of
among her heirs during her husband's lifetime but should be kept intact and that Rufo mortgaged a parcel of land as security for a loan he obtained from the their deceased father.
the legitimes should be paid in cash is contrary to article 1080 of the Civil Code. Rural Bank of Maigo, Lanao Del Norte. Rufo failed to pay the loan and the
mortgaged property was foreclosed and subsequently sold to the Bank. The HEIRS OF LEANDRO NATIVIDAD v. MAURICIO-NATIVIDAD
G.R. NO. 198434 FEBRUARY 29, 2016
However, it should be stressed that by reason of the surviving husband's sheriff executed a definite deed of sale in favor of the Bank after the property PERALTA, J.
conformity to his wife's will and his renunciation of his hereditary rights, his one- was not redeemed within the period allowed by law. A new title was issued in the Digested by: Arczft Ran Fuentes
half conjugal share became a part of his deceased wife's estate. His conformity name of the Bank.
had the effect of validating the partition made of the will without prejudice to the In 1989, the children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, adjudicating DOCTRINE: Heirs are liable to settle the transmissible obligations of the
legitimes. each of them ⅓ portion of the property consisting of 10,246 square meters. decedents
Three years after, Saturnino and Leonarda bought the subject property from the
In the instant case there is no doubt that the testatrix and her husband intended Bank while Celestino continued possession of the lot. FACTS:
to partition the conjugal estate in the manner set forth in paragraph V of her will. In 1995, a complaint for recovery of possession and damages was filed by
Leandro and Juliana alleged that Sergio Natividad (Sergio), husband of
It is true that she could dispose of by will only her half of the conjugal estate but Saturnino and Leonarda against Celestino who still refused to surrender respondent Juana Mauricio-Natividad (Juana) and father of respondent Jean
since the husband, after the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, had possession of the land even if he was already informed that the two were the Natividad-Cruz (Jean), obtained a loan from the Development Bank of the
assented to her testamentary partition of the conjugal estate, such partition has new owners of the property. Philippines (DBP). As security for the loan, Sergio mortgaged two parcels of
become valid, assuming that the will may be probated. RTC ruled that Celestino had the right to purchase from Saturnino and Leonarda land, one of which is co-owned and registered in his name and that of his
his share in the disputed property as the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate was siblings namely, Leandro, Domingo and Adoracion. Sergio's siblings executed a
It results that the lower court erred in not proceeding with the probate of the will executed before the two bought the subject lot from the Bank. Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to mortgage the said property. The
other mortgaged parcel of land, was registered in the name of Sergio and Juana.
as contemplated in its uncancelled order of June 18, 1973. Save in an extreme CA reversed the ruling and ordered Celestino to immediately surrender
case where the will on its face is intrinsically void, it is the probate court's duty to possession of the subject property; declaring that the co-ownership was Subsequently, Sergio died without being able to pay his obligations with DBP.
pass first upon the formal validity of the will. Generally, the probate of the will is extinguished when the three of them did not redeem the lot during the Since the loan was nearing its maturity and the mortgaged properties were in
mandatory. redemption period and allowed the consolidation of ownership and issuance of danger of being foreclosed, Leandro paid Sergio's loan obligations. Considering
new title in the name of the Bank. that respondents were unable to reimburse Leandro for the advances he made
in Sergio's favor, respondents agreed that Sergio's share in the lot which he co-
owned with his siblings and the other parcel of land in the name of Sergio and
ISSUE:
Juana, shall be assigned in favor of Leandro and Juliana. Leandro's and Sergio's
Did the co-ownership among the siblings continue to exist even after the lot was brother, Domingo, was tasked to facilitate the transfer of ownership of the
purchased by the Bank, the title was transferred to its name, and was subject properties in favor of Leandro and Juliana. However, Domingo died
repurchased eventually by the Saturnino and Leonarda? without being able to cause such transfer. Subsequently, despite demands and
several follow-ups made by heirs of Leandro, respondents failed and refused to
HELD: NO. honor their undertaking.
The court held that the Balus children were wrong in assuming that they become
Respondents denied the allegations in the complaint and raising that the
BALUS V. BALUS co-owners of the property. Thus, any issue arising from the supposed right of
complaint states no cause of action as respondents are not duty-bound to
G.R. NO. 168970 JANUARY 15, 2010 Celestino as co-owner of the contested parcel of land is negated by the fact that reimburse whatever alleged payments were made by petitioners; and that there
PERALTA, J. in the eyes of the law, the disputed lot did not pass into the hands of the children is no contract between the parties to the effect that respondents are under
Digested by: Arczft Ran Fuentes as compulsory heirs of Rufo at any given point in time. obligation to transfer ownership in petitioners' favor as reimbursement for the
**On the argument that the EJS is an independent contract which gives alleged payments made by petitioners to DBP.
Celestino the right to enforce his right to claim a portion of the disputed lot.
There is nothing in the subject Extrajudicial Settlement to indicate any express ISSUE:
DOCTRINE:The inheritance of a person includes not only the property and the
transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, but also stipulation for the Balus children to continue with their supposed co-ownership of
Can the Heirs of Leandro demand reimbursement?
those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. the contested lot.
For Celestino to claim that the Extrajudicial Settlement is an agreement between HELD: YES
FACTS: him and his siblings to continue what they thought was their ownership of the
subject property, even after the same had been bought by the Bank, is stretching The New Civil Code provides that under:
the interpretation of the said Extrajudicial Settlement too far.

19 | P a g e
Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, FACTS: There is no showing that the funds exclusively belonged to one party, and hence
rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person Dolores Luchangco Vitug died naming Rowena Faustino-Corona as executrix. it must be presumed to be conjugal, having been acquired during the existence
are transmitted through his death to another or others either by will or by Her husband, Romarico G. Vitug filed a motion asking for authority from the of the marital relations.
operation of law. probate court to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the Neither is the survivorship agreement a donation inter vivos, for obvious
Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a estate to cover his advances to the estate in the sum of P667,731.66 which he reasons, because it was to take effect after the death of one party. Secondly, it is
person which are not extinguished by his death. claimed as personal funds. not a donation between the spouses because it involved no conveyance of a
Rowena Corona opposed on the ground that the same funds withdrawn from spouse's own properties to the other.
Art. 781. The inheritance of a person includes not only the property and the savings account No. 35342-038 were conjugal partnership properties and part of  In the case at bar, when the spouses Vitug opened savings account No. 35342-
transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, but also the estate, and hence, there was allegedly no ground for reimbursement. Vitug 038, they merely put what rightfully belonged to them in a money-making
those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. now insists that the funds were exclusive property having been acquired through venture. They did not dispose of it in favor of the other, which would have
a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank on June 19, arguably been sanctionable as a prohibited donation. And since the funds were
In the present case, respondents, being heirs of Sergio, are now liable to settle
his transmissible obligations, which include the amount due to petitioners, prior 1970. It provides: conjugal, it cannot be said that one spouse could have pressured the other in
to the distribution of the remainder of Sergio's estate to them.Moreover, since placing his or her deposits in the money pool.
respondents had already acknowledged that Sergio had, in fact, incurred loan We hereby agree with each other and with the BANK OF AMERICAN
obligations with the DBP, they are liable to reimburse the amount paid by NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter SEANGIO V. REYES
Leandro for the payment of the said obligation even if such payment was made referred to as the BANK), that all money now or hereafter deposited G.R. NOS. 140371-72 NOVEMBER 27, 2006
without their knowledge or consent. by us or any or either of us with the BANK in our joint savings current AZCUNA, J:
account shall be the property of all or both of us and shall be payable
Article 1236 of the Civil Code clearly provides that: to and collectible or withdrawable by either or any of us during our Digested by: Arczft Ran Fuentes
lifetime, and after the death of either or any of us shall belong to and
The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person be the sole property of the survivor or survivors, and shall be payable
who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a to and collectible or withdrawable by such survivor or survivors. DOCTRINE:A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities
stipulation to the contrary. prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of this estate, to
We further agree with each other and the BANK that the receipt or take effect after his death.
Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid,
check of either, any or all of us during our lifetime, or the receipt or
except that if he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he
check of the survivor or survivors, for any payment or withdrawal FACTS:
can recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.
made for our above-mentioned account shall be valid and sufficient Alfredo Seangio and other siblings filed for the settle of the intestate estate of
release and discharge of the BANK for such payment or withdrawal.
Neither can respondents evade liability by arguing that they were not parties to their Father Segundo Seangio. Dy and Virginia Seangio opposed because they
The RTC ruled in favor of Romarico in his motion by upholding the validity of the
the contract between Sergio and the DBP. As earlier stated, the fact remains alleged that Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting Alfredo. Hence, the
agreement. However, CA reversed RTC’s ruling holding that the survivorship
that, in the Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs, respondents clearly proceedings for intestate were suspended and replaced by proceedings for
agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which "did not comply with
acknowledged Sergio's loan obligations with the DBP. Being Sergio's heirs, they probate of the will.
the formalities of a valid will as prescribed by Article 805 of the Civil Code," and
succeed not only to the rights of Sergio but also to his obligations. The holographic will quoted as follows:
secondly, assuming that it is a mere donation inter vivos, it is a prohibited
Ako si Segundo Seangio Filipino may asawa naninirahan
donation under the provisions of Article 133 of the Civil Code.
sa 465-A Flores St., Ermita, Manila at nagtatalay ng
maiwanag na pag-iisip at disposisyon ay tahasan at
ISSUE:Is the survivorship agreement considered as a will? Thus there is need
VITUG v. COURT OF APPEALS hayagang inaalisan ko ng lahat at anumang mana ang
for complying with the formalities of will or donation?
G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990 paganay kong anak na si Alfredo Seangio dahil siya ay
SARMIENTO, J. naging lapastangan sa akin at isan beses siya ng sasalita
HELD: NO.
Digested by: Arczft Ran Fuentes ng masama harapan ko at mga kapatid niya na si Virginia
The conveyance in question is not, first of all, one of mortis causa, which should
Seangio labis kong kinasama ng loob ko at sasabe rin ni
be embodied in a will. A will has been defined as "a personal, solemn, revocable
and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights Alfredo sa akin na ako nasa ibabaw gayon gunit daratin
DOCTRINE:A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities ang araw na ako nasa ilalim siya at siya nasa ibabaw.
and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death." In other
prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of this estate, to words, the bequest or device must pertain to the testator. In this case, the
take effect after his death. Alfredo moved for dismissal on the ground that the holographic will does not
monies subject of savings account No. 35342-038 were in the nature of conjugal
contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus does not meet the
funds and simply their joint holdings.

20 | P a g e
definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code. That the will only shows an Digested by: Rascille Laranas by the testatrix in case of non-fulfillment of said obligation should equally apply to
alleged act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and the instituted heir and his successors-in-interest.
nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as DOCTRINE:A will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a
person disposes of his property, to take effect after his death. (Article 783, New
heir, devisee or legatee, hence, there is preterition which would result to
Civil Code) Since the will expresses the manner in which a person intends how
intestacy. his properties be disposed, the wishes and desires of the testator must be Suffice it to state that a will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by
The RTC dismissed the probate proceedings finding that it would result to strictly followed. Thus, a will cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which a person disposes of his property, to take effect after his death. (Article
preterition. which would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a will. 783, New Civil Code) Since the will expresses the manner in which a person
intends how his properties be disposed, the wishes and desires of the testator
ISSUE:Does a document containing disinheritance can also be considered as a FACTS: From the Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix must be strictly followed. Thus, a will cannot be the subject of a compromise
will? Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla who was the predecessor-in-interest of agreement which would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a will.
Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of 511,855 square meter parcel
of land at the Bacolod Cadastre.
HELD: YES
Segundo’s document, although it may initially come across as a mere In the fourth paragraph of the said will, it stated that: “should I die and Jorge The petition is dismissed. CA decision is affirmed.
disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will Rabadilla shall have already received the ownership of the said lot, … Jorge
prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to give Maria Marlina ANTONIO CASTANEDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE E. ALEMANY, Defendant-
himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms Coscuella y Belleza, 75 piculs of export sugar and 25 piculs of domestic sugar, Appellant.
until Marlina dies.”
of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the
[G.R. No. 1439. March 19, 1904]
latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife, Rufina, and
disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of children Johnny, Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida. WILLARD, J.:
the property of the testator Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the
absence of Alfredo. On August 21, 1989, Maria Marlena Coscuella y Belleza brought a complaint Digested by: Rascille Laranas
In this regard, the Court is convinced that the document, even if captioned against the heirs of Rabadilla to enforce the provisions of the subject codicil.
as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was intended by Segundo to be his last DOCTRINE:
The lower court dismissed the complaint finding that the action was premature
testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of since no intestate proceeding was yet initiated to give full meaning and If a will is signed by the testator or by someone else in his presence and under
a holographic will. Unless the will is probated, the disinheritance cannot be given semblance to the claim of Maria Marlena under the Codicil. his express direction, it is a matter of indifference by whom the mechanical work
effect. of writing of the will is done.
With regard to the issue on preterition, the Court believes that the compulsory The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and established the right of Maria
heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was, in the Court’s Marlena to receive 100 piculs of sugar annually, which was the heirs of
opinion, Segundo’s last expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory Rabadilla’s obligation under Aleja Belleza’s codicil.
FACTS:
heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute an heir ISSUE:Does Johnny Rabadilla have an obligation to deliver to Marlena
to the exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. The mere mention of the name of Coscuella 100 piculs of sugar annually? Jose Alemany contested the validity of the will of Dona Juana Moreno on the
one of the petitioners, Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute her as ground that although the attestation caluse in the will states that the testator
the universal heir. Her name was included plainly as a witness to the altercation RULING: YES. signed the will in the presence of three witnesses who also each signed in each
between Segundo and his son, Alfredo. other’s presence, the will was not actually written by Dona Juana Moreno.
The Supreme Court held that the subject codicil provides that the instituted heir
is under obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar yearly to Marlena Belleza
Coscuella. Such obligation is imposed on the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
his heirs, and their buyer, lessee, or mortgagee should they sell, lease, mortgate ISSUE:
or otherwise negotiate the property involved. The Codicil further provides that in
the event that the obligation to deliver the sugar is not respected, Marlena Should the will be written by the testator herself in order to be valid?
Belleza Coscuella shall seize the property and turn it over to the testatrix’s near
JOHNNY S. RABADILLA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA descendants. The non-performance of the said obligation is thus with the
MARLENA COSCOLUELLA Y BELLEZA VILLACARLOS, Respondents. sanction of seizure of the property and reversion thereof to the testatrix’s near
descedants. Since the said obligation is clearly imposed by the testatrix, not only RULING:
G.R. No. 113725. June 29, 2000. on the instituted heir but also on his successors-in-interest, the sanction imposed
NO.
PURISIMA, J.:
21 | P a g e
collation and equally divided the net estate of the decedent, including the fruits of Dizon, a pre-deceased legitimate son of Agripina. Six compulsory heirs, except
the donated property, between Buhay and Rosalinda. Marina (executrix-appellee), are the oppositors-appellants.
Section 618 of the Civil Code requires (1) that the will be in writing and (2) either
the testator sign it himself or, if he does not sign it, that it be signed by someone
in his presence and by his express direction. Who does the mechanical work of
writing th ewill is a matter of indifference. The fact, therefore, that in this case the ISSUE:Did the will of Candelaria de Roma prohibit collation of the donated Agripina left a will executed on February 2, 1960 and written in the Pampango
will was typewritten in the office of the lawyer for the testatrix is of no properties? dialect. The beneficiaries of the said will were the compulsory heirs and seven
consequence. other legitimate grandchildren.

BUHAY DE ROMA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and

FELICIDAD CARINGAL, as Guardian of Rosalinda De Roma, Respondents. RULING: NO.
In her will, Agripina divided, distributed and disposed of all her properties
[G.R. No. L-46903, July 23, 1987.] apprised at P1,801,960.00 among the heirs. Testate proceedings were
commenced and the will was duly allowed and admitted to probate. Marina was
CRUZ, J.: The Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the provisions of the will appointed executrix of Agripina’s estate.
expressly prohibiting the collation of the donated properties. As the CA correctly
Digested by: Rascille Laranas observed, the phrase “sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay na di mababawing muli”
merely described the donation as “irrevocable” and should not be construed as
an express prohibition against collation. The fact that a donation is irrevocable The real and personal properties of Agripina at the time of her death had a total
does not necessarily exempt the subject thereof from the collation required apprised value of P1,811,695.60 and the legitime of each of the seven
DOCTRINE:When there is an imperfect description, or when no person or under Article 1061. compulsory heirs amounted to P129,361.11. (1/7 of the half of the estate
property exactly answers the description, mistakes and omissions must be reserved for the legitime of legitimate children and descendants.) In her will,
corrected, if the error appears from the context of the will or from extrinsic Agripina commanded that her property be divided in accordance with her
evidence, excluding the oral declarations of the testator as to his intention; and testamentary disposition, whereby she devised and bequeathed specific real
when an uncertainty arises upon the face of the will, as to the application of any The intention to exempt from collation should be expressed plainly and properties comprising practically the entire bulk of her estate among her six
of its provisions, the testator’s intention is to be ascertained from the words of unequivocally as an exception to the general rule announced in Article 1062. children and eight grandchildren.
the will, taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made, Absent such a clear indication of that intention, we apply not the exception but
excluding such oral declarations. (Article 789, New Civil Code) the rule, which is categorical enough.

MARINA DIZON-RIVERA, executrix-appellee, vs. ESTELA DIZON, TOMAS V. Marina filed her project of partition adjudicating the properties to each of the
DIZON, BERNARDITA DIZON, JOSEFINA DIZON, ANGELINA DIZON and compulsory heirs, to their legitimes to P129,254.96.
FACTS: Candelaria de Roma had two legally adopted daughters, Buhay de LILIA DIZON, oppositors-appellants.
Roma and Rosalinda de Roma. She died intestate on April 30, 1971. Buhay was
appointed administratrix and in due time, filed an inventory of the estate. This TEEHANKEE, J.:
was opposed by Rosalinda on the ground that certain properties earlier donated The oppositors also filed a counter-project of partition, proposing that the whole
to Buhay by Candelaria, and the fruits thereof, had not been included. Digested by: Rascille Laranas estate of Agripina to be reduced into half -- one half for the heirs, and the other
half would be deemed as constituting the legitime of Marina and the six other
heirs, to be divided among them in seven equal parts of P129,362.11 as their
respective legitimes.
The properties in question consisted of seven parcels of coconut land worth DOCTRINE:The testator’s wishes and intention constitute the first and principal
P10,297.50. The parties cannot agree on whether these lands are subject to law in the matter of testatments, when expressed clearly and precisely in his last
collation. As to Felicidad (guardian of Rosalinda), it is, in accordance to Article will amount to the only law whose mandate must imperatively be faithfully
1061 of the Civil Code. Buhay, for her part cited Article 1062, claiming that she obeyed and complied with by his executors, heirs and devisees and legatees, The lower court approved the project of partition of Marina on the ground that
has no obligation to collate since the decedent prohibited such collation and the and neither these interested parties nor the courts may substitute their own Articles 906 and 907 of the New Civil Code provide that when the legitime is
donation was not officious. criterion for the testator’s will. impaired or prejudiced, the same shall be completed and satisfied. While it is
true that this process has been followed and adhered to in the two projects of
partition, it is observe that Marina and the oppositors differ in respect to the
source from which the portion or portions shall be taken in order to fully restore
The issue was resolved in favor of Buhay by the trial court. On appeal, the order FACTS: Testatrix Agripina J. Valdez, a widow, died in Angeles, Pampanga and that impaired legitime.
of the trial court was reversed, and the Court of Appeals held that the deed of was survived by seven compulsory heirs - six legitimate children and a legitimate
donation contained no express provision to collate. Accordingly, it ordered granddaughter Lilia Dizon. Lilia is the only legitimate child and heir of Ramon

22 | P a g e
ISSUE:Does Marina’s project of partition give effect to what Agripina intended in LEONOR VILLAFOR VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, plaintiff-appellantvs. DELFIN with only a usufruct or life tenure in the properties described in the seventh
her will? JUICO, in his capacity as Judicial Administrator of the testate estate of FAUSTA clause, subject to the further condition that if the widow remarried, her rights
NEPOMUCENO, defendant-appellee. would thereupon cease, even during her lifetime. That the widow was meant to
have no more than a life interest in those properties, even if she did not remarry
[G.R. No. L-15737, February 28, 1962] at all, is evident from the expressions used by Don Nicolas “uso y posesion
RULING: YES mientras viva” (use and possession while alive) in which the first half of the
REYES, J.B.L, J.: phrase “uso y posesion” instead of “dominio” or “propriedad” reinforces the
second “mientras viva.” The testator plainly did not give his widow the full
Digested by: Rascille Laranas ownership of these particular properties, but only the right to their possession
The Supreme Court ruled that Agripina’s testamentary disposition was in the and use (or enjoyment) during her lifetime.
nature of a partition of her estate by will, which is valid, as contemplated and
authorized in the first paragraph of Article 1080 of the Civil Code, which provides DEL ROSARIO V. DEL ROSARIO
that, “Should a person make a partition of her estate by an act inter vivos or by DOCTRINE:The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to
will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the
2 PHIL 321, MAY 19, 1903
of the compulsory heirs.” This right of a testator to partition his estate is subject expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that one is to be
only to the right of compulsory heirs to their legitimes. This right is safeguarded preferred which will prevent intestacy. (Article 791, New Civil Code)
by the provisions of the Civil Code in Articles 906 and 907. WILLARD, J
FACTS:Don Nicolas Villaflor, a wealthy man of Castillejos, Zambales, executed
a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor of his Digested by: Louie Ivan Maiz
wife, Dona Fausta Nepomuceno, one-half of all his real and personal properties,
At the same time, the right of a testator to partition his estate by will was giving the other half to his brother Don Fausto Villafor. DOCTRINE: Article 907 requires the executor to render accounts to the heir, not
recognized in Article 1056, which has been reproduced as Article 1080 in the to the legatee; and although by article 789 all of the provisions of Chapter II (in
New Civil Code, permitting that “any person (not a testator) to partition his estate Don Nicolas died on March 3, 1922, without begetting any child with his wife. which both articles are found) relating to heirs are made applicable to legatees,
by an act inter vivos.” Fausta, already a widow, thereupon instituted a settlement of her husband’s
we cannot hold that this requires an executor to submit his accounts to one who
estate, where she was appointed judicial adminstratrix. She submitted a project
of partition, which showed that she received the ownership and possession of a has no interest in the estate except to a money legacy when there is no
considerable amount of real and personal estate, and the use and possession of suggestion that it will not be paid when the right to it is established.
Aside from the provisions of Articles 906 and 907, other codal provisions support all real and personal properties mentioned in the 7th clause of the will.
Marina’s project of partition as approved by the lower court rather than the FACTS: Don Nicolas del Rosario died on July 14, 1897, leaving a last will, the
counter-project of partition proposed by the oppositors whereby they would Dona Fausta died without having contracted a second marriage, and without ninth, eleventh, and eighteenth clauses of which are as follows:
reduce the testamentary disposition or partition made by Agripina to one-half and having begotten any child with Don Nicolas. Her estate was settled in the lower
limit the same, which they would consider as mere devisees or legacies, to one- court, and Delfin Juico was duly appointed as judicial administrator. Ninth. The testator declares that the sum of 5,000 pesos is to be divided, 3,000
half of the estate as the disposable free portion, and apply the other half of the pesos for the Enrique and 2,000 pesos for the Ramon, the delivery of the said
estate to payment of the legitimes of the seven compulsory heirs. Oppositors’ Leonor Villaflor instituted an action against Delfin Juico contending that upon
sums to be effected by the wife of the testator, provided that these young men
proposal would amount substantially to a distribution by intestacy and pro tanto Dona Fausta’s death, she (Leonora) became vested with the ownership of the
nullify the testatrix’ will. real and personal properties bequeathed by Don Nicolas pursuant to the 7th and behave themselves as they have done up to the present time, and do not cease
8th clause of the will. to study until taking the degree of bachelor of arts, and then take a business
course, if their health will permit, their support to be paid out of the testamentary
The lower court ruled in favor of Delfin and held that the title to the properties of estate and they to live in the house of the widow.
Don Nicolas became absolutely vested in the widow upon her death, on account
that she never remarried. Eleventh. The testator declares that in a case the said young men should be still
engaged in study at the time of the death of the testator's wife, they shall
ISSUE: Can Leonor validly recover the properties from her grand-uncle Don
Nicolas? continue to be supported at the expense of the testamentary estate, without
deducting such expenses from their legacies, if they should desire to continue
the same studies.

RULING: YES Eighteenth. The testator further states that although his wife is at the present
time fifty-five years of age, and consequently is not likely to marry again, as she
The Supreme Court agreed with Leonor that the plain desire and intent of Don herself says, nevertheless it is impossible that the opposite of what she asserts
Nicolas, as manifested in clause 8 or his testament, was to invest Dona Fausta
might occur, and, if so, then it is to be regarded as sufficient reason to authorize

23 | P a g e
the young men Ramon and Enrique, so often referred to, separate from their  In 1957 the parish priest filed another petition for the delivery of the
aunt, in which event they are to be supported by the testamentary estate on a ricelands to the church as trustee.
small allowance of twenty-five pesos per month, provided that they continue their Estate of Rigor v. Rigor  The intestate heirs of Father Rigor countered praying that the bequest
studies or should be in poor health, this without in any respect reducing the be declared inoperative and that they be adjudged as the persons
89 SCRA 493 entitled to the said ricelands since "no nearest male relative of" the
amount of their shares.
testator "has ever studied for the priesthood".
April 30, 1979  That petition was opposed by the parish priest of Victoria.
Don Ramon del Rosario brought this action in 1902 against Don Clemente del
Rosario, the then executor, asking, among other things, that the said executor Digested by: Louie Ivan Maiz
pay him an allowance from the death of the widow of the testator at the rate of
75 pesos a month, and that the executor allow him to live in the house in which ISSUE: Did the testator contemplate only his nearest male relative at the time of
the widow was living at that time. his death? Or did he have in mind any of his nearest male relatives at anytime
Doctrine: One canon in the interpretation of the testamentary provisions is that after his death?
The widow of the testator, Doña Honorata Valdez, died on July 7, 1900. "the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will taking into
consideration the circumstances under which it was made", but excluding the HELD: The will of the testator is the first and principal law in the matter of
ISSUE: Is Ramon entitled to his claim? testator's oral declarations as to his intention (Art. 789, Civil Code of the testaments. When his intention is clearly and precisely expressed, any
Philippines). interpretation must be in accord with the plain and literal meaning of his words,
RULING: No. except when it may certainly appear that his intention was different from that
literally expressed
So far as the disposition of that part of the inheritance left in the aunt's will to
Doña Luisa for life is concerned, the question is free from doubt. It is distinctly FACTS:Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died on August 9, The intent of the testator is the cardinal rule in the construction of wills." It is "the
declared that Ramon del Rosario and Enrique Gloria shall take certain parts of it 1935, leaving a will executed on October 29, 1933 which was probated by the life and soul of a will. It is "the first greatest rule, the sovereign guide, the
after 1,000 pesos have been deducted. Court of First Instance of Tarlac in its order of December 5, 1935. polestar, in giving effect to a will".
 Named as devisees in the will were the testators nearest relatives,
They are pointed out by name as the legatees. It is true that they are called the One canon in the interpretation of the testamentary provisions is that "the
namely, his three sisters. The testator gave a devise to his cousin,
natural sons of Don Clemente. But this is merely a further description of persons Fortunato Gamalinda. testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will taking into
already well identified, and, if false, can be rejected in accordance with the  In addition, the will contained the following controversial bequest consideration the circumstances under which it was made", but excluding the
provision of article 773 of the Civil Code, which by article 789 is applicable to testator's oral declarations as to his intention (Art. 789, Civil Code of the
legatees. LEGACY OF THE CHURCH Philippines).

As to the estate of Don Nicolas, the only thing here in question is the right to the That it be adjudicated in favor of the legacy purported to be given to the nearest To ascertain Father Rigor's intention, it may be useful to make the following re-
male relative who shall take the priesthood, and in the interim to be administered statement of the provisions of his will.
allowance. As we hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to it, he is not entitled to
by the actual Catholic Priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Victoria, Tarlac,
any statement of accounts as such pretended legatee. Philippines, or his successors, the real properties.
That he bequeathed the ricelands to anyone of his nearest male relatives who
As to the estate of Doña Honorata, he is entitled to be paid a legacy of 1,500  Judge Cruz approved the project of partition. would pursue an ecclesiastical career until his ordination as a priest.
pesos. Article 907 requires the executor to render accounts to the heir, not to the  Inasmuch as no nephew of the testator claimed the devise and as the
legatee; and although by article 789 all of the provisions of Chapter II (in which administratrix and the legal heirs believed that the parish priest of That the devisee could not sell the ricelands.
both articles are found) relating to heirs are made applicable to legatees, we Victoria had no right to administer the ricelands, the same were not
cannot hold that this requires an executor to submit his accounts to one who has delivered to that ecclesiastic. The testate proceeding remained That the devisee at the inception of his studies in sacred theology could enjoy
no interest in the estate except to a money legacy when there is no suggestion pending. and administer the ricelands, and once ordained as a priest, he could continue
that it will not be paid when the right to it is established. enjoying and administering the same up to the time of his death but the devisee
would cease to enjoy and administer the ricelands if he discontinued his studies
 About thirteen years after the approval of the project of partition, the
parish priest of Victoria filed in the pending testate proceeding a for the priesthood.
petition praying for the appointment of a new administrator, who
should deliver to the church the said ricelands, and further praying That if the devisee became a priest, he would be obligated to celebrate every
that the possessors thereof be ordered to render an accounting of the year twenty masses with prayers for the repose of the souls of Father Rigor and
fruits. his parents.

24 | P a g e
xxx sugar and (25) piculs of Domestic sugar, until the said Maria MarlinaCoscolluela The intention of the testator here was to merely give usufructuary right to his wife
y Belleza dies. DoňaFausta because in his will he provided that DoňaFausta shall forfeit the
properties if she fails to bear a child and because she died without having
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died. Private respondent brought a complaint, to enforce the begotten any children with the deceased then it means that DoňaFausta never
It may be deduced that the testator intended to devise the ricelands to his provisions of subject Codicil. acquired ownership over the property. Upon her death, because she never
nearest male relative who would become a priest, who was forbidden to sell the acquired ownership over the property, the said properties are not included in her
ricelands, who would lose the devise if he discontinued his studies for the ISSUE: Are the obligations of Jorge Rabadilla under the Codicil inherited by his estate. Those properties actually belong to Villaflor. That was the intention of the
priesthood, or having been ordained a priest, he was excommunicated, and who heirs? testator. Otherwise, if the testator wanted to give the properties to DoňaFausta
would be obligated to say annually twenty masses with prayers for the repose of then he should have specifically stated in his will that ownership should belong to
the souls of the testator and his parents. HELD: Yes.
DoňaFausta without mentioning any condition.

On the other hand, it is clear that the parish priest of Victoria would administer In the interpretation of Wills, when an uncertainty arises on the face of the Will,
as to the application of any of its provisions, the testator's intention is to be YAMBAO V. GONZALES
the ricelands only in two situations: one, during the interval of time that no
nearest male relative of the testator was studying for the priesthood and two, in ascertained from the words of the Will, taking into consideration the
G.R. NO. L-10763 (1961)
case the testator's nephew became a priest and he was excommunicated. circumstances under which it was made. Such construction as will sustain and
uphold the Will in all its parts must be adopted. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J:
SC held that the said bequest refers to the testator's nearest male relative living
at the time of his death and not to any indefinite time thereafter. "In order to be VDA DE VILLAFLOR V. JUICO Digested by: Louie Ivan Maiz
capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment
the succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper" (Art. GR NO. L-15737 FEBRUARY 28, 1962
1025, Civil Code).
REYES, J,B,L. J: DOCTRINE: The words 'dapat TUNGKULIN O GANGPANAN" mean to do or to
Rabadilla v. CA carry out as a mandate or directive, and having reference to the word
Digested by: Louie Ivan Maiz "pahihintulutan", can convey no other meaning than to impose a duty upon
G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000 appellees. To follow an otherwise interpretation would be to devoid the wish of
the testatrix of its real and true meaning.
Purisima, J:
DOCTRINE: If the testator wanted to give the properties to DoňaFausta then he
FACTS: On August 10, 1942, Maria Gonzales executed a will bequeathing to
Digested by: Louie Ivan Maiz should have specifically stated in his will that ownership should belong to
appellees all her properties situated in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The will was probated
DoňaFausta without mentioning any condition.
in 1948.

Immediately, thereafter, appellant went to appellees to request that he be placed

DOCTRINE: In the interpretation of Wills, when an uncertainty arises on the face
FACTS: Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, as tenant of the riceland which, by an express provision of said will, they were
of the Will, as to the application of any of its provisions, the testator's intention is
devising and bequeathing in favor of his wife, Dona Faustina ½ of all his real and directed to give to him for cultivation, as tenant, and when they refused alleging
to be ascertained from the words of the Will, taking into consideration the
personal properties giving the other half to his brother Don Fausto. that they had already given it to another tenant he filed the present action.
circumstances under which it was made. Such construction as will sustain and
uphold the Will in all its parts must be adopted.
Petitioner filed an action against the administrator contending that upon the Defendants averred that the provisions of the will relied upon by plaintiff is not
widow’s death, she became vested with the ownership of the properties mandatory; that the determination of who should be the tenant of the land is
bequeathed under clause 7 pursuant to its 8th clause of the will. vested in a special court; and that the present action is not the proper remedy.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Is the petitioner entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the The pertinent provisions of the will relied upon by appellant read as follows:
In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix death of Dona Faustina?
Dapat din namanmalaman ng dalawakong
AlejaBelleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein
petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of parcel of land. The HELD: NO.
tagapagmananasila MARIA PABLO at ANGELINA
Codicil provides that Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies,
every year to give Maria MarlinaCoscolluela y Belleza, (75) (sic) piculs of Export
25 | P a g e
GONZALES nasila ay may dapat TUNGKULIN O named as his testamentary heirs his natural children EulogioAbaja ("Eulogio") As prayed for by counsel, Noel Abbellar is appointed administrator of
and Rosario Cordova. Alipio is the son of Eulogio. the estate of Paula Toray who shall discharge his duties as such after letters of
GANGPANAN GAYA ng mgasumusunod: administration shall have been issued in his favor and after taking his oath and
NicanorCaponong ("Caponong") opposed the petition on the ground filing a bond in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos.
x xxxxxxxx that Abada left no will when he died in 1940. Caponong further alleged that the
will, if Abada really executed it, should be disallowed for the following reasons: Mrs. Belinda C. Noble, the present administratrix of the estate of
Pahihintulutannilanasi Delfin Yambao ang makapagtrabajo ng (1) it was not executed and attested as required by law; (2) it was not intended AlipioAbada shall continue discharging her duties as such until further orders
bukidhabangpanahon, at ang nasabingbukid ay isasailalim ng pamamahala ng as the last will of the testator; and (3) it was procured by undue and improper from this Court.
Albaseasamantalang ang bukid ay nasausapin at may utang pa. pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries. Citing the same grounds
invoked by Caponong, the alleged intestate heirs of Abada, namely, Joel, Julian, The RTC-Kabankalan ruled on the only issue raised by the oppositors
ISSUE: How should the will be interpreted? Paz, Evangeline, Geronimo, Humberto, Teodora and Elena Abada ("Joel Abada, in their motions to dismiss the petition for probate, that is, whether the will of
et al."), and Levi, Leandro, Antonio, Florian, Hernani and Carmela Tronco ("Levi Abada has an attestation clause as required by law. The RTC-Kabankalan
Tronco, et al."), also opposed the petition. The oppositors are the nephews, further held that the failure of the oppositors to raise any other matter forecloses
nieces and grandchildren of Abada and Toray. all other issues.
HELD: Analyzing the wish of the testator carefully, SC finds that the same
On 13 September 1968, Alipio filed another petition before the RTC- Not satisfied with the Resolution, Caponong-Noble filed a notice of
contains a clear directive to employ appellant as may be seen from the words
Kabankalanfor the probate of the last will and testament of Toray. Caponong, appeal.
preceding the word "pahihintulutan", which say: "Dapat din namanmalaman ng Joel Abada, et al., and Levi Tronco, et al. opposed the petition on the same
dalawakongtagapagmananasila MARIA PABLO at ANGELINA GONZALES grounds.
nasila ay may dapat TUNGKULIN O GANGPANAN GAYA ng mga sumusunod." In a Decision promulgated on 12 January 2001, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the Resolution of the RTC-Kabankalan. The appellate court found that
On 20 September 1968, Caponong filed a petition before the RTC- the RTC-Kabankalan properly admitted to probate the will of Abada.Hence, the
Kabankalanpraying for the issuance in his name of letters of administration of the present recourse by Caponong-Noble.
The words 'dapat TUNGKULIN O GANGPANAN" mean to do or to carry out as a intestate estate of Abada and Toray.
mandate or directive, and having reference to the word "pahihintulutan", can ISSUE: Was the CA wrong in sustaining the RTC-Kabankalan in admitting to
convey no other meaning than to impose a duty upon appellees. To follow an In an Order dated 14 August 1981, the RTC-Kabankalan admitted to probate the will of Abada?
otherwise interpretation would be to devoid the wish of the testatrix of its real and probate the will of Toray. Since the oppositors did not file any motion for
reconsideration, the order allowing the probate of Toray's will became final and RULING: No.
true meaning.
executory.
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ALIPIO ABADA, BELINDA CAPONONG- The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the RTC-Kabankalan in
NOBLE, Petitioner, v. In an order dated 23 November 1990, the RTC-Kabankalan admitting to probate the will of Abada.
ALIPIO ABAJA and NOEL ABELLAR, Respondents. designated Belinda Caponong-Noble ("Caponong-Noble") Special Administratrix
G.R. NO. 147145, January 31, 2005 of the estate of Abada and Toray. Caponong-Noble moved for the dismissal of Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932.  The laws in force at that
CARPIO, J.: the petition for probate of the will of Abada. The RTC-Kabankalan denied the time are the Civil Code of 1889 or the Old Civil Code, and Act No. 190 or the
Digested by: Cheryll Navarette motion in an Order dated 20 August 1991. Code of Civil Procedurewhich governed the execution of wills before the
enactment of the New CivilCode.
DOCTRINE: Precision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is Sometime in 1993, during the proceedings, Presiding Judge Rodolfo
desirable. However, it is not imperative that a parrot-like copy of the words of the S. Layumas discovered that in an Order dated 16 March 1992, former Presiding The matter in dispute in the present case is the attestation clause in
statute be made. It is sufficient if from the language employed it can reasonably Judge Edgardo Catilo had already submitted the case for decision. Thus, the the will of Abada.  Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by
be deduced that the attestation clause fulfills what the law expects of it. RTC-Kabankalan rendered a Resolution dated 22 June 1994, as follows: Act No. 2645, governs the form of the attestation clause of Abada's will. Section
618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
FACTS: There having been sufficient notice to the heirs as required by law; SEC. 618.  Requisites of will. No will, except as provided in the
that there is substantial compliance with the formalities of a Will as the law preceding section, shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge
Abada died sometime in May 1940.His widow Paula Toray ("Toray") directs and that the petitioner through his testimony and the deposition of Felix or affect the same, unless it be written in the language or dialect known by the
died sometime in September 1943. Both died without legitimate children. Gallinero was able to establish the regularity of the execution of the said Will and testator and signed by him, or by the testator's name written by some other
further, there being no evidence of bad faith and fraud, or substitution of the said person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
On 13 September 1968, Alipio C. Abaja ("Alipio") filed with the then Will, the Last Will and Testament of AlipioAbada dated June 4, 1932 is admitted subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (now RTC-Kabankalan) a petition and allowed probate. and of each other.  The testator or the person requested by him to write his
for the probate of the last will and testament ("will") of Abada. Abada allegedly name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid,

26 | P a g e
each and every page thereof, on the left margin, and said pages shall be Nevertheless, Caponong-Noble's contention must still fail.  There is attestation clause in his presence and in the presence of each other. The
numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet.  The no statutory requirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the oppositors did not submit any evidence.
attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will is language or dialect used in the will. This is a matter that a party may establish by
written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or proof aliunde. Caponong-Noble further argues that Alipio, in his testimony, has The learned trial court found and declared Exhibit "A" to be a
caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the failed, among others, to show that Abada knew or understood the contents of the holographic will; that it was in the handwriting of the testator and that although at
presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all will and the Spanish language used in the will.  However, Alipio testified the time it was executed and at the time of the testator's death, holographic wills
pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. thatAbada used to gather Spanish-speaking people in their place.  In these were not permitted by law still, because at the time of the hearing and when the
gatherings, Abada and his companions would talk in the Spanish language. This case was to be decided the new Civil Code was already in force, which Code
Caponong-Noble asserts that the will of Abada does not indicate that sufficiently proves that Abada speaks the Spanish language. permitted the execution of holographic wills, under a liberal view, and to carry out
it is written in a language or dialect known to the testator.  Further, she maintains the intention of the testator which according to the trial court is the controlling
that the will is not acknowledged before a notary public.  She cites in particular We rule to apply the liberal construction in the probate of Abada's factor and may override any defect in form, said trial court by order dated
Articles 804 and 805 of the OldCivil Code, thus: will.  Abada's will clearly shows four signatures: that of Abada and of three other January 24, 1952, admitted to probate Exhibit "A", as the Last Will and
persons.  It is reasonable to conclude that there are three witnesses to the will.  Testament of Father Sancho Abadia. The oppositors are appealing from that
Art. 804.  Every will must be in writing and executed in [a] language or The question on the number of the witnesses is answered by an examination of decision; and because only questions of law are involved in the appeal, the case
dialect known to the testator. the will itself and without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde. was certified to us by the Court of Appeals.
Art. 806.  Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by
the testator and the witnesses. xxx
ISSUE: Should the old Civil Code be applied to the subject probate?
In re: Will and Testament of the deceased REVEREND SANCHO ABADIA. 
Caponong-Noble actually cited Articles 804 and 806 of the New Civil SEVERINA A. VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, 
Code. Article 804 of the Old Civil Code is about the rights and obligations of vs. RULING:
administrators of the property of an absentee, while Article 806 of the Old Civil MIGUEL ABADIA, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
Code defines a legitime. G.R. No. L-7188, August 9, 1954 Yes, It should be the old Civil Code. The new Civil Code, which took
MONTEMAYOR, J.: effect August 30, 1950, provides in Art. 795: “The validity of a will as to its form
Articles 804 and 806 of the New Civil Code are new provisions.  Digested by: Cheryll Navarette depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made.”  Here,
Article 804 of the New Civil Code is taken from Section 618 of the Code of Civil the validity of the holographic will is to be judged not by the law enforced at the
Procedure. Article 806 of the New Civil Code is taken from Article 685 of the Old DOCTRINE: The validity of a will is to be judged not by the law enforce at the time when the petition is decided by the court but at the time the instrument was
Civil Code which provides: time of the testator's death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court executed. When one executes a will which is invalid for failure to observe and
for probate or when the petition is decided by the court but at the time the follow the legal requirements at the time of its execution, just like in this case,
Art. 685.  The notary and two of the witnesses who authenticate the instrument was executed. then upon his death he should be regarded and declared as having died
will must be acquainted with the testator, or, should they not know him, he shall intestate. This is because the general rule is that the Legislature cannot validate
be identified by two witnesses who are acquainted with him and are known to the FACTS: void wills.
notary and to the attesting witnesses.  The notary and the witnesses shall also
endeavor to assure themselves that the testator has, in their judgment, the legal
On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of   Article 795 of this same new Civil Code expressly provides: "The
capacity required to make a will.
Talisay, Cebu, executed a document purporting to be his Last Will and validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at
Testament now marked Exhibit "A". Resident of the City of Cebu, he died on the time it is made." The above provision is but an expression or statement of
Witnesses authenticating a will without the attendance of a notary, in
January 14, 1943, in the municipality of Aloguinsan, Cebu, where he was an the weight of authority to the affect that the validity of a will is to be judged not by
cases falling under Articles 700 and 701, are also required to know the
evacuee. He left properties estimated at P8,000 in value. On October 2, 1946, the law enforce at the time of the testator's death or at the time the supposed will
testator.However, the Code of Civil Procedure repealed Article 685 of the Old
one Andres Enriquez, one of the legatees in Exhibit "A", filed a petition for its is presented in court for probate or when the petition is decided by the court but
Civil Code.  Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not
probate in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Some cousins and nephews who at the time the instrument was executed.
necessary in the execution of any will. Therefore, Abada's will does not require
would inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no will, filed opposition.
acknowledgment before a notary public.
One reason in support of the rule is that although the will operates
Caponong-Noble points out that nowhere in the will can one discern During the hearing one of the attesting witnesses, the other two being upon and after the death of the testator, the wishes of the testator about the
that Abada knew the Spanish language.  She alleges that such defect is fatal dead, testified without contradiction that in his presence and in the presence of disposition of his estate among his heirs and among the legatees is given
and must result in the disallowance of the will.  On this issue, the Court of his co-witnesses, Father Sancho wrote out in longhand Exhibit "A" in Spanish solemn expression at the time the will is executed, and in reality, the legacy or
Appeals held that the matter was not raised in the motion to dismiss, and that it which the testator spoke and understood; that he (testator) signed on he left bequest then becomes a completed act. This ruling has been laid down by this
is now too late to raise the issue on appeal.  We agree with Caponong-Noble hand margin of the front page of each of the three folios or sheets of which the court in the case of In re Will of Riosa, 39 Phil., 23. It is a wholesome doctrine
that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply in probate proceedings. In addition, document is composed, and numbered the same with Arabic numerals, and and should be followed.
the language used in the will is part of the requisites under Section 618 of the finally signed his name at the end of his writing at the last page, all this, in the
Code of Civil Procedure and the Court deems it proper to pass upon this issue. presence of the three attesting witnesses after telling that it was his last will and
that the said three witnesses signed their names on the last page after the

27 | P a g e
Wherefore, the order appealed from was reversed, and Exhibit "A" On October 26, 1920, Maria Corral sold parcels Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ISSUE:
was denied probate, with costs. 10 and 11 to Marcelina Casas for the sum of P20,000 in a public instrument
which was recorded in the registry of deeds on November 6, 1920. On 1. Whether or not the purchaser (Pablo Rocha) can be compelled
November 3, 1920, Marcelina Casas sold these eight parcels of land to Pablo to have the reservation noted on his title?
Rocha for the sum of P60,000 in a public document which was recorded in the
registry of deeds on November 6, 1920. On September 24, 1921, Pablo Rocha
returned parcels No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 to Maria Corral stating in the deed 2. Whether or not the obligation of insuring the return of these
executed for the purpose that these parcels of land had been erroneously parcels of land, or their value, to the reservees by means of a
included in the sale made by Maria Corral to Marcelina Casas. mortgage or a bond also applies to the purchaser (Pablo
Rocha)?
The Court of first Instance denied the probate of the will of Jose
Riosa, but on appeal this court reversed the decision of the lower court and RULING:
allowed the will to probate.  The legal proceedings for the probate of the will and
the settlement of the testate estate of Jose Riosa were followed; and, at the time 1. Yes.Where a reservable property is sold by the reservor,
of the partition, Maria Corral and Marcelina Casas submitted to the court the without having registered its reservable character, the obligation to register the
MAGIN RIOSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PABLO ROCHA, MARCELINA CASAS,
contract of extrajudicial partition which they had entered into on May 16, 1917, same is transferred to the purchaser, when, in making the purchase, the latter
MARIA CORRAL and CONSOLACION R. DE CALLEJA, Defendants-Appellees. and which was approved by the court, by order of November 12, 1920, as knew the facts which give the property the reservable character.   Marcelina
though it had been made within the said testamentary proceedings. Casas, as well as Pablo Rocha, Knew of the reservable character of the property
G.R. No. 23770. February 18, 1926
when they bought it.Wherefore, the duty of Maria Corral of recording the
AVANCEÑA, C.J.  : From the foregoing is appears that the eleven parcels of land reservable character of lots 10 and 11 has been transferred to Pablo Rocha and
Digested by: Cheryll Navarette described in the complaint were acquired by Jose Riosa, by lucrative title, from the reservees have an action against him to compel him to comply with this
his father Mariano Riosa and that after the death of Jose Riosa, by operation of obligation.
DOCTRINE: For the purposes of the reservation and the rights and obligations law, they passed to his mother Maria Corral. By virtue of article 811 of the Civil
created thereby, in connection with the relatives benefited, the property must not Code these eleven parcels of land are reservable property. It results, In accordance with article 977, Maria Corral, reservor, is obliged to
be deemed transmitted to the heirs from the time the extrajudicial partition was furthermore, that parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 still belong in fee simple to have the reservation noted in the registry of deeds in accordance with the
made, but from the time said partition was approved by the court.  Maria Corral, and that parcels 10 and 11 were successively sold by Maria Corral provisions of the Mortgage Law which fixes the period of ninety days for
to Marcelina Casas and by the latter to Pablo Rocha. Lastly, it appears that accomplishing it (article 199, in relation with article 191, of the Mortgage Law).
FACTS: Magin and ConsolacionRiosa are the nearest relatives within the third degree of According to article 203 of the General Regulation for the application of the
the line from which this property came. Mortgage Law, this time must be computed from the acceptance of the
inheritance. But as this portion of the Civil Code, regarding the acceptance of the
Maria Corral was united in marriage with the deceased Mariano inheritance, has been repealed, the time, as has been indicated, must be
Riosa, it being her first and only marriage and during which time she bore him This action was brought by MaginRiosa, for whom the property
should have been reserved, against Maria Corral, whose duty it was to reserve computed from the adjudication of the property by the court to the heirs, in line
three children named Santiago, Jose and Severina. The latter died during with the decision of this court hereinabove quoted. After the expiration of this
infancy and the other two survived their father, Mariano Riosa. Santiago Riosa, it, and against Marcelina Casas and Pablo Rocha as purchasers of parcels 10
and 11. ConsolacionRiosa de Calleja who was also bound to make the period the reservees may demand compliance with this obligation.
now deceased, married Francisca Villanueva, who bore him two children named
Magin and ConsolacionRiosa. Jose Riosa, also deceased, married Marcelina reservation was included as a defendant as she refused to join as plaintiff.
Casas and they had one child who died before the father, the latter therefore If Maria Corral had not transferred parcels 10 and 11 to another there
leaving no issue. Mariano Riosa left a will dividing his property between his two The complaint prays that the property therein described be declared would be no doubt that she could be compelled to cause the reservable
children, Santiago and Jose Riosa, giving the latter the eleven parcels of land reservable property and that the plaintiffs Jose and ConsolacionRiosa be character of this property to be noted in the registry of deeds. This acquisition by
described in the complaint. Upon the death of Jose Riosa he left a will in which declared reservees; that this reservation be noted in the registry of deeds; that Pablo Rocha took place when it was the duty of Maria Corral to make the
he named his wife, Marcelina Casas, as his only heir. the sale of parcels 10 and 11 to Marcelina Casas and Pablo Rocha be declared notation of the reservation in the registry and at the time when the reservees had
valid only in so far as it saves the right of reservation in favor of the plaintiff no right to compel Maria Corral to make such notation, because this acquisition
MaginRiosa and of the defendant ConsolacionRiosa, and that this right of was made before the expiration of the period of ninety days from November 12,
On May 16, 1917, the will of Jose Riosa was filed for probate. 1920, the date of the adjudication by the court, after which the right of the
Notwithstanding the fact that Marcelina Casas was the only heir named in the reservation be also noted on the deeds of sale executed in favor of Marcelina
Casas and Pablo Rocha; that Maria Corral, Marcelina Casas and Pablo Rocha reservees to commence an action for the fulfillment of the obligation arose. But
will, on account of the preterition of Maria Corral who, being the mother of Jose the land first passed to Marcelina Casas and later to Pablo Rocha together with
Riosa, was his legitimate heir, I Marcelina Casas and Maria Corral, on the same give a bond of P50,000, with good and sufficient sureties, in favor of the
reservees as surety for the conservation and maintenance of the improvements the obligation that the law imposes upon Maria Corral. They could not have
date of the filing of the will for probate, entered into a contract by which they acquired a better title than that held by Maria Corral and if the latter's title was
divided between themselves the property left by Jose Riosa, the eleven parcels existing on the said reservable property. The dispositive part of the court's
decision reads as follows: limited by the reservation and the obligation to note it in the registry of deeds,
of land described in the complaint being assigned to Maria Corral. this same limitation is attached to the right acquired by Marcelina Casas and
Pablo Rocha.

28 | P a g e
In the transmission of reservable property the law imposes the The above mentioned property was a conjugal property; Manresa, commending on article 657 of the Civil Code of Spain, says:
reservation as a resolutory condition for the benefit of the reservees (article 975,
Civil Code). The fact that the resolvable character of the property was not On April 15, 1946, the surviving spouse Catalina Navarro Vda. "The moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs acquire a definite
recorded in the registry of deed at the time that it was acquired by Marcelina deWinstanley sold the entire parcel of land to the spouses Maria Canoy and right to the inheritance, whether such right be pure or contingent. It is immaterial
Casas and Pablo Rocha cannot affect the right of the reservees, for the reason Roberto Canoy, alleging among other things, that she needed money for the whether a short or long period of time lapses between the death of the
that the transfers were made at the time when it was the obligation of the support of her children; predecessor and the entry into possession of the property of the inheritance
reservor to note only such reservation and the reservees did not them have any because the right is always deemed to be retroactive from the moment of death."
right to compel her to fulfill such an obligation. (5 Manresa, 317.)
On May 24, 1947, the spouses Maria Canoy and Roberto Canoy sold the
same parcel of land to the plaintiff in this case named Bienvenido A. Ebarle;
2. No. The law does not require that the reservor give this security, 2. Yes. The sale to the defendant having been made by authority of the
the recording of the reservation in the registry of deeds being sufficient (art. 977 competent court was undeniably legal and effective. The fact that it has not
of the Civil Code). There is no ground for this requirement inasmuch as, the The two deeds of sale referred to above were not registered and have never
been registered up to date; been recorded is of no consequence. If registration were necessary, still the
notation once is made, the property will answer for the efficacy of the non-registration would not avail the plaintiff because it was due to no other cause
reservation. This security for the value of the property is required by law (art. than his own opposition.
978, paragraph 4, of the Civil Code) in the case of a reservation by the surviving On January 17, 1948 surviving spouse Catalina Navarro Vda. deWinstanley,
spouse when the property has been sold before acquiring the reservable after her appointment as guardian of her children by this court (Special
character (art 968 of the Civil Code), but is not applicable to reservation known Proceeding No. 212-R) sold one-half of the land mentioned above to Esperanza The decision will be affirmed subject to the reservation, made in said
as reservatroncal(art 811 of the Civil Code), or where the property goes to the M. Po, defendant in the instant case, which portion belongs to the children of the decision, of the right of the plaintiff and/or the Canoy spouses to bring such
ascendant already reservable in character. above named spouses. action against Catalina Navarro Vda. deWinstanley as may be appropriate for
such damages as they may have incurred by reason of the voiding of the sale in
their favor.
The judgment appealed from is modified and Pablo Rocha is ordered As stated by the trial Judge, the sole question for determination is the validity of
to record in the registry of deeds the reservable character of parcels 10 11, the the sale to Esperanza M. Po, the last purchaser. This question in turn depends
subject of this complaint, without special pronouncement as to costs. upon the validity of the prior sale to Maria Canoy and Roberto Canoy. IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E.
CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. 
ADOLFO C. AZNAR, Executor and LUCY CHRISTENSEN, Heir of the
BIENVENIDO A. IBARLE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS.ESPERANZA, M. ISSUES:
deceased, Executor and Heir-appellees, 
PO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. vs.
1. Whether or not the first sale to Spouses Canoy was valid? HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, oppositor-appellant.
G. R. No. L-5064, February 26, 1953 G.R. No. L-16749, January 31, 1963
TUASON, J.: 2. Whether or not the second sale to DF Esperanza of ½ of the land was valid? LABRADOR, J.:
Digested by: Cheryll Navarette Digested by: Cheryll Navarette

DOCTRINE: Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of

DOCTRINE: The moment of death is the determining factor when the children of RULING: the country where it is situated.
a decedent acquire a definite right to the inheritance, whether such right be pure
or contingent. No formal or judicial declaration is needed to confirm the 1. No. In the sale to Spouses Canoy:
children’s title. Sale made by the widow of the decedent’s property after his FACTS:
death is null and void so far as it included the children’s share.
Article 657 of the old Civil Code provides: Edward E. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to
FACTS: California, where he resided and consequently was considered a California
"The rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his citizen. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until
death." In a slightly different language, this article is incorporated in the new his death. However, during the entire period of his residence in this country he
Leonard J. Winstantley and Catalina Navarro were husband and wife, the former Civil Code as article 777. had always considered himself a citizen of California.
having died on June 6, 1946 leaving as heir the surviving spouse and some
minor children.
When Catalina sold the entire parcel to the Spouse Canoy, ½ of it already In his will executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted an acknowledged
belonged to Catalina’s (seller’s) children. No formal or judicial declaration is natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as his only heir, but left a legacy of
Upon the death of L. J. Winstanley, he left a parcel of land described under being needed to confirm the children’s title. Thus, the first sale was null and void sum of money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who was rendered to have
Transfer Certificate of title No. 2391 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of because it included the children's share. been declared acknowledged natural daughter. Counsel for appellant claims that
Cebu; California law should be applied; that under California law, the matter is referred

29 | P a g e
back to the law of the domicile; that therefore Philippine law is ultimately inheritance according to the laws on succession, the unlawful where a party interested in probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set
applicable; that finally, the share of Helen must be increased in view of the provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. aside is when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond his control or
successional rights of illegitimate children under Philippine law. On the other through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence with circumstances
hand, counsel for the heir of Christensen contends that inasmuch as it is clear FACTS: do not concur herein.
that under Article 16 of our Civil Code, the national law of the deceased must
apply, our courts must immediately apply the internal law of California on the Vicente and Jose Dorotheo are the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and JULIANA BAGTAS
matter; that under California law there are no compulsory heirs and consequently Aniceta Reyes. Aniceta died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Alejandro vs.
a testator could dispose of any property possessed by him in absolute dominion died thereafter. Lourdes Dorotheo, who claims to have taken care of Alejandro ISIDRO PAGUIO, ET AL.
and that finally, illegitimate children not being entitled to anything and his will before he died, filed a special proceeding for the probate of Alejandro’s last will G.R. No. L-6801 MARCH 14, 1912
remain undisturbed. and testament. The children of the spouses namely Vicente,Jose, and Nilda filed TRENT, J.
a "Motion To Declare The Will Intrinsically Void." The trial court granted the Digested by: Jan-Lawrence Olaco
motion and declared Lourdes Legaspi not the wife of the late Alejandro
Dorotheo; that the provisions of the last will and testament of Alejandro Dorotheo
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine law should prevail in administering the as intrinsically void; and declaring the oppositors Vicente, Jose and Nilda as the DOCTRINE: Mere weakness of mind and body, induced by age and disease do
estate of Christensen? only heirs of the late spouses Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes. not render a person incapable of making a will. The law does not require that a
person shall continue in the full enjoyment and use of his pristine physical and
Lourdes assails the Order of the upholding the order which declared the intrinsic mental powers in order to execute a valid will.
HELD: invalidity of Alejandro's will that was earlier admitted to probate. The heirs of
Alejandro opposed the motion on the ground that petitioner has no interest in the
estate since she is not the lawful wife of the late Alejandro.
Yes. The Supreme Court grants more successional rights to Helen. It
FACTS:
said in effect that there are two rules in California on the matter: the internal law ISSUE: The last will and testament executed by Pioquinto Paguio who died a year and
which applies to California’s domiciled in California, and the conflict rule for
five months from the execution, was propounded by by the executrix, Juliana
Californian’s domiciled out of California. Christensen, being domiciled in the May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void Bagtas, widow of Paguio. However, Paguio’s son and several grandchildren by a
Philippines, the law of his domicile must be followed. For the determination of the in an order that has become final and executory still be given effect? former marriage opposed the probate asserting that Paguio was not in the full of
successional rights under Philippine Law, the case was remanded to the lower
enjoyment and use of his mental faculties and was without the mental capacity
court for further proceedings.
necessary to execute a valid will. According to them, Paguio suffered from a
RULING: paralysis of the left side of his body. This resulted to the impairment of his
The Court ruled that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a hearing, lost of the power of speech and uncontrolled saliva discharge. Despite
citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will No.A final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or the paralysis, Paguio retained the use of his right hand and was able to write
depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. Moreover, it has been ruled that a fairly well. Paguio was able to indicate his wishes to his wife and to the other
the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of final judgment on probated will, albeit erroneous, is binding on the whole world members of his family,through the medium of signs.
California, not by the internal law of California.
Under Article 960 of the Civil Code, on the law of successional rights that testacy ISSUE: Is paralysis a ground to establish mental incapacity that would disqualify
is preferred to intestacy. But before there could be testate distribution, the will the testator to execute a valid will?
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from was reversed and the
case returned to the lower court with instructions that the partition be made as must pass the scrutinizing test and safeguards provided by law considering that
the deceased testator is no longer available to prove the voluntariness of his RULING:
the Philippine law on succession provides. Judgment reversed, with costs
against appellees. actions, aside from the fact that the transfer of the estate is usually onerous in No. The mere weakness of mind and body, induced by age and disease do not
nature and that no one is presumed to give — Nemo praesumitur donare. No render a person incapable of making a will. The law does not require that a
intestate distribution of the estate can be done until and unless the will had failed person shall continue in the full enjoyment and use of his pristine physical and
LOURDES L. DOROTHEO to pass both its extrinsic and intrinsic validity. If the will is extrinsically void, the mental powers in order to execute a valid will.Perfect soundness of mind is not
vs. rules of intestacy apply regardless of the intrinsic validity thereof. If it is essential to testamentary capacity. A testator may be afflicted with a variety of
COURT OF APPEALS, NILDA D. QUINTANA, VICENTE DOROTHEO and extrinsically valid, the next test is to determine its intrinsic validity — that is mental weaknesses, disorders, or peculiarities and still be capable in law of
JOSE DOROTHEO whether the provisions of the will are valid according to the laws of succession. If executing a valid will.
G.R. No. 108581 DECEMBER 8, 1999 both test are not satisfied the rules of intestacy will apply.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. In the case at bar, at the time of the execution of the will, it does not appear that
Digested by: Jan-Lawrence Olaco In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsically Pioquinto’s conduct was irrational in any particular. He seems to have
valid but the intrinsic provisions thereof are void. Alejandro gave all the property comprehended clearly what the nature of the business was in which he was
to Lourdes, his concubine. Such is invalid because one cannot dispose what he engaged. The evidence show that the writing and execution of the will occupied
DOCTRINE: Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for does not own. In this case, the whole property is the conjugal property of a period several hours and that the testator was present during all this time,
dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful Alejandro and Aniceta. Such has become final and executory. The only instance

30 | P a g e
taking an active part in all the proceedings. Hence, the will in the case at bar is In this case, there was no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that would
perfectly reasonable and its dispositions are those of a rational person. show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the Does physical weakness of a testator establishes his mental incapacity or a lack
Will. On the other hand, it was worthy to note as to the soundness of mind of of testamentary capacity?
ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, ET.AL. Paciencia when she went to Judge Limpin’s house and voluntarily executed the
vs. Will. More importantly, a testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of RULING:
LORENZO LAXA the execution of the Will and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor.
G.R. No. 174489 APRIL 11, 2012 The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of No.Evidence of physical weakness in no wise establishes mental incapacity or a
DEL CASTILLO, J. making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but lack of testamentary capacity.It has been held that "mere weakness of mind, or
Digested by: Jan-Lawrence Olaco if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to partial imbecility from the disease of body, or from age, will not render a person
be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the incapable of making a will, a weak or feeble minded person may make a valid
testator made it during a lucid interval. Here, there was no showing that will, provided he has understanding memory sufficient to enable him to know
Paciencia was publicly known to be insane one month or less before the making what he is about, and how or to whom he is disposing of his property"; that, "To
DOCTRINE: Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. of the Will. Clearly, the burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind lies constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind should
upon the shoulders of Antonio et.al however the same was not proved and the be unbroken or unimpaired, unshattered by disease or otherwise"; that "it has
FACTS: court affirmed the probate of the will of Paciencia. not been understood that a testator must possess these qualities (of sound and
disposing mind and memory) in the highest degree.
Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and testament
entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala".Childless and In this case, the evidence of the subscribing witnesses as to the aid furnished
without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her properties to them by the testator, Ubag, in preparing the will, and his clear recollection of the
Lorenzo Laxa and his wife Corazon Laxa and their children Luna Lorella Laxa boundaries and physical description of the various parcels of land set out
and Katherine Ross Laxa.More than four years after the death of Paciencia, therein, taken together with the fact that he was able to give to the person who
Lorenzo filed a for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of CATALINA BUGNAO wrote the will clear and explicit instructions as to his desires touching the
Letters of Administration in his favour. vs. disposition of his property, is strong evidence of his testamentary capacity.
FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL.
Antonio Baltazar and the others filed an opposition contending that Paciencia’s G.R. No. 4445 SEPTEMBER 18, 1909 MANUEL TORRES and
Will was null and void on the ground that Paciencia was mentally incapable to CARSON, J. LUZ LOPEZ DE BUENO
make a Will at the time of its execution. The oppositors, through their witness Digested by: Jan-Lawrence Olaco vs.
Rosie, claim that Paciencia was "magulyan" or forgetful so much so that it MARGARITA LOPEZ
effectively stripped her of testamentary capacity. They likewise claimed that G.R. No. L-24569 FEBRUARY 26, 1926
Paciencia was not only "magulyan" but was actually suffering from paranoia. DOCTRINE: Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of MALCOLM, J.
the transaction in which the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the Digested by: Jan-Lawrence Olaco
ISSUE: property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to
have claims upon the testator, and to comprehend the manner in which the DOCTRINE: Testamentary incapacity does not necessarily require that a person
Is the state of being forgetful necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as instrument will distribute his property among the objects of his bounty. shall actually be insane or of an unsound mind. Weakness of intellect, whether it
to render him unfit to execute a will? arises from extreme old age, from disease, or great bodily infirmities of suffering,
FACTS: or from all these combined, may render the testator in capable of making a valid
RULING: will, providing such weakness really disqualifies for from knowing or appreciating
This is an appeal admitting to probate a document purporting to be the last will the nature, effects, or consequences of the act she is engaged in.
No. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. and testament of Domingo Ubag, deceased. The instrument was propounded by
his widow, Catalina Bugnao, the sole beneficiary. The probate was contested by FACTS:
Under Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in brothers and sisters of the deceased. The appellants contend that the evidence
full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, is not sufficient to establish the execution of the alleged will in the manner and On January 3, 1924, Tomas Rodriguez executed his last will and testament.
unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. It shall be sufficient form prescribed; and that at the time when it is alleged that the will was Thereafter died leaving a considerable estate. Subsequently, Manuel Torres,
if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the executed, Ubag was not of sound mind and memory, and was physically and one of the executors named in the will asked that the will of Rodriguez be
estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of mentally incapable of making a will, as he was extremely ill, in an advanced allowed. Opposition was entered by Margarita Lopez, the first cousin of the
the testamentary act. stage of tuberculosis complicated with severe intermittent attacks of asthma; that deceased on the grounds: (1) That the testator lacked mental capacity because
he was too sick to rise unaided from his bed; that he needed assistance even to at the time of senile dementia and was under guardianship; (2) that undue
And also under Article 800 of the New Civil Code states: rise himself to a sitting position; and that during the paroxysms of asthma to influence had been exercised by the persons benefited in the document in
Art. 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence which he was subject he could not speak conjunction with others who acted in their behalf; and (3) that the signature of
of proof to the contrary. Tomas Rodriguez to the document was obtained through fraud and deceit.
ISSUE:
31 | P a g e
It was presented in this case, Rodriguez had reached the advanced age of 76 suffered a loss of memory, may have had a guardian and may have a been actual administration of his properties had been left to his assistant Madarieta
years. He was suffering from anemia, hernia inguinal, chronic dypsia, and extremely eccentric, but he still possessed the spark of reason and of life, that who, for his part received instructions from Francisca and her husband.
senility. Physically he was a wreck. strength of mind to form a fixed intention and to summon his enfeebled thoughts
to enforce that intention, which the law terms "testamentary capacity." Hence,
ISSUE: Were the weakness of mind and advanced age of Don Jesus renders
As to the mental state of Tomas Rodriguez on January 3, 1924, there were the will of Tomas Rodriguez will be admitted to probate.
conflicting results. Doctors Calderon Domingo, and Herrera certify that the him incapable of making a will?
intellectual faculties of the patient are "sound, except that his memory is weak,"
and that in executing the will the testator had full understanding of the act he was FRANCISCA ALSUA-BETTS vs. COURT OF APPEALS RULING: NO
performing and full knowledge of the contents thereof. Doctors De Los Angeles, G.R. Nos. L-46430-31 July 30, 1979
Tietze and Burke certify that Tomas Rodriguez was of unsound mind and that GUERRERO, J.: The weakness of mind and advanced age of Don Jesus does not render him
they diagnosed his case as senile dementia of the simple type approaching the Digested by: Lyndzelle Jane D. Paniza incapable of making a will.
deteriorated stage.

ISSUE: DOCTRINE: The test of testamentary capacity is at the time of the making of the Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full
will. Mere weakness of mind or partial imbecility from disease of body or from possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken,
Did Tomas Rodriguez possess sufficient mentality to make a will? age does not render a person incapable of making a will. unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.

RULING: Yes. FACTS: It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know
Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Doña Forentina Rella, and their four children, the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and
Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the the character of the testamentary act,
Francisca Alsua-Betts, Pablo, Fernando and Amparo Alsua, entered into a duly
transaction in which the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property
to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to have notarized agreement, Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial. The said agreement
specifically partitioned one-half of the properties of the spouses to their The test of testamentary capacity is at the time of the making of the will. Mere
claims upon the testator, and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument
weakness of mind or partial imbecility from disease of body or from age-does not
will distribute his property among the objects of his bounty. The mental capacity legitimate heirs of their respective shares, while they reserved for themselves
render a person incapable of making a will.
of the testator is determined as of the date of the execution of his will.Of the (the spouses Don Jesus and Doña Tinay) the other half or those not disposed of
specific tests of capacity, neither old age, physical infirmities, feebleness of to the said legitimate heirs, and they mutually and reciprocally bequeathed unto
mind, weakness of the memory, the appointment of a guardian, nor eccentricities Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory which
each other their participation therein as well as in all properties which they might unquestionably carries with it full testamentary capacity, and that degrees of
are sufficient singly or jointly to show testamentary incapacity. Each case rests
be acquired subsequently. mental aberration generally known as insanity or Idiocy, there are numberless
on its own facts and must be decided by its own facts. There is one particular
test relative to the capacity to make a will which is of some practical utility. This degrees of mental capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it has been held
rule concerns the nature and rationality of the will. Is the will simple or In comformity and in implementation of the extrajudicial partition, spouses Don that mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from
complicated? Is it natural or unnatural? The mere exclusion of heirs will not, Jesus and Doña Florentina executed their respective holographic wills as well as age, will not render a person incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded
however, in itself indicate that the will was the offspring of an unsound mind. codicils, separately. person may make a valid will, provided he has understanding and memory
sufficient to enable him to know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is
In the present case, the court opined thatTomas Rodriguez, comprehended the disposing of his property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
Upon the death of Doña Tinay, Don Jesus cancelled his holographic will and necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered by disease or
nature of the transaction in which he was engaged. He had two conferences with
his lawyer, Judge Mina, and knew what the will was to contain. The will was read instructed his lawyer to draft a new will which was duly signed by him and his otherwise. It has been held that testamentary incapacity does not necessarily
to him by Mr. Legarda. He signed the will and its two copies in the proper places attesting witnesses. The notarial will and testament had essential features, one require that a person shall actually be insane or of unsound mind. (Bugnao vs.
at the bottom and on the left margin. At that time the testator recollected the of them was that it instituted his children as legatees/devisees of certain specific Ubag, 14 Phil. 163).
property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to properties, and as to the rest of the properties and whatever may be
have claims upon him While for some months prior to the making of the will he subsequently acquired in the future, before his death, were to be given to The Civil Code itself provides under Article 798 that in order to make a will, it is
had not manage his property he seem to have retained a distinct recollection of Francisca and Pablo, naming Francisca as executrix to serve without a bond. essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its execution, and
what it consisted and of his income. Occasionally his memory failed him with under Article 800, the law presumes that every person is of sound mind in the
reference to the names of his relatives. Ordinarily, he knew who they were, he absence of proof to the contrary. In the case at bar, the acceptance by the Court
seemed to entertain a prediliction towards Vicente F. Lopez as would be natural When Don Jesus died, Fransisca, as executrix, filed a petition for the probate of
of Appeals of the findings of fact of the trial court on the due execution of the last
since Lopez was nearest in which the instrument distributed the property naming the new will of Don Jesus. Pablo, Amparo and Fernando opposed, one of their will and testament of Don Jesus has foreclosed any and all claim to the contrary
the objects of his bounty. His conversations with Judge Mina disclosed as contention was that Don Jesus was not of sound and disposing mind at the time that the will was not executed in accordance with the requirements of the law.
insistence on giving all of his property to the two persons whom he specified. of the execution of the alleged will. That his mental faculties or his possession of But more than that, gleaned from the quoted portions of the appealed decision,
the same had been diminished considering that when the will was executed, he the described behavior of Don Jesus is not that of a mentally incapacitated
On January 3, 1924, Tomas Rodriguez may have been of advanced years, may was already 84 years of age and in view of his weakness and advanced age, the person nor one suffering from "senile dementia" as claimed by Pablo, Amparo
have been physically decrepit, may have been weak in intellect, may have and Fernando. From these accepted facts, We find that: (a) it was Don Jesus
32 | P a g e
himself who gave detailed instructions to his lawyer as to how he wanted to Dolorez Albornoz, for her part, stated that the late Perpetua in executing her will, could still effect the sale of property belonging to him, these circumstances show
divide his properties among his children by means of a list of his properties was with complete freedom, being in full enjoyment of her mental faculties and in that the testator was in a perfectly sound mental condition at the time of the
should pertain; (b) the semi-final draft of the contested will prepared by his the presence of witnesses whose names and signatures are mentioned and execution of the will.
lawyer was even corrected by Don Jesus; (c) on the day of the signing of the will
appear in the testimony clauses of her will.
at his house in Ligao, "Don Jesus was in bright and lively spirits ..., leading in the FACTS:
conversation which ran from problems of farming and the merits of French-made Encarnacion Neyra and her sister, Trinidad Neyra had a litigation in the Court of
wines"; (d) the signing of the will by Don Jesus and his attesting witnesses was ISSUE: Does Perpetua A. Vda. de Soriano have the mental capacity to execute First Instance regarding the properties left by their father.
made after a statement from Don Jesus of the purpose of their meeting or her will?
gathering. Clearly then, Don Jesus knew exactly what his actions were and the During the course of the litigation, Encarnacion Neyra had been suffering from
fun implications thereof. RULING: NO. Addison’s disease and on the day before her death, Encarnacion and Trinidad
reconciled and had a long and cordial conversation, in the course of which they
talked about the properties left by their father and their litigations which had
The deceased was not poor and did not lack the means to procure domestic
reached the Court of Appeals, they then agreed to have the latter dismissed, on
services: she did not live alone or was alone in her home since she became ill; the condition that the property involved therein should be given exclusively to
and in fact, the deceased had nine servants at her service. The deceased was Trinidad Neyra, that the latter should waive her share in the rents of said
never without company in her room during her illness, especially during her last property collected by Encarnacion.
days, because she required continuous care. Therefore, it is incredible that
Adriano Ruiz and the other instrumental witnesses of the alleged testament of On November 3, 1942, Attorney Panis prepared a document of compromise
June 24, 1936 could enter inside the room of the deceased or even inside her embodying their agreement and prepared Encarnacion’s last will and testament.
house, without being seen or noticed by anyone. The granting of the will in
On November 4, 1942, Encarnacion unexpectedly died allegedly from heart
question could not be done in a short moment; it had to take a long time, enough attack, as a consequence of Addison’s disease.
time for those in the house to realize that there were strangers in it, at a time
ALFONSO ALBORNOZ, vs DOLORES ALBORNOZ and JOSE ALBORNOZ when it is not customary to visit. Atty. Lucio Javillonar, claiming to represent Encarnacion Neyra, and other
[GR No. 47428. April 8, 1941.]  relatives of hers, filed a petition claiming that the alleged compromise or
DIAZ, M.: Additionally, the calligraphy expert Arcadio Laperal, who made a thorough study agreement could not have been understood by Encarnacion Neyra, as she was
Digested by: Lyndzelle Jane D. Paniza already then at the threshold of death, and that as a matter of fact she died the
of the signatures "PERPETUA A. VDA. DE SORIANO” that appear in the will
following day.
comparing them with the authentic ones of the deceased and those that appear
DOCTRINE: The fact that two days before the execution of the will, the in the testament and in the codicil legalized by the Court a quo, which were not ISSUE: Was Encarnacion Neyra of sound mental condition at the time of the
deceased could barely move and talk and if she spoke, her words were discussed, express the opinion that they could not have been written by the execution of the compromise and of her last will and testament?
incoherent and thereafter lost her speech, it was of course impossible for her to same person, helped or not by another because they differ in all respects. 
execute her will. RULING: YES.
We believe that the opinion of the aforementioned expert is based on the facts,
FACTS: Encarnacion Neyra was of sound mental condition at the time of the execution of
especially considering that the deceased could no longer see well, as one of the
the compromise and of her last will and testament.
Perpetua A. Vda. de Soriano executed a will. The will was presented by Alfonzo testament witnesses said, and yet the signatures are written with great
and Dolores Albornoz for probate but it was rejected by the Court of First symmetry, rightly, and keeping the letters to each other, almost the same Presentacion Blanco, niece of Encarnacion, in the course of her cross-
Instance of Ilocos Norte and ruled that Perpetua A. Vda. de Soriano had no distance. And even if the decedent had been helped by another to stamp these examination, frankly admitted that, in the morning and also at about 6 o'clock in
mental capacity when she executed her will. signatures, they would not have come out as well as they appear in the the afternoon of November 3, 1942, Encarnacion Neyra talked to her that they
expressed document. understood each other clearly, thus showing that the testatrix was really of sound
Perpertua died on June 25, 1936, in the municipality of Laoag of the Province of mind, at the time of signing and execution of the agreement and will in question.
Ilocos Norte, then she was 68 years old. She suffered from diarrhea and enteritis TRINIDAD NEYRAVS. ENCARNACION NEYRA
It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that the mental faculties of persons
with complications of myocarditis from June 3, 1936 until the time of her death. C.A. No. 8075 March 25, 1946 suffering from Addison's disease, like the testatrix in this case, remain
On June 22, 1936, Perpetua could barely move and talk and if she spoke, her DE JOYA, J.:
unimpaired, partly due to the fact that, on account of the sleep they enjoy, they
words were incoherent. And on June 23, 1936, she completely lost speech, and Digested by: Lyndzelle Jane D. Paniza necessarily receive the benefit of physical and mental rest. And that like patients
although her eyes were open, they no longer move. In these circumstances, it suffering from tuberculosis, insomnia or diabetes, they preserve their mental
DOCTRINE:Where it appears that a few hours and also a few days after the faculties until the moments of their death.
was physically impossible for her to execute her will considering that the
execution of the will, the testator intelligently and intelligibly conversed with other
document shows on its face that it was executed at 6 am on June 24, 1936. persons, although lying down and unable to move or stand up unassisted, but

33 | P a g e
The logical conclusion is that Encarnacion Neyra was of sound mind and execution of the will. "The Code might have adopted either one of two systems contained in this first will, he executed another will, the second, which is the one
possessed the necessary testamentary and mental capacity, at the time of the [with respect to the mental capacity of the testator] — that of establishing as a exhibited for probate. 
execution of the agreement and will, dated November 3, 1942. general rule the presumption of soundness of the mental faculties until the
contrary be proven, or that of presuming mental weakness in the absence of Canuta Galvez, the testator’s daughter, opposed on the probate of the will
EULALIO HERNAEZVS.ROSENDO HERNAEZ proof that the act was performed while the mental faculties were in their normal alleging that her father, owing to his very serious sickness with cholera, lacked
G.R. No. 857 February 10, 1903 condition. Under the first presumption a will made should be declared valid in all the intellectual capacity and clear judgment requisite for making a will.
ARELLANO, C.J.: cases, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Under the second it would
Digested by: Lyndzelle Jane D. Paniza have to be considered as void upon the presumption that it was executed by a ISSUE: Does Victor Galvez by having a very serious sickness with cholera
person demented, unless the contrary is shown. The Code has adopted the first lacked the capacity and clear judgment for making a will?
DOCTRINE:The fact that an old woman gives contradictory orders, that she system as being the most rational, by accepting the principle that mental
walks in a stooping position, that she has fainting fits, that she received the soundness is always to be presumed with respect to a person who has not been RULING: NO.
sacraments some days before making her will, are circumstances which even if previously incapacitated until the contrary is demonstrated and proven by the
fully demonstrated by proof could no lead the court to establish a conclusion proper person and the correctness of this choice is beyond doubt; in the The record sufficiently proved that the subscribing witnesses to the will affirmed
contrary to the mental soundness of a person who is to be presumed to be in the meantime the intervention of the notary and the witnesses constitutes a true under oath that they were present when Victor Galvez, then such in his house,
full enjoyment of the mental faculties until the contrary is conclusively proven. guaranty of the capacity of the testator, by reason of their knowledge of the stated to them that the document read before them by Lorenzo Galvez contained
matter.  his last will and testament, and that, as the testator was no longer able to sign,
FACTS: he charged his nephew Lorenzo to do so in his stead, which the latter did by
Eulalio Hernaez, one of the sons of the testatrix Doña Juana Espinosa, filed an affixing his own signature to the document, after having written at the foot of the
action for annulment of the will executed by the latter, which will disposes those same the name and surname of the testator, Victor Galvez, who, as these
of the third part of the hereditary estate of free disposal to her eldest son, witnesses observed, was of sound mind and in the full enjoyment of his mental
Rosendo, and the distribution of the remaining third in six equal parts among her faculties; he talked intelligently and with perfect knowledge of what was taking
five children and two grandchildren. place. They further testified that they all, including Lorenzo Galvez, signed the
will in the presence of the testator, Victor Galvez, who was at the time lying on
One of the grounds Eulalio presented was the incapacity of the testatrix to make his bed.
a will. That on the day of the execution of her will, Doña Juana was over 80
years of age and was so ill that three days before she had received the In order to hold that Victor Galvez, on account of serious sickness, was not then
sacraments and extreme unction, and that two days afterwards she died; and of sound mind and did not have full knowledge of his acts and, therefore, was
that prior thereto she walked in a stooping attitude, and gave contradictory incapable to execute a will, it is necessary that the proceedings disclose
orders, as a result of her senile debility. conclusive proof of his mental incapacity and of his evident lack of reason and
SANTIAGO GALVEZ, V. CANUTA GALVEZ judgment at the time he executed his will in the presence of the witnesses whose
[G.R. NO. 6650. DECEMBER 5, 1913. ] signatures appear at the foot thereof, for these witnesses positively affirmed that
ISSUE: Does the testatrix have the use of the necessary mental faculties for the TORRES, J.:
purpose of the execution of the will? Victor Galvez, on executing his will, showed that he was in full possession of his
Digested by: Lyndzelle Jane D. Paniza intellectual faculties and was perfectly cognizant of his acts.
RULING: YES.
The physician Dr. Vicente de Jesus, in his testimony, referred to the effects and
DOCTRINE: In order to hold that a testator, as the result of cholera, was not of results of cholera on a patient in ordinary cases and in the regular course of this
The testatrix have the use of the necessary mental faculties for the purpose of
sound mind and did not have full knowledge of his acts and was incapable of disease; but his statements, taken in general, cannot, in the present suit, serve
the execution of the will.
executing a valid will, it is indispensable that the proceedings disclose as a ground upon which to predicate incapacity, for the reason that he did not
conclusive proof of his mental incapacity and of his lack of reason and judgment examine Victor Galvez, nor did he even see him between the hours during which
It is sufficient to state that neither from the facts elicited by the interrogatories nor
at the time he executed his will in due form. period the testator ordered his will drawn up and the attesting witnesses signed
the documents presented with the complaint can the conclusion be reached that
the testatrix was deprived of her mental faculties. it.
FACTS:
This case deals with the probate of the second will executed by Victor Galvez It may be true that cholera patients do, in the majority of cases, become
The fact that an old woman gives contradictory orders, that she walks in a
and signed in his presence by the witnesses Juan Dimanlig, Nazaria Galvez, and incapacitated in the manner described by the witnesses; but there may be
stooping position, that she has fainting fits, that she received the sacraments
J. Leoquinco, and, as the testator was no longer able to sign on account of his exceptions to the general rule, and to judge from the testimony of the witnesses
some days before making her will, are circumstances which even if fully
sickness, Lorenzo Galvez, at his request, affixed his own signature to the who saw and communicated with the patient Victor Galvez at the time he
demonstrated by proof could no lead the court to establish a conclusion contrary
instrument, for him and below his written name. executed his will, his physical and mental condition must have been an
to the mental soundness of a person who is to be presumed to be in the full
enjoyment of the mental faculties until the contrary is conclusively proven. exception, since he demonstrated that he had sufficient energy and clear
The other will was presented during the proceedings; it was the first one the intelligence to execute his last will in accordance with the requirements of the
testator executed on the same date, and, for the purpose of correcting an error law.
The notary certifies that in his judgment the testatrix had the necessary legal
capacity and the use of the necessary mental faculties for the purposes of the  

34 | P a g e
Besides the attestation of the aforesaid subscribing witnesses, the contents of
the will and the testator’s positive determination to rectify the error he incurred in
the execution of this first will, show that Victor Galvez was in his sound mind and
was perfectly aware of his duties in respect to the legal, inviolable rights of his
daughter and sole heir, Canuta Galvez.

Inasmuch as, in the drafting and execution of the second will, signed in the name
of the testator by Lorenzo Galvez and the witnesses Juan Dimanlig, Nazaria
Galvez, and J. Leoquinco, the formalities prescribed by section 618 of the Code
of Civil Procedure were observed, for the testator’s name appears written at the
foot of the will and under this name Lorenzo Galvez signed by direction of the
testator himself, and the instrument was also signed by the attesting witnesses
before mentioned who affirmed that they heard and attested the dispositions
made by the testator and witnessed the reading of the will, that they were
present when the said Lorenzo Galvez signed the will in the name of the testator
and that they signed it in the presence of all the persons assembled in the
latter’s house, the conclusion is inevitable that Victor Galvez, in executing his
will, did so with a sound mind and the full use of his mental faculties; therefore,
the will must be admitted to probate.

35 | P a g e
JUANA CAGUIOA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED the house at the time the said will was executed, testified that in their opinion Vito Borromeo died on March 13, 1952, in Parañaque, Rizal, at the
EMIGDIO ZARATE Emigdio Zarate was of sound mind and memory at the time he signed the said age of 88 years, without forced heirs but leaving extensive properties in the
will. province of Cebu.
V.
The appellant attempted to show that Emigdio Zarate for some Junquera, filed with the CFI of said province a petition for the probate
MARIA CALDERON
months prior to his death had been troubled with insomnia, as well as some of a one page document as the last will left by said deceased, devising all his
G.R. No. 6625, October 24, 1911 other physical infirmities. The two doctors who appeared on behalf of the properties to Tomas, Fortunato and Amelia, all surnamed Borromeo, in equal
opponents testified that insomnia tended to destroy the mental capacity, but that and undivided shares, and designating Junquera as executor thereof.
JOHNSON, J. there were times, even during the period while they were suffering from
insomnia, when they would be perfectly rational. Teofilo Borromeo filed an opposition to the probate of the will based
Digested by: Jose Luis P. Pacquiao on several grounds, one of which is that the testator was mentally incapable of
Even admitting that there was some foundation for the supposition making a will at the time of its execution. Subsequently, the Court removed
that Emigdio Zarate had suffered from the alleged infirmities, we do not believe Junquera as special administrator and appointed Dr. Patricio Beltran in his place.
DOCTRINE: WILLS; UNDUE INFLUENCE; MENTAL CAPACITY; LAWFUL
that the testimony was sufficiently direct and positive, based upon the
WILL - Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the will in question, was duly On October 1955, the Republic of the Philippines filed a motion for
hypothetical questions, to overcome the positive and direct testimony of the
and legally authorized by the deceased, he being of sound mind and memory, leave to intervene and join the oppositors in contesting the probate of the will, on
witnesses who were present at the time of the execution of the will in question.
and that the same was not executed under threats or fear. the ground that, should the estate be adjudicated the latter by intestacy, it stood
The evidence adduced during the trial of the case, shows a large to collect a considerable amount by way of estate and inheritance taxes.
FACTS:
preponderance of proof in favor of the fact that Emigdio Zarate was in the full
possession of his mental faculties at the time he executed his last will and After a prolonged trial, the Court rendered a decision denying the
Caguioa presented a petition in the CFI of the Province of
testament. probate of the will and declaring itself without jurisdiction to pass upon the
Pangasinan, praying for the probation of the last will and testament of Emigdio
question of ownership over the thirteen lots which the Cebu Arcade etc. claimed
Zarate, deceased, in conformity with section 630 of the Code of Procedure in
TESTATE ESTATE OF VITO BORROMEO as its own.
Civil Actions.
JOSE H. JUNQUERA The proponents of the disputed will, mainly with the testimony of the
Due notice of said petition was given in accordance with law, and the
three attesting witnesses, Cornelio Gandionco, Filiberto Leonardo and Eusebio
hearing for the probation of said will was fixed. Subsequently, said Maria vs. Cabiluna, sought to prove the following facts:
Calderon appeared, by her attorney, and opposed the probation of said will upon
one of the following grounds: CRISPIN BORROMEO, ET AL.,
Vito Borromeo executed first, the document Exhibit "F", witnessed by
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Gandionco and Cabiluna. Later, Vito Borromeo, being of sound and disposing
“That the said Emigdio Zarate was mentally incapacitated at
mind, and without pressure or influence exerted on him, dictated the substance
the time he authorized and signed his will.”
G.R. No. L-18498, March 30, 1967 of his will to Tomas Borromeo, who in turn typewrote it in proper legal language.
The document was then read by Vito Borromeo, who later signed and
Caguioa prays the court to annul the will alleged to have been DIZON, J. thumbmarked it.
executed by Zarate, and to order that its probate be disallowed. Thereafter, the
court overruled the opposition, sustained the petition, and held that the same is Digested by: Jose Luis P. Pacquiao
The trial court refused to believe the testimony of the attesting
legal in all its parts as the last will and testament of the deceased Zarate.
witnesses and, as a result, denied the petition for probate, because, in its
opinion, they appeared not to be "wholly disinterested persons" and because of
ISSUE: Was Emigdio Zarate in the full possession of his mental faculties at the DOCTRINE: The subscribing witnesses to a contested will are regarded as the
the serious discrepancies in their testimonies with respect to the number of
time of the execution of his will? best witnesses in connection with its due execution. It is similarly true, however,
copies made of the disputed document.
that to deserve full credit, their test, testimony must be reasonable and
RULING: YES. unbiased, and that, as in the case of any other witness, their testimony may be
The court also found that the physical condition of the deceased at
overcome by any competent evidence - direct or circumstantial.
After hearing the evidence, the lower court found that Emigdio Zarate, the time of the execution of the questioned document was such that it was highly
at the time of the execution of the said will, was in the possession of his faculties. improbable, if not impossible, for him to have affixed his signatures on the
FACTS:
Two of the witnesses who signed the will, as well as others who were present in documents in the spontaneous and excellent manner they appear to have been
written. Thus, the court was also led to believe the testimony of the handwriting
36 | P a g e
experts for oppositors, - adverse to the genuineness of the signatures of Vito RULING: YES.
Borromeo on the questioned document - more than that of the handwriting
expert presented by the proponents of the will. MANUEL TORRES and LUZ LOPEZ DE BUENO vs. MARGARITA LOPEZ Tomas Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to constitute a will. Drs.
Calderon, Domingo, Herrera claimed that testator had full understanding of the
GR No. 24569, February 26, 1926 acts he was performing and that they were witnesses in the said signing of the
will.
MALCOLM, J.
ISSUE: Is the evidence of record sufficient to prove the due execution of the will
in question? Digested by: Jose Luis P. Pacquiao Tomas Rodriguez may have been of advanced years, may have been
physically decrepit, may have been weak in intellect, may have suffered a loss of
DOCTRINE: Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of memory, may have had a guardian and may have a been extremely eccentric,
the transaction in which the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the but he still possessed the spark of reason and of life, that strength of mind to
RULING: NO. form a fixed intention and to summon his enfeebled thoughts to enforce that
property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to
have claims upon the testator, and to comprehend the manner in which the intention, which the law terms "testamentary capacity." That in effect is the
The subscribing witnesses to a contested will are regarded as the
instrument will distribute his property among the objects of his bounty. definite opinion which we reach after an exhaustive and exhausting study of a
best witnesses in connection with its due execution. It is similarly true, however,
tedious record, after weighing the evidence for the oppositors, and after giving to
that to deserve full credit, their test, testimony must be reasonable and unbiased,
the case the serious consideration which it deserves.
and that, as in the case of any other witness, their testimony may be overcome
by any competent evidence — direct or circumstantial. The Code of Civil procedure prescribes a requisite that the testator
FACTS:
be of “sound mind”, a sound mind is a disposing mind. One of the grounds of
We cannot see our way clear to holding that the trial court erred in
Tomas Rodriguez y Lopez died on February 25, 1924 leaving all his disallowing a will is if the testator is insane or otherwise incapable of the
refusing to give full credit to the testimony of the three subscribing witnesses.
estate to Vicente Lopez. Subsequently, Tomas Rodriguez designated Vicente execution.
Lopez as administrator of his property due to his feeble health, such was
It has also been held that the condition and physical appearance of a
opposed by Margarita Lopez, CFI of Manila concluded Vicente Lopez as Tomas The Court has adopted a definition of “testamentary capacity” as the
questioned document constitute a valuable factor which, if correctly evaluated in
Rodriguez’s guardian. capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator is
the light of surrounding circumstances, may help in determining whether it is
engaged at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and the persons
genuine or forged. Subscribing witnesses may forget or exaggerate what they
Tomas Rodriguez voiced out the need to form a will, and Vicente who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon the testator, and to
really know, saw, heard or did; they may be biased and, therefore, tell only half
Lopez has procured Judge Maximino Mina. Manuel Torres, one of the executors comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute his property
truths to mislead the court or favor one party to the prejudice of the other.
named in the will, asked the will to be allowed. Such was contested by Manuel among the objects of his bounty.
Lopez on the grounds that the testator lacked mental capacity because at the
This cannot be said of the condition and physical appearance of the
time of institution he was suffering “senile dementia” and was under The presumption is that every adult is sane. It is only when those
questioned document itself. Both, albeit silently, will reveal the naked truth,
guardianship; that undue influence had been exercised by the persons seeking to overthrow the will have clearly established the charge of mental
hiding nothing, forgetting nothing, and exaggerating nothing. For this reason,
benefited; and that the signature of Rodriguez was obtained through fraud and incapacity that the courts will intervene to set aside a testamentary document.
independently of the conflicting opinions expressed by the handwriting experts
deceit.
called to the witness stand by the parties, we have carefully examined and
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIE GARNIER
considered the physical appearance and condition of the original and two copies GARREAU. LIRIO PFANNENSCHMIDT RAMIREZ v. JOSE MA. RAMIREZ
Luz Lopez allegedly deceived Tomas Rodriguez to sign by stating
of the questioned will found in the record — particularly the signatures attributed
that such document he was about to sign was in connection with a complaint
to the testator — and We have come to the conclusion that the latter could not G.R. No. L-19910, May 31, 1971
against Dr. Boanan, one of the witness of the signing of the will.
have been written by him.
MAKALINTAL, J.
The trial court denied legalization of the will on the ground of “lack of
mental capacity” at the signing of the will by the testator. Digested by: Jose Luis P. Pacquiao

ISSUE: Did Tomas Rodriguez possessed the sufficient mentality to make a will
which would meet the legal test regarding testamentary capacity? DOCTRINE:Pre-senile Dementia incapacitated testator from making a will. The
evidence hereinabove discussed, cumulatively considered, leads to the definite
conclusion that Marie Garnier Garreau was indeed mentally incapacitated to

37 | P a g e
make a will, that is, "to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the We find no ground to disregard such evidence in favor of the vague, A document alleged to be the last will and testament of the deceased Mariano
proper objects of (her) bounty, and the character of the testamentary act" (Art. inconclusive statements of the notary public who authenticated the will and of the Corrales Tan is to be probated. This was opposed by the son of the deceased,
799. Civil Code). two instrumental witnesses, nor even of the testimony of the rebuttal witnesses, on the ground that the will is incomplete, fraudulent, and does not express the
the more categorical character of whose affirmations only serve to weaken their true intent of the testator; that the testator acted under duress and under undue
credibility, conflicting as they do not only with the evidence for appellee but also influence, and that at the time of the execution of the will he was not of sound
with that given by the other witnesses for appellant. and disposing mind.
FACTS:
The Supreme Court did not give much credit to the testimony of the The physician, Dr. Tee Han Kee, testified that the deceased was suffering from
Maria Gamier Garreau, widow of Ramon Ramirez, was a native of notary public because the statements were far from satisfactory, vague, evasive, diabetes and had been in comatose condition for several days prior to his death.
Paris, France, but a Filipino citizen residing in Madrid, Spain, where she died and tend to beg the very issue. The notary public could not say with certainty but He died about eight or nine o'clock in the evening of December 26, 1921, and
childless at the age of 84 on January 11, 1959. could merely suppose that the testator possessed the requisite qualifications that the will is alleged to have been executed in the forenoon of the same day.
she had a recollection of her properties or the relatives that would logically inherit However, all of the witnesses presented by Samson, five in number, testify that
The will in question was an "open" one, executed before a notary
from her. the deceased was conscious, could hear and understand what was said to him
public in Madrid on May 24, 1958, and instituting her niece Lirio (Lily)
Pfannenschmidt now appellant, as sole and universal heir. Lirio is one of the four and was able to indicate his desires. Four of these witnesses state that he could
As early as 1955, when she was examined by the family physician. speak distinctly; the fifth, Velhagen, says that the deceased only moved his head
children of Jose Ramirez, brother of the testatrix husband Ramon, the other Dr. Romero de Arcos, and by a qualified psychiatrist. Dr. Jose Garmain she was
three being Elsa, Esperanza and Horacio. in answer to questions.
already suffering from pre-senile dementia, a degenerative mental infirmity that
was described by them as "a progressive and irreversible process." The ISSUE: Was the decedent of sound mind when he executed his last will and
Ramon had a half-brother, Jorge P. Ramirez, whose son, Jose Maria
manifestations of this condition are amply illustrated in the letters written by testament?
Ramirez, now appellee, opposed the petition for probate filed by Urio, alleging in
appellant herself as well as in the testimony of her uncle. Jose Eugenio Ramirez:
his opposition, inter alia, that there was a prior will executed by the testatrix in
In fact, these two were convinced that the testatrix should be placed under RULING: YES.
Manila in 1949.
judicial guardianship and actually took the initial steps towards that end.
Even before then, however, the testatrix' mental condition was That the deceased was in an exceedingly feeble condition at the time the will
The issue here is essentially one of fact and involves an appraisal of
already the object of serious concern among her close relatives. Depositions was executed is evident, but if the witnesses presented in support of the petition
the conflicting evidence presented by the parties. That issue was addressed in
were taken from by Julio Escribano Langa, a resident of Madrid who had known told the truth there can be no doubt that he was of sound mind and capable of
the first instance to the trial Judge, and we cannot say that his conclusion as to
the spouses Ramon Ramirez and Maria Gamier Garreau for about nine years, making his will.
the testamentary incapacity of the testatrix is erroneous.
testified to the same mental condition of the testatrix: her susceptibility to another
person's influence; her lack of memory for recent events, her lack of It is based mainly on expert medical testimony to the effect that her There is no reason to discredit any of the witnesses; the discrepancies found
understanding of, or volition for deciding, certain matters such as the making of a mental infirmity was observed by the family physician as far back as 1953 and between their respective versions of what took place at the execution of the
last will. confirmed in 1955 by a competent psychiatrist, who described the process of the document are comparatively unimportant and so far from weakening their
mental degeneration as progressive and irreversible; on the written admissions testimony rather lend strength to it by indicating the absence of any conspiracy
The most pertinent evidence in behalf of appellant is the testimony of among them.
and declarations of appellant herself, who would have no motive then to falsify
the notary public before whom the will in question was executed and the
the facts; and on the testimony of the testatrix' brother-in-law, Jose Eugenio
testimony of two of the three instrumental witnesses. As may be noted, the As against their testimony are only the testimony of Maximina Ong and Dr. Tee
Ramirez.
foregoing statements of the notary public are far from satisfactory. They are Han Kee. The former is not a disinterested witness. As to the testimony of the
vague and evasive and tend to beg the very issue. latter, it is sufficient to say that mere professional speculation of a non-attending
SAMSON vs. CORRALES TAN QUINTIN
G.R. NO. L-19142, MARCH 5, 1923 physician cannot prevail over the positive statements of five apparently credible
OSTRAND, J. witnesses whose testimony does not in itself seem unreasonable.

ISSUE: Are the testimonies rendered in court sufficient to establish the Digested by: Faith Imee D. Roble
CUYUGAN v. BARON
testamentary capacity?
DOCTRINE: Weakness of the mind is not equivalent to an unsound mind. G.R. No. L-41947, JANUARY 16, 1936
Evidence on the soundness of mind must be testified by the Attending Physician BUTTE, J.
Digested by: Faith Imee D. Roble
RULING: NO. FACTS:

38 | P a g e
DOCTRINE: There is testamentary incapacity when the alleged testator harbors no change in it, the courts will consider this fact as weighing heavily against the experience"for an old man with a severe psychological condition to have willingly
the belief that she did not execute a will nor judge the propriety of revoking such testimony of undue influence, has no application to cases in which there has signed a last will and testament.
will. Testamentary Incapacity invalidates the whole will. been an initial lack of testamentary capacity.
ISSUE: Did Placido Valmonte possess testamentary capacity at the time he
FACTS: allegedly executed the subject will?
Silvestra Baron died on January 30, 1933, leaving an estate exceeding in value
the sum of P80,000 which she disposed of by will dated December 17, 1932. RULING: YES.
She died single without forced heirs. The will appointed Vivencio Cuyugan, her
nephew, as executor. The petition for probate recites that on the date of the The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of fraud
execution of said will on December 17, 1932, the said testatrix was about 80 ORTEGA v. VALMONTE at the time of its execution.The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent
years old, more or less, and was found in disposing mind, and not acting under G.R. No. 157451, DECEMBER 16, 2005 of the will only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.Unfortunately in this
duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, and was in every respect competent PANGANIBAN, J. case, other than the self-serving allegations of Leticia, no evidence of fraud was
to dispose of her estate by will. Digested by: Faith Imee D. Roble ever presented.

Guillermo Baron, brother of the deceased, and Faustina Baron, sister of the DOCTRINE: The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the In determining the capacity of the testator to make a will, the Civil Code gives the
deceased, allege, that at the time of the execution of the alleged will, Silvestra existence of fraud at the time of its execution. To constitute a sound and following guidelines:
Baron was mentally and physically incapacitated for the execution of a will; and, disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or "Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be
second, that her signature and alleged consent to the said will was obtained and unshattered by disease or otherwise. of sound
the attorney who prepared the document and the witnesses who affixed their mind at the time of its execution.
signatures thereto. FACTS:
Placido Valmonte died on October 8, 1984. He executed a notarial last will and "Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator
ISSUE: Did the testator possess testamentary capacity at the time of the making testament in favor of his wife alone, named Josefina, who is thrice lower his age. be in full
of the will? The will was written in English and consisting of two (2) pages, and dated June possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly
15, 1983 but acknowledged only on August 9, 1983. Notary Public Floro unbroken,
RULING: NO. Sarmiento testified that before the testator and his witnesses signed the unimpaired, or shattered by disease, injury or other cause.
prepared will, he explained to them each and every term thereof in Ilocano, a
An instrument purporting to be a will executed and witnessed in accordance with dialect which the testator spoke and understood. He likewise explained that "It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the
the formalities required by the statute is entitled to the presumption of regularity. though it appears that the will was signed by the testator and his witnesses on will to
But the burden of the evidence passed to the proponent when the oppositors June 15, 1983, the day when it should have been executed had he not gone out know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of
submit credible evidence tending to show that the supposed testator did not of town, the formal execution was actually on August 9, 1983. The attesting his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
possess testamentary capacity at the time or that the document was not the free witnesses to the will corroborated the testimony of the notary public. "Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in
and voluntary expression of the alleged testator or that the will, for any other the
reason, is void in law. Oppositors Leticia and Mary Jane Ortega declared that Josefina should not absence of proof to the contrary.
inherit alone because aside from her there are other children from the siblings of "The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the
She never saw the alleged will at any time again prior to her death which Placido who are just as entitled to inherit from him. She attacked the mental time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the
occurred forty-four days later. It was immediately taken away by an attorney who capacity of the testator, declaring that at the time of the execution of the notarial probate
kept it in his possession alleging that she had instructed him to keep it secret. will the testator was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound mind. of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his
There is, however, credible evidence in the record that before her death she had will was
denied to several persons that she made any will. They also contend that it was "highly dubious for a woman at the prime of her publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of
young life to almost immediately plunge into marriage with a man who [was] the will
This belief on her part that she had not made any will explains her failure to do thrice her age x x x and who happened to be [a] Fil-American pensionado,"thus must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval."
any act of revocation in the forty-four days during which she lingered in this life. casting doubt on the intention of respondent in seeking the probate of the will. According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability to
The doctrine that where the testator has had an opportunity to revoke his will Moreover, it supposedly "defies human reason, logic and common know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the nature of the estate
subsequent to the operation of an alleged undue influence upon him but makes to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the testator’s bounty, and (3) the

39 | P a g e
character of the testamentary act. Applying this test to the present case, Placido
had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of his will.

40 | P a g e
BALTAZAR v. LAXA ISSUE: Was the testator of sound mind when she executed her last will and FACTS:
G.R. No. 174489, APRIL 11, 2012 testament? Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will in Manila on July 23, 1973, when
DEL CASTILLO, J. she was 73 years old. That will which is in English was thumbmarked by
Digested by: Faith Imee D. Roble RULING: YES. her. She was illiterate. Her letters in English to the Veterans Administration were
also thumbmarked by her. In that will, Marcelina bequeathed all her estate to her
DOCTRINE: The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally supposed granddaughter Marilyn ( an “anak-anakan” allegedly begot by the
mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a will. Forgetfulness is not unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Will. Forgetfulness is not deceased Agapito from Arsenia, but in reality, the child was the daughter of the
equivalent to being of unsound mind. equivalent to being of unsound mind. Spouses Sy and was merely entrusted to Arsenia when the baby was only days
old).
FACTS: It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know
Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and testament the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and Marina Paje, alleged to be a laundrywoman of Marcelina and the executrix in her
entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala" (Will) in the the character of the testamentary act. will (the alternate executrix was Juanita Macaraeg, mother of Oscar, Marilyn's
Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. The Will, executed in the house of husband), filed with the Court a petition for the probate of Marcelina's alleged
retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin (Judge Limpin), was read to Paciencia twice. In this case, apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining to Paciencia’s will. The case was assigned to Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado, who appointed
After which, Paciencia expressed in the presence of the instrumental witnesses forgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that would Marina as administratrix.
that the document is her last will and testament. She thereafter affixed her show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the
signature at the end of the said document on page 3and then on the left margin Will. On the other hand, we find more worthy of credence Dra. Limpin’s The wife of Agapito, Nenita, filed an opposition thereto only after learning of the
of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof. testimony as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter went to existence of the testamentary proceeding (when an order for ejectment was
Judge Limpin’s house and voluntarily executed the Will. "The testimony of issued by said judge upon motion of Marina). One of the grounds for her
The witnesses to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin (Dra. Limpin), subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning the testator’s mental condition is opposition was that the alleged will is void because Marcelina did not appear
Francisco Garcia (Francisco) and Faustino R. Mercado (Faustino). The three entitled to great weight where they are truthful and intelligent."More importantly, before the notary and because it is written in English which is not known to the
attested to the Will’s due execution by affixing their signatures below its a testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the execution of the deceased. However, this was denied by the judge. This prompted Nenita to file a
attestation clauseand on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof,in the Will and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor. complaint charging Judge Honrado for having probated the fraudulent will of
presence of Paciencia and of one another and of Judge Limpin who acted as Marcelina.
notary public. The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of
making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but ISSUE: Being merely interpreted or translated to the testator, was the will valid?
Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to
properties to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his wife Corazon F. be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the RULING: NO.
Laxa and their children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine Ross Laxa. testator made it during a lucid interval.
Disciplinary action should be taken against respondent judge for his improper
On September 13, 1981, Rosie claimed that she saw Faustino bring "something" Here, there was no showing that Paciencia was publicly known to be insane one disposition of the testate case which might have resulted in a miscarriage of
for Paciencia to sign at the latter’s house.Rosie admitted, though, that she did month or less before the making of the Will. Clearly, thus, the burden to prove justice because the decedent's legal heirs and not the instituted heiress in the
not see what that "something" was as same was placed inside an that Paciencia was of unsound mind lies upon the shoulders of petitioners. void win should have inherited the decedent's estate.
envelope.However, she remembered Paciencia instructing Faustino to first look However and as earlier mentioned, no substantial evidence was presented by
for money before she signs them.A few days after or on September 16, 1981, them to prove the same, thereby, petitioners failed to discharge such burden. Judge Honrado, on perusing the will and noting that it was written in English and
Paciencia went to the house of Antonio’s mother and brought with her the said was thumbmarked by an obviously illiterate testatrix, could have readily
envelope.Upon going home, however, the envelope was no longer with SUROZA v. HONRADO perceived that the will is void.
Paciencia. Rosie further testified that Paciencia was referred to as "magulyan" or A.M. No. 2026-CFI, DECEMBER 19, 1981
"forgetful" because she would sometimes leave her wallet in the kitchen then AQUINO, J. In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a language
start looking for it moments later.On cross examination, it was established that Digested by: Faith Imee D. Roble "understood and known" to the testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was
Rosie was neither a doctor nor a psychiatrist, that her conclusion that Paciencia stated that the will was read to the testatrix "and translated into Filipino
was "magulyan" was based on her personal assessment,and that it was Antonio DOCTRINE: Lack of knowledge cannot be cured by interpretation or explanation language". That could only mean that the will was written in a language not
who requested her to testify in court. of the contents of the will to the testator. known to the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is void because of the mandatory

41 | P a g e
provision of article 804 of the Civil Code that every will must be executed in a The circumstance appearing in the will itself that same was executed in the city
language or dialect known to the testator. of Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is
enough, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, to presume that she knew
this dialect in which this will is written.
The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial
acknowledgment where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is repeatedly referred to as
the "testator" instead of "testatrix".
TESTACY OF SIXTO LOPEZ. JOSE S. LOPEZ v. AGUSTIN LIBORO
Had respondent judge been careful and observant, he could have noted not only
the anomaly as to the language of the will but also that there was something G.R. No. L-1787             AUGUST 27, 1948 IN RE ESTATE OF PIRASO. SIXTO ACOP v. SALMING PIRASO, ET AL.
wrong in instituting the supposed granddaughter as sole heiress and giving
TUASON, J.:
nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive. G. R. NO. L-28946             JANUARY 16, 1929.
Digested by: Zusmitha Salcedo
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
IN RE WILL OF ANA ABANGAN. GERTRUDIS ABANGAN v. ANASTACIA DOCTRINE: There is no statutory requirement that such knowledge be
ABANGAN, ET AL. expressly stated in the will itself. It is a matter that may be established by proof
Digested by: Zusmitha Salcedo
aliunde.
G. R. NO. L-13431 NOVEMBER 12, 1919
DOCTRINE: The presumption that the testator is presumed to know the dialect
AVANCEÑA, J.: of the locality where he resides can be overcome by the presentation of
FACTS: evidence and facts as in this case.
Digested by: Zusmitha Salcedo
In the Court of First Instance (CFI), Agustin Liboro opposed the probate of what FACTS: The Court of First Instance of Benguet denied the probate of the last will
purports to be the last will and testament of Don Sixto Lopez, who died at the and testament of the deceased Piraso based on the ground that the will sought
age of 83 in Balayan, Batangas, on March 3, 1947, almost six months after the to be probated was written in English which the latter did not know. Evidence
DOCTRINE: For the presumption that the testatrix knew of the dialect in which
document in question was executed. Liboro questioned the validity of the will shows that Piraso knew how to speak the Ilocano dialect, although imperfectly,
the will is written, the following circumstances must appear: 1) that the will must based on five (5) grounds. One of the 5 grounds was that there was no indication
be in a language or dialect generally spoken in the place of execution, and, 2) and could make himself understood in that dialect, and the court is of the opinion
in the will that the language used therein is known by Don Sixto Lopez. that his will should have been written in that dialect.
that the testator must be a native or resident of the said locality

Sixto Acop alleged that the lower court erred in not holding that the testator did
ISSUE:Is the will valid? not know the Ilocano dialect well enough to understand a will drawn up in said
FACTS: dialect.

On September 19, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Cebu admitted to probate
ISSUE: Can the presumption that the testator knew the language used in the will
Ana Abangan's will executed July, 1916. From this decision the opponent's RULING:YES, the will is valid. applicable in this case?
appealed. Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, consists of two
sheets, the first of which contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly
signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban (in the name and under the direction RULING: NO.
of the testatrix) and by three witnesses. With the said decision of the court, There is no statutory requirement that such knowledge be expressly stated in the
Anastacia Abanga et al. appealed alleging that the records do not show that the will itself. It is a matter that may be established by proof aliunde. This Court so The presumption that the testator knew the language used in the will is not
testatrix knew the dialect in which the dialect was written. impliedly ruled in Gonzales vs. Laurel, 46 Phil., 781, in which the probate of a will applicable in this case.
written in Tagalog was ordered although it did not say that the testator knew that
idiom. In fact, there was not even extraneous proof on the subject other than the "No will, except as provides in the preceding section" (as to wills executed by a
fact that the testator resided in a Tagalog region, from which the court said "a Spaniard or a resident of the Philippine Islands, before the present Code of Civil
ISSUE:Is the will validly probated? presumption arises that said Maria Tapia knew the Tagalog dialect. Procedure went into effect), "shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal,
nor charge or affect the same, unless it be written in the language or dialect
known by the testator," etc. Nor can the presumption in favor of the will
RULING: YES, the will is validly probated. established by this court in Abangan vs. Abangan (40 Phil., 476), to the effect
that the testator is presumed to know the dialect of the locality where he resides,

42 | P a g e
unless there is proof to the contrary, even he invoked in support of the probate of There is indeed nothing in the testimony of the witnesses presented by the RULING: YES, the attestation clause is in confirmity with the requirements of the
said document since in the instant case, not only is it not proven that English is petitioner which would indicate that the testatrix knew and spoke the Spanish law.
the language of the City of Baguio where the deceased Piraso lived and where language used in the preparation of the will in question. But, in our opinion, this
the will was drawn, but that the record contains positive proof that said Piraso failure alone does not in itself suffice to conclude that this important requirement The evidence shows that Leonicia Tolentino was assisted by Attorney Almario in
knew no other language than the Igorrote dialect, with a smattering of Ilocano of the law has not been complied with, it appearing that there is enough the execution of the will. The latter guided her in placing her thumbmark on each
hence, he did not know the English language in which the will was written. Even evidence on record which supplies this technical omission. In the first place, we and every page of the said will and that the latter merely wrote her name to
if such a presumption could have been raised in this case it would have been have the undisputed fact that the deceased was a mestiza española, was indicate the place where she placed said thumbmark. The said acts are not an
wholly contradicted and destroyed. married to a Spaniard, Recaredo Pando, and made several trips to Spain. In the indication that Attorney Almario sign for the testatrix. Hence, it is clear that it was
second place, we have the very letters submitted as evidence by the oppositor not necessary that the attestation clause in issue should state that the testatrix
written in Spanish by the deceased possessed the Spanish language, oppositor requested Attorney Almario to sign her name inasmuch as the testatrix signed
TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA ZUÑIGA VDA. DE PANDO, deceased. JUAN
cannot now be allowed to allege the contrary. These facts give rise to the the will in accordance with the law.
REYES v. DOLORES ZUÑIGA VDA. DE VIDAL
presumption that the testatrix knew the language in which the testament has
been written, which presumption should stand unless the contrary is proven
G.R. NO. L-2862             APRIL 21, 1952 (Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil., 476; Gonzales vs. Laurel, 46 Phil. 750). And In re will of TAN DIUCO, deceased. MAMERTA BASE, petitioner-appellant.
this presumption has not been overcome. And finally, we have the very G.R. No. L-20475             March 19, 1924
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: attestation clause of the will which states that the testatrix knew and possessed ARAULLO, C.J.:
the Spanish language. It is true that this matter is not required to be stated in the Digested by: Jan ione R. Salveron
attestation clause, but its inclusion can only mean that the instrumental
Digested by: Zusmitha Salcedo witnesses wanted to make it of record that the deceased knew the language in
which the will was written. There is, therefore, no valid reason why the will DOCTRINE: it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of
DOCTRINE:The failure of the witnesses to testify that the testatrix knew and should be avoided on this ground. the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures such
spoke the language used in a will does not itself alone suffice to conclude that ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more
this requirement of law has not been complied with when there is enough requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustative of the testator's last will,
evidence of record which supplies this technical omission IN RE: WILL OF THE DECEASED LEONICIA TOLENTINO. VICTORIO PAYAD must be disregarded
v. AQUILINA TOLENTINO

FACTS: FACTS:
G.R. NO. 42258           SEPTEMBER 5, 1936

This concerns the admission to probate of a document claimed to be the last will Mamerta Base instituted the probate of the will executed, according to
and testament of Maria Zuñiga Vda. de Pando who died in the City of Manila on DIAZ, J,: her, by the Chinaman Tan Diuco. The lower court denied the probate of the will
October 29, 1945. since it was not signed by three instrumental witnesses. Mamerta Base appealed
Digested by: Zusmitha Salcedo the said decision.

On November 6, 1945, a petition for the probate of said will was filed in the Court
of First Instance of Manila. On December 21, 1945, Dolores Zuñiga Vda. de DOCTRINE: A statute requiring a will to be signed is satisfied if the signature is The document in question, appears to have been signed by Simplicio
Vidal, sister of the deceased, filed an opposition based on several grounds. And, made by the testator’s mark. Sala by order of the testator, whose name is before the said signature, by reason
after several days of trial, at which both parties presented their respective of the latter's incapacity on account of his weakness and the trembling of his
evidence, the court rendered its decision disallowing the wil. One of the grounds hand, the testator also stating that he directed said Simplicio Sala to sign it in his
FACTS: name and in the presence of three witnesses who also signed with him at the
that the lower court base the disallowance of the will is the failure of the Dolores
to prove that the testratrix knew and spoke the language in which the will in bottom of said document, and on the left margin of each of its three pages
question appears to have been written. According to the lower court, the law Victorio Payad filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late Leonicia correlatively numbered in letters by Sala in the name of the testator Tan Diuco
requires that the will should be written in the dialect or language known to the Tolentino however, this was opposed by Aquilina Tolention on the ground that and by the witnesses therein mentioned, named Pablo Maturan, Ladislao
testator and this fact having been proven, the probate of the will must fail. And the will in question was made after the death of Leonicia Tolentino and that the Fenomeno, and Enrique Peñaredondo. After the signature of the testator, Tan
the wall was disallowed. latter was mentally and physically incapable of executing such will. Diuco by Simplicio Sala.

ISSUE: Is there evidence to show that the testatrix knew the language in which The lower court denied the probate of the will on the ground that the attestation ISSUE: Did the will comply with the three witness rule?
the will was written? clause was not in confirmity with the requirements of the law in that it is not
stated therein that the testatrix caused Attorney Almario to write her name at her RULING: YES.
express direction.
RULING: YES.
Among the necessary requirements before a will can be probated,
ISSUE: Is the attestation clause in confirmity with the requirements of the law? that it be attested and signed by three or more credible witnesses in the

43 | P a g e
presence of the testator and of each other. An instrumental witness is one who ISSUE: Is a thumbprint a sufficient compliance with the law despite the absence RULING: NO.
takes part in the execution of an instrument or writing. of a description of such in the attestation clause?
The attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that
In dealing with attestation, section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, RULING: YES. Antero Mercado caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under
as amended by Act No. 2645, does not say that said witnesses must be different his express direction. It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will
from those who signed the attestation clause. Besides, as may be seen, the said The Supreme Court have constantly held in a long line of cases that a is the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the ways by which he
three witnesses who signed the attestation clause, did so also on the left margin thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient signature for the purpose of complying signed his name. After mature reflection, we are not prepared to liken the mere
and beside the signature of the testator or of Simplicio Sala who signed by order the requirement of Article 805 of the New Civil Code. As to the clarity of the sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is obvious. The cross cannot
of the latter, and if account is taken of the fact that these witnesses are ridgelines, it is so dependent on the aleatory requirements as to require dexterity and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.
"instrumental" witnesses, as above demonstrated, and they have made that can be expected of very few people. Moreover, absence of the description in
reference to their own signatures, as well as that of the testator and of the the attestation clause that another person wrote the testator’s name is not a fatal
person who signed by the latter's order below the attestation clause, it is evident defect.
that in the instant case, it is merely a matter of technicality devoid of any
importance as to the probate of the will that said witnesses are called
instrumental witnesses, as if they were different from those who have to sign the
attestation clause.
In the Matter of the will of ANTERO MERCADO, deceased. ROSARIO PEDRO BARUT, petitioner-appellant, vs. FAUSTINO CABACUNGAN, ET
AUREA MATIAS, petitioner, vs. BASILIA SALUD, respondent. GARCIA, petitioner,  AL., opponents-appellees.
G.R. No. L-10751             June 23, 1958 vs. JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., respondents. G.R. No. L-6285             February 15, 1912
CONCEPCION, J.: G.R. No. L-4067            November 29, 1951 MORELAND, J.
Digested by: Jan ione R. Salveron PARAS, C.J. Digested by: Jan ione R. Salveron
Digested by: Jan ione R. Salveron
DOCTRINE: the validity of a thumbprint should not be limited in cases of illness DOCTRINE: It is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the
DOCTRINE: a cross seen after the name of the testator shall not be considered testatrix signs his own or not for a will to be valid.
of infirmity, it shall always be considered as a valid and sufficient signature in as sufficient signature if it is not the usual signature of the testator.
complying with the requirements of Article 805 of the New Civil Code.
FACTS: FACTS:
FACTS:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals disallowing Pedro Barut initiated the probate the last will and testament of Maria Salomon.
Aurea Matias initiated a petition for the probate of a document the will of Antero Mercado. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Severo Agayan, Timotea Inoselda, Catalino Ragasa, and A. M. Jimenez are
purporting to be the last will and testament of her aunt, Gabina Raquel, who died Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero Mercado, followed below by "A alleged to have been witnesses to the execution thereof. By the terms of said will
single. The document consists of three(3) pages, after the attestation clause reugo del testator" and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is alleged Pedro Barut received the larger part of decedent's property. The original will
there appears the signature of the testatrix with a smudge of violet ink claimed to have written a cross immediately after his name. The Court of Appeals ruled appears on page 3 of the record and is in the Ilocano dialect. Its translation into
as thumbprint placed by Gabina Raquel. The same violet smudge appears on that the attestation clause failed (1) to certify that the will was signed on all the Spanish appears at page 11. After disposing of her property the testatrix revoked
the left margin of each page accompanied by the written words “Gabina Raquel” left margins of the three pages and at the end of the will by Atty. Florentino all former wills by her made. She also stated in said will that being unable to read
with “by Lourdes Samonte” underneath it. It shall be considered that the testatrix Javier at the express request of the testator in the presence of the testator and or write, the same had been read to her by Ciriaco Concepcion and Timotea
was suffering from herpes zoster at the time the will was executed, and had a each and every one of the witnesses; (2) to certify that after the signing of the Inoselda and that she had instructed Severo Agayan to sign her name to it as
hard time writing her name in the instrument. Upon seeing Gabina’s struggle, name of the testator by Atty. Javier at the former's request said testator has testatrix.
Atty. Agbunag instructed Lourdes to write the said words next to each written a cross at the end of his name and on the left margin of the three pages
thumbprint. The testatrix instructed Atty. Agbunag to draft the will and was of which the will consists and at the end thereof; (3) to certify that the three The probate of the will was contested and opposed by a number of
brought to her. The will was likewise signed by the necessary witnesses on the witnesses signed the will in all the pages thereon in the presence of the testator the relatives of the deceased on various grounds. The probate court found that
left margin and on the attestation clause. Basilia Salud, a niece of the decedent and of each other. the will was not entitled to probate upon the sole ground that the handwriting of
opposed the probate alleging that the smudge cannot be regarded as a valid the person who it is alleged signed the name of the testatrix to the will for and on
signature as it does not show distinct identifying ridgelines and that there must Antero Mercado argues, however, that there is no need for such her behalf looked more like the handwriting of one of the other witnesses to the
appear in the attestation clause that another person wrote the testatrix’s name at recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is a sufficient will than that of the person whose handwriting it was alleged to be.
her request. signature and the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a surplusage.
ISSUE:Was the difference in the handwriting of the person tasked to write in
ISSUE:Should the cross after the name of the testator be considered a sufficient behalf of the testator a sufficient ground to deny the probate of the will?
signature?

44 | P a g e
RULING: NO. RULING: NO. petitioner Celso Icasiano as executor thereof was filed. Natividad and Enrique
Icasiano, a daughter and son of the testatrix, filed their opposition thereto.
We do not believe that the mere dissimilarity in writing thus Once this subscribing witness is proven to have been in the outer
mentioned by the court is sufficient to overcome the uncontradicted testimony of room at the time when the testator and the other subscribing witnesses attached On March 19, 1959, the petitioner proponent commenced the introduction of his
all the witnesses to the will that the signature of the testatrix was written by their signatures to the instrument in the inner room, it would have been invalid as evidence; but on June 1, 1959, he filed a motion for the admission of an
Severo Agayan at her request and in her presence and in the presence of all the a will, the attaching of those signatures under circumstances not being done "in amended and supplemental petition, alleging that the decedent left a will
witnesses to the will. It is immaterial who writes the name of the testatrix the presence" of the witness in the outer room. This because the line of vision executed in duplicate with all the legal requirements, and that he was, on that
provided it is written at her request and in her presence and in the presence of from this witness to the testator and the other subscribing witnesses would
date, submitting the signed duplicate (Exhibit "A-1"), which he allegedly found
all the witnesses to the execution of the will. necessarily have been impeded by the curtain separating the inner from the
outer one "at the moment of inscription of each signature." only on or about May 26, 1959.
It is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the The records show that the original of the will, which was surrendered
testatrix signs his own or not. The important thing is that it clearly appears that The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the
the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction in the presence of execution of a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign, simultaneously with the filing of the petition and marked as Exhibit "A" consists of
three witnesses and that they attested and subscribed it in her presence and in but whether they might have been seen each other sign, had they five pages, and while signed at the end and in every page, it does not contain
the presence of each other. That is all the statute requires. chosen to do so, considering their mental and physical condition and the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V. Natividad, on page
position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of three (3) thereof; but the duplicate copy attached to the amended and
each signature. supplemental petition and marked as Exhibit "A-1" is signed by the testatrix and
BEATRIZ NERA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. NARCISA
RIMANDO, defendant-appellant her three attesting witnesses in each and every page.
G.R. No. L-5971            February 27, 1911 But it is especially to be noted that the position of the parties with
CARSON, J. relation to each other at the moment of the subscription of each signature, must ISSUE: Did the failure of one of the witnesses to sign a page of the will render
Digested by: Jan ione R. Salveron be such that they may see each other sign if they choose to do so. A witness the will void?
must be able to see everything that took place by merely casting his eyes in the
proper direction and without any physical obstruction to prevent his doing so." RULING: NO. The records show that the original of the will, which was
DOCTRINE: The presence of each other does not depend upon proof of the fact surrendered simultaneously with the filing of the petition and marked as Exhibit
that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the moment of its IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA "A" consists of five pages, and while signed at the end and in every page, it does
subscription by each of them, but that at that moment existing conditions and VILLACORTE. 
their position with relation to each other were such that by merely casting the not contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V.
CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner-appellee,  Natividad, on page three (3) thereof; but the duplicate copy attached to the
eyes in the proper direction they could have seen each other sign.. vs.
NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO, oppositors-appellants. amended and supplemental petition and marked as Exhibit "A-1" is signed by the
FACTS: testatrix and her three attesting witnesses in each and every page.
G.R. No. L-18979             June 30, 1964
One of the subscribing witnesses was some eight or ten feet away, in a large Witness Natividad who testified on his failure to sign page three (3) of the
room connecting with the smaller room where the testator and other subscribing REYES, J.B.L., J.: original, admits that he may have lifted two pages instead of one when he signed
witnesses were, by a doorway, across which was hung a curtain which made it the same, but affirmed that page three (3) was signed in his presence.
impossible for one in the outside room to see the testator and the other Digested by:Diann Tado
subscribing witnesses in the act of attaching their signatures to the instrument. We have examined the record and are satisfied, as the trial court was, that the
DOCTRINE: The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to
testatrix signed both original and duplicate copies (Exhibits "A" and "A-1",
The trial judge does not appear to have considered the determination of this penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over
respectively) of the will spontaneously, on the same in the presence of the three
question of fact of vital importance in the determination of this case, as he was of whose conduct she had no control, where the purpose of the law to guarantee
attesting witnesses, the notary public who acknowledged the will; and Atty.
opinion that under the doctrine laid down in the case of Jaboneta vs. Gustilo the the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained, no
Samson, who actually prepared the documents; that the will and its duplicate
alleged fact that one of the subscribing witnesses was in the outer room when intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and the evidence on record attests to
the testator and the other describing witnesses signed the instrument in the inner were executed in Tagalog, a language known to and spoken by both the testator
the full observance of the statutory requisites.
room, had it been proven, would not be sufficient in itself to invalidate the and the witnesses, and read to and by the testatrix and Atty. Fermin Samson,
execution of the will. FACTS: together before they were actually signed; that the attestation clause is also in a
language known to and spoken by the testatrix and the witnesses.
ISSUE: Should the witness who was outside the room when the testator and A petition for the allowance and admission to probate of the original, Exhibit "A"
other subscribing witnesses attached their signatures to the instrument be as the alleged will of Josefa Villacorte, deceased, and for the appointment of We hold that the inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one
considered as present during the said act? page of a testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of
signing, is not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate. Impossibility of
45 | P a g e
substitution of this page is assured not only the fact that the testatrix and two The testatrix from girlhood knew how to sign her name and did so with her right GUERRERO, J.:
other witnesses did sign the defective page, but also by its bearing the hand; but as the right side of her body later became paralyzed, she learned to
coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the testament sign with her left hand and for many years thereafter, up to the time of her death, Digested by:Diann Tado
was ratified by testatrix and all three witnesses. The law should not be so strictly she used to sign with that hand. The opponents allege that Florencia Mateo did
DOCTRINE:
and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the not sign this will.
inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control, where
The instrumental witnesses in Order to be competent must be shown
the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its
to have the qualifications under Article 820 of the Civil Code and none of the
component pages is sufficiently attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation
ISSUE: Was the signature of Florencia Mateo genuine? disqualifications under Article 821 and for their testimony to be credible, that is
existed, and the evidence on record attests to the full observance of the statutory
worthy of belief and entitled to credence, it is not mandatory that evidence be
requisites.
RULING: Yes. first established on record that the witnesses have a good standing in the
community or that they are honest and upright or reputed to be trustworthy and
That the failure of witness Natividad to sign page three (3) was entirely through
If, as the opposition alleges, the testatrix's signature is not genuine and was reliable, for a person is presumed to be such unless the contrary is established
pure oversight is shown by his own testimony as well as by the duplicate copy of
placed there by another person, it is strange that the latter should have done so otherwise.
the will, which bears a complete set of signatures in every page.
in such a way as to write it above Gabriel's signature while following the
horizontal line, when this could have been avoided by simply putting it a little The attestation clause which Matilde Orobia signed is the best
higher. And this may be attributed to carelessness in the first case, but it cannot evidence as to the date of signing because it preserves in permanent form a
be so explained in the second. recital of all the material facts attending the execution of the will. This is the very
Testate Estate of Florencia R. Mateo. PERFECTO GABRIEL, petitioner-
appellee,  purpose of the attestation clause which is made for the purpose of preserving in
vs. At all events, even admitting that there is a certain question as to whether the permanent form a record of the facts attending the execution of the will, so that
RITA R. MATEO, ET AL., opponents-appellants. attesting witnesses signed before or after the testatrix, or whether or not they in case of failure in the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other casualty
signed with the same pen and ink, these are details of such trivial importance, they may still be proved.
G.R. No. L-26545 December 16, 1927 considering that this will was signed two years before the date on which these
witnesses gave their testimony, that it is not proper to set aside the will for this
AVANCEÑA, C. J.:
reason alone.
FACTS:
Digested by: Diann Tado
The attesting witnesses to this will, who testified also as witnesses at the trial of
this case, showed themselves to be intelligent and honest, one of them being a Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition for the probate of a will of Isabel Gabriel and
lawyer of twelve year's practice, and there is no reason to reject their testimony, designating Lutgarda as the principal beneficiary and executrix.
DOCTRINE: Over the testimony of experts, we have the categorical and positive and to suppose that they were untruthful in testifying, and that they falsified the
declaration of veracious witnesses who affirm that these signatures were written The will submitted for probate, Exhibit "F", which is typewritten and in Tagalog,
will in question.
by the testatrix herself. appears to have been executed in Manila on the 15th day of April, 1961, or
The opposition presented Doctor Banks as expert. He testified that the barely two (2) months prior to the death of Isabel Gabriel. It consists of five (5)
signatures of the testatrix in the will are not genuine. The petitioner, on the other pages, including the pages whereon the attestation clause and the
hand, presented another expert, Pedro Serrano Laktao, who affirmed that these acknowledgment of the notary public were written. The signatures of the
FACTS: signatures are genuine. But, over the testimony of these experts, we have the deceased Isabel Gabriel appear at the end of the will on page four and at the left
categorical and positive declaration of veracious witnesses who affirm that these margin of all the pages.
The probate court allowed the will of Florencia Mateo composed of two used
signatures were written by the testatrix herself.
sheets. The will appears to be signed by the testatrix and three witnesses on the The petition was opposed by Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales. The Trial Court
left margin of each of the sheets, by the testatrix alone at the bottom, and by the disallowed the probate of the will. The Court of Appeals allowed the probate of
RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES, petitioner, 
three witnesses after the attestation clause. the will. Hence this petition.
vs.
The three attesting witnesses to this will, testifying in this case, declared that the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUTGARDA
ISSUE: Was the will executed and attested as required by law?
signature of the testatrix were written in their presence and that they signed their SANTIAGO, respondents.
names in the presence of the testatrix and of each other. RULING: Yes
G.R. No. L-37453 May 25, 1979

46 | P a g e
As to the credibility of the witnesses: In addition to the testimony of Matilde Orobia, Celso Gimpaya and Maria will. So when an interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more
Gimpaya that Matilde was present on April 15, 1961 and that she signed the requisites entirely unnecessary, useless, and frustrative of the testator's last will,
Rizalina argues that the requirement in Article 806, Civil Code, that the attestation clause to the will and on the left-hand margin of each of the pages of must be disregarded.
witnesses must be credible is an absolute requirement which must be complied the will, the documentary evidence which is the will itself, the attestation clause
with before an alleged last will and testament may be admitted to probate and and the notarial acknowledgment overwhelmingly and convincingly prove such
that to be a credible witness, there must be evidence on record that the witness fact that Matilde Orobia was present on that day of April 15, 1961 and that she
has a good standing in his community, or that he is honest and upright, or witnessed the will by signing her name thereon and acknowledged the same Facts:
reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. before the notary public, Atty. Cipriano P. Paraiso. The attestation clause which
On July 19, 1918, Doña Josefa Zalamea y Abella executed her last will and
Matilde Orobia signed is the best evidence as to the date of signing because it
In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses testament with an attached inventory of her properties, Exhibits A and A-1, in the
preserves in permanent form a recital of all the material facts attending the
for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the presence of three witnesses, who signed with her all the pages of said
execution of the will. This is the very purpose of the attestation clause which is
formalities attendant to said execution. documents. The testatrix died on the 6th of January, 1921, and, as the record
made for the purpose of preserving in permanent form a record of the facts
shows, the executor appointed in the will, Pedro Unson, filed an application for
attending the execution of the will, so that in case of failure in the memory of the
In the case at bar, the finding that each and everyone of the three instrumental the probate of the will and the issuance of the proper letters of administration in
subscribing witnesses, or other casualty they may still be proved.
witnesses, namely, Matilde Orobia, Celso Gimpaya and Maria Gimpaya, are his favor.
competent and credible is satisfactorily supported by the evidence as found by Petitioner's exacerbation centers on the supposed incredibility of the testimonies
the respondent Court of Appeals. To said application an opposition was presently by Antonio Abella, Ignacia
of the witnesses for the proponent of the will, their alleged evasions,
Abella, Avicencia Abella, and Santiago Vito, alleging that the supposed will of the
inconsistencies and contradictions. But in the case at bar, the three instrumental
Moreover, petitioner has not pointed to any disqualification of any of the said deceased Zalamea was not executed in conformity with the provinces of the law,
witnesses who constitute the best evidence of the will making have testified in
witnesses, much less has it been shown that anyone of them is below 18 years inasmuch as it was not paged correlatively in letters, nor was there any
favor of the probate of the will. So has the lawyer who prepared it, one learned in
of age, of unsound mind, deaf or dumb, or cannot read or write. attestation clause in it, nor was it signed by the testatrix and the witnesses in the
the law and long in the practice thereof, who thereafter notarized it. All of them
presence of each other.
In fine, We state the rule that the instrumental witnesses in Order to be are disinterested witnesses who stand to receive no benefit from the testament.
competent must be shown to have the qualifications under Article 820 of the Civil The signatures of the witnesses and the testatrix have been identified on the will Issue: Was the will executed with all the solemnities required by law?
Code and none of the disqualifications under Article 821 and for their testimony and there is no claim whatsoever and by anyone, much less the petitioner, that
to be credible, that is worthy of belief and entitled to credence, it is not they were not genuine. In the last and final analysis, the herein conflict is factual Ruling: Yes.
mandatory that evidence be first established on record that the witnesses have a and we go back to the rule that the Supreme Court cannot review and revise the
good standing in the community or that they are honest and upright or reputed to findings of facts of the respondent Court of Appeals. The appellants contend that the court below erred in admitting the will to probate
be trustworthy and reliable, for a person is presumed to be such unless the notwithstanding the omission of the proponent to produce one of the attesting
contrary is established otherwise. In re will of Josefa Zalamea y Abella, deceased.  witnesses. But supposing that said witness, when cited, had testified adversely
PEDRO UNSON, petitioner-appellee,  to the application, this would not by itself have change the result reached by the
As to the capacity of the testator: vs. court a quo, for section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a will
ANTONIO ABELLA, ET AL., opponents-appellants. can be admitted to probate, notwithstanding that one or more witnesses do not
We nevertheless hold that the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals that remember having attested it, provided the court is satisfied upon the evidence
the testatrix dictated her will without any note or memorandum appears to be G.R. No. 17857             June 12, 1922 adduced that the will has been executed and signed in the manner prescribed by
fully supported by the following facts or evidence appearing on record. Thus, the law.
Isabel Gabriel, despite her age, was particularly active in her business affairs as VILLAMOR, J.:
she actively managed the affairs of the movie business ISABELITA Theater, The last error assigned by the appellants is made to consist in the probate of the
Digested by:Diann Tado inventory, Exhibit A-1, despite the fact that this exhibit has no attestation clause
paying the aparatistas herself until June 4, 1961, 3 days before her death. She
was the widow of the late Eligio Naval, former Governor of Rizal Province and Doctrine:The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to in it, and its paging is made in Arabic numerals and not in letters.
acted as coadministratrix in the Intestate Estate of her deceased husband Eligio close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
Naval. The text of the win was in Tagalog, a dialect known and understood by In view of the fact that the inventory is referred to in the will as an integral part of
testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on
her and in the light of all the circumstances, We agree with the respondent Court it, we find that the foregoing attestation clause is in compliance with section 1 of
this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial
that the testatrix dictated her will without any note or memorandum, a fact Act No. 2645, which requires this solemnity for the validity of a will, and makes
ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not
unanimously testified to by the three attesting witnesses and the notary public unnecessary any other attestation clause at the end of the inventory.
the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a
himself.
47 | P a g e
As to the paging of the will in Arabic numerals, instead of in letters, we adhere to and followed in Aldava vs. Roque, with regard to the appreciation of the more, no less than 2 articles, containing 16 dispositions and written in 3 pages.
the doctrine announced in the case of Aldaba vs. Roque  (p. 378, ante), recently solemnities of a will, we find that the judgement appealed from should be, as is We maintain the view that there should be required strict compliance with the
decided by this court. In that case the validity of the will was assailed on the hereby, affirmed with the costs against the appellants. substantive requirements of the will, to ensure its authenticity, but at the same
ground that its folios were paged with the letters A, B, C, etc., instead of with the time we should not take into account the defects that could thwart the will of the
letters "one," two," "three," etc. It was held that this way of numbering the pages Probate of the late Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil. ADRIAN MENDOZA,petitioner and testator. (Rodriguez against Yap, supra.)
of a will is in compliance with the spirit of the law, inasmuch as either one of appellee,
these methods indicates the correlation of the pages and serves to prevent the Fernandez v. de Dios
abstraction of any of them. vs. 46 Phil 922
Digested by: Cesnee Tan
In other words the more or less degree of facility to imitate the writing of the Pilapil CALIXTO AND OTHERS,opponents and appellants.
letters A, B, C, etc., does not make for the easiness to forge the signatures. And DOCTRINE: Although the numbering of the sheet containing the attestation
G. R. No. L-47931June 27, 1941 clause does not appear in the upper part thereof, yet if that numbering is found
as in the present case there exists the guaranty of the authenticity of the in its text, the requirement prescribed by the law is substantially complied with.
testament, consisting in the signatures on the left margins of the testament and
DIAZ, J.:
the paging thereof as declared in the attestation clause, the holding of this court FACTS:
in Abangan vs. Abangan (40 Phil., 476), might as well be repeated: The question in this case is as to the validity of the document Exhibit A as a will,
Digested by:Diann Tado
which was propounded by Ramon J. Fernandez for probate, and contested by
"The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of DOCTRINE:The paging in this case was a sufficient compliance with the law. It Fernando Vergel de Dios and Francisco, Ricardo and VirgilioRustia, the court of
wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to First Instance of Manila having denied its probate. One of the issues raised was
is sufficient that the number of pages can be identified.
that the will has 4 pages. However, the 4th page has no page number.
avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty
their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on this FACTS: Ramon takes this appeal, assigning error to the action of the lower court in
subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain holding the attestation fatally defective and in not finding Act No. 2645 void.
these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one P. Eleuterio Pilapil was a parish priest of Mualboal, Cebu where he died. No will
must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the was presented after his death until early February 1939 by his brother Calixto
law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make Pilapil. March 4, 1939, the appellee prayed for the the legalization as a ISSUE:
a will. So when an interpretation whatsoever, that adds testament of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, of Exhibit A and its duplicate to the coal 1. Will the numbering of the sheet containing the attestation clause
of Exhibit C. which does not appear in the upper part make the will defective? NO
nothing but demands more requisites entirely
2. Should the attestation clause state, among other things,“that the
unnecessary, useless, and frustrative of the testator's last testator signed on the margin of each sheet of the will in the presence
will, must be disregarded." The two documents, exhibits A and C, consist of three pages, and in the left
of the witnesses and the latter in the presence of each other; and
margin of each of the first two , are the firms that are at the end of the main body such a fact cannot be proven by any other proof than the attestation
The law provides that the numbering of the pages should be in letters placed on of these documents and their attestation clause and that are, according to the clause itself”? NO
the upper part of the sheet, but if the paging should be placed in the lower part, evidence, signatures of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, and witnesses Wenceslas 3. Are the signatures necessary in the attestation clause? NO
would the testament be void for this sole reason? We believe not. The law also Pilapil, Marcelo Pilapil and Eugene K. Pilapil.
provides that the testator and the witnesses must sign the left margin of each of HELD:
the sheets of the testament; but if they should sign on the right margin, would The probate of the will is opposed on the grounds that the said will was not
properly paged such that at the bottom of the pages (1) and (2) are respectively 1. NO. Although the numbering of the sheet containing the attestation clause
this fact also annul the testament? Evidently not. This court has already held does not appear in the upper part thereof, yet if that numbering is found in
in Avera vs. Garcia and Rodriguez  (42 Phi., 145). the notes: "Go to 2. Pages", "go to 3. Pages".
its text, as when it is said therein that the will consists of three sheets
actually used, correlatively numbered, besides this one, that is to say, the
We do not desire to intimate that the numbering in letters is a requisite of no ISSUE: Is the will valid? sheet containing the attestation clause, the requirement prescribed by the
importance. But since its principal object is to give the correlation of the pages, law is substantially complied with, for if the will consists of three sheets
RULING: Yes. besides the one containing the attestation clause, it is evident that the latter
we hold that his object may be attained by writing one, two, three, etc., as well as
by writing A, B, C, etc. is the fourth page, that is to say, that the document consists of four sheets.
The will is valid and must be admitted for probate. The purpose of the law in
establishing the formalities is undoubtedly to ensure and guarantee their 2. NO. The fact appears in any manner intelligible from the attestation clause,
We see no reason why the same rule should not be applied where the paging is
authenticity against bad faith and fraud. The paging in this case was a sufficient the latter would be sufficient and valid. Thus the attestation clause in
in Arabic numerals, instead of in letters, as in the inventory in question. So that, question is sufficient in this respect which says: "* * * and he (the testator)
compliance with the law. It is sufficient that the number of pages can be
adhering to the view taken by this court in the case of Abangan vs. Abangan, signed at the bottom of the aforesaid will in our presence, and at his
identified. Indeed, the will in this case, as stated in the 3 rdpage, contains no
48 | P a g e
request we also signed our names as witnesses in his presence and that of In the case at bar the attestation clause in question states that the requirements 2. Is it required to expressly state in the will that the testator
each other, and finally, the testator, as well as we, his witnesses, signed in prescribed for the will were complied with, and this is enough for it, as such understands the language used in the testament? NO
the same manner on the left margin of each andevery one of its sheets," attestation clause, to be held as meeting the requirements prescribed by the law
for the phrase, in the same manner, means that the testator signed in the for it.
presence of the witnesses, and the latter in his presence and that of each
other. The fact that in said clause the signature of the testator does not appear does HELD:
not affect its validity, for, as above stated, the law does not require that it be 1. No. The Court held that the lack of paging either in letters or in Arabic
3. NO. The last paragraph of section 618 of the Code deals with the signed by the testator. numerals of the first page of the will of Don Sixto Lopez is not fatal.
requirements for the attestation clause. This last paragraph reads thus:
The attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon Lopez v. Liboro The purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of wills is guard against fraud,
which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will 81 Phil 429 and to afford means of preventing the substitution of the loss of any of its
and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his Digested by: Cesnee Tan pages.In the present case,the omission to put a page number on the first sheet,
name, under his express direction, in the presence of three if that be necessary, is supplied by other forms ofidentification more trustworthy
witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages DOCTRINE: The purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of wills is to guard than the conventional numerical words or characters. The unnumbered page is
thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. against fraud, and to afford means of preventing the substitution or of detecting clearly identified as the first page by the internal sense of its contents considered
the loss of any of its pages. The omission to put a page number on a sheet, if in relation to the contents of the second page. By their meaning and coherence,
As may be seen this last paragraph, it refers to the contents of the text of the that be necessary, may be supplied by other forms of identification more the first and second lines on the secondpage are undeniably a continuation of
attestation, not the requirements or signatures thereof outside of its text. It does trustworthy than the conventional numeral words or characters. the last sentence of the testament, before the attestation clause, whichstarts at
not require that the attestation be signed by the testator or that the page or sheet the bottom of the preceding page. Furthermore, the unnumbered page contains
containing it be numbered. FACTS: the caption"TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty, and a recital that the
testator was in full use of his testamentaryfaculty, — all of which, in the logical
From this analysis of our law now in force it appears: Agustin Liboro opposed the probate of the last will and testament of Don Sixto order of sequence, precede the direction for the disposition of the
Lopez which was executed six months before his death, affixing his thumbmark marker'sproperty. Again, as page two contains only the two lines above
First. That the will must have an attestation clause as a complement, to the instrument instead of signing his name for the reason that he was suffering mentioned, the attestation clause, the mark ofthe testator and the signatures of
without which it cannot be probate and with which only not aliunde from "partial paralysis.” However, Liboro unsuccessfully opposed the probate. the witnesses, the other sheet cannot by any possibility be taken for otherthan
(UyCoque vs. Navas L. Sioca , supra ) may the requirements to be The will in question comprises two pages, each of which is written on one side of page one.
stated in its text be proven. The attestation clause must be prepared a separate sheet. The first sheet is not paged either in letters or in Arabic
and signed, as in the instant case, on the same occasion on which numerals. Liboro believes that this is a fatal defect. Liboro also impugns the will 2. No. The Court held that there is no statutory requirement that such knowledge
the will is prepared and signed, in such a way that the possibility of for its silence on the testator's understanding of the language used in the be expressly stated in the will itself. It is a matter that may be established by
fraud, deceit or suppression of the will or the attestation clause be testament. proof aliunde. The Court so impliedly ruled in Gonzales vs. Laurel, 46 Phil., 781,
reduced to a minimum; which possibility always exists, as experience in which the probate of a will written in Tagalog was ordered although it did not
shows, in spite of the many precautions taken by the legislator to Liboro specified five grounds for his opposition during its opposition in the CFI of say that the testator knew that idiom. In fact, there was not even extraneous
insure the true and free expression of one's last will. Iloilo, to wit: proof on the subject other than the fact that the testator resided in a Tagalog
region, from which the court said "a presumption arises that said Maria Tapia
Second. That the will is distinct and different from the attestation, (1) that the deceased never executed the alleged will; knew the Tagalog dialect.
although both are necessary to the validity of the will, similar, in our (2) that his signature appearing in said will was a forgery;
opinion, to a document which is not public so long as it is not (3) that at the time of the execution of the will, he was wanting in Taboada v. Rosal
acknowledged before a notary, the document being a distinct and testamentary as well as mental capacity due to advanced age; G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982
different thing from the acknowledgment, each of which must comply (4) that, if he did ever execute said will, it was not executed and attested Digested by: Cesnee Tan
with different requisites, among which is the signature of the maker as required by law, and one of the alleged instrumental witnesses
which is necessary in the document but not in the acknowledgment was incapacitated to act as such; and it was procured by duress,
and both things being necessary to the existence of the public influence of fear and threats and undue and improper pressure and DOCTRINE: While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable,
document. influence of the testator's sister Clemencia Lopez and Jose S. Lopez; unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be ignored, especially
and where the authenticity of the will is not assailed.
Third. That the will proper must meet the requirements enumerated in (5) that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick.
the second paragraph of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The law is to be liberally construed, “the underlying and fundamental objective
permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the
Fourth. That the text of the attestation clause must express ISSUES: liberalization of the manner of their ex-ecution with the end in view of giving the
compliance with the requirements prescribed for the will. 1. Is the lack of paging either in letters or in Arabic numerals of the first testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient
page of the will fatal to its validity? NO safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise
of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This objective
49 | P a g e
is in accord with the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the 2. Does the attestation clause comply with the substantial compliance
execution of a will.” Caneda v. CA requirement pursuant to Article 809 of the Civil Code? NO
222 SCRA 781
FACTS: Digested by: Cesnee Tan HELD:
1. Yes. An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the
Dorotea Perez left a will. The will has two pages. On the first page, which attesting witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before them
contains the entire testamentary dispositions, were the signatures of the three DOCTRINE: The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form and to the manner of the execution of the same. It is a separate memorandum or
instrumental witnesses and that of Dorotea Perez. The signatures of the three of the attestation or the language employed therein. Such defects or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the
instrumental witnesses were on the left margin while Perez’ signature was on the imperfection would not render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was witnesses; it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential
bottom. On the second page, which contains the attestation clause and the really executed and attested in compliance with Article 805. These formalities required by law has been observed.
acknowledgement, were the signatures of the three attesting witnesses and that considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally omits the fact
of DoroteaPerez. The attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the Under the 3rd paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of
in the will. presence of the testator and of each other. In such a situation, the defect is not which would result in the invalidity of the will, should state: 1. The number of
only in the form or language of the attestation clause but the total absence of a pages used upon which the will is written; 2. That the testator signed, or
Taboada petitioned for the admission to probate of the said will. The Judge specific element required by Article 805 to be specifically stated in the attestation expressly cause another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the presence
Pamatian denied the petition. Taboada filed a motion for reconsideration but clause of a will. of theattesting witnesses; and 3. That the attesting witnesses witnessed the
Pamatian was not able to act on it because he was transferred to another signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that the said witnesses
jurisdiction. The case was transferred to Judge Rosal who also denied the FACTS: also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of
motion for reconsideration on the grounds that a) that the testator and the one another.
instrumental witnesses did not all sign on the left margin of the page as On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, already
prescribed by law; that the testator and the witnesses should have placed their in the twilight years of his life executed a last will and testament before three It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and
signature in the same place b) that the attestation clause failed to state the attesting witnesses and he was duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public. It subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another.
number of pages used in writing the will – this, according to Judge Rosal violated was declared therein that, among other things that the testator was leaving by “Attestation” and “subscription” differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of sense,
the requirement that the attestation clause shall state the number of pages or way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to specific persons, while subscription is the act of the hand. The attestation clause herein assailed is
sheets upon which the will is written, which requirement has been held to be all of whom do not appear to be related to Mateo. Not long after, he himself filed that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the
mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or a petition before the CFI seeking the probate of his last will and testament but presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of
omission of some of the pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to whom the scheduled hearings were postponed, until the testator passed away before pages that were used, the same does not expressly state therein the
the property is intended to be bequeathed. his petition could finally be heard by the probate court. Benoni Cabrera, one of circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the
the legatees named in the will, sought his appointment as special administrator will in the presence of the testator and of each other. What is then clearly lacking
ISSUE: of the testator’s estate but due to his death, he was succeeded by William is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the
Should the will be admitted to probate? Cabrera, who was appointed by RTC which is already the probate court. presence of the testator and of one another.

The petitioners, claiming to be the nieces and nephews of the testator, assail to The absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection
HELD: Yes. the allowance of the testator’s will on the ground that it was not executed in which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to
accordance with all the requisites of law since the testator was already in a poor be admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the defect in
The will should be admitted. The law must be interpreted liberally. state of health such that he could not have possibly executed the same. the attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the
Petitioners likewise contend that the will is null and void because its attestation form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the application
The failure to include in the attestation clause of the number of pages used in clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental of the substantial compliance rule, as contemplated in Article 809 of the Civil
writing the will would have been a fatal defect. But then again, the matter should witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and Code:
be approached liberally. There were only two pages in the will left by Perez. The that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the
first page contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions and signed by testator and of one another. 2. No. In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud or undue and improper
the testatrix at the end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed pressure and influence, defects and imperfection in the form of attestation or in
at the left margin. The other page which is marked as “Pagina dos” comprises The respondents, Cabrera, et al, on the other hand, argue that Mateo was of the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that
the attestation clause and the acknowledgment. Further, the acknowledgment sound and disposing mind and in good health when he executed his will. Further, the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the
itself states that “This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including they also contend that the witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence requirements of Article 805.
this page. of the testator and of each other.
The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form of the
Further, there is substantial compliance with the law. It would be absurd that the attestation or the language employed therein. Such defects or imperfection
legislature intended to place so heavy an import on the space or particular ISSUES: would not render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was really
location where the signatures are to be found as long as this space or particular 1. Is the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero fatally executed and attested in compliance with Article 805. These considerations do
location wherein the signatures are found is consistent with good faith. defective such that it affects the validity of the will? YES not apply where the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting

50 | P a g e
witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator per affidavit of Gloria Novato, common law wife of the decedent, and TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE VICENTE CAGRO. JESUSA CAGRO
and of each other. In such a situation, the defect is not only in the form or corroborated by the joint-affidavit of the children of the decedent namely Elena V.PELAGIO CAGRO, ET AL.
language of the attestation clause but the total absence of a specific element Lee and Vicente Lee. G.R. NO. L-5826, APRIL 29, 1953
required by Article 805 to be specifically stated in the attestation clause of a will. PARAS, C. J.
The RTC referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
That is precisely the defect complained of in the present case since there is no recommendation. Digested by: Nor-Aiza R. Unas
plausible way by which it can be read into the questioned attestation clause  The IBP investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of
statement, or an implication thereof, that the attesting witness did actually bear violation of the old notarial law. Also, the violation constituted an DOCTRINE: The attestation clause is a memorandum of the facts attending the
witness to the signing by the testator of the will and all of its pages and that said infringement of legal ethics of the Code of Professional execution of the will required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses, and
instrumental witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the Rexponsibility. The commissioner recommended the suspension of it must necessarily bear their signatures.
presence of the testator and of one another. the respondent for a period of 3 months.
 The IBP Board of Governors, in its resolution, adopted and approved FACTS:
Lee v.Tambago, with modifications the recommendation of the commissioner. This is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from a decision of the CFI of
A.C. No. 5281, February 12, 2008 Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year and Samar, admitting to probate the will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who
Digested by: Cesnee Tan his notarial commission was revoked and disqualified from died in Laoangan, Pambujan, Samar, on February 14, 1949. The main objection
reappointment as notary public for 2 years. insisted upon by PELAGIO CAGRO in that the will is fatally defective, because
its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses. There is no
DOCTRINE: Notaries public are required to certify that the party to every ISSUE: Is the will valid? NO. question that the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at
document acknowledged before him had presented the proper residence the bottom of the attestation clause, although the page containing the same is
certificate (or exemption from the residence tax), and to enter its number, place RULING: signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin.
of issue and date as part of such certification, formalities which are mandatory
and cannot be disregarded. As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, No. The will is not valid. The will was attested by only 2 witnesses and therefore, ISSUE: Are the signatures of the witnesses necessary in the attestation clause?
respondent was required to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those it is considered void.
of notarization. These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, HELD: Yes.
considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to A notarial will is required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the
notarized documents. A notary public, especially a lawyer, is bound to strictly testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by 3 or more
observe these elementary requirements. credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.The object The attestation clause is a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of
of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith the will required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses, and it must
A notary public, by having allowed the decedent to exhibit an expired residence and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their necessarily bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be
certificate, failed to comply with the requirements of both the old Notarial Law truth and authenticity.The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be considered as an act of the witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at
and the Residence Tax Act. acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. the bottom thereof negatives their participation. JESUSA CAGRO contends that
signatures of the three witnesses on the left-hand margin conform substantially
FACTS: An Acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before to the law and may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation clause. This
some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. An is untenable, because said signatures are in compliance with the legal mandate
Complainant Manuel Lee charged respondent Atty. ReginoTambago with Acknowledgement in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the that the will be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If an attestation
violation of the notarial law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a testator’s wishes long after his demise, and (2) to assure that his estate is clause not signed by the three witnesses at the bottom thereof, be admitted as
spurious last will and testament. administered in the manner that he intends it to be done. sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause to a will on a subsequent occasion
and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.
He averred that his father, Vicente lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. The acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this requirement was
The signature of the two witnesses in the will are claimed to be spurious.In the neither strictly nor substantially complied with. There was an absence of a FELIX AZUELA V.COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO
said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Lim notation of the residence certificate of the notarial witnesses in the substituted by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO
Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to Vicente Lee, Jr., and acknowledgement. Similarly, the notation of the testator’s old residence G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006
Elena Lee, half siblings of the complainant. certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These TINGA, J.
omissions by respondent invalidated the will.Defects in the observance of the Digested by: Nor-Aiza R. Unas
Complainant claimed that while the will was executed and acknowledged on solemnities prescribed by the law render the entire will invalid.
June 1965, the decedent’s residence certificate noted in the acknowledgement DOCTRINE: A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of
of the will was dated January 1962.Complainant also pointed out the absence of Respondent was suspended to practice law for a period of 1 year and his pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose attestation
notation of the residence certificate of the two witnesses in the will. notarial commission is revoked and he is perpetually disqualified from clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And
reappointment as a notary public. perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an acknowledgment, but
Respondent answered that the complaint contains false allegations. He claimed
that the will and testament was validly executed and actually notarized by him as
51 | P a g e
a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny witnesses on the left margin of the second page of the will containing the in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which the will is written is
probate. A notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection. attestation clause and acknowledgment, instead of at the bottom thereof, to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its
substantially satisfies the purpose of identification and attestation of the will. pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages. The failure to state
FACTS: the number of pages equates with the absence of an averment on the part of the
The case stems from a petition for probate filed on 10 April 1984 with the RTC of With regard to the oppositor’s argument that the will was not numbered instrumental witnesses as to how many pages consisted the will, the execution
Manila. The petition filed by petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate correlatively in letters placed on upper part of each page and that the attestation of which they had ostensibly just witnessed and subscribed to. In this case, there
the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo (decedent), which was notarized on 10 June did not state the number of pages thereof, it is worthy to note that the will is could have been no substantial compliance with the requirements under Article
1981. FELIX is the son of the cousin of the EUGENIA. The three named composed of only two pages. The first page contains the entire text of the 805 since there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will
witnesses to the will affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both testamentary dispositions, and the second page contains the last portion of the itself as to the number of pages which comprise the will.
pages of the will, but not at the bottom of the attestation clause.The probate attestation clause and acknowledgement. Such being so, the defects are not of a
petition adverted to only 2 heirs, legatees and devisees of the decedent, namely: serious nature as to invalidate the will. For the same reason, the failure of the The Court could thus end here and affirm the Court of Appeals. However, an
FELIX, and one Irene Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided abroad. testatrix to affix her signature on the left margin of the second page, which examination of the will itself reveals a couple of even more critical defects that
FELIX prayed that the will be allowed, and that letters testamentary be issued to contains only the last portion of the attestation clause and acknowledgment is should necessarily lead to its rejection. For one, the attestation clause was not
the designated executor, Vart Prague. not a fatal defect. signed by the instrumental witnesses. While the signatures of the instrumental
witnesses appear on the left-hand margin of the will, they do not appear at the
It was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo (Geralda Castillo), who represented CA: reversed the trial court and ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate. bottom of the attestation clause which after all consists of their averments before
herself as the attorney-in-fact of "the 12 legitimate heirs" of the decedent. It noted that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in the notary public.
Geralda Castillo claimed that the will is a forgery, and that the true purpose of its the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate.
emergence was so it could be utilized as a defense in several court cases filed The attestation clause is "a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of
by oppositor against petitioner, particularly for forcible entry and usurpation of ISSUE: Is a will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages the will" required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses, and it must
real property, all centering on petitioner’s right to occupy the properties of the fatally defective? necessarily bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be
decedent. It also asserted that contrary to the representations of FELIX, the considered as an act of the witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at
decedent was actually survived by 12 legitimate heirs, namely her grandchildren, HELD: Yes. the bottom thereof negatives their participation. Thus, the subject will cannot be
who were then residing abroad. Per records, it was subsequently alleged that considered to have been validly attested to by the instrumental witnesses, as
decedent was the widow of Bonifacio Igsolo, who died in 1965, and the mother Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end they failed to sign the attestation clause.
of a legitimate child, Asuncion E. Igsolo, who predeceased her mother by three thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other
(3) months. person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator should also hinge. The requirement under Article 806 that "every will must be
Geralda also argued that the will was not executed and attested to in accordance and of one another. acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" has also
with law. She pointed out that decedent’s signature did not appear on the second not been complied with. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the
page of the will, and the will was not properly acknowledged. These twin The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the fact that it had been segregated from the other requirements under Article 805
arguments are among the central matters to this petition. instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every and entrusted into a separate provision, Article 806. The non-observance of
page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be Article 806 in this case is equally as critical as the other cited flaws in compliance
RTC favorably took into account the testimony of the 3 witnesses to the will, numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. with Article 805, and should be treated as of equivalent import.
Quirino Agrava, Lamberto Leano, and Juanito Estrada. The RTC also called to
fore "the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution of a will x The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista, wrote
x x with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa
wishes;” and from this perspective, rebutted oppositor’s arguments that the will caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the Lungsod ng Maynila."By no manner of contemplation can those words be
was not properly executed and attested to in accordance with law. After a careful presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed construed as an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has
examination of the will and consideration of the testimonies of the subscribing the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it
and attesting witnesses, and having in mind the modern tendency in respect to another. to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor
the formalities in the execution of a will, i.e., the liberalization of the interpretation actually declares to the notary that the executor of a document has attested to
of the law on the formal requirements of a will with the end in view of giving the If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.
testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes, RTC is persuaded to rule interpreted to them. It may not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, self-evident as it is
that the will in question is authentic and had been executed by the testatrix in under Article 806. A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public
accordance with law. Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and
and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the sworn to before a notary public.
On the issue of lack of acknowledgement, this RTC has noted that at the end of will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.
the will after the signature of the testatrix, statement is made under the sub-title, TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE APOLINARIA LEDESMA. FELICIDAD
"Patunay Ng Mga Saksi" is considered substantial compliance with the The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the JAVELLANA V.DOÑA MATEA LEDESMA
requirements of the law. RTC is of the view that the signing by the subscribing will was written remains a fatal flaw, despite Article 809. The purpose of the law G.R. NO. L-7179, JUNE 30, 1955
52 | P a g e
REYES, J.B.L., J. common use even in the vernacular, and that the deceased was a woman of of Article 80 be requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as such and of
Digested by: Nor-Aiza R. Unas wide business interests. Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses
must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will.
DOCTRINE: The new Civil Code does not require that the signing of the testator, The most important variation noted by the contestants concerns that signing of
witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one single act. the certificate of acknowledgment (in Spanish) appended to the Codicil in FACTS:
Visayan, Exhibit E. Unlike the testament, this codicil was executed after the Petitioner-appellant Agapita N. Cruz, the surviving spouse of VALENTE Z. CRUZ
FACTS: enactment of the new Civil Code, and, therefore, had to be acknowledged before opposed the allowance of the will alleging the will was executed through fraud,
By order of July 23, 1953, the CFI of Iloilo admitted to probate the documents in a notary public (Art. 806). Now, the instrumental witnesses (who happen to be deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence; that the said instrument was
the Visayan dialect, as the testament and codicil duly executed by the deceased the same ones who attested the will of 1950) asserted that after the codicil had execute without the testator having been fully informed of the content thereof,
Da. Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. de Javellana, on March 30, 1950, and May 29, been signed by the testatrix and the witnesses at the San Pablo Hospital, the particularly as to what properties he was disposing and that the supposed last
1952, respectively, with Ramon Tabiana, Gloria Montinola de Tabiana and same was signed and sealed by notary public Gimotea on the same occasion. will and testament was not executed in accordance with law. Notwithstanding her
Vicente Yap as witnesses. The contestant, Da. Matea Ledesma, sister and On the other hand, Gimotea affirmed that he did not do so, but brought the objection, the Court allowed the probate of the said last will and testament
nearest surviving relative of said deceased, appealed from the decision, insisting codicil to his office, and signed and sealed it there. The variance does not Hence this appeal by certiorari which was given due course.
that the said exhibits were not executed in conformity with law. necessarily imply conscious perversion of truth on the part of the witnesses, but
appears rather due to a well-established phenomenon, the tendency of the mind, Of the three instrumental witnesses, namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr.
The contestant argues that the Court erred in refusing credence to her witnesses in recalling past events, to substitute the usual and habitual for what differs Francisco Pañares and Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last named, is
Maria Paderogao and Vidal Allado, cook and driver, respectively, of the slightly from it. at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have
Apolinaria Ledesma. Both testified that on March 30, 1950, they saw and heard been acknowledged. As the third witness is the notary public himself, petitioner
Vicente Yap (one of the witnesses to the will) inform Apolinaria that he had At any rate, as observed by the Court below, whether or not the notary signed argues that the result is that only two witnesses appeared before the notary
brought the "testamento" and urge her to go to attorney Tabiana's office to sign the certification of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the public to acknowledge the will. On the other hand, private respondent-appellee,
it; that Da. Apolinaria manifested that she could not go, because she was not witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil. Unlike the Code of 1889 (Art. Manuel B. Lugay, who is the supposed executor of the will, following the
feeling well; and that upon Yap's insistence that the will had to be signed in the 699), the new Civil Code does not require that the signing of the testator, reasoning of the trial court, maintains that there is substantial compliance with
attorney's office and not elsewhere, the deceased took the paper and signed it in witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one single act. A comparison of the legal requirement of having at least three attesting witnesses even if the
the presence of Yap alone, and returned it with the statement that no one would Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil Code reveals that while testator and notary public acted as one of them.
question it because the property involved was exclusively hers. witnesses sign in the presence of each other,  all that is thereafter required is that
"every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the ISSUE: Is the last will and testament of Valente Cruz executed in accordance
ISSUE: Will the signing of the will by the testator in the absence of the notary witnesses" (Art. 806); i.e., that the latter should avow to the certifying officer the with Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code?
public affects the validity of the will? authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions in executing
the testamentary disposition. RULING:No. The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot
RULING: No. Our examination of the testimony on record discloses no grounds be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge
for reversing the trial Court's rejection of the improbable story of the witnesses. It before himself his having signed the will. To acknowledge before means to
is squarely contradicted by the concordant testimony of the instrumental avow; to own as genuine, to assent, to admit; and "before" means in front or
witnesses, Vicente Yap, Atty. Ramon Tabiana, and his wife Gloria Montinola, preceding in space or ahead of. Consequently, if the third witness were the
who asserted under oath that the testament was executed by testatrix and notary public himself, he would have to avow assent, or admit his having signed
witnesses in the presence of each other, at the house of the decedent on the will in front of himself. This cannot be done because he cannot split his
General Hughes St., Iloilo City, on March 30, 1950. And it is highly unlikely, and personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his
contrary to usage, that either Tabiana or Yap should have insisted that Da. participation in the making of the will. To permit such a situation to obtain would
Apolinaria, an infirm lady then over 80 years old, should leave her own house in be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.
order to execute her will, when all three witnesses could have easily repaired
thither for the purpose.
Furthermore, the function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against
any illegal or immoral arrangement. That function would defeated if the notary
Upon the other hand, the discrepancies in the testimony of the instrumental AGAPITA N. CRUZ V.HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, PRESIDING
public were one of the attesting instrumental witnesses. For them he would be
witnesses urged upon us by the contestant-appellant, concerning the presence JUDGE OF BRANCH I, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, AND
interested sustaining the validity of the will as it directly involves him and the
or absence of Aurelio Montinola at the signing of the testament or of the codicil, MANUEL B. LUGAY
validity of his own act. It would place him in inconsistent position and the very
and the identity of the person who inserted the date therein, are not material and G.R. NO. L-32213, NOVEMBER 26, 1973
purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize would be thwarted. To allow
are largely imaginary, since the witness Mrs. Tabiana confessed inability to ESGUERRA, J.:
the notary public to act as third witness, or one the attesting and acknowledging
remember all the details of the transaction. Neither are we impressed by the Digested by: Nor-Aiza R. Unas
witnesses, would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the
argument that the use of some Spanish terms in the codicil and testament
will which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 805 be requiring
(like  legado, partes iguales, plena propiedad) is proof that its contents were not DOCTRINE: To allow the notary public to act as third witness, or one the at least three credible witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which requires
understood by the testatrix, it appearing in evidence that those terms are of attesting and acknowledging witnesses, would have the effect of having only two that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the
attesting witnesses to the will which would be in contravention of the provisions
53 | P a g e
notary public to acknowledge the will. The result would be, as has been said, ART. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also
that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public for or that purpose. In testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is not necessary that both sheets be
the circumstances, the law would not be duly in observed. copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court. further signed on their margins by the testator and the witnesses, or be paged.

One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a FACTS:
BELLA A. GUERRERO V. RESURRECCION A. BIHIS
notarial will is that it must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
G.R. NO. 174144, April 17, 2007
and the witnesses. This formal requirement is one of the indispensable requisites
CORONA, J. On September 19, 1917, the CFI-CEBU admitted to probate Ana Abangan's will
for the validity of a will. In other words, a notarial will that is not acknowledged
Digested by: Nor-Aiza R. Unas before a notary public by the testator and the instrumental witnesses is void and executed July, 1916. From this decision the opponent's appealed. Said
cannot be accepted for probate. document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, consists of two sheets, the first
of which contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom
DOCTRINE: A notary public is authorized to perform notarial acts, including the An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before by Martin Montalban (in the name and under the direction of the testatrix) and by
taking of acknowledgments, within that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the some competent officer and declaring it to be his act or deed. In the case of a three witnesses. The following sheet contains only the attestation clause duly
place of his commission, he is bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he is notarial will, that competent officer is the notary public.The acknowledgment of a signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. Neither of these
not a notary public. Any notarial act outside the limits of his jurisdiction has no notarial will coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses, nor
force and effect. an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed and subscribed to the numbered by letters; and these omissions, according to appellants' contention,
will as their own free act or deed. Such declaration is under oath and under pain are defects whereby the probate of the will should have been denied.
FACTS: of perjury, thus paving the way for the criminal prosecution of persons who
On February 19, 1994, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free ISSUE: Is it necessary that both pages are signed on their margins by the
A. Guerrero and respondent Resurreccion A. Bihis, died at the Metropolitan consent of the testator. It also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator and the witnesses?
Hospital in Tondo, Manila.BELLA filed a petition for the probate of the last will testator is of a certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to the
and testament of the decedent.The petition alleged the following: BELLA was persons instituted as heirs or designated as devisees or legatees in the RULING: NO. In requiring that each and every sheet of the will should also be
named as executrix in the decedent's will and she was legally qualified to act as will.Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that is, a signed on the left margin by the testator and three witnesses in the presence of
such; the decedent was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of her death; at lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public. each other, Act No. 2645 evidently has for its object (referring to the body of the
the time of the execution of the will, the testatrix was 79 years old, of sound and will itself) to avoid the substitution of any of said sheets, thereby changing the
disposing mind, not acting under duress, fraud or undue influence and was testator's dispositions. But when these dispositions are wholly written on only
capacitated to dispose of her estate by will.BIHIS opposed her elder sister's A notary public's commission is the grant of authority in his favor to perform
notarial acts. It is issued "within and for" a particular territorial jurisdiction and the one sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses, their
petition on the following grounds: the will was not executed and attested as signatures on the left margin of said sheet would be completely purposeless. In
required by law; its attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with notary public's authority is co-extensive with it. In other words, a notary public is
authorized to perform notarial acts, including the taking of acknowledgments, requiring this signature on the margin, the statute took into consideration,
the requirements of the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud undoubtedly, the case of a will written on several sheets and must have referred
and petitioner and her children procured the will through undue and improper within that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of his commission, he is
bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he is not a notary public. Any notarial to the sheets which the testator and the witnesses do not have to sign at the
pressure and influence. bottom. A different interpretation would assume that the statute requires that this
act outside the limits of his jurisdiction has no force and effect.
sheet, already signed at the bottom, be signed twice.
RTC appointed BELLA as special administratrix of the decedent's estate. BIHIS
filed a demurrer alleging that BELLA’s evidence failed to establish that the Since Atty. Directo was not a commissioned notary public for and in Quezon
City, he lacked the authority to take the acknowledgment of the testatrix and the The Court cannot attribute to the statute such an intention. As these signatures
decedent's will complied with Articles 804 and 805 of the Civil Code. must be written by the testator and the witnesses in the presence of each other,
instrumental witnesses. In the same vein, the testatrix and her witnesses could
not have validly acknowledged the will before him. Thus, Felisa Tamio de it appears that, if the signatures at the bottom of the sheet guaranties its
RTC denied the probate of the will ruling that Article 806 of the Civil Code was authenticity, another signature on its left margin would be unnecessary; and if
not complied with because the will was "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the Buenaventura's last will and testament was, in effect, not acknowledged as
required by law. they do not guaranty, same signatures, affixed on another part of same sheet,
witnesses at the testatrix's, residence at No. 40 Kanlaon Street, Quezon City would add nothing. The Court cannot assume that the statute regards of such
before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a commissioned notary public for and in importance the place where the testator and the witnesses must sign on the
Caloocan City. CA affirmed RTC’s decision. sheet that it would consider that their signatures written on the bottom do not
guaranty the authenticity of the sheet but, if repeated on the margin, give
ISSUE: Did the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the instrumental sufficient security.
witnesses before a notary public acting outside the place of his commission IN RE WILL OF ANA ABANGAN, GERTRUDIS ABANGAN v. ANASTACIA
ABANGAN, ETAL In a will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the testamentary
satisfy the requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code? dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses and
G.R. No. L-13431 November 12, 1919
AVANCEÑA, J. the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also at the bottom
RULING: No. by the three witnesses, it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on
Digested by: Hanna Tonicia Usman
their margins by the testator and the witnesses, or be paged.
Article 806 of the Civil Code provides:
DOCTRINE: In a will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the
testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and three MARIANO LEANO v. ARCADIO LEAÑO
54 | P a g e
G.R. No. 9150. March 31, 1915 said last Will and Testament, also appears the signature of the three (3) DOCTRINE: Where it appears in a will that the testator has stated that by reason
CARSON, J. instrumental witnesses and on that second page on the left margin appears the of his inability to sign his name he requested one of the three witnesses present
Digested by: Hanna Tonicia Usman signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears handwritten the following to do so, and that as a matter of fact, the said witness wrote the name and
phrase, ‘Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana’. The will is duly acknowledged surname of the testator who, stating that the instrument executed by him
DOCTRINE: A cross is sufficient to be considered as signature or mark as long before Notary Public, Attorney Timoteo de los Santos. contained his last will, put the sign of the cross between his said name and
as it is customary. surname, all of which details are set forth in a note which the witnesses forthwith
ISSUE: Does the signature of Dr. Juan A. Abello above the typewritten subscribed in the presence of the testator and of each other, said will may be
FACTS: Cristina Valdes, deceased, placed her cross against her name attached statement "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana” comply with the requirements of probated.
by some other person to the instrument offered for probate which purports to be the law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed?
her last will and testament, in the presence of the three witnesses whose names FACTS:
are attached to the attesting clause, and that they attested and subscribed the RULING: NO. The present law, Article 805 of the Civil Code, in part provides as Roman Abaya filed a petition with the CFI-Laguna, for the allowance of the will
instrument in her presence and in the presence of each other. follows: "Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end executed by Juan Zalamero, a resident of Pagsanhan, in said province, on the
thereof by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some other 29th of October, 1905, and produced in court the said will, which was written in
ISSUE: Is the cross sufficient compliance? person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and Tagalog dialect. Donata Zalamero opposed the petition, alleging that the will had
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator been executed under pressure and unlawful and improper influence on the part
RULING: YES. The placing of the cross opposite her name at the conclusion of and of one another." of those who were to benefit thereby, and that it had not been executed and
the instrument was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 618 signed in accordance with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil
of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes that except where wills are The clause "must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by Procedure.
signed by some other person than the testator in the manner and form therein the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence and by his
indicated, a valid will must be signed by the testator. The right of a testator to express direction," is practically the same as the provisions of Section 618 of the ISSUE: Was the will executed in accordance with the law?
sign his will by mark, executed animo testandi, has been uniformly sustained by Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) which reads as follows: "No will, except as
the courts of last resort of the United States in construing statutory provisions provided in the preceding section shall be valid to pass any estate, real or RULING: YES. It is true that the witness Mariano Zaguirre, who was requested
prescribing the mode of execution of wills in language identical with, or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be in writing and signed by the by the testator to write his name and surname at the end of his will, did not affix
substantially similar to that found in section 618 of our code, which was taken testator, or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence, his own signature immediately below the name and surname of Juan Zalamero
from section 2349 of the Code of Vermont. and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more and below the cross placed by the latter with the words "by request of the
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE OF credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. . . ." testator Juan Zalamero;" but in the said will are clearly stated the reason why it
THE DECEASED ANACLETA ABELLANA. LUCIO BALONAN V. EUSEBIA was not signed by the testator himself as also the request he made to the
ABELLANA, ET AL. Article 618 of the Old Civil Code as well as Article 805 of the New Civil Code witness Zaguirre, and a repetition thereof was not necessary; further, that this
G.R. No. L-15153. August 31, 1960 require that the testator himself sign the will, or if he cannot do so, the testator’s same witness, upon being requested, wrote with his own hand the name and
LABRADOR, J. name must be written by some other person in his presence and by his express surname of the testator, who afterwards placed the cross between them, stating
Digested by: Hanna Tonicia Usman direction. that it was his statement, all of which was written immediately after the said
name and surname of the testator and the cross made by him, and the same
DOCTRINE: A will subscribed at the end thereof by some person other than the Here, the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written was subscribed by the three witnesses in the manner provided by law.
testator in such manner that the signature of said person appears above the under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Abello. There is, therefore, The essential requisites prescribed by the above-mentioned section 618 of the
typewritten statement "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana . . . Ciudad de a failure to comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must law have been complied with, namely, that three witnesses were present at the
Zamboanga," may not be admitted to probate for failure to comply with the himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto by some other person in execution of the will of Juan Zalamero at the date mentioned therein; that they
express requirement of the law that the testator must himself sign the will or that his presence and by his express direction. heard his statement that the said instrument, written and drawn up under his
his name be affixed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his direction, contained his last will; that they saw and witnessed when, at the
express direction. express request of the testator, and under his direction, the witness, Mariano
Zaguirre, wrote at the foot of the will the name and surname of Juan Zalamero,
FACTS: and when the latter put the cross between his written name and surname, each
The last Will and Testament is written in the Spanish language and consists of of the witnesses subscribing it at the time and in the presence of each other.
two (2) typewritten pages double space. The first page is signed by Juan Bello
and under his name appears typewritten ‘Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana,
residence Certificate A-1167629, Enero 20, 1951, Ciudad de Zamboanga’, and
on the second page appears the signature of the three (3) instrumental
ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO
witnesses Blas Sebastian, Faustino Macaso and Rafael Ignacio, at the bottom of
G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908
which appears the signature of T. de los Santos and below his signature is his GERMAN JABONETA v. RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL.
TORRES, J.
official designation as the notary public who notarized the said testament. On the G.R. No. 1641 January 19, 1906
Digested by: Hanna Tonicia Usman
first page on the left margin of the said instrument also appear the signatures of CARSON, J.
the instrumental witnesses. On the second page, which is the last page of the Digested by: Hanna Tonicia Usman
55 | P a g e
REYES, J.B.L., J. including the page on which the attestation clause was completed. The
purported signatures of the testatrix appear at the logical end of the will on page
DOCTRINE: The true test of vision is not whether the testator actually saw the Digested by: Alexand Rea Villahermosa four and at the left margin of all the other pages.
witness sign, but whether he might have seen him sign, considering his mental
and physical condition and position at the time of the subscription. During the hearing, Col. Mansueto identified his own signature and those of Dr.
Timoteo Hernaez and of Digna Maravilla, and asserted that the latter did sign in
FACTS: DOCTRINE: In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a will, the the presence of all three witnesses and Atty. Villanueva. The witness explained
The last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta, deceased, was denied because statements of a competent attorney, who has been charged with the that he could not remember some details because fourteen years had elapsed,
the lower court was of the opinion from the evidence adduced at the hearing that responsibility of seeing to the proper execution of the instrument, is entitled to and when he signed as a witness, he did not give it any importance and because
Julio Javellana, one of the witnesses, did not attach his signature thereto in the greater weight than the testimony of a person casually called to participate in the of the time he (Col. Mansueto) was very worried because of rumours that the
presence of Isabelo Jena, another of the witnesses, as required by the act, supposing of course that no motive is revealed that should induce the Japanese Kempeitai would arrest officers of the USAFFE who did not want to
provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before Jena left, he attorney to prevaricate. The reason is that the mind of the attorney, being collaborate.
saw that last witness Javellana, beginning to sign the latter’s signature was not conversant with the requisites of proper execution of the instrument, is more
yet completed when the former turned his back and left the room. likely to become fixed on details, and he is more likely than other persons to Atty. Manuel Villanueva, as third witness for the proponent asserted that he had
retain those incidents in his memory been the lawyer of the Maravillas; that 5 or 6 days before 7 October 1944 he had
ISSUE: Should the will be admitted to probate? been summoned through Mariano Buenaflor to the house of the Maravillas and
there met Digna who requested him to draft a new will, revoking her old one, to
RULING: YES. The fact that Jena was still in the room when he saw Javellana include as additional beneficiaries Adelina Sajo, Concepcion Maravilla, and the
moving his hand and pen in the act of affixing his signature to the will, taken FACTS: latter’s youngest daughter, Rose Mary Kohlhaas, who lived with her (Digna) and
together with the testimony of the remaining witnesses which shows that whom she considered as her real children, having cared for them since
Javellana did in fact there and then sign his name to the will, convinces us that Appellant Herminio Maravilla, probate petitioner and husband of the decedent, childhood.Digna gave Villanueva instructions concerning the will, and handed
the signature was affixed in the presence of Jena. The fact that he was in the act died on 16 July 1966, after the case was submitted for decision. Upon motion for him her old will and a handwritten list of the certificates of title of her properties,
of leaving, and that his back was turned while a portion of the name of the intervention filed by Concepcion Maravilla Kohlhaas and Rose Mary Kohlhaas, which list she asked and obtained from her husband. Before leaving, Villanueva
witness was being written, is of no importance. He, with the other witnesses and this Supreme Court allowed their intervention on 24 July 1967, upon showing asked Digna to look for three witnesses. Upon the evidence, the trial judge
the testator, had assembled for the purpose of executing the testament, and that their interest as substitute heirs was vested definitely upon the death of concluded that Mansueto did not actually see Digna Maravilla sign the will in
were together in the same room for that purpose, and at the moment when the Herminio Maravilla, and that said movants for intervention merely adopt the question, basing such conclusion upon the fact that while Mansueto positively
witness Javellana signed the document he was actually and physically present pleadings and briefs filed in behalf of the deceased Herminio Maravilla so that identified his own signature
and in such position with relation to Javellana that he could see everything which the intervention will not delay the disposition of the case.
took place by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction, and without any
physical obstruction to prevent his doing so, therefore we are of opinion that the Herminio Maravilla’s petition for probate was opposed by the appellees Pedro,
document was in fact signed before he finally left the room. Asuncion and Regina, all surnamed "Maravilla," who are allegedly the brother ISSUE: Should the court give credit to the testimony of Atty. Manuel Villanueva?
and sisters of the deceased Digna Maravilla, in an amended opposition filed in
In the matter of Bedell (2 Connoly (N.Y.), 328) it was held that it is sufficient if the the course of the trial in the court. The Oppositors alleged that the deceased the RULING: YES
witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing the execution of the will, alleged testatrix and the instrumental witnesses did not sign the alleged will,
and in a position to actually see the testator write, if they choose to do so; and each and every page thereof, in the presence of each other. That Digna affixed That Mansueto, Hernaez and Buenaflor, together with the testatrix and the
there are many cases which lay down the rule that the true test of vision is not her signature on the will under undue and improper pressure and she was not of lawyer, sat next to one another around one table when the will was signed is
whether the testator actually saw the witness sign, but whether he might have sound mind. That the said will had already been revoked by the deceased. clearly established by the uncontradicted testimony of both attorney Villanueva
seen him sign, considering his mental and physical condition and position at the and Herminio Maravilla; and that detail proves beyond doubt that each one of the
time of the subscription. After trial, the court rendered judgment, holding as unsubstantiated the last three parties concerned did sign in the presence of all the others. It should be
(3) grounds above-enumerated, but sustaining the first, that is, that the will was remembered, in this connection, that the test is not whether a witness did see
not executed in accordance with Section 618 of Act 190, and, therefore, denied the signing of the will but whether he was in a position to see if he chose to do
the probate of the will.The petitioner and one Adelina Sajro, who was named a so.
devisee under the questioned will, appealed the judgment.
The trial court rejected the evidence of both Herminio Maravilla and Manuel
The late Digna Maravilla died in Manapla, Negros Occidental, on 12 August Villanueva, giving as a reason that they were biased and interested in having the
1958, leaving an extensive estate. It is undisputed that, at the time of the probate probate succeed. The reasoning is not warranted for Herminio Maravilla certainly
proceedings, only one (1) (Aquilino Mansueto) of the three (3) attesting stood to gain more under the previous will of his wife where he was made the
MARAVILLA VS. MARAVILLA witnesses to the will had survived, the two (2) others (Timoteo Hernaez and sole beneficiary, As to attorney Villanueva, while he had been a friend of
Mariano Buenaflor) having died previously.The will submitted for probate, Exhibit Herminio from boyhood, he also had been the family lawyer, and his intervention
G.R. No. L-23225, FEB. 27, 1971 "A," which is typewritten in the Spanish language, purports to have been in the execution of the will of one of his clients became inevitable, for it is not to
executed in Manila on the 7th day of October, 1944; it consists of five (5) pages, be expected that the testatrix should call upon a stranger for the purpose. If

56 | P a g e
Villanueva wished to perjure in favor of Herminio, all he needed was to color his The will in question is composed of four sheets with written matter on only side signed “in the presence of each other and of the testator.” So that, as to whether
testimony against the due execution of the will (and not in favor thereof, since, as of each, that is, four pages written on four sheets. The four sides or pages the testator and the attesting witnesses saw each other sign the will, such a
previously observed, Digna’s first will was more advantageous to the widower. containingwritten matter are paged “Pag. 1,” “Pag. 2,” “Pag. 3,” “Pag. 4,” requirement was clearly and sufficiently complied with. What is not stated in this
successively. Each of the first two sides or pages, which was issued, was signed clause is whether the testator and the witnesses signed all the sheets of the will.
It is hardly conceivable that any attorney of any standing would risk his by the testator and thethree witnesses on the margin, left side of the reader. On
professional reputation by falsifying a will and then go before a court and give the third page actuallyused, the signatures of the three witnesses appear also on The act of the testator and the witnesses seeing reciprocally the signing of the
false testimony. the margin, left side of thereader, but the signature of the testator is not on the will is one which cannot be proven by the mere exhibition of the will unless it is
margin, but about the middle of the page, at the end of the will and before the stated in the document. And this fact is expressly stated in the attestation clause
"‘In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a will, the statements of attestation clause. now before us. But the fact of the testator and the witnesses having signed all
a competent attorney, who has been charged with the responsibility of seeing to the sheets of thewill may be proven by the mere examination of the document,
the proper execution of the instrument, is entitled to greater weight than the On the fourth page,the signatures of the witnesses do not appear on the margin, although it does not say anything about this, and if that is the fact, as it is in the
testimony of a person casually called to participate in the act, supposing of but at the bottom of theattestation clause, it being the signature of the testator instant case, the danger of fraud in this respect, which is what the law tries to
course that no motive is revealed that should induce the attorney to prevaricate. that is on the margin, left sideof the reader. avoid, does not exist.
The reason is that the mind of the attorney, being conversant with the requisites
of proper execution of the instrument, is more likely to become fixed on details, The defects attributed to the will are:(a)The fact of not having been signed by the The fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and every page of the
and he is more likely than other persons to retain those incidents in his testator and the witnesses on eachand every sheet on the left margin; (b) the will is proven by the mere examination of the signatures in the will, the omission
memory.’" fact of the sheets of the documentnot being paged with letters; (c) the fact that toexpressly state such evident fact does not invalidate the will nor prevent its
the attestation clause does notstate the number of sheets or pages actually used probate.
The court is satisfied that the preponderance of evidence is to the effect that the of the will; and (d) the factthat the testator does not appear to have signed all the
testament was duly executed by a qualified testatrix and competent witnesses, in sheets in the presenceof the three witnesses, and the latter to have attested and IN RE: ESTATE OF SAGUINSIN
conformity with the statutory requirements. The decree of the court denying signed all thesheets in the presence of the testator and of each other. Trial court
probate of the 1944 will of Digna Maravilla is reversed and the said testament is admitted the will to probate and from the judgment, the opponentsappealed. G.R. No. L-15025, MAR. 15, 1920
hereby ordered probated.
ARELLANO, C.J.
NAYVE VS. MOJAL
ISSUE: Can the will be admitted to probate? Digested by: Alexand Rea Villahermosa
G.R. No. L-21755, DEC. 29, 1925

Romualdez, J.
RULING: YES DOCTRINE: The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and
Digested by: Alexand Rea Villahermosa the instrumental witnesses of the will shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and
The court ruled in the affirmative. every page thereof, on the left margin, and said pages shall be numbered
DOCTRINE: The act of the testator and the witnesses seeing reciprocally the correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet.
signing of the will is one which cannot be proven by the mere exhibition of the As to the first defect, As each and every page used of the will bears the
will unless it is stated in the document. And this fact is expressly stated in the signatures of the testator and the witnesses, the fact that said signatures do not
attestation clause now before us. But the fact of the testator and the witnesses all appear on the left margin of each page does not detract from the validity of
having signed all the sheets of the will may be proven by the mere examination the will. As to the second defect, the court held in Unson vs. Abella that paging FACTS:
of the document, although it does not say anything about this, and if that is the with Arabic numerals and not with letters, as in the case before us, is within the
fact, as it is in the instant case, the danger of fraud in this respect, which is what spirit of the law and is just as valid as paging with letters. The subject of this case is the will of Remigia Saguinsin. It is a manuscript
the law tries to avoid, does not exist. signed by the alleged testatrix and three witnesses on October 3, 1918, the
As to the third defect, the attestation clause must state the number of sheets or conclusion of which says: "I, the testatrix, sign in the presence of the witnesses
pages composing the will; but when, as in the case before us, such fact, while it this will written by D. Lino Mendoza at my request and under my direction--Then
is not stated in the attestation clause, appears at the end of the will proper, so follows a signature and then these expressions: "The testatrix signed in our
FACTS: that no proof aliunde is necessary of the number of the sheets of the will, then presence and each of us signed in the presence of the others." - "Witness who
there can be no doubt that it complies with the intention of the law that the wrote this will at the request and under the free and voluntary personal direction
This is a proceeding for the probate of the will of the deceased Antonio number of sheets of which the will is composed be shown by the document itself, of the testatrix herself." Then come three signatures.
Mojalinstituted by his surviving spouse, Filomena Nayve. The probate is to prevent the number of the sheets of the will from being unduly increased or
opposed by LeonaMojal and Luciana Aguilar, sister and niece, respectively, of decreased. The said instrument was impugned by a sister of Remigia and after the taking of
the deceased. the declaration of the authors of the signatures which appear three times and in
It must be noted that in the attestation clause above set out it is said that the different parts of the manuscript, the court declared that the document attached
testator signed the will “in the presence of each of the witnesses” and the latter

57 | P a g e
to the record could not be allowed as a will. Certain person who allege The controlling considerations on the point now before us were well stated In Re
themselves to be legatees appealed jointly with the lawyer for the petitioner. will of Abangan (40 Phil., 476,479), where the court, speaking through Mr.
Justice Avanceña, in a case where the signatures were placed at the bottom of
the page and not in the margin, said:

ISSUE: Is the instrument considered a Valid Will? The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the
door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of will and testaments and
RULING: NO. to guarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on this subject
AVERA VS. GARCIA should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on
Act No. 2645, Section 618 provides that "The attestation shall state the number the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of
of sheets or pages used upon which the will is written . . . ." None of these G.R. No. 15566, SEP. 14, 1921 the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an
requirements appear in the attesting clause at the end of the subject document interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation
presented. The second page, i.e., what is written on the reverse side of the first, Street, J. whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely
engenders the doubt whether what is written thereon was ordered written by the unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be
alleged testatrix or was subsequently added by the same hand that drew the first Digested by: Alexand Rea Villahermosa disregarded.
page and the date that appears on the third. With this non-fulfillment alone of Act
No. 2645 it is impossible to allow the so-called will which violates said law. In the case before us, where ingenuity could not suggest any possible prejudice
to any person, as attendant upon the actual deviation from the letter of the law,
Said Act also provides that "The testator or the person requested by him to write DOCTRINE: A will otherwise properly executed in accordance with the such deviation must be considered too trivial to invalidate the instrument.
his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will shall also sign, as aforesaid, requirements of existing law is not rendered invalid by the fact that the paginal
each and every page thereof, on the left margin, and said pages shall be signatures of the testator and attesting witnesses appear in the right margin
numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet.  The instead of the left. GARCIA VS. GATCHALIAN
Law requires that the signature which guarantees the genuineness of the
testament shall be placed on the left hand margin of each page and that each FACTS: G.R. No. L-20357, NOV. 25, 1967
page should be numbered by letter in the upper part This requirement is entirely
lacking on the second page that is, on the reverse side of the first.By the failure Eutiquia Avera filed a petition for the probate of the will of one Esteban Garcia.
Dizon, J.
to comply with this requisite the law has been obviously violated. Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, the latter in the capacity of guardian for the
minors Jose Garcia and Cesar Garcia contested the probate. One of the Digested by: Alexand Rea Villahermosa
This is a defect so radical that there is no way by which what is written on the attesting witnesses testified that the will was executed with all necessary
reverse side of the first folio may be held valid. It is possible that this document external formalities, and that the testator was at the time in full possession of
consists of only the two folios numbered 1 and 2, and that on the reverse side of disposing faculties. Upon the latter point the witness was corroborated by the
number 2 nothing may have been written upon the order of the testatrix, the person who wrote the will at the request of the testator. Two of the attesting DOCTRINE: The requirement that a will must be acknowledged before a notary
testament ending at the foot of the first folio. witnesses were not introduced, nor was their absence accounted for by the public by the testator and also by the witnesses is indispensable for its validity.
proponent of the will.
There is nothing which guarantees all the contents of page 2. The margin of this
page is absolutely blank. There is nothing which gives the assurance that the ISSUE: Is the will rendered invalid by the fact that the signature of the testator
testatrix ordered the insertion of all the contents of page 2. It may very well be and of the three attesting witnesses are written on the right margin of each page FACTS:
that it was subsequently added thereby substituting the will of the testatrix, a of the will instead of the left margin?
result for the prevention of which this manner of authenticity by affixing the On March 15, 1967, Gregorio Gatchalian, a widower of 71 years of age, died in
signature on each page and not merely on each folio was provided for by law. RULING: NO Pasig, Province of Rizal, leaving no forced heirs. On April 2 of the same year,
This defect is radical and totally vitiates the testament. It is not enough that the appellant Pedro Reyes Garcia filed a petition with the CFI for the probate of said
signatures guaranteeing authenticity should appear upon two folios or leaves; The instrument now before us contains the necessary signatures on every page, alleged will of the late Gregorio Gatchalian, wherein he was instituted as sole
three pages having been written, the authenticity of all three of them should be and the only point of deviation from the requirement of the statute is that these heir.
guaranteed with the signature of the alleged testatrix and her witnesses. The signatures appear in the right margin instead of the left. By the mode of signing
English text which requires the signing of pages and not merely leaves or folios adopted every page and provision of the will is authenticated and guarded from Felipe Gatchalian, Aurora G. Camins, Angeles G. Cosca, Federico G. Tubog,
should prevail. possible alteration in exactly the same degree that it would have been protected Virginia G. Talanay and Angeles G. Talanay, appellees herein, opposed the
by being signed in the left margin; and the resources of casuistry could be petition on the ground, among others, that the will was procured by fraud. They
exhausted without discovering the slightest difference between the also alleged that the deceased did not intend the instrument signed by him to be
consequences of affixing the signatures in one margin or the other. as his will and that the deceased was physically and mentally incapable of
making a will at the time of the alleged execution of said will.

58 | P a g e
After due trial, the court rendered the appealed decision finding the document to Precilla( “Consuelo”) as special administratrix of the estate on the ground of ALSO, Consuelo should be removed as administrator because she is not
be the authentic last will of the deceased but disallowing it for failure to comply Consuelo possesses interest adverse to the estate and to order the RD of Manila expected to sue her own husband to reconvey the lands to the estate alleged to
with the mandatory requirement of Article 806 of the New Civil Code — that the to annotate on the registered lands a notice of Lis Pendens. have been transferred by the deceased to her own husband.
will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses.An examination of the document shows that the same was When Gliceria died she had no descendants, ascendants. After which, her niece, The notice of lis pendens is also not proper where the issue is not an action in
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator but not by the instrumental
Consuelo petitioned the court to be the administratrix of the properties. The court rem, affecting real property or the title thereto.
witnesses.
approved this because Consuelo was already managing the properties of the
deceased during her lifetime. What the respondents allege is that in the last
years of the deceased, Consuelo sought the transfer of certain parcels of land
ISSUE: Can the will be admitted to probate? valued at 300k for a sale price of 30k to her husband Alfonso through fraud and
intimidation. In addition, the oppositors presented evidence that Consuelo asked
the court to issue new Certificates of Titles to certain parcels of land for the
RULING: NO purpose of preparing the inventory to be used in the probate. Also shown was
In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased
that NEW TCTs were issued by the RD for certain lands of the deceased after
Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADOv. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR.
Article 806 of the New Civil Code reads as follows: Consuelo asked for the old TCTs.
G.R. No.74695 September 14,1993
At the end of the probate proceedings, the court ruled that Counsuelo should be Bellosillo,J.:
made the administrator, and that the will was duly executed because of these
“ Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the Digested by: Paulo Jose S. Villarin
reasons: NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED to establish that the
witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or
file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.” deceased was not of sound mind, that eventough the allegations state that the DOCTRINE: Article 808 not only applies to blind testators, but also to those who,
deceased prepared another will in 1956 (12pages), the latter is not prevented for one reason or another, are incapable of reading their wills.
The court held that compliance with the requirement contained in the above legal from executing another will in 1960 (1page), and that inconsistencies in the
provision to the effect that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by testimonies of the witnesses prove their truthfulness. FACTS:
the testator and also by the witnesses is indispensable for its validity (In re:
Testate Estate of Alberto, G. R. No. L-11948, April 29, 1959). As the document
On 5 November 1977, 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will
under consideration does not comply with this requirement, the same may not be
probated. entitled “Huling Habilin” wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son, petitioner
ISSUE: Was the will in 1960 properly executed? Cesar Alvarado, and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at
LUCIO V. GARCIA v. HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ the time awaiting probate before the RTC of Laguna.
HELD: NO.
G.R. No. L-26615 April 30 1970
REYES, J.B.L., J.: According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said
Provision of Article 808 mandatory. Therefore, For all intents and purposes of the
notarial will was executed, together with three instrumental witnesses and the
rules on probate, the testatrix was like a blind testator, and the due execution of
Digested by: Paulo Jose S. Villarin notary public, where the testator did not read the will himself, suffering as he did
her will would have required observance of Article 808. The rationale behind the
from glaucoma.
requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading
the will himself (as when he is illiterate) , is to make the provisions thereof known Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before
DOCTRINE:The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his the testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, the latter
testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself is to make the wishes. Likewise, the 1970 will was done in Tagalog which the deceased is not four following the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished
provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not well versed but in Spanish. This creates doubt as to the due execution of the will them.
in accordance with his wishes. and as well as the typographical errors contain therein which show the haste in
preparing the 1 page will as compared to the 12 page will created in 1956 written Thereafter, a codicil entitled “Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na
FACTS: in Spanish. ALSO, as to the blindness, there was proof given by the testimony of Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido
the doctor that the deceased could not read at near distances because of Alvarado” was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to
This is a petition for appeal from the CFI of Manila admitting to probate the will of cataracts. (Testatrix’s vision was mainly for viewing distant objects and not for generate cash for the testator’s eye operation.
Gliceria Avelino del Rosario (“Gliceria”) executed in 1960. Likewise, this is also reading print.) Since there is no proof that it was read to the deceased twice, the
an appeal to remove the current administrator, Consuelo Gonzales- will was NOT duly executed.

59 | P a g e
Said codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same reasonably assured that what was read to him were the terms actually appearing
manner as with the previously executed will. on the typewritten documents.

When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate, Cesar Alvarado The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is
filed his opposition as he said that the will was not executed and attested as blind or incapable of reading the will to himself (as when he is illiterate), is to
required by law; that the testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if
senility and old age; that the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear they are not in accordance with his wishes.
or threats; that it was procured by undue pressure and influence on the part of
the beneficiary; and that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of
trick. law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should
be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into
ISSUE: Was there substantial compliance to the reading of the will? account, may only defeat the testator’s will.

HELD:

Article 808 not only applies to blind testators, but also to those who, for one
reason or another, are incapable of reading their wills. Hence, the will should
have been read by the notary public and an instrumental witness. However, the
spirit behind the law was served 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 the execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all
kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as
to destroy the testamentary privilege.

However, in the case at bar, there was substantial compliance where the
purpose of the law has been satisfied: that of making the provisions known to the
testator who is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is
illiterate) and enabling him to object if they do not accord with his wishes.

Rino read the testator’s will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his
three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public.

Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the
contents read corresponded with his instructions.

Only then did the signing and acknowledgment take place.

There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not
sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator.

With four persons, mostly known to the testator, following the reading word for
word with their own copies, it can be safely concluded that the testator was

60 | P a g e
TEODORO CANEDA ET AL. v COURT OF APPEALS On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses and the notary public testified Clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every
G.R. 103554 MAY 28, 1993 that the testator executed the will in question in their presence while he was of page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. That the
REGALADO, J.: sound and disposing mind and that the testator was in good health and was not absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which
unduly influenced in any way in the execution of his will. must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be
Digested by: Paulo Jose S. Villarin probated.
Probate court then rendered a decision declaring the will in question as the last
DOCTRINE:The will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the will and testament of the late Mateo Caballero. Also, Art. 809 does not apply to the present case because the attestation clause
testator and the attesting witnesses. The attestation clause need not be written totally omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of
in a language known to the testator or even to the attesting witnesses. CA affirmed the probate court’s decision stating that it substantially complies with the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The defect in this case
Article 805. Hence this appeal. is not only with respect to the form or the language of the attestation clause. The
FACTS: defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself which is
ISSUE: Is the attestation clause in the will of the testator fatally defective or can clearly lacking in this case.
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and be cured under the art. 809?
already in the twilight years of his life, executed a last will and testament at his Therefore, the probate of the will is set aside and the case for the intestate
residence before 3 witnesses. HELD: proceedings shall be revived.

He was assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio Lumontad. No. It does not comply with the provisions of the law. Article 809 cannot be used to cure the defects of the will when it does not pertain
to the form or language of the will. This is because there is not substantial
In the will, it was declared that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and Ordinary or attested wills are governed by Arts. 804 to 809. The will must be
compliance with Article 805.
devises his real and personal properties to several people all of whom do not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the attesting witnesses.
appear to be related to the testator. The attestation clause need not be written in a language known to the testator or
TESTATE ESTATE OF VICENTE CAGRO v. PELAGIO CAGRO
even to the attesting witnesses.
4 months later, Mateo Caballero himself filed a case seeking the probate of his G.R. No. L-5826 APRIL 29,1953
last will and testament, but numerous postponements pushed back the initial It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of PARAS, C.J.:
hearing of the probate court regarding the will. execution and once signed by the witnesses it gives affirmation to the fact that
Digested by: Paulo Jose S. Villarin
compliance with the essential formalities required by law has been observed.
On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his petition could finally be
DOCTRINE: An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of
heard by the probate court. The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong legal guaranties for the due
the witnesses since the omission of their signatures at the bottom negatives their
execution of a will and to insure the authenticity thereof.
Thereafter one of the legatees, Benoni Cabrera, sought his appointment as participation.
special administrator of the testator’s estate. It is contended by petitioners that the attestation clause in the will failed to
specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses witnessed the testator sign
Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, FACTS:
the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses, likewise
instituted a second petition for intestate proceedings. They also opposed the signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of
probate of the testator’s will and the appointment of a special administrator for each other. And the Court agrees. This is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from a decision of the Court of
his estate. First Instance of Samar, admitting to probate the will allegedly executed by
Vicente Cagro who died in Laoangan, Pambujan, Samar, on February 14, 1949.
The attestation clause does not expressly state therein the circumstance that
Benoni Cabrera died and was replaced by William Cabrera as special said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence
administrator and gave an order that the testate proceedings for the probate of The main objection insisted upon by the appellant in that the will is fatally
of the testator and of each other.
defective, because its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses.
the will had to be heard and resolved first.
The phrase, “and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the space
In the course of the proceedings, petitioners opposed to the allowance of the provided for his signature and on the left hand margin,” obviously refers to the The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on
testator’s will on the ground that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the the left-hand margin conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as
was already in poor state of health such that he could not have possibly words” as his last will and testament.” their signatures to the attestation clause.
executed the same. Also the genuineness of the signature of the testator is in
doubt. ISSUE:

61 | P a g e
Was the will valid? same will executed by the testatrix. There was no question of fraud or
substitution behind the questioned order.
HELD: ISSUE: Was the object of attestation and subscription fully when the
instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains JOSE VILLAFLOR V. DEOGRACIAS TOBIAS ET AL
Will is not valid. The attestation clause is a memorandum of the facts attending all the testamentary dispositions?
the execution of the will. It is required by law to be made by the attesting GR NO. 27440, DECEMBER 24, 1927
witnesses and it must necessarily bear their signatures. HELD: YES.
OSTRAND, J.
An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses Undoubtedly, under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or
since the omission of their signatures at the bottom negatives their participation. signed at its end by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by
another person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
Moreover, the signatures affixed on the let hand margin is not substantial subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator DOCTRINE: In some circumstances the writing of the attestation clause on a
conformance to the law. The said signatures were merely in conformance with and of one another. separate page do not invalidate the will.
the requirement that the will must be signed on the left-hand margin of all its
pages. If the attestation clause is unsigned by the 3 witnesses at the bottom, it It must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed. Attestation
would be easier to add clauses to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the consists in witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see and take
absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses. note mentally that those things are done which the statute requires for the FACTS:
execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL OF other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same
DOROTEA PEREZ, (deceased): APOLONIO TABOADA, v. HON. AVELINO S. paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was This is an appeal from a judgement denying a petition for the probate of a will
ROSAL executed by the testator. (Ragsdale v. Hill, 269 SW 2d 911). which was found out that the attestation clause of the said will was written on a
G.R. No. L-36033 NOVEMBER 5,1992 separate sheet, page 9, when said clause could have been written totally or
GUTIERREZ, JR. J.: partially on page 8, since one-half of page 8 is blank.
Digested by: Paulo Jose S. Villarin The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page
of the will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix
DOCTRINE:The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of but also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. ISSUE: Will a attestation clause written on a separate page make a will false?
the first page of the will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of
the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial
clause. departure from the usual forms should be ignored, especially where the
authenticity of the will is not assailed. (Gonzales v. Gonzales, 90 Phil. 444, 449). RULING: IN THIS CASE, NO.
FACTS
The law is to be liberally construed, "the underlying and fundamental objective
Petitioner Apolonio Taboada filed a petition for probate of the will of the late permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the
Dorotea perez. The will consisted of two pages, the first page containing all the liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the That the attestation clause of the will is written on a separate page and not on
testamentary dispositions of the testator and was signed at the end or bottom of testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient the last page of the body of the document is a matter of minor importance and is
the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise explained by the fact that if the clause had been written on the eighth page of the
instrumental witnesses. The second page consisted of the attestation clause and of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This objective will in direct continuation of the body thereof, there would not have been
the acknowledgment was signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three is in accord with the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the sufficient space on that page for the signatures of the witnesses to the clause. It
witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. The trial court disallowed execution of a will" (Report of the Code Commission, p. 103). is also to be observed that all of the pages, including that upon which the
the will for want of formality in its execution because the will was signed at the attestation clause is written, bear the signatures of all of the witnesses and that
bottom of the page solely by the testatrix, while the three witnesses only signed The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and satisfied in the there is no question whatever as to the genuineness of said signatures.
at the left hand margin of the page. The judge opined that compliance with the present case when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the
formalities of the law required that the witnesses also sign at the end of the will sole page which contains all the testamentary dispositions, especially so when
because the witnesses attest not only the will itself but the signature of the the will was properly identified by subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be the
testatrix. Hence, this petition.
62 | P a g e
will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in
the hand of the testator. These requirements are present in the subject will.
FELIX AZUELA V. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO

GR NO. 122880, APRIL 12, 2006 IN THE MATTER O THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MELECIA
LABEADOR. SAGRADO LABRADOR, ENRICA LABRADOR AND CRISTOBAL IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANDRES G. DE JESUS
TINGA, J. LABRADO V. COIRT OF APPEALS, 1 GAUDENCIO LABRADOR AND JESUS AND BIBIANA ROXAS DE JESUS, SIMEON R. ROXAS AND PEDRO ROXAS
LABRADOR DE JESUS V. ANDRES R. DE JESUS, JR.

GR NO. 83843-44, APRIL 5, 1990 GR NO. L-38338, JANUARY 28, 1985

DOCTRINE: Express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be
“acknowledged,” and not merely subscribed and sworn to. PARAS, J. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.

FACTS: DOCTRINE: Date must be in the will itself and executed in the hands of the DOCTRINE: Purpose of liberal trend pf the Civil Code in the manner of
testator. execution of wills in case of doubt is to prevent intestacy.

It was alleged that the subject will was forged, and imbued with several fatal
defects, such that the will was not properly acknowledged. The notary public, FACTS: FACTS:
Petronio Y. Bautista, only wrote “Nilagdaanko at ninotariokongayong 10 ng
Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 ditosaLungsodng Maynila.”

The Court of Appeals denied the allowance of the probate of the subject The subject holographic will found in a notebook belonging to the deceased
holographic will for being undated despite the fact that in the first paragraph of dated “Feb./61” stated that “This is my will which I want to be respected although
ISSUE: Was the subject will properly acknowledged? the second page of the same will, which was written in Ilocano, the testator it is not written by a lawyer.” The probate of such will was opposed on the ground
mentioned a date - “month of March, 17th, 1968. that it does not comply with Article 810 of the Civil Code which provides that the
date in a holographic will must signify the year, month, and day.
RULING: NO.
ISSUE: Was the subject will properly dated?
ISSUE: Was the date of the subject will a valid compliance of Article 810 of the
The express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be “acknowledged,” and Civil Code?
not merely subscribed and sworn to. The will does not present any textual proof, RULING: YES.
much less one under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental witnesses
executed or signed the will as their own free act or deed. The acknowledgment RULING: YES.
made in a will provides for another all-important legal safeguard against spurious
wills or those made beyond the free consent of the testator. The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance
with Article 810. It is worthy of note to quote the first paragraph of the second
page of the holographic will, viz: "And this is the day in which we agreed that we As a general rule, the “date” in a holographic Will should include the day, month,
are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said and year of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is no
fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the
this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not the
who made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father." The date “FEB./61” appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with
law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the Article 810 of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed

63 | P a g e
under the principle of substantial compliance. Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules that the
will should be signed by the witnesses on every page. The carbon copy duplicate
In particular, a complete date is required to provide against such contingencies was regular in all respects.
as that of two competing Wills executed on the same day, or of a testator
becoming insane on the day on which a Will was executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1
Phil. 720). There is no such contingency in this case. ICASIANO vs ICASIANO
G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964
JOSE RIVERA V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND ADELAIDO J. REYES, J.B.L., J.: CODOY vs CALUGAY
RIVERA G.R. No. 123486 August 12, 1999
DOCTRINE: The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize PARDO, J.:
GR NOS. 75005-06, FEBRUARY 15, 1990 the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose
conduct she has no control of. Where the purpose of the law is to guarantee the DOCTRINE: The goal to be achieved by Article 811 of the Civil Code is to give
CRUZ, J. identity of the testament and its component pages, and there is no intentional or effect to the wishes of the deceased and the evil to be prevented is the
deliberate deviation existed. possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will employ means
to defeat the wishes of the testator.
FACTS:
DOCTRINE: A stranger has no personality to contest a will. FACTS:
Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa Villacorte and
for his appointment as executor thereof. It appears from the evidence that the On 6 April 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas,
testatrix died on September 12, 1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño
through the help of her lawyer, it was prepared in duplicates, an original and a Vda. de Ramonal, filed a petition for probate of the said will. They attested to the
FACTS: carbon copy. genuineness and due execution of the will on 30 August 1978.
On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the Eugenio Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed their opposition claiming
original copy of the will while the carbon duplicate (unsigned) was left in that the will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible. They raised doubts
The Jose Rivera who claimed to be the son of the deceased, Venancio Rivera, Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed to sign one of the pages in the original as regards the repeated appearing on the will after every disposition, calling the
opposed the probate of the holographic wills submitted by another son Adelaido copy but admitted he may have lifted 2 pages simultaneously instead when he same out of the ordinary. If the will was in the handwriting of the deceased, it
Rivera. However, it was found out that Jose is a son of another Vinencio Rivera. signed the will. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will was signed by the testator was improperly procured.
and other witnesses in his presence
ISSUE: Evangeline Calugay, etc. presented 6 witnesses and various documentary
evidence.
Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his The first witness was the clerk of court of the probate court who produced and
ISSUE: Was the opposition proper?
signature to a page is sufficient to deny probate of the will. identified the records of the case bearing the signature of the deceased.
The second witness was election registrar who was made to produce and
RULING: identify the voter’s affidavit, but failed to as the same was already destroyed and
RULING: NO. no longer available.
No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere inadvertence.
Since the duplicated bore the required signatures, this proves that the omission The third, the deceased’s niece, claimed that she had acquired familiarity with
was not intentional. Even if the original is in existence, a duplicate may still be the deceased’s signature and handwriting as she used to accompany her in
admitted to probate since the original is deemed to be defective, then in law, collecting rentals from her various tenants of commercial buildings and the
Jose Rivera is not the son of the deceased Venancio Rivera whose estate is in there is no other will bu the duly signed carbon duplicate and the same can be deceased always issued receipts. The niece also testified that the deceased left
question. Hence, being a mere stranger, he had no personality to contest the probated. a holographic will entirely written, dated and signed by said deceased.
wills and his opposition thereto did not have the legal effect of requiring the three
witnesses required by Article 811 of the Civil Code. The testimony of Zenaida The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix The fourth witness was a former lawyer for the deceased in the intestate
on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she has proceedings of her late husband, who said that the signature on the will was
and Venancio Rivera, Jr., who authenticated the wills as having been written and
no control of. Where the purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the similar to that of the deceased but that he can not be sure.
signed by their father, was sufficient. testament and its component pages, and there is no intentional or deliberate
deviation existed. The fifth was an employee of the DENR who testified that she was familiar with
the signature of the deceased which appeared in the latter’s application for
pasture permit. The fifth, respondent Evangeline Calugay, claimed that she had
64 | P a g e
lived with the deceased since birth where she had become familiar with her The probate was opposed on the ground that (1) the execution of the will was What the law deems essential is that the court should be convinced of the will’s
signature and that the one appearing on the will was genuine. procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the authenticity. Where the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the
petitioner and his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend the court is convinced by their testimony that the will is genuine, it may consider it
Codoy and Ramonal’s demurrer to evidence was granted by the lower court. It instrument to be her last will, and that the same was actually written either on unnecessary to call for expert evidence. On the other hand, if no competent
was reversed on appeal with the Court of Appeals which granted the probate. the 5th or 6th day of August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as appears on witness is available, or none of those produced is convincing, the Court may still,
the will. and in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts. The duty of the Court, in fine,
is to exhaust all available lines of inquiry, for the state is as much interested as
The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect.
the proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and
ISSUE: the signature are in the writing of the testatrix, the probate being contested; and
because the lone witness presented “did not prove sufficiently that the body of FAUSTO E. GAN v. ILDEFONSO YAP
Whether or not Article 811 of the Civil Code, providing that at least three the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix.” G.R. No. L-12190 August 30, 1958
witnesses explicitly declare the signature in a contested will as the genuine BENGZON, J.:
signature of the testator, is mandatory or directory. Petitioner appealed, urging: first, that he was not bound to produce more than
one witness because the will’s authenticity was not questioned; and second, that
RULING: Article 811 does not mandatorily require the production of three witnesses DOCTRINE: The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic
to identify the handwriting and signature of a holographic will, even if its will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or
YES, the word “shall” connotes a mandatory order, an imperative obligation and authenticity should be denied by the adverse party. read such will.
is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that
the word“shall”, when used in a statute, is mandatory. FACTS:
ISSUE: On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure in the
In the case at bar, the goal to be achieved by the law, is to give effect to the University of Santo Tomas Hospital, leaving properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and
wishes of the deceased and the evil to be prevented is the possibility that Whether or not Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory or permissive. in the City of Manila.
unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will employ means to defeat the
wishes of the testator. On March 17, 1952, Fausto E. Gan initiated these proceedings in the Manila
RULING: court of first instance with a petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly
The paramount consideration in the present petition is to determine the true executed by the deceased.
intent of the deceased. Article 811 is merely permissive and not mandatory. Since the authenticity of the
will was not contested, petitioner was not required to produce more than one Opposing the petition, her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the
witness; but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, deceased had not left any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime.
AZOALA vs. SINGSON Article 811 can not be interpreted to require the compulsory presentation of three
G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the Hon. Ramon R. San
REYES, J.B.L., J.: probate denied. Since no witness may have been present at the execution of a Jose, Judge, refused to probate the alleged will. A seventy-page motion for
holographic will, none being required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it reconsideration failed. Hence this appeal.
DOCTRINE: becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the requisite
Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory only for notarial wills. Witnesses qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For it is not merely ISSUE:
needs to be presented for probate of notarial wills. Article 811 of the Civil Code a question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses Whether or not a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses
is discretionary for holographic wills, if not contested. “who know the handwriting and signature of the testator” and who can declare who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the
(truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so express) “that the will and the testator?
signature are in the handwriting of the testator”. There may be no available
FACTS: witness of the testator’s hand; or even if so familiarized, the witnesses may be RULING:
Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance died in Quezon City on September 9, 1957. unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of NO, the court ruled that the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
Petitioner submitted for probate her holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was Article 811 may thus become an impossibility. holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have
made the sole heir as against the nephew, who is the defendant. Only one seen and/or read such will.
witness, Francisoco Azaola, was presented to testify on the handwriting of the This is the reason why the 2nd paragraph of Article 811 allows the court to resort
testatrix. He testified that he had seen it one month, more or less, before the to expert evidence. The law foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may The loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof. Even
death of the testatrix, as it was given to him and his wife; and that it was in the be found (or what amounts to the same thing, that no competent witness may be if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost holographic will,
testatrix’s handwriting. He presented the mortgage, the special power of the willing to testify to the authenticity of the will), and provides for resort to expert we think the evidence submitted by herein petitioner is so tainted with
attorney, and the general power of attorney, and the deeds of sale including an evidence to supply the deficiency. improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that “clear and
affidavit to reinforce his statement. Two residence certificates showing the distinct” proof required by Rule 77, sec. 6. 11.
testatrix’s signature were also exhibited for comparison purposes.

65 | P a g e
66 | P a g e
RODELAS vs. ARANZA KALAW VS RELOVA The petition was also contested by Dr. Ajero with respect to the disposition in the
G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982 G.R. NO. L-40207 SEPTEMBER 28, 1984 will of a house and lot. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by
RELOVA, J.: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

DOCTRINE: A photocopy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be DOCTRINE: Effect of erasures, corrections, and alterations in a holographic will However, the trial court still admitted the decedent’s holographic will to
admitted because the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be probate.The trial court held that since it must decide only the question of the
determined by the probate court with the standard writings of the testator. identity of the will, its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the
FACTS:
Gregorio Kalaw, the private respondent, claiming to be the sole heir of sister testatrix, it finds no reason for the disallowance of the will for its failure to comply
Natividad, filed a petition for probate of the latter's holographic will in 1968. The with the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of testamentary capacity of the
FACTS: testatrix.
The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo will contained 2 alterations: a) Rosa's name, designated as the sole heir was
Bonilla in 1977. The petition was opposed by the appellees on the ground that crossed out and instead "Rosario" was written above it and such was not
initialed; b) Rosa's name was crossed out as sole executrix and Gregorio's On appeal, the CA reversed said Decision holding that the decedent did not
the deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise.
name was written above it. This alteration was initialed by the testator. comply with Articles 313 and 314 of the NCC. It found that certain dispositions in
the will were either unsigned or undated, or signed by not dated. It also found
The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the
Rosa contended that the will as first written should be given effect so that she that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made had not been
original will was lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the original.
would be the sole heir. The lower court denied the probate due to the authenticated by decedent.
ISSUE: unauthenticated alterations and additions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be ISSUE: Were Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC complied with?
proved by means of a photostatic copy. Is the will valid?
RULING:YES.
RULING: RULING:NO.
A reading of Article 813 shows that its requirement affects the validity of the
YES. dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator
The will is voided or revoked since nothing remains in the will which could
remain valid as there was only one disposition in it. fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these
If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the
the will cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is the whole testament void.Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate
handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a comparison Such was altered by the substitution of the original heir with another. To rule that notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814.Unless the
between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. the first will should be given effect is to disregard the testatrix' change of mind. authenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of
However, this change of mind cannot be given effect either as she failed to the holographic will or on testator’s signature, their presence does not invalidate
But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed authenticate it in accordance with Art. 814, or by affixing her full signature. the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such
because comparison can be made by the probate court with the standard changes.It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of
writings of the testator. The probate court would be able to determine the AJERO VS CA changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions Article 813
authenticity of the handwriting of the testator. G.R. No. 106720, September 15, 1994 and 814 separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the
PUNO, J. validity of the holographic will under Article 810.
In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled that “the execution
and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement that
bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself DOCTRINE: Nature of probate proceeding
they be totally authographic or handwritten by the testator himself. Failure to
must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the strictly observe other formalities will no result in the disallowance of a
document itself as material proof of authenticity.” But, in Footnote 8 of said FACTS:
holographic will that is unquestionable handwritten by the testator.
decision, it says that “Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for probate.
copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if any,
whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the
and tested before the probate court,” testament’s body nor the signature therein was in decedent’s handwriting; it
contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent;
and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue
influence.

67 | P a g e
Amoy China, filed a petition forthe probate of the last will and testament of the
"Sec. 627.Executor to Present Will and Accept or Refuse Trust. — A person deceased which was claimed to havebeen executed and signed in the
GUEVARA VS GUEVARA named as executor in a will, shall withinthirty days after he knows of the death of Philippines on November 1929. The petition wasdenied due to the loss of the will
G.R. No. 48840. DECEMBER 29, 1943 the testator, or within thirty days after he knows that he is named executor, ifhe before the hearing thereof. After the Pacific War,
OZAETA, J. obtained such knowledge after knowing of the death of the testator, present Silvino, claimed to have found among the records of his father, a last will and
such will to the court which hasjurisdiction, unless the will has been otherwise testament
DOCTRINE: Allowance of wills returned to said court, and shall, within such period, signify to the courthis in Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased on January1931
acceptance of the trust, or make known in writing his refusal to accept it. and
FACTS: probated in the Amoy District Court. He filed a petition in the intestate
"Sec. 628.Penalty. — A person who neglects any of the duties required in the proceedings for
Victorino Guevara executed a will in 1931 wherein he made various bequests t
two preceding sections, unless he gives asatisfactory excuse to the court, shall the probate of the will executed in the Philippines on November 1929 or the will
his wife, stepchildren, wife in the 2nd marriage. He has a legitimate son Ernesto
be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars. executed in Amoy China on November1931.
and a natural daughter Rosario. Therein, he acknowledged Rosario as his
natural daughter. 
"Sec. 629.Person Retaining Will may be Committed. — If a person having
custody of a will after the death of the testatorneglects without reasonable cause
In 1933, Victorino died but his last will was never presented for probate nor was to deliver the same to the court having jurisdiction, after notice by the court so to
there any settlement proceeding initiated. It appeared that only his son Ernest ISSUE:
do,he may be committed to the prison of the province by a warrant issued by the
possessed the land which he adjudicated to himself. While Rosario who had the court, and there kept in close confinementuntil he delivers the will."
will in her custody, did nothing to invoke the acknowledgment, as well as the Is the will executed in Amoy, China can still be validly probated in the
devise given to her. -The proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, with notice by publication Philippines?
to the whole world and with personalnotice to each of the known heirs, legatees,
Subsequently, Rosario filed an action for the recovery of her legitime from and devisees of the testator.
Ernesto, a portion of a large parcel of land invoking the acknowledgment
contained in the will and based on the assumption that the decedent died Suppression of the will is contrary to law and public policy for without probate, RUILING: NO
intestate because his will was not probated. She alleged that the disposition in the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory.
favor of Ernesto should be disregarded.
To have the will execute in Amoy, China be validly probated in the
The lower court and the Court of Appeals sustained Rosario's theory. TESTATE ESTATE OF SUNTAY Philippines, the following must be proved: (a.) the fact that
the Municipal District Court of Amoy, China is a probate court; (b.)the law
ISSUE:
of China on procedure in the probate or allowance of wills; (c.) Established
G.R. NOS. L-3087 AND L- 3088, JULY 31, 1954
competent evidence of the legal requirements for the execution of the will
Can a probate of a will be dispensed with? in China in 1931. Herein case, there is no proof on these points.
PADILLA, J.
RULING:NO.
Moreover, it appears that all the proceedings had in
the Municipal District Court of Amoywere for the purpose of taking the
Rosario's contention violates procedural law and considered an attempt to testimony of two attesting witnesses to the will
circumvent the last will and testament of the decedent. The presentation of a will DOCTRINE: Wills executed and probated in a foreign country must be proven
and that the order of the said courtdoes not purport to probate the will.The order
to the court for probate is mandatory and its allowance is essential and before the Philippine court to obtain similar validity/effectivity. of the Municipal District Court of Amoy, China does not purport toprobate or
indispensable to its efficacy. allow the will which was the subject of the proceedings. In view thereof, thewill
and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been done in
The Code of CivilProcedure, which was in force up to the time this case was accordancewith the accepted basic andfundamental concepts and principles
decided by the trial court, contains the following pertinentprovisions: FACTS: followed in theprobate and allowance ofwills. Consequently,
"Sec. 625.Allowance Necessary, and Conclusive as to Execution. — No will the authenticated transcript ofproceedings held inthe Municipal District Court of
shall pass either the real or personal estate,unless it is proved and allowed in Amoy, China, cannot be deemed andaccepted as proceedings leading to the
the Court of First Instance, or by appeal to the Supreme Court; and the Sometime in 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of
the Philippines, diedin Amoy, China. He left real and personal properties in the probate of allowance of a will. Therefore, thewill referred to therein cannot be
allowance bythe court of a will of real and personal estate shall be conclusive as allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court in the Philippines.
to its due execution. Philippines and a house inAmoy. During his lifetime, he married twice, the first
wife was Manuela Cruz, with whom he had several children. The second
"Sec. 626.Custodian of Will to Deliver. — The person who has the custody of a marriage was with Maria Natividad Lim Brillian, with whom he had a son, herein
will shall, within thirty days after heknows of the death of the testator, deliver the petitioner,SilvinoSuntay. An intestate proceeding was instituted by the heirs from
will into the court which has jurisdiction, or to the executor named in thewill. the first marriage. Whilethe second wife, the surviving widow who remained in

68 | P a g e
heirs and not to the testamentary heir. Thus, as to the disposition of the wife,
the will cannot be given effect.
MICIANO VS. BRIMO DELA CERNA VS POTOT
GONZALES VS. CA
50 PHIL 867, NOVEMBER 1, 1927 12 SCRA 576, DECEMBER 23, 1964
G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979
ROMUALDEZ, J. REYES, J.B.L., J.

DOCTRINE: There is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify initially

DOCTRINE: The national law of the testator shall govern in the disposition of the DOCTRINE: Joint will iscontrary to law.
or at any time during the trial as to his good standing in the community, his
testator’s properties; impossible conditions in the will shall be considered as not reputation for trustworthiness and for being reliable, his honesty and uprightness
imposed. (such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the contrary is proved
FACTS: otherwise by the opposing party) in order that his testimony may be believed and
accepted by the trial court.
FACTS: The spouses Bernabe de la Serna and GervasiaRebaca, executed a FACTS: Isabel Gabriel died on June 7, 1961 without issue. Lutgarda Santiago
joint last will and testament where they willed that their two(2) parcels of land be
Juan Miciano was the judicial administrator of the estate of Joseph given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece and that while each of them are living, (respondent), niece of Isabel, filed a petition for probate of Isabel’s will
Brimo, a Turkish citizen. Miciano filed a scheme of partition. Andre Brimo, one of he/she will continue to enjoy the fruits of the lands mentioned. When Bernabe designating her as the principal beneficiary and executrix. The will was
the brothers of the deceased (Joseph Brimo) opposed Miciano’s participation in died,Gervasia submitted the will for probated. By order, the Court admitted for typewritten in Tagalog and was executed 2 months prior to death of Isabel.
the inheritance and that said scheme of partition was not in accordance in the probate of the said will but only for the part of Bernabe in Oct. 31, 1939.
Turkish laws. However, in the second part of the will of Joseph Brimo, he The petition was opposed by Rizalina Gonzales (petitioner), also a niece of
specifically indicated that the distribution of his properties shall be in accordance When Gervasia died, another petition for probate was instituted Isabel, on the following grounds:
with the Philippine laws and not his national law, which is Turkish. by Manuela, but because she and her attorney failed to appear in court, the
petition was dismissed. When the same was heard, the CFI declared the will 1. The will is not genuine;
void for being executed contrary to the prohibition on joint wills. But on appeal, 2. The will was not executed and attested as required by law;
ISSUE: the order was reversed. 3. The decedent at the time of the making of the will did not have
testamentary capacity due to her age and sickness; and
Is the Philippine law will be the basis on the distribution of Joseph 4. The will was procured through undue influence.
ISSUE:
Brimo’s estates and not the Turkish law?
Is the second petition for probate on the will valid? The trial court disallowed the probate of the will but the Court of Appeals
Reversed the said decision of the trial court. The petitioner filed a petition for
RUILING: NO.
review with SC claiming that the CA erred in holding that the will of the decedent
was executed and attested as required by law when there was absolutely no
Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said
that “it be made and disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the RUILING: NO. proof that the 3 instrumental witnesses are credible.
Philippine Island”, this condition, described as impossible conditions, shall be
considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any ISSUE: Is it required that there must be evidence on record that the witness to a
The court admitted that the probate of the will in 1939 was
manner whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise provide.  Impossible erroneous.However, because it was probated by a court of will has good standing in his/her community or that he/she is honest or upright?
conditions are further defined as those contrary to law or good morals.  Thus, competent jurisdiction, it has conclusive effect and a final judgment rendered
national law of the testator shall govern in his testamentary dispositions. on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world. But this is RUILING: No. There is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify initially
only with respect to the estate of the husband and cannot affect the estate of the or at any time during the trial as to his good standing in the community, his
Further, Andre Brimo failed to prove that the scheme of partition wife; considering that a joint will is a separate will of each testator. reputation for trustworthiness and for being reliable, his honesty and uprightness
being filed violated the Turkish law. Hence, the court approved the scheme of
(such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the contrary is proved
partition submitted by the judicial administrator, in such manner as to include
The joint will being prohibited by law, its validity, in so far as the otherwise by the opposing party) in order that his testimony may be believed and
Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees.
estate of the wife is concerned, must be reexamine and adjudicated de novo. accepted by the trial court. It is enough that the qualifications enumerated in
The undivided interest of the wife should pass upon her death to her intestate Article 820 of the Civil Code are complied with, such that the soundness of his

69 | P a g e
mind can be shown by or deduced from his answers to the questions
propounded to him, that his age (18 years or more) is shown from his
appearance, testimony , or competently provedotherwise, as well as the fact that
he is not blind, deaf or dumb and that he is able to read and write to the
satisfaction of the Court, and that he has none of the disqualifications under CALUYA v. DOMINGO TESTATE ESTATE OF MALOTO v. CA
Article 821 of the Civil Code.
27 Phil. 330 158 SCRA 451
CRUZ V. VILLASOR DOCTRINE: The fact that the testator in his will mentioned a sale of real estate,
fully consummated before his death, which he had made to one of the witnesses
54 SCRA 31 DOCTRINE: A valid revocation must be done with animus revocandi or the
to his will, does not make such person an incompetent witness; nor does the fact
that he signed the will as one of the attesting witnesses render the will invalid intention to revoke coupled with an overt physical act of burning, tearing,
under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person
DOCTRINE: The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot in his presence and under his express direction.
be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge FACTS: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
Province of Ilocos Norte denying the probate of a will. FACTS: Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the
before himself his having signed the will.
petitioners Aldina Maloto- Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and the private
FACTS: The CFI of Cebu allowed the probate of the last will and testament of The learned court below based its judgment upon three grounds. The first one respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the deceased did
the late Valenti Cruz. However, the petitioner opposed the allowance of the will was that, although the testator had signed by mark, "it nowhere appeared in the not leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced an
alleging that it was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and will who had written the signature or that it had been written at his request. The intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt’s estate. While the case was
undue influence. He further alleged that the instrument was executed without the second, that the witness Antonino Pandaraoan could not really have signed the still in progress, they executed an extrajudicial settlement of Adriana’s estate
testator having been informed of its contents and finally, that it was not executed attestation clause because, at the time it was executed, he was attending a dividing it into four equal parts among themselves. They presented the same
in accordance with law. One of the witnesses, Angel Tevel Jr. was also the session of the municipal council of Piddig as a member thereof. Third: That as to and successfully gained court approval. Three years later, a document was
notary before whom the will was acknowledged. Despite the objection, the lower the other witness, Segundino Asis, the will mentioned and confirmed a sale of discovered entitled “KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento),”
court admitted the will to probate on the ground that there is substantial land to him by the testator, and he being thereby an interested party his purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. Malotos oppposed the
compliance with the legal requirements of having at least 3 witnesses even if the testimony could not be believed. probate of the Will stating among others that the said will was revoked. Two
notary public was one of them. witnesses were presented to prove that the will was burned by Adriana herself.
ISSUE: Does the fact that the testator in his will mentioned a sale of real estate
ISSUE: Can the acknowledging officer serve as witness at the same time? which he had made to one of the witnesses of the will make such person an ISSUE: Was the will validly revoked?
incompetent witness?
RUILING: No. The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot RUILING: No, the will was not validly revoked. A valid revocation must be done
be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge RUILING: No. The fact that the testator in his will mentioned a sale of real with animus revocandi or the intention to revoke coupled with an overt physical
before himself his having signed the will. To acknowledge before means to estate, fully consummated before his death, which he had made to one of the act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the
avow; to own as genuine, to assent, to admit, and “before” means in front or witnesses to his will, does not make such person an incompetent witness; nor testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction.
preceding in space or ahead of. Consequently, if the third witness were the does the fact that he signed the will as one of the attesting witnesses render the The document or papers burned by Adriana’s maid, Guadalupe, was not
notary public himself, he would have to avow, assent or admit his having signed will invalid under section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.As will readily be satisfactorily established–that such was the will of Adriana Maloto. And that the
the will in front of himself. This cannot be done because he cannot split his seen on reading this section, nothing in the will before us relative to the sale of burning was not proven to have been done under the express direction of
personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his land to Segundino Asis creates such an interest therein as falls within the Adriana. Also the burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses stated that
participation in the making of the will. provisions thereof. Indeed, no interest of any kind was created by the will in they were the only ones present at the place where papers were burned. The act
favor of Segundino Asis, nor did it convey or transfer any interest to him. It done by the witnesses could not have constituted a valid revocation of Adriana’s
simply mentioned a fact already consummated, a sale already made. Even if, Will.
however, the will had conveyed an interest to Segundino Asis, it would not have
been for that reason void. Only that clause of the will conveying an interest to
him would have been void; the remainder could have stood and would have
stood as a valid testament.

70 | P a g e
ISSUE:Can the 1918 Will still be valid despite the revocatory clause in the 1939 two different occasion and instituted his wife as his universal heir. There can
will which was disallowed for probate? therefore be no mistake as to his intention of dying testate.

RULING: YES
Testate Estate of the Deceased MARIANO MOLO Y LEGASPI. JUANA JUAN
VDA. DE MOLOvs.LUZ, GLICERIA and CORNELIO MOLO

G.R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951 A subsequent will, containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been CRISTINA SAMSON, DELFINA NAVAL, and SOR CONSOLACION
disallowed, for the reason that it was not executed in conformity with the EUGENIOvs.NAVAL ET. AL
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the making of wills,
cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will, inasmuch as said G.R. No. L-11823 February 11, 1918
revocatory clause is void.
ARAULLO, J.:

DOCTRINE: A subsequent will containing a clause revoking an earlier will must,

DOCTRINE: The failure of a new testamentary disposition upon whose validity There is no evidence which may directly indicate that the testator deliberately as a general rule, be admitted to probate before the clause of revocation can
the revocation depends, is equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive destroyed the original of the 1918 will because of his knowledge of the have any effect, and the same kind, quality, and method of proof is required for
conditions, and hence prevents the revocation of the original will. But a mere revocatory clause contained in the will he executed in 1939. The only evidence the establishment of the subsequent will as was required for the establishment
intent to make at some time a will in the place of that destroyed will not render we have is that when the first will was executed in 1918, Juan Salcedo, who of the former will.
the destruction conditional. It must appear that the revocation is dependent upon prepared it, gave the original and copies to the testator himself and apparently
the valid execution of a new will they remained in his possession until he executed his second will in 1939. And FACTS:
when the 1939 will was denied probate on November 29, 1943, and petitioner
was asked by her attorney to look for another will, she found the duplicate copy Simeona Naval executed a will on February 13, 1915 where he appointed Atty.
(Exhibit A) among the papers or files of the testator. She did not find the original. Perfecto Gabriel as executor. She died. Atty. Gabriel filed a petition for
FACTS: probation of the said will on September 20, 1915. The petition was denied.
Thereafter the nieces and legatees of the same deceased filed in the same court
for allowance as her will, another document executed by Simeona Naval on
Mariano Molo y Legaspi executed two (2) wills, one executed on June 20, 1939 This is the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. The failure of a new October 31, 1914. It was opposed by Monica, Rosa and Cristina Naval on the
(1939 Will) and another in 1918 (1918 Will). He died. He was survived by his testamentary disposition upon whose validity the revocation depends, is ground that the will, the allowance of which is asked, could not be allowed,
wife and his nieces and nephew, Luz and Cornelio Molo. Mariano’s wife filed a equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive conditions, and hence prevents because of the existence of another will of subsequent date executed during the
petition for the probate of the 1939 Will. In view of the disallowance of the the revocation of the original will. But a mere intent to make at some time a will in lifetime of the deceased. Thus, said will has been revoked by the subsequent
1939will, the widow filed another petition for the probate of the 1918 will. The the place of that destroyed will not render the destruction conditional. It must will.
oppositors filed an oppositionalleging that the said will had already been revoked appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will.
(1 Alexander, p. 751; Gardner, p. 253.) ISSUE: Did the February 1915 Will validly revoked the October 1914 Will?
under the 1939 will contending that, notwithstanding the disallowance of said
will, the revocatory clause is valid and still has the effect of nullifying the prior of RULING: NO.
1918. The oppositors contend that the testator, after executing the 1939 will, and
with full knowledge of the recovatory clause contained said will, himself We hold therefore, that even in the supposition that the destruction of the original Article 739 of the Civil Code provides that a former will is by operation of law
deliberately destroyed the original of the 1918 will, and for that reason the will will by the testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to revoked by another valid subsequent will, if the testator does not state in the
submitted by petitioner for probate in these proceedings is only a duplicate of produce it in court, such destruction cannot have the effect of defeating the prior later will his desire that the former should subsist wholly or partly. In harmony
said original. will of 1918 because of the fact that it is founded on the mistaken belief that the with this provision of substantive law, we find section 623 of the Code of Civil
will of 1939 has been validly executed and would be given due effect. The theory Procedure, which provides that no will shall be revoked, except by implication of
on which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not intend to die law, otherwise than by some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in
intestate. And this intention is clearly manifest when he executed two wills on case of wills.

71 | P a g e
In order that the will of February 13, 1915, that is, the first document presented performed by another person but under the express direction and in the It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case,
as the will of the deceased Simeona F. Naval, could have the effect of revoking presence of the testator.Of course, it goes without saying that the document does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is
that which was presented afterwards by the petitioners as executed by the same destroyed must be the will itself. coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that
deceased on October 31, 1914, that is, on a date previous to the execution of the physical destruction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by
the first, it was necessary and indispensable that the later will, that is, that first another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the
presented for allowance, should be perfect or valid, that it, executed as provided testator. Of course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be
by lay in case of wills. FACTS: the will itself.

A subsequent will containing a clause revoking an earlier will must, as a general On October 20, 1963, Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs, petitioners Aldina
rule, be admitted to probate before the clause of revocation can have any effect, Maloto-Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and the private respondents Panfilo
and the same kind, quality, and method of proof is required for the establishment Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the deceased died intestate, her heirs In this case, while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke, may be
of the subsequent will as was required for the establishment of the former will. commenced on November 4, 1963 an intestate proceeding for the settlement of conceded, for that is a state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice.
their aunt's estate. While the case was still in progress, the heir— Aldina, "Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective
But admitting that the will said to have been executed by the deceased Simeona Constancio, Panfilo, and Felino — executed an agreement of extrajudicial revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be
F. Naval on February 13, 1915, notwithstanding its inefficacy to transmit property settlement of Adriana's estate which provides for the division of the estate into accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or
for the reason that it has not been executed, according to the provisions of said four equal parts among the parties. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be considered as executed by settlement agreement to the trial court for approval which the court did on March presence and under his express direction. There is paucity of evidence to show
her in order to express her desire, appearing in one of its clauses, to revoke and 21, 1964.Three years later, a document entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA compliance with these requirements. For one, the document or papers burned by
annul any previous will of hers, as stated in clause 13, this being the argument PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," dated January 3,1940 was discovered Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all,
adduced by the appellant, Monica naval, in support of said assignment of error purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana, found inside a cabinet. much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For another, the burning was not proven to
— neither could it be maintained that, the allowance of said will having been Hence the annulment of the proceedings and a probate petition was filed by the have been done under the express direction of Adriana. And then, the burning
denied by the court on November 11, 1915, said revocatory clause subsists and devisees and legatees.It was however alleged that the documents or papers was not in her presence. Both witnesses, Guadalupe and Eladio, were one in
the intention expressed by the testratrix therein is valid and legally effective, for burned by thehousehelp of Adriana, upon her instructions was the subject will. stating that they were the only ones present at the place where the stove
the simple reason that, in order that a will may be revoked by a document, it is (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which the papers proffered as a will
necessary, according to the conclusive provisions of section 623 of said ISSUE: Does the alleged act of burning the will of Adriana constitute an effective were burned.
procedural law, that such documents be executed according to the provisions revocation of her will?
relating to will in section 618, and the will in question, or, according to the
RULING:NO.
respondent, the so-called document, was not executed according to the
provisions of said section, according to the express finding of the trial court in its The respondent appellate court in assessing the evidence presented by the
order of November 11, 1915, acquiesced in by the opponent herself, and which private respondents as oppositors in the trial court, concluded that the testimony
is now final and executory. Therefore, the disallowance of said will and the of the two witnesses who testified in favor of the will's revocation appear
Art. 830.No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:
declaration that it was not executed according to the provisions of law as to wills, "inconclusive." We share the same view. Nowhere in the records before us does
produced the effect of annulling said revocatory clause. it appear that the two witnesses, Guadalupe Vda. de Corral and Eladio Itchon,
both illiterates, were unequivocably positive that the document burned was
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO ET. AL vs.COURT OF 1. By implication of law; or indeed Adriana's will. Guadalupe, we think, believed that the papers she
APPEALS 2. By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of destroyed was the will only because, according to her, Adriana told her so.
wills: or Eladio, on the other hand, obtained his information that the burned document
G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988 3. By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the was the will because Guadalupe told him so, thus, his testimony on this point is
intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other double hearsay.
person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn
SARMIENTO, J.:
cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express
direction of the testator, the will may still be established, and the
DOCTRINE:The physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due
does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation,
coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court.
that the physical destruction be done by the testator himself. It may be

72 | P a g e
ISSUE:Was there a valid revocation of the will? BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

RULING:YES.

There was a valid revocation of the will. It may be stated that there is positive Case Digest by: LOURIE CALOPE
proof, not denied, which was accepted by the lower court, that will in question
had been cancelled in 1920. The law does not require any evidence of the
revocation or cancellation of a will to be preserved. It therefore becomes difficult DOCTRINE: This doctrine is known as that of dependent relative revocation, and
at times to prove the revocation or cancellation of wills. The fact that such is usually applied where the testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an
instrument intended to revoke a will with a present intention to make a new
cancellation or revocation has taken place must either remain unproved of be testamentary disposition as a substitute... for the old, and the new disposition is
inferred from evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be not made or, if made, fails of effect for some reason. The doctrine is not limited
FRANCISCO GAGOvs.CORNELIO MAMUYAC ET. AL found. Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the to the existence of some other document, however, and has been applied where
possession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of a will was destroyed as a consequence of a mistake of law
G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927 other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The same
presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the
JOHNSON, J.: will and it cannot be found after his death. It will not be presumed that such will FACTS:
has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of
Mariano Molo y Legaspi died on January 24, 1941, in the municipality of Pasay,
the testator. The force of the presumption of cancellation or revocation by the
province of Rizal, without leaving any forced heir either in the descending or
testator, while varying greatly, being weak or strong according to the ascending line. He was survived, however, by his wife, the herein petitioner
DOCTRINE:Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the circumstances, is never conclusive, but may be overcome by proof that the will Juana Juan Vda. de Molo, and by his nieces... and nephew, the oppositors-
possession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it. appellants, Luz, Gliceria and Cornelio, all surnamed Molo,who were the
other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The same legitimate children of CandidoMolo y Legaspi, deceased brother of the testator.
presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the Mariano Molo y Legaspi left two wills, one executed on August 17, 1918, (Exhibit
will and it cannot be found after his death. It will not be presumed that such will A) and another... executed on June 20, 1939, (Exhibit I). The latter will contain a
has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of In view of the fact that the original will of 1919 could not be found after the death clause which expressly revokes the will executed in 1918.
the testator. of the testator Miguel Mamuyac and in view of the positive proof that the same
On February 7, 1941, Juana Juan Vda. de Molo filed in the Court of First
had been cancelled, we are forced to the conclusion that the conclusions of the Instance of Rizal a petition, which was docketed as special proceeding No. 8022,
lower court are in accordance with the weight of the evidence. In a proceeding to seeking the probate of the will executed by the deceased on June 20, 1939.
probate a will the burden of proofs is upon the proponent clearly to establish not
FACTS: only its execution but its existence. Having proved its execution by the There being no opposition, the will was probated. However, upon petition filed by
the herein oppositors, the order of the court admitting the will to probate was set
proponents, the burden is on the contestant to show that it has been revoked. In
Miguel Mamuyac (Petitioner) executed a last will and testament (Exhibit A) on aside and the case was reopened. After hearing, at which both parties presented
a great majority of instances in which wills are destroyed for the purpose of their evidence, the court... rendered decision denying the probate of said will on
July 27, 1918. He died on January 2, 1922. Francisco Gago filed a pettion for
revoking them there is no witness to the act of cancellation or destruction and all the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the same was executed in
the probation of that will. The probation was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac,
evidence of its cancellation perishes with the testator. Copies of wills should be accordance with law,... In view of the disallowance of the will executed on June
Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac (Respondents).The 20, 1939, the widow on February 24, 1944, filed another petition for the probate
admitted by the courts with great caution. When it is proven, however, by proper
petition for the probation of said will was denied upon the ground that the of the will executed .by the deceased on August 17, 1918, which was docketed
testimony that a will was executed in duplicate and each copy was executed with
deceased executed a new will and testament on April 16, 1919 (Exhibit 1). as special proceeding No. 56, in the same court. Again, the same... oppositors
all the formalities and requirements of the law, then the duplicate may be
filed an opposition to the petition, based on three grounds: (1) that petitioner is
admitted in evidence when it is made to appear that the original has been lost now estopped from seeking the probate of the will of 1918; (2) that said will has
Petitioner secured for the probation of the new will.Respondents opposed
and was not cancelled or destroyed by the testator. (Borromeo vs. Casquijo, not been executed in the manner required by law and (3) that the will has been
alleging (a) that the said will is a copy of the second will and testament executed
G.R. No. L-26063.) subsequently revoked.
by the said Miguel Mamuyac; (b) that the same had been cancelled and revoked
during the lifetime of Miguel Mamuyac and (c) that the said will was not the last But before the second petition could be heard, the battle for liberation came and
will and testament of the deceased Miguel Mamuyac. The probation of the new TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED MARIANO MOLO Y LEGASPLJUANA the records of the case were destroyed. Consequently, a petition for
will was denied upon the ground that the same had been cancelled and revoked JUAN VDA. DE MOLO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. LIRA, GLICEKIA reconstitution was filed, but the same was found to be impossible because
in the year 1920. AND COENELIO MOLO, OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS. neither petitioner nor oppositors could produce the... copies required for its
[ G. R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951] reconstitution. As a result, petitioner filed a new petition on September 14, 1946,

73 | P a g e
similar to the one destroyed, to which the oppositors filed an opposition based on "The rule is established that where the act of destruction is connected with the We find, that the second will Exhibit 1 executed by the deceased is not clothed
the same grounds as those contained in their former opposition. making of another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant with all the necessary requisites to constitute a sufficient revocation.
the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition
ISSUES: Was the alleged will of 1918 deliberately revoked by Molo himself? intended to be substituted, the... revocation will be conditional and dependent But according to the statute governing the subject in this jurisdiction, the
upon the. efficacy of the new disposition.; and if, for any reason, the new will destruction of a will with animo revocandi constitutes, in itself, a sufficient
RULING: NO
intended to be made as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the revocation.
There is no evidence which may directly indicate that the testator deliberately original will remains in full force." (Gardner, pp. 232, 233.)
destroyed the original of the 1918, will because of his knowledge of the The intention of revoking the will is manifest from the established fact that the
"This is the doctrine oE dependent relative revocation. The failure of the new testator was anxious to withdraw or change the provisions he had made in his
revocatory clause contained in the will he executed in 1939. The only evidence
testamentary disposition, upon Whose validity the revocation depends, is first will. This fact is disclosed by the testator's own statements to the witnesses
we have is that when the first will was... executed in 1918, Juan Salcedo, who
equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive condition, and hence prevents Canto and the Mother Superior of... the Hospital where he was confined.
prepared it, gave the original and copies to the testator himself and apparently
the revocation of the original will. But a mere... intent to make at some time a will
they remained in his possession until he executed his second will in. 1939. And
in place of that destroyed will not render the destruction conditional. It must The original will herein presented for probate having been destroyed with animo
when the 1939 will was denied probate on November 29, 1943, and petitioner
appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will." revocandi, cannot now be probated as the will and last testament of Jesus de
was... asked by her attorney to look for another will, she found the duplicate copy
(1 Alexander, p. 751; Gardner, p. 233.) Leon. Judgment is affirmed with costs against the petitioner.
(Exhibit A) among the papers or files of the testator. She did not find the original.
We hold, therefore, that even in the supposition that the destruction of the
If it can be inferred that the testatordeliberately destroyed the 1918 will because ERNESTO M. GUEVARA VS. ROSARIO GUEVARA and her husband PEDRO
original will by the testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to
of his knowledge of the revocatory clause of the 1939 will, and it is true that he BUISON
produce it in court, such destruction cannot have the effect of defeating the prior
gave a duplicate copy thereof to his wife, the herein petitioner, the mostlogical 74 Phil 479 December 29, 1943
will of 1918 because of the... fact that it is founded on the mistaken belief that the
step for the testator to take... is to recall said duplicate copy in order that it may" OZAETA, J.:
will of 1939 has been validly executed and would be given due effect. The theory
likewise be destroyed. But this was not done as shown by the fact that said
on which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not intend to die
duplicate copy remained in the possession of petitioner. It is possible that
intestate. And this intention is clearly manifest when he... executed two wills on Case Digest by: LOURIE CALOPE
because of the long lapse of twenty-one (21) years since the first will... was
two different occasions and instituted his wife as his universal heir. There can
executed, the original of the will had been misplaced or lost, and forgetting that
therefore be no mistake as to his intention of dying testate.
there was a copy, the testator deemed it wise to execute another will be
containing exactly the same testamentary dispositions. Whatever may be the IN MATTER OF ESTATE OF JESUS DE LEON. IGNACIA DIAZ v. ANA DE
conclusion we may draw from this chain of... circumstances, the stubborn fact is LEON DOCTRINE: No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved
that there is no direct evidence of voluntary or deliberate destruction of the first GR No. 17714, May 31, 1922 and allowed in the proper court.
will by the testator. This matter cannot be left to mere inference or conjecture. Romualdez, J.
Granting for the sake of argument that the earlier will was voluntarily destroyed FACTS:
by the testator after the execution of the second will, which revoked the first, Case Digest by: LOURIE CALOPE
could there be any doubt, under this theory, that said earlier will was destroyed In August 26, 1931, Victorino Guevara executed a will wherein he
by the testator in the honest... belief that it was no longer necessary because he made various bequests to his wife, stepchildren, wife in the 2nd marriage. He
DOCTRINE:The destruction of a will with animo revocandi constitutes, in itself, a
had expressly revoked it in his will of 1939? In other words, can we not say that has a legitimate son Ernesto and a natural daughter Rosario. Therein, he
sufficient revocation.
the destruction of the earlier will was but the necessary consequence of the acknowledged Rosario as his natural daughter.In 1933, Victorino died but his
testator's belief that the revocatory clause contained in the... subsequent will was last will was never presented for probate nor was there any settlement
FACTS:
valid and the latter would be given effect? If such is the case, then it is our proceeding initiated. It appeared that only his son Ernesto possessed the land
opinion that the earlier will can still be admitted to probate under the principle of which he adjudicated to himself. While Rosario who had the will in her custody,
From the evidence submitted in this case, it appears that the testator, shortly
"dependent relative revocation". did nothing to invoke the acknowledgment, as well as the devise given to her.
after the execution of the first will in question, asked that the same be returned to
"This doctrine is known as that of dependent relative revocation, and is usually him. The instrument was returned to the testator who ordered his servant to tear
the document. This was done... in his presence and before a nurse who testified Subsequently, Rosario filed an action for the recovery of her legitime
applied where the testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument
intended to revoke a will with a present intention to make a new testamentary to this effect. After some time, the testator, being asked by Dr. Cornelio Mapa from Ernesto, a portion of a large parcel of land invoking the acknowledgment
disposition as a substitute... for the old, and the new disposition is not made or, if about the will, said that it had been destroyed. contained in the will and based on the assumption that the decedent died
made, fails of effect for some reason. The doctrine is not limited to the existence intestate because his will was not probated. She alleged that the disposition in
of some other document, however, and has been applied where a will was ISSUES:
favor of Ernesto should be disregarded.
destroyed as a consequence of a mistake of law * * *." (68 C. J. p.
Was the will executed by Jesus de Leon, now deceased, was revoked by him.
The lower court and the Court of Appeals sustained Rosario's theory.
799).
RULING: NO
ISSUE:

74 | P a g e
Is probate necessary for Rosario to be able to claim her legitime as Spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a one-half share would be assigned to the spouses Pedro Gallanosa and Corazon
an acknowledged natural daughter? joint last will and testament where they willed that their two(2) parcels of land be Grecia, the reason being that Pedro, Tecla's son by her first marriage, grew up
given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece and that while each of them are living, under the care of Florentino: he had treated Pedro as his foster child, and Pedro
RULING:NO he/she will continue to enjoy the fruits of the lands mentioned. When Bernabe has rendered services to Florentino and Tecla.
died, Gervasia submitted the will for probated. By order, the Court admitted for
Rosario's contention violates procedural law and considered an probate of the said will but only for the part of Bernabe in Oct. 31, 1939. Opposition on the probate of the will was filed by the testator’s legal heirs.
However, the judged admitted the probate of the will for the failure of the heirs to
attempt to circumvent the last will and testament of the decedent. The
However, Gervasia died, another petition for probate was instituted adduce evidence in support of their opposition.
presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and its allowance is
by Manuela, but because she and her attorney failed to appear in court, the
essential and indispensable to its efficacy.Suppression of the will is contrary to As basis of their complaint, they alleged that the Gallanosa spouses, through
petition was dismissed. When the same was heard, the CFI declared the will
law and public policy for without probate, the right of a person to dispose of his void for being executed contrary to the prohibition on joint wills. But on appeal, fraud and deceit, caused the execution and simulation of the document
property by will may be rendered nugatory. the order was reversed. purporting to be the last will and testament of Florentino Hitosis.

In the instant case, there is no showing that the various legatees On 1967, or 28 years after the probate of the will, the testator’s heirs filed an
ISSUE: Is the second petition for probate on the will valid? action for annulment of the will of Florentino Hitosis and for the recovery of 61
other than the present litigants had received their respective legacies or that
they had knowledge of the existence and of the provisions of the will. Their right parcels of land. They alleged that the Gallanosa spouses, through fraud trial
under the will cannot be disregarded, nor may those rights be obliterated on RUILING: NO. deceit, caused the execution trial simulation of the document purporting to be
account of the failure or refusal of the custodian of the will to present it to the the last will trial testament of Florentino Hitosis.
court for probate.Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises any The court ruled that the will probated in 1939 was
question as to the authenticity and due execution of the will, none of the heirs erroneous.However, because it was probated by a court of
may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance with that will without first competent jurisdiction, it has conclusive effect and a final judgment rendered ISSUE:
securing its allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world. But this is Will the action for annulment of the will of Florentino prosper?
provides that “no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved only with respect to the estate of the husband and cannot affect the estate of the
and allowed in the proper court” and, second, because the probate of a will, wife; considering that a joint will is a separate will of each testator.The joint will RULING: NO.
which is a proceeding in rem, cannot be dispensed with the substituted by any being prohibited by law, its validity, in so far as the estate of the wife is
other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending against public policy concerned, must be reexamine and adjudicated de novo. The undivided interest Action instituted in 1967 for the annulment of a last will and testament duly
designed to effectuate the testator’s right to dispose of his property by will in of the wife should pass upon her death to her intestate heirs and not to the probated way back in 1939 will not prosper.
accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs and legatees under the testamentary heir. Thus, as to the disposition of the wife, the will cannot be
will thru the means provided by law, among which are the publication and the given effect. What the plaintiffs seek is the “annulment” of a last will and testament duly
personal notices to each and all of said heirs and legatees. Nor may the court probated in 1939 by the lower court itself. The proceeding is coupled with an
approve and allow the will presented in evidence in such an action for partition, action to recover the lands adjudicated to the defendants by the same court in
which is one in personam, any more than it could decree the registration under GALLANOSA VS. ARCANGEL 1943 by virtue of the probated will, which action is a resuscitation of the
the Torrens system of the land involved in an ordinary action for reinvindicacion G.R. NO. L-2930, June 21, 1978 complaint of the same parties that the same court dismissed in 1952. It is evident
or partition. Aquino, J: from the allegations of the complaint and from defendants’ motion to dismiss that
plaintiffs’ 1967 action is barred by res judicata, a double-barrelled defense, and
Digestedby: CASTOR, JESSETTE by prescription, acquisitive and extinctive, or by what are known in the jus civile
DELA CERNA VS POTOT and the jus gentium as usucapio, longi temporis possesio and praescriptio.
DOCTRINE: An action for annulment of the will is not allowed. The Supreme
12 SCRA 576, DECEMBER 23, 1964 Court said, to contest a will, an opposition should have been filed in the probate Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the “annulment” of a will. In
proceedings and to pursue this application in the appellate court in case the will order that a will may take effect, it has to be probated, legalized or allowed in the
REYES, J.B.L., J. is admitted to probate. Otherwise, the decree of probate becomes conclusive as proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of the will is mandatory (Art. 838,
to formal validity and due execution of the will. Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, formerly sec. 1, Rule 76, Rules of Court; Guevara vs.
Case Digest by: LOURIE CALOPE Guevara, 74 Phil. 479; Guevara vs. Guevara, 98 Phil. 249). The testamentary
FACTS: proceeding is a special proceeding for settlement of the testators estate. A
DOCTRINE: Will probated in a court of competent jurisdictionhas conclusive special proceeding is distinct and different from an ordinary action (Secs. 1 and
effect and a final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is Florentino Hitosis executed a will in the Bicol dialect on June 19, 1938 when he 2, Rule 2 and sec. 1, Rule 72. Rules of Court).
binding upon the whole world. was eighty years old. He died on May 26, 1939 and as a childless widower, he
was survived by his brother, Leon Hitosis.  The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal
FACTS: validity of the will (Sec. 625, Act 190, sec. 1, Rule 76, now sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules
Florentino bequeathed his one-half share in the conjugal estate to his second of Court; Last par. of art. 828, Civil Code). That means that the testator was of
wife, Tecla Dollentas, and, should Tecla predecease him, as was the case, his sound and disposing mind at the time when he executed the will and was not

75 | P a g e
acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; that the will was signed that while Sofia J. Nepomuceno has with my full The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to
by him in the presence of the required number of witnesses, and that the will is knowledge and consent, did comport and represent myself be intrinsically void. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic
genuine and is not a forgery. Accordingly, these facts cannot again be as her own husband, in truth and in fact, as well as in the validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should
questioned in a subsequent proceeding, not even in a criminal action for the eyes of the law, I could not bind her to me in the holy meet the issue.
forgery of the will. After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the bonds of matrimony because of my aforementioned
voluntariness of its execution cannot be raised anymore previous marriage; If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained.
On the other hand, the 1943 decree of adjudication rendered by the trial court in On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted. And for aught that appears in
the testate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Florentino Hitosis, Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last Will and the record, in the event of probate or if the court rejects the will, probability exists
having been rendered in a proceeding in rem, is, under the abovequoted section Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo. The legal wife of the testator, Rufina that the case will come up once again before us on the same issue of the
49(a), binding upon the whole world. Gomez and her children filed an opposition alleging inter alia that the execution intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. Result: waste of time, effort, expense, plus
of the Will was procured by undue and improper influence on the part of the added anxiety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief
petitioner; that at the time of the execution of the Will, the testator was already that we might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of
NEPOMUCENO VS. CA very sick and that petitioner having admitted her living in concubinage with the the will in question. After all, there exists a justiciable controversy crying for
G.R. NO. L-62950, October 9, 1985 testator, she is wanting in integrity and thus, letters testamentary should not be solution.
Gutierrez, Jr., J: issued to her. BALTAZAR VS LAXA
G.R. NO. 174489, April 11, 2012
Digestedby: CASTOR, JESSETTE The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that as the testator Del Castillo, J.:
admitted in his Will to cohabiting with the petitioner from December 1952 until
his death on July 16, 1974, the Will's admission to probate will be an Idle Digestedby: CASTOR, JESSETTE
DOCTRINE: The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it exercise because on the face of the Will, the invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is
appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical considerations demand that the evident. DOCTRINE: It is incumbent upon those who oppose the probate of a will to
intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court clearly establish that the decedent was not of sound and disposing mind at the
should meet the issue. The petitioner submits that the validity of the testamentary provision in her favor time of the execution of said will. Otherwise, the state is duty-bound to give full
cannot be passed upon and decided in the probate proceedings but in some effect to the wishes of the testator to distribute his estate in the manner provided
FACTS: other proceedings because the only purpose of the probate of a Will is to in his will so long as it is legally tenable.
establish conclusively as against everyone that a Will was executed with the
Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974. He left a last Will and Testament duly signed formalities required by law and that the testator has the mental capacity to FACTS:
by him at the end of the Will on page three and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 execute the same.
and 4 thereof in the presence of 3 witnesses (Celestina, Myrna and Leandro), Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and testament
who in turn, affixed their signatures below the attestation clause and on the left ISSUE: entitled “Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala”(Will) in the
margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 of the Will in the presence of the testator and of each Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. Childless and without any brothers
other and the Notary Public. The will was acknowledged before the Notary Can the probate court after declaring the Will of deceased Martin validly drawn or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her properties to respondent Lorenzo R.
Public Romeo Escareal by the testator and his 3 attesting witnesses. passed upon the instrinsic validity of the testamentary provision? Laxa (Lorenzo) and his wife Corazon F. Laxa and their children Luna Lorella
The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina Gomez Laxa and Katherine Ross Laxa.
and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free portion RULING: YES.
thereof to herein petitioner. The Will reads in part: More than four years after the death of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000, Lorenzo
The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the court's area of inquiry is filed a petition for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of
Art. III. That I have the following legal heirs, namely: my limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will. The Letters of Administration in his favour. There being no opposition to the petition
aforementioned legal wife, Rufina Gomez, and our son, rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, after its due publication, the RTC issued an Order allowing Lorenzo to present
Oscar, and daughter Carmelita, both surnamed Jugo, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and evidence on June 22, 2000.
whom I declare and admit to be legally and properly pass upon certain provisions of the Will.
entitled to inherit from me; that while I have been The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar (Antonio)
estranged from my above-named wife for so many years, I The fact that the probate court declared a devise made in a will null and void will filed an opposition to Lorenzo’s petition.  Antonio averred that the properties
cannot deny that I was legally married to her or that we be sustained where no useful purpose will be served by requiring the filing of a subject of Paciencia’s Will belong to Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his
have been separated up to the present for reasons and separate civil action and restricting the court only to the issue of extrinsic validity predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to
justifications known fully well by them: of the will. We are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual provisions of the Lorenzo.
will, which are of dubious legality, and because of the motion to withdraw the
Art. IV. That since 1952, 1 have been living, as man and petition f or probate (which the lower court assumed to have been filed with the Petitioners filed an Amended Opposition asking the RTC to deny the probate of
wife with one Sofia J. Nepomuceno, whom I declare and petitioner's authorization), the trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's Paciencia’s Will on the following grounds:
avow to be entitled to my love and affection, for all the intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. 1. the Will was not executed and attested to in accordance with the
things which she has done for me, now and in the past; requirements of the law;
76 | P a g e
2. that Paciencia was mentally incapable to make a Will at the time of its Digestedby: CASTOR, JESSETTE and assures the legitimacy of documents granted to me
execution; that she was forced to execute the Will under duress or by buyers consists of two articles; It contains sixteen
influence of fear or threats; provisions and is written on three pages;
3. that the execution of the Will had been procured by undue and DOCTRINE: Probate of wills is mandatory. It is not the parties interested in one
improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo or by some other way or another in a matter, who can confer or remove jurisdiction and authority xxx xxx xxx 
persons for his benefit; to the Tribunals to resolve and decide what the same law wants to be resolved
4. that the signature of Paciencia on the Will was forged; and decided.
5. that assuming the signature to be genuine, it was obtained through Cebu, Cebu, IF, today November 27, 1935.
fraud or trickery; and
6. that Paciencia did not intend the document to be her Will.   FACTS: (Signed)

The trial court gave considerable weight to the testimony of Rosie and Father Eleuterio Pilapil, died on December 6, 1935. No testament was submitted ELEUTERIO Pilapil 
concluded that at the time Paciencia signed the Will, she was no longer after his death, at least until the beginning of February 1939, his brother Calixto
possessed of sufficient reason or strength of mind to have testamentary Pilapil promoted to file intestacy No. 399 to request that he be appointed Testador 
capacity. administrator of the relict assets of him.
At the end of them (exhibits A and C), there is this
On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and granted the probate of the The will contains the following provisions: testimony clause:
Will of Paciencia since the oppositors in the probate proceedings were not able
to overcome the presumption that every person is of sound mind. Further, no I, Eleuterio Pilapil, Priest of the Roman Catholic
concrete circumstances or events were given to prove the allegation that Who I read: 
Apostolic Church, sixty-eight years old, a native of
Paciencia was tricked or forced into signing the Will. Liloan, currently Cura Parroco de la Parroquia de
Mualboal, Province of Cebu, IF, enjoying health and in HEALTH, 
ISSUE: FULL USE OF MY MENTAL FACULTIES, I hereby
Is the probate of the will proper? publish, declare and grant the following as MY We who sign below, state: That the pre-insertion
TESTAMENT AND LAST WILL:  Testament and Last Will has been signed, declared and
sworn by the Testament, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil in the
RULING: YES. presence of all of us and at the request of said
ART. FIRST: I institute and appoint Mr. Adriano
Mendoza, my political nephew, married, of legal age and Testament, we sign each of us in the presence of us,
neighbor of the Municipality of Liloan, Province of Cebu, here in Cebu, Cebu, IF, today November 27, 1935.
It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no matter how forceful, if not based on
concrete and substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the Court to uphold IF, ALBACEA-EXECUTOR of this My Testament and
said allegations. Furthermore, “a purported will is not to be denied legalization on Last Will: Understanding , That in case of impossibility, (Signed)
dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will negligence or other cause with which it is prohibited to
be shaken to its foundation, for even if a will has been duly executed in fact, enforce this my Will and Last Will, by bail, I have and WENCESLAO PILAPIL  MARCELO PILAPIL EUGENIO K. PILAPIL
whether x x x it will be probated would have to depend largely on the attitude of order that it be replaced in the office of executor- Witness Witness Witness
those interested in the estate of the deceased.” executor of this my Will and Last Will, by my Cousin,
Jose Cabatingan, Married, of legal age, resident of the
The very existence of the Will is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed Municipality of Mualboal, Province of Cebu, IF, who will ISSUE:
testatrix has willed that her estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, be in charge and will have these following provisions
and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given met: Can the probate of the will be waived by express provision of the
full effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby. This, testator contained in his will?
coupled with Lorenzo’s established relationship with Paciencia, the evidence and xxx xxx xxx 
the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, as opposed to the total lack of RULING: NO.
evidence presented by petitioners apart from their self-serving testimonies, 2. I provide and order that this my Will and Last Will not
constrain us to tilt the balance in favor of the authenticity of the Will and its The testator's disposition that his "Testament and Last Will not be aired in the
be aired in the Court, since this Testament and Last Will
allowance for probate. Court" cannot dispossess the Courts of his authority to determine whether his
simply confirms, affirms and assures the legitimacy of
referred testament is legalizable or not. It is not the parties interested in one way
the documents of sale of my goods;
INRE: PILAPIL or another in a matter, who can confer or remove jurisdiction and authority to the
G.R. NO. L-47931, June 27, 1941 Tribunals to resolve and decide what the same law wants to be resolved and
Diaz, J.: xxx xxx xxx  ART. SECOND: I hereby state that this My decided.
Testament and Last Will, which corroborates, affirms

77 | P a g e
It should be borne in mind that the law mandates, that the wills granted by a instituted intestate proceedings. Respondent Bernardo then filed a Motion to By virtue of the dismissal of the Testate Case, the determination of
testator be delivered to the Court, after he dies, by the person to whom his Dismiss the Testate Case on the ground that the holographic will was null and that controversial issue has not been thoroughly considered.  We gather from
custody has been entrusted, in order to determine whether his legalization and void because he, as the only compulsory heir, was preterited and, therefore, the assailed Order of the trial Court that its conclusion was that respondent
you can at the same time dispose of your assets as mandated therein; or if by intestacy should ensue. In her opposition, Soledad averred in a that the court’s Bernardo has been preterited.  We are of opinion, however, that from the face of
contract, he must declare himself intestate dead, for not being able to legalize area of inquiry is limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will, and Bernardo the Will, that conclusion is not indubitable.
the one that would have granted. (Arts. 626 to 631, Law No. 190.) In addition, was effectively disinherited and not preterited. CFI Dismissed the Testate Case
the testator being not a lawyer, it is not surprising that he has consigned in his and appointed Bernardo as administrator of the estate. As held in the case of Vda. de Precilla vs. Narciso:
will the prohibition that, - using his own words -, "vent in the Court". "x xx it is as important a matter of public interest that a purported will is not
ISSUE: denied legalization on dubious grounds.  Otherwise, the very institution of
Whether the dismissal of the testate proceeding is valid? testamentary succession will be shaken to its foundation.  x xx"
Coming now to the procedural aspect, suffice it to state that in view of our finding
HELD: that Q Judge had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in dismissing the Testate
No. The probate of a Will is mandatory. "No will shall pass either real Case.
or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the
Rules of Court." The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy
requires it, because unless the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the
whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be
rendered nugatory. Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic
validity. Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of the will
cannot be entertained in Probate proceeding because its only purpose is merely
to determine if the will has been executed in accordance with the requirements
RAFAEL E. MANINANG AND SOLEDAD L. MANINANG VS. COURT OF of the law.
APPEALS
G.R. No. L-57848 The Nuguid and the Balanay cases provide the exception rather than
June 19, 1982 the rule.  The intrinsic validity of the Wills in those cases was passed upon even SPOUSES RICARDO PASCUALVS. COURT OF APPEALS
PONENTE: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: before probate because "practical considerations" so demanded.  Moreover, for G.R. No. 115925
the parties in the Nuguid case, the "meat of the controversy" was the intrinsic
validity of the Will; in fact, the parties in that case "shunted aside the question of August 15, 2003
Doctrine:No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved
and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. whether or not the Will should be allowed probate." Not so in the case before us PONENTE: CARPIO, J.
now where the probate of the Will is insisted on by petitioners and a resolution
Facts: on the extrinsic validity of the Will demanded.
On May 21, 1977, ClemenciaAseneta, single, died at the Manila DOCTRINE:No will shall pass either real or personal property unless probated.
Sanitarium Hospital at age 81.  She left a holographic will, the pertinent portions Moreover, in the Nuguid case, this Court ruled that the Will was
of which are quoted hereunder: intrinsically invalid as it completely preterited the parents of the testator.  In the
instant case, a crucial issue that calls for resolution is whether under the terms FACTS:
"x xx of the decedent's Will, private respondent had been preterited or disinherited, Consolacion andRemediosare the niece and granddaughter,
"It is my will that all my real properties located in Manila, Makati, Quezon City, and if the latter, whether it was a valid disinheritance.  Preterition and
Albay and Legaspi City and all my personal properties shall be inherited upon disinheritance are two diverse concepts. respectively, of the late Canuto. CANUTO and 11 other individuals, were co-
my death by Dra. Soledad L. Maninang with whose family I have lived owners of a parcel of land.
continuously for around the last 30 years now.  Dra. Maninang and her husband The effects of preterition and disinheritance are also totally different.
Preterition under Article 854 of the New Civil Code 'shall annul the institution of CANUTO had the lot 2 surveyed and subdivided into and were placed under
Pamping have been kind to me.  x xx I have found peace and happiness with
them even during the time when my sisters were still alive and especially now heir.' This annulment is in toto, unless in the will there are, in addition, CANUTO's name.CANUTO and CONSOLACION executed a Kasulatan ng
when I am now being troubled by my nephew Bernardo and niece Salvacion.  I testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies.  In ineffective
disinheritance under Article 918 of the same Code, such disinheritance shall BilihangTuluyan. Under the KASULATAN, CANUTO sold his 10/70 share in Lot 2
am not incompetent as Nonoy would like me to appear.  I know what is right and
wrong.  I can decide for myself.  I do not consider Nonoy as my adopted son.  also 'annul the institution of heirs', but only 'insofar as it may prejudice the in favor of CONSOLACION for P2,250.00. The KASULATAN, notarized.
He has made me do things against my will." person disinherited', which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition (III
CONSOLACION immediately took possession. She later declared the land for
"x xx" Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1961 Edition, p. 172).  Better stated yet,
in disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the taxation purposes and paid the corresponding real estate taxes.On 1968, the
On June 9, 1977, petitioner Soledad Maninang filed a Petition for disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived." surviving children of CANUTO, namely, Felicidad and Beatriz, executed a joint
probate of the Will of the decedent. Respondent Bernardo Aseneta, who, as the
adopted son, claims to be the sole heir of decedent ClemenciaAseneta, affidavit affirming the said sale. On 1988, REMEDIOS filed a complaint against

78 | P a g e
CONSOLACION and her spouse Ricardo Pascualfor "Annulment or Cancellation complaint against Mercado for falsification/forgery of the will probated. Mercado he executed the will, and was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue
of Transfer Certificate [of Title] and Damages." REMEDIOS claimed that she is was arrested. The complaint was subsequently dismissed at the instance of de influence, and that the will is genuine and not a forgery. Section 625 of our
the owner of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E because CATALINA devised these lots to her Leon herself. Same intervenor charged Mercado with the same offense, this Code of Civil Procedure was taken almost bodily from the Statutes of Vermont
in CATALINA's last will and testament. time in the justice of the peace court. Mercado was arrested again. The statute as to the conclusiveness of the due execution of a probated which
complaint was likewise dismissed, again at de Leon’s instance. Upon due provides that no will shall pass either real or personal estate, unless it is proved
ISSUE: investigation, the case was dismissed on the ground that the will alleged to have and allowed in the probate court, or by appeal in the county or supreme court;
Whether Consolacion’s claim of ownership is valid? been falsified has already been probated and that there was no evidence that and the probate of a will of real or personal estate shall be conclusive as to its
Mercado had forged the signature of the testatrix but that, on the contrary, due execution.
HELD: satisfactory evidence was presented that established the authenticity of said
No. REMEDIOS anchored her claim over the lots on the devise of signature. Rosario Basa de Leon and other intervenors moved ex parte to The probate of a will in this jurisdiction is a proceeding in rem. The
these lots to her under CATALINA's LAST WILL. However, the court found that reopen the probate proceedings, alleging lack of jurisdiction to probate the will provision of notice by Publication as a prerequisite to the allowance of a will is
the probate court did not issue any order admitting the LAST WILL to probate. and to close the proceedings. This motion was denied, having been filed ex constructive notice to the whole world, and when probate is granted, the
REMEDIOS does not contest this finding. Indeed, during the trial, REMEDIOS parte. The provincial fiscal moved for reinvestigation of the criminal case for judgment of the court is binding upon everybody, even against the State. A
admitted that Special Proceedings Case No. C-208 is still pending.Article 838 of forgery before the Pampanga CFI. The motion was granted, and for the fourth judgment admitting a will to probate cannot be attacked collaterally although the
the Civil Code states that "[N]o will shall pass either real or personal property time, Mercado was arrested. The reinvestigation dragged on for almost a year. will was forged; and a payment to the executor named therein of a debt due the
unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court." This Intervenors’ motion was appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decedent will discharge the same, notwithstanding the spurious character of the
Court has interpreted this provision to mean, "until admitted to probate, [a will] probate court’s order of denial. Mercado moved to dismiss the case, claiming instrument probated. It has also been held that, upon an indictment for forging a
has no effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder."REMEDIOS again that the will alleged to have been forged had already been probated and, will, the probate of the paper in question is conclusive evidence in the
anchors her right in filing this suit on her being a devisee of Catalina’s last will. further, that the order probating the will is conclusive as to the authenticity and defendants’ favor of its genuine character.
However, since the probate court has not admitted CATALINA's LAST WILL, due execution thereof. The CFI overruled the motion. Mercado thus filed a
REMEDIOS has not acquired any right under the LAST WILL. REMEDIOS is petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals, which Therefore, as the court of last resort, having in view the needed
thus without any cause of action either to seek reconveyance of Lot Nos. 2-A promptly denied same. HENCE, THIS PETITION. stability of property rights and the public interest in general. The aggrieved party
and 2-E or to enforce an implied trust over these lots. may file an application for relief with the proper court within a reasonable time,
ANTILANO G. MERCADO vs. ALFONSO SANTOS ISSUE: but in no case exceeding six months after said court has rendered the judgment
G.R. No. 45629 Whether the probate of the will of his deceased wife is a bar to of probate, on the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
September 22, 1938 Mercado’s criminal prosecution for the alleged forgery of the said will? neglect.
PONENTE: LAUREL, J.:
That in view of the provisions of sections 306, 333 and 625 of our
DOCTRINE: The probate of a will by the probate court having jurisdiction thereof HELD: Code of Civil Procedure, criminal action will not lie in this jurisdiction against the
is usually considered as conclusive as to its due execution and validity Yes. In view of the provisions of Secs. 306, 333 and 625 of the Code forger of a will which had been duly admitted to probate by a court of competent
of Civil Procedure, a criminal action will not lie against the forger of a will which jurisdiction.
FACTS: had been duly admitted to probate by a court of competent jurisdiction. The RUFINA LUY LIM vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner Antilano Mercado filed a petition for the probate of the will probate of a will by the probate court having jurisdiction thereof is usually G.R. No. 124715
of his deceased wife. The will was admitted to probate. However, Rosario Basa considered as conclusive as to its due execution and validity, and is also January 24, 2000
de Leon filed with the justice of the peace court of San Fernando, Pampanga, a conclusive that the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time when PONENTE: BUENA, J.:

79 | P a g e
Ponente:GUERRERO, J.
regards said properties is to determine whether they should or should not be
DOCTRINE: A probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the Digested by: Ralph dela Cruz
intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of administrator. If there is no dispute, well and good; but if there is, then the
the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties parties, the administrator and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary
action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the DOCTRINE:
FACTS: probate court cannot do so.
The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings relative to
Petitioner RufinaLuy Lim is the surviving spouse of late Pastor Y. Lim
question of testamentary capacity of a person.
whose estate is the subject of probate proceedings in special proceedings Q-95- In CUIZON vs. RAMOLETE, where similarly as in the case at bar, the
23334 entitled, “In re: Intestate Estate Of Pastor Y. Lim RufinaLuy Lim, property subject of the controversy was duly registered under the Torrens
represented by George Luy, petitioner.” Private respondents auto truck system, We categorically stated: . . . Having been apprised of the fact that the FACTS:
corporation, alliance marketing corporation, speed distributing inc, active property in question was in the possession of third parties and more important,
Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Dona FlorentinaRella together with all their living
distributing inc, and action company are corporations formed, organized and covered by a transfer certificate of title issued in the name of such third parties,
children, Francisca Alsua-Betts, Pablo Alsua, FernandoAlsua and AmparoAlsua
existing under Philippine laws and which owned real properties covered under the respondent court should have denied the motion of the respondent De Buenviaje, entered into a duly notarized agreement, over the then present
the Torrens system. On June 11, 1994, Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. Herein administrator and excluded the property in question from the inventory of the and existing properties of the Spouses Don Jesus and Dona Florentina.
petitioner, as surviving spouse and duly represented by her nephew, George property of the estate. It had no authority to deprive such third persons of their
In the provision of said extra judicial partition, each of the four children was
Luy filed on March 17, 1995, a joint petition for the administration of the estate of possession and ownership of the property.
allotted with the properties considered as their share in the estate or as
Pastor Y. Lim before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Private inheritance left by the deceased where they will be the absolute owner of the
respondents corporations whose properties were included in the inventory of the Inasmuch as the real properties included in the inventory of the properties assigned in case of death of one of the spouses.
estate of Pastor Y. Lim, then filed a motion for the lifting of his pendens an estate of the Late Pastor Y. Lim are in the possession of and are registered in
On January 5, 1955, Don Jesus and Dona Florentina also separately executed
motion for exclusion of certain properties from the estate of the decedent. the name of private respondent corporations, which under the law possess a holographic will with exactly the same terms and conditions in conformity with
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 613494, 363123, 236236 and 263236 are personality separate and distinct from their stockholders, and in the absence of the executed extra judicial partition naming each other as an executor without
excluded from these proceedings. any cogency to shred the veil of corporate fiction, the presumption of having to post any bond. That in case new properties be acquired same shall be
partitioned one half to the surviving spouse and the other half to children of equal
conclusiveness of said titles in favor of private respondents should stand
parts.
ISSUE: undisturbed. It is settled that a corporation is clothed with personality separate
Whether properties registered under the name of corporations and distinct from that of the persons composing it. It may not generally be held The Souses subsequently executed separately a codicil of exactly the same
terms and conditions, amending and supplementing their holographic wills
founded by the deceased pastor be included in the probate proceedings of his liable for that of the persons composing it. It may not be held liable for the
stating that they reserved for themselves the other half not disposed of to their
estate? personal indebtedness of its stockholders or those of the entities connected with legitimate heirs under the agreement of partition and mutually and reciprocally
it. bequeathed each other their participation as well all properties which might be
HELD: acquired subsequently.

No. Citing CUIZON vs. RAMOLETE, an exposition on the probate FRANCISCA ALSUA-BETTS, JOSEPH O. BETTS, JOSE MADARETA, Doña Florentina died in effect Don Jesus by order of the probate court was name
court's limited jurisdiction, it is a well-settled rule that a probate court or one in ESTEBAN P. RAMIREZ, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ALBAY as executor.
charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or PROVINCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AMPARO ALSUA BUENVIAJE,
FERNANDO BUENVIAJE, FERNANDO ALSUA, represented by his guardian,
determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are
CLOTILDE S. ALSUA and PABLO ALSUA
equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court could do as Before Don Jesus died he cancelled his holographic will in the presence of his
G.R. Nos. L-46430-31 July 30, 1979 bookkeeper and secretary and instructed his lawyer to draft a new will. This was
a notarial will and testament of 3 essential features as follows;
80 | P a g e
1. It expressly cancelled revoked and annulled all the provisions of his 2. Emil H. Johnson, a native of Sweden and a naturalized citizen of the United
holographic will and codicil. States, died in the city of Manila, leaving a holographic will, dated September 9,
A holographic will and codicil is revocable at anytime by the testator.
1915.
2. It provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four living
Don Jesus was not forever bound of his previous holographic will and codicil.
children by virtue of the Escritura de Partition Extra judicial”. It was written in his (the testator's) own handwriting, and is signed by himself and
two witnesses only, instead of three witnesses.
As such, the will would remain revokable at his discretion.
3. It instituted his children as legatees / devisees of specific properties, and as to
the rest of the properties and whatever may be subsequently acquired in the The will was not executed in conformity with the provisions of law generally
Art. 828 of the new Civil Code is clear: "A will may be revoked by the testator at
future, before his death, were to be given to Francisca and Pablo, naming applicable to wills executed by inhabitants of the Philippines, and hence could
any time before his death. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void."
Francisca as executor to serve without a bond On May 6,1964, Don Jesus Alsua not have been proved under the law.
died. There can be no restriction that may be made on his absolute freedom to revoke
A petition was presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila for the
his holographic will and codicil previously made.
probate of this will, on the ground that Johnson was at the time of his death a
citizen of the State of Illinois, United States of America; that the will was duly
On MAY 20, 1964, Francisca Alsua-Betts, as the executrix named in the will of executed in accordance with the laws of that State; and hence could properly be
filed a petition for the probate of said new will of Don Jesus Alusa before the probated here pursuant to Section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Court of First Instance.

Oppositions thereto were filed by Pablo, Amparo and, Fernando.

ISSUE:

May the probate be allowed?

ISSUE:

1. Are the oppositors to the probate of the will estopped as to the

question on the competence of the testator Don Jesus Alsua? RULING: NO
(NO)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EMIL H. JOHNSON The applicable provision of law is:

G.R. NO. L-12767 NOVEMBER 16, 1918 Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is declared that "the allowance by
2. Can the testator Don Jesus revoke his previous will? (NO) the court of a will of real or personal property shall be conclusive as to its due
PONENTE: STREET execution."
Digested by: Ralph dela Cruz
RULING: NO

1. The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings. The proceedings for the probate of the will were regular and that the publication
was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding and to
DOCTRINE:
Probate proceedings involve public interest, and the application therein of the allow the will to be probated.
rule of estoppel, when it will block the ascertainment of the truth as to the
The allowance by the court of a will of real or personal property shall be
circumstances surrounding the execution of a testament, would seem inimical to As the Court of First Instance found that the testator was a citizen of the State of
conclusive as to its due execution.
public policy. Illinois and that the will was executed in conformity with the laws of that State,
the will was necessarily and properly admitted to probate.
Over and above the interest of private parties is that of the state to see that
testamentary dispositions be carried out if, and only if, executed conformably to FACTS:
law.
The due execution of a will involves conditions relating to a number of matters,
such as the age and mental capacity of the testator, the signing of the document

81 | P a g e
by the testator, or by someone in his behalf, and the acknowledgment of the ART. 1052. If the heir repudiates the inheritance to the prejudice of his own
instrument by him in the presence of the required number of witnesses who affix creditors, the latter may petition the court to authorize them to accept it in the
their signatures to the will to attest the act. name of the heir. xxx

The proof of all these requisites is involved in the probate; and as to each and all FACTS: Article 1052 of the Civil Code does not apply to this case. That legal provision
of them the probate is conclusive. (Castaneda vs. Alemany) protects the creditor of a repudiating heir.
BenedictoLeviste, a practicing attorney, entered into a written agreement with
Rosa del Rosario to appear as her counsel in a petition for probate of the Leviste is not a creditor of Rosa del Rosario. The payment of his fees is
holographic will of the late Maxima C. Reselva. contingent and dependent upon the successful probate of the holographic will.

Under the will, a piece of real property, was bequeathed to Del Rosario. It was Since the petition for probate was dismissed by the lower court, the contingency
Jurisprudence do not contain the slightest intimation that a will which has been agreed that petitioner's contigent fee would be 35% of the property that Rosa did not occur. Attorney Leviste is not entitled to his fee.
probated according to law, and without fraud, can be annulled, in any other may receive upon the probate of the will.
proceeding whatever, on account of any supposed irregularity or defect in the Furthermore, Article 1052 presupposes that the obligor is an heir.
execution of the will or on account of any error in the action of the court upon the Leviste received a letter from Ms. Del Rosario, informing him that she was
proof adduced before it. terminating his services as her counsel due to "conflicting interest.". Rosa del Rosario is not a legal heir of the late Maxima C. Reselva. Upon the
dismissal of her petition for probate of the decedent's will, she lost her right to
This court has never been called upon to decide whether, in case the probate of Del Rosario waived her rights to the devise in her favor and agreed that the De inherit any part of the latter's estate. There is nothing for the petitioner to accept
a will should be procured by fraud, relief could be granted in some other Guzman brothers and sisters who opposed her in her name.
proceeding; and no such question is now presented. But it is readily seen that if
fraud were alleged, this would introduce an entirely different factor in the case. A petition for probate, shall inherit all the properties left by the decedent. In this case, Leviste was not a party to the probate proceeding in the lower court.
He had no direct interest in the probate of the will. His only interest in the estate
In Austria vs. Ventenilla, it was suggested but not decided that relief might be The court disallowed the will. Upon appeal, the private respondents filed a is an indirect interest as former counsel for a prospective heir.
granted in case the probate of a will were procured by fraud. The circumstance motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that petitioner was not a party in
that the judgment of the trial court recites that the will was executed in conformity interest. The reason for the rule excluding strangers from contesting the will, is that the
with the law of Illinois and also, in effect, that the testator was a citizen of that litigants should not be molested by the intervention in the proceedings of
State places the judgment upon an unassailable basis so far as any supposed persons with no interest in the estate which would entitle them to be heard with
error apparent upon the face of the judgment is concerned. It is, however, relation thereto.
Leviste opposed the motion to dismiss his appeal, claiming that he has a direct
probable that even if the judgment had not contained these recitals, there would and material interest in the decision sought to be reviewed. He also asked that
have been a presumption from the admission of the will to probate as the will of It only gives him the right to collect a certain amount for his services in case his
he be substituted as party-petitioner, in lieu of his former client, Ms. Del Rosario. client is awarded a certain sum by the court. (Morente vs. Firmalino)
a citizen of Illinois that the facts were as recited in the order of probate.
The trial judge dismissed the appeal and denied petitioner's motion for
BENEDICTO LEVISTE vs. CA, HON. JUDGE LUIS B. REYES, CFI, ROSA DEL LOURDES L. DOROTHEO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NILDA D.
substitution.
ROSARIO, RITA BANU, CARMEN DE GUZMANMARQUEZ, JESUS R. DE QUINTANA, for Herself and as Attorney-in-Fact of VICENTE DOROTHEO and
GUZMAN, RAMON R. DE GUZMAN, JACINTO R. DE GUZMAN and ANTONIO Leviste filed in the CA a petition for mandamus. The CA dismissed the petition JOSE DOROTHEO, respondents.
R. DE GUZMAN for being insufficient in form and substance as the petitioner did not appear to be
G.R. No. 108581 December 8, 1999
the proper party to appeal the decision.
G.R. No. L-29184 January 30, 1989
Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Leviste argues that by virtue of his contract of services with Del Rosario, he is a
Ponente: Grino-Aquino creditor of the latter. Digested by: Ralph dela Cruz
Digested by: Ralph dela Cruz ISSUE: Does Leviste have a standing to be a party in the case? Doctrine:

RULING: NO A final judgment on probated will, albeit erroneous, is binding on the whole
DOCTRINE: world.
The provision of law relevant to the case is:

82 | P a g e
Facts: It has been consistently held that if no appeal is taken in due time from a DOCTRINE:Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of
judgment or order of the trial court, the same attains finality by mere lapse of the testator. However, Art. 838 of the Civil Code authorizes the filing of a petition
Nilda et.al.were the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and Ancieta time. for probate of the will filed by the testator himself.
Reyes.
Thus, the order allowing the will became final and the question determined by FACTS:
The latter died without her estate being settled. the court in such order can no longer be raised anew, either in the same On July 20, 1995, Dr. Arturo de Santos filed a petition for probate of
proceedings or in a different motion. his will. He alleged that he had no compulsory heirs; that he had named in his
Lourdes who claims to have taken Alejandro before he died, filed Special
will as sole legatee and devisee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc.; that he
Proceeding for the probate of the latter’s will. The matters of due execution of the will and the capacity of the testator acquired disposed by his will his properties with an approximate value of not less than
the character of res judicata and cannot again be brought into question, all P2,000,000.00; and that copies of said will were in the custody of the named
The court admitted the will but the respondent filed a motion to declare the will. juridical questions in connection therewith being for once and forever closed. executrix, private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips. The petition was
The dispositive portion of the decision declared that Lourdes Legaspi (Petitioner) granted.
was not the wife of the late Alejandro Dorotheo and declaring the oppositors Such final order makes the will conclusive against the whole world as to its
Vicente, Jose, and NildaDorotheo as the only heirs of the decedent. extrinsic validity and due execution. Shortly after the probate of his will, Dr. De Santos died on February
26, 1996.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to some Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of whether the
On April 3, 1996, petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for
compensation since she took care of the decedent. Upon denial, she appealed testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of its execution, that he intervention claiming that, as the only child of Alicia de Santos (testator's sister)
to the CA but it dismissed her appeal and the judgment became final and had freely executed the will and was not acting under duress, fraud, menace or and Octavio L. Maloles, Sr., he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of
executory. undue influence and that the will is genuine and not a forgery, that he was of the kin of Dr. De Santos. He likewise alleged that he was a creditor of the testator.
proper testamentary age and that he is a person not expressly prohibited by law Petitioner thus prayed for the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and
A writ of execution was issued. Respondent filed motions to compel Petitioner to from making a will. the issuance of letters of administration in his name.
surrender to them the TCT’s. When Petitioner refused, the respondent filed
motion for cancellation of titles and Petitioner opposed the same. The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding the same may still Private respondent was appointed as special administrator of Dr. De
Santos's estate.On July 29, 1996, petitioner sought to intervene in the special
be raised even after the will has been authenticated. Thus, it does not
An order was issued by the Judge setting aside the final and executory order proceeding.
necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and testament is always
and writ of execution on the ground that they are interlocutory. intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for Petitioner's motion for intervention was granted. The Court of Appeals
dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful set aside the trial court's order on the ground that petitioner had not shown any
inheritance according to the laws on succession, the unlawful right or interest to intervene in.
Issue: May a last will and testament that has become final and executory be provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect.
ISSUE: Does petitioner Maloles have the right to intervene in the special
subsequently questioned? proceeding?
This is specially so when the courts had already determined in a final and
RULING: NO.
Ruling: NO executory decision that the will is intrinsically void. Such determination having
attained that character of finality is binding on this Court which will no longer be In cases for the probate of wills, it is well-settled that the authority of
A final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened disturbed. Not that this Court finds the will to be intrinsically valid, but that a final the court is limited to ascertaining the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether
no matter how erroneous it may be. and executory decision of which the party had the opportunity to challenge the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the
before the higher tribunals must stand and should no longer be reevaluated. formalities prescribed by law.
In setting aside the January 30, 1986 Order that has attained finality, the trial
Failure to avail of the remedies provided by law constitutes waiver. And if the Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of
court in effect nullified the entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals.
party does not avail of other remedies despite its belief that it was aggrieved by a the testator, so much so that, after approving and allowing the will, the court
proceeds to issue letters testamentary and settle the estate of the testator.
It is well settled that a lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders decision or court action, then it is deemed to have fully agreed and is satisfied
However, Art. 838 of the Civil Code authorizes the filing of a petition for probate
of a superior court, for to do so would be to negate the hierarchy of courts and with the decision or order. of the will filed by the testator himself. It provides:
nullify the essence of review. It has been ruled that a final judgment on probated
will, albeit erroneous, is binding on the whole world. MALOLES II vs. PHILLIPS CIVIL CODE, ART. 838.
G.R. NO. 129505, January 31, 2000
MENDOZA, J. Xxx

83 | P a g e
The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having RULING: NO. FACTS:
jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. xxx
The court's area of inquiry is limited — to an examination of, and Pastor, Sr., was survived by his wife Sofia Bossio (who also died),
The Regional Trial Court having begun the probate proceedings of resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the will. The due execution thereof, the their two legitimate children Alvaro Pastor, Jr. and Sofia Pastor de Midgely, and
the estate of the deceased, it continues and shall continue to exercise said testatrix's testamentary capacity, and the compliance with the requisites or an illegitimate child, LewellynBarlitoQuemada.
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others. It should be noted that probate solemnities by law prescribed, are the questions solely to be presented, and to
proceedings do not cease upon the allowance or disallowance of a will but be acted upon, by the court. Said court at this stage of the proceedings — is not
continues up to such time that the entire estate of the testator had been Quemada filed a petition for the probate and allowance of an alleged
called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will, holographic will of Pastor, Sr. The will contained only one testamentary
partitioned and distributed. the legality of any devise or legacy therein. disposition: a legacy in favor of Quemada consisting of 30% of Pastor, Sr.'s 42%
The private respondent herein is not an heir or legatee under the will share in the operation by Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development
of the decedent Arturo de Santos. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the latter. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be Corporation of some mining claims.
As the only and nearest collateral relative of the decedent, he can inherit from gained. On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted.
the latter only in case of intestacy. Since the decedent has left a will which has The Probate Court appointed him special administrator of the entire,
already been probated and disposes of all his properties the private respondent Reproduced hereunder is the will: whether or not covered or affected by the holographic will. He instituted against
can inherit only if the said will is annulled. His interest in the decedent's estate is, Pastor, Jr. and his wife an action for reconveyance of alleged properties of the
therefore, not direct or immediate. Nov. 17, 1951 estate, which included the properties subject of the legacy and which were in the
names of the latter.

NUGUID vs. NUGUID I, ROSARIO NUGUID, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, having
amassed a certain amount of property, do hereby give, devise, and bequeath all Pastor, Jr. and Sofia filed their opposition to the petition for probate
G.R. No. L-23445, June 23, 1966 and the order appointing Quemada as special administrator.The Probate
SANCHEZ, J. of the property which I may have when I die to my beloved sister
RemediosNuguid, age 34, residing with me at 38-B Iriga, Q.C. In witness Courtallowed the will to probate.Quemadaasked for payment of his legacy and
whereof, I have signed my name this seventh day of November, nineteen seizure of the properties subject of said legacy, but this remained unacted upon.
DOCTRINE:If a will is null and void because of preterition, a probate procedding hundred and fifty-one.
would be useless. The Probate Court set the hearing on the intrinsic validity of the will,
(Sgd.) Illegible but upon objection of Pastor, Jr. and Sofia on the ground of pendency of the
FACTS: reconveyance suit, no hearing was held.
T/ ROSARIO NUGUID
Rosario Nuguid died on December 30, 1962, single, without While the reconveyance suit was still being litigated, the Court issued
descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents, the now assailed Order of Execution and Garnishment, resolving the question of
Felix Nuguid and Paz SalongaNuguid, and six (6) brothers and sisters, namely: The deceased Rosario Nuguid left no descendants, legitimate or ownership of the royalties payable by Atlas Company and ruling in effect that the
Alfredo, Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto, all surnamed illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents. legacy to Quemada was not inofficious.
Nuguid. And, the will completely omits both of them: They thus received nothing by the
testament; tacitly, they were deprived of their legitime; neither were they
expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition. ISSUE:Is the question on the finality of ownership and intrinsic validity of the will
In 1963, petitioner RemediosNuguid filed a holographic will allegedly resolved?
executed by Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, some 11 years before her
demise. Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of The disputed order, we observe, declares the will in question "a
complete nullity". Considering, however, that the will before us solely provides RULING: NO.
administration with the will annexed be issued to her.
for the institution of petitioner as universal heir, and nothing more, the result is
the same. The entire will is null. In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and
Felix and Paz moved to the probate of her will on the ground that the large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator,
oppositors — who are compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities
line — were illegally preterited and that in consequence the institution is void. PASTOR, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
prescribed by law. As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter
G.R. No. L-56340, June 24, 1983
which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of
PLANA, J.
The court's order held that "the will in question is a complete nullity determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the
and will perforce create intestacy of the estate of the deceased Rosario Nuguid" inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto,
and dismissed the petition without costs. DOCTRINE:In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final
large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, decision in a separate action to resolve title.
being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities
ISSUE: Should the will be probated? prescribed by law.

84 | P a g e
Nowhere in the dispositive portion is there a declaration of ownership Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving her father, petitioner Hermogenes was, at the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent resident of
of specific properties. On the contrary, it is manifest therein that ownership was Campos and her sisters, private respondent Nenita C. Paguia, Remedios C. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Therefore, under Article 16 par. (2) and 1039
not resolved. Lopez and Marieta C. Medina as the surviving heirs. As Hermogenes Campos of the Civil Code, the law which governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of
was the only compulsory heir, he executed an Affidavit of Adjudication whereby Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent.
There had been no prior definitive determination of the assets of the he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the deceased
estate of Pastor, Sr. There was an inventory of his properties presumably Adoracion Campos. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions
prepared by the special administrator, but it does not appear that it was ever the of the will, as provided for by Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the
subject of a hearing or that it was judicially approved. The reconveyance or Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition for the reprobate of a will of the national law of the decedent must apply.
recovery of properties allegedly owned but not in the name of Pastor, Sr..was deceased and for her appointment as administratrix of the estate of the
still being litigated in another court. deceased testatrix.
CORONADO V. CA,
G.R. NO. 78778, DECEMBER 3, 1990 (191 SCRA 894)
It was, therefore, an error for the assailed implementing Orders to Nenita alleged that the testatrix made her last will and testament, CORONADO V. CA, G.R. NO. 78778, DECEMBER 3, 1990 (191 SCRA 894)
conclude that the Probate Order adjudged with finality the question of ownership according to the laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. and that the executor is also PERALTA J.:
of the mining properties and royalties, and that, premised on this conclusion, the resident U.S.A.; and that therefore, there is an urgent need for the appointment
dispositive portion of the said Probate Order directed the special administrator to of an administratrix to administer and eventually distribute the properties of the DOCTRINE:
pay the legacy in dispute. estate located in the Philippines.
The title to ownership of the property does not determine nor even by
Without a final, authoritative adjudication of the issue as to what An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by petitioner implication prejudge the validity or efficiency of the provisions of the will, thus
properties compose the estate of Pastor, Sr. in the face of conflicting claims alleging that the will is a forgery; that the intrinsic provisions of the will are null may be impugned as being vicious or null, notwithstanding its authentication.
made by heirs and a non-heir involving properties not in the name of the and void; and that the American laws could not apply inasmuch as they would The question relating to these points remain entirely unaffected and may be
decedent, and in the absence of a resolution on the intrinsic validity of the will work injustice and injury to him. raised even after the will has been authenticated.
here in question, there was no basis for the Probate Court to hold that private
respondent is entitled to the payment of the questioned legacy. Therefore, the FACTS:
Petitioner Hermogenes Campos died and left a will, appointing Polly
Order of Execution and the subsequent implementing orders for the payment of Cayetano as the executrix of his last will and testament. Cayetano, therefore,
Quemada'slegacy, must fall for lack of basis. filed a motion to substitute herself as petitioner in the instant case. The property subject of this case is a parcel of land situated in
Nagcarlan, Laguna, containing 277 square meters.
ISSUE: Is the reprobate proceeding valid? Said parcel of land is being contested by Juana Albovias, herein
private respondent, on the one hand, and Leonida-Coronado, Felix Bueno,
RULING: YES. Melania Retizos, Bernardino Buenseda and Jovita Montefalcon, herein
petitioners, on the other hand.
As a general rule, the probate court's authority is limited only to the Juana Albovias (JUANA, for brevity) claims that the property in
extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testatrix's testamentary question is a portion of a bigger lot referred to as Parcel G in the last will and
capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. testament executed in 1918 by MelecioArtiaga, grandfather of JUANA. This
The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the court has declared bigger lot was inherited under that will by JUANA, her brother Domingo Bueno,
that the will has been duly authenticated. However, where practical and two other grandchildren, namely Bonifacio and Herminigildo, both surnamed
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even Formentera.
CAYETANO vs. LEONIDAS before it is probated, the court should meet the issue.
G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984 JUANA further claims that sometime in 1925 or 1926, C. Lirio Street
GUTIERREZ, JR., J. was created by the Municipality of Nagcarla traversing said Parcel G and thus
In the case at bar, the petitioner maintains that since the respondent dividing it into two portions, one on the west of C. Lirio St. and the other to the
judge allowed the reprobate of Adoracion's will, Hermogenes C. Campos was east of said street. Parcel G was divided by the heirs in the following manner;
divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law for him. the land was divided into two portions, the northern portion of which was
DOCTRINE:As a general rule, the probate court's authority is limited only to the
adjudicated in favor of the Formenteras and the southern portion was given to
extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testatrix's testamentary
This contention is without merit. JUANA and Doming Bueno. The southern portion in turn was partitioned
capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law.
between JUANA and Domingo Bueno, the former getting the northern part
The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the court has declared
Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the adjoining the lot of the Formenteras, and the latter the southern part which
that the will has been duly authenticated.
petitioner and thus, the respondent judge should have denied its reprobate adjoins the lot of Perfecto Nanagas (not owned by DalmacioMonterola). The part
outright, the private respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion allocated to Domingo was later sold by him to DalmacioMonterola, owner of the
FACTS: adjoining property (Ibid.).: nad
85 | P a g e
Moreover, JUANA claims that her property was included together Yes, reading of Article 813 shows that its requirement affects the
with the two parcels of land owned by DalmacioMonterola, which were sold by SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, PETITIONERS,  validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If
Monterola's successor-in-interest Leonida Coronado (now married to Felix VS. the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that
Bueno) to Melania Retizos on April 18, 1970. Melania Retizos in turn sold the THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, RESPONDENTS. these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render
lots, including that one being claimed by JUANA, to the spouse Bernardino G.R. NO. 106720 SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 the whole testament void.
Buenaseda and Jovita Montefalcon, now the present possessors thereof, PUNO, J.: Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate notwithstanding non-
sometime in 1974. compliance with the provisions of Article 814.
On the other hand, Leonida Coronado and her co-petitioners DOCTRINE:
(CORONADO, for brevity) claim that the property in question was bequeathed to Unless the authenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on
Leonida Coronado under a Will executed by Dr. DalmacioMonterola, who was Unless the authenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were the date of the holographic will or on testator’s signature, their presence does
allegedly in possession thereof even before the outbreak of World War II (Ibid., made on the date of the holographic will or on testator’s signature, their not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in
p. 107). presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only disallowance of such changes.
result in disallowance of such changes.
Parenthetically, said will was probated under Sp. Proc. No. SC-283,
It is also proper to note that he requirements of authentication of changes and
entitled "Testate Estate of the Deceased Monterola Leonida F. Coronado,
FACTS: signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Article 813 and 814)
petitioner (Ibid., p. 105). JUANA, together with her husband, opposed the said
separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of
probate. Despite their opposition, however, the Will was allowed by the then
the holographic will (Article 810).
Court of First Instance of Laguna, Sta. Cruz Branch. The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for probate.
Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the
testament’s body nor the signature therein was in decedent’s handwriting; it This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the
ISSUE: Can a title of ownership to a property still be impugned even after it is requirements of Article 810 of the NCC – and not those found in Articles 813 and
transmitted through a will? contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent;
and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue 814 – are essential to the probate of a holographic will.
influence.
RULING: Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court and Article 839 of the Civil Code
Yes, while it is true that no will shall pass either real or personal The petition was also contested by Dr. Ajero with respect to the enumerate the grounds for disallowance of wills. These lists are exclusive; no
property unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court (Art. 838, Civil disposition in the will of a house and lot. He claimed that said property could not other grounds can serve to disallow a will.
Code), the questioned will, however, may be sustained on the basis of Article be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.
1056 of the Civil Code of 1899, which was in force at the time said document In a petition to admit a holographic will, the only issues to be resolved are:
was executed by MelecioArtiaga in 1918. The said article read as follows: However, the trial court still admitted the decedent’s holographic will
"Article 1056. If the testator should make a partition of his properties to probate. 1.whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent’s last will and
by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall stand in so far as it does not The trial court held that since it must decide only the question of the identity of testament;
prejudice the legitime of the forced heir." (Mang-Oy v. Court of Appeals, 144 the will, its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix, it finds
SCRA 33 [1986]) no reason for the disallowance of the will for its failure to comply with the 2.whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed
formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of testamentary capacity of the by law;
It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or testatrix.
efficiency of the provisions of the will, thus may be impugned as being vicious or
null, notwithstanding its authentication. The question relating to these points 3.whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the
remain entirely unaffected and may be raised even after the will has been On appeal, the CA reversed said Decision holding that the decedent did not will was executed; and
authenticated (Maninang, et al., v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 473 [1982]). comply with Articles 313 and 314 of the NCC. It found that certain dispositions in
Consequently, JUANA is not estopped from questioning the ownership of the the will were either unsigned or undated, or signed by not dated. It also found
that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made had not been 4.whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of the
property in question, notwithstanding her having objected to the probate of the decedent.
will executed by Monterola under which Leonida Coronado is claiming title to the authenticated by decedent.
said property.
ISSUE: The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the
Moreover, the lower court found sufficient evidence to support the door against bad faith and fraud; accordingly, laws on this subject should be
conclusion that the property in question is the same property adjudicated to interpreted to attain these primordial ends.
JUANA under the will of MelecioArtiaga, and that CORONADO has no right Were the formalities of a holographic will under theArticles 813 and
whatsoever to said property (Ibid., p. 20). Such findings are conclusive upon this 814 of the New Civil Codecomplied with?
In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement that
Court (Reynolds Philippine Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 220 they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself. Failure to
[1989]). HELD:

86 | P a g e
strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a of Esteban Javellana, Jr., praying that letters of administration be issued to her; question. Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in
holographic will that is unquestionable handwritten by the testator. that she be declared sole heir of the deceased; and that after payment of all favor of his aunt, CeledoniaSolivio, who is his relative within the third degree on
claims and rendition of inventory and his mother’s side. The reservatroncal applies to properties inherited by an
accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her. ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a
CELEDONIA SOLIVIO V. COURT OF APPEALS
brother or sister. It does not apply to property inherited by a descendant from his
G.R. NO. 83484, FEBRUARY 12, 1990
Concordia filed a civil case in the RTC of Iloilo for partition, recovery ascendant, the reverse of the situation covered by Article 891.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
of possession, ownership and damages. Celedonia averred that the estate of
Esteban Jr. was subject to reservatroncal and thus it should redound to her as a CELSA L. VDA. DE KILAYKO, ENCARNACION L. VDA. DE PANLILIO and
relative within the 3rd degree on his mother side. REMEDIOS L. VDA. DE GUINTO, petitioners, 
vs.
DOCTRINE: HON. JUDGE ERNESTO TENGCO of the Court of First Instance of Negros
ISSUE:
Occidental, Bacolod City, Branch IV and RODOLFO LIZARES and AMELO
ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any LIZARES, as Judicial Administrators of the Estate of the late EUSTAQUIA
Whetherthe estate of the deceased was subject to reservatroncal and that it
property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from LIZARES, respondents.
pertains to her as his only relative within the third degree on his mother’s side?
another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as G.R. No. 45965 March 27, 1992
he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who ROMERO, J.:
are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said RULING:
property came. DOCTRINE:
No, there is no merit in the petitioner’s argument that the estate of the
The persons involved in reservatroncal are: deceased was subject to reservatroncal, and that it pertains to her as his only The only instance where a party interested in a probate proceeding
relative within the third degree on his mother’s side. The reservatroncal may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of
provision of the Civil Code is found in Article 891 which reads as follows: circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not
1. The person obliged to reserve is the reservor (reservista)—the imputable to negligence.
ascendant who inherits by operation of law property from his
descendants. ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any FACTS:
property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from
another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as The testator died without an issue leaving her last will and testament
2. The persons for whom the property is reserved are the reservees
he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who to her niece ,EustaquiaLizarez. The will was probated and the project of partition
(reservatarios)—relatives within the third degree counted from the
are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said was granted. The decree of distribution became final. However, there were
descendant (propositus), and belonging to the line from which
property came. errors in the distribution as alleged by Kilayko et al.
the property came.

The persons involved in reservatroncal are:

3. The propositus—the descendant who received by gratuitous title
and died without issue, making his other ascendant inherit by ISSUES:
operation of law.  1. The person obliged to reserve is the reservor
(reservista)—the Whetherthe errors in the distribution warrants the reopening of the
ascendant who inherits by operation of law property from his descendants. estate of the testator?
FACTS:

2. The persons for whom the property is reserved

On October 11, 1959, Esteban Javellana, Jr.’s mother Salustia died RULING:
are the reservees (reservatarios)—relatives within the third degree counted
leaving all her property, including a house and lot in La Paz, Iloilo City, to him.
from the descendant (propositus), and belonging to the line from which
Esteban Jr,” died a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants, brothers, No, the error will not cause the reopening of the succession.
the property came.
sisters, nephews or nieces. His only surviving relatives are: (1) his maternal
aunt, petitioner CeledoniaSolivio, the spinster half-sister of his mother,
SalustiaSolivio; and (2) the private respondent, Concordia Javellana-Villanueva, 3. The propositus—the descendant who received
sister of his deceased father, Esteban Javellana, Sr. by gratuitous title and died without issue, making his other ascendant inherit by Where the court has validly issued a decree of distribution and the
operation of law. (p. 692, Civil Law by Padilla, Vol. II, 1956 Ed.) same has become final, the validity or invalidity of the project of partition
becomes irrelevant.
Pursuant to an agreement between Concordia and Celedonia, the
latter would take care of the proceedings leading to the formation of the Clearly, the property of the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., is not
foundation. Celedonia in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel, filed for reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was not an ascendant, but the descendant
a Special Proceeding for her appointment as special administratrix of the estate of his mother, SalustiaSolivio, from whom he inherited the properties in

87 | P a g e
The only instance where a party interested in a probate proceeding The lower court in its order of June 18, 1973 "denied" the opposition and reset share was inchoate and pro-indiviso (Art. 143, Civil Code). But That illegal
may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of for hearing the probate of the will. It gave effect to the affidavit and conformity of declaration does not nullify the entire will. It may be disregarded.
circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not Felix Balanay, Sr.
imputable to negligence. Felix Balanay, Sr. could validly renounce his hereditary rights and his one-half
In its order of February 28, 1974, the lower courtdismissed the petition for the share of the conjugal partnership (Arts. 179[1] and 1041, Civil Code) but insofar
The fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of res probate, declared that the will was void, converted the testate proceeding into an as said renunciation partakes of a donation of his hereditary rights and his one-
judicata rests is that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the intestate proceeding, and ordered the issuance of a notice to creditors. half share in the conjugal estate (Art. 1060[1] Civil Code), it should be subject to
same issue more than once. the limitations prescribed in articles 750 and 752 of the Civil Code. A portion of
ISSUE: the estate should be adjudicated to the widower for his support and
maintenance. Or at least his legitime should be respected.
FELIX BALANAY, JR.,
VS.HON. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ 1. Is the probate court correct in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will,
G.R. NO. L-39247, JUNE 27, 1975 before ruling on its allowance or formal validity? (YES) Subject to the foregoing observations and the rules on collation, the will is
AQUINO, J.: 2. Is the probate court correct in declaring the will void, converting the testate intrinsically valid and the partition therein may be given effect if it does not
proceeding into an intestate proceeding and in not proceeding with the probate prejudice the creditors and impair the legitimes. The distribution and partition
of the will? (NO) would become effective upon the death of Felix Balanay, Sr. In the meantime,
DOCTRINE: In Probate proceeding the inquiry as a General Rule is limited only
the net income should be equitably divided among the children and the surviving
to the EXTRINSIC VALIDITY of the will. Save in an extreme case where the will
spouse.
on its face is intrinsically void, it is the probate court's duty to pass first upon the RULING:
formal validity of the will. Generally, the probate of the will is mandatory.
It should be stressed that by reason of the surviving husband's conformity to his
1. YES, THE TRIAL COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN PASSING UPON THE
wife's will and his renunciation of his hereditary rights, his one-half conjugal
FACTS: Testatrix Leodegaria Julianwas survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, WILL'S INTRINSIC VALIDITY EVEN BEFORE ITS FORMAL VALIDITY HAD
share became a part of his deceased wife's estate. His conformity had the effect
Sr., and by their six legitimate children including Felix Balanay, Jr. BEEN ESTABLISHED.
of validating the partition made in paragraph V of the will without prejudice, of
course, to the rights of the creditors and the legitimes of the compulsory heirs.
Felix J. Balanay, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of his mother's notarial will We are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual provisions of the will, which
dated September 5, 1970 which is written in English. In that will Leodegaria are of dubious legality, and because of the motion to withdraw the petition for
Article 793 of the Civil Code provides that "property acquired after the making of
Julian declared: xxx that it was her desire that her properties should not be probate (which the lower court assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's
a will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had it at the time of making the
divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime and that their legitimes authorization), THE TRIAL COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN PASSING UPON
will, should it expressly appear by the will that such was his intention". Under
should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties (Par. IV). THE WILL'S INTRINSIC VALIDITY EVEN BEFORE ITS FORMAL VALIDITY
article 930 of the Civil Code "the legacy or devise of a thing belonging to another
HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED. The probate of a will might become an idle
person is void, if the testator erroneously believed that the thing pertained to him.
Then, in paragraph V of the will she stated that after her husband's death her ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical
But if the thing bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator when he made
paraphernal lands and all the conjugal lands (which she described as "my considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even
the will, afterwards becomes his, by whatever title, the disposition shall take
properties") should be divided and distributed in the manner set forth in that part before it is probated, the court should meet the issue.
effect."
of her will. Testatrix Leodegaria devised and partitioned the conjugal lands as if
they were all owned by her. She disposed of in the will her husband's one half
In the instant case there is no doubt that the testatrix and her husband intended
share of the conjugal assets 2. NO, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE WILL VOID AND to partition the conjugal estate in the manner set forth in paragraph V of her will.
CONVERTING THE TESTATE PROCEEDING INTO AN INTESTATE It is true that she could dispose of by will only her half of the conjugal estate (Art.
Felix, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the probate of the will on the grounds PROCEEDING; AND IN NOT PROCEEDING WITH THE PROBATE OF THE 170, Civil Code) but since the husband, after the dissolution of the conjugal
of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, preterition of the husband and WILL. partnership, had assented to her testamentary partition of the conjugal estate,
alleged improper partition of the conjugal estate. such partition has become valid, assuming that the will may be probated.
The probate court erred in declaring, in its order of February 28, 1974 that the
Felix, Jr., in his reply to the opposition, attached thereto an affidavit of Felix, Sr. will was void and in converting the testate proceeding into an intestate In the instant case, the preterited heir was the surviving spouse. His preterition
dated April 18, 1973 wherein he withdrew his opposition to the probate of the will proceeding notwithstanding the fact that in its order of June 18, 1973 , it gave did not produce intestacy. Moreover, he signified his conformity to his wife's will
and affirmed that he was interested in its probate. On the same date Felix effect to the surviving husband's conformity to the will and to his renunciation of and renounced his hereditary rights.
Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument captioned "Conformation (sic) of Division and his hereditary rights which presumably included his one-half share of the
Renunciation of Hereditary Rights" wherein he manifested that out of respect for conjugal estate.
IT RESULTS THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT PROCEEDING
his wife's will he "waived and renounced' his hereditary rights in her estate in
WITH THE PROBATE OF THE WILL AS CONTEMPLATED IN ITS
favor of their six children. In that same instrument he confirmed the agreement, The statement of the testatrix that she owned the "southern half of the conjugal UNCANCELLED ORDER OF JUNE 18, 1973. SAVE IN AN EXTREME CASE
which he and his wife had perfected before her death, that their conjugal lands is contrary to law because, although she was a co-owner thereof, her WHERE THE WILL ON ITS FACE IS INTRINSICALLY VOID, IT IS THE
properties would be partitioned in the manner indicated in her will.

88 | P a g e
PROBATE COURT'S DUTY TO PASS FIRST UPON THE FORMAL VALIDITY Court of Appeals: reversed and set aside the RTC's decision ratiocinating, inter While it may be true that the Rules used the word "may", it is nevertheless clear
OF THE WILL. GENERALLY, THE PROBATE OF THE WILL IS MANDATORY. alia:"It is the probate court that has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal that the same provision 11 contemplates a probate court when it speaks of the
(Art. 838, Civil Code). distribution of the estate. The court a quo, trying an ordinary action for "court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings".
reconveyance / annulment of title, went beyond its jurisdiction when it performed
the acts proper only in a special proceeding for the settlement of estate of a COROLLARILY, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE,
PATRICIA NATCHER
deceased person. XXXThus the court a quo erred in regarding the subject ACTING IN ITS GENERAL JURISDICTION, IS DEVOID OF AUTHORITY TO
VS.COURT OFAPPEALS AND
property as advance inheritance. What the court should have done was merely RENDER AN ADJUDICATION AND RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF
THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO
to rule on the validity of (the) sale and leave the issue on advancement to be ADVANCEMENT OF THE REAL PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF HEREIN
G.R. NO. 133000, OCTOBER 2, 2001
resolved in a separate proceeding instituted for that purpose. XXX" PETITIONER NATCHER, inasmuch as Civil Case No. 471075 for reconveyance
BUENA, J.:
and annulment of title with damages is not, to our mind, the proper vehicle to
ISSUE: May a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction in an thresh out said question. Moreover, under the present circumstances, the RTC
DOCTRINE: Matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of
action for reconveyance annulment of title with damages, adjudicate matters of Manila, Branch 55 was not properly constituted as a probate court so as to
the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the
relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person particularly on validly pass upon the question of advancement made by the decedent Graciano
exercise of its limited jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court, acting in its general
questions as to advancement of property made by the decedent to any of the Del Rosario to his wife, herein petitioner Natcher.
jurisdiction, is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and resolve the issue
heirs?
of advancement of the real property.
Analogously, in a train of decisions, this Court has consistently enunciated the
RULING: NO. long standing principle that although generally, a probate court may not decide a
FACTS:
question of title or ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs, or the
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE, ACTING IN ITS question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the
Spouses Del Rosario were registered owners of the subject property. In 1951, assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are
GENERAL JURISDICTION, IS DEVOID OF AUTHORITY TO RENDER AN
the wife died.In 1954, Graciano (surviving spouse), together with his six children, not impaired, then the probate court is competent to decide the question of
ADJUDICATION AND RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF ADVANCEMENT OF THE
entered into an extrajudicial settlement of Graciana's estate. Graciano received ownership.
REAL PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF HEREIN PETITIONER NATCHER.
8/14 share while each of the six children received 1/14 share.The heirs
subdivided among themselves the subject property. Graciano then donated to
his children, share and share alike, a portion of his interest in the land leaving There lies a marked distinction between an action and a special proceeding. An CAROLINA CAMAYA, ET.AL.
only 447.60 sqms. registered under his name. Subsequently, the remaining action is a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice in the manner VS.BERNARDO PATULANDONG
portion was further subdivided into two separate lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2). prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying legal remedies G.R. NO. 144915, FEBRUARY 23, 2004
Eventually, Graciano sold the first lotto a third person but retained ownership according to definite established rules. The term "special proceeding" may be CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
over the second lot. defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party,
or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are DOCTRINE: A probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or
required unless the statute expressly so provides. In special proceedings, the intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of
In 1980, Graciano married herein Patricia Natcher. During their marriage,
remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion." the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties.
Graciano sold the Lot 2 to Natcher. In 1985,Graciano died leaving his second
wife Patricia and his six children by his first marriage, as heirs.
An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action, FACTS:
whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such
An action for reconveyance annulment of title with damages was filed by the
as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
children by the first marriage against Natcher in the RTC alleging that as a In 1972, Rufina Reyes (testatrix) executed a notarized will wherein she devised,
special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of specific rules
consequence of such fraudulent sale, their legitimes have been impaired. among others, Lot No. 288-A to her grandson Anselmo Mangulabnan. The
as provided for in the Rules of Court.
testatrix’s son Bernardo Patulandong (Patulandong), was in the will appointed as
Natcher averred that during Graciano's lifetime, Graciano already distributed, in the executor.During her lifetime, the testatrix herself filed a petition for the
Clearly, matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the probate of her will which the court admitted.
advance, properties to his children, hence, herein private respondents may not
decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of
anymore claim against Graciano's estate or against herein petitioner's property.
its limited jurisdiction.
In 1973, the testatrix executed a codicil modifying paragraph five of her will,
RTC: declared that the deed of sale executed by the late Graciano del Rosario in where she decided to instead devise the subject property to her 4 children and
Thus, under Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, questions as to grandson Anselmo Mangulabnan, equally.
favor of Patricia Natcher is prohibited by law and thus a complete nullity. There
advancement made or alleged to have been made by the deceased to any heir
being no evidence that a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage
may be heard and determined by thecourt having jurisdiction of the estate
settlements or that there has been decreed a judicial separation of property In 1988, the testatrix Rufina died.Mangulabnan later sought the delivery to him
proceedings;and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the
between them, the spouses are prohibited from entering (into) a contract of sale. by executor Patulandong of the title to Lot 288-A. Patulandong refused to heed
person raising the questions and on the heir.
the request, however, in view of the codicil which modified the testator’s will.

89 | P a g e
Mangulabnan thus filed an "action for partition" docketed as Civil Case No. 552 deprive such third persons of their possession and ownership of the property. x x tolerance of Rosendo Lasam and, upon the petitioner heirs' formal demand on
(the partition case) in the RTC against Patulandong where the lower court x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) her to vacate the same, Umengan's right to possess it has expired.
ordered the partitioning of the properties without prejudice to the probate of the
codicil. FOLLOWING CUIZON, THE PROBATE COURT EXCEEDED ITS On the other hand, Vicenta Umengan hinges her claim of possession on the
JURISDICTION WHEN IT FURTHER DECLARED THE DEED OF SALE AND legal conveyances made to her by the children of Isabel Cuntapay by her first
Patulandong filed before the (probate court) RTC a petitionfor probate of the THE TITLES OF PETITIONERS NULL AND VOID, IT HAVING HAD THE husband, namely, Maria, Rufo, Sado and Abdon. These conveyances were
codicil of the testatrix. EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THEM POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE made through the sale and donation by the said siblings of their respective
PROPERTY. portions in the subject lot to respondent as evidenced by the pertinent deeds.
In 1991, by virtue of the decision in the partition case, Mangulabnan caused the
title over the subject proper to be issued in his name.Mangulabnan later sold to Moreover, following Section 48 of the Property Registry Decree which reads: ISSUE: Who has the better right to possess the subject property?
petitioners Camayas the subject property by a Deed of Sale.
SECTION 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate of RULING:
The probate court admitted the codicil to probate, and declared null and void the title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or
TCT’s and the Deed of Sale in favor of the Camayas. cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law, VICENTA UMANGAN HAS A BETTER RIGHT TO POSSESS THE SUBJECT
LOT.THE PURPORTED LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ISABEL
ISSUE: Did the probate court exceed its jurisdiction when it declared null and petitioners’ titles cannot, under probate proceedings, be declared null and void. CUNTAPAY COULD NOT PROPERLY BE RELIED UPON TO ESTABLISH THE
void and ordered the cancellation of the TCTs of petitioners Camaya and the PETITIONER HEIRS' RIGHT TO POSSESS THE SUBJECT LOT BECAUSE,
deed of sale? WITHOUT HAVING BEEN PROBATED, THE SAID LAST WILL AND
HEIRS OF ROSENDO LASAM
TESTAMENT COULD NOT BE THE SOURCE OF ANY RIGHT.
VS.VICENTA UMENGAN
RULING: YES. G.R. NO. 168156, DECEMBER 6, 2006
CALLEJO, SR., J.: It is well settled that in ejectment suits, the only issue for resolution is the
THE PROBATE COURT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT FURTHER physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any
DECLARED THE DEED OF SALE AND THE TITLES OF PETITIONERS NULL claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. However, the issue of ownership
DOCTRINE:Before any will can have force or validity it must be probated.
AND VOID, IT HAVING HAD THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THEM may be provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is
POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. entitled to possession de facto.
FACTS:

In Cuizon v. Ramolete, this Court elucidated on the limited jurisdiction of a The CA correctly held that, as between the respective claims of petitioners and
Isabel Cuntapay had 4 children by her first husband, Domingo Turingan, namely: respondentVICENTA UMANGAN, the latter has a better right to possess the
probate court, to wit:
Abdon, Sado (deceased), Rufo and Maria. When Domingo Turingan passed subject lot.
away, Isabel Cuntapay remarried Mariano Lasam, whom she had 2 other
It is well-settled rule thata probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether children, namely: Trinidad and Rosendo.
testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to As earlier stated, petitioners rely on the last will and testament of Isabel
be a part of the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside Cuntapay that they had allegedly newly discovered. On the basis of this
The heirs of Rosendo Lasam (son of Isabel Cuntapay by her second husband) instrument, the MTCC and RTC ruled that petitioners have a better right to the
parties. All that said court could do as regards said properties is to determine
filed with the MTCC a complaint for unlawful detainer against Vicenta Umengan, possession of the subject lot because, following the law on succession, it should
whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of
who was then occupying the subject lot. Vicenta Umengan is the daughter of be respected and should prevail over intestate succession.
properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, well and
Abdon Turingan (son of Isabel Cuntapay by her first husband).
good; but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties
have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting However, contrary to the ruling of the MTCC and RTC, the purported last will and
claims of title because the probate court cannot do so. The MTCC rendered judgment in favor of the heirs of Rosendo Lasam and testament of Isabel Cuntapay could not properly be relied upon to establish the
directed the ejectment of Vicenta Umengan. In so ruling, the MTCC gave petitioner heirs' right to possess the subject lot because, without having been
credence to the newly discovered last will and testament (entitled Testamento probated, the said last will and testament could not be the source of any right.
xxx
Abierto) purportedly executed by Isabel Cuntapay where she bequeathed the
subject lot to her son, Rosendo Lasam.
Having been apprised of the fact that the property in question was in the Article 838 of the Civil Code is instructive:
possession of third parties and more important, covered by a transfer certificate
The heirs of Lasam base their claim of right to possession on the theory that
of title issued in the name of such third parties, the respondent court should have Art. 838. No will shall pass either real or personal property
their father, Rosendo Lasam, was the sole owner of the subject lot by virtue of
denied the motion of the respondent administrator and excluded the property in unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the
the newly discovered last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay bequeathing the
question from the inventory of the property of the estate. It had no authority to Rules of Court.
same to him. ThatVicenta Umengan is allegedly holding the subject lot by mere

90 | P a g e
The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the presented by respondent, coupled with the fact that she has been in possession On January 6, 2004, the respondent heirs moved to dismiss the
court having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. In of the subject lot since 1955, establish that respondent has a better right to probate proceedings because Francisco was preterited from the will.
such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court possess the same as against petitioners whose claim is largely based on Isabel
for the allowance of wills after the testator's death shall Cuntapay's last will and testament which, to date, has not been probated; hence, ISSUE:
govern. has no force and effect and under which no right can be claimed by petitioners.
Is Francisco preterited from the will?
The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules
of Court as may be necessary for the allowance of wills on
petition of the testator. RULING:
IRIS MORALES, Petitioners, v. ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ, ALFONSO JUAN
OLONDRIZ, JR., ALEJANDRO MORENO OLONDRIZ, ISABEL ROSA
Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, Yes. Preterition consists in the omission of a compulsory heir from the
OLONDRIZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER MARIA OLONDRIZ, Respondent
either during the lifetime of the testator or after his death, will, either because he is not named or, although he is named as a father, son,
shall be conclusive as to its due execution. etc., he is neither instituted as an heir nor assigned any part of the estate without
G.R. No. 198994, February 03, 2016 expressly being disinherited - tacitly depriving the heir of his legitime. Preterition
requires that the omission is total, meaning the heir did not also receive any
In Cañiza v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that: "[a] will is essentially legacies, devises, or advances on his legitime.
BRION, J.
ambulatory; at any time prior to the testator's death, it may be changed or
revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right can In other words, preterition is the complete and total omission of a compulsory
be claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit: 'No will shall pass either real heir from the testator's inheritance without the heir's express disinheritance.
or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the DOCTRINE: Preterition consists in the omission of a compulsory heir from the
Rules of Court.' " will, either because he is not named or, although he is named as a father, son,
Article 854 of the Civil Code states the legal effects of preterition:
etc., he is neither instituted as an heir nor assigned any part of the estate without
expressly being disinherited - tacitly depriving the heir of his legitime. Preterition
Dr. Tolentino, an eminent authority on civil law, also explained that "[b]efore any Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of
requires that the omission is total, meaning the heir did not also receive any
will can have force or validity it must be probated. To probate a will means to the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution
legacies, devises, or advances on his legitime.
prove before some officer or tribunal, vested by law with authority for that of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir;
purpose, that the instrument offered to be proved is the last will and testament of but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.
the deceased person whose testamentary act it is alleged to be, and that it has FACTS:
been executed, attested and published as required by law, and that the testator If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall
was of sound and disposing mind. It is a proceeding to establish the validity of Alfonso Juan P. Olondriz, Sr. ( the decedent) died on June 9, 2003. be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation, (emphasis supplied)
the will."Moreover, the presentation of the will for probate is mandatory and is a He was survived by his widow, Ana Maria Ortigas de Olondriz, and his children:
matter of public policy. Alfonso Juan O. Olondriz, Jr., Alejandro Marino O. Olondriz, Isabel Rosa O. Under the Civil Code, the preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct
Olondriz, Angelo Jose O. Olondriz, and Francisco Javier Maria Bautista line shall annul the institution of heirs, but the devises and legacies shall remain
Following the above truisms, the MTCC and RTC, therefore, erroneously ruled Olondriz. His widow and children are collectively referred to as the respondent valid insofar as the legitimes are not impaired. Consequently, if a will does not
that petitioners have a better right to possess the subject lot on the basis of the heirs. institute any devisees or legatees, the preterition of a compulsory heir in the
purported last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay, which, to date, has not direct line will result in total intestacy.7
been probated. Stated in another manner, ISABEL CUNTAPAY'S LAST WILL The pertinent portions of the decedent's will
AND TESTAMENT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROBATED, HAS NO EFFECT reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary In the present case, the decedent's will evidently omitted Francisco Olondriz as
WHATEVER AND PETITIONERS CANNOT CLAIM ANY RIGHT an heir, legatee, or devisee. As the decedent's illegitimate son, Francisco is a
THEREUNDER. 1. Upon my death, IRIS MORALES OLONDRIZ shall be the executor compulsory heir in the direct line. Unless Morales could show otherwise,
hereof and administrator of my estate until its distribution in Francisco's omission from the will leads to the conclusion of his preterition.
Hence, the CA correctly held that, as against petitioners' claim, respondent has accordance herewith, x xx
shown a better right of possession over the subject lot as evidenced by the 2. My entire estate shall be divided into six (6) parts to be distributed THELMA M. ARANAS, petitioner, vs. TERESITA V. MERCADO, FELIMON V.
deeds of conveyances executed in her favor by the children of Isabel Cuntapay equally among and between (1) IRIS MORALES OLONDRIZ, my MERCADO, CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND, RICHARD V. MERCADO, MA.
by her first marriage. children (2) ALFONSO JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., (3) ALEJANDRO TERESITA M. ANDERSON, and FRANKLIN L. MERCADO, respondents.
OLONDRIZ, (4) ISABEL OLONDRIZ, (5) ANGELO OLONDRIZ, and
their mother (6) MARIA ORTEGAS OLONDRIZ, SR.3
Contrary to the assertion of petitioners, therefore, the conveyances made by the G.R. No. 156407. January 15, 2014
Notably, the will omitted Francisco Javier Maria Bautista Olondriz, an
children of Isabel Cuntapay by her first marriage to respondent are valid insofar
illegitimate son of the decedent.
as their pro indiviso shares are concerned. Moreover, the CA justifiably held that
BERSAMIN, J.
these conveyances, as evidenced by the deed of donation and deed of sale

91 | P a g e
of stock issued on January 30, 1979 for 300 shares of stock of Cebu Emerson extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the
DOCTRINE: The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership worth P30,000.00. estate, such as the determination of the status of each heir and whether property
of properties for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased
submitted by the administrator, but its determination shall only be provisional Thelma again moved to require Teresita to be examined under oath spouse.
unless the interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, or the question is one on the inventory. The RTC issued an order expressing the need for the parties to
of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of present evidence and for Teresita to be examined to enable the court to resolve The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a
jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired. the motion for approval of the inventory. Thelma opposed the approval of the probate court or an intestate court, relates only to matters having to do with the
Its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and inventory, and asked leave of court to examine Teresita on the inventory. probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does
distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the status of each heir not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the
and whether property included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule is that such court merely exercises
property of the deceased spouse. The RTC issued on March 14, 2001 an order finding and holding that special and limited jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate court or one
the inventory submitted by Teresita had excluded properties that should be in charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate
FACTS: included. The RTC denied the administratrix's motion for approval of inventory or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are
and orders the said administratrix to re-do the inventory of properties which are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from
supposed to constitute as the estate of the late Emigdio S. Mercado. The RTC the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. All that
Emigdio S. Mercado (Emigdio) died intestate on January 12, 1991, survived by also directed the administratrix to render an account of her administration of the
his second wife, Teresita V. Mercado (Teresita), and their five children, namely: the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether or not
estate of the late Emigdio S. Mercado which had come to her possession. they should be included in the inventory of properties to be administered by the
Allan V. Mercado, Felimon V. Mercado, Carmencita M. Sutherland, Richard V.
Mercado, and Maria Teresita M. Anderson; and his two children by his first administrator. If there is no dispute, there poses no problem, but if there is, then
marriage, namely: respondent Franklin L. Mercado and petitioner Thelma M. Teresita, joined by other heirs of Emigdio, timely sought the the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have to resort to an
Aranas (Thelma). reconsideration of the order of March 14, 2001 on the ground that one of the real ordinary action before a court exercising general jurisdiction for a final
properties affected, Lot No. 3353 located in Badian, Cebu, had already been determination of the conflicting claims of title.
sold to Mervir Realty,
Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties during his lifetime. He owned
corporate shares in Mervir Realty Corporation (Mervir Realty) and Cebu
Emerson Transportation Corporation (Cebu Emerson). He assigned his real On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision insofar as the inclusion IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF
properties in exchange for corporate stocks of Mervir Realty, and sold his real of the inclusion of parcels of land known as Lot No. 3353 located at Badian, RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
property in Badian, Cebu (Lot 3353 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. Cebu with an area of 53,301 square meters subject matter of the Deed of SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS and BENJAMIN
3252) to Mervir Realty. Absolute Sale dated November 9, 1989 and the various parcels of land subject GREGORIO PALAGANAS, Petitioners, 
matter of the Deeds of Assignment dated February 17, 1989 and January 10, vs.
1991 in the revised inventory to be submitted by the administratrix is concerned. ERNESTO PALAGANAS, Respondent
Thelma filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City a petition for the
appointment of Teresita as the administrator of Emigdio's estate. The RTC
granted the petition considering that there was no opposition. The letters of ISSUE: G.R. No. 169144               January 26, 2011
administration in favor of Teresita.
Did the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack ABAD, J.
As the administrator, Teresita submitted an inventory of the estate of Emigdio for or excess ofjurisdiction in directing the inclusion of certain properties in the
the consideration and approval by the RTC. She indicated in the inventory that at inventorynotwithstanding that such properties had been either transferred by
the time of his death, Emigdio had "left no real properties but only personal sale or exchanged for corporate shares in Mervir Realty by the decedent during
DOCTRINE: Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners
properties" worth P6,675,435.25 in all, consisting of cash of P32,141.20; his lifetime?
abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the
furniture and fixtures worth P20,000.00; pieces of jewelry valued at P15,000.00; countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our
44,806 shares of stock of Mervir Realty worth P6,585,585.80; and 30 shares of RULING: jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is
stock of Cebu Emerson worth P22,708.25. abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the
No. The CA's conclusion of grave abuse of discretion on the part of formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or according to
Claiming that Emigdio had owned other properties that were excluded the RTC was unwarrantedand erroneous. the formalities observed in his country.
from the inventory, Thelma moved that the RTC direct Teresita to amend the
inventory, and to be examined regarding it. Teresita filed a compliance with the The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of properties FACTS:
order of January 8, 1993, 3 supporting her inventory with copies of three for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be submitted by
certificates of stocks covering the 44,806 Mervir Realty shares of stock; 4 the the administrator, but its determination shall only be provisional unless the
RupertaPalaganas, a Filipino who became a naturalized U.S. citizen,
deed of assignment executed by Emigdio on January 10, 1991 involving real interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, or the question is one of collation
died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in
properties with the market value of P4,440,651.10 in exchange for 44,407 Mervir or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
California, she designated her brother, Sergio, as the executor of her will for she
Realty shares of stock with total par value of P4,440,700.00; 5 and the certificate probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction
had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.
92 | P a g e
Ernesto, another brother of Ruperta, filed with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, a through a forged document 40,000 shares in Po Wing Corporation; (5) Ramon
petition for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special executed an Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating solely to
administrator of her estate. himself Antonio's entire estate to the prejudice of the respondents; and (6)
Ramon sold Antonio's two parcels of land in Navotas to co-defendant Asia
Manuel and Benjamin, nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the ground Atlantic Business Ventures, Inc. Another parcel of land, which was part of
that Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. Antonio's estate, was sold by Ramon to co-defendant Elena Tiu Del Pilar at an
where she executed it. They added that, assuming Ruperta’s will could be unreasonably low price.
probated in the Philippines, it is invalid nonetheless for having been executed
under duress and without the testator’s full understanding of the consequences The respondents thus prayed for the (1) issuance of a TRO to restrain
of such act. They also claimed that Ernesto is not qualified to act as Ramon or his representatives from disposing or selling any property that belongs
administrator of the estate. to the estate of Antonio; (2) that Ramon be declared as disqualified from
RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, v. HON. inheriting from Antonio Ching; and (3) declaring null the unauthorized transfers
The RTC admitted to probate Ruperta’s last will and appointed Ernesto as JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional made by Ramon.
special administrator at the request of Sergio. The Letters of Special Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6, JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES
Administration was issued to Ernesto. IGNE AND LUCINA SANTOS, substituted by her son, EDUARDO S. The RTC denied the petitioners Motion to Dismiss and subsequent
BALAJADIA, Respondents Motion for Reconsideration.
Manuel and Benjamin appealed to the CA.
G.R. No. 192828 : November 28, 2011 ISSUE:
The CA affirmed the RTC Decision.
REYES, J. Can there be disinheritance in intestate succession?
ISSUE: Can aunprobated will executed by an American citizen in the U.S. be
probated for the first time in the Philippines? RULING:
DOCTRINE: Disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal
cause therefor shall be specified.
RULING: No.Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected only
through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. This Court
FACTS: agrees with the RTC and the CA that while the respondents in their Complaint
Yes. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by
foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed and Amended Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any
in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our FACTS: instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was ever
jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is mentioned. Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's disinheritance, the case filed
abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the The respondents filed a Complaint against the petitioners and does not partake of the nature of a special proceeding and does not call for the
formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or according to Stroghold Insurance Company, Global Business Bank, Inc. (formerly PhilBank), probate court's exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
the formalities observed in his country. Elena Tiu Del Pilar, Asia Atlantic Resources Ventures, Inc., Registers of Deeds
of Manila and Malabon, and all persons claiming rights or titles from Ramon
Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that Ching (Ramon). ROBERTS V. LEONIDAS
if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the RTC of the province
where he has an estate may take cognizance of the settlement of such estate. The Complaint was captioned as one for "Disinheritance, Declaration G.R. No. L-55509 April 27, 1984
of Nullity of Agreement and Waiver, Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed
Our rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a will of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificates of Title with Prayer for [the] Issuance of Aquino, J.:
must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b) the [a] Temporary Restraining Order and [a] Writ of Preliminary Injunction." In the
names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator complaint, the respondents alleged that (1) they are the heirs of Antonio Ching
or decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the property of the estate; and that Ramon misrepresented himself as Antonios son when he was, in fact,
(d) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has not adopted and his birth certificated merely simulated; (2) Antonio was killed with Case Digest by: Nhassie John G. Gonzaga
been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it. Ramon as the prime suspect and prior to the conclusion of the investigations,
Jurisdictional facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the Ramon made an inventory of the formers estate and illegally transferred to his
time of his death in the province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an name the titles to Antonios properties; (3) Ramon sweet-talked respondent
inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such province. The rules do Mercedes into surrendering to him a Certificate of Time Deposit of DOCTRINE:The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate
not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in P4,000,000.00 in the name of Antonio and the TCTs of two condo units of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding.
the country of its execution. registered under Ramons name; (4) Ramon illegally transferred to his own name Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding

93 | P a g e
and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills The defendants declared that they had been living in Caniza’s house since the
two cases. and “no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and 1960’s; that in consideration of their faithful service they had been considered by
allowed” (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court). Caniza as her own family, and the latter had in fact executed a holographic will
by which she “bequeathed” to the Estradas the house and lot in question. The
FACTS: The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person
who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the Estradas insist that the devise of the house to them by Caiza clearly denotes her
Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died in 1977. He was survived by his intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge intention that they remain in possession thereof, and legally incapacitated her
second wife (Maxine), their two children (Pete and Linda), and by his two assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases. judicial guardian, Amparo Evangelista, from evicting them therefrom, since their
children by a first marriage (Juanita and Ethel) which ended by divorce. ouster would be inconsistent with the ward’s will. Such will has not been
submitted for probate.
Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, California on January 23, 1959. One
will disposed of his Philippine estate described as conjugal property of himself ISSUE:
and his second wife. The second will disposed of his estate outside the
Philippines. The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate in Utah by Was the will effective even such was not submitted for probate?
Maxine on March 1978. Maxine admitted that she received notice of the intestate THE INCOMPETENT, CARMEN CANIZA, REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL
petition filed in Manila by Ethel in January 1978. The Utah Court admitted the GUARDIAN, AMPARO EVANGELISTA V. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL HELD: NO
two wills and codicil to probate on April 1978 and was issued upon consideration
FIRST DIVISION), PEDRO ESTRADA AND HIS WIFE, LEONORA ESTRADA
of the stipulation between the attorneys for Maxine and Ethel. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the testator’s death, it may be
G.R. NO. 110427. FEBRUARY 24, 1997
NARVASA, C.J. changed or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and
Also in April 1978, Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding
in Manila, entered into a compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate. no right can be claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit: “No will shall
pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in
As mentioned, in January 1978, an intestate proceeding was instituted by Ethel. accordance with the Rules of Court” An owner’s intention to confer title in the
On March 1978, Maxine filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate Case Digest by: Nhassie John G. Gonzaga future to persons possessing property by his tolerance, is not inconsistent with
proceeding on the ground of pendency of the Utah probate proceedings. She the former’s taking back possession in the meantime for any reason deemed
submitted to the court a copy of Grimm’s will. However, pursuant to the
sufficient. And that, in this case, there was sufficient cause for the owner’s
compromise agreement, Maxine withdrew the opposition and the motion to
dismiss. The court ignored the will found in the record. The estate was DOCTRINE: A Will has no effect whatever and no right can be claimed resumption of possession is apparent: she needed to generate income from the
partitioned. thereunder until it is admitted to Probate house on account of the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her
extreme age.
In 1980, Maxine filed a petition praying for the probate of the two wills (already
probated in Utah), that the partition approved by the intestate court be set aside ASUNCION NABLE JOSE, ET AL. vs.
and the letters of administration revoked, that Maxine be appointed executrix and FACTS:
MARIA IGNACIA USON, ET AL.
Ethel be ordered to account for the properties received by them and return the G.R. No. L-8927, March 10, 1914
same to Maxine. Maxine alleged that they were defrauded due to the Being then ninety-four (94) years of age, Carmen Caniza was declared
MORELAND, J.:
machinations of Ethel that the compromise agreement was illegal and the incompetent by judgment in a guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece,
intestate proceeding was void because Grimm died testate so partition was Amparo A. Evangelista. Caniza was the owner of a house and lot. Her guardian Case Digest by: Nhassie John G. Gonzaga
contrary to the decedent’s wills. Amparo Evangelista commenced a suit to eject the spouses Pedro and Leonora
Estrada from said premises.
Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was denied by Judge Leonidas
for lack of merit.
The complaint was later amended to identify the incompetent Caniza as plaintiff, DOCTRINE: The court below based its construction upon the theory that the
ISSUE: Did the judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of suing through her legal guardian, Amparo Evangelista. The amended Complaint other construction would be "an admission that the testatrix desired to favor her
jurisdiction in denying Ethel’s motion to dismiss? pertinently alleged that plaintiff Caniza was the absolute owner of the property in deceased sister Eufemia Uson, who left three children, more than her other
question; that out of kindness, she had allowed the Estrada Spouses, their deceased sister Antonia Uson, who left two children, and moreover both would
HELD: NO children, grandchildren, and sons-in-law to temporarily reside in her house, rent- be more favored than any of the other four surviving sisters, one of whom was
free; that Caniza already had urgent need of the house on account of her married at the time of the execution of the said codicil and without doubt had
We hold that respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion, children."
advanced age and failing health, “so funds could be raised to meet her expenses
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in denying Ethel’s motion to dismiss.
for support, maintenance and medical treatment;” among others.
FACTS:

94 | P a g e
The question involved in this appeal arises from the interpretation of the first and We note, in the second place, that the testatrix, in the second paragraph of the On April 23, 1959, more than two years after her will was allowed to probate,
second clauses of a codicil to the will of Filomena Uson. They read as follows: codicil, names and identifies each one of her heirs then living, in each one of the Basilia died.  The respondent Perfecto Cruz was appointed executor without
persons whom she desires shall succeed her husband in the property. Among bond by the same court in accordance with the provisions of the decedent's will,
First. I declare that all the property which belongs to me as conjugal those mentioned specially are the nieces as well as the sisters. The nieces are notwithstanding the blocking attempt pursued by the petitioner Ruben Austria.
property, referred to in my said testament, shall be the property of my referred to in no way different from the sisters. Each one stands out in the
aforesaid husband, Don Rafael Sison; in case all or part of said second paragraph of the codicil as clearly as the other and under exactly the Finally, on November 5, 1959, the present petitioners filed in the same
property exists at my husband's death, it is my will that at his death same conditions. proceedings a petition in intervention for partition alleging in substance that they
my sisters and nieces hereinafter named succeed him as heirs. are the nearest of kin of Basilia, and that the five respondents Perfecto Cruz,... et
In the third place, we note, with interest, the last clause of the second paragraph al., had not in fact been adopted by the decedent in accordance with law, in
of the codicil which, it seems to us, taken together with the last clause of the first effect rendering these respondents mere strangers to the decedent and without
Second. I declare to be my sisters in lawful wedlock the persons any right to succeed as heirs.
named Doña Antonia Uson, now deceased, who has left tow paragraph of the codicil, is decisive of the intention of the testatrix. In the last
daughters called Maria Rosario, widow, and Maria Paz, unmarried; clause she says that she names all of the persons whom she desires to take
ISSUES:
Maria Romualda Uson, widow of Estanislao Lengson; Ignacia Uson, under her will be name "so that they must take and enjoy the property in equal
married to Don Vicente Puson; Eufemia Uson, now deceased, who is parts as good sisters and relatives."
May the institution of heirs retains its efficacy in the event there exists proof that
survived by three daughters called Maria Salud, Maria Amparo, and the adoption of the same heirs by the decedent is false?
Maria Asuncion; and Maria Pilar Uson; Maria Manaoag Uson, We have then in the first paragraph a declaration as to who the testatrix desires
unmarried, issued had by our deceased after Don Daniel Uson with shall become the owners of her property on the death of her husband. Among
one Leonarda Fernandez, alias Andao de Lingayen, so that they may them we find the names of the nieces as well as of the sisters. We have also the
have and enjoy it in equal parts as good sisters and relatives. final declaration of the testatrix that she desires that the sisters and the nieces HELD: NO
shall take and enjoy the property in equal parts. That being so, it appears to us
The court below found that the children of the deceased sisters should take only that the testatrix's intention is fairly clear, so clear in fact that it is unnecessary to The decedent's will, which alone should provide the answer, is mute on this point
that portion which their respective mothers would have taken if they been alive at bring in extraneous arguments to reach a conclusion as to what she intended. or at best is vague and uncertain.  The phrases, "mga sapilitang tagapagmana"
the time the will was made; that the property should be divided into six equal and"sapilitangmana," were borrowed from the language of the law on succession
parts corresponding to the number of sisters; that each living sister should take and were used, respectively, to describe the class of heirs instituted and the
RUBEN AUSTRIA v. ANDRES REYES,
one-sixth, and the children of each deceased sister should also take one-sixth, abstract object of the inheritance.  They offer no... absolute indication that the
GR No. L-23079, FEBRUARY 27, 1970
each one- sixth to be divided among said children equally. decedent would have willed her estate other than the way she did if she had
CASTRO, J.:
known that she was not bound by law to make allowance for legitimes.  Her
disposition of the free portion of her estate(libre disposicion) which largely
ISSUE: In interpreting the codicil to the will of Filomena Uson, was it her Case Digest by: Nhassie John G. Gonzaga
favored the respondent Perfecto Cruz, the latter's children, and the children of
intention to equally divide among her heirs the property? the respondent Benita Cruz, shows a perceptible inclination on her part to give to
the... respondents more than what she thought the law enjoined her to give to
HELD: YES them.  Compare this with the relatively small devise of land which the decedent
DOCTRINE:Testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side, especially had left for her blood relatives, including the petitioners Consuelo Austria-Benta
where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of andLauro Mozo and the children of the petitioner Ruben Austria.  Were we to
We are of the opinion that the appellants' contention is well founded. We see no practically his whole estate exclude the respondents Perfecto Cruz, et al. from the inheritance, then the
words appellants in the clauses quoted which lead necessarily to the
petitioners and the other nephews and nieces would succeed to the bulk of the
construction placed upon those paragraphs by the learned court below. On the
estate... by intestacy -- a result which would subvert the clear wishes of the
other hand, we find expressions which seem to indicate with fair clearness that it FACTS: decedent.
was the intention of the testatrix to divide her property equally between her
sisters and nieces. The court below based its construction upon the theory that On July 7, 1956 Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed with the Court of First Instance Whatever doubts one entertains in his mind should be swept away by these
the other construction would be "an admission that the testatrix desired to favor of Rizal (Special Proceedings 2457) a petition for probate, ante mortem, of her explicit injunctions in the Civil Code: "The words of a will are to receive an
her deceased sister Eufemia Uson, who left three children, more than her other last will and testament.  The probate... was opposed by the present petitioners interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one
deceased sister Antonia Uson, who left two children, and moreover both would Ruben Austria, Consuelo Austria-Benta and Lauro Austria Mozo, and still others which will render any of the expressions... inoperative; and of two modes of
be more favored than any of the other four surviving sisters, one of whom was who, like the petitioners, are nephews and nieces of Basilia.  This opposition interpreting a will that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy."
married at the time of the execution of the said codicil and without doubt had was,... however, dismissed and the probate of the will allowed after due hearing.
children."
Testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side, especially where the will
The bulk of the estate of Basilia, admittedly, was destined, under the will to pass evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole
As we look at the codicil we observe, first, that the testatrix, in the first paragraph on to the respondents Perfecto Cruz, Benita Cruz-Meñez, Isagani Cruz, Alberto estate,[2] as was done in this... case.  Moreover, so compelling is the principle
thereof, declares that after her husband's death she desires that "my sisters and Cruz, and Luz Cruz-Salonga, all of whom had been assumed and... declared by that intestacy should be avoided and the wishes of the testator allowed to
nieces, as hereinafter named, shall succeed him as heirs." Basilia as her own legally adopted children. prevail, that we could even vary the language of the will for the purpose of giving

95 | P a g e
it... effect. A probate court has found, by final judgment, that the late Basilia On the disposition of the testator's property, the will provided that all his shares the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir;
Austria Vda. de Cruz was possessed of testamentary capacity and  her last will that he may receive from properties. house, lands and money which he earned but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.
executed free... from falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence.  In this jointly with his wife Rosa Diongson shall all be given to his brother Segundo
situation, it becomes our duty to give full expression to her will. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall
Acain. In case Segundo pre-deceased him, his share shall be given to
Segundo’s children. be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.
At all events, the legality of the adoption of the respondents by the testatrix can
be assailed only in a separate action brought for that purpose, and cannot be the
subject of a collateral attack. Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio. Thus, it is the children of Segundo who are
claiming to be heirs. Virginia A. Fernandez, a legally adopted daughter of tile
deceased and the latter's widow Rosa DiongsonVda. de Acain opposed because FACTS:
the children of Segundo were merely universal heirs and the widow and the
Dr. Arturo de Santos filed a petition for probate of his will. He alleged that he had
adopted daughter have been pretirited.
no compulsory heirs. He had named in his will as sole legatee and devisee the
ISSUE: Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc.Copies of said will were in the custody of the
named executrix, Pacita de los Reyes Phillips.
Do legally adopted daughter and the widow of the deceased have been
pretirited? It appears from the evidence adduced that Dr. de Santos in his lifetime, executed
his Last Will and Testament. The Last Will and Testament having been executed
RULING: YES.The legally adopted daughter has been pretirited but not the and attested as required by law. He, at the time of the execution of the will, was
ACAIN V. IAC widow of the deceased. of sane mind and/or not mentally incapable to make a Will nor was it executed
under duress or under the influence of fear or threats.It was in writing and
G.R. NO. 72706, OCTOBER 27, 1987 Preterition mentioned in article 854 consists in the omission in the testator's will executed in the language known and understood by the testator. Shortly after the
of the forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not mentioned probate of his will, Dr. De Santos died.
PARAS, J. therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are
expressly disinherited. Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming that, as the only
child of Alicia de Santos (testator's sister) and Octavio L. Maloles, Sr., he was
Adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr. De Santos. He likewise
DOCTRINE:Article 854 – the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the alleged that he was a creditor of the testator. Petitioner thus prayed for the
compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of adopter. It cannot be denied that Virginia A. Fernandez was totally omitted and reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the issuance of letters of
the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow administration in his name.He further sought to intervene in the appointment of
but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. were deprived of at least their legitime. Phillips as special administrator.

If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall Insofar as the widow is concerned, she does not ascend or descend from the ISSUE:
be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation. testator, although she is a compulsory heir. Stated otherwise, even if the
surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no preterition even if she is DoesOctavio S. Maloles IIhave a right to intervene and oppose the petition for
omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line. issuance of letters testamentary to Phillips?

FACTS: Hence, this is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child. RULING: NO.

Constantino Acain filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late It is a fundamental rule of testamentary succession that one who has no
MALOLES V. PHILIPS, 324 SCRA 172
NemesioAcain and for the issuance to the same petitioner of letters testamentary G.R. NO. 129505, JANUARY 31, 2000 compulsory or forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by will.
on the premise that NemesioAcain died leaving a will in which petitioner and his MENDOZA, J.
brothers Antonio, Flores and Jose and his sisters Anita, Concepcion, Quirina and Even if Maloles is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De Santos, he cannot be
Laura were instituted as heirs.  The will allegedly execute was written in Bisaya considered an "heir" of the testator. He is not an heir or legatee under the will of
with a translation in English The will contained provisions on burial rites, the decedent Arturo de Santos. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the latter. As
payment of debts, and the appointment of a certain Atty. Ignacio G. Villagonzalo DOCTRINE:Article 854 – the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the the only and nearest collateral relative of the decedent, he can inherit from the
as the executor of the testament. compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of latter only in case of intestacy. Since the decedent has left a will which has

96 | P a g e
already been probated and disposes of all his properties the private respondent ISSUE: to their father, Julian L. Teves. In other words, the properties now selected and
can inherit only if the said will is annulled. His interest in the decedent's estate is, adjudicated to Julian L. Tevesshall exclusively be adjudicated to the wife in
therefore, not direct or immediate.Nor does he have any right to intervene in the Was the illegitimate child of the decedent omitted from the will preterited? second marriage of Julian L. Teves and his four minor children.
settlement proceedings based on his allegation that he is a creditor of the
deceased. Since the testator instituted or named an executor in his will, it is RULING: YES. Subsequently, Supplemental Deed was initiated in favor of J.L.T. Agro,
incumbent upon the Court to respect the desires of the testator. Inc.transferring ownership over Lot No. 63 to the latter.
The preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line shall annul the institution of
heirs, but the devises and legacies shall remain valid insofar as the legitimes are Meanwhile, Milagros Donio and her children had immediately taken possession
not impaired. Consequently, if a will does not institute any devisees or legatees, over Lot No. 63 after the execution of the Compromise Agreement. they entered
the preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line will result in total intestacy. into a yearly lease agreement with spouses Antonio Balansag and Hilaria
Cadayday. Unaware that the subject lot was already registered in the name
The decedent's will evidently omitted Francisco Olondriz as an heir, legatee, or ofJ.L.T. Agro, Inc., Balansag and Cadayday bought Lot No. 63 from Milagros
devisee. As the decedent's illegitimate son, Francisco is a compulsory heir in the Donio.
direct line. Unless Morales could show otherwise, Francisco's omission from the
will leads to the conclusion of his preterition. ISSUE:

The decedent's will does not contain specific legacies or devices and Francisco's Will the Supplemental Deed tantamount to a preterition of the decedent’s heirs
preterition annulled the institution of heirs. The annulment effectively caused from the second marriage?
the total abrogation of the will, resulting in total intestacy of the inheritance.
RULING: NO.

MORALES V. OLONDRIZ Article 854 provides that the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the
G.R. NO. 198994, FEBRUARY 3, 2016 JLT AGRO V. BALANSAG compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of
BRION, J. G.R. NO. 141882, MARCH 11, 2005 the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir;
TINGA, J. but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.
DOCTRINE:Article 854 – the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the
compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of Manresa defines preterition as the omission of the heir in the will, either by not
DOCTRINE: Article 854 – the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the
the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; naming him at all or, while mentioning him as father, son, etc., by not instituting
compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of
but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. him as heir without disinheriting him expressly, nor assigning to him some part of
the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir;
the properties. It is the total omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line from
but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.
If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall inheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a compulsory
be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall heir, omitting him in the testament, either by not mentioning him at all, or by not
be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation. giving him anything in the hereditary property but without expressly disinheriting
him, even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case. But there is no
preterition where the testator allotted to a descendant a share less than the
FACTS: legitime, since there was no total omission of a forced heir.
FACTS:
Alfonso Juan P. Olondriz, Sr.died and was survived by his widow, Ana Maria Don Julian did not execute a will since what he resorted to was a partition inter
Ortigas de Olondriz, and his children. Believing that the decedent died intestate, Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena, and vivos of his properties, as evidenced by the court approved Compromise
the respondent heirs filed a petitionfor the partition of the decedent's estate and after her death, with Milagros DonioTeves. Don Julian had two children with Agreement. Thus, it is premature if not irrelevant to speak of preterition prior to
the appointment of a special administrator. Antonia and four (4) children with Milagros Donio. the death of Don Julian in the absence of a will depriving a legal heir of his
legitime. Besides, there are other properties which the heirs from the second
However, Iris Morales filed a separate petitionalleging that the decedent left a A Compromise Agreement was executed that lays down the effect of the marriage could inherit from Don Julian upon his death. A couple of provisions in
will where she was appointed as special administratrix. Portions of the eventual death of Don Julian vis-à-vis his heirs. The propertiesadjudicated to the the Compromise Agreement are indicative of Don Julian’s desire along this
decedent's will states that Iris Morales is one of the heirs and that the illegitimate children in the first marriage shall be understood as including not only their one- line.Hence, the total omission from inheritance of Don Julian’s heirs from the
child in the name of Francisco was omitted. half share which they inherited from their mother but also the legitimes and other
successional rights which would correspond to them of the other half belonging
97 | P a g e
second marriage, a requirement for preterition to exist, is hardly imaginable as it Case Digest by: Ernie Gultiano his death, Liberato acted as the administrator. The Fernandez Family rented the
is unfounded. portion transferred to Policronio. But even after the fact, the tenants never turned
over the produce of the lands to Policronio or any of this heirs, but to Alfonso
DOCTRINE: A holographic will must be written, dated and signed by the testator and, later, to the administrators of his estate. When Policronio died, except for a
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E.
CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. ADOLFO C. AZNAR, v. MARIA LUCY himself. portion of one of the parcels of land, neither Policronio nor his heirs ever took
CHRISTENSEN DUNCAN possession of the subject lands. Alfonso’s heirs executed a Deed of Extra-
FACTS: Judicial Partition,8 which included all the lands that were covered by the four (4)
G. R. No. L-24365, June 30, 1966
deeds of sale that were previously executed by Alfonso for taxation purposes.
On September 1988, private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the Conrado, Policronio’s eldest son, representing the Heirs of Policronio, signed the
Case Digest by: Ernie Gultiano
intestate estate of the late Segundo. Petitioners opposed assailing among others Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in behalf of his co-heirs. Heirs of Policronio
that Segundo left a holographic will which is entirely a declaration of allegedly learned about the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition involving Alfonso’s
disinheritance affecting Alfredo, one of the private respondents. Private estate when it was published in the July 19, 1995 issue of the Aklan Reporter.
DOCTRINE: When a testator leaves to a forced heir a legacy worth less than the
respondents opposed the probate on the ground that the holographic will did not The Heirs of Policronio averred that the extra-judicial partition is void because
legitime, but without referring to the legatee as an heir or even as a relative, and
contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased. RTC dismissed the petition Conrado signed the same without written authority form his siblings.
willed the rest of the estate to other persons, the heir could not ask that the
for probate easoning that the holographic will clearly shows preterition.
institution of the heirs be annulled entirely, but only that the legitime be
Issue:
completed.
ISSUE:
Did ConradoUreta’s lack of capacity to give his co-heirs’ consent to the Extra-
Can the document executed by Segundo be considered as a holographic will? Judicial Partition render the same voidable?
FACTS:
RULING: Ruling:
Christensen died testate. The will was admitted to probate. The court declared
that Helen Garcia was a natural child of the deceased. The Court of First
A holographic will must be written, dated and signed by the testator himself. An No. Article 1390 is not applicable in this case. Article 1390 (1) contemplates the
Instance equally divided the properties of the estate of Christensen between
intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly deducted from the terms of the incapacity of a party to give consent to a contract. What is involved in the case at
Lucy Duncan (whom testator expressly recognized in his will as his daughter)
instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative deposition of the latter’s bench though is not Conrado’s incapacity to give consent to the contract, but
and Helen Garcia. In the order, the CFI held that Helen Garcia was preterited in
property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, is an act of disposition in itself. The rather his lack of authority to do so. Instead, Articles 1403 (1), 1404, and 1317 of
the will thus, the institution of Lucy Duncan as heir was annulled and the
disinheritance results in the disposition of the property in favor of those who the Civil Code find application to the circumstances prevailing in this case. The
properties passed to both of them as if the deceased died intestate.
would succeed in the absence of Alfredo. Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale is not a voidable or an annullable
contract under Article 1390 of the New Civil Code. Article 1390 renders a
ISSUE:
With regard to the issue on preterition, the court believes that the compulsory contract voidable if one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to the
heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was Segundo’s last contract or if the contracting party’s consent is vitiated by mistake, violence,
Should the estate, after deducting the legacies, be equally divided or the
expression bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs, with the sole intimidation, undue influence or fraud. Therefore, Conrado’s failure to obtain
inheritance of Lucy as instituted heir be merely reduced to the extent necessary
exception of Alfredo. authority from his co-heirs to sign the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in their
to cover the legitime of Helen Garcia, equivalent to ¼ of the entire estate?
behalf did not result in his incapacity to give consent so as to render the contract
HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA voidable, but rather, it rendered the contract valid but unenforceable against
RULING:
G.R. No. 165748, 14 September 2011 Conrado’s co-heirs for having been entered into without their authority.
The inheritance of Lucy should be merely reduced to cover the legitime of Helen
Garcia. REYES Y BARRETTO v. LUCIA MILAGROS BARRETTO-DATU
Case Digest by: Ernie Gultiano GR No. L-17818, Jan 25, 1967
Christensen refused to acknowledge Helen Garcia as his natural daughter and
limited her share to a legacy of P3,600.00. When a testator leaves to a forced Case Digest by: Ernie Gultiano
heir a legacy worth less than the legitime, but without referring to the legatee as DOCTRINE: Article 1390 is not applicable in this case. Article 1390 (1)
an heir or even as a relative, and willed the rest of the estate to other persons, contemplates the incapacity of a party to give consent to a contract
the heir could not ask that the institution of the heirs be annulled entirely, but DOCTRINE: It is that judicial decree of distribution, once final, that vests title in
only that the legitime be completed. Facts: the distributees. Where a court has validly issued a decree of distribution of the
estate, and the same has become final, the validity or invalidity of the project of
DY YIENG SEANGIO v. AMOR A. REYES Alfonso Ureta was financially well-off and owned several properties. He begot partition becomes irrelevant.
fourteen children, including herein petitioners and Policronio, father of
G.R. Nos. 140371-72, Nov 27, 2006
respondents. For taxation purposes, Alfonso sold, without monetary
consideration, several parcels of land to four of his children, including Policronio.
Alfonso continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands and their produce. Upon Facts:
98 | P a g e
The view that the partition in question is void for being a compromise on the civil appointed administrator. The parents opposed saying that they are the
BibianoBarretto was married to Maria Gerardo. During their lifetime, they status of Salud, in violation of Art. 1814 (OCC) is erroneous. A compromise compulsory heirs of the decedent in the direct ascending line and that the will
acquired vast estate (real property in Manila, Pampanga and Bulacan). When presupposes the settlement of a controversy through mutual concessions of the should be void on the ground of absolute preterition.
Bibiano died (Feb. 18, 1936), he left his share in a will to SaludBarretto (mother parties; and the condition of Salud as daughter of the testator Bibiano, while
of the minors) and Lucia Milagros Barretto; and a small portion as legacies to his untrue, was at no time disputed during the settlement of the estate of testator. Below is the will:
sisters Rosa Barretto and Felisa Barretto and his nephew and nieces. The There can be no compromise over issues not in dispute. While a compromise
usufruct of a fishpond was reserved for Maria (the widow). As appointed over civil status is prohibited, the law nowhere forbids a settlement by the parties
Nov. 17, 1951
administratrix, Maria prepared a project of partition, signed by her in her own over the share that should correspond to a claimant to the estate.
behalf and as guardian of the minor Milagros. It was approved, and the estate
was distributed and the shares delivered. Salud took immediate possession of At any rate, independently of the project of partition (a mere proposal for I, ROSARIO NUGUID, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, having
her share and secured the cancellation of OCTs and issuance of new titles in her distribution of estate), it is the court alone that makes the distribution of the amassed a certain amount of property, do hereby give, devise, and bequeath all
name. estate and determines the persons entitled thereto and the parts to which each is of the property which I may have when I die to my beloved sister
entitled. It is that judicial decree of distribution, once final, that vests title in the RemediosNuguid, age 34, residing with me at 38-B Iriga, Q.C. In witness
Upon Maria’s death (Mar. 5, 1948), it was discovered that she executed two distributees. Where a court has validly issued a decree of distribution of the whereof, I have signed my name this seventh day of November, nineteen
wills: in the first, she instituted Salud and Milagros as her heirs; in the second, estate, and the same has become final, the validity or invalidity of the project of hundred and fifty- one.
she revoked the same and left all her properties in favor of Milagros alone. The partition becomes irrelevant.
later will was allowed and the first rejected. In rejecting the first will presented by
Tirso Reyes (as guardian of the children of SaludBarretto), the RTC held that
Salud was not the daughter of the decedent Maria by her husband Bibiano. The
SC affirmed the same. ISSUE:

Having lost the fight for a share in the estate of Maria as her legitimate heir, Tirso Is the will made by Rosario void?
now falls back upon the remnant of the estate of Bibiano (the fishpond), which
was given in usufruct to Maria. Hence, this action for the recovery of the one-half RULING: YES
portion thereof. This action afforded Milagros an opportunity to set up her right of
ownership; not only of the fishpond under litigation, but of all the other properties Where the deceased left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate,
willed and delivered to Salud, for being a spurious heir, and not entitled to any but she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line·her parents, and her
share in the estate of Bibiano, thereby directly attacking the validity, not only of holographic will does not explicitly disinherit them but simply omits their names
the project of partition, but of the decision of the court based thereon as well. altogether, the case is one of preterition of the parents, not a case of ineffective
NUGUID VS. NUGUID, ET AL.
Issue: disinheritance.
No. L-23445. June 23, 1966.
Is the partition from which Salud acquired the fishpond in question void ab initio The effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of
and Salud did not acquire valid title to it? disinheritance. Preterition under Article 854 of the New Civil Code „shall annul
the institution of heir‰. This annulment is in toto, unless in the will there are, in
Ruling: DOCTRINE: Where the deceased left no descendants, legitimate or addition, testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. In
illegitimate, but she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line·her parents, and ineffective disinheritance under Article 918 of the same Code, such
Salud admittedly had been instituted heir in Bibiano’s last will and testament her holographic will does not explicitly disinherit them but simply omits their disinheritance shall also „annul the institution of heirs‰, but only „insofar as it
together with Milagros. Hence, the partition had between them could not be one
names altogether, the case is one of preterition of the parents, not a case of may prejudice the person disinherited‰, which last phrase was omitted in the
such had with a party who was believed to be an heir without really being one,
and was not null and void under Art. 1081. The legal precept of Art. 1081 does ineffective disinheritance. case of preterition (III Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1961 Edition, p.
not speak of children, or descendants, but of heirs (without distinction between 172). Better stated yet, in disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the
forced, voluntary or intestate ones), and the fact that Salud did not happen to be estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived.
a daughter of the testator does not preclude her being one of the heirs expressly
named in his testament; for Bibiano was at liberty to assign the free portion of his FACTS: Where the onesentence will institutes the petitioner as the sole,
estate to whomsoever he chose. While the share (½) assigned to Salud universal heir and preterits the parents of the testatrix, and it contains no specific
impinged on the legitime of Milagros, Salud did not for that reason cease to be a Rosario died single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving legacies or bequests, such universal institution of petitioner, by itself, is void. And
testamentary heir of Bibiano. Nor does the fact that Milagros was allotted in her were her legitimate parents, Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters. One of
father’s will a share smaller than her legitime invalidate the institution of Salud as intestate succession ensues.
the siblings filed a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario 11 years
heir, since there was no preterition or total omission of a forced heir here.
before her death and prayed that she be admitted to the probate and be PCIB VS. ESCOLIN

99 | P a g e
No. L-27860 & L-27896. MARCH 29, 1974 shall be respected regardless of the presence of legitimes (Charles’ share in the occurrence of the death of Hodges in the event of actual existence of any
estate). remainder of her estate then.

PCIB argued that the law of Texas refers the matter back to RABADILLA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
DOCTRINE: Substitution occurs only when another heir is appointed Philippine laws because Linnie was domiciled outside Texas at the time of her
in a will „so that he may enter into inheritance in default of the heir originally death (applying the renvoi doctrine). No. 113725. JUNE 29, 2000
instituted.

FACTS:
ISSUE: DOCTRINE: In a fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated
Linnie Jane Hodges, an American citizen from Texas, made a will in to preserve the property and to transmit the same later to the second heir. In the
1952. Is there a substitution under Article 857 and 859? case under consideration, the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil
to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the near descendants or
Unfortunately, she passed away in 1957 while she was domiciled in Iloilo City. the sister of the testatrix
In her will, she left all her estate in favor of her husband, Charles Newton RULING: NO FACTS:
Hodges. Linnie, however, also stated in her will that should her husband later
die, said estate shall be turned over to her brother and sister. Legally speaking, Mrs. HodgesÊ will provide neither for a simple or In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix
vulgar substitution under article 859 of the Civil Code nor for a fideicommissary AlejaBelleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein
In 1962, Charles died (it appears he was also domiciled in the substitution under article 863 thereof. There is no vulgar substitution therein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of 511, 855 square
Philippines). because there is no provision for either (1) predecease of the testator by the meters of that parcel of land surveyed as Lot No. 1392 of theBacolodCadastre.
designated heir or (2) refusal or (3) incapacity of the latter to accept the The said Codicil, which was duly probated and admitted in Special Proceedings
While the probate proceeding on the will of Linnie was pending, Atty. Leon inheritance, as required by article 859; and neither is there a fideicommissary No. 4046 before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.
Gellada, the lawyer of Charles, filed a motion before the probate court so that a substitution therein because no obligation is imposed thereby upon Hodges to
certain AvelinaMagno may be appointed as the administratrix of the estate. The preserve the estate or any part thereof for anyone else.
latter was the trusted employee of the Hodges when they were alive.
“That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the aforementioned
Atty. Gellada manifested that Charles himself left a will but the same property and the rights which I shall set forth hereinbelow, shall be inherited and
was in an iron trunk in Charles’ office. Hence, in the meantime, he would like to Substitution occurs only when another heir is appointed in a will „so acknowledged by the children and spouse of Jorge Rabadilla”
have Magno appointed as administratrix. The said motion was approved by that he may enter into inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted.
Judge VenicioEscolin. a)….It is also my command, in this my addition (Codicil), that should I
die and Jorge Rabadilla shall have already received the ownership of the said
Later, Charles’ will was found and so a new petition for probate was Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
filed for the said will. Since said will basically covers the same estate, Magno, as The brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges are also heirs instituted
No. RT-4002 (10942), and also at the time that the lease of Balbinito G.
admininistratrix of Linnie’s estate opposed the said petition. simultaneously with Hodges, subject, however, to certain conditions, partially
Guanzon of the said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation
resolutory insofar as Hodges was concerned and correspondingly suspensive
until he dies, every year to give to Maria MarlinaCoscolluela y Belleza, Seventy
Eventually, the probate of Charles’ will was granted. Eventually still, with reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law. It is partially resolutory, since it
(75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and TwentyFive (25) piculs of Domestic sugar,
the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank was appointed as administrator. bequeaths unto Hodges the whole of her estate to be owned and enjoyed by him
until the said Maria MarlinaCoscolluela y Belleza dies.
But Magno refused to turn over the estate. as universal and sole heir with absolute dominion over them only during his
lifetime, which means that while he could completely and absolutely dispose of Should Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall give Lot No.
Magno contended that in her will, Linnie wanted Charles to turn over the property any portion thereof inter rivos to anyone other than himself, he was not free to do 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-
to Linnie’s brother and sister and since that is her will, the same must be so mortis causa, and all his right to what might remain upon his death would 4002 (10492), shall have the obligation to still give yearly, the sugar as specified
respected. cease entirely upon the occurrence of that contingency, inasmuch as the right of in the Fourth paragraph of his testament, to Maria MarlinaCoscolluela y Belleza
his brothers and sisters-in- law to the inheritance, although vested already upon on the month of December of each year.
Magno also contended that Linnie was a Texan at the time of her the death of Mrs. Hodges, would automatically become operative upon the
death (an alien testator); that under Article 16 of the Civil Code, successional
rights are governed by Linnie’s national law; that under Texas law, Linnie’s will
100 | P a g e
If Dr. Rabadilla or his heirs decide to sell, lease or transfer, the buyer, Another important element of a fideicommissary substitution is also -received ½ (as spouse) and usufructuary rights over 1/3 of the free
lessee or transferee shall also have the same obligation to the testator’s sister. missing here. Under Article 863, the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom portion
Failure to do so will forfeit the property to the sister and nearest relatives. the property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or
the fiduciary. A fideicommissary substitution is therefore, void if the first heir is Roberto and Jorge Ramirez
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina not related by first degree to the second heir. In the case under scrutiny, the near
and children Johnny (petitioner), Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida, all surnamed descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. -two grandnephews
Rabadilla.
-lives in Malate
RAMIREZ VS VDA DE RAMIREZ
ISSUE:
-received the ½ (free portion)
No. L-27952. FEBRUARY 15, 1982
Is there a substitution under Article 859?
Wanda de Wrobleski

-companion
DOCTRINE: But dying before the testator is not the only case for
RULING: NO vulgar substitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity to accept the -Austrian who lives in Spain
inheritance as provided in Art. 859 of the Civil Code, supra. Hence, the vulgar
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons
substitution is valid. -receivedusufructuary rights of 2/3 of the free portion
to take the place of the heir or heirs first instituted. Under substitutions in
general, the testator may either (1) provide for the designation of another heir to FACTS: -vulgar substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio
whom the property shall pass in case the original heir should die before him/her,
Ramirez
renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on
substitution, or (2) leave his/her property to one person with the express charge December 11, 1964, with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was -Maria Luisa Palacios -administratix
that it be transmitted subsequently to another or others, as in a fideicommissary admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, on July
substitution. 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the estate. -Jorge and Roberto Ramirez opposed because

In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in a. vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda wrt widow’s usufruct and in
default of the first heir by reason of incapacity, predecease or renunciation. In favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez, wrt to Wanda’s usufruct is
the case under consideration, the provisions of subject Codicil do not provide On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition INVALID because first heirs (Marcelle and Wanda) survived the testator
that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or as follows: the property of the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part
renunciation, the testatrixÊs near descendants would substitute him. What the shall go to the widow “en plenodominio” in satisfaction of her legitime; the other
Codicil provides is that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the part or “free portion” shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez “en
conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property referred to shall be seized and nudapropriedad.” Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with b. fideicommissary substitutions are INVALID because first heirs not
turned over to the testatrixÊs near descendants. the widow‟s usufruct and the remaining two-third (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree as provided in
Wanda. Art 863 CC
In a fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to
preserve the property and to transmit the same later to the second heir. In the -APPEAL for the partitioning of testate estate of Jose Eugenio c. grant of usufruct of real property in favor of an alien, Wanda,
case under consideration, the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil Ramirez (a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964) among violated Art XIII Sec 5
to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the near descendants or principal beneficiaries:
the sister of the testatrix. Thus, a very important element of a fideicommissary d. proposed partition of the testator’’s interest in the Santa Cruz
substitution is lacking; the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the MarcelleDemoron de Ramirez Building between widow and appellants violates testators express will to give this
preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir. „Without this property to them
obligation to preserve clearly imposed by the testator in his will, there is no -widow
ISSUE:
fideicommissary substitution. Also, the near descendantsE right to inherit from
-French who lives in Paris
the testatrix is not definite. The property will only pass to them should Dr. Jorge
Is the vulgar substitution under Article 859 valid?
Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of the usufruct to
private respondent.
101 | P a g e
RULING: YES land surveyed as Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre. The said Codicil, which
ART. 863. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first was duly probated and admitted in Special Proceeding before the then Court of
They allege that the substitution in its vulgar aspect is void because heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a First Instance of Negros Occidental, contained the following provisions:
Wanda survived the testator or stated differently because she did not second heir the whole or part of inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect,
predecease the testator. But dying before the testator is not the only case for provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir SIXTH
originally instituted, and provided further that the fiduciary or first heir and the
vulgar substitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity to accept the second heir are living at time of the death of the testator. I command, in this my addition (Codicil) that the Lot No. 1392, in the event that
inheritance as provided in Art. 859 of the Civil Code, supra. Hence, the vulgar the one to whom I have left and bequeathed, and his heir shall later sell, lease,
substitution is valid. It was void due to the following reasons: mortgage this said Lot, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee, shall have also the
(a) The substitutes (Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez) are not obligation to respect and deliver yearly ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar to
As regards the substitution in its fideicommissary aspect, the related to Wanda, the heir originally instituted. Art. 863 of the Civil Code Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, on each month of December, SEVENTY
appellants are correct in their claim that it is void for the following reasons: The validates a fideicommissary substitution "provided such substitution does not go FIVE (75) piculs of Export and TWENTY FIVE (25) piculs of Domestic, until
substitutes (Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez) are not related to beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted." Maria Marlina shall die, lastly should the buyer, lessee or the mortgagee of this
Wanda, the heir originally instituted. Art 863 of the Civil Code validates a lot, not have respected my command in this my addition (Codicil), Maria Marlina
What is meant by "one degree" from the first heir is explained by Tolentino as Coscolluela y Belleza, shall immediately seize this Lot No. 1392 from my heir
fideicommissary substitution „provided such substitution does not go beyond one follows: and the latter's heirs, and shall turn it over to my near descendants, (sic) and the
degree from the heir originally instituted. Scaevola Maura, and Traviesas construe "degree" as designation, latter shall then have the obligation to give the ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of
substitution, or transmission. The Supreme Court of Spain has sugar until Maria Marlina shall die. I further command in this my addition (Codicil)
TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZvs.MARCELLE D. VDA. DE decidedly adopted this construction. From this point of view, there can that my heir and his heirs of this Lot No. 1392, that they will obey and follow that
RAMIREZ, ET AL. be only one tranmission or substitution, and the substitute need not should they decide to sell, lease, mortgage, they cannot negotiate with others
G.R. No. L-27952, February 15, 1982 be related to the first heir. Manresa, Morell and Sanchez Roman, than my near descendants and my sister."
ABAD SANTOS, J. however, construe the word "degree" as generation, and the present
Code has obviously followed this interpretation by providing that the Pursuant to the same Codicil, Lot No. 1392 was transferred to the deceased, Dr.
DOCTRINE:Art. 863 of the Civil Code validates a fideicommissary substitution substitution shall not go beyond one degree "from the heir originally Jorge Rabadilla, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 44498 thereto issued in his
"provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir instituted." The Code thus clearly indicates that the second heir must name.
originally instituted." be related to and be one generation from the first heir.
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina and
FACTS: From this, it follows that the fideicommissary can only be either a children Johnny (petitioner), Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida, all surnamed Rabadilla.
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964, child or a parent of the first heir. These are the only relatives who are
with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate by the one generation or degree from the fiduciary. On August 21, 1989, Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza Villacarlos brought a
Court of First Instance of Manila on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was complaint against the above-mentioned heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, to enforce
appointed administratrix of the estate. (b) There is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufruct to the the provisions of subject Codicil. The plaintiff then prayed that judgment be
substitutes as required by Arts. 865 and 867 of the Civil Code. In fact, the rendered ordering defendant-heirs to reconvey/return-Lot No. 1392 to the
On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: appellee admits "that the testator contradicts the establishment of a surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza, the cancellation of TCT No. 44498 in the
the property of the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to fideicommissary substitution when he permits the properties subject of the name of the deceased, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, and the issuance of a new certificate
the widow (Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez) in satisfaction of her legitime; the usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuaries and the naked of title in the names of the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza.
other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez owners."
(grandnephews). Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with The parties admitted that:
the widow's usufruct and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of JOHNNY S. RABADILLAvs.COURT OF APPEALS
Wandade Wrobleski (his companion). G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000 On November 15, 1998, the plaintiff (private respondent)  and a certain Alan
PURISIMA, J. Azurin, son-in-law of the herein petitioner who was lessee of the property and
Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition among other grounds: (b) that acting as attorney-in-fact of defendant-heirs, arrived at an amicable settlement
the provisions for fideicommissary substitutions are also invalid because the first DOCTRINE: Under Article 863, the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on the obligation to deliver one
heirs are not related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree, as the property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or hundred piculs of sugar, to the following effect:
provided in Article 863 of the Civil Code. the fiduciary. A fideicommissary substitution is therefore, void if the first heir is
not related by first degree to the second heir. "That for crop year 1988-89, the annuity mentioned in Entry No. 49074 of TCT
ISSUE: No. 44489 will be delivered not later than January of 1989, more specifically, to
Was the fideicommissary substitution valid? FACTS: wit:
In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza,
RULING: Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner, Johnny S. 75 piculs of 'A' sugar, and 25 piculs of 'B' sugar, or then existing in any of our
No, the fideicommissary substitution was not valid. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of 511,855 square meters of that parcel of names, Mary Rose Rabadilla y Azurin or Alan Azurin, during December of each

102 | P a g e
sugar crop year, in Azucar Sugar Central; and, this is considered compliance of In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first
the annuity as mentioned, and in the same manner will compliance of the annuity heir by reason of incapacity, predecease or renunciation.In the case under
be in the next succeeding crop years. consideration, the provisions of subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr.
Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or renunciation, the
However, there was no compliance with the aforesaid Memorandum of testatrix's near descendants would substitute him. What the Codicil provides is
Agreement except for a partial delivery of 50.80 piculs of sugar corresponding to that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in
sugar crop year 1988 -1989. the Codicil, the property referred to shall be seized and turned over to the
testatrix's near descendants.
RTC- Dismissed the complaint.
CA- Reversed the decision of the trial court. Neither is there a fideicommissary substitution here and on this point, petitioner
is correct. In a fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to
Ordered defendants-appellees, as heirs of Jorge Rabadilla, to reconvey title over preserve the property and to transmit the same later to the second heir.In the
Lot No. 1392, together with its fruits and interests, to the estate of Aleja Belleza. case under consideration, the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil
to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the near descendants or
ISSUE: the sister of the testatrix. Thus, a very important element of a fideicommissary
Should the lot be reverted to the estate of the testatrix Aleja Belleza? substitution is lacking; the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the
preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir. "Without this
HELD:(Only few discussion regarding Article 863.) obligation to preserve clearly imposed by the testator in his will, there is no
Yes, the lot should be reverted to the estate of testatrix Belleza as Dr. Rabadilla fideicommissary substitution."Also, the near descendants' right to inherit from the
is not related to the testatrix. testatrix is not definite. The property will only pass to them should Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of the usufruct to
It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are private respondent.
transmitted from the moment of death of the decedentand compulsory heirs are
called to succeed by operation of law. The legitimate children and descendants, Another important element of a fideicommissary substitution is also missing
in relation to their legitimate parents, and the widow or widower, are compulsory here. Under Article 863, the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the
heirs.Thus, the petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsory heirs of the property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or the
instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by operation of law, fiduciary. A fideicommissary substitution is therefore, void if the first heir is not
without need of further proceedings, and the successional rights were related by first degree to the second heir.In the case under scrutiny, the near
transmitted to them from the moment of death of the decedent, Dr. Jorge descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
Rabadilla.

In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. 1392 to Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, subject to the condition that the usufruct thereof would be delivered to
the herein private respondent every year. Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said property, and
they also assumed his (decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot
involved to herein private respondent. Such obligation of the instituted heir
reciprocally corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct, the
fulfillment or performance of which is now being demanded by the latter through
the institution of the case at bar.

Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons to take the

place of the heir or heirs first instituted. Under substitutions in general, the
testator may either (1) provide for the designation of another heir to whom the
property shall pass in case the original heir should die before him/her, renounce
the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple substitution,or (2)
leave his/her property to one person with the express charge that it be
transmitted subsequently to another or others, as in a fideicommissary
substitution.The Codicil sued upon contemplates neither of the two.

103 | P a g e
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK vs.THE HONORABLE Charles died in Iloilo in December 1962 without having liquidated Linnie’s estate,  In his capacity as sole heir and successor to Linnie’s estate, Charles
VENICIO ESCOLIN, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Iloilo, Branch II which includes her share in the conjugal partnership. A longtime employee of the appropriated to himself the entirety of her estate. He operated all the
and Hodges, Avelina Magno, was appointed Administratrix (for Linnie’s estate) and a assets, engaged in business and performed all acts in connection
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE LINNIE JANE HODGES vs.LORENZO Special Administratrix (for Charles’). Magno was appointed, but later Harold with the entirety of the conjugal estate, in his own name alone, just as
CARLES ET AL. Davies (representative of Charles’ heirs in the US) was designated Co-Special he had been operating, engaging and doing while the late Linnie Jane
G.R. Nos. L-27860, L-27896, L-27936 & L-27937, March 29, 1974 Administrator, who was then replaced by one Joe Hodges, Charles’ nephew. Hodges was still alive. Upon his death on December 25, 1962,
One Atty. Mirasol was also appointed as co-administrator, and an order of therefore, all said conjugal assets were in his sole possession and
BARREDO, J.
probate and letters of administration were issued to Hodges and Mirasol. control, and registered in his name alone, not as executor, but as
exclusive owner of all said assets.
DOCTRINE: There are generally only two kinds of substitution provided for and PCIB’s Claims  As the sole and exclusive heir, Charles did not need to liquidate the
authorized by our Civil Code (Articles 857-870), namely, (1) simple or Linnie Jane’s will should be governed by Philippine Law, with respect to the estate. Neither was there any asset left to Linnie’s estate at the time
common substitution, sometimes referred to asvulgar substitution (Article 859), order of succession, the amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic validity of Charles’ death, though Linnie’s estate may have referred to “all of
and (2) fideicommissary substitution (Article 863). of its testamentary provisions. the rest, residue and remainder of my estate” which would go to her
 Linnie intended Philippine laws to govern her Will. siblings in the event of Charles death. The provision is thus void and
FACTS:  Article 16, CC, provides that "the national law of the person whose invalid at least as to Philippine assets.
Charles Newton Hodges and Linnie Jane Hodges were originally from Texas, succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the  There are generally only two kinds of substitution provided for and
USA. During their marriage, they had acquired and accumulated considerable property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be authorized by our Civil Code (Articles 857-870), namely, (1) simple or
assets and properties in the Philippines and in Oklahoma and Texas in the US. found", shall prevail. However, the Conflict of Law of Texas, which is common substitution, sometimes referred to asvulgarsubstitution
They both lived, worked and were domiciled in Iloilo City for around 50 years. the "national law" of the testatrix, Linnie Jane Hodges, provide that (Article 859), and (2) fideicommissary substitution (Article 863). All
Before her death, Linnie Jane executed a will leaving her estate, less her debts the domiciliary law (Philippine law) should govern the testamentary other substitutions are merely variations of these. The substitution
and funeral expenses, to her husband Charles. Should Charles die, the will dispositions and successional rights over movables, and the law of provided for by paragraph four of the Will of Linnie Jane Hodges is
provided that the remainder of her estate go to her brothers and sisters, share the situs of the property (also Philippine law as to properties located not fideicommissary substitution, because there is clearly no
and share alike. Should any of the brothers and sisters die before the husband, in the Philippines) as regards immovables. obligation on the part of C. N. Hodges as the first heir designated, to
Linnie willed that the heirs of the said sibling be substituted in the deceased’s  Thus applying the "Renvoi Doctrine", as approved and applied in the preserve the properties for the substitute heirs. At most, it is
sibling’s place. Christensen case (1963), Philippine law should apply. avulgarorsimplesubstitution. However, in order that
 Under Philippine and Texas law, the conjugal or community estate of a vulgar orsimple substitution can be valid, three alternative
When Linnie died, Charles took the will to probate court, and was appointed spouses shall, upon dissolution, be divided equally between them. conditions must be present, namely, that the first designated heir (1)
Executor, then later, Special Administrator. He moved to be allowed to continue Thus, upon Linnie’s death, ½ of the entirety of the assets of the should die before the testator; or (2) should not wish to accept the
administering the family business, as per Linnie Jane’s wishes, and to engage in Hodges spouses constituting their conjugal estate pertained inheritance; or (3) should be incapacitated to do so. None of these
sales, conveyances, leases, mortgages and other necessary transactions. He automatically to Charles, not by way of inheritance, but in his own conditions apply to C. N. Hodges, and, therefore, the substitution
also filed the necessary and appurtenant administration/accounting records, and right as partner in the conjugal partnership. provided for by the above-quoted provision of the Will is not
income tax returns for the estate. Charles named seven brothers and sisters of  The other one-half (1/2) portion forming part of Linnie’s estate, authorized by the Code, and, therefore, it is void. Manresa even said,
Linnie Jane as her heirs (Esta, Emma, Leonard, Aline, David, Sadie, Era and cannot, under a clear and specific provision of her Will, be enhanced “when another heir is designated to inherit upon the death of a first
Nimroy), but the order admitting the will to probate unfortunately omitted one of or increased by income, earnings, rents, or emoluments accruing heir, the second designation can have effect only in case the first
the heirs, Roy (Nimroy) Higdon, so Charles filed a verified motion to have Roy’s after her death. “All rents, emoluments and income from said estate instituted heir dies before the testator, whether or not that was the
name included. shall belong to him (C. N. Hodges) and he is further authorized to use true intention of said testator.”
any part of the principal of said estate as he may need or desire."  The remedy of the Higdons, then, who are claiming dubious rights to
As an executor, he was bound to file tax returns for the estate he was  Articles 900, 995 and 1001 provide that the surviving spouse of a ¼ of the conjugal estate of the Hodges, is to file a claim against the
administering under American law. He did file such as estate tax return on deceased leaving no ascendants or descendants is entitled, as a estate of Charles.
August 8, 1958. In Schedule "M" of such return, he answered "Yes" to the matter of right and by way of irrevocable legitime, to at least one-half  It also follows that the conveyances executed by Avelina, claiming to
question as to whether he was contemplating "renouncing the will". On the (1/2) of the estate of the deceased, and no testamentary disposition be merely in continuation of the Hodges’ businesses, and which
question as to what property interests passed to him as the surviving spouse, he by the deceased can legally and validly affect this right of the corresponding deeds of sale were confirmed by the probate court, are
answered: surviving spouse. In fact, her husband is entitled to said one-half (1/2) null and void and should be subject to reconveyance.
“None, except for purposes of administering the Estate, paying debts, portion of her estate by way of legitime. (Article 886)
taxes and other legal charges. It is the intention of the surviving  Clearly, therefore, immediately upon the death of Linnie Jane Avelina’s Claims
husband of deceased to distribute the remaining property and Hodges, C. N. Hodges was the owner of at least 3/4 or 75% percent (At one point, even Linnie’s heirs wanted to have Avelina removed from her
interests of the deceased in their Community estate to the devisees of all of the conjugal assets of the spouses, 50% by way of conjugal capacity as administrator, but the lower court reversed its earlier grant of the
and legatees named in the will when the debts, liabilities, taxes and partnership share and 1/4 or 25% by way of inheritance and legitime) motion, on account of a previous injunction it issued.)
expenses of administration are finally determined and paid.” plus all "rents, emoluments and income" accruing to said conjugal  Linnie Jane merely gave Charles a life-estate or a usufruct over all
estate from the moment of Linnie Jane Hodges' death. her estate, and gave a vested remainder-estate or the naked title over
the same estate, to her relatives.
104 | P a g e
 After Linnie’s death, Charles, as administrator and executor of the automatically become operative upon the occurrence of the death of Hodges in
will, unequivocably and clearly through oral and written declarations the event of actual existence of any remainder of her estate then.
and sworn public statements, renounced, disclaimed and repudiated
his life-estate and usufruct. Contrary to Avelina’s view, however, it was not the usufruct alone of Linnie’s
 Since there was no separation or segregation of the interests of estate, as contemplated in Article 869, that she bequeathed to Charles during his TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZvs.MARCELLE D. VDA. DE
Linnie and Charles in the combined conjugal estate, as there has lifetime, but the full ownership thereof, although the same was to last also during RAMIREZ, ET AL.
been no such separation or segregation, and because of Charles’ his lifetime only, even as there was no restriction whatsoever against his G.R. No. L-27952, February 15, 1982
repudiation, both interests have continually earned exactly the same disposing or conveying the whole or any portion thereof to anybody other than ABAD SANTOS, J.
amount of rents, emoluments and income. himself. The Court saw no legal impediment to this kind of institution, except that
it cannot apply to the legitime of Charles as the surviving spouse, consisting of (The case Palacios vs Ramirez cannot be found, instead this case was found
ISSUE: one-half of the estate, considering that Linnie had no surviving ascendants nor when typing the Palacios vs Ramirez).
Is Linnie’s disposition in favor of her siblings void? descendants. (Arts. 872, 900, and 904.)
DOCTRINE: Art. 863 of the Civil Code validates a fideicommissary substitution
RULING:(There is no much discussion on Article 863). Hodges’ acts of administration and accounting strongly negate PCIB’s claims "provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir
that he had adjudicated to himself all of Linnie’s estate. While he may have used originally instituted."
No, the disposition is not void. language like “herein executor (being) the only devisee or legatee of the
deceased, in accordance with the last will and testament already probated… FACTS:
To a certain extent, PCIB’s contention that Linnie’s testamentary substitution, there is no other person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964,
when viewed as a substitution, may not be given effect, is correct. Indeed, legally examining herein account to be given notice,” he would’ve known that doing so with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate by the
speaking, Linnie’s will provides neither for a simple or vulgar substitution under would impute bad faith unto him. Also, in his very motions, Hodges asserted the Court of First Instance of Manila on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was
Article 859 of the Civil Code nor for a fideicommissary substitution under Article rights of Linnie’s named heirs. He even moved to include Roy’s name included in appointed administratrix of the estate.
863 thereof. There is no vulgar substitution because there is no provision for the probate court’s order, lest Roy’s heirs think that they had been omitted.
either (1) predecease of the testator by the designated heir or (2) refusal or (3) On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows:
incapacity of the latter to accept the inheritance, as required by Article 859; and Thus, he recognized, in his own way, the separate identity of his wife’s estate the property of the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to
neither is there a fideicommissary substitution therein because no obligation is from his own share of the conjugal partnership up to the time of his death, more the widow (Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez) in satisfaction of her legitime; the
imposed thereby upon Hodges to preserve the estate or any part thereof for than 5 years after that of his wife. He never considered the whole estate as a other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez
anyone else. But from these premises, it is not correct to jump to the conclusion, single one belonging exclusively to himself. The only conclusion one can gather (grandnephews). Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with
as PCIB does, that the testamentary dispositions in question are therefore from this is that he could have been preparing the basis for the eventual the widow's usufruct and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of
inoperative and invalid. transmission of his wife's estate, or, at least, so much thereof as he would not Wandade Wrobleski (his companion).
have been able to dispose of during his lifetime, to her brothers and sisters in
The error in PCIB's position lies simply in the fact that it views the said accordance with her expressed desire, as intimated in his tax return in the US. Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition among other grounds: (b) that
disposition exclusively in the light of substitutions covered by the Civil Code And assuming that he did pay the corresponding estate and inheritance taxes in the provisions for fideicommissary substitutions are also invalid because the first
section on that subject, (Section 3, Chapter 2, Title IV, Book III) when it is the Philippines on the basis of his being sole heir, such payment is not heirs are not related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree, as
obvious that substitution occurs only when another heir is appointed in a will "so necessarily inconsistent with his recognition of the rights of his co-heirs. The provided in Article 863 of the Civil Code.
that he may enter into inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted," Court thus viewed that under the peculiar provisions of his wife's will, and for
(Article 857) and, in the present case, no such possible default is contemplated. purposes of the applicable inheritance tax laws, Hodges had to be considered as ISSUE:
The brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges are not substitutes for Hodges because, her sole heir, pending the actual transmission of the remaining portion of her Was the fideicommissary substitution valid?
under her will, they are not to inherit what Hodges cannot, would not or may not estate to her other heirs, upon the eventuality of his death, and whatever
inherit, but what he would not dispose of from his inheritance; rather, therefore, adjustment might be warranted should there be any such remainder then is a RULING:
they are also heirs instituted simultaneously with Hodges, subject, however, to matter that could well be taken care of by the internal revenue authorities in due No, the fideicommissary substitution was not valid.
certain conditions, partially resolutory insofar as Hodges was concerned and time. The Court also considered as basis of Charles’ intentions several
correspondingly suspensive with reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law. It is questionnaires in solemn forms in filing estate taxes abroad, though they have ART. 863. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first
partially resolutory, since it bequeaths unto Hodges the whole of her estate to be not been introduced in evidence, only referred to several times by the parties. heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a
owned and enjoyed by him as universal and sole heir with absolute dominion second heir the whole or part of inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect,
over them only during his lifetime, which means that while he could completely It is obvious, though, that Charles’ procrastinating in settling Linnie’s estate, and provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir
and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter vivos to anyone other than his sole administration of it, commingled his and his co-heirs interests, making it originally instituted, and provided further that the fiduciary or first heir and the
himself, he was not free to do so mortis causa, and all his rights to what might difficult to properly make an accounting of their shares. PCIB, then, cannot second heir are living at time of the death of the testator.
remain upon his death would cease entirely upon the occurrence of that administer the properties on its own. What would be just and proper is for both
contingency, inasmuch as the right of his brothers and sisters-in-law to the administrators of the two estates to act conjointly until after said estates have It was void due to the following reasons:
inheritance, although vested already upon the death of Mrs. Hodges, would been segregated from each other. (a) The substitutes (Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez) are not
related to Wanda, the heir originally instituted. Art. 863 of the Civil Code
105 | P a g e
validates a fideicommissary substitution "provided such substitution does not go ISSUE:
beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted." 1. Is this a simple substitution? A modal imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does
2. Does it involve fideicommissary substitution? not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession. On the other
What is meant by "one degree" from the first heir is explained by Tolentino as 3. Is the institution conditional? hand, in a conditional testamentary disposition, the condition must
follows: happen or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the
Scaevola Maura, and Traviesas construe "degree" as designation, RULING: testator. The condition suspends but does not obligate; and the mode
substitution, or transmission. The Supreme Court of Spain has obligates but does not suspend.
decidedly adopted this construction. From this point of view, there can 1. NO, it is not a simple substitution. In simple substitutions, the second
be only one tranmission or substitution, and the substitute need not heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heirs by reason of CARMEN LAPUZ SY vs. EUFEMIO S. EUFEMIO alias EUFEMIO SY UY
be related to the first heir. Manresa, Morell and Sanchez Roman, incapacity, predecease or renunciation. The codicil does not provide G.R. No. L-30977 JANUARY 31, 1972
however, construe the word "degree" as generation, and the present that should Dr. Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or REYES J.B.L., J.:
Code has obviously followed this interpretation by providing that the renunciation, the testatatrix’s near descendants would substitute him.
substitution shall not go beyond one degree "from the heir originally What the codicil provides is that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his
instituted." The Code thus clearly indicates that the second heir must heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property DOCTRINE: An action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff,
be related to and be one generation from the first heir. referred to shall be seized and turned over to the testatrix’s near even if property rights are involved. These rights are mere effects of decree of
descendants. separation, their source being the decree itself; without the decree such rights
From this, it follows that the fideicommissary can only be either a do not come into existence
child or a parent of the first heir. These are the only relatives who are 2. NO, there is no fideicommissary substitution. In a fideicommissary
one generation or degree from the fiduciary. substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the property FACTS:
and to transmit the same later to the second heir. Carmen Lapuz-Sy filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio
(b) There is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufruct to the Eufemio on August 1953.  They were married civilly on September 21, 1934 and
substitutes as required by Arts. 865 and 867 of the Civil Code. In fact, the Here, the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil canonically after nine days.  They had lived together as husband and wife
appellee admits "that the testator contradicts the establishment of a to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the near continuously without any children until 1943 when her husband abandoned her. 
fideicommissary substitution when he permits the properties subject of the descendants or sister of the testatrix. Thus, a very important element They acquired properties during their marriage.  Petitioner then discovered that
usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuaries and the naked of a fideicommissary substitution is lacking, the obligation clearly her husband cohabited with a Chinese woman named Go Hiok on or about
owners." imposing upon the first heir, the preservation of the property and its 1949.  She prayed for the issuance of a decree of legal separation, which among
transmission to the second heir. Also, the near descedants’ right to others, would order that the defendant Eufemio should be deprived of his share
RABADILLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS inherit from the testatrix is not definite. The property will only pass to of the conjugal partnership profits. 
G.R. No. 113725 JUNE 29, 2000 them should Dr. Rabadilla of his heirs not fulfill the obligation to
PURISIMA, J.: deliver part of the usufruct to private respondent. Eufemio counterclaimed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
Moreover, it is void if the first heir is not related by first degree to the with Lapuz-Sy on the ground of his prior and subsisting marriage with Go Hiok. 
DOCTRINE: Testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality an second heir. Here, the near descendants are not at all related to the Trial proceeded and the parties adduced their respective evidence.  However,
obligation imposed upon the heir should not be considered a condition unless it instituted heir, Dr. Rabadilla. before the trial could be completed, respondent already scheduled to present
clearly appears from the will itself that such was the intention of the testator. surrebuttal evidence, petitioner died in a vehicular accident on May 1969.  Her
3. NO, it is not a conditional institution. It is clear that the testatrix counsel duly notified the court of her death.  Eufemio moved to dismiss the
FACTS: intended that the lot be inherited by Dr. Rabadilla. It is likewise clear petition for legal separation on June 1969 on the grounds that the said petition
In the Codicil of Testatrix, Dr. Rabadilla (predecessor in interest of herein that the testatrix imposed an obligation on the said instituted heir and was filed beyond the one-year period provided in Article 102 of the Civil Code
petitioner) instituted as a devisee of Lot No. 1392 contained the following his successors in interest to deliver sugar to Belleza, during the and that the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation.  Petitioner’s
provisions among others: lifetime of the latter. However, the testatrix did not make Dr. counsel moved to substitute the deceased Carmen by her father, Macario
Rabadilla’s inheritance and effectively of his institution as a devisee, Lapuz. 
1. Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to give to dependent on the performance of the said obligation.
Belleza 100 piculs of sugar until Belleza dies; It is clear though that should the obligation be not complied with the ISSUE:
2. Should Rabadilla die his heir to whom he shall give Lot No. 1392 shall shall be turned over to the testatrix near descendants. Since Is the death of the plaintiff, before final decree in an action for legal
have the obligation to still give yearly, the sugar as specified to testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality an obligation separation, abate the action and will it also apply if the action involved property
Belleza; imposed upon the heir should not be considered a condition unless it rights?
3. In the event that the Lot is sold, leased, or mortgaged, the buyer, clearly appears from the will itself that such was the intention of the
lessee, mortgagee shall also have the obligation to respect and testator. RULING:
deliver yearly sugar to Belleza. Should the command be not In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as modal not
respected Belleza shall immediately seize that lot and turn it over to conditional. The manner of institution of Dr. Rabadilla’s is modal in YES. An action for legal separation is abated by the death of the
the testatrix near descendents. nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without plaintiff, even if property rights are involved. These rights are mere effects of
however, affecting the efficacy of such institution.

106 | P a g e
decree of separation, their source being the decree itself; without the decree in interest, or any person authorized to receive it. Here, Alicia and her son with ISSUE:
such rights do not come into existence, so that before the finality of a decree, the deceased are the successors in interest referred to by law as the persons
these claims are merely rights in expectation. If death supervenes during the authorized to receive payment. Was the sale made by Victor Miralles valid?
pendency of the action, no decree can be forthcoming, death producing a more
radical and definitive separation; and the expected consequential rights and Further, Articles 887 and 985 of the Civil Code provide that the HELD:
claims would necessarily remain unborn. parents of the deceased succeed only when the person dies without a legitimate NO. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals
descendant. Since it has been established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia that Victor’s claim of being the sole heir was false and erroneous
Here, the petition of Eufemio for declaration of nullity is moot and and that they begot a child, the parents are not successors-in-interest of for Alejandra had more than one intestate heir, and Victor Miralles as a mere
academic and there could be no further interest in continuing the same after her Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs. Even if Alicia had been estranged son-in-law could not be one of them. A decedent’s compulsory heirs in whose
demise, that automatically dissolved the questioned union.  Any property rights favor the law reserves a part of the decedent’s estate are exclusively the
from Bienvenido, mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification
acquired by either party as a result of Article 144 of the Civil Code of the persons enumerated in Article 887 of the Civil Code.
of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse. 
Philippines 6 could be resolved and determined in a proper action for partition by
either the appellee or by the heirs of the appellant. Here, only two forced heirs survived Alejandra upon her
Neither could the parents, as alleged creditors of Bienvenido, seek death, namely: respondent Apolonia, her daughter, and Crisanto Miralles,
relief and compensation from the petitioners. Such are mere money claims her grandson. The latter succeeded Alejandra by right of representation because
JOSE BARITUA and EDGAR BITANCOR,  vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NICOLAS NACARIO and VICTORIA against the estate of their deceased son, which had been released by the his mother, Ciriaca, had predeceased Alejandra.
RONDA NACARIO agreement of the extra-judicial settlement concluded with Alicia, the victim's
G.R. No. 82233 MARCH 22, 1990 widow and heir, as well as the natural guardian of their child, her co-heir. REGINA FRANCISCO AND ZENAIDA PASCUALvs.AIDA FRANCISCO-
SARMIENTO, J.: ALFONSO
SPOUSES NICANOR TUMBOKON (deceased), substituted by: ROSARIO G.R. No. 138774            March 8, 2001
SESPEÑE and their Children vs. APOLONIA G. LEGASPI, and PAULINA S. DE
DOCTRINE:The parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies MAGTANUM DOCTRINE:
without a legitimate descendant. G.R. No. 153736               August 12, 2010 The sale which transferred the property of the father to the illegitimate children
BERSAMIN, J.: would deprive the legitimate child of her share in her father's estate. By law, she
FACTS: is entitled to half of the estate of her father as his only legitimate child. The legal
Bienvenido Nacario was driving a tricycle with a passenger when he heirs must be determined in proper testate or intestate proceedings for
was hit with a bus driven by Edgar Bitancor and owned by Jose Baritua. DOCTRINE: Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which settlement of the estate. Compulsory heir cannot be deprived of her share in the
Bienvenido and his passenger died and the tricycle was damaged. the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law.
There was an extra- judicial settlement negotiation wherein represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have if she were
Beienvenido’s estranged wife, Alicia, with whom he has a child, received P18, living or if she could have inherited. FACTS:
500. With that, she executed a “Release of Claim” discharging Bitancor, Baritua, Aida, respondent, is the only daughter of spouses Gregorio Francisco and Cirila
and the bus insurer from all actions, claims, and demands arising from the de la Cruz, who are now both deceased.
FACTS:
accident. She also executed an affidavit of desistance manifesting her lack of The parcel of land subject in this case was originally owned by
interest in instituting any case, civil or criminal against them. Regina and Zenaida, the petitioners, are the illegitimate daughters of Gregorio
the late Alejandra Sespeñe, who had had two marriages. The first marriage was
who have the possession of the certificates of title of Gregorio’s property.
with Gaudencio Franco, by whom she bore Ciriaca Franco, whose husband was
Victor Miralles. The second marriage was with Jose Garcia, by whom she bore
After Gregorio died, Aida inquired about the certificates of title from her half
After a year and ten months from the date of accident, the parents respondent Apolonia Garcia, who married Primo Legaspi. Alejandra died without
sisters and was told that their father had sold the land to them. After verification,
of Bienvenidofiled a complaint for damages against Bitancor and Baritua. They a will in 1935, and was survived by Apolonia and Crisanto Miralles, the son of
Aida learned that there was indeed a deed of absolute sale. By virtue of the sale,
alleged that they were the ones who spent for their son’s funeral and loaned to Ciriaca (who had predeceased Alejandra in 1924) and Victor Miralles.
the Register of Deeds of Bulacan issued TCTs
him the purchase price of the damaged tricycle. Claiming that it is them who
suffered damages, they shall be indemnified for their son’s death. A case was filed by the petitioners for the recovery of ownership and Aida filed with the RTC a complaint for annulment of sale with damages.She
possession of real property with damages against the respondents. The former alleged that the signature of her late father was a forged.In their joint answer to
alleged that petitioner Rosario SespeñeTumbokon purchased the land in the complaint, petitioners denied the alleged forgery or simulation of the deed of
ISSUE: Wasthe spouse entitled to receive the petitioner’s payment question from Cresenciana Inog. Cresenciana Inog, in turn, acquired the land by sale.
purchase from Victor Miralles, son-in-law of decedent Alejandra, who had
RULING: represented that he inherited the land from his mother-in-law. The RTC rendered RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint and sustaining the validity of
a decision in favor of the petitioners, holding that the spouses were able to the “KasulatanSaGanap Na Bilihan".
YES. Under Article 1240 of the Civil Code, payment shall be made to establish the purchase of the land. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision
of the RTC and dismissed the complaint
the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor
107 | P a g e
CA reversed the trial court’s decision declaring the kasulatan as null and void Pursuant to Article 891 of the Civil Code, in order that a property may be ART. 891. The ascendant who inheritts from his descendant any property which
and ordered the cancellartion of the transfer certificates of title. The petitioners impressed with a reservable character the following requisites must exist, to wit: the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendat, or a
filed a petition for certiorari. (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an asscendant or from brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by
a brother or sister by gratuitous title; (2) that said descendant died without an operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and
issue; (3) that the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; belong to the line from which said property came.
and (4) that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
ISSUE: which said property came. Pursuant to the foregoing provision, in order that a property may be impressed
May a legitimate daughter be deprived of her share in the estate of her deceased with a reservable character the following requisites must exist, to wit:
father by a simulated contract transferring the property of her father to his FACTS:
illegitimate children? In the first marriage of Jose Frias Chua with Patricia S. Militar alias SyQuio he (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an asscendant or from
sired three children, namely: Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel. When Patricia died, a brother or sister by gratuitous title;
Jose contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with whom he (2) that said descendant died without an issue;
RULING: had a child by the name of Juanita Frias. (3) that the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and
No, the legitimate daughter as the compulsory heir, cannot be deprived of her
(4) that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
share in the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law.Gregorio Josedied intestate. In the Intestate Proceeding, lower court issued an
Francisco did not own any other property. If indeed the parcels of land involved orderadjudicating, among others, the½ portion of Lot No. 399 and the sum of which said property came.
were the only property left by their father, the sale in fact would deprive P8,000.00 to Consolacion as the widow, the other half of Lotin favor of
respondent of her share in her father's estate. By law, she is entitled to half of Juanitoson in the second marriage; P3,000.00 in favor of Lorenzo; and In this case, all of the foregoing requisites are present. Thus, as borne out by the
the estate of her father as his only legitimate child. P1,550.00 in favor of Ignacio. records, Juanito of the second marriage died intestate without leaving any issue;
his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399 was acquired by his mother,
According to Article 888, Civil Code: Juanitoof the second marriage died intestate without any issue.his mother Consolacionwho later died.Juanito had relatives within the third degree. These
"The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the Consolacionsucceeded to his pro-indivisio share of Lot No. 399.Consolacion relatives are Ignacio,Dominador and Remidios, the suppose legitimate children
hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. later executed a declaration of heirship adjudicating in her favor the pro-indiviso of the deceased Lorenzo, who are the petitioners herein. They are declared
share of her son but then she died intestate leaving no direct heir except her owners of 1/2 undivided portion of Lot 399;and the Register of Deeds of Negros
"The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half subject to the rights of brothers & sisters. Occidental is hereby ordered to cancel. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31796
illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided." covering Lot No. 399 issued in the name of Consolacion de la Torre and to issue
The petitioners, as heirs of the Gregorio on the first marriage, filed the a new Certificate of Title in the names of Consolacion de la Torre, 1/2 undivided
The kasulatan was also simulated hence, null and void, as there was no complaintpraying that the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 399 which formerly portion; Ignacio Frias Chua, 1/4 undivided portion; and Dominador Chua and
consideration for the contract of sale. A friend testified that respondents did not belonged to Juanitobut which passed to Consolacionbe declaredas a reservable Remedios Chua, 1/4 undivided portion, of said lot.
have any source of incomewhen they bought the property. Though they may property for the reason that the lot in question was subject to reservaltroncal
have been earning, the Court find it incredible that engaging in buy and sell pursuant to Article 981 of the New Civil Code. MARIA MENDOZA et.al.vs. JULIA POLl CARPIO DELOS SANTOS, substituted
could raise the amount of P10,000.00, or that earnings in selling goto could save by her heirsCARMEN P. DELOS SANTOS et. al.
enough to pay P15,000.00, in cash for the land. CFI dismissed the complaint of the petitioners. G.R. No. 176422 March 20, 2013

But even if the even if the kasulatan was not simulated, it still violated the Civil ISSUE: DOCTRINE:
Code provisions insofar as the transaction affected respondent's legitime. The Was the property in question acquired by Juanito from his father Jose Reservatroncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of a
sale was executed in 1983, when the applicable law was the Civil Code, not the gratuitously in order to subject it to a reservatroncal? reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which
Family Code. RULING: the property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by the
Yes, the lot in question is subject to reservatroncal under Art, 891 of the New relatives of the inheriting ascendant.
Obviously, the sale was Gregorio's way to transfer the property to his illegitimate Civil Code.It is evident from the record that the transmission of the property in
daughters at the expense of his legitimate daughter. The sale was executed to question to Juanito upon the death of his father was by means of a hereditary FACTS:
prevent respondent Alfonso from claiming her legitime and rightful share in said succession and therefore gratuitous. The properties subject in the instant case are three parcels of land.Two of the
property. Before his death, Gregorio had a change of heart and informed his said lots are in the name of respondent Julia Delos Santos. The other lot is also
daughter about the titles to the property. After his death his mother Consolation succeeded to his one-half pro-indiviso in the name of Julia but co-owned by Victoria Pantaleon, who bought 1/2 of the
share of Lot 399. This was, however, subject to the condition that the property property from petitioner Maria Mendoza and her siblings.
IGNACIO FRIAS CHUA, DOMINADOR CHUA and REMEDIOS CHUA vs.THE was reservable in character under Art. 891 of the Civil Code in favor of relatives
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, BRANCH V and within the third degree of Jose from whom the property came. These relatives Petitioners alleged that the properties were part of their grandparent’s properties
SUSANA DE LA TORRE, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate are the petitioners herein. that were subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel,
of Consolacion de la Torre one of the children.After Exequiel’s death, it passed on to his spouse Leonor and
The pertinent provision of reservatroncal under the New Civil Code provides: daughter, Gregoria. Gregoria later died intestate and without issue. After
DOCTRINE:
108 | P a g e
Gregoria’s death, respondent, who is Leonor’s sister,adjudicated unto herself all
these properties as the sole surviving heir of Leonor and Gregoria. 3 lines of transmission in reservatroncal.
The first transmission is by gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or donation,
Petitioners claim that the properties should have been reserved by respondent in from an ascendant/brother/sister to a descendant called the prepositus. The
their behalf and must now revert back to them, applying Article 891 of the Civil second transmission is by operation of law from the prepositus to the other
Code on reservatroncal. ascendant or reservor, also called the reservista. The third and last transmission
is from the reservista to the reservees or reservatarios who must be relatives
Respondent, however, denies any obligation to reserve the properties as these within the third degree from which the property came.
did not originate from petitioners’ familial line and were not originally owned by
Placido and Dominga. According to respondent, the properties were bought by The lineal character of thereservable property is reckonedfrom the ascendant
Exequiel and Antonio from a certain Alfonso Ramos in 1931. It appears, from whom theprepositus received the property bygratuitous title.
however, that it was only Exequiel who was in possession of the properties.
The fallacy in the CA’s resolution is that it proceeded from the erroneous
RTC granted theaction for Recovery of Possession by ReservaTroncal of premise that Placido is the ascendant contemplated in Article 891 of the Civil
petitioners. CA reversed and set aside the decision stating that petitioners failed Code. From thence, it sought to trace the origin of the subject properties back to
BEATRIZ L. GONZALESvsCOURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA
to establish that Placido and Dominga owned the properties in dispute.10 The Placido and Dominga, determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido and
(BRANCH V), BENITO F. LEGARDA et.al
CA also ruled that even assuming that Placido and Dominga previously owned whether Gregoria predeceased Exequiel.
G.R. No. L-34395 May 19, 1981
the properties, it still cannot be subject to reservatroncal as neither Exequiel
predeceased Placido and Dominga nor did Gregoria predecease Exequiel. The persons involved in reservatroncal are:
DOCTRINE:
(1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an asscendant or from
If there are only two transmissions there is no reserve.
ISSUE: a brother or sister by gratuitous title;
Are the petitioners Mendozashave the right to the properties by virtue of the law (2) that said descendant died without an issue;
Reservable property left, through a will or otherwise, by the death of ascendant
on reserve troncal? (3) that the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and
(reservista) together with his own property in favor of another of his descendants
(4) that there are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
as forced heir, forms no part of the latter's lawful inheritance nor of the legitime,
RULING: which said property came.
for the reason that, as said property continued to be reservable, the heir
NO, Article 891 on reservatroncal is not applicable.
receiving the same as an inheritance from his ascendant has the strict obligation
Article 891 simply requires that the property should have been acquired by the
of its delivery to the relatives, within the third degree, of the predecessor in
Petitioners cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios as they are not descendant or prepositus from an ascendant by gratuitous or lucrative title. A
interest (prepositus), without prejudicing the right of the heir to an aliquot part of
relatives within the 3rd degree of Gregoria from whom the properties came. The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give
the property, if he has at the same time the right of a reservatario (reserves).
person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the anything in return. That the person obliged to reserve the property should be an
descendant/prepositus―the one at the end of the line from which the property ascendant (also known as the reservor/reservista) of the descendant/prepositus.
FACTS:
came and upon whom the property last revolved by descent. It is Gregoria in this Julia, however, is not Gregoria’s ascendant; rather, she isGregoria’s collateral
Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died and was
case. relative under Article 964.
survived by his widow, Filomena Races, and their seven children: 3 sons and
four daughters including petitioner.
Petitioners are Gregoria’s fourth degree relatives, being her first cousins. First Gregoria’s ascendants are her parents, Exequiel and Leonor, her grandparents,
cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not reservees or great-grandparents and so on. On the other hand, Gregoria’s descendants, if
The real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned in three
reservatarios.While it may appear that the properties are reservable in character, she had one, would be her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Not
equal portions by his daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of his
petitioners cannot benefit from reservatroncal. First, because Julia, who now being Gregoria’s ascendants, both petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her
deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz who were represented by Benito F.
holds the properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant within the purview of collateral relatives. In determining the collateral line of relationship, ascent is
Legarda.
Article 891 of the Civil Code and second, because petitioners are not Gregoria’s made to the common ancestor and then descent to the relative from whom the
relatives within the third degree. computation is made. In the case of Julia’s collateral relationship with Gregoria,
FilomenaLegarda y Races died intestate and without issue on March 19, 1943.
ascent is to be made from Gregoria to her mother Leonor (one line/degree), then
Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena Races Vda. deLegarda.
Assuming for argument’s sake that reservatroncal is applicable, is have the to the common ancestor, that is, Julia and Leonor’s parents (second
reservable nature of the property registered on respondent’s titles. In fact, line/degree), and then descent to Julia, her aunt (third line/degree). Thus, Julia is
Mrs.Legarda executedan affidavit adjudicating extrajudicially to herself the
respondent, as reservista, has the duty to reserve and to annotate the reservable Gregoria’s collateral relative within the third degree and not her ascendant.
properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter,
character of the property on the title. In reservatroncal, the reservista who
FilomenaLegarda.As a result of the affidavit of adjudication, Filomena Races
inherits from a prepositus, whether by the latter’s wish or by operation of law,
succeeded her deceased daughter FilomenaLegarda as co-owner of the
acquires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring absolute
properties held proindiviso by her other six children.
ownership. All the attributes of ownership belong to him exclusively.A reservista
acquires ownership ofthe reservable property until thereservation takes place or
Later, Mrs Legardaexecuted two handwritten Identical documents wherein she
isextinguished.

109 | P a g e
disposed of the properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of the whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees
children of her sons and partitioned the properties consisting of the one-third of their share therein. DOCTRINE: In reserva troncal, the successional rights of the relatives of the
share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children inherited in praepositus within the 3rd degree are determined by, and subject to, the rules of
representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz. intestate succession; so as to exclude uncles and aunts of the descendant from
To allow the reservor in this case to make a testamentary disposition of the
the reservable property by his niece or nephew.
Mrs.Legarda died and her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will. In reservable properties in favor of the reservees in the third degree and,
the testate proceeding, Beatriz Legarda, a daughter of the testatrix filed a motion consequently, to ignore the reservees in the second degree would be a glaring FACTS:
to exclude from the inventory of her mother’s estate the properties, which she violation of article 891. That testamentary disposition cannot be allowed.
inherited from her deceased daughter on the ground that said properties are Romana donated four parcels of land to Toribia. When Toribia died in 1915, she
reservable properties, which should be inherited by FilomenaLegarda. Court held that the reservable property bequeathed by the reservor to her left the said property to Faustino and Trinidad, her children. When Balbino died
daughter does not form part of the reservor's estate nor of the daughter's estate in 1928, three parcels of land were adjudicated to Toribia and since she
Without awaiting the resolution on the motion, Beatriz filed an ordinary civil predeceased her father, the same was given to her children Faustino and
but should be given to all the seven reservees or nearest relatives of the
action against her brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother’s estate Trinidad. Faustino died in 1937 and left his ½ pro-indiviso share in the seven
for the purpose of serving a declaration that said properties are reservable prepositus within the third degree. lands to his father Eustacio Dizon, subject to reserve troncal. When Trinidad died
properties which Mrs.Legarda could not bequeath in her will to her grandchildren in 1939, all her ½ pro-indiviso share were inherited by Dalisay, subject to
to the exclusion of her sons and daughters. This Court noted that, while it is true that by giving the reservable property to usufruct of Primo Tongko. Eustacio died in 1965, survived by his only
only one reserves it did not pass into the hands of strangers, nevertheless, it is granddaughter Dalisay. Dalisay claims the ½ by virtue of the reserva troncal
ISSUE: likewise true that the heiress of the reservor was only one of the reservees and implied by law upon the death of Faustino. Plaintiffs, as uncles and aunts, also
Are the properties in question be subjected to reservatroncal? there is no reason founded upon law and justice why the other reservees should claim ¾ of the ½ pro-indiviso share, being a third relative of Faustino.
be deprived of their shares in the reservable property
RULING: The lower court ruled that both plaintiffs and defendants are all entitled as
Yes, the properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the reservatarios.
Applying that doctrine to this case, it results that Mrs.Legarda could not dispose
hands of Mrs.Legarda. Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The reservation
of in her will the properties in question even if the disposition is in favor of the ISSUE:
became a certainty when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives
relatives within the third degree from FilomenaLegarda. The said properties, by
within the third degree of the prepositusFilomenaLegarda were living or they
operation of Article 891, should go to Mrs.Legarda's six children as reservees Are all relatives of the prepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line
survived Mrs.Legarda. succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the
within the second degree from FilomenaLegarda.
reservista?
So, the ultimate issue in this case is whether Mrs.Legarda, as reservor, could It should be repeated that the reservees do not inherit from the reservor but from
convey the reservable properties by will or mortis causa to the reservees within the reservor but from the prepositus, of whom the reservees are the heirs mortis HELD:
the third degree (her sixteen grandchildren) to the exclusion of the reservees in causa subject to the condition that they must survive the reservor (Padura vs.
the second degree, her three daughters and three sons. As indicated at the No. Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession, when there
Baldovino, L-11960, December 27, 1958, 104 Phil. 1065). are relatives of the descendant within the third degree, the right of the nearest
outset, that issue is already res judicata or cosajuzgada.
relative, called reservatario, over the property which the reservista (person
The trial court said that the disputed properties lost their reservable character holding it subject to reservation) should return to him, excludes that of the one
We hold that Mrs.Legarda could not convey in her holographic will to her sixteen due to the non-existence of third-degree relatives of FilomenaLegarda at the more remote. The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one
grandchildren the reservable properties which she had inherited from her time of the death of the reservor, Mrs.Legarda, belonging to the Legarda family, claiming same as a reservatario of the reservable property is not among the
daughter Filomena because the reservable properties did not form part of her "except third-degree relatives who pertain to both" the Legarda and Races lines. relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property
estate (Cabardo vs. Villanueva, 44 Phil. 186, 191). The reservor cannot make a came, inasmuch as the right granted by the Civil Code in Article 811 is in the
disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long as the reservees That holding is erroneous. The reservation could have been extinguished only by highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of designated persons who
are within the third degree of the person from whom the reservable property
survived the reservor. the absence of reservees at the time of Mrs.Legarda's death. Since at the time of
came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can never
her death, there were (and still are) reservees belonging to the second and third be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as such.
Thereservees inherit the reservable properties from the prepositus, not from the degrees, the disputed properties did not lose their reservable character. The
reservor. disposition of the said properties should be made in accordance with article 891 In spite of what has been said relative to the right of representation on the part of
or the rule on reservatroncal and not in accordance with the reservor's one alleging his rights as reservatario who is not within the third degree of
Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by holographic will. The said properties did not form part of Mrs.Legarda's estate. relationship, nevertheless there is right of representation on the part of
reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law, as in the case of
all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus who in this
nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came. x
case are the six children of Mrs.Legarda. She could not select the reservees to DE PAPA, ET AL. VS. CAMACHO, ET AL.
x x
G.R. NO. L-28032, SEPTEMBER 24, 1986
NARVASA, J.
110 | P a g e
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary PADURA, ET AL. VS. BALDOVINO, ET AL.
intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are Fidel Esparcia countered that they did not know any information regarding the G.R. NO. L-11960, DECEMBER 27, 1958
entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half blood. If in sale by Andrea Gutang in favor of the Sps. Sienes, and that if such sale was REYES, J.B.L., J
determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the made, the same was void since Andrea had no right to dispose of the property.
right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share
for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should likewise be operative. The lower court declared that both the sale made by Andrea Gutang to Sps. FACTS:
Sienes was and that of Paulina and Cipriana Yaeso to the Sps. Esparcia were
In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives void. The land in question was reservable property and therefore, the reservista Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime: his first wife,
(reservatarios) to whom the property should be returned; but within that group, Andrea Gutang, was under obligation to reserve it for the benefit of relatives Gervacia Landig, where he had one child named Manuel Padura; and his
the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of within the third degree belonging to the line from which said property came, if second wife, Benita Garing, having two children named Fortunato and
ordinary intestate succession, since Art. 891 does not specify otherwise. x x x any, survived her. Candelaria.

Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate Record shows that lone reserve surviving was Cipriana Yaeso. Agustin Padura died leaving a last will and testament bequeathing his properties
succession, the plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any right thereto among his three children (Manuel, Fortunato and Cadelaria), and his surviving
because, as aunts and uncles, respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the prepositus), ISSUE: spouse, Benita. Fortunato was adjudicated 4 parcels of land. Fortunato died
they are excluded from the succession by his niece, the defendant-appellant, unmarried without a will. Hence, the said parcels of land were inherited by her
although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. x x ● Was the subject lot is a reservable property? mother, Benita Garing. She was issued with a Torrens Title, subject to a
x ● If yes, can the reservoir or the reserve alienate the subject lot? condition that the properties were reservable in favor of relatives within the third
degree belonging to the line from which said property came.
Upon the stipulated facts, and by virtue of the rulings already cited, the
defendant-appellant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the HELD: Candelaria died leaving as her only heirs, her four legitimate children, the
reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-appellees. appellants herein, Cristeta, Melania, Anicia and Pablo, all surnamed Baldovino.
Yes. The lot is a reservable property, and the reservoir may alienate the property Manuel Padura also died. Surviving him are his legitimate children, Dionisia,
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the lower court is reversed and set subject to a resolutory condition. Felisa, Flora, Gornelio, Francisco, Juana, and Severino, all surnamed Padura,
aside, and the complaint is dismissed with costs against plaintiffs-appellees. the appellees herein.
In reserva troncal the reservor has the legal title and dominion over the
SIENES, ET AL. VS. ESPARCIA, ET AL. reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition. He may alienate the Upon the death of Benita Garing (the reservista), appellants and appellees took
G.R. NO. L-12957, MARCH 24, 1961 same but subject to the reservation, i.e., the rights acquired by the transferee are possession of the reservable properties. The legitimate children of the deceased
DIZON, J. revoked upon the survival of reservees at the time of death of the reservor. Manuel Padura and Candelaria Baldovino were declared to be the rightful
reservees, and as such, entitled to the reservable properties (the original
DOCTRINE: In reserva troncal the reservor has the legal title and dominion over The reserva instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the third degree reservees Candelaria Padura and Manuel Padura, having predeceased the
the reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition. He may alienate belonging to the line from which the reservable property came constitutes a real reservista).
the same but subject to the reservation, i.e., the rights acquired by the transferee right which the reservee may alienate and dispose of, although conditionally, the
are revoked upon the survival of reservees at the time of death of the reservor. condition being that the alienation would transfer ownership to the vendee only if Appellants Baldovino seeks to have these properties partitioned, such that one-
and when the reservee survives the reservor. half of the same be adjudicated to them, and the other half to the appellees,
FACTS: allegedly on the basis that they inherit by right of representation from their
Upon the death of the reservor, there being a surviving reservee, the reservable respective parents, the original reservees. To this petition, appellees filed their
Saturnino Yaeso originally owes Lot 3368. With his first wife, Teresa Ruales, he property passes in exclusive ownership to the latter. opposition, maintaining that they should all (the eleven reservees) be deemed as
had four children named Agaton, Fernando, Paulina and Cipriana, while with his inheriting in their own right, under which, they claim, each should have an equal
second wife, Andrea Gutang, he had an only son named Francisco. Lot 3368 In the present case, inasmuch as when the reservista, Andrea Gutang died, share.
was issued in the name of Francisco. When Francisco died, without any CiprianaYaeso was still alive, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the
descendant, his mother, as his sole heir, executed the public instrument entitled previous sale made by the former in favor of appellants became of no legal effect The appellants further contend that notwithstanding the reservable character of
extra-judicial settlement and sale whereby, among other things, for and in and the reservable property passed in exclusive ownership to Cipriana. the property under Art, 891 of the new Civil Code (Art. 811 of the Code of 1889)
consideration of the sum of P800.00, she sold the property in question to Sienes. the reservatarios nephews of the whole blood are entitled to a share twice as
Thereafter, Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of Francisco, On the other hand, the sale executed by the sisters, Paulina and CiprianaYaeso, large as that of the others, in conformity with Arts, 1006, 1008 of the Civil Code
and who as such had declared the property in their name executed a deed of in favor of the Sps. Esparcia was subject to a similar resolutory condition. While of the Philippines (Arts. 949 and 951 of the Code of 1889) on intestate
sale in favor of the spouses Esparcia. Andrea Gutang died later with Cipriana it may be true that the sale was made by Cipriana and her sister prior to the succession.
Yaeso (child from the first wife) surviving her. death of Andrea, it became effective because of the occurrence of the resolutory
condition. ISSUE:
Sienes then filed an action asking for the nullification of the sale executed by
Paulina and Cipriana, the reconveyance of the lot and damages and cost of suit.
111 | P a g e
In a case of reserva troncal, where the only reservatarios (reservees) surviving After the death of Esteban, Jr., Concordia and Celedonia talked about what to do universal heirs his ten children, the posthumos Apolonio III and his widow
the reservista, and belonging to the line of origin, are nephews of the descendant with Esteban's properties. Celedonia told Concordia about Esteban's desire to Severina Faz de Leon; that he declared, in one of the paragraphs of said will, all
(prepositus), but some are nephews of the half blood and the others are place his estate in a foundation to be named after his mother, from whom his his property should be divided among all of his children of both marriages. The
nephews of the whole blood, should the reserved properties be apportioned properties came, for the purpose of helping indigent students in their schooling.
posthumous son was given properties marked A,B,C,D,E, and F, a gold rosary,
among them equally, or should the nephews of the whole blood take a share Concordia agreed to carry out the plan of the deceased.
twice as large as that of the nephews of the half- blood? pieces of gold and silver, livestock, palay and other personal properties.
Pursuant to their agreement that Celedonia would take care of the proceedings However, the posthumous son died in 1891 and her mother Severina,
HELD: leading to the formation of the foundation, Celedonia in good faith and upon the succeeded all his inheritance. When Severina died, her daughter Mercedes
advice of her counsel, filed a petition, praying that she be declared sole heir of succeeded all property left of Severina including those of the posthumous sonas
Yes. The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return the deceased; and that after payment of all claims and rendition of inventory and reservable property; that, as a reservist, said Mercedes Florentino had been
of the reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her. She later sold the property and put gathering for herself alone the fruits of lands described in the complaint even
which the property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by the up a foundation named after Javellana. Later, the court declared her as the sole
though each and every one of the parties mentioned in said complaint is entitled
relatives of the inheriting ascendant (reservista). To this end, the Article 891 of heir of Esteban Jr.
the Civil Code provides that the ascendant who inherits from his descendant any to one-seventh of the fruits of the reservable property described therein.
property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another Concordia filed for motion for reconsideration to declare her also an heir to the
ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may deceased’s properties. The plaintiffs, who are the relatives of Apolonio III within the third degree, asked
have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the defendants to deliver their part of the reservable property but the defendants
third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came. Celedonia averred that the properties of the deceased had already been refused.
transferred to, and were in the possession of, the "Salustia Solivio Vda. de
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary Javellana Foundation. ISSUE:Was the property left by Apolonio III invested with the character of
intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are reservable property when it was received by his mother, Severina Faz de Leon?
entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half-blood. If in ISSUE:
determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the
RULING:Yes.
right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share Can Reserva Troncal be applied to properties inherited by a descendant from his
for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be likewise operative. ascendant?
Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the absolute
In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives HELD: dominion of the ascendant who inherits and receives same from his descendant,
(reservatarios) to whom the property should be returned; but within that group, therefore it does not form part of his own property nor become the legitimate of
the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of No. Clearly, the property of the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., is not his forced heirs. It becomes his own property only in case that all the relatives of
ordinary intestate succession, since Art. 891 does not specify otherwise. This reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was not an ascendant, but the descendant his descendant shall have died (reservista) in which case said reservable
conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that the reserva being an of his mother, Salustia Solivio, from whom he inherited the properties in property losses such character. As these relatives are at present living, claiming
exceptional case, its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to question. Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in
for it with an indisputable right, we cannot find any reasonable and lawful motive
accomplish the purpose of the law. favor of his aunt, Celedonia Solivio, who is his relative within the third degree on
his mother’s side. The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an why their rights should not be upheld and why they should not be granted equal
SOLIVIO VS. C.A. ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a participation with the defendant in the litigated property.
G.R. NO. 83484, FEBRUARY 12, 1990 brother or sister. It does not apply to property inherited by a descendant from his
MEDIALDEA, J. ascendant, the reverse of the situation covered by Article 891. If said property did not come to be the legitimate and exclusive property of
ARTICLE 891 Severina Faz de Leon, her only legitimate and forced heiress, the defendant
DOCTRINE: RESERVA TRONCAL; DOES NOT APPLY TO PROPERTY Mercedes, could not inherit all by operation of law and in accordance with the
INHERITED BY A DESCENDANT FROM ITS ASCENDANT. FLORENTINO V. FLORENTINO order of legitimate succession, because the other relatives of the deceased
G.R. No. L-14856            November 15, 1919 Apolonio III, within the third degree, as well as herself are entitled to such
FACTS: TORRES, J.: reservable property.
This case involves the estate of the late novelist, Esteban Javellana, Jr. who DOCTRINE: Reserva Troncal
died a bachelor, without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters, nephews or EDROSO V. SABLAN
nieces. His only surviving relatives are: (1) his maternal aunt, petitioner FACTS:Apolonio Florentino II was first married to Antonio where they begot 9 G.R. No. 6878           September 13, 1913
Celedonia Solivio, the spinster half-sister of his mother, Salustia Solivio; and (2) ARELLANO, C.J.:
children. After Antonia’s death, he married Severina with whom he had 2
the private respondent, Concordia Javellana-Villanueva, sister of his deceased children. Apolonio died on February 13,1890 wherein he was survived by his
father, Esteban Javellana, Sr. DOCTRINE:Reserva Troncal
second wife, Severina and his 10 children. The 11 th child, Apolinio III was born
the following on March 4, 1890. Apolonio II executed a will instituting as his

112 | P a g e
FACTS: Marcelina Edroso married Victoriano Sablan wherein they had a son of reservation in favor of Eustaquia Guerrero pursuant to Article 891 of the Civil FACTS: On November 13, 1972, petitioner, legitimate mother of the deceased,
named Pedro. Pedro (unmarried) inherited the two parcels of land which code. In October 1955, Guerrero prayed for the cancellation of the TCT alleging filed for the settlement and partition of her late son Felix del Rosario who died on
eventually was passed through inheritance to her mother, Marcelina upon the death of the original registered owner and reservista, Maria Cano, on a plane crash. While oppositor Dorotea del Rosario is the legitimate surviving
Pedro’s death. When Marcelina applied for the registration of the two parcels of
September 8, 1955 and a new one be issued in favour of her. wife of Felix. Dorotea and Felix had a legally adopted child named Marilou del
land, the two brothers of Victoriano opposed its registration claiming one of two
things: Either that the registration be denied, "or that if granted to her the right Rosario. The court dismissed the petitioner’s petition based on the law on
The lower court granted the petition for the issuance of a new certificate, for the intestate succession that an adopted child concurring with the surviving spouse
reserved by law to the opponents be recorded in the registration of each parcel."
reason that the death of the reservistavested the ownership of the property in the of the adopter excludes the legitimate ascendants from succession, ...therefore,
Registration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of land in petitioner as the sole reservatorio troncal.The oppositors, heirs of the petitioner not being included as intestate heir of the deceased cannot be
question partake of the nature of property required by law to be reserved and the reservista Maria Cano, duly appealed from the order, insisting that the considered as a co-owner of or have any right over the properties sought to be
that in such a case application could only be presented jointly in the names of ownership of the reservatorio can not be decreed in a mere proceeding under partitioned.
the mother and the said two uncles of Pedro Sablan. sec. 112 of Act 496, but requires a judicial administration proceedings, wherein
the rights of appellee, as the reservatorio entitled to the reservable property, are ISSUE: Is petitioner, as the legitimate mother of the deceased, entitled toan
Appellant denies that the lands which are the subject matter of the application to be declared.  inheritance?
are required by law to be reserved.
ISSUE: Is an intestacy proceeding still necessary? RULING: Yes.
ISSUE: Is Marcelina Edroso invested with the absolute title of the property to
cause its registration? RULING:No. The court opined that the governing provision is article 343 of the
New Civil Code. Under Article 343, an adopted child surviving with legitimate
RULING: Yes. The reservatario is not the reservista's successor mortis causa nor is parents of the deceased adopter, has the same successional rights as an
the reservable property part of the reservista's estate; the reservatarioreceives acknowledged natural child, which is comprehended in the term "illegitimate
The conclusion is that the person required by article 811 to reserve the property as a conditional heir of the descendant ( prepositus), said property children". Consequently, the respective shares of the surviving spouse,
the right has, beyond any doubt at all, the rights of use and usufruct. He has, merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had temporarily and ascendant and adopted child should be determined by Article 1000 of the New
moreover, for the reasons set forth, the legal title and dominion, although under accidentally strayed during the reservista's lifetime. The authorities are all Civil Code. It is most unfair to accord more successional rights to the adopted,
a condition subsequent. Clearly he has, under an express provision of the law, agreed that there being reservatarios that survive the reservista, the latter must who is only related artificially by fiction of law to the deceased, than those who
the right to dispose of the property reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate,
be deemed to have enjoined no more than a life interest in the reservable are naturally related to him by blood in the direct ascending line.
although under a condition. He has the right to recover it, because he is the one
who possesses or should possess it and have title to it, although a limited and property.
revocable one. In a word, the legal title and dominion, even though under a The applicability of Article 343 does not exclude the surviving parent of the
condition, reside in him while he lives. After the right required by law to be Hence, its acquisition by the reservatario may be entered in the property records deceased adopter, not only because a contrary view would defeat the intent of
reserved has been assured, he can do anything that a genuine owner can do. without necessity of estate proceedings, since the basic requisites therefor the framers of the law, but also because in intestate succession, where
appear of record. It is equally well settled that the reservable property can not be legitimate parents or ascendants concur with the surviving spouse of the
On the other hand, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor of the transmitted by a reservista to her or his own successors mortis causa,(like deceased, the latter does not necessarily exclude the former from the
right is reserved cannot dispose of the property, first because it is no way, either appellants herein) so long as a reservatario within the third degree from the inheritance. 
actually, constructively or formally, in their possession; and, moreover, because prepositus and belonging to the line whence the property came, is in existence
they have no title of ownership or of the fee simple which they can transmit to when the reservista dies. MARINA DIZON-RIVERA v. ESTELA DIZON
another, on the hypothesis that only when the person who must reserve the right G.R. NO. L-24561
should die before them will they acquire it, thus creating a fee simple, and only ARTICLE 898 JUNE 30, 1970
then will they take their place in the succession of the descendants of whom they TEEHANKEE, J.
are relatives within the third degree.
DEL ROSARIO V. CONANAN
G.R. No. L-37903 March 30, 1977
CANO V. DIRECTOR MAKASIAR, J. DOCTRINE: The testamentary dispositions of the testatrix in favor of
G.R. No. L-10701             January 16, 1959 compulsory heirs do not have to be taken only from the free portion of the
REYES, J.B.L., J.: estate.
DOCTRINE: Where the nearest surviving relatives of the deceased are his
DOCTRINE:Reserva Troncal FACTS: Testatrix Agripina J. Valdez, a widow, died and was survived by
parents, spouse and an adopted child, Article 343 of the Civil Code in relation to seven compulsory heirs named Estela, Tomas, Bernardita, Marina, Angelina and
FACTS: Lots Nos. 1798 and 1799 were registered in the name of Maria Cano
Article 1000 should apply in resolving their hereditary rights. Josefina Dizon. Thereafter, the last will and testament of the decedent was
with the understanding that Lot No. 1799 shall be subject to the right probated wherein appellee Marina Dizon-Rivera was appointed executrix of the

113 | P a g e
testatrix' estate. In her will, the testatrix "commanded that her property be The parish priest of Victoria, who claimed to be a trustee of the said lands, concept that favors the relatives nearest in degree to the decedent and excludes
divided" in accordance with her testamentary disposition, whereby she devised appealed alleging that the said devise was inoperative. The intestate heirs of the more distant ones except when and to the extent that the right of
and bequeathed specific real properties among her six children and eight Father Rigor countered a petition praying that they be adjudged as the persons representation can apply as provided on Article 962 of the Civil.Respondent,
grandchildren. entitled to the said ricelands since, as admitted by the parish priest of Victoria, being a relative within the third civil degree, of the late Augusto H. Piedad
"no nearest male relative of the testator has ever studied for the priesthood". excludes petitioner, a relative of the fifth degree, from succeeding abintestato to
The lower court, sustained and approved the executrix' project of That petition was opposed by the parish priest of Victoria. the estate of the decedent.
partition, ruling that "Articles 906 and 907 of the New Civil Code specifically
provide that when the legitime is impaired or prejudiced, the same shall be ISSUE: Is the bequest in question inoperative? OFELIA HERNANDO BAGUNU v. PASTORA PIEDAD
completed and satisfied”. While it is true that this process has been followed and G.R. NO. 140975
adhered to in the two projects of partition, it is observed that the executrix and HELD: Yes, inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who DECEMBER 8, 2000
the oppositors differ in respect to the source from which the portion shall be became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was VITUG, J.
taken in order to fully restore the impaired legitime. The proposition of the ineffectual or inoperative. It should be understood that the parish priest of
oppositors, if upheld, will substantially result in a distribution of intestacy, which Victoria could become a trustee only when the testator's nephew living at the DOCTRINE: Right of representation is proper only in the descending
is in controversion of Article 791 of the New Civil Code. time of his death, who desired to become a priest, had not yet entered the never in the ascending line.
seminary or, having been ordained a priest, he was excommunicated. Those two
ISSUE: Is the testamentary dispositions made in the testatrix' will are in the contingencies did not arise, and could not have arisen in this case because no FACTS: Petitioner Ofelia Hernando Bagunu moved to intervene in the
nature of devises imputable to the free portion of her estate, and therefore nephew of the testator manifested any intention to enter the seminary or ever intestate Proceedings of the Estate of Augusto H. Piedad asserting entitlement
subject to reduction? became a priest. to a share of the estate of the late Augusto H. Piedad. Petitioner assailed the
finality of the order of the trial court awarding the entire estate to respondent
RULING: Yes, the testatrix' testamentary disposition was in the nature of a There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands the PastoraPiedad contending that the proceedings were tainted with procedural
partition of her estate by will. In the third paragraph of her will, in accordance same should be distributed among the testator's legal heirs. The Civil Code infirmities. The trial court denied the motion, prompting petitioner to raise her
with the dispositions, she specified each real property in her estate and recognizes that a person may die partly testate and partly intestate, or that there case to the Court of Appeals. Respondent sought the dismissal of the appeal on
designated the particular heir among her seven compulsory heirs and seven may be mixed succession. The old rule as to the indivisibility of the testator's will the thesis that the issues brought up on appeal only involved pure questions of
other grandchildren to whom she bequeathed the same. This right of a testator is no longer valid. Thus, if a conditional legacy does not take effect, there will be law.
to partition his estate is subject only to the right of compulsory heirs to their intestate succession as to the property recovered by the said legacy.
legitime as provided under Article 906 and Article 907 of the Civil Code. OFELIA HERNANDO BAGUNU v. PASTORA PIEDAD ISSUE: Will the rule on proximity in intestate succession find application
G.R. NO. 140975 among collateral relatives?
The second paragraph of Article 912 Civil Code covers precisely the DECEMBER 8, 2000 RULING: By right of representation, a more distant blood relative of a decedent
case of the executrix-appellee, who admittedly was favored by the testatrix with VITUG, J. is, by operation of law, "raised to the same place and degree" of relationship as
the large bulk of her estate in providing that "The devisee who is entitled to a that of a closer blood relative of the same decedent. The representative thereby
legitime may retain the entire property, provided its value does not exceed that of DOCTRINE: Collateral relatives, except only in the case of nephews steps into the shoes of the person he represents and succeeds, not from the
the disposable portion and of the share pertaining to him as legitime." and nieces of the decedent concurring with their uncles or aunts, the rule of latter, but from the person to whose estate the person represented would have
proximity, expressed in Article 962 of the Civil Code is an absolute rule. succeeded.
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REVEREND FATHER PASCUAL RIGOR.
THE PARISH PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF VICTORIA, FACTS: Petitioner Ofelia Hernando Bagunu moved to intervene in the In the direct line, right of representation is proper only in the
TARLAC v. BELINA RIGOR intestate Proceedings of the Estate of Augusto H. Piedad asserting entitlement descending, never in the ascending, line. In the collateral line, the right of
G.R. NO. L-22036 to a share of the estate of the late Augusto H. Piedad. Petitioner assailed the representation may only take place in favor of the children of brothers or sisters
APRIL 30, 1979 finality of the order of the trial court awarding the entire estate to respondent of the decedent when such children survive with their uncles or aunts.
AQUINO, J. PastoraPiedad contending that the proceedings were tainted with procedural
infirmities. The trial court denied the motion, prompting petitioner to raise her The right of representation does not apply to "other collateral relatives
DOCTRINE: Legal succession takes place when the will "does not case to the Court of Appeals. Respondent sought the dismissal of the appeal on within the fifth civil degree" (to which group both petitioner and respondent
dispose of all that belongs to the testator”. the thesis that the issues brought up on appeal only involved pure questions of belong) who are sixth in the order of preference following, firstly, the legitimate
law. children and descendants, secondly, the legitimate parents and ascendants,
FACTS: This case is about the efficaciousness or enforceability of a devise of thirdly, the illegitimate children and descendants, fourthly, the surviving spouse,
ricelands. That devise was made in the will of the late Father Pascual Rigor, in ISSUE: Can petitioner, a collateral relative of the fifth civil degree, inherit and fifthly, the brothers and sisters/nephews and nieces, of the decedent.
favor of his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood. The record alongside respondent, a collateral relative of the third civil degree?
discloses that Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died leaving a
will which was probated wherein the testator gave a devise to his cousin, RULING: No, Augusto H. Piedad died without any direct descendants or INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA
FortunatoGamalinda. ascendants. Respondent is the maternal aunt of the decedent, a third-degree VS
relative of the decedent, while petitioner is the daughter of a first cousin of the
deceased, or a fifth-degree relative of the decedent. The rule on proximity is a ROSALES

114 | P a g e
G.R. NO. L-40789, FEBRUARY 27, 1987 Simeon Bagsic was married to Sisenanda Barcenas with three children namely:
GANCAYCO, J.: DOCTRINE: Perpetua, Igmedia, and Ignacio. Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of her
The representative is called to the succession by the law and not by the person husband Simeon Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic remarried Silvestra Glorioso. Of this
DOCTRINE: represented. The representative does not succeed the person represented but second marriage were born two children, Felipa and Maura. Simeon Bagsic and
Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the the one whom the person represented would have succeeded. (Civil Code Art. Silvestra Glorioso died. Ignacio Bagsic died leaving the plaintiff Francisca Bagsic
representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented, 971) as his only heir. Igmedia Bagsic also died survived by the plaintiffs Dionisio
and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could Tolentino, Maria Tolentino and Petra Tolentino. Perpetua Bagsic died and was
have inherited. (Civil Code Art. 970) FACTS: survived by her heirs, the plaintiffs Gaudencio Bicomong, Felicidad Bicomong,
On February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra Rosales died intestate. She was survived by Salome Bicomong, and Gervacio Bicomong.
FACTS: her husband Fortunato Rosales and their two children Magna Rosales Acebes Of the children of the second marriage, Maura Bagsic died leaving no heir.
On February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra Rosales died intestate. She was survived by and Antonio Rosales. Another child, Carterio Rosales, predeceased her, leaving Felipa Bagsic also died leaving her husband Geronimo Almanza and Engracio
her husband Fortunato Rosales and their two children Magna Rosales Acebes behind a child, Macikequerox Rosales, and his widow Irenea C. Rosales, the Manese the husband of her daughter Cristeta Almanza who died five (5) months
and Antonio Rosales. Another child, Carterio Rosales, predeceased her, leaving herein petitioner. Magna Rosales Acebes instituted the proceedings for the before the present suit was filed. The case concerns the one-half undivided
behind a child, Macikequerox Rosales, and his widow Irenea C. Rosales, the settlement of the estate of the deceased. The trial court ordered that Fortunato, share of Maura Bagsic in the five (5) parcels of land which she inherited from her
herein petitioner. Magna Rosales Acebes instituted the proceedings for the Magna, Macikequerox and Antonio be entitled each to ¼ share in the estate of deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso. Three sets of plaintiffs filed the complaint
settlement of the estate of the deceased. The trial court ordered that Fortunato, decedent. Irenea, on the other hand, insisted in getting a share of the estate in on December 1, 1959, namely: (a) the Bicomongs, children of Perpetua Bagsic;
Magna, Macikequerox and Antonio be entitled each to ¼ share in the estate of her capacity as the surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, son of the (b) the Tolentinos, children of Igmedia Bagsic; and (c) Francisco Bagsic,
decedent. Irenea, on the other hand, insisted in getting a share of the estate in deceased, claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law. daughter of Ignacio Bagsic, against the defendants Geronimo Almanza and
her capacity as the surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, son of the Engracio Menese for the recovery of their lawful shares in the properties left by
deceased, claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law. ISSUE: Is Irenea entitled to inherit from her mother-in-law? Maura Bagsic.
ISSUE: Is the plaintiffs entitled to inherit in their own right?
ISSUE: Is Macikequerox the rightful representative of Carterio Rosales? RULING: NO. RULING: YES.
Irenea misinterpreted the provision of Article 887 of the Civil Code because the They inherit in their own right and not by right of representation. The contention
provision refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in which case the surviving that Maura Bagsic should be succeeded by Felipa Bagsic, her sister of full blood,
spouse is a compulsory heir. It does not apply to the estate of a parent-in-law. to the exclusion of the nephews and nieces of half blood citing Art. 1004, NCC is
RULING: YES. Article 971 of the same code states that the representative is called to the invalid for it is based on an erroneous factual assumption, that is, that Felipa
Under the law, intestate or legal heirs are classified into two groups, namely, succession by the law and not by the person represented. The representative Bagsic died in 1955, which is not true as she died on May 9, 1945, thus she
those who inherit by their own right, and those who inherit by the right of does not succeed the person represented but the one whom the person predeceased her sister Maura Bagsic.
representation. The essence and nature of the right of representation is represented would have succeeded. Macikequerox Rosales is called to Article 975 of the New Civil Code states that when children of one or more
explained by Articles 970 and 971 of the Civil Code. In Article 970 it states that succession by law because of his blood relationship. He does not succeed his brothers or sisters of tile deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by
representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the father, Carterio Rosales (the person represented) who predeceased his representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if they alone
representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented, grandmother, Petra Rosales, but the latter whom his father would have survive, they shall inherit in equal portions. This provision makes no qualification
and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could succeeded. Irenea cannot assert the same right of representation as she has no as to whether the nephews or nieces are on the maternal or paternal line and
have inherited. filiation by blood with her mother-in-law. without preference as to whether their relationship to the deceased is by whole
There is no provision in the Civil Code which states that a widow (surviving or half blood, the sole niece of whole blood of the deceased does not exclude
spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother-in-law. The right of representation is BICOMONG VS ALMANZA the ten nephews and niece of half blood.
provided for in Article 981 of the same law. Indeed, the surviving spouse is G.R. NO. L-37365 NOVEMBER 29, 1977
considered a third person as regards the estate of the parent-in-law. GUERRERO, J.: TEOTICO VS. DEL VAL
DOCTRINE: G.R. NO. L-18753, MARCH 26, 1965
INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA Nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right and they alone do BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
VS not inherit by right of representation (that is per stirpes) unless concurring with
ROSALES brothers or sisters of the deceased. DOCTRINE:
G.R. NO. L-40789, FEBRUARY 27, 1987
GANCAYCO, J.: FACTS:

115 | P a g e
Relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and adopted Sayson v. CA is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a legitimate child and have
and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents except only as GR 892224-25, January 23, 1992 the same right as the latter, these rights do not include right of representation.
expressly provided by law. The relationship created by the adoption is between the adopting parents and
DOCTRINE: Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents… the adopted child and does not extend to the blood relative of either party.
An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same
manner as a legitimate child. (Civil Code Art. 979) An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same
manner as a legitimate child HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES VS CA
FACTS: GR No. 109963, October 13, 1999
Maria Mortera died on July 1955 leaving properties worth P600,000. She FACTS:
DOCTRINE: An extrajudicial settlement is a contract and it is a well-
executed a will written in Spanish, affixed her signature and acknowledged entrenched doctrine that the law does not relieve a party from the effects of a
before Notary Public by her and the witnesses. Among the legacies made in the Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot 5 children: Mauricio, Rosario,
contract, entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of
Basilisa, Remedios and Teodoro. Teodoro married Isabela. Upon the death of
will was the P20,000 for Rene Teotico who was married to the testatrix’s niece, what he was doing, simply because the contract turned out to be a foolish or
Teodoro and Isabela, their properties were in the possession of Delia, Edmundo
Josefina Mortera. The usufruct of Maria’s interest in the Calvo Building were left unwise investment
and Doribel, their children. The plaintiffs filed for partition of the intestate estate
to the said spouses and the ownership thereof was left in equal parts to her of Teodoro and Isabela. It was opposed by Delia, Edmundo and Doribel alleging
grandchildren, the legitimate children of said spouses. Josefina was likewise FACTS:
their successional rights to the estate as the lawful descendants. Subsequently,
Spouses Marcelina Cimafranca and Joaquin Teves died intestate and without
instituted, as sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not Delia, Edmundo and Doribel filed for partition of intestate estate of Eleno and
Rafaela as they are entitled to inherit Teodoro’s share in his parents’ estate by debts in 1943 and 1953, respectively. During their lifetime, the spouses own two
otherwise disposed by will. Vicente Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the
right of representation because Delia and Edmundo are adopted children and parcels of land registered in the name of Marcelina and another lot registered in
will but was opposed by Ana del Val Chan, claiming that she was an adopted
Doribel was legitimate daughter. the name of Joaquin and his two sisters. However, Joaquin’s sisters died without
child of Francisca (deceased sister of Maria) and an acknowledged natural child
issue, causing the entire property to pass to him. After Marcelina and Joaquin
of Jose (deceased brother of Maria), that said will was not executed as required
The RTC found the defendants qualified to inherit from Eleno and Rafaela died, their children executed extrajudicial settlements purporting to adjudicate
by law and that Maria as physically and mentally incapable to execute the will at
by right of representation. However, the Court of Appeals found Delia and unto themselves the ownership over the two parcels of land and to alienate their
the time of its execution and was executed under duress, threat, or influence of Edmundo disqualified from inheriting from the decedent. shares thereto in favor of their sister Asuncion Teves for a consideration.
fear.
The division of the subject lot was embodied in two deeds. The first Deed of
ISSUE: Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale was entered into on June 13, 1956 while the
ISSUE: Has Ana del Val Chan have the right to intervene in this proceeding as
second deed was executed on April 21, 1959. The Deed of Extrajudicial
an heir?
May Delia, Edmundo and Doribel inherit from the estate of Eleno and Rafaela Settlement and sale was executed on December 14, 1971. After the death of
by right of representation? Asuncion Teves, her children, private respondents, extrajudicially settled
RULING: NO.
her property, adjudicating unto themselves said lots.
She would not acquire any interest in any portion of the estate left by the
testatrix. She would acquire such right only if she was a legal heir of the However, Cresenciano Teves, one of the heirs was not a signatory to the two
deceased. alleged Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, and thru his son Ricardo contended that
Under Art. 979 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, an adopted child succeeds to the they should not be affected by the sale to Asuncion Teves, and hence, be given
property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child. back their share in the inheritance.
RULING:
Relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and adopted
and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents except only as
As to Doribel, YES, for she was a legitimate daughter of Teodoro and ISSUE: Should the extrajudicial settlements be upheld?
expressly provided by law. As a consequence, she is an heir of the adopter but thus granddaughter of Eleno and Rafaela. But as to Delia and Edmundo, it is
not of the relatives of the adopter. NO. The Court cited Art. 979 of the New Civil Code which expressly provides HELD: Yes. An extrajudicial settlement is a contract and it is a well-
In Article 992 of our Civil Code it states that an illegitimate child has no right to that “Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents…An
entrenched doctrine that the law does not relieve a party from the effects of a
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same
manner as a legitimate child”. contract, entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of
mother.
what he was doing, simply because the contract turned out to be a foolish or
It is true that she claims to be an acknowledged natural child of Jose and also an
Here Doribel has right to represent her deceased father in the distribution unwise investment. Therefore, although plaintiffs-appellants may regret having
adopted daughter of Francisca. But the law does not give her any right to
of intestate estate of her grandparents. She is entitled to the share her alienated heir hereditary shares in favor of their  sister Asuncion, they must now
succeed to the estate of Maria because being an illegitimate child she is
father would have directly inherited had he survived, which shall be equal to the be considered bound by their own contractual acts.
prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her natural father.
shares of her grandparents’ other children. But for Delia and Edmundo, to whom
the grandparents were total strangers, cannot inherit by representation. While it

116 | P a g e
But in the part of Cresenciano represented by his son Ricardo Teves, he is No. the Court ruled that jurisprudence has consistently held that Article 992 16 of Felisa Pamuti Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the
given 1/8 part of Lot 769-A because according to Art. 980 of the New Civil Code the Civil Code bars the illegitimate child from inheriting ab intestato  from the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
“ The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. Thus, Emilio III, who is
The term relatives in “Article 992 of New Civil Code” in more restrictive sense
dividing the inheritance in equal shares”. Since they are all 8 in the family, the barred from inheriting from his grandmother, cannot be preferred over
than it is used and intended; is not warranted by any rule of interpretation.
inheritance must be divided in equal shares, thus Cresenciano thru his respondent in the administration of the estate of their grandmother, the Besides, when the law intends to use the term in a more restrictive sense, it
predescessor-in-interest must be him his share and not to be subjected to the decedent;  qualifies the term with the word collateral, as in Articles 1003 and 1009 of the
conveyance to Asuncion Teves and her children. New Civil Code.
From the foregoing, it is patently clear that the CA erred in excluding Emilio III
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF SUNTAY VS SUNTAY from the administration of the decedent's estate. As Federico's adopted son, OLIVIA PASCUAL v. ESPERANZA PASCUAL- BAUTISTA
Emilio III's interest in the estate of Cristina is as much apparent to this Court as G.R NO. 84240
GR.NO. 183053 the interest therein of respondent, considering that the CA even declared that MARCH 25, 1992
"under the law, [Federico], being the surviving spouse, would have the right of PARAS, J.
DOCTRINE: Article 99216 of the Civil Code bars the illegitimate child from succession over a portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, aside from
inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or DOCTRINE: The right of representation is not available to illegitimate
his share in the conjugal partnership." descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent.
mother.
DIAZ VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT FACTS: Don Andres Pascual died intestate. Petitioners Olivia and Hermes
FACTS: G.R. NO. 66574, FEBRUARY 21, 1990 both surnamed Pascual are the acknowledged natural children of the late
EligioPascual, the latter being the full blood brother of the decedent Don Andres
On June 4, 1990, the decedent, Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay (Cristina), married to Pascual. The heirs entered into a compromise agreement, over the vehement
Dr. Federico Suntay (Federico), died intestate. In 1979, their only son, Emilio DOCTRINE: The term relatives in “Article 992 of New Civil Code” in more objections of the herein petitioners. The said Compromise Agreement had been
Aguinaldo Suntay (Emilio I), predeceased both Cristina and Federico. At the time restrictive sense than it is used and intended; is not warranted by any rule of entered into despite the Manifestation of the petitioners Olivia Pascual and
of her death, Cristina was survived by her husband, Federico, and several interpretation. Besides, when the law intends to use the term in a more Hermes Pascual, alleging their hereditary rights in the intestate estate of Don
restrictive sense, it qualifies the term with the word collateral, as in Articles 1003 Andres Pascual, their uncle. Petitioners contend that they do not fall squarely
grandchildren, including herein petitioner Emilio A.M. Suntay III (Emilio III) and
and 1009 of the New Civil Code. within the purview of Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay.
ISSUE: Can Article 992 of the Civil Code be interpreted to exclude recognized
During his lifetime, Emilio I was married to Isabel Cojuangco, and they begot FACTS: natural children from the inheritance of the deceased?
three children, namely: herein respondent, Isabel; Margarita; and Emilio II, all
surnamed Cojuangco-Suntay. Emilio I's marriage to Isabel Cojuangco was It is undisputed that Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
RULING: No.Article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in
subsequently annulled. Thereafter, Emilio I had two children out of wedlock, Santero who together with Felisa's mother Juliana were the only legitimate child
that it prohibits absolutely a succession abintestato between the illegitimate child
Emilio III and Nenita Suntay Tañedo (Nenita), by two different women, of the spouses Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion; that Simona Pamuti Vda.
and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate
de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero;
Concepcion Mendoza and Isabel Santos, respectively. child. Between the legitimate family and illegitimate family there is presumed to
that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents;that Pascual
be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility.Finally, under Article 176 of the
Santero died in 1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976; that
Despite the illegitimate status of Emilio III, he was reared ever since he was a Family Code, all illegitimate children are generally placed under one category,
Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona
mere baby, nine months old, by the spouses Federico and Cristina and was an which undoubtedly settles the issue as to whether or not acknowledged natural
Santero and his six minor natural children to wit: four minor children with
children should be treated differently, in the negative.It may be said that the law
acknowledged natural child of Emilio I. Nenita is an acknowledged natural child Anselma Diaz and two minor children with Felixberta Pacursa.
may be harsh but that is the law.
of Emilio I and was likewise brought up by the spouses Federico and Cristina.
Significantly, Federico, after the death of his spouse, Cristina, or on September
27, 1993, adopted their illegitimate grandchildren, Emilio III and Nenita. ISSUE: TOMAS CORPUS v. ESTATE OF TEODORO R. YANGCO
G.R. NO. L – 22469
Who are the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero — her niece Felisa OCTOBER 23, 1978
ISSUE:
Pamuti-Jardin or her grandchildren (the natural children of Pablo Santero)? AQUINO, J.
Is Emilio III deemed exlcluded from the administration of the decedent’s
HELD: DOCTRINE: Legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed her
estate?
illegitimate child.
Since petitioners herein are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the
HELD: respondent Intermediate Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding FACTS: Teodoro R. Yangco died without forced heirs. At the time of his
death, his nearest relatives were: (1)his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, (2)his half
117 | P a g e
sister, Paz Yangco, the wife of Miguel Ossorio (3)Amalia Corpus, Jose A. V. September 13, 1938, his alleged putative father and mother were not yet G.R. No. 136467 April 6, 2000
Corpus, and Ramon L. Corpus, the children of his half brother, Pablo Corpus, married, and his alleged father's first marriage was still subsisting. At most,
and (4)Juanita Corpus, the daughter of his half brother Jose Corpus. Thereafter, petitioner would be an illegitimate child who has no right to ANTONIA ARMAS Y CALISTERIO, petitioner, vs. MARIETTA CALISTERIO,
Tomas Corpus, as the sole heir of Juanita corpus, filed an action to recover her inherit abintestato  from the legitimate children and relatives of his father, like the respondent.
supposed share in Yangco intestate estate. He alleged in his complaint that the deceased Francisca Reyes as provided under Article 992 of the Civil Code.
dispositions in Yangco’s will has perpetual prohibitions upon alienation which VITUG, J.
rendered it void under article 785 of the old Civil Code and that the 1949
HEIRS OF SANDEJAS v. ALEX A. LINA
partition is invalid therefore, the decedent's estate should be distributed
G.R. NO. 141634
according to the rules on intestacy.
FEBRUARY 5, 2001 DOCTRINE A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not
PANGANIBAN, J. necessaryas long as the prescribed period of absence is met. It is equally
ISSUE: Can Tomas Corpus recover his mother's supposed intestate share in
Yangco's estate? noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by the explicit
DOCTRINE: A contract of sale is not invalidated by the fact that it is
subject to probate court approval. The transaction remains binding on the seller- mandate of Article 83, to be deemed valid "until declared null and void by a
HELD: Article 992 of the Civil Code provides that "an illegitimate child has no competent court." It follows that the burden of proof would be, in these cases, on
heir, but not on the other heirs who have not given their consent to it. In settling
right to inherit abintestato  from the legitimate children and relatives of his father the party assailing the second marriage.
the estate of the deceased, a probate court has jurisdiction over matters
or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from
incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized powers.
the illegitimate child".That rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is
FACTS: Teodorico was the second husband of Marietta who had previously
disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is, in
FACTS: EliodoroSandejas, Sr. filed a petition praying that letters of been married to James William Bounds on 13 January 1946 at Caloocan City.
turn, hated by the illegitimate child.Following the rule in article 992, formerly
administration be issued in his favor for the settlement of the estate of his wife, James Bounds disappeared without a trace on 11 February 1947. Teodorico and
article 943, it was held that the legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed
Remedios R. Sandejas.A petition-in-intervention was filed by Alex A. Lina Marietta were married eleven years later, or on 08 May 1958, without Marietta
her illegitimate child.
alleging that administrator Eliodoro P. Sandejas sold the subject lands which
formed part of the estate of the late Remedios R. Sandejas. Thereafter, having priorly secured a court declaration that James was presumptively dead.
CRESENCIANO LEORNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS intervenor filed an Omnibus Motion to approve the deed of conditional sale
G.R. NO. L-51263 executed between Plaintiff-in-lntervention Alex A. Lina and ElidioroSandejas.
FEBRUARY 28, 1983 On 09 October 1992, herein petitioner Antonia Armas y Calisterio, a
DE CASTRO, J. Petitioners aver that the Court of Appeal's computation of Eliodoro surviving sister of Teodorico, filed with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of
Sr.'s share in the disputed parcels of land was erroneous because, as the Quezon City, Branch 104, a petition entitled, "In the Matter of Intestate Estate of
DOCTRINE: The right of representation cannot be applied to those conjugal partner of Remedios, he owned one half of these lots plus a further one
children born outside wedlock or when the putative father and mother’s previous the Deceased TeodoricoCalisterio y Cacabelos, Antonia Armas, Petitioner,"
tenth of the remaining half, in his capacity as a one of her legal heirs. Hence,
marriage is subsisting. claiming to be inter alia, the sole surviving heir of TeodoricoCalisterio, the
Eliodoro's share should be 11/20 of the entire property. On the other hand, the
CA held that, the conditional sale should cover the one half (1/2) pro indiviso marriage between the latter and respondent Marietta Espinosa Calisterio being
FACTS: Francisca Reyes who died intestate on July 12, 1942 was survived by conjugal share of Eliodoro plus his one tenth (1/10) hereditary share as one of allegedly bigamous and thereby null and void.
two (2) daughters, Maria and SilvestraCailles and a grandson, Sotero Leonardo, the ten legal heirs of the decedent, or a total of three fifths (3/5) of the lots in
the son of her daughter, PascualaCailles who predeceased her. Petitioner administration.
Cresenciano Leonardo, claiming to be the son of the late Sotero Leonardo, filed ISSUE: is the marriage between the deceased Teodorico and respondent
a complaint for ownership of properties praying to be declared one of the lawful ISSUE: Is the share of Eliodorobe 3/5 as held by the Court of Appeals? Marietta valid ?
heirs of the deceased Francisca Reyes and to have an accounting of all the
income derived from said properties from the time defendants took possession HELD: No, the share of Eliodoro should be 11/20 of the entire property
thereof until said accounting shall have been made, delivering to him his share RULING:
based on the remaining half, after deducting the conjugal share. Succession
therein with legal interest. In her answer, private respondent Maria Cailles laws and jurisprudence require that when a marriage is dissolved by the death of
asserted exclusive ownership over the subject properties and alleged that No. The marriage between the deceased Teodorico and respondent
the husband or the wife, the decedent's entire estate under the concept of
petitioner is an illegitimate child who cannot succeed by right of representation. Marietta was solemnized on 08 May 1958. The law in force at that time was the
conjugal properties of gains must be divided equally, with one half going to the
surviving spouse and the other half to the heirs of the deceased. After the Civil Code, not the Family Code which took effect only on 03 August 1988.
ISSUE: As the great grandson of Francisca Reyes, can petitioner inherit by settlement of the debts and obligations, the remaining half of the estate is then Article 256 of the Family Code 5 itself limited its retroactive governance only to
representation? distributed to the legal heirs, legatees and devices. cases where it thereby would not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently
HELD: No.Even if it is true that petitioner is the child of Sotero Leonardo, still In this case, however, a preliminary determination of the decedent's contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person
he cannot, by right of representation, claim a share of the estate left by the estate has already been taken into account by the parties, since the only issue
with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its
deceased Francisca Reyes considering that, as found by the Court of Appeals, raised in this case is whether Eliodoro's share is 11/20 or 3/5 of the disputed
he was born outside wedlock as shown by the fact that when he was born on lots. performance, unless:

118 | P a g e
(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or BENGZON, C.J.: entitled to when intestacy occurs. Because if the latter happens, the pertinent
provision on intestate succession shall apply, i.e., Art. 996.
(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at DOCTRINEIf a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are
the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each G.R. No. L-37903 March 30, 1977
news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee, though he has of the children.
been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as GERTRUDES L. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. DOROTEA O. CONANAN and
dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of MARILOU DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is
presumed dead according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage so TOPIC : ARTICLE 996 MAKASIAR, J.
contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null
FACTS:On November 21, 1953, Santillon died without testament in Tayug, DOCTRINE: If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse and illegitimate
and void by a competent court.
Pangasinan, his residence, leaving one son, Claro, and his wife, Perfecta children are left, the ascendants shall be entitled to one half of the inheritance,
A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not Miranda. During his marriage, Pedro acquired several parcels of land located in and the other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the
necessaryas long as the prescribed period of absence is met. It is equally that province. illegitimate children so that such widow or widower shall have one-fourth of the
noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by the explicit On April 25, 1961, Claro filed a "Motion to Declare Share of Heirs" and to resolve estate, the illegitimate children the other fourth
mandate of Article 83, to be deemed valid "until declared null and void by a the conflicting claims of the parties with respect to their respective rights in the
competent court." It follows that the burden of proof would be, in these cases, on estate. Invoking Art. 892 of the New Civil Code, he insisted that after deducting TOPIC : ARTICLE 1000
the party assailing the second marriage. 1/2 from the conjugal properties is the conjugal share of Perfecta, the remaining
1/2 must be divided as follows: 1/4 for her and 3/4 for him. Oppositor Perfecta, FACTS:On November 13, 1972, petitioner filed with the court below the petition
SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS on the other hand, claimed that besides her conjugal half, she was entitled under for settlement and partition of estate, subject of which is the estate left by her
Art. 996 of the New Civil Code to another 1/2 of the remaining half. In other late son, Felix L. del Rosario, who died in a plane crash on September 12, 1969
The conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta, no evidence having words, Claro claimed 3/4 of Pedro's inheritance, while Perfecta claimed 1/2. at Antipolo, Rizal. Felix was survived by his adopted child MARILOU DEL
been adduced to indicate another property regime between the spouses, ROSARIO, wife DOROTEA DEL ROSARIO CONANAN and his mother
pertains to them in common. Upon its dissolution with the death of Teodorico, petitioner GERTRUDES L. DEL ROSARIO.
the property should rightly be divided in two equal portions — one portion going ISSUE: is Perfecta entitled to ½ or ¼ of the ½ of the conjugal estate? In
to the surviving spouse and the other portion to the estate of the deceased alternative, is article 892 or 996 applicable in this case ?
spouse. The successional right in intestacy of a surviving spouse over the net ISSUE: is petitioner as legitimate ascendant excluded from the inheritance of
estate of the deceased, concurring with legitimate brothers and sisters or FELIX DEL ROSARIO? Considering that FELIX is survived by and adopted child
nephews and nieces (the latter by right of representation), is one-half of the HELD: and his spouse.
inheritance, the brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces, being entitled to the
Perfecta is entitled to ½ of the ½ of the conjugal estate or the estate RULING: No. The petitioner is not excluded.The lower court found the following
other half. Nephews and nieces, however, can only succeed by right of
of Pedro. the new provisions of the New Civil Code gername to the instant case:
representation in the presence of uncles and aunts; alone, upon the other hand,
nephews and nieces can succeed in their own right which is to say that brothers Art. 996 provides that If a widow or widower and legitimate children or Art. 341. The adoption shall:
or sisters exclude nephews and nieces except only in representation by the latter descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share
of their parents who predecease or are incapacitated to succeed. The appellate as that of each of the children. (1) Give to the adopted person the same rights and duties as
court has thus erred in granting, in paragraph (c) of the dispositive portion of its if he were a legitimate child of the adopted;
judgment, successional rights, to petitioner's children, along with their own
mother Antonia who herself is invoking successional rights over the estate of her Art. 892 of the New Civil Code falls under the chapter on (2) Dissolve the authority vested in the parents by nature;
deceased brother. Testamentary Succession; whereas Art. 996 comes under the chapter on Legal
or Intestate Succession. Such being the case, it is obvious that Claro cannot rely (3) Make the adopted person a legal heir of the adopted;
G.R. No. L-19281 June 30, 1965 on Art. 892 to support his claim to 3/4 of his father's estate. Art 892 merely fixes
(4) Entitle the adopted person to use the adopter's surname."
the legitime of the surviving spouse and Art. 888 thereof, the legitime of children
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF PEDRO SANTILLON, in testate succession. While it may indicate the intent of the law with respect to
CLARO SANTILLON, petitioner-appellant, vs. PERFECTA MIRANDA, BENITO Art. 978. Succession pertains, in the first place, to the decending
the ideal shares that a child and a spouse should get when they concur with direct line.
U. MIRANDA and ROSARIO CORRALES, oppositors-appellees. each other, it does not fix the amount of shares that such child and spouse are

119 | P a g e
Art. 979. Legitimate children and their decendantssuceed the parents and the Under Article 343, an adopted child surviving with legitimate parents of the deeds of sale without knowing their contents and prayed that Evangelina and
other ascendants, without distinction as to sex or age, and even if they should deceased adopter, has the same successional rights as an acknowledged Elisa be ordered to reconvey the lands subject thereof to her. This complaint
come from different marriages. natural child, which is comprehended in the term "illegitimate children". was later withdrawn pursuant to an agreement dated August 2, 1977, under
Consequently , the respective shares of the surviving spouse, ascendant and which the defendants, in exchange for such withdrawal, obligated themselves to
WE opine that the governing provision is the hereinafter quoted article 343 of the adopted child should be determined by Article 1000 of the New Civil Code, which "execute absolute deeds of sale covering the above-mentioned properties in
New Civil Code, in relation to Articles 893 and 1000 of said law, which directs reads: favor of the First Party," meaning the plaintiff.
that:
As it turned out, only Elisa reconveyed the lot deeded to her;
Art. 343. If the adopter is survived by legitimate parents or ascendants and by Evangelina never complied with the agreement; and when Paulina died in 1982,
Art. 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse and illegitimate children
an adopted person. the latter shall not have more successional rights than an the certificate of title over the lots in question were still in the names of
are left, the ascendants shall be entitled to one half of the inheritance, and the
acknowledged natural child. Evangelina and Elisa Baranda.
other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate
Article 343 of the New Civil Code is qualification to Article 341 which gives an children so that such widow or widower shall have one-fourth of the estate, the
April 26, 1982, the herein petitioners, claiming to be the legitimate
adopted child the same rights and duties as though he were a legitimate child. illegitimate children the other fourth.
heirs of the late Paulina Baranda, filed a complaint against Evangelina and Elisa
The reason for this is that: Baranda in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the annulment of the sale and
G.R. No. 73275 May 20, 1987
the reconveyance of the lots, with damages. Judgment was rendered in favor of
(I)t is unjust to exclude the adopter's parents from the inheritance in facor of an the plaintiffs. On appeal the judgment was reversed.
adopted person (Report of the Code Commission, p. 92). FLOCERFINA BARANDA, Assisted by Husband, ELIAS FABON, HERMINIA
BARANDA RECATO represented by LILIA R. TORRENTE, as Attorney-in-Fact,
ISSUE: are petitioners the proper parties to question the validity of the deed of
It is most unfair to accord more successional rights to the adopted, who is only TEODORO BARANDA represented by JUANITA VICTORIA as Attorney-in-Fact,
sale.
related artificially by fiction of law to the deceased, than those who are naturally ALIPIO VILLARTA and SALVACION BARANDA, petitioners, vs. EVANGELINA
related to him by blood in the direct ascending line. G. BARANDA, ELISA G. BARANDA, and THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE RULING
APPELLATE COURT, respondents. Yes. The petitioners have legal standing to assail the validity of the contract.
The applicability of Article 343 does not exclude the surviving parent of the
deceased adopter, not only because a contrary view would defeat the intent of CRUZ, J.: The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are the following:
the framers of the law, but also because in intestate succession, where
legitimate parents or ascendants concur with the surviving spouse of the DOCTRINE Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate
deceased, the latter does not necessarily exclude the former from the nieces, who are the children of the descendant's brothers and sisters of the full children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed
inheritance. This is affirmed by Article 893 of the New Civil Code which states: blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following
articles.
If the testator leaves no legitimate descendants, but leaves legitimate FACTS:
ascendants, the surviving spouse shall have a right to onefourth (only) of the Art. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews
[FAMILY TREE] Paulina Baranda died intestate without leaving any
hereditary estate. and nieces, who are the children of the descendant's brothers and
direct descendants or ascendants, or compulsory heirs. She was survived,
sisters of the full blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the
however, by two brothers, namely, Pedro and Teodoro, and several nephews
latter per stirpes
and nieces, including the private respondents, as well as petitioners
This fourth shall be taken from the free portion. FlocerfinaBaranda, SalvacionBaranda, and AlipioBarandaVillarte, children of two
deceased brothers and a sister. The above- named persons, together with
Article 343 does not require that the concurring heirs should be the aodpted child Pedro Baranda, who was not joined as a petitioner because he is the father of Art. 972. The right of representation takes place in the direct
and the legitimate parents or ascendants only. The language of the law is clear, the private respondents, and the children of another deceased sister, are the descending line, but never in the ascending.
and a contrary view cannot be presumed. legitimate intestate heirs of Paulina Baranda.
In the collateral line it takes place only in favor of the children or
It is, thus, OUR view that Article 343 should be made to apply, consonant with The case involves reconveyance of 5 parcel of lands which were brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or half blood.
the cardinal rule in statutory construction that all the provisions of the New Civil simulatedly sold by deceased PAULIANA BARANDA to her nieces
Code must be reconciled and given effect. EVANGELINA BARANDA AND ELISA BARANDA. On August 1, 1977, in the As heirs, the petitioners have legal standing to challenge the deeds of
Court of First Instance of Rizal, in which she alleged that she had signed the said sale purportedly signed by Paulina Baranda for otherwise property claimed to

120 | P a g e
belong to her estate will be excluded therefrom to their prejudice. Their claims
are not merely contingent or expectant, as argued by the private respondents,
but are deemed to have vested in them upon Paulina Baranda's death in 1982,
as, under Article 777 of the Civil Code, "the rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent." While they are not
compulsory heirs, they are nonetheless legitimate heirs and so, since they
"stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment or suit," are entitled to protect
their share of successional rights.

This Court has repeatedly held that "the legal heirs of a decedent are
the parties in interest to commence ordinary actions arising out of the rights
belonging to the deceased, without separate judicial declaration as to their being
heirs of said decedent, provided that there is no pending special proceeding for
the settlement of the decedent's estate."

There being no pending special proceeding for the settlement of

Paulina Baranda's estate, the petitioners, as her intestate heirs, had the right to
sue for the reconveyance of the disputed properties, not to them, but to the
estate itself of the decedent, for distribution later in accordance with law.
Otherwise, no one else could question the simulated sales and the subjects
thereof would remain in the name of the alleged vendees, who would thus have
been permitted to benefit from their deception, In fact, even if it were assumed
that those suing through attorneys-in-fact were not properly represented, the
remaining petitioners would still have sufficed to impugn the validity of the deeds
of sale.

121 | P a g e
BICOMONG VS ALMANZA RULING: YES GAUDENCIO BICOMONG vs. GERONIMO ALMANZA
G.R. NO. L-37365 NOVEMBER 29, 1977 L-37365. November 29, 1977
GUERRERO, J.: In the absence of defendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a GUERRERO, J.:
surviving spouse, Article 1003 of the New Civil Code provides that collateral
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. It appearing that DOCTRINE: In the absence of defendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a
Maura Bagsic died intestate without an issue, and her husband and all her surviving spouse, the New Civil Code provides that collateral relatives shall
DOCTRINE: The application of the only difference in the right of succession succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.
ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by the surviving collateral
provided in Art. 1008, NCC in relation to Article 1006 of the New Civil Code, in relatives, namely the daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10) children
effect, entitle the sole niece of full blood to a share double that of the nephews FACTS:
of her brother and two (2) sisters of half blood in accordance with the provision
and nieces of half- blood Simeon Bagsic was married to Sisenanda Barcenas and were born
of Art. 975 of the New Civil Code.  three children namely: Perpetua Bagsic, Igmedia Bagsic, and Ignacio Bagsic.
FACTS: Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of her husband Simeon Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic
By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned nephews and nieces remarried Silvestra Glorioso. Of this second marriage were born two children,
are entitled to inherit in their own right. In Abellana-Bacayo vs. Ferraris- Felipa Bagsic and Maura Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic and Silvestra Glorioso died.
Simeon Bagsic was married to Sisenanda Barcenas and were born Ignacio Bagsic died leaving the plaintiff Francisca Bagsic as his only heir.
three children namely: Perpetua, Igmedia, and Ignacio. Sisenanda Barcenas Borromeo, L-19382, August 31, I965, 14 SCRA 986, this Court held that
Igmedia Bagsic also died survived by the plaintiffs Dionisio Tolentino, Maria
predeceased Simeon Bagsic and remarried Silvestra Glorioso. With the second "nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of representation (that is per
Tolentino and Petra Tolentino. Perpetua Bagsic died and was survived by her
marriage were born two children, Felipa and Maura. Simeon Bagsic and stirpes) unless concurring with brothers or sisters of the deceased."  heirs, the plaintiffs Gaudencio Bicomong, Felicidad Bicomong, Salome
Silvestra Glorioso later died. Bicomong, and Gervacio Bicomong.
Under the same provision, Art. 975, which makes no qualification as
Of the children on the first marriage, Ignacio Bagsic died leaving the to whether the nephews or nieces are on the maternal or paternal line and Of the children of the second marriage, Maura Bagsic died also leaving no heir
Francisca Bagsic as his only heir. Igmedia Bagsic also died survived by the as her husband died ahead of her. Felipa Bagsic, the other daughter of the
without preference as to whether their relationship to the deceased is by whole
Dionisio Tolentino, Maria Tolentino and Petra Tolentino. Perpetua Bagsic second Geronimo Almanza and her daughter Cristeta Almanza. But five (5)
died and was survived by her heirs, the Gaudencio or half blood, the sole niece of whole blood of the deceased does not exclude
months before the present suit was filed or on July 23, 1959, Cristeta Almanza
Bicomong, Felicidad Bicomong, Salome Bicomong, and Gervacio Bicomong. the ten nephews and of half-blood. The only difference in their right of died leaving behind her husband, the defendant herein Engracio Manese and
The surviving heirs of the first marriage were the plaintiff in this case. succession is provided in Art. 1008, NCC in relation to Article 1006 of the New her father Geronimo Almanza. The subject matter concerns the one-half
Civil Code (supra), which provisions, in effect, entitle the sole niece of full blood undivided share of Maura Bagsic in the following described five (5) parcels of
Of the children of the second marriage, Maura Bagsic died also to a share double that of the nephews and nieces of half- blood. Such distinction land which she inherited from her deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso. Three
leaving no heir. Felipa Bagsic’s surviving heirs were Geronimo Almanza and her between whole and half- blood relationships with the deceased has been sets of plaintiffs filed the complaint on December 1, 1959, namely: (a) the
daughter Cristeta Almanza. But five (5) months before the present suit was filed recognized in Dionisia Padura, et al. vs. Melanie Baldovino, et al., No. L-11960, Bicomongs, children of Perpetua Bagsic; (b) the Tolentinos, children of Igmedia
or on July 23, 1959, Cristeta Almanza died leaving behind her husband, the Bagsic; and (c) Francisco Bagsic, daughter of Ignacio Bagsic, in the Court of
December 27, 1958, 104 Phil. 1065 (unreported) and in Alviar vs. Alviar, No. L-
defendant herein Engracio Manese and her father Geronimo Almanza.  First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City against the defendants Geronimo
22402, June 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 610). Almanza and Engracio Menese for the recovery of their lawful shares in the
The subject matter concerns the one-half undivided share of Maura properties left by Maura Bagsic.
Bagsic in the following described five (5) parcels of land which she inherited Thus, the contention of the appellant that Maura Bagsic should be
from her deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso. There were three sets of plaintiffs succeeded by Felipa Bagsic, her sister of full blood, to the exclusion of the ISSUE:
filed the complaint on December 1, 1959, namely: (a) the Bicomongs, children of nephews and nieces of half- blood citing Art. 1004, NCC is unmeritorious and Are the nephews and nieces entitled to inherit in their own righ?.
Perpetua Bagsic; (b) the Tolentinos, children of Igmedia Bagsic; and (c) erroneous for it is based on an erroneous factual assumption, that is, that Felipa
Francisco Bagsic, daughter of Ignacio Bagsic, in the Court of First Instance Bagsic died in 1955, which as indicated here before, is not true as she died on RULING:
of Laguna and San Pablo City against the defendants Geronimo Almanza and May 9, 1945, thus she predeceased her sister Maura Bagsic.  Yes. In the absence of defendants, ascendants, illegitimate children,
Engracio Menese for the recovery of their lawful shares in the properties left by or a surviving spouse, Article 1003 of the New Civil Code provides that collateral
Maura Bagsic. relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. It appearing that
Maura Bagsic died intestate without an issue, and her husband and all her
ISSUE: ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by the surviving collateral
relatives, namely the daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10) children
of her brother and two (2) sisters of half-blood in accordance with the provision
 Are the nephews and nieces, both full blood and half-blood, are of Art. 975 of the New Civil Code. By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned
entitled to inherit in their own right? nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right.
Under the same provision, Art. 975, which makes no qualification as
to whether the nephews or nieces are on the maternal or paternal line and
122 | P a g e
without preference as to whether their relationship to the deceased is by whole TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REVEREND FATHER PASCUAL RIGOR.  Ruling:
or half blood, the sole niece of whole blood of the deceased does not exclude THE PARISH PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF VICTORIA,
the ten nephews and n of half-blood. The only difference in their right of TARLAC, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. BELINA RIGOR, NESTORA RIGOR, From thetestamentary provisions, it may be deduced that the testator
succession is provided in Art. 1008, NCC in relation to Article 1006 of the New FRANCISCA ESCOBAR DE RIGOR AND JOVITA ESCOBAR DE FAUSTO, intended to devise the rice lands to his nearest male relative who would become
Civil Code (supra), which provisions, in effect, entitle the sole niece of full blood a priest, who was forbidden to sell the rice lands, who would lose the devise if
to a share double that of the nephews and nieces of half blood. RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
he... discontinued his studies for the priesthood, or having been ordained a
[ G.R. No. L-22036, April 30, 1979 ] priest, he was excommunicated, and who would be obligated to say annually
twenty masses with prayers for the repose of the souls of the testator and his
Aquino J.: parents.

On the other hand, it is clear that the parish priest of Victoria would
administer the rice lands only in two situations:  one, during the interval of time
Doctrine: that no nearest male relative of the testator was studying... for the priesthood
and two, in case the testator's nephew became a priest and he was
This case is also covered by article 912(2) of the old Civil Code, now
excommunicated.
article 960(2), which provides that legal succession takes place when the will
"does not dispose of all that belongs to the testator".  There being no We hold that the said bequest refers to the testator's nearest male
substitution nor accretion as... to the said rice lands, the same should be relative living at the time of his death and not to any indefinite time thereafter.
distributed among the testator's legal heirs.  The effect is as if the testator had
made no disposition as to the said rice lands. Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who
became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was
Facts: ineffectual or inoperative.  Therefore, the administration of the rice lands by the
parish priestof Victoria, as envisaged in the will, was likewise inoperative.
FatherPascual Rigor owned rice lands located at Guimba, Nueva
Ecija, with a total area of around forty-four hectares.  That devise was made in
the will of... the late Father Pascual Rigor, a native of Victoria, Tarlac, in favor of
his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood.

Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died on August 9,

1935, leaving a will executed on October 29, 1933.

Named as devises in the will were the testator's nearest relatives,

namely, his three sisters: Florencia Rigor-Escobar, Belina Rigor-Manaloto and
Nestora Rigor-Quiambao.  The testator gave a devise to his cousin, Fortunato
Gamalinda.

About thirteen years after the approval of the project of partition, or

on February 19, 1954, the parish priest of Victoria filed in the pending testate
proceeding a petition praying for the appointment of a new administrator

The intestate heirs of Father Rigor countered with a petition dated

March 25, 1957 praying that the bequest be declared inoperative and that they
be adjudged as the persons entitled to the said rice lands.

Issues:
POLLY CAYETANO v. TOMAS T. LEONIDAS,
GR No. L-54919, 1984-05-30
Is the devise of the rice lands efficacious or enforceable?
123 | P a g e
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Therefore, under Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil inheritance accepts or repudiates nothing at all. If a person is uncertain of his
which respectively provide: right to inherit then his acceptance or repudiation is ineffective
Digested by: NHASSIE JOHN G. GONZAGA Art. 16 par. (2).
FACTS
DOCTRINE:If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his xxx    xxx       xxx
death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of "However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the Fortunato claimed a portion of the legitime being an illegitimate son of the
administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic
deceased, by incorporating a Waiver of Hereditary Rights supposedly signed by
the province in which he resided at the time of his death, and if he is an validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the
inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in person whose succession is under... consideration, whatever may be the nature the rest of the Borromeo’s. In the waiver, of the 9 heirs relinquished to Fortunato
which he had estate. of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be their shares in the disputed estate. The petitioners opposed this Waiver for
found."' reason that this is without force and effect because there can be no effective
waiver of hereditary rights before there has been a valid acceptance of the
FACTS: Art. 1039. inheritance from the heirs who intend to transfer the same.
On January 31, 1977, Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving her father, petitioner "Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent."...
Hermogenes Campos and her sisters, private respondent Nenita C. Paguia,
Remedios C. Lopez and Marieta C. Medina as the surviving heirs. As the law which governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania,
Hermogenes Campos was the only compulsory heir, he executed... an Affidavit U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that
ISSUE: Was there a valid repudiation inheritance?
of Adjudication under Rule 74, Section I of the Rules of Court whereby he the Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate may
adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the deceased be given away by the testatrix to a... complete stranger, the petitioner argues
Adoracion Campos. that such law should not apply because it would be contrary to the sound and
established public policy and would run counter to the specific provisions of
Eleven months after, on November 25, 1977, Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition for Philippine Law. RULING
the reprobate of a will of the deceased, Adoracion Campos, which was allegedly
executed in the United States and for her appointment as administratrix of the It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, Pursuant to Article 1043 of the Civil Code, to make acceptance or repudiation of
estate of the deceased testatrix. as provided for by Article 16 (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of inheritance valid, the person must be certain of the death of the one from whom
the decedent must apply, This was squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis he is to inherit and of his right to the inheritance. Since the petitioner and her co-
In her petition Nenita alleged that the testatrix was an American citizen at the (20 SCRN heirs were not certain of their right to the inheritance until they were declared
time of her death and was a permanent resident of 4633 Ditman Street,
heirs, their rights were, therefore, uncertain.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that the testatrix died in Manila on January 358. wherein we ruled:
31, 1977 while temporarily residing with her... sister at 2167 Leveriza, Malate, "It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be
Manila; that during her lifetime, the testatrix made her last will and testament on involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
July 10, 1975, according to the laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., nominating same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to
Wilfredo Barzaga of New Jersey as executor; that after the testatrix' death, her leave, inter alia, the amount of... successional rights, to the decedent's national The purported "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" cannot be considered to be
last... will and testament was presented, probated, allowed, and registered with law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones. effective. For a waiver to exist, three elements are essential: (1) the existence of
the Registry of Wills at the County of Philadelphia, U.S.A., that Clement L. xxx    xxx       xxx a right; (2) the knowledge of the existence thereof; and (3) an intention to
McLaughlin, the administrator who was appointed after Dr. Barzaga had declined relinquish such right. (People v. Salvador, (CA) 53 O.G. No. 22, p. 8116, 8120).
and waived his appointment as executor in favor of... the former, is also a "The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State The intention to waive a right or advantage must be shown clearly and
resident of Philadelphia, U.S.A., and that therefore, there is an urgent need for of Texas, U.S.A. and under the law of Texas; there are no forced heirs or convincingly, and when the only proof of intention rests in what a party does, his
the appointment of an administratrix to administer and eventually distribute the legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and
properties of the estate located in the Philippines. the amount of successional rights... are to be determined under Texas law, the act should be so manifestly consistent with, and indicative of an intent to,
Philippine Law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis." voluntarily relinquish the particular right or advantage that no other reasonable
ISSUES: Will the national law of the decedent also apply as to the intrinsic explanation of his conduct is possible.
validity of the will? Intestate Estate of the Late Vito Borromeo v. Borromeo,

RULING: YES G.R. No. L-55000, July 23, 1987.

Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus,
the respondent judge should have denied its reprobate outright, the private
respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion was, at the time of her Doctrine: The will of man is changeable. Even just before the moment of his
death, an American citizen and a... permanent resident of Philadelphia,
death he may change his mind. A person who accepts from a living person an

124 | P a g e
DOCTRINE: The repudiation of an inheritance shall be made in a public DOCTRINE: If the heir should die without having accepted or repudiated the
or authentic instrument, or by petition presented to the court having jurisdiction inheritance, his right shall be transmitted to his heirs.
over the testamentary or intestate proceedings
FACTS:
FACTS:
Leoncio Imperial was the registered owner of a parcel of land. On July 7,
Leoncio Imperial was the registered owner of a parcel of land. On July 7, 1951, Leoncio sold the said lot for P1.00 to his acknowledged natural son,
1951, Leoncio sold the said lot for P1.00 to his acknowledged natural son, petitioner Eloy Imperial, who then acquired title over the land and proceeded to
petitioner Eloy Imperial, who then acquired title over the land and proceeded to subdivide it into several lots. Petitioner and respondents admit that despite the
subdivide it into several lots. Petitioner and respondents admit that despite the contract’s designation as one of “Absolute Sale”, the transaction was in fact a
contract’s designation as one of “Absolute Sale”, the transaction was in fact a donation.
donation.
On January 8, 1962, Leoncio died, leaving only two heirs —petitioner, who
On January 8, 1962, Leoncio died, leaving only two heirs —petitioner, who
was his acknowledged natural son, and an adopted son, Victor Imperial. On
was his acknowledged natural son, and an adopted son, Victor Imperial. On
March 8, 1962, Victor was substituted in place of Leoncio in the case. Fifteen March 8, 1962, Victor was substituted in place of Leoncio in the case. Fifteen
years after, Victor died, single and without issue, survived only by his natural years after, Victor died, single and without issue, survived only by his natural
father, Ricardo Villalon, who was a lessee of a portion of the disputed land. Four father, Ricardo Villalon, who was a lessee of a portion of the disputed land. Four
years hence, or on September 25, 1981, Ricardo died, leaving as his only heirs years hence, or on September 25, 1981, Ricardo died, leaving as his only heirs
his two children, Cesar and Teresa Villalon. Five years thereafter, or sometime in his two children, Cesar and Teresa Villalon. Five years thereafter, or sometime in
1986, Cesar and Teresa filed a complaint for annulment of the donation. 1986, Cesar and Teresa filed a complaint for annulment of the donation.

ISSUE:

May a renunciation of legitime that be presumed? Issue: Was the right of Victor transmitted to his heirs upon his death?

RULING:

Held: Yes.
No. There was no renunciation of legitime which may be presumed from
the foregoing acts. Our law on succession does not countenance tacit
repudiation of inheritance. Rather, it requires an express act on the part of the
heir. Thus, under Article 1051 of Civil Code: The repudiation of an inheritance
shall be made in a public or authentic instrument, or by petition presented to the When Victor substituted Leoncio in Civil Case No. 1177 upon the latter's death,
court having jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings. Thus, his act of moving for execution of the compromise judgment cannot be
when Victor substituted Leoncio in Civil Case No. 1177 upon the latter’s death, considered an act of renunciation of his legitime. He was, therefore, not
his act of moving for execution of the compromise judgment cannot be precluded or estopped from subsequently seeking the reduction of the donation,
considered an act of renunciation of his legitime. He was, therefore, not under Article 772. Nor are Victor's heirs, upon his death, precluded from doing
precluded or estopped from subsequently seeking the reduction of the donation, so, as their right to do so is expressly recognized under Article 772, and also in
under Article 772. Nor are Victor’s heirs, upon his death, precluded from doing
Article 1053:
so, as their right to do so is expressly recognized under Article 772, and also
in Article 1053. If the heir should die without having accepted or repudiated
the inheritance, his right shall be transmitted to his heirs.

If the heir should die without having accepted or repudiated the inheritance, his
Imperial v. CA
right shall be transmitted to his heirs.
Imperial v. CA G.R. No. 112483, October 8, 1999
G.R. No. 112483, October 8, 1999
Octavio Maloles II vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 133359, January 31, 2000

125 | P a g e
1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate
parents and ascendants;
DOCTRINE: One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his 2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with
estate or any part of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed respect to their legitimate children and descendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction; ROWENA F. CORONA,  v. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
FACTS:36 5.  Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 of the Civil Code.

On July 20, 1995, Dr. Arturo de Santos, Filipino and a resident of Makati Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is not a compulsory heir who may have DOCTRINE:
City, filed a petition for probate of his will 1 in the Regional Trial Court. He been preterited in the testator’s will. Nor does he have any right to intervene in
alleged that he had no compulsory heirs; that he had named in his will as sole the settlement proceedings based on his allegation that he is a creditor of — The executrix’s choice of Special Administrator, considering her own inability
legatee and devisee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc.; that he disposed by the deceased. Since the testator instituted or named an executor in his will, it is to serve and the wide latitude of discretion given her by the testratix in her will, is
his will his properties with an approximate value of not less than P2,000,000.00; incumbent upon the Court to respect the desires of the testator. Only if the entitled to the highest consideration. Objection to Nenita Alonte’s appointment on
and that copies of said will were in the custody of the named executrix, private appointed executor is incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond may
respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips. grounds of impracticality and lack of kinship are overshadowed by the fact that
the court appoint other persons to administer the estate. None of these justice and equality demand that the side of the deceased wife and the faction of
circumstances is present in this case.
the surviving husband be represented in the management of the decedent’s
Petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming that, as
the only child of Alicia de Santos (testator’s sister) and Octavio L. Maloles, Sr., estate.
he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr. De Santos. He
likewise alleged that he was a creditor of the testator. Petitioner thus prayed for FACTS:
the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the issuance of letters of On November 10, 1980, Dolores Luchangco Vitug died in New York, U.S.A.,
administration in his name. leaving two Wills: one, a holographic Will dated October 3, 1980, which excluded
her husband, respondent Romarico G. Vitug, as one of her heirs, and the other,
ISSUE: a formal Will sworn to on October 24, 1980, or about three weeks thereafter,
which expressly disinherited her husband Romarico "for reason of his improper
Whether or not the petitioner, being a creditor of the late Dr. Arturo de and immoral conduct amounting to concubinage, which is a ground for legal
Santos, has a right to intervene and oppose the petition for issuance of letters separation under Philippine Law" ; bequeathed her properties in equal shares to
testamentary filed by the respondent her sisters Exaltacion L. Allarde, Vicenta L. Faustino and Gloria L. Teoxon, and
her nieces Rowena F. Corona and Jennifer F. Way; and appointed Rowena F.
RULING: Corona, herein petitioner, as her Executrix.

No. The petitioner in this case avers that, as the nearest next of kin On November 21, 1980, Rowena filed a petition for the probate of the Wills
and creditor of the testator, his interest in the matter is material and direct. Even before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI (Spec. Procs. No. 9398),
if petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De Santos, he cannot be considered
and for the appointment of Nenita P. Alonte as Administrator because she
an “heir” of the testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentary succession that
one who has no compulsory or forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by (Rowena) is presently employed in the United Nations in New York City.
will. Thus, Article 842 of the Civil Code provides:
On December 2, 1980, upon Rowena’s urgent Motion, the Probate Court
“One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or any appointed Nenita P. Alonte as Special Administratrix, upon a P100,000.00 bond.
part of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed.”
On December 12, 1980, the surviving husband, Romarico Vitug, filed an
“One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does "Opposition and Motion" and prayed that the Petition for Probate be denied and
not contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitimate of said that the two Wills be disallowed on the ground that they were procured through
heirs.” undue and improper pressure and influence, having been executed at a time
when the decedent was seriously ill and under the medical care of Dr. Antonio P.
Compulsory heirs are limited to the testator’s — Corona; petitioner’s husband, and that the holographic Will impaired his legitime.
Romarico further prayed for his appointment as Special Administrator because
the Special Administratrix appointed is not related to the heirs and has no
126 | P a g e
interest to be protected, besides, the surviving spouse is qualified to administer. G.R. No. 189776               December 15, 2010
En passant, it is apropos to remind the Special Administrators that while they
Oppositions to probate with almost identical arguments and prayers were also may have respective interests to protect, they are officers of the Court subject to AMELIA P. ARELLANO, represented by her duly appointed guardians, AGNES
P. ARELLANO and NONA P. ARELLANO,Petitioner, 
filed by respondent (1) Avelino L. Castillo and Nicanor Castillo, legitimate the supervision and control of the Probate Court and are expected to work for
vs.
children of Constancia Luchangco, full blood sister of the decedent; (2) Guillermo the best interests of the entire estate, its smooth administration, and its earliest FRANCISCO PASCUAL and MIGUEL PASCUAL, Respondents.
Luchangco, full blood brother of the decedent; (3) Rodolfo Torres, Reynaldo settlement.
Torres, and Purisima Torres Polintan, all legitimate children of the deceased Doctrine:
Lourdes Luchangco Torres, full blood sister of the decedent.
The decedent not having left any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime,
he was at liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his
On December 18, 1980, Nenita P. Alonte posted her bond and took her oath of
siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. His donation to petitioner, assuming that it
office before a Notary Public. was valid,18 is deemed as donation made to a "stranger," chargeable against the
free portion of the estate.19 There being no compulsory heir, however, the
On February 6, 1981, the Probate Court set aside its Order of December 2, 1980 donated property is not subject to collation.
appointing Nenita as Special Administratrix, and appointed instead the surviving
husband, Romarico, as Special Administrator with a bond of P200,000.00, Facts:
essentially for the reasons that under Section 6, Rule 78, of the Rules of Court,
the surviving spouse is first in the order of preference for appointment as
Administrator as he has an interest in the estate; that the disinheritance of the Angel N. Pascual Jr. died intestate on January 2, 1999 leaving as heirs his
surviving spouse is not among the grounds of disqualification for appointment as siblings, namely: petitioner Amelia P. Arellano who is represented by her
Administrator; that the next of kin is appointed only where the surviving spouse is daughters1 Agnes P. Arellano (Agnes) and Nona P. Arellano, and respondents
not competent or is unwilling to serve besides the fact that the Executrix Francisco Pascual and Miguel N. Pascual.2
appointed, is not the next of kin but merely a niece, and that the decedent’s
In a petition for "Judicial Settlement of Intestate Estate and Issuance of Letters of
estate is nothing more than half of the unliquidated conjugal partnership
Administration," filed by respondents on April 28, 2000 before the Regional Trial
property. Court (RTC) of Makati, respondents alleged, inter alia, that a parcel of land (the
donated property) located in Teresa Village, Makati, which was, by Deed of
ISSUE: In case of appointment of administrator for the administration the Donation, transferred by the decedent to petitioner the validity of which donation
properties of a deceased person what rule shall govern? respondents assailed, "may be considered as an advance legitime" of petitioner.

Ruling: Provisionally passing, however, upon the question of title to the donated
property only for the purpose of determining whether it formed part of the
Petitioner stresses that the order of preference laid down in the Rules should not decedent’s estate,4 the probate court found the Deed of Donation valid in light of
the presumption of validity of notarized documents. It thus went on to hold that it
be followed where the surviving spouse is expressly disinherited, opposes
is subject to collation following Article 1061 of the New Civil Code which reads:5
probate, and clearly possesses an adverse interest to the estate which would
disqualify him from the trust. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring
into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received
This Court, in resolving to give due course to the Petition taking into account the from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any
allegations, arguments and issues raised by the parties, is of the considered other gratuitous title in order that it may be computed in the determination of the
legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.
opinion that petitioner’s nominee, Nenita F. Alonte, should be appointed as co-
Special Administrator. The executrix’s choice of Special Administrator, Issue: Is the property donated to petitioner is subject to collation? NO
considering her own inability to serve and the wide latitude of discretion given
her by the testatrix in her Will (Annex "A-1), is entitled to the highest Ruling:
consideration. Objections to Nenita’s appointment on grounds of impracticality
and lack of kinship are overshadowed by the fact that justice and equity demand The term collation has two distinct concepts: first, it is a mere mathematical
operation by the addition of the value of donations made by the testator to the
that the side of the deceased wife and the faction of the surviving husband be
represented in the management of the decedent’s estate. 2 
127 | P a g e
value of the hereditary estate; and second, it is the return to the hereditary estate children, excepting private respondent, through deeds of sale. A deed of sale
of property disposed of by lucrative title by the testator during his lifetime. 13 was not executed in favor of private respondent because she had become an
SPOUSES FLORENTINO ZARAGOZA and ERLINDA ENRIQUEZ- American citizen and the Constitution prohibited a sale in her favor. Petitioner
The purposes of collation are to secure equality among the compulsory heirs in ZARAGOZA, petitioners,  admitted Lots 871 and 943 were inheritance shares of the private respondent.
so far as is possible, and to determine the free portion, after finding the legitime, vs. These are factual determinations of the Court of Appeals, based on documentary
so that inofficious donations may be reduced.14 THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ALBERTA ZARAGOZA and testimonial evidence. As a rule, we are bound by findings of facts of the
MORGAN, respondents. Court of Appeals.12 Was the partition done during the lifetime of Flavio
Collation takes place when there are compulsory heirs, one of its purposes being Zaragoza Cano valid? We think so. It is basic in the law of succession that a
to determine the legitime and the free portion. If there is no compulsory heir, Doctrine: It is basic in the law of succession that a partition inter vivos may be partition inter vivos may be done for as long as legitimes are not prejudiced. Art.
there is no legitime to be safeguarded.15 done for as long as legitimes are not prejudiced. Art. 1080 of the Civil Code is 1080 of the Civil Code is clear on this.13 The legitime of compulsory heirs is
clear on this.13 The legitime of compulsory heirs is determined after collation. determined after collation, as provided for in Article 1061:
The records do not show that the decedent left any primary, secondary, or
concurring compulsory heirs. He was only survived by his siblings, who are his Facts: Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring
collateral relatives and, therefore, are not entitled to any legitime – that part of into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received
the testator’s property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved Flavio Zaragoza Cano was the registered owner of certain parcels of land from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any
it for compulsory heirs.16 situated at the Municipalities of Cabatuan, New Lucena and Sta. Barbara, other gratuitous title in order that it may be computed in the determination of the
Province of Iloilo. He had four children: Gloria, Zacariaz, Florentino and Alberta, legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.
The compulsory heirs may be classified into (1) primary, (2) secondary, and (3) all surnamed Zaragoza. On December 9, 1964, he died without a will and was
concurring. The primary compulsory heirs are those who have precedence over survived by his four children. Unfortunately, collation can not be done in this case where the original petition
and exclude other compulsory heirs; legitimate children and descendants are for delivery of inheritance share only impleaded one of the other compulsory
primary compulsory heirs. The secondary compulsory heirs are those who On December 28, 1981, private respondent Alberta Zaragoza-Morgan filed a heirs. The petition must therefore be dismissed without prejudice to the
succeed only in the absence of the primary heirs; the legitimate parents and complaint with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against Spouses Florentino institution of a new proceeding where all the indispensable parties are present
ascendants are secondary compulsory heirs. The concurring compulsory heirs and Erlinda, herein petitioners, for delivery of her inheritance share, consisting of for the rightful determination of their respective legitime and if the legitimes were
are those who succeed together with the primary or the secondary compulsory Lots 943 and 871, and for payment of damages. She claims that she is a natural prejudiced by the partitioning inter vivos.
heirs; the illegitimate children, and the surviving spouse are concurring born Filipino citizen and the youngest child of the late Flavio. She further alleged
compulsory heirs.17 that her father, in his lifetime, partitioned the aforecited properties among his four
children. The shares of her brothers and sister were given to them in advance by
The decedent not having left any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime, way of deed of sale, but without valid consideration, while her share, which
he was at liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his consists of lots no. 871 and 943, was not conveyed by way of deed of sale then.
siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. His donation to petitioner, assuming that it She averred that because of her marriage, she became an American citizen and
was valid,18 is deemed as donation made to a "stranger," chargeable against the was prohibited to acquire lands in the Philippines except by hereditary
free portion of the estate.19 There being no compulsory heir, however, the succession. For this reason, no formal deed of conveyance was executed in her
donated property is not subject to collation. favor covering these lots during her father's lifetime.

Petitioners, in their Answer, admitted their affinity with private respondent and
the allegations on the properties of their father. They, however, denied
knowledge of an alleged distribution by way of deeds of sale to them by their
father. They said that lot 871 is still registered in their father's name, while lot
943 was sold by him to them for a valuable consideration. They denied
knowledge of the alleged intention of their father to convey the cited lots to
Alberta, much more, the reason for his failure to do so because she became an
American citizen. They denied that there was partitioning of the estate of their
father during his lifetime.

The RTC decided adjudicating lot 871 to Alberta.

Issue: Should the properties Transferred inter vivos be collated to the mass of
the estate of the decedent? No

Both the trial court and the public respondent found that during the lifetime of
Flavio, he already partitioned and distributed his properties among his three

128 | P a g e
Ruling: BUHAY DE ROMA VS CA,
G.R. NO. L-46903, JULY 23, 1987
G.R. No. L-65800 October 3, 1986 A person's prerogative to make donations is subject to certain limitations, one of CRUZ, J;
which is that he cannot give by donation more than he can give by will (Art. 752,
PARTENZA LUCERNA VDA. DE TUPAS, petitioner-appellant,  Civil Code). 3 If he does, so much of what is donated as exceeds what he can
vs. DOCTRINE:The intention to exempt from collation should be expressed plainly
give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducible to the extent of
BRANCH XLIII of the HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS and unequivocally as an exception to the general rule announced in Article
such excess, though without prejudice to its taking effect in the donor's lifetime
OCCIDENTAL, respondent, and TUPAS FOUNDATION, INC., 1062. Absent such a clear indication of that intention, we apply not the exception
or the donee's appropriating the fruits of the thing donated (Art. 771, Civil Code).
private respondent-appellee. but the rule, which is categorical enough.
Such a donation is, moreover, collationable that is, its value is imputable into the
hereditary estate of the donor at the tune of his death for the purpose of
Doctrine: collation contemplates and particularly applies to gifts inter vivos.  6 The determining the legitime of the forced or compulsory heirs and the freely
further fact that the lots donated were admittedly capital or separate property of disposable portion of the estate. This is true as well of donations to strangers as FACTS:
the donor is of no moment, because a claim of inofficiousness does not assert of gifts to compulsory heirs, although the language of Article 1061 of the Civil
that the donor gave what was not his, but that he gave more than what was Code would seem to limit collation to the latter class of donations. And this has
within his power to give. been held to be a long-established rule in Liguez vs. Honorable Court of
Candelaria de Roma had two legally adopted daughters, Buhay and Rosalinda
Appeals, et al.,  4 where this Court said:
de Roma. She died intestate on 1971, and administration proceedings were
instituted in the Court by the private respondent as guardian of Rosalinda.
... Hence, the forced heirs are entitled to have the donation Buhay was appointed administratrix. This was opposed by Rosalinda on the
Facts:
set aside in so far as inofficious: i.e., in excess of the ground that certain properties earlier donated by Candelaria to Buhay, and the
Involved in this appeal is the question of whether or not a donationinter vivos by portion of free disposal (Civil Code of 1889, Articles 636, fruits thereof, had not been included
a donor now deceased is inofficious and should be reduced at the instance of 645), computed as provided in Articles 818 and 819, and
bearing in mind that collationable gifts' under Article 818 The properties in question consisted of seven parcels of coconut land. What the
the donor's widow. parties cannot agree upon is whether these lands are subject to collation. The
should include gifts made not only in favor of the forced
private respondent argues that it should conform to Article 1061 of the Civil
Epifanio R. Tupas died on August 20, 1978 in Bacolod City, childless, leaving his heirs, but even those made in favor of strangers, as
Code. Buhay, for her part, citing Article 1062, claims she has no obligation to
widow, Partenza Lucerna, as his only surviving compulsory heir. He also left a decided by the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of 4 collate because the decedent prohibited such collation and the donation was not
win dated May 18, 1976, which was admitted to probate on September 30, 1980 May 1899 and 16 June 1902. So that in computing the officious.
in Special Proceedings No. 13994 of the Court of First Instance of Negros legitimes, the value of the property donated to herein
Occidental. Among the assets listed in his will were lots Nos. 837, 838 and 839 appellant, Conchita Liguez, should be considered part of Article 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs,
the donor's estate. Once again, only the court of origin has must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have
of the Sagay Cadastre, admittedly his private capital. However, at the time of his
the requisite data to determine whether the donation is received from the decedent during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation,
death, these lots were no longer owned by him, he having donated them the or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
year before (on August 2, 1977) to the Tupas Foundation, Inc., which had inofficious or not. 5
determination of the legitime of each heir,
thereafter obtained title to said lots. and in the account of the partition.”
The fact, therefore, that the donated property no longer actually formed part of library
Claiming that said donation had left her practically destitute of any inheritance, the estate of the donor at the time of his death cannot be asserted to prevent its
Tupas' widow brought suit against Tupas Foundation, Inc. in the same Court of being brought to collation. Indeed, it is an obvious proposition that collation "Article 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor
First Instance of Negros Occidental (docketed as Civil Case No. 16089) to have contemplates and particularly applies to gifts inter vivos.  6 The further fact that should have so expressly provided, or if the donee should repudiate the
the donation declared inofficious insofar as it prejudiced her legitime, therefore the lots donated were admittedly capital or separate property of the donor is of inheritance, unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious."cralaa1aw
reducible " ... by one-half or such proportion as ... (might be deemed) justified ... no moment, because a claim of inofficiousness does not assert that the donor library
and " ... the resulting deduction ... " restored and conveyed or delivered to her. gave what was not his, but that he gave more than what was within his power to
The complaint also prayed for attorney's fees and such other relief as might be give. The trial court ruled in favour of Buhay De Roma, which held that the decedent,
proper. when she made the donation in favor of Buhay, expressly prohibited
collation. On appeal, the order of the trial court was reversed, the respondent
RTC- dismissed the petition. court held that the deed of donation contained no express prohibition to collate
as an exception to Article 1062. Accordingly, it ordered collation and equally
Issue: Should the properties donated be collated? Yes

129 | P a g e
divided the net estate of the decedent, including the fruits of the donated NOCEDA VS. CA, During the trial, the lower court ordered that a relocation survey of Lot 1121 be
property, between Buhay and Rosalinda. Hence, this appeal 313 SCRA 505, SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 conducted by Engr. EdilbertoQuejada of the Bureau of Lands. After the survey of
GONZAGA-REYES,J: Lot 1121 in the presence of both parties, Engr. EdilbertoQuejada reported that
ISSUE:Was there an express prohibition to collate stated in the deed of the area of Lot 1121 stated in the extrajudicial settlement-partition of August 17,
donation? 1981 was smaller than the actual area of Lot 1121 which is 127,298 square
DOCTRINE: There is no co-ownership where portion owned is concretely meters.
determined and identifiable, though not technically described, or that said
The RTC rendered ruled in favour of private respondent. On appeal, The CA
RULING: NONE. portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make
affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Hence, this petition.
said portions less determinable or identifiable, or distinguishable, one from the
other, nor that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective Petitioner argues that he did not usurp the property of respondent Directo since,
owners. A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive to date, the metes and bounds of the parcel of land left by their predecessor in
The court held that there is nothingexpressly prohibiting the collation of the ownership of the property adjudicated to him interest, CelestinoArbizo, are still undetermined since no final determination as
donated properties. The phrase "sapamamagitanngpagbibigayna di
to the exact areas properly pertaining to the parties herein; hence they are still
namababawingmuli" merely described the donation as "irrevocable" and should
considered as co-owners thereof.
not be construed as an express prohibition against collation. The fact that a
donation is irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the subject thereof from the FACTS:
collation required under Article 1061.
ISSUE: Was the August 17, 1981 extrajudicial settlement a partition under the
"On June 1, 1981, plaintiff Aurora Directo, defendant Rodolfo Noceda, and Maria law?
Anything less than such express prohibition will not suffice under the clear Arbizo, the daughter, grandson, and widow, respectively, of the late
language of Article 1062. The suggestion that there was an implied prohibition CelestinoArbizo, extrajudicially settled a parcel of land, which was said to have
because the properties donated were imputable to the free portion of the an area of 66,530 square meters. Plaintiff Directo’s share was 11,426 square RULING:YES.
decedent’s estate merits little consideration. Imputation is not the question here, meters, defendant Noceda got 13,294 square meters, and the remaining 41,810
nor is it claimed that the disputed donation is officious. square meters went to Maria Arbizo

On the same date, plaintiff Directo donated 625 square meters of her share to The source of co-ownership among the heirs was intestate succession. Where
defendant Noceda. However, on August 17, 1981, another extrajudicial there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its
The intention to exempt from collation should be expressed plainly and settlement-partition of Lot 1121 was executed by plaintiff Directo, defendant partition, owned in common by such heirs subject to the payment of debts of the
unequivocally as an exception to the general rule announced in Article 1062. Noceda, and Maria Arbizo. Three fifths of the said land went to Maria Arbizo deceased.
Absent such a clear indication of that intention, we apply not the exception but while plaintiff Directo and defendant Noceda got only one-fifth each. In said
the rule, which is categorical enough. extrajudicial settlement-partition as well as in the Tax Declaration over Lot 1121 Partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in
in the name of the late CelestinoArbizo, the said parcel of land was said to have common among those to whom it may belong. The purpose of partition is to put
an area of only 29,845 square meters an end to co-ownership. It seeks a severance of the individual interest of each
co-owner, vesting in each a sole estate in specific property and giving to each
Sometime in 1981, defendant Noceda constructed his house on the land one a right to enjoy his estate without supervision or interference from the other.
donated to him by plaintiff Directo. Plaintiff Directo fenced the portion allotted to And one way of effecting a partition of the decedent’s estate is by the heirs
her in the extrajudicial settlement, excluding the donated portion, and themselves extrajudicially.
constructed thereon three huts. But in 1985, defendant Noceda removed the
fence earlier constructed by plaintiff Directo, occupied the three huts (3) and The heirs of the late CelestinoArbizo namely Maria Arbizo, Aurora A. Directo
fenced the entire land of plaintiff Directo without her consent. Plaintiff Directo (private respondent) and Rodolfo Noceda (petitioner) entered into an
demanded from defendant Noceda to vacate her land, but the latter refused. extrajudicial settlement of the estate on August 17, 1981 and agreed to
Hence, plaintiff Directo filed the present suit, a complaint for the recovery of adjudicate among themselves the property left by their predecessor-in-interest in
the following manner: virtual 1aw library
possession and ownership and rescission/annulment of donation, against
defendant Noceda before the lower court.

130 | P a g e
To Rodolfo Noceda goes the northern one-fifth (1/5) portion containing an area GONZAGA-REYES,J; The Court held that the extrajudicial settlements executed by the heirs of
of 5,989 sq. meters; Joaquin Teves and MarcelinaCimafranca are legally valid and binding.

DOCTRINE: For a partition pursuant to section 1 of Rule 74 to be valid, the The extrajudicial settlement of a decedent’s estate is authorized by section 1 of
To Maria Arbizo goes the middle three-fifths (3/5) portion; following conditions must concur: (1) the decedent left no will; (2) the decedent Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, which provides in pertinent part that if the
left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had been paid; (3) the heirs are all of decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are
and . . . To Aurora Arbizo goes the southern one-fifth (1/5) portion.
age, or if they are minors, the latter are represented by their judicial guardian or represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the
legal representatives; (4) the partition was made by means of a public purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the
Thus, the areas allotted to each heir are now specifically delineated in the instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register of Deeds.   estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in
survey plan. There is no co-ownership where portion owned is concretely the office of the register of deeds.
determined and identifiable, though not technically described, or that said
portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make Thus, for a partition pursuant to section 1 of Rule 74 to be valid, the following
FACTS: conditions must concur: (1) the decedent left no will; (2) the decedent left no
said portions less determinable or identifiable, or distinguishable, one from the
debts, or if there were debts left, all had been paid; (3) the heirs are all of age, or
other, nor that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective
if they are minors, the latter are represented by their judicial guardian or legal
owners. A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive representatives; (4) the partition was made by means of a public instrument or
ownership of the property adjudicated to him. MarcelinaCimafranca and Joaquin Teves had nine children. After affidavit duly filed with theRegister of Deeds.
MarcelinaCimafranca and Joaquin Teves died, intestate and without debts their  
children executed extrajudicial settlements purporting to adjudicate unto Here, there is no cogent reason to reverse, the trial and appellate courts’ factual
themselves the ownership over two parcels of land belonging to their deceased finding that the evidence presented by plaintiffs-appellants is insufficient to
parents and to alienate their shares thereto in favor of their sister Asuncion overcome the evidentiary value of the extrajudicial settlements. The deeds are
Teves. public documents and it has been held by this Court that a public document
executed with all the legal formalities is entitled to a presumption of truth as to
the recitals contained therein. In order to overthrow a certificate of a notary
On May 9, 1984, plaintiffs-appellants Ricardo (son of one heirs) and Arcadia public to the effect that the grantor executed a certain document and
Teves filed a complaint with the RTC for the partition and reconveyance of two acknowledged the fact of its execution before him, mere preponderance of
parcels of land against the heirs of Asuncion Teves. Plaintiffs-appellants alleged evidence will not suffice. Rather, the evidence must be so clear, strong and
that defendants-appellees, without any justifiable reason, refused to partition the convincing as to exclude all reasonable dispute as to the falsity of the certificate.
said parcels of land and to convey to plaintiffs their rightful shares. When the evidence is conflicting, the certificate will be upheld. The appellate
court’s ruling that the evidence presented by plaintiffs-appellants does not
The children claimed that extrajudicial settlement executed by them in favour of constitute the clear, strong, and convincing evidence necessary to overcome the
Asuncion were invalid since their signatures were forged. On the other hand, positive value of the extrajudicial settlements executed by the parties, all of
defendants claimed that the assailed documents were executed with all the which are public documents, being essentially a finding of fact, is entitled to
formalities required by law and are therefore binding and legally effective as great respect by the appellate court and should not be disturbed on appeal.
bases for acquiring ownership or legal title over the lots in question.

ISSUE:Was the extrajudicial settlement and sale executed between the plaintiffs
and Asuncion valid?

RULING: YES.

HEIRS OF QUIRICO SERASPI v. CA

G.R. NO.. 135602, APRIL 28, 2000
HEIRS of JOAQUIN TEVES VS CA MENDOZA, J:
316 SCRA 632, OCTOBER 13, 1999
131 | P a g e
DOCTRINE:Co-ownership rights are effectively dissolved by partition. The court held that private respondent could not have acquired ownership over An agreement of partition may be made orally or in writing. Thus,an oral
the property through succession for the property was not part of those agreement for the partition of the property owned in common is valid and
distributed to the heirs of the third marriage, to which private respondent enforceable upon the parties.
belongs. It must be remembered that in the partition of the intestate estate of
FACTS: MarcelinoRecasa, the properties were divided into three parts, each part being FACTS:
reserved for each group of heirs belonging to one of the three marriages
Marcelino entered into. Since the contested parcels of land were adjudicated to The late spouses Liborio Casilang (Liborio) and Francisca Zacarias (Francisca)
the heirs of the first and second marriages, it follows that private respondent, as had eight (8) children, among these 8 is Jose Casilang and Ireneo Casilang.
MarcelinoRecasa was the owner of two parcels of land. During his lifetime,
heir of the third marriage, has no right over the parcels of land. While, as heir to Liborio died intestate on October 11, 1982 at the age of 83, followed not long
Marcelino contracted three (3) marriages. At the time of his death in 1943, he the intestate estate of his father, private respondent was co-owner of all of his after by his wife Francisca on December 25, 1982. Their Ireneo died on June 11,
had fifteen (15) children from his three marriages. In 1948, his intestate estate father’s properties, such co-ownership rights were effectively dissolved by the 1992, survived by his four (4) children, namely: Mario Casilang (Mario), Angelo
was partitioned into three parts by his heirs, each part corresponding to the partition Casilang (Angelo), Rosario Casilang-Dizon (Rosario) and Rodolfo Casilang
share of the heirs in each marriage. agreed upon by the heirs of MarcelinoRecasa. (Rodolfo), herein respondents.

In the same year, PatronicioRecasa, representing the heirs of the first marriage, The estate of Liborio, which left no debts, consisted of three (3) parcels of land
sold the share of the heirs in the estate to DominadorRecasa, an heir of the located in Barangay  Talibaew, Calasiao, Pangasinan, namely: (1) Lot No. 4676,
second marriage. Thereafter, Dominador, representing the heirs of the second with an area of 4,164 square meters; (2) Lot No. 4704, containing 1,164 sq m;
marriage, in turn sold the share of the heirs to Quirico and PurificacionSeraspi and (3) Lot No. 4618, with 897 sq m.
whose heirs are the present petitioners.
Respondent Rosario Casilang-Dizon filed an unlawful detainer against her uncle
In 1958, the Seraspis obtained a loan from the Kalibo Rural Bank, Inc. (KRBI) on Jose Casilang on Lot No. 4618. She claimed that it was her late father Ireneo
the security of the lands in question to finance improvements on the lands. who owns the lot as evidenced by the tax declaration. Meanwhile, Jose Casilang
However, they failed to pay the loan for which reason the mortgage was contends that all eight (8) children of Liborio entered into a verbal partition of his
estate, pursuant to which Jose was allotted Lot No. 4618 as his share; that
foreclosed and the lands were sold to KRBI as the highest bidder. Subsequently,
Ireneo never claimed ownership of Lot No. 4618, nor took possession of it,
the lands were sold by KRBI to Manuel Rata, brother-in-law of QuiricoSeraspi. It because his share was the southwestern 1/5 portion of Lot No. 4676, containing
appears that Rata, as owner of the property, allowed QuiricoSeraspi to an area of 1,308 sq m, of which he took exclusive possession during his lifetime;
administer the property. that Jose has always resided in Lot No. 4618 since childhood, where he built his
family’s semi-concrete house just a few steps away from his parents’ old
In 1974, private respondent Simeon Recasa, Marcelino’s child by his third wife, bamboo hut; that he took in and cared for his aged parents in his house until
taking advantage of the illness of QuiricoSeraspi, who had been paralyzed due their deaths in 1982; that one of his children has also built a house on the lot.
to a stroke, forcibly entered the lands in question and took possession thereof.
ISSUE:
Is the oral partition among the children of Liborio valid?
In 1983, the Seraspis purchased the lands from Manuel Rata and afterwards
filed a complaint against Simeon Recasa for recovery of possession of the RULING: YES.
lands. An agreement of partition may be made orally or in writing. An oral agreement
for the partition of the property owned in common is valid and enforceable upon
the parties.—the validity of an oral partition is well-settled in our jurisdiction. In
Vda. de Espina v. Abaya, 196 SCRA 312 (1991), this Court declared that an oral
ISSUE:Who is the owner of the land? partition is valid: Anent the issue of oral partition, We sustain the validity of said
partition. “An agreement of partition may be made orally or in writing. An oral
agreement for the partition of the property owned in common is valid and
enforceable upon the parties. The Statute of Frauds has no operation in this kind
RULING:Petitioners heirs of QuiricoSeraspi. CASILANG, SR. VS. CASILANG-DIZON, of agreements, for partition is not a conveyance of property but simply a
691 SCRA 385, G.R. NO. 180269, FEBRUARY 20, 2013 segregation and designation of the part of the property which belong to the co-
REYES, J. owners.”

DOCTRINE:

132 | P a g e
ZARAGOZA VS. COURT OF APPEALS, Unfortunately, collation cannot be done in this case where the original petition for
341 SCRA 309, G.R. NO. 106401, SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 delivery of inheritance share only impleaded one of the other compulsory heirs.
QUISUMBING, J. The petition must therefore be dismissed without prejudice to the institution of a
new proceeding where all the indispensable parties are present for the rightful
DOCTRINE: determination of their respective legitime and if the legitimes were prejudiced by
It is basic in the law of succession that a partition inter vivos may be done for as the partitioning inter vivos.
long as legitimes are not prejudiced.

FACTS:
On December 9, 1964, Flavio Zaragoza Cano died without a will and was
survived by his four children: Gloria, Zacariaz, Florentino and Alberta, all
surnamed
Zaragoza.

On December 28, 1981, private respondent Alberta Zaragoza-Morgan filed

acomplaint with CFI against Spouses Florentino and Erlinda, herein petitioners,
fordelivery of her inheritance share, consisting of Lots 871 and 943, and for
payment ofdamages. She alleged that her father, in his lifetime, partitioned the
aforecited propertiesamong his four children. The shares of her brothers and
sister were given to them inadvance by way of deed of sale, but without valid
consideration, while her share, whichconsists of lots no. 871 and 943, was not
conveyed by way of deed of sale then. She averred that because of her
marriage, she became an American citizen andwas prohibited to acquire lands in
the Philippines except by hereditary succession. Forthis reason, no formal deed
of conveyance was executed in her favor covering theselots during her father’s
lifetime

ISSUE:
Whether the partition inter vivos by Flavio Zaragoza Cano of his properties,
which include Lots 871 and 943, is valid?

RULING: YES.
It is basic in the law of succession that a partition inter vivos may be done for as
long as legitimes are not prejudiced. Art. 1080 of the Civil Code is clear on
this.The legitime of compulsory heirs is determined after collation, as provided
for in Article 1061:

Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs,

must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he
may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter,
by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title in order that it may be
computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the
account of the partition.

133 | P a g e
J.L.T. AGRO, INC. VS. BALANSAG, Can a future legtime be determined, adjudicated and reserved prior to the death
of Don Julian?
453 SCRA 211, G.R. NO. 141882 MARCH 11, 2005
TINGA, J: RULING: YES.
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, No. Well-entrenched is the rule that all things, evenfuture
All things, even future ones which are not outside the commerce of man may be ones, which are not outside the commerce of man may be the object of
the object of a contract, except that no contract may be entered into with respect acontract. The exception is that no contract may be entered into with respect to
to future inheritance, and the exception to the exception is the partition inter
future inheritance, and the exception to the exception is partition inter vivos
vivos referred to in Article 1080.
referred to in Article 1080.
FACTS
Don Julian Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena and hadtwo
kids namely Josefa and Emilio. After her death, he married Milagros Teves and The partition inter vivos of the properties of Don Julian is undoubtedly valid
pursuant to Article 1347. However, considering that it would become legally
they had four children namely: Maria Teves, Jose Teves, Milagros Teves and
operative only upon the death of Don Julian, the right of his heirs form the
PedroTeves. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise second marriage to the properties adjudicated to him under the compromise
Agreement. agreement was but a mere expectancy. It was a bare hope of succession to the
property of their father. Being the prospect of a future acquisition, the interest by
When Antonia died an action for partition was instituted where the partiesentered its nature was inchoate. It had no attribute of property, and the interest to which it
into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all theproperties related was at the time nonexistent and might never exist.
of Don Julian. On the basis of the compromise agreement, the CFI declareda
tract of land known as Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa as property owned in Evidently, at the time of the execution of deed of assignment cover Lot No. 63 in
favor of petitioner, Don Julian remained the owner of the property since
common byDon Julian and his two children of the first marriage. The property ownership over the subject lot would only pass to his heirs from the second
was to remainundivided during the lifetime of Don Julian. Josefa and Emilio marriage at the time of his death. Thus, as the owner of the subject lot, Don
likewise were given otherproperties at Bais, including the electric plant, the Julian retained the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime. His right
“movie property,” the commercialareas, and the house where Don Julian was cannot be challenged by Milagros Donio and her children on the ground that it
living. The remainder of the properties wasretained by Don Julian. had already been adjudicated to them by virtue of the compromise agreement.

On 16 November 1972, Don Julian, Emilio and Josefa executed a Deed

ofAssignment of Assets with Assumption of Liabilities in favor of J.L.T. Agro, Inc.
(petitioner). Later, Don Julian, Josefa and Emilio also executed an
instrumententitled Supplemental to the Deed of Assignment of Assets with the
Assumption ofLiabilities (Supplemental Deed) dated 31 July 1973. This
instrument transferredownership over Lot No. 63, among other properties, in
favor of petitioner. The appellatecourt ruled that the supplemental deed,
conveying ownership to JLT agro is not validbecause the Compromise
Agreement reserved the properties to Don Julian’s two setsof heirs their future
legitimes. The two sets of heirs acquired full ownership andpossession of the
properties respectively adjudicated to them and Don Julian himselfcould no
longer dispose of the same. The appellate court in holding that the Supplemental
Deed is not valid, added that it contained a prohibited preterition ofDon
Julian’s heirs from the second marriage.

ISSUE:

134 | P a g e
LEGASTO VS. VERZOSA, made of her estate among her nieces the defendants appellants herein, during DOCTRINE:For the purpose of partition of a real property, the non-registration of
54 PHIL. 766, NO. 32344 MARCH 31, 1930 her lifetime is likewise null and void. an extrajudicial settlement does not affect its intrinsic validity.
VILLA-REAL, J:

DOCTRINE: The partition made by a testator inter vivos in pursuance of a will

which has been disallowed is null and void. FACTS:Spouses MarcelinaCimafranca and Joaquin Teves died intestate and
without debtsin 1943 and 1953, respectively. During their lifetime, the spouses
FACTS: own two parcels of land registered in the name of Marcelina and another lot
On May 13, 1925, Sabina Almadin executed a will, devising certain parcels of registered in the name of Joaquin and his two sisters. However, Joaquin’s sisters
land belonging to her, to her four nieces, Maria Verzosa, Oliva Verzosa, Toribia died without issue, causing theentire property to pass to him. After Marcelina and
Verzosa, and Ruperta Palma, daughters of her sister Catalina Almadin, Joaquin died, their childrenexecuted extrajudicial settlements purporting to
designating the parcels to be given to each.
adjudicate unto themselves theownership over the two parcels of land and to
She partitioned her property among her aforesaid sister and nieces, executing a alienate their shares thereto in favor oftheir sister Asuncion Teves for a
deed to her niece, Maria Verzosa, assigning and making over to her three consideration. The division of the subject lot wasembodied in two deeds. The
parcels of her land therein described. On September 23, 1925, Maria Verzosa first Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale was enteredinto on June 13, 1956
and Sabina Almadin appeared before the deputy provincial assessor and while the second deed was executed on April 21, 1959. TheDeed of Extrajudicial
municipal secretary of Biñan, Laguna, and made two sworn statements, wherein Settlement and sale was executed on December 14, 1971. Afterthe death of
the former stated that she had purchased the parcels of land described in the Asuncion Teves, her children, private respondents, extrajudicially settled
assignment, from Sabina Almadin, and the latter in turn declared that she had
her property, adjudicating unto themselves said lots.
sold them to Maria Verzosa, and that said vendee had already claimed them as
her property for the payment of the land tax.

ISSUE:
Is the partition made by Sabina Almadin of her property among her nieces, the On May 9, 1984, herein petitioners, heirs of Marcelina and Joaquin, filed
defendants and appellants herein, was valid and enforceable? acomplaint with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental against
privaterespondents for the partition and reconveyance of the aforesaid parcels of
RULING: NO. land, allegingthat the extrajudicial settlements were spurious.

The gift of realty made in a public instrument is null and void when the deed fails
to show the acceptance, or where the formal notice of the acceptance, made in a
ISSUE: Should the extrajudicial settlements be upheld?
separate instrument, is either not given to the donor or else not noted in the deed
of gift and in the separate acceptance.
RULING:Yes, a public document executed with all the legal formalities is entitled
It is thus seen that both the Spanish Supreme Court and the learned and to a presumption of truth as to the recitals contained therein.
authoritative commentator, Manresa, are of opinion that a testator may, by an act
inter vivos, partition his property, but he must first make a will with all the Article 1082 of the Civil Code provides that, “Every act which is intended to put
formalities provided for by law. And it could not be otherwise, for without a will an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a
there can be no testator; when the law, therefore, speaks of the partition inter
partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or
vivos made by a testator of his property, it necessarily refers to that property
which he has devised to his heirs. A person who disposes of his property gratis any other transaction”.
inter vivos is not called a testator, but a donor. In employing the word "testator,"
the law evidently desired to distinguish between one who freely donates his The court said, that for a partition pursuant to section 1 of Rule 74 to be valid,
property in life and one who disposes of it by will to take effect after his death. the following conditions must concur:
(1) the decedent left no will;
Sabina Almadin must have been aware of the necessity of a prior will, since HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES vs. CA (2) the decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had
before making the partition of her property among her nieces, the defendants G.R. No. 109963, October 13, 1999
herein, she executed a will giving to each of them the same parcels of land been paid;
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: (3) the heirs are all of age, or if they are minors, the latter are
which she later transferred to them gratuitously. Since Sabina Almadin's will is
null and void for lack of the legal requisites, consequently, the partition which she represented by their judicial guardian or legal representatives;

135 | P a g e
(4) the partition was made by means of a public instrument or may be rendered nugatory. The authentication of a will decides no other In the instant case, there is no showing that the signatories in the joint
affidavit duly filed with the Register of Deeds. question than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the agreement were the only heirs of the decedent. When it was executed, the
compliance with those requirements or solemnities which the law prescribes for probate of the will was still pending before the court and the latter had yet to
Citing the case of Vda. de Reyes vs. CA, the Court held that the requirement that the validity of a will. determine who the heirs of the decedent were. Thus, for Edmund and
a partition be put in a public document and registered has for its purpose the respondent Florence S. Ariola to adjudicate unto themselves the three (3)
protection of creditors and at the same time the protection of the heirs FACTS:Efraim M. Santibañez died, leaving a holographic will. Subsequently, tractors was a premature act, and prejudicial to the other possible heirs and
themselves against tardy claims. The object of registration is to serve as testate proceedings commenced before the RTC of Iloilo City. Edmund, as one creditors who may have a valid claim against the estate of the deceased.
constructive notice to others. Thus, despite its non-registration, the extrajudicial of the heirs, was appointed as the special administrator of the estate of the
settlements are legally effective and binding among the heirs of decedent.Edmund, as one of the heirs, was appointed as the special
MarcelinaCimafranca since their mother had no creditors at the time of her administrator of the estate of the decedent, wherein they agreed to divide
death. between themselves and take possession of the three (3) tractors and each of
them was to assume the indebtedness of their late father to FCCC (which
assigned all its assets and liabilities to Union Savings and Mortgage Bank)
corresponding to the tractor respectively taken by them.

Consequently, the heirs sold the three tractors.

ISSUE:Without approval by the probate court, without having found the will to be
valid first, was it proper for the heirs to sell the three tractors pending probate
proceedings?

RULING: NO.There can be no valid partition among the heirs until after the will
has been probated.

Well-settled is the rule that a probate court has the jurisdiction to determine all
the properties of the deceased, to determine whether they should or should not
be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered. The said
court is primarily concerned with the administration, liquidation and distribution of
the estate.
CARLOMAGNO A. CRUCILLO, et al vs IAC
In our jurisdiction, the rule is that there can be no valid partition among the heirs G.R. No. 65416, October 26, 1999
until after the will has been probated. It must be stressed that the probate PURISIMA, J.:
proceeding had already acquired jurisdiction over all the properties of the
deceased, including the three (3) tractors. To dispose of them in any way without DOCTRINE:After exercising acts of ownership over their respective portions of
the probate court’s approval is tantamount to divesting it with jurisdiction which the contested estate, the heirs are estopped from denying or contesting the
the Court cannot allow.  Every act intended to put an end to indivision among co- existence of an oral partition. The oral agreement for the partition of the property
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs SANTIBAÑEZ G.R. No. 149926, heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should owned in common is valid, binding and enforceable on the parties.
February 23, 2005 purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Thus, in executing any joint agreement which appears to be in the nature of an FACTS:Balbino A. Crucillo was married to Juana Aure. They had eight (8)
DOCTRINE: In testate succession, there can be no valid partition among the extra-judicial partition, as in the case at bar, court approval is imperative, and the children, namely, Elena, Maximino, Perpetua, Santiago, Adelaida, Miguel,
heirs until after the will has been probated. The law enjoins the probate of a will heirs cannot just divest the court of its jurisdiction over that part of the estate. Rafael, and Vicente, all surnamed Crucillo. Balbino A. Crucillo died intestate in
and the public requires it, because unless a will is probated and notice thereof Moreover, it is within the jurisdiction of the probate court to determine the identity 1909. Juana Aure died on November 19, 1949. Balbino A. Crucillo left, among
given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will of the heirs of the decedent. other things, two(2) parcels of unregistered land situated at General Luna Street,

136 | P a g e
Mendez-Nunez,Cavite. He was survived by his heirs, who became co-owners of after exercising acts of ownership over their respective portions of the contested Respondents predicated their claim of absolute ownership over the subject
the aforesaid lots and thereafter, entered into the possession thereof with each estate, petitioners are estopped from denying or contesting the existence of an property on two documents — a deed of donation executed by the late Julian
one of them possessing their respective shares and exercising acts of oral partition. covering his one-half conjugal share of the Isarog property in favor of Nilo and a
ownership. deed of extrajudicial settlement in which Julian Viado, Leah Viado Jacobs and
petitioner Rebecca waived in favor of Nilo their rights and interests over their
Rafael had soldtwo other lots belonging to the estate. Nicasio Sarmiento (son of share of the property inherited from Virginia.
Perpetua Crucillo) has caused a residential lot situated at Gen. Trias St.,
Mendez, Cavite tobe registered in his name alone, Miguel Crucillo is in exclusive
possession ofa residential lot located at General Trias St., Mendez, Cavite. An ISSUE:Should the partition be rescinded due to the preterition of Delia as an
agriculturalland located at Sitio Niko, Mendez, Cavite, covered by Tax heir.
Declaration No. 1179is owned in common by Vicente Crucillo, Buenaventurada
Sarmiento (daughter of the deceased Perpetua Crucillo), AdelaidaCrucillo, and RULING:No, there was no showing of fraud or bad faith.
Atty. ConradoCrucillo (son of the deceased Santiago Crucillo). Another
agricultural land situated at PulongMunti, is owned in common by the Heirs of The inheritance, which vested from the moment of death of the decedent,
Elena Crucillo, AdelaidaCrucillo,andNicasio Sarmiento. Still another property remained under a co-ownership regime among the heirs until partition. Every act
covered by Tax Declaration No. 653is owned in common by Buenaventurada intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees
Sarmiento and Vicente Crucillo, whose share was acquired by Miguel Crucillo. would be a partition although it would purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
Additionally, Primitiva Mendoza is in possession of an agricultural land in compromise, a donation or an extrajudicial settlement.
PulongMunti and also in Niko, Mendez, Cavite, while CarlomagnoCrucillo
possesses an agricultural land at SitioMaykiling, Mendez, Cavite, Miguel Crucillo In debunking the continued existence of a co-ownership among the parties
is exclusively occupying an agricultural land at PulongMunti and Ulo ng Bukal, hereto, respondents rely on the deed of donation and deed of extrajudicial
and the remaining portion another agricultural land after the other portion thereof REBECCA VIADO NON, et al. vs CA settlement which consolidated the title solely to NiloViado.
had been sold by Rafael Crucillo. G.R. No. 65416, October 26, 1999
PURISIMA, J.: The exclusion of petitioner Delia Viado, alleged to be a retardate, from the deed
ISSUE:Was there partition effected in this case? of extrajudicial settlement verily has had the effect of preterition. Under Article
DOCTRINE:Article 1104 of the Civil Code provides that when the preterition is 1104 of the Civil Code tif the preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud,
RULING:YES, the oral agreement for the partition of the property owned in not attended by bad faith and fraud, the partition shall not be rescinded but the the partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the value
common is valid, binding and enforceable on the parties. preterited heir shall be paid the value of the share pertaining to her. of the share pertaining to her. 

It has been shown that upon the death of Juana Aure, the petitioners and the
respondent Rafael Crucillo partitioned the estate among themselves, with each FACTS: Spouses Julian and Virginia Viado owned several pieces of property,
one of them possessing their respective shares and exercising acts of among them was the disputed property. Virginia died on 20 October 1982. Julian
ownership. C. Viado died three years later on 15 November 1985.

Their possession of the inherited premises, their construction of improvements Petitioners and respondents shared, since 1977, a common residence at the
thereon, and their having declared in their names for taxation purposes their Isarog property. However, tension would appear to have escalated between
respective shares. These are indications that the heirs of Balbino A. Crucillo petitioner Rebecca Viado and respondent Alicia Viado (wife of NiloViado) after
agreed to divide subject estate among themselves, for why should they construct the former had asked that the property be equally divided between the two
improvements thereon, pay the taxes therefor, and exercise other acts of families.
ownership, if they did not firmly believe that the property was theirs. It is certainly Respondents forthwith, claimed absolute ownership over the entire property and
foolhardy for petitioners to claim that no oral partition was made when their acts demanded that petitioners vacate the portion occupied by the latter. Hence,
showed otherwise. Moreover, it is unbelievable that the possession of the heirs petitioners, asserting co-ownership over the property in question, filed a case for
was by mere tolerance, judging from the introduction of improvements thereon partition before the RTC.
and the length of time that such improvements have been in existence. Then too,

137 | P a g e
Pada family. Their admissions are evidence of a high order and bind them
insofar as the character of their possession of the subject property is concerned.
HELD:

The extrajudicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada among his heirs made in
1951 is valid, albeit executed in an unregistered private document. No law
require partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to be
valid. The object of registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. It
follows then that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the prescribed
formalities is not undermined when no creditors are involved. Without creditors to
take into consideration, it is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an
agreement for distribution thereof in a manner and upon a plan different from
ANGELA I. TUASON v. ANTONIO TUASON,
those provided by the rules from which, in the first place, nothing can be inferred
GR No. L-3404, 1951-04-02
that a writing or other formality is essential for the partition to be valid. The MONTEMAYOR, J.:
partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a public document so as
PADA-KILARIO VS CA to be effective as regards the heirs that participated therein. The extrajudicial
G.G.R. NO. 134329, JANUARY 19, 2000 partition which the heirs of Jacinto Pada executed voluntarily and spontaneously
DE LEON, JR., J. in 1951 has produced a legal status. When they discussed and agreed on the DOCTRINE: Art. 1082. Every act which is intended to put an end to indivision
division of the estate of Jacinto Pada, it is presumed that they did so in among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it
Digested by: Al Ammen Silo furtherance of their mutual interests. As such, their division is conclusive, unless
and until it is shown that there were debts existing against the estate which had should purport to be a sale, and exchange, a compromise, or any other
not been paid. No showing, however, has been made of any unpaid charges transaction. (n)
DOCTRINE: Any act intended to end any indivision among co-heirs, devisees against the estate of Jacinto Pada. Thus, there is no reason why the heirs should
and legatees be it in any form is a valid partition. not be bound by their voluntary acts. FACTS:

FACTS: In 1941 the sisters Angela I. Tuason and Nieves Tuason de Barreto and their
brother Antonio Tuason Jr., held a parcel of land with an area of 64,928.6 sq. m.
Respondent Silverio Pada filed an ejectment case against sps. Kilario. The latter The belated act of Concordia, Esperanza and Angelito, who are the heirs of covered byCertificate of Title No. 60911 in Sampaloc, Manila, in common, each
occupies a portion of the intestate estate of Jacinto Pada, Grandfather of Amador Pada, of donating the subject property to petitioners after forty four (44) owning an undivided
Silverio. The Kilario’s have been living therein since 1960 by sheer tolerance. years of never having disputed the validity of the 1951 extrajudicial partition that
When Jacinto Pada dies, his heirs entered into extrajudicial partition of his estate allocated the subject property to Marciano and Ananias, produced no legal 1/3 portion. Nieves wanted and asked for a partition of the common property, but
in 1951. As a result hereof, lot 5581 was allocated to Ananias and Marciano who failing in this, she offered to sell her 1/3 portion. It seems that the objection to
effect.
became co-owners of said lot. dividing the property was that it would lose in value by the proposed partition.
The share of Nieves was offered... for sale to her sister and her brother but iboth
declined to buy it. The offer was later made to their mother but the old lady also
declined to buy, saying that if the property later increased in value, she might be
The donation made by his heirs to petitioners of the subject property, thus, is suspected of having taken advantage of her daughter. Finally,... the share of
Ananias died and his daughter succeeded in his right as co-owner. Eventually, void for they were not the owners thereof. At any rate it is too late in the day for Nieves was sold to Gregorio Araneta Inc., a domestic corporation, and a new
Juanita sold her right in the co-ownership to Engr. Paderes. Mariaon the other the heirs of Amador Pada to repudiate the legal effects of the 1951 extrajudicial Certificate of Title No. 61721 was issued in lieu of the old title No. 60911
hand,heir of Marciano, sold her share to her cousin respondent Silverio Pada. partition as prescription and laches have equally set in.Petitioners are estopped covering the same property. The three co-owners agreed to have the whole
The latter demanded sps. Kilario to vacate but the sps. refused.On June 1995, a from impugning the extrajudicial partition executed by the heirs of Jacinto Pada parcel subdivided into small lots and... then sold, the proceeds of the sale to be
complaint forejectment was filed against sps. Kilario. On July 1995 a deed of later divided among them. This agreement is embodied in a document (Exh. 6)
after explicitly admitting in their
donation in their favorwas executed by heirs of Amador Pada. entitled "Memorandum of Agreement" consisting of ten pages, dated June 30,
1941.

The pertinent terms of the contract (Exh. 6) may be briefly stated as follows: The
Answer that they had been occupying the subject property since 1960 without three co-owners agreed to improve the property by filling" it and constructing
ISSUE: Is the partition valid?
ever paying any rental as they only relied on the liberality and tolerance of the roads and curbs on the same and then subdivide it into small lots for sale.

138 | P a g e
Araneta Inc. was to finance the whole... development and subdivision; it was to RULING: occasions that she... did not want to have any further dealings with the said
prepare a schedule of prices and conditions of sale, subject to the approval of corporation. So, if the defendant corporation proceeded with the sale of the
the two other co-owners; it was invested with authority to sell the lots into which We have examined Exh. "L" and compared the same with the contract (Exh. 6) subdivided lots without the approval of the plaintiff, it was because it was under
the property was to be subdivided, and execute the corresponding contracts... and we agree with the trial court that in the main the terms of both contracts are the correct impression that under the contract exhibit 6 the... decision of the
and deeds of sale; it was also to pay the real estate taxes due on the property or similar and practically the same. Moreover, as correctly found by the trial court, majority co-owners is binding upon all the three.
of any portion thereof that remained unsold, the expenses of surveying, the copies of both contracts were... shown to the plaintiff Angela and her
improvements, etc., all advertising expenses, salaries of personnel, husband, a broker, and both had every opportunity to go over and compare them "The Court feels that rescission of the contract exhibit 6 is not in order. Even
commissions, office and legal expenses, including... expenses in instituting all and decide on the advisability of or disadvantage in entering into the contract granting that the defendant corporation committed minor violations of the terms
actions to eject all tenants or occupants on the property; and it undertook the (Exh. 6); that although Atty. Antonio Araneta was an official of the Araneta Inc.;... of the agreement, the general rule is that 'rescission will not be permitted for a
duty to furnish each of the two co-owners, Angela and Antonio Tuason, copies of being a member of the Board of Directors of the Company at the time that slight or casual breach of the... contract, but only for such breaches as are so
the subdivision plans and the monthly sales and rents and collections made Exhibit "6" was executed, he was not the party with which Angela contracted, substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties in making the
thereon. In... return for all this undertaking and obligation assumed by Araneta and that he committed no breach of trust. According to the evidence Araneta, agreement' (Song Fo & Co. vs. Hawaiian-Philippine Co., 47 Phil. 821)."
Inc., particularly the financial burden, it was to receive 50 per cent of the gross Inc. showed to her the plans of the subdivision and... all the pertinent papers,
selling price of the lots, and any rents that may be collected from the property, and sent to her checks covering her share of the proceeds of the sale but that
while in the process of sale, the remaining 50... per cent to be divided in equal she refused to receive the same; and that as a matter of fact, at the time of the
portions among the three co-owners so that each will receive 16.33 per cent of trial, Araneta Inc., had spent about P117,000 in improvement and had received
the gross receipts. as proceeds on... the sale of the lots the respectable sum of Pl,265,538.48. We
quote with approval that portion of the decision appealed from on these points:
Because of the importance of paragraphs 9, 11 and 15 of the contract (Exh. 6),
for purposes of reference we are reproducing them below: "The evidence in this case points to the fact that the actuations of J. Antonio
Araneta in connection with the execution of exhibit 6 by the parties, are above
"(9) This contract shall remain in full force and effect during all the time that it board. He committed nothing that is violative of the fiduciary relationship existing
may be necessary for the Party op the Second Part to fully sell the said property between him and the... plaintiff. The act of J. Antonio Araneta in giving the
in small and subdivided lots and to fully collect the purchase prices due thereon; plaintiff a copy of exhibit 6 before the same was executed, constitutes a full
it being... understood and agreed that said lots may be rented while there are no disclosure of the facts, for said copy contains all that appears now in exhibit 6.
purchasers thereof;
"Plaintiff charges the defendant Gregorio Aran«ta, Inc. with infringing the terms
"(11) The Party of the Second Part (meaning Araneta Inc.) is hereby given full of the contract in that the defendant corporation has failed (1) to make the
power and authority to sign for and in behalf of all the said co-owners of said necessary improvements on the property as required by paragraphs 1 and 3 of
property all contracts of sale and deeds of sale of the lots into which this property the contract; (2) to submit to the plaintiff... from time to time schedule of prices
might be subdivided; the powers... herein vested to the Party of the Second Past and conditions under which the subdivided lots are to be sold; and to furnish the
may not be revoked until the purposes of this contract have been fulfilled and plaintiff a copy of the subdivision plans, a copy of the monthly statement of the
carried out, and the Party of the Second Part may, under its own responsibility sales and rents of the subdivided lots, and a statement of the monthly gross...
and risk, delegate any of its powers under this contract to any of its... officers, collections from the sale of the property.
employees or to third persons;
"The Court finds from the evidence that the defendant Gregorio Araneta,
"(15) No co-owner of the property subject-natter of this contract shall sell, Incorporated has substantially complied with the obligation imposed by the
alienate or dispose of his ownership, interest or participation tiierein without first contract exhibit 6 in its paragraph 1, and that for improvements alone, it has
giving preference to the other co-owners to purchase and acquire the same disbursed the amount of P117,167.09. It has likewise... paid taxes, commissions
under the same terms and conditions as... those offered by any other and other expenses incidental to its obligations as defined in the agreement.
prospective purchaser. Should none of the co-owners of the property subject-
matter of this contract exercise the said preference to acquire or purchase the "With respect to the charge that Gregorio Araneta, Incorporated has failed to
same, then such sale to a third party shall be made subject to all the conditions, submit to plaintiff a copy of the subdivision plans, list of prices and the conditions
terms, and... dispositions of this contract; provided, the Parties of the First Part governing the sale of subdivided lots, and monthly statement of collections from
(meaning Angela and Antonio) shall be bound by this contract as long as the the sale of tie lots, the Court... is of the opinion that it has no basis. The evidence
Party of the Second Part, namely, the Gregorio Araneta, Inc. is controlled by the shows that the defendant corporation submitted to the plaintiff periodically all the
members of the Araneta family, who are... stockholders of the said corporation at data relative to prices and conditions of the sale of the subdivided lots, together
the time of the signing of this contract and/or their lawful heirs;" with the amount corresponding to her. But without any... justifiable reason, she
refused to accept them. With the indifferent attitude adopted by the plaintiff, it
ISSUES: Was the acts of the petitioner an indication that she intended to put and was thought useless for Gregorio Araneta, Incorporated to continue sending her
end to indivision among co-heirs? statement of accounts, checks and other things. She had shown on various
139 | P a g e
decedents, but however, it was denied by the lower court. He brought up the
case to the CA but before the controversy has been settled, he died. Therefore,
the heirs of Gerry Ecarma filed their Appellant’s Brief in substitution of the
deceased.

ISSUE:

HEIRS OF ECARMA VS CA Is the Order of Partition proper where one of the co - owners refuse to accede to
such proposed partition on the ground that it is not feasible, impractical and
G.R. NO. 193374, JUNE 8, 2016 detrimental?

PEREZ, J. HELD: YES.

SANTOS VS SANTOS

Digested by: AL AMMEN SILO Upon Arminda's death, her heirs' rights to the succession (covering Arminda's G.R. NO. 139524, OCTOBER 12, 2000
share in the subject properties) vested and their co-ownership over the subject
properties has consolidated by operation of law. Effectively, without a valid will of GONZAGA-REYES, J.,
Arminda, and as Arminda's compulsory heirs, herein parties (specifically Gerry
DOCTRINE:Every co-heir has the right to demand the partition of the estate Ecarma prior to his death and substitution by herein petitioners) all ipso facto co-
except when non-partition is specifically required by the testator. owned the subject properties in equal proportion being compulsory heirs of the
Digested by: AL AMMEN SILO
deceased spouses Natalio and Arminda

Partition may take place even in contrary to the testator's instructions when any
of the causes for a partnership dissolution takes place. DOCTRINE: A partition may be demanded by any of the co-heirs provided such
is made with the consent of the other heirs.

FACTS:
FACTS:

Spouses Natalio and Arminda owned 4 properties designated as Kitanlad,

Cuyapo and Lala consisting of 2 lots. They have 7 children among them were The controversy involves a 391 square meter parcel of land situated in San
Gerry Ecarma and private respondent Renato Ecarma. Natalio predeceased Mateo, Rizal, owned by Isidra Santos, a sI 3pinster who died intestate and
Arminda, and therefater their children executed Extrajudicial Settlement of the without issue in 1967. She was survived by her two brothers, Ladislao and
Estate. No physical division of properties was effected and they remained in co- Eliseo. Sometime in 1993, Ladislao through his attorney-in-fact Noe M. Santos
ownership even after the death of Arminda. Renato Ecarma as the Special filed an action for judicial partition of the Isidra property against his brother Eliseo
Administrator in the intestate proceedings filed a Project of Partition because of and the latter’s son Philip. While admitting that Ladislao and Eliseo inherited the
the conflict between Gerry and the other heirs over actual division of their subject Isidra property, Eliseo and Philip submitted that "Eliseo Santos and wife
inherited properties. The legal heirs except Gerry expressed their desire to have and Ladsilao and wife signed a document wherein Eliseo acquired the subject lot
the property partitioned. from the combined partition of the estate of their father Bonifacio Santos and
their sister Isidra Santos. Bonifacio’s estate was composed of 6,387 square
Gerry objected because the proposed partition is not feasible, impractical and meters while that of Isidra Santos is the subject property with an area of 391
detrimental. The planned partition is not accordance with the wishes of square meters. Out of this combined parcels of land, respondent got 3,387

140 | P a g e
square meters while Eliseo got 3,000 square meters and the subject Isidra CARPIO MORALES, J.:
property with an area of 391 square meters. Eliseo, in turn, donated the subject
Isidra property to his son, Virgilio Santos.

Doctrine: The prohibition to divide a property in a co-ownership can only last for
twenty (20) years.
ISSUE:

Is the deed of partition in the case valid?

Facts:

Basilio Santiago (Basilio) contracted three marriages—the first to Bibiana Lopez,

HELD: NO the second to Irene Santiago, and the third to Cecilia Lomotan. Basilio and his
first wife bore two offsprings, Irene and Marta, the mother of herein oppositors
Felimon, Leonila, Consolacion, Ananias, Urbano, and Gertrudes, all surnamed
Soco.
The deed of partition contended to by Eliseo Santos may be valid provided the
document alleged to be made by the two parties be presented.

Basilio and his second wife had six offsprings, Tomas, Cipriano, Ricardo,
respondents Zoilo and Felicidad, and petitioner Ma. Pilar, all surnamed Santiago.
It is undosputed that the property passed on to Eliseo and Ladislao after their
sister's death. However, Eliseo failed to show the deed he had contended to IN RE: PETITION FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF
exist. Thus, the partition cannot be considered valid. BASILIO SANTIAGO,
Basilio and his third wife bore three children, Eugenia herein petitioner
Clemente, and Cleotilde, all surnamed Santiago.
MA. PILAR SANTIAGO and CLEMENTE SANTIAGO, Petitioners,

After Basilio died testate on September 16, 1973, his daughter by the second
vs. marriage petitioner Ma. Pilar filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bulacan a petition for the probate of Basilio’s will, docketed as SP No. 1549-M.
The will was admitted to probate by Branch 10 of the RTC and Ma. Pilar was
appointed executrix.
ZOILO S. SANTIAGO, FELICIDAD SANTIAGO-RIVERA, HEIRS OF RICARDO
SANTIAGO, HEIRS OF CIPRIANO SANTIAGO, HEIRS OF TOMAS
SANTIAGO, Respondents.
The will contained the following provisions, among others:
FILEMON SOCO, LEONILA SOCO, ANANIAS SOCO, URBANO SOCO,
GERTRUDES SOCO AND HEIRS OF CONSOLACION SOCO, Oppositors.
e) Ang lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa itaas na
2(c) ay ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente hindi
G.R. No. 179859 August 9, 2010 bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan
lamang nila at nang ang sinoman sa aking mga anak sampu ng apo
at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon ay may tutuluyan kung
magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o kalapit na mga lunsod x x x.

141 | P a g e
Respondent-heirs of the second marriage filed before the probate court (RTC- 1. Is the transfer of the properties to petitioners Ma. Pilar and Clemente for
Branch 10) a Motion for Termination of Administration, for Accounting, and for purposes of administration only?
f) Ang bigasan, mga makina at pagawaan ng pagkain ng hayop ay Transfer of Titles in the Names of the Legatees. Citing the earlier quoted
ipinamamana ko sa aking asawa, Cecilia Lomotan, at mga anak na portions of Basilio’s will, they alleged that:
Zoilo, Ma. Pilar, Ricardo, Cipriano, Felicidad, Eugenia, Clemente, at
Cleotilde nang pare-pareho. Ngunit, sa loob ng dalawampong (20) 2. Can the properties be divided?
taon mula sa araw ng aking kamatayan, hindi nila papartihin ito at
pamamahalaan ito ni Clemente at ang maghahawak ng salaping x x x x the twenty (20) year period within which subject properties should be
kikitain ay si Ma. Pilar na siyang magpaparte. Ang papartihin lamang under administration of [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago expired on
ay ang kita ng mga iyon matapos na ang gugol na kakailanganin September 16, 1993.
niyon, bilang reparacion, pagpapalit o pagpapalaki ay maawas na.
Ninais ko ang ganito sa aking pagmamahal sa kanila at pagaaring
ibinubuhay ko sa kanila lahat, bukod sa yaon ay sa kanila ding Ruling:
Consequently, [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago should have ceased
kapakinabangan at kabutihan.
as such administrator[s] way back on September 16, 1993 and they should have
1. Yes
transferred the above said titles to the named legatees in the Last Will and
Testament of the testator by then. Said named legatees in the Last Will and
g) Ang lahat ng lupa, liban sa lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila, ay Testament are no[ne] other than the following:
ipinapamana ko sa aking nasabing asawa, Cecilia Lomotan, at mga It is clear from Basilio’s will that he intended the house and lot in Manila to be
anak na Tomas, Zoilo, Ma. Pilar, Ricardo, Cipriano, Felicidad, transferred in petitioners’ names for administration purposes only, and that the
Eugenia, Clemente at Cleotilde nang pare-pareho. Datapwa’t, gaya property be owned by the heirs in common, thus:
xxxx
din ng mga bigasan, makina at gawaan ng pagkain ng hayop, ito ay
hindi papartihin sa loob ng dalawampong (20) taon mula sa aking
pagpanaw, at pamamahalaan din nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente. Ang
mapaparte lamang ay ang kita o ani ng nasabing mga pag-aari e) Ang lupa’t bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa itaas na 2(c) ay
Said [Ma.] Pilar Santiago and Clemente Santiago should have also rendered an
matapos bayaran ang buwis at/o patubig at iba pang mga gugol na ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at Clemente hindi bilang pamana ko
accounting of their administration from such death of the testator up to the
kailangan. Si Ma. Pilar din ang hahawak ng ani o salaping sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang
present or until transfer of said properties and its administration to the said
manggagaling dito. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) sinoman sa aking mga anak sampu ng apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang
legatees.
panahon ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o kalapit na
mga lunsod sa medaling salita, ang bahay at lupang ito’y walang magmamay-ari
bagkus ay gagamitin habang panahon ng sinomang magnanais sa aking
After the executrix-petitioner Ma. Pilar filed a "Final Accounting, Partition and The probate court, finding that the properties in question would be transferred to kaapuapuhan na tumuklas ng karunungan sa paaralan sa Maynila at katabing
Distribution in Accordance with the Will," the probate court approved the will by petitioners Ma. Pilar and Clemente for purposes of administration only. mga lunsod x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Order of August 14, 1978 and directed the registers of deeds of Bulacan and
Manila to register the certificates of title indicated therein. Accordingly, the titles
to Lot Nos. 786, 837, 7922, 836 and 838 in Malolos, Bulacan and Lot No. 8-C in
Manila were transferred in the name of petitioners Ma. Pilar and Clemente. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the probate court, hence, the
petition.
2. Yes

The oppositors thereafter filed a Complaint-in-Intervention with the probate court,

alleging that Basilio’s second wife was not Irene but a certain Maria Arellano with
But the condition set by the decedent on the property’s indivisibility is subject to
whom he had no child; and that Basilio’s will violates Articles 979-981 of the Civil
Issue: a statutory limitation. On this point, the Court agrees with the ruling of the
Code.
appellate court, viz:

142 | P a g e
latter is still entitled to a written notice from the selling co-owner in order to Petitioner argues that the appellate court committed reversible error when it
remove all uncertainties about the sale, its terms and conditions as well as its declared him to have lost his preferential right to buy the subject property and
For this Court to sustain without qualification, [petitioners]’s contention, is to go efficacy and status. gave private respondent 30 days from finality of judgment to redeem the "3/9
against the provisions of law, particularly Articles 494, 870, and 1083 of the Civil portion" of the disputed property acquired by petitioner from private respondent's
Code, which provide that the prohibition to divide a property in a co-ownership co-owner.
can only last for twenty (20) years x x x x

xxxx
Facts: Issue:

Private respondent filed an ejectment case against petitioner at the Municipal Does private respondent have the right to redeem the property?
x x x x Although the Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the indivision of a Trial Court (MTC) of Bacon, Sorsogon, alleging that the latter defaulted in
property for more than twenty years, it would be contrary to public policy to payment of rentals and refused to vacate the subject property owned by private
sanction co-ownership beyond the period expressly mandated by the Civil Code respondent despite repeated demands.
xxxx

Ruling:
In retaliation, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 91-5663 before the Sorsogon RTC
for specific performance alleging that their contract of lease also contained an Yes.
option to buy through which private respondent gave petitioner the preferential
right to purchase the subject property in the event the same was put on sale.

Article 1088 of the New Civil Code explicitly states that, should any of the heirs
sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-
Meanwhile, without notice to private respondent, petitioner acquired a "3/9 heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for
portion" of the subject property from one of the co-owners. the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the
time they were notified in writing by the vendor.

Thereafter the Sorsogon RTC, Branch 52 rendered the January 22, 1996
BAYLON vs. AMADOR decision. The dispositive portion stated: The requirement of a written notice is mandatory. This Court has long
established the rule that, notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co-owner, the
latter is still entitled to a written notice from the selling co-owner in order to
remove all uncertainties about the sale, its terms and conditions as well as its
G.R. No. 160701. February 9, 2004 3. Declaring plaintiff to be co-owner of the house and lot in question efficacy and status.
for having acquired by purchase at least 3/9 portion of the questioned
property.
THIRD DIVISION
Private respondent was never given such written notice. He thus still has the
right to redeem said one-third portion of the subject property. On account of the
The appellate court modified the decision of the Sorsogon RTC. lack of written notice of the sale by the other co-heirs, the 30-day period never
commenced.

Doctrine: The requirement of a written notice is mandatory. It is a long

established the rule that, notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co-owner, the
143 | P a g e
vs. Garcia and Simeon Garcia, all residents of Isabela, Negros Occidental, also sold
to the spouses Jose Calaliman and Paciencia Trabadillo through their attorney-
JOSE CALALIMAN, PACIENCIA TRABADILLO & HON. COURT OF APPEALS, in-fact, Juanito Bertomo, their shares, rights, interest and participation in the
Third Division, respondents. same parcel of land.

G.R. No. L-26855 April 17, 1989 The heirs Francisco Garcia, Paz Garcia, and Maria Garcia, petitioners herein,
filed against the spouses Jose Calaliman and Paciencia Trabadillo, private
respondents herein, Civil Case No. 3489 with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
for legal redemption of the 3/4 portion of the parcel of land inherited by the heirs
PARAS, J.:
from the late Gelacio Garcia, which portion was sold by their co-heirs to the
defendants. In the complaint plaintiffs alleged, among others:

Doctrine: Written notice is indispensable, actual knowledge of the sale acquired

in some other manners by the redemptioner, notwithstanding. He or she is still
5. That, plaintiffs' co-owners had never offered for sale their interest
entitled to written notice, as exacted by the Code, to remove all uncertainty as to
and shares over the said land to the plaintiffs prior to the sale in favor
the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not
of the defendants, nor given notice of such intention on their part; and
definitive. The law not having provided for any alternative, the method of
that, no notice in writing has been given by said co-owners to the
notifications remains exclusive, though the Code does not prescribe any
plaintiffs of the said sale, such that, plaintiffs came to learn of it only
particular form of written notice nor any distinctive method for written notification
from other source;
of redemption.

6. That, plaintiffs would have purchased the interest and shares of

their co-owners had the latter offered the same to them prior to the
Facts: sale thereof to the defendants; and that, within 30 days after learning
of the sale made to the defendants under annexes 'A', 'B' and 'B-l',
Gelacio Garcia died intestate, leaving a parcel of unregistered land about 372 plaintiffs made repeated offer to the defendants to allow them to
sq. meters, situated in the Municipality of Tubungan, Province of Iloilo. On his redeem said interest and shares acquired by the defendants in
death the property was inherited by his nephews, nieces, grandnephews who accordance with the right granted to the plaintiffs by law in such a
are the descendants of his late brothers, Pedro, Simeon, Buenaventura and case, offering a reasonable price thereof of P300 taking into
Marcos consideration the fact that the defendants had acquired only 3/4 of
the land of 372 square meters more or less, in area with assessed
value of P110 and a fair market value of 372 at Pl per square meter,
the price actually obtaining in the locality at the time of the sale
On December 3, 1954, the heirs, Juanita Bertomo, Joaquin Garcia, Porfirio thereof under Annexes 'A', 'B' and 'B-l'; however, the defendants
Garcia, Dioscoro Garcia, Flora Garcia, Consolacion Garcia, Remedios Garcia, refused and have until the present refused to grant redemption
Trinidad Garcia, Baltazar Garcia signed a document entitled, "Extra-judicial thereof giving no reason why other than challenging the plaintiffs to
Partition and Deed of Sale". bring their case in court:

FRANCISCO GARCIA, PAZ GARCIA, and MARIA GARCIA, petitioners, Another group of heirs, Rosario Garcia, Margarita Garcia, Dolores Rufino,
Resurreccion Tagarao, Serafin Tagarao, Buenaventura Tagarao, Fortunata

144 | P a g e
Issue: sometime in March 1955 and went to see the respondent spouse about the lands and has no application whatsoever to a case where the property involved
matter on March 24,1955. is, admittedly, unregistered land.
Did the petitioners take all the necessary steps to effectuate their exercise of the
right of legal redemption within the period fixed by Art. 1088 of the Civil Code?

Because of the refusal of respondent Jose Calaliman to show him the document Consistent with aforesaid ruling, in the interpretation of a related provision
of sale or reveal to him the price paid for the parcel of land, petitioner Francisco (Article 1623 of the New Civil Code) this Court had stressed that written notice is
Ruling: Garcia went to the Office of the Register of Deeds on the same date, March indispensable, actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manners by
24,1955 and there found two documents of sale regarding the same parcel of the redemptioner, notwithstanding. He or she is still entitled to written notice, as
Yes. land. exacted by the Code, to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its
validity, and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. The law not
having provided for any alternative, the method of notifications remains
It is undisputed that no notification in writing was ever received by petitioners exclusive, though the Code does not prescribe any particular form of written
Petitioners filed the case for legal redemption with the trial court on May 7, 1955. notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of redemption.
about the sale of the hereditary interest of some of their co-heirs in the parcel of Respondents claim that the 30-day period prescribed in Article 1088 of the New
land they inherited from the late Gelacio Garcia, although in a letter dated June Civil Code for petitioners to exercise the right to legal redemption had already
23, 1953 petitioner Francisco Garcia wrote one of his co- heirs, Joaquin Garcia, elapsed at that time and that the requirement of Article 1088 of the New Civil
who is an uncle of petitioners, proposing to buy the hereditary interests of his co- Code that notice would be in writing is deemed satisfied because written notice
heirs in their unpartitioned inheritance. Although said petitioner asked that his would be superfluous, the purpose of the law having been fully served when
letter be answered "in order that I will know the results of what I have requested petitioner Francisco Garcia went to the Office of the Register of Deeds and saw
you," there is no proof that he was favored with one. for himself, read and understood the contents of the deeds of sale.

Petitioners came to know that their co-heirs were selling the property on The issue has been squarely settled in the case of Castillo v. Samonte, where
December 3, 1954 when one of the heirs, Juanito Bertomo, asked Petitioner Paz this Court observed:
Garcia to sign a document prepared in the Municipality of Tubungan because the
land they inherited was going to be sold to private respondent, Jose Calaliman.
The document mentioned by petitioner Paz Garcia could be no other than the
one entitled "Extra-Judicial Partition and Deed of Sale" dated December 3, 1954 Both the letter and spirit of the new Civil Code argue against any
as it is in this document that the name of Paz Garcia, Maria Garcia and Amado attempt to widen the scope of the notice specified in Article 1088 by
Garcia appear unsigned by them. including therein any other kind of notice, such as verbal or by
registration. If the intention of the law had been to include verbal
notice or any other means of information as sufficient to give the
effect of this notice, then there would have been no necessity or
It is not known whether the other heirs whose names appear in the document reasons to specify in Article 1088 of the New Civil Code that the said
had already signed the document at the time Paz Garcia was approached by notice be made in writing for, under the old law, a verbal notice or
Juanito Bertomo. Paz Garcia, however, testified that she immediately informed information was sufficient.
her brother Francisco that Juanita Bertomo wanted to sell the land to Jose
Calaliman. On December 26, 1954 he wrote respondents giving them notice of
his desire to exercise the right of legal redemption and that he will resort to court
action if denied the right. The respondents received the letter on January 13, In the above-quoted decision the Court did not consider the registration of the
1955 but petitioner Francisco Garcia did not get any answer from them. Neither deed of sale with the Register of Deeds sufficient notice, most specially because
did respondents show him a copy of the document of sale nor inform him about the property involved was unregistered land, as in the instant case. The Court
the price they paid for the sale when he went home to Tubungan from Manila took note of the fact that the registration of the deed of sale as sufficient notice of
a sale under the provision of Section 51 of Act No. 496 applies only to registered

145 | P a g e
By virtue of such agreements, the petitioners occupied, after the said sales, an
area corresponding to two-fifths of the said lot, representing the portions sold to
them. The vendees subsequently enclosed the same with a fence. In 1975, with Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
their consent, their son Eduardo Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be
CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO, petitioners, on a part of the enclosed area. subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the
price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month
vs. from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and TECLA PADUA, respondents. Mariano Padua, one of the five coheirs, sought to redeem the area sold to the
spouses Alonzo, but his complaint was dismissed when it appeared that he was
an American citizen. Tecla Padua, another co-heir, filed her own complaint Issue:

G.R. No. 72873 May 28, 1987 invoking the same right of redemption claimed by her brother.
Granting that the law requires the notice to be written, would such notice be
necessary in this case?

CRUZ, J.: The trial court also dismiss this complaint, now on the ground that the right had
lapsed, not having been exercised within thirty days from notice of the sales in
1963 and 1964. Although there was no written notice, it was held that actual Ruling:
knowledge of the sales by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law.
No.
Doctrine:While the general rule is that to charge a party with laches in the
assertion of an alleged right it is essential that he should have knowledge of the
facts upon which he bases his claim, yet if the circumstances were such as
should have induced inquiry, and the means of ascertaining the truth were Such actual notice as acquired by the co-heirs cannot be plausibly denied. The
In requiring written notice, Article 1088 seeks to ensure that the redemptioner is
readily available upon inquiry, but the party neglects to make it, he will be other co-heirs, including Tecla Padua, lived on the same lot, which consisted of
properly notified of the sale and to indicate the date of such notice as the starting
chargeable with laches, the same as if he had known the facts. only 604 square meters, including the portions sold to the petitioners . Eustaquia
time of the 30-day period of redemption. Considering the shortness of the period,
herself, who had sold her portion, was staying in the same house with her sister
it is really necessary, as a general rule, to pinpoint the precise date it is
Tecla, who later claimed redemption petition.
supposed to begin, to obviate any problem of alleged delays, sometimes
consisting of only a day or two.

Facts: It is highly improbable that the other co-heirs were unaware of the sales and that
they thought, as they alleged, that the area occupied by the petitioners had
The instant case presents no such problem because the right of redemption was
Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of land merely been mortgaged by Celestino and Eustaquia. In the circumstances just
invoked not days but years after the sales were made in 1963 and 1964. The
registered in the name of their deceased parents. narrated, it was impossible for Tecla not to know that the area occupied by the
complaint was filed by Tecla Padua in 1977, thirteen years after the first sale and
petitioners had been purchased by them from the other. co-heirs. Especially
fourteen years after the second sale. The delay invoked by the petitioners
significant was the erection thereon of the permanent semi-concrete structure by
extends to more than a decade, assuming of course that there was a valid notice
the petitioners' son, which was done without objection on her part or of any of
On March 15, 1963, one of them, Celestino Padua, transferred his undivided that tolled the running of the period of redemption.
the other co-heirs.
share of the herein petitioners for the sum of P550.00 by way of absolute sale.
One year later, on April 22, 1964, Eustaquia Padua, his sister, sold her own
share to the same vendees, in an instrument denominated "Con Pacto de Retro
Was there a valid notice? Granting that the law requires the notice to be written,
Sale," for the sum of P 440.00. The only real question in this case, therefore, is the correct interpretation and
would such notice be necessary in this case? Assuming there was a valid notice
application of the pertinent law as invoked, interestingly enough, by both the
although it was not in writing, would there be any question that the 30-day period
petitioners and private respondents. This is Article 1088 of the Civil Code,
for redemption had expired long before the complaint was filed in 1977?
providing as follows:

146 | P a g e
In the face of the established facts, we cannot accept the private respondents' object or at least inquire, to ascertain the facts, which were readily available. It
pretense that they were unaware of the sales made by their brother and sister in took all of thirteen years before one of them chose to claim the right of
1963 and 1964. By requiring written proof of such notice, we would be closing redemption, but then it was already too late.
our eyes to the obvious truth in favor of their palpably false claim of ignorance,
thus exalting the letter of the law over its purpose. The purpose is clear enough: CUIZON VS.REMOTO
to make sure that the redemptioners are duly notified. We are satisfied that in G.R. NO. 143027, OCTOBER 11, 2005
this case the other brothers and sisters were actually informed, although not in We realize that in arriving at our conclusion today, we are deviating from the
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
writing, of the sales made in 1963 and 1964, and that such notice was sufficient. strict letter of the law, which the respondent court understandably applied
pursuant to existing jurisprudence. The said court acted properly as it had no Case Digest by: Jose Darwin Trinidad
competence to reverse the doctrines laid down by this Court in the above-cited
cases. In fact, and this should be clearly stressed, we ourselves are not DOCTRINE:One can only sell what he has-Nemo dat quod non-habet
Now, when did the 30-day period of redemption begin? abandoning the De Conejero and Buttle doctrines. What we are doing is simply
adopting an exception to the general rule, in view of the peculiar circumstances FACTS:
A case for ownership of 4,300 sqmtrs land. In 1968, sold by Placida to
of this case. respondents,through a public document,however,unregistered.
While we do not here declare that this period started from the dates of such
In 1983, sold by the heirs of Placida, through extrajudicial settlement with
sales in 1963 and 1964, we do say that sometime between those years and sale to co heir, Encarnacion,registered,covered by a torrens title.
1976, when the first complaint for redemption was filed, the other co-heirs were The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the sales although no
actually informed of the sale and that thereafter the 30-day period started notice in writing was given them. And there is no doubt either that the 30-day ISSUE:
running and ultimately expired. This could have happened any time during the period began and ended during the 14 years between the sales in question and Who has a better right to the property?
interval of thirteen years, when none of the co-heirs made a move to redeem the the filing of the complaint for redemption in 1977, without the co-heirs exercising
properties sold. By 1977, in other words, when Tecla Padua filed her complaint, their right of redemption. These are the justifications for this exception. HELD:
The 1968 sale by Placida in favor of the respondent should prevail over the
the right of redemption had already been extinguished because the period for its
1983 extra judicial partition with sale,made by the petitioners.
exercise had already expired.
When Placida sold her 1/4 portion of the property,the 1983 extra judicial
settlement with sale was inexistent,and more importantly,such portion has yet to
be transferred by succession to Placida’s heirs.At the time this document was
The following doctrine is also worth noting: entered into by heirs of Placida,the latter was no longer the owner of the
property.One can only sell what he does have,or he owns,or is authorized to
sell,and the buyer can acquire no-better no more than what the seller can
transfer legally.Such being the case,the heirs of Placida did not acquire any right
While the general rule is that to charge a party with laches in the to adjudicate the property unto them,and sell to Encarnacion.
assertion of an alleged right it is essential that he should have
knowledge of the facts upon which he bases his claim, yet if the
circumstances were such as should have induced inquiry, and the
means of ascertaining the truth were readily available upon inquiry,
but the party neglects to make it, he will be chargeable with laches,
the same as if he had known the facts.

It was the perfectly natural thing for the co-heirs to wonder why the spouses
Alonzo, who were not among them, should enclose a portion of the inherited lot
and build thereon a house of strong materials. This definitely was not the act of a
temporary possessor or a mere mortgagee. This certainly looked like an act of
ownership. Yet, given this unseemly situation, none of the co-heirs saw fit to

147 | P a g e
1.Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has
been given no authority xxxxxxx,or has acted beyond his power. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. EDMUND SANTIBAÑEZ and
NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES vs. FLORENCE SANTIBAÑEZ ARIOLA
COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS FELIANO and ANUNCIACION FELIANO Accordingly,the contract of sale made as to the pro indiviso share of Rito was G.R. No. 149926, February 23, 2005
G.R. No. 162421, AUGUST 31, 2007 unenforceable.However,when he acknowledged receipt of proceeds from the CALLEJO, SR., J.:
PUNO, C.J.:
sale,petitioner effectively ratified it.The act of ratification rendered the sale Case Digest by: Jose Darwin Trinidad
Case Digest by: Jose Darwin Trinidad valid,and binding him.

DOCTRINE: Legal guardian has only plenary power of administration of minor’s DOCTRINE:In testate succession, there can be no valid partition among heirs
property. It does not include the power to alienate. until after the will had been probated. The law enjoins the probate of the will and
the public requires it,because unless the will is probated, and notice thereof
FACTS: given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will
may be rendered nugatory.
In 1964,Rufino died ,leaving his wife,Saturnina,6 children and a 5,714 square
meters of land. FACTS:

In 1971,brothers and co-owners,Bonifacio, Alberto and Albino sold the lot with On August 31,1980, First Credit Corp.(FCC) and Efraim Santibanez entered
right of repurchase within 8 years. into a loan agreement for the purchase of agricultural tractors,worth 128,000.

Alberto died in 1972,prior to expiration of redemption period,leaving his On December 13,1980,FCC and Efraim entered into second loan agreement
son,Nelson and wife. for the purchase of additional agricultural tractors.This was signed by Edmund
,one of the heir as co-maker.
Saturnina and other co-owners redeemed the lot in lieu of
Alberto.Subsequently,Saturnina and his other children sold the lot to Spouses Efraim died in 1981,leaving a holographic will.On March 1981,testate
Feliano,the shares of Nelson and Rito,who were minors that time were held in proceeding commenced.During its pendency,heirs executed a joint agreement to
trust by the vendee and will be paid upon reaching the age of majority. divide among themselves and take possession of 3 tractors,each to assume the
indebtedness of his father to FCC.

On August 1981,FCC assigned all its assets and liabilities to Union

ISSUE: Was the sale of Saturnina,a legal guardian of the property on behalf of
Bank.Demand letters for settlement were sent to the respondents,but
her minor children valid?
failed.Union Bank filed a complaint for sum of money against herein
respondent,but the latter claimed not bound by the loan agreement as being not
a party to the loan agreement,and the joint agreement she entered to,being not
HELD: NO approved by the probate court is void,hence,she is not liable to petitioner under
it.
The legal guardian has only plenary power of administration of the minors
property.It does not includes the power of alienation,which needs judicial ISSUE(S):
authority.Thus,when Saturnina, as legal guardian of the petitioner Rito sold the
1. Was the partition agreement executed by the heirs valid?
latter’s pro indiviso share in the subject land,she dd not have the authority to do
so.
2.Was the assumption of indebtedness of the deceased by the heirs valid?
Art.1403 of the Civil Code states:
3.Can the petitioner be held liable for the obligation of the deceased?
-The following contract are unenforceable unless ratified:

148 | P a g e
Held:

1. NO. There can be valid partition among heirs until after the will had been After knowing of such sale to petitioner, Gloria Vargas tried to redeem the
probated. The law enjoins the probate of the will and the public requires it, property.
JOSEPH CUA,
because, unless a will is probated, and notice thereof is given to the world, When the offer to redeem was refused, Gloria Vargas and her children filed a
the right of a person to dispose of his property by will maybe rendered vs. case for annulment of Extra Judicial Settlement and Legal Redemption of the lot
nugatory. with the MTC.
GLORIA A. VARGAS, AURORA VARGAS, RAMON VARGAS, MARITES
VARGAS, EDELINA VARGAS AND GEMMA VARGAS,
2. NO. The assumption of liability is conditioned upon the happening of an
event that is that each shall take possession and use of each respective
The MTC dismissed the complaint, declaring the Deed of Extra Judicial
share under the agreement. The partition being invalid, it follows that the
Settlement Among Heirs with Sale valid and binding.
assumption of liability can’t be given force and effect. G.R. No. 156536 October 31, 2006

3. NO. As the petitioner failed to file its money with the probate court, the
respondent, being not a party to the loan agreement cannot be The RTC affirmed the MTC decision.
AZCUNA, J.:
accountable to any liability incurred by his father. The most, the petitioner
could go after Edmund, as co-maker under the said promissory note. This
is in accordance to Sec.5,Rule 86,of the Revised Rule of Court, and the The CA reversed the ruling of both lower courts, declaring that the Extra Judicial
petitioner, purportedly a creditor of the decedent, should had filed its Settlement Among Heirs and the Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with
money claim with the probate court. Sale were void and without any legal effect.

Doctrine:
The CA held that, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, the
extrajudicial settlement made by the other co-heirs is not binding upon
Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, respondents considering the latter never participated in it nor did they ever
any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by signify their consent to the same.
reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of
one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. Petitioner argued among others, that the acquisition by petitioner of the subject
property subsequent to the extrajudicial partition was valid because the partition
was duly published. The publication of the same constitutes due notice to
respondents and signifies their implied acquiescence thereon. Respondents are
therefore estopped from denying the validity of the partition and sale at this late
stage. Considering that the partition was valid, respondents no longer have the
right to redeem the property.
Facts:

A parcel of residential land was left behind by the late Paulina Vargas. A
notarized Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs was executed by and among Issue:
the heirs, partitioning and adjudicating unto themselves the lot in question and
was published for 3 weeks.
Did the respondents lose their right to redeem the property? (NO)
An Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale was again executed by and
among the same heirs over the same property and also with the same sharings.
Only 5 of the 9 heirs signed the document and their respective shares were sold
to Joseph Cua, petitioner herein.

149 | P a g e
Held: quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. As a result, the party notified
need not entertain doubt that the seller may still contest the alienation.

No. The right to redeem was never lost because respondents were never notified
in writing of the actual sale by their co-heirs. Considering, therefore, that respondents' co-heirs failed to comply with this
requirement, there is no legal impediment to allowing respondents to redeem the
shares sold to petitioner given the former's obvious willingness and capacity to
do so.
Based on the provision, there is a need for written notice to start the period of
redemption, thus:

Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES: RICARDO TEVES v. CA
any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by
reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of
one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. 375 Phil. 96
(Emphasis supplied.)

[ GR No. 109963, Oct 13, 1999 ]

It bears emphasis that the period of one month shall be reckoned from the time
that a co-heir is notified in writing by the vendor of the actual sale. Written notice GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
is indispensable and mandatory, actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some
other manner by the redemptioner notwithstanding. It cannot be counted from
the time advance notice is given of an impending or contemplated sale. The law
gives the co-heir thirty days from the time written notice of the actual sale within
which to make up his or her mind and decide to repurchase or effect the Doctrine:
redemption.

The requirement that a partition be put in a public document and registered has
Though the Code does not prescribe any particular form of written notice nor any for its purpose the protection of creditors and at the same time the protection of
distinctive method for written notification of redemption, the method of the heirs themselves against tardy claims. The object of registration is to serve
notification remains exclusive, there being no alternative provided by law. as constructive notice to others.

This proceeds from the very purpose of Article 1088, which is to keep strangers
to the family out of a joint ownership, if, as is often the case, the presence of
outsiders be undesirable and the other heir or heirs be willing and in a position to Facts:
repurchase the share sold.

Spouses Marcelina Cimafranca and Joaquin Teves died intestate and without
It should be kept in mind that the obligation to serve written notice devolves upon debts
the vendor co-heirs because the latter are in the best position to know the other
in 1943 and 1953, respectively. During their lifetime, the spouses own two
co-owners who, under the law, must be notified of the sale. This will remove all
parcels of
uncertainty as to the fact of the sale, its terms and its perfection and validity, and
150 | P a g e
land registered in the name of Marcelina and another lot registered in the name Despite this, no explanation was offered by plaintiffs-appellants as to why they
of instituted the present action questioning the extrajudicial settlements only in
Yes. The extra-judicial settlements should be upheld 1984, which is more than 25 years after the assailed conveyance of Lot 769-A
Joaquin and his two sisters. and more than 10 years after the issuance of a transfer certificate of title over Lot
6409, both in favor of Asuncion Teves. Such tardiness indubitably constitutes
An extrajudicial settlement is a contract and it is a well-entrenched doctrine that laches, which is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
However, Joaquin’s sisters died without issue, causing the entire property to the law does not relieve a party from the effects of a contract, entered into with time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
pass to him. After Marcelina and Joaquin died, their children executed all the required formalities and with full awareness of what he was doing, simply abandoned it or declined to assert it.
extrajudicial settlements purporting to adjudicate unto themselves the because the contract turned out to be a foolish or unwise investment.

ownership over the two parcels of land and to alienate their shares thereto in
Thus, even assuming that plaintiffs-appellants had a defensible cause of action,
favor of their sister Asuncion Teves for a consideration.
Therefore, although plaintiffs-appellants may regret having alienated their they are barred from pursuing the same by reason of their long and inexcusable
hereditary shares in favor of their sister Asuncion, they must now be considered inaction.
bound by their own contractual acts. The subject extrajudicial settlements were
The division of the subject lot was embodied in two deeds. The first Deed of CRISTINA F. REILLO, LEONOR F. PUSO, ADELIA F. ROCAMORA,
never registered.
Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale was entered into on June 13, 1956 while the SOFRONIO S.J. FERNANDO, EFREN S.J. FERNANDO, ZOSIMO S.J.
second deed was executed on April 21, 1959. FERNANDO, JR., and MA. TERESA F. PIÑON,

However, in the case of Vda. de Reyes vs. CA, the Court, interpreting Section 1
of Rule 74 of the Rules of
The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and sale was executed on December 14, v.
1971. After Court, upheld the validity of an oral partition of the decedent’s estate and
declared that
the death of Asuncion Teves, her children, private respondents, extrajudicially
GALICANO E.S. SAN JOSE, represented by his Attorneys-in-Fact, ANNALISA
settled the non-registration of an extrajudicial settlement does not affect its intrinsic
S.J. RUIZ and RODELIO S. SAN JOSE, VICTORIA S.J. REDONGO, CATALINA
validity.
her property, adjudicating unto themselves said lots. S.J. DEL ROSARIO and MARIBETH S.J. CORTEZ, collectively known as the
HEIRS OF QUITERIO SAN JOSE and ANTONINA ESPIRITU SANTO,

It was held in this case that the requirement that a partition be put in a public
On May 9, 1984, herein petitioners, heirs of Marcelina and Joaquin, filed a document and registered has for its purpose the protection of creditors and at
[G.R. NO. 166393 : June 18, 2009]
the same time the protection of the heirs themselves against tardy claims. The
complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental against private
object of registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. Thus, despite
respondents for the partition and reconveyance of the aforesaid parcels of land, its non-registration, the extrajudicial settlements are legally effective and binding
alleging that the extrajudicial settlements were spurious. among the heirs of Marcelina Cimafranca since their mother had no creditors at PERALTA, J
the time of her death.

Doctrine:
Thus, despite its non-registration, the extrajudicial settlements involving Lot 769-
Issue: A are legally effective and binding among the heirs of Marcelina Cimafranca
since their mother had no creditors at the time of her death.
When the subject document and the corresponding title were canceled, the
logical consequence is that the property in dispute, which was the subject of the
Should the extrajudicial settlements be upheld? extrajudicial settlement, reverted back to the estate of its original owners. It is a
Except for the portion of Lot 769-A occupied by Ricardo Teves, both parcels of basic rule that any act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-
land have been and continue to be in the possession of Asuncion Teves and her heirs or co-owners is deemed to be a partition.
successors-in-interest.

Held:
151 | P a g e
Facts: Did the subject property of the extrajudicial settlement revert back to the estate
of the original owners? (YES)

Spouses Quiterio San Jose (Quiterio) and Antonina Espiritu Santo (Antonina)
were the original registered owners of a parcel of land located in E. Rodriguez Held:
Sr. Avenue, Teresa, Rizal covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
458396 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. The said parcel of land is now
registered in the name of Ma. Teresa F. Piñon (Teresa) under TCT No. M-
Yes. Considering that the subject document and the corresponding title were
94400.
canceled, the logical consequence is that the property in dispute, which was the
subject of the extrajudicial settlement, reverted back to the estate of its original
owners, the deceased spouses Quiterio and Antonina San Jose.
Quiterio and Antonina had five children, namely, Virginia, Virgilio, Galicano,
Victoria and Catalina. Antonina died on July 1, 1970, while Quiterio died on
October 19, 1976. REBECCA VIADO NON, JOSE A. NON and DELIA VIADO,
Since, it was admitted that all the parties to the instant suit are legal heirs of the
deceased spouses, they owned the subject property in common. vs.

Virginia and Virgilio are also now deceased. Virginia was survived by her THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ALICIA N. VIADO, CHERRI VIADO
husband Zosimo Fernando, Sr. (Zosimo Sr.) and their seven children, while and FE FIDES VIADO,
It is a basic rule that any act which is intended to put an end to indivision among
Virgilio was survived by his wife Julita Gonzales and children, among whom is
co-heirs or co-owners is deemed to be a partition.
Maribeth S.J. Cortez (Maribeth).
G.R. No. 137287 February 15, 2000
Therefore, there was no reversible error committed by the trial court in ordering
On October 26, 1999, Galicano, represented by his children and attorneys-in-
the partition of the subject property.
fact, Annalisa S.J. Ruiz and Rodegelio San Jose, Victoria, Catalina, and VITUG, J.:
Maribeth (respondents) filed with the RTC a Complaint for annulment of title,
annulment of deed of extra-judicial settlement, partition and damages.
The court finds nothing wrong with such ruling considering that the trial court
ordered the partition of the subject property in accordance with the rules on Doctrine:
intestate succession.

Petitioners filed an answer denying that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Every act intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or
Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights which was the basis of the issuance The trial court found the property to be originally owned by the deceased devisees would be a partition although it would purport to be a sale, an
of TCT No. M-94400, was falsified and that the settlement was made and spouses Quiterio and Antonina San Jose and, in the absence of a will left by the exchange, a compromise, a donation or an extrajudicial settlement.
implemented in accordance with law. They admitted that the deceased spouses deceased spouses, it must be partitioned in accordance with the rules on
Quiterio and Antonina had five children; that the subject property was not the intestate succession.
only property of spouses Quiterio and Antonina and submitted in their counter-
petition for partition the list of the other 12 parcels of land of the deceased
spouses Quiterio and Antonina that petitioners alleged are in respondents' Facts:
possession and control.

Spouses Julian and Virginia Viado owned several pieces of property, among
them was the disputed property. Virginia died on 20 October 1982. Julian C.
Viado died three years later on 15 November 1985.
Issue:
152 | P a g e
The asseveration of petitioner Rebecca Viado that she has signed the deed of
extrajudicial settlement on the mistaken belief that the instrument merely
Petitioners and respondents shared, since 1977, a common residence at the The CA affirmed with modification by ordering the remand of the records of the pertained to the administration of the property is too tenuous to accept. It is also
Isarog property. However, tension would appear to have escalated between case to the court a quo for further proceedings to determine the value of the quite difficult to believe that Rebecca Viado, a teacher by profession, could have
petitioner Rebecca Viado and respondent Alicia Viado (wife of Nilo Viado) after property and the amount respondents should pay to petitioner Delia for having misunderstood the tenor of the assailed document.
the former had asked that the property be equally divided between the two been preterited in the deed of extrajudicial settlement.
families.

The fact alone that the two deeds were registered five years after the date of
their execution did not adversely affect their validity nor would such circumstance
Respondents, forthwith, claimed absolute ownership over the entire property and alone be indicative of fraud. The registration of the documents was a ministerial
demanded that petitioners vacate the portion occupied by the latter. Hence, Issue:
actand merely created a constructive notice of its contents against all third
petitioners, asserting co-ownership over the property in question, filed a case for persons.6 Among the parties, the instruments remained completely valid and
partition before the RTC. binding.
Should the partition be rescinded due to the preterition of Delia as an heir? (NO)

Respondents predicated their claim of absolute ownership over the subject The exclusion of petitioner Delia Viado, alleged to be a retardate, from the deed
property on two documents — a deed of donation executed by the late Julian Held: of extrajudicial settlement verily has had the effect of preterition. This kind of
covering his one-half conjugal share of the Isarog property in favor of Nilo and a preterition, however, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith, does not
deed of extrajudicial settlement in which Julian Viado, Leah Viado Jacobs and justify a collateral attack on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 373646. The relief,
petitioner Rebecca waived in favor of Nilo their rights and interests over their as so correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, instead rests on Article 1104
NO. The exclusion of petitioner Delia, alleged to be a retardate, from the deed of
share of the property inherited from Virginia. of the Civil Code to the effect that where the preterition is not attended by bad
extrajudicial settlement verily has had the effect of preterition.
faith and fraud, the partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be
paid the value of the share pertaining to her.
Both instruments were executed on 26 August 1983 and registered on 07
In debunking the continued existence of a co-ownership among the parties
January 1988 by virtue of which TCT No.373646 was issued to the heirs of Nilo
hereto, respondents rely on the deed of donation and deed of extrajudicial
Viado.
settlement which consolidated the title solely to Nilo Viado. Petitioners assail the
due execution of the documents on the grounds heretofore expressed.

Petitioners, in their action for partition, attacked the validity of the foregoing
instruments, contending that the late Nilo employed forgery and undue influence
Unfortunately for petitioners, the issues they have raised boil down to the
to coerce Julian to execute the deed of donation.
appreciation of the evidence, a matter that has been resolved by both the trial
court and the appellate court. The Court of Appeals, in sustaining the court a
quo, has found the evidence submitted by petitioners to be utterly wanting,
Petitioner Rebecca, in her particular case, averred that her brother Nilo consisting of, by and large, self-serving testimonies.
employed fraud to procure her signature to the deed of extrajudicial settlement.
She added that the exclusion of her retardate sister, Delia, in the extrajudicial
settlement, resulted in the latter’s preterition that should warrant its annulment.
While asserting that Nilo Viado employed fraud, forgery and undue influence in
Finally, petitioners asseverated that the assailed instruments, although executed
procuring the signatures of the parties to the deeds of donation and of
on 23 August 1983, were registered only five years later, on 07 January 1988,
extrajudicial settlement, petitioners are vague, however, on how and in what
when the three parties thereto, namely, Julian, Nilo and Leah had already died.
manner those supposed vices occurred. Neither have petitioners shown proof
why Julian Viado should be held incapable of exercising sufficient judgment in
ceding his rights and interest over the property to Nilo Viado.
The RTC then found for respondents and adjudged Alicia Viado and her children
as being the true owners of the disputed property.

153 | P a g e
The extra-judicial partition was valid but was null and void as to private respondents, however, claimed to be null and void for being simulated
Rodolfo. and fraudulently obtained. 

Art. 1105 of the New Civil Code provides, a partition which includes a ISSUE:
person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to Whether the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale was
such person. null and void

In this case, petitioner Rodolfo is not a child by nature of the spouses RULING:
Fernandez and not a legal heir of Dr. Jose Fernandez. Also, various supporting No, the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale was valid.
documents presented by Rodolfo did not suffice to prove its filiation to the
spouses Fernandez. Article 1105 is in point; it provides: A partition which includes a
person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to
Therefore, the subject deed of extra-judicial settlement of the estate such person. In other words, the participation of non-heirs does not render the
of Dr. Jose Fernandez between Generosavda.de Fernandez and Rodolfo is null partition void in its entirety but only to the extent corresponding to them.
and void insofar as Rodolfo is concerned.
In this case, among the allegations of the private respondents was
that two persons who participated in the extrajudicial partition and were made
parties thereto were not heirs of Crisanta. This claim, even if true, would not
warrant rescission of the deed.
FERNANDEZ VS FERNANDEZ
AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY VS COURT OF APPEALS Therefore, the extrajudicial partition remains valid.
G.R. No. 143256, 363 SCRA 811, August 28, 2001
G.R. No. 128102, March 7, 2000
GONZAGA-REYES, J.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.

DOCTRINE: Intrusion of a Stranger in the Partition.

DOCTRINE: Intrusion of a Stranger in the Partition

FACTS:
FACTS:
In this case, the late Spouses Dr. Jose K. Fernandez, and Generosa Petitioner Aznar Brothers Realty Co. (hereafter AZNAR) in this case
A. de Venecia were the registered owners of the subject land in question. The allegedly purchased the subject lot in this case from the heirs of
late Spouses being childless by the death of their son, purchased a one (1) CrisantaMaloloy-on by virtue of an Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with
month baby boy. The boy being referred to was later on identified as Rodolfo Deed of Absolute Sale.
Fernandez, the herein appellant. Appellant was taken care of by the couple and
was sent to school and became a dental technician. He lived with the couple
until they became old and disabled. On the other hand, the private respondents alleged that they are the
successors and descendants of the eight children of the late CrisantaMaloloy-
on, whose names appear as the registered owners in the Original Certificate of
The issue arose when Jose Fernandez died leaving an estate which Title.
was divided by Generosa and Rodolfo through an extra-judicial partition among
themselves. The heirs of Jose Fernandez constituting his nephews, nieces, and
siblings filed a complaint for declaring the extra-judicial partition void by alleging The MTC ruled in favor of AZNAR on the ground that, private
that without basis of heirship or any iota of rights to succession or inheritance respondents' allegation that two of the signatories were not heirs of the
had caused an extra-judicial partition and were able to secure new land titles to registered owners; that some of the signatories were already dead at the date of
their disadvantage. the execution of the deed; and that many heirs were not parties to the
extrajudicial partition is a form of a negative pregnant, which had the effect of
admitting that the vendors, except those mentioned in the specific denial, were
ISSUE: heirs and had the legal right to sell the subject land to petitioner. This decision
Whether the extra-judicial partition executed by Generosa A. de was affirmed by the RTC.
Venecia and Rodolfo V. Fernandez were valid and binding?
CA however reversed the decision as there was no evidence that
RULING: petitioner was ever in possession of the property. Its claim of ownership was
based only on an Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale, which

154 | P a g e
RULING:
That this petition must fail is a foregone conclusion. ModestaGabuya,
not having been acknowledged in the manner provided by law by her mother,
Nicolasa, was not entitled to succeed the latter. The extrajudicial settlement of
the estate of EvaristoGabuya is, therefore, null and void insofar as
ModestaGabuya is concerned per Article 1105 of the New Civil Code which
states: "A partition which includes a person believed to be an heir, but who is
not, shall be void only with respect to such person." Since the ownership of the
one-half [1/2] pro indiviso portion of Lot No. 3597 never passed on to
ModestaGabuya, it follows that the sale thereof to petitioners-spouses Elias and
Eustiquia Mendoza is likewise null and void.
LANDAYAN VS BACANI
G.R. No. L-30455, September 30, 1982
In the case at bar, the only document presented by ModestaGabuya
VASQUEZ, J.
to prove that she was recognized by her mother was the certificate of birth and
baptism signed by Rev. Fr. FilomenoSingson, Assistant Parish Priest of Pardo,
Cebu City, stating therein that ModestaGabuya is an illegitimate daughter of DOCTRINE: Intrusion of a Stranger in the Partition
MENDOZA VS INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURT NicolasaGabuya. 10 However, Philippine jurisprudence is consistent and
G.R. No. L-63132, July 30, 1987 uniform in ruling that the canonical certificate of baptism is not sufficient to prove FACTS:
FERNAN, J. recognition. TeodoroAbenojar died intestate, leaving parcels of land. Maxima
Andrada, the surviving spouse of TeodoroAbenojar, and SeverinoAbenojar,
DOCTRINE: Intrusion of a Stranger in the Partition executed a public document, entitled “Extra-Judicial Agreement of Partition”
whereby they adjudicated between themselves the properties left by
TeodoroAbenojar. SeverinoAbenojar represented himself in said document as
FACTS: “the only forced heir and descendant” of the late TeodoroAbenojar. 
In this case, Buenaventura, Nicolasa and Teresa, all surnamed
Gabuya, are the legitimate children of the spouses EvaristoGabuya and Susana
Petitioners herein filed a complaint in the CFI of Pangasinan presided
Sabandija, who died intestate many years ago, that both Nicolasa and Teresa
over by the respondent Judge seeking a judicial declaration that they are legal
died single, and that ModestaGabuya was the illegitimate daughter of Nicolasa.
heirs of the deceased TeodoroAbenojar. They alleged that they are the
legitimate children of GuillermaAbenojar, then already deceased, who was the
That there was a chance thatModestaGabuya and Elias S. Mendoza only child of Teodoro Abenojar with his first wife named Florencia Bautista; and
together with Buenaventura went to the Cebu Capitol Building andsigned a that while TeodoroAbenojar contracted a second marriage with AnteraMandap
document, acknowledged before Atty. Salvador B. Mendoza for a supposed to and a third with private respondent Maxima Andrada, he did not have any
be reconstitution of title but it turned out to be an Extra-judicial settlement of the offspring in any of the said second and third marriages. They aver that private
Estate of EvaristoGabuya whereby Buenaventura and Modesta appear to have respondent SeverinoAbenojar is an illegitimate son of GuillermaAbenojar. They
divided and partitioned between themselves pro indiviso and share and share accordingly pray that they be declared as among the legal heirs of the deceased
alike [1/2 each]. TeodoroAbenojar entitled to share in his estate.

Prior to the institution of the extra-judicial settlement, a Deed of Private respondents, on the other hand, have alleged in their
Absolute Sale was executed by ModestaGabuya in favor of the spouses Atty. pleadings that TeodoroAbenojar married only once, and that was with private
and Mrs. Elias S. Mendoza covering her alleged one-half [1/2] undivided share. respondent Maxima Andrada. They claimed that private respondent
That when Atty. Elias S. Mendoza and ModestaGabuya have respectively asked SeverinoAbenojar is an acknowledged natural child of TeodoroAbenojar with
from Buenaventura Gabuya the partition of the lots which they are co-owners of Florencia Bautista. They disclaimed the allegation of the petitioners that their
the undivided one-half [1/2] portions, Buenaventura refused to do so claiming mother GuillermaAbenojar was a legitimate daughter of TeodoroAbenojar and
that ModestaGabuya is not entitled to inherit from the estate of his late father Florencia Bautista, the truth being allegedly that GuillermaAbenojar, the mother
EvaristoGabuya. of the Landayans, was TeodoroAbenojar's spurious child with AnteraMandap
who was then married to another man.
ISSUE:
Whether ModestaGabuya is entitled to the undivided one-half [1/2] ISSUE:
portions of the estate of EvarustoGabuya

155 | P a g e
Whetherthe extra judicial partition executed by TeodoroAbenojar and
SeverinoAbenojar is valid

RULING:
Art. 1105 of the New Civil Code provides that, a partition which
includes a person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with
respect to such person.

Applying the rule in this case, the right of SeverinoAbenojar to be

considered a legal heir of TeodoroAbenojar depends on the truth of his
allegations that he is not an illegitimate child of GuillermaAbenojar, but an
acknowledged natural child of TeodoroAbenojar. On this assumption, his right to
inherit from TeodoroAbenojar is recognized by law. He even claims that he is
the sole legal heir of TeodoroAbenojar inasmuch as the petitioners Landayans,
who are admittedly the children of the deceased GuillermaAbenojar, have no
legal successional rights from TeodoroAbenojar, their mother being a spurious
child of TeodoroAbenojar.

Should the petitioners be able to substantiate their contention that

Severino Abenojar is an illegitimate son of GuillermaAbenojar, he is not a legal
heir of Teodoro Abenojar. The right of representation is denied by law to an
illegitimate child who is disqualified to inherit abintestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of Msfather. On this supposition, the subject deed of
extra- judicial partition is one that included a person who is not an heir of the
descendant whose estate is being partitioned.

Therefore, the respondent Judge is ordered to try the case on the

merits and render the corresponding judgment thereon.

156 | P a g e