FRANCISCA ALSUA-BETTS, JOSEPH O. BETTS, JOSE MADARETA, ESTEBAN P.

RAMIREZ AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS (ALBAY), PETITIONERS

V.

COURT OF APPEALS, AMPARO ALSUA BUENVIAJE, FERNANDO BUENVIAKE,

FERNANDO ALSUA, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN, CLOTILDE S. ALSUA AND
PABLO ALSUA, RESPONDENTS.
GR nos. L-46430-31 July 30, 1979
Guerrero, J.
-

On November 25, 1949, Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Doa Florentina Rella, both of Ligao,
Albay, together with all their living children, Francisca Alsua-Betts, Pablo Alsua, Fernando Alsua
thru this judicial guardian Clotilde Samson, and Amparo Alsua de Buenviaje, entered into a duly
notarized agreement, Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial , over the then present and
existing properties of the spouses Don Jesus and Doa Florentina.
o

of the total properties of the spouses were partitioned between the 4 children
(roughly equally). That the other half, which the spouses hold will belong to the
surviving spouse and the heirs (the children) waive their claim over the said against
the surviving spouse in the event one of the spouses died (ito yung pagkakaintindi ko)

On Jan. 5, 1955, Don Jesus and Doa Florentina, also known as Doa Tinay separately executed
their respective holographic wills, the provisions of which were in conformity and in
implementation of the extrajudicial partition of Nov. 25, 1949. Also any future acquisitions of
property will be divided the same way (1/2 to the children equally, to the surviving spouse).
They filed petitions for the probate of their respective holographic wills.

On Aug.14, 1956, the spouses Don Jesus and Doa Tinay executed their mutual and reciprocal
codicils amending and supplementing their respective holographic wills. On Feb. 19, 1957, their
respective holographic wins and the codicils thereto were duly admitted to probate. It reflected
the agreed partition before but added that should one spouse be the surviving spouse,
whatever belongs to hi or her or would pertain to him or her, would be divided equally
among the four children (after death). It was also added that the surviving spouse
would be the executor or administrator of all the properties reserved for themselves

Doa Tinay died in October 1959. In early Nov. 1959, Don Jesus cancelled his holographic
and instructed his attorney to draft a new will. This subsequent last Will and Testament
of Don Jesus executed on Nov. 14, 1959 contained 3 essential features
o

an express revocation of his holographic will of Jan. 5, 1955 and the codicil of
Aug.14, 1956;

a statement requiring that all of his properties donated to his children in the Deed of
1949 be collated and taken into account in the partition of his estate;

the institution of all his children as devisees and legatees to certain specific properties;
a statement bequeathing the rest of his properties and all that may be acquired in the
future, before his death, to Pablo and Francesca; and a statement naming Francesca as
executrix without bond.

Don Jesus Alsua died in 1964. Petitioner Francisca Alsua Betts, as the executrix named in
the new will, filed a petition for the probate of said new will of Don Jesus Alsua.

Pablo, Amparo and Fernando opposed on the ff grounds

o

Don Jesus was not of sound and dispoing mind at the time of the execution of the
alleged will

Will was executed under duress or influence of fear or threats; or procured by undue
and improper pressure and influence on the part of the main beneficiaries; or signature
of Don Jesus was secure by or through fraud

That the will was not executed according to the formal requirements of the law and

Alleged will contravened the extrajudicial partition agreed upon by the family, the
holographic will and codicil of Don Jesus. Allegedly, the 1949 partition was already
partially executed

CFI allowed the probate of the will of Don Jesus Alsua despite the argument of the oppositors
that some of the properties were not included to which Alsua-Betts answered by saying that
these were sold to her by their father. CA reversed: denied the probate of the will, declared null
and void the two sales subject of the complaint and ordered the defendants-petitioners, to pay
damages to the plaintiffs-private respondents. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/s:
1. WON the oppositors were estopped from questioning the competence of Don Jesus
Alsua. NO
2. WON CA erred in denying the probate of the will. YES
1. Although the court held that this issue was of no moment, it clarified that estoppel is not applicable
in probate proceedings. Probate proceedings involve public policy and applying estoppel when it will
block the ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances of the execution of the testament would
be inimical to public policy.
2.
-

Art. 839 provide the instances where a will may be disallowed. The CA affirmed the
findings of the CFI that the new will complied with the requirements of Arts. 804-806 CC. But
CA denied the probate of the will after noting certain details which were a little bit difficult to
reconcile with the ordinary course of things and of life. CA held that the partiion of 1949 was
an enforceable contract which was binding on Don Jesus. Said contract barred him from
violating the partition agreement, barring him from revoking his will, and further barring him
from executing his new will.

SC: the extrajudicial partition of 1949 was null and void under article 1056 1 in relation to
12712 of the old civil code which are applicable. 1056 refers to a testator or one who has
already made a will and such testator is given the privilege of partitioning ones estate
by acts inter vivos3, 1056 being an exception cannot include in the exception any
person whether he has made a will or not. Otherwise a partition by acts inter vivos
would be tantamount to making a will which does not subscribe to the forms

CA cited the same article but held that one can partition his properties by acts inter
vivos, even before the execution of the will as long as the fact is mentioned in the will. It
also cited Legasto v. Verzosa to prove its point but the SC does not agree with this.

In fact, in Legasto v. Verzosa, the SC categorically declared the necessity of a prior will
before the testator can partition his properties by acts inter vivos among his heirs. The

Art. 1056. If the testator should make a partition of his property by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition
shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs. ...
2

Art. 1271. All things, even future ones, which are not excluded from the commerce of man, may be the subjectmatter of contracts.
Nevertheless, no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritances, except those the object of
which is to make a division inter vivos of an estate, in accordance with Article 1056.
All services not contrary to law or to good morals may also be the subject- matter of contract.
3

This is important for a later topic (partition and distribution by will or by inter vivos)

supreme court of Spain and Manresa are of the same opinion with this interpretation of
1056. A person who disposes of his property gratis 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 property in life and one who disposes of it by will to
take effect after his death.
o

The partition was not ratified by the execution of the will as how the CA ruled. CA erred
in denying the probate of the will just because of the partition which according to it
bound Don Jesus; it was void as a partition and unenforceable because it involved future
inheritance. It was only valid as a donation inter vivos of specific properties to
the heirs made by their parents.

The court found that there was substantial compliance with the rules on donations inter vivos
under the old civil code in relation to the 1949 donation. But the other half remained as the
free portion of the spouses and no valid donation to the children of this other half.

When Tinay died, her free portion was distributed in accordance with her holographic will and
codicil. Her children werent instituted as heirs to this free portion since the holographic will (as
well as the codicil)only mentioned that should she acquire more properties then the new
properties would be divided 50/50, one half to the children, the other to her husband. This
partition does not apply to the free portion reserved by the spouses for themselves. Also the
court held that Don Jesus was not bound to partition this free portion bequeathed to him by his
wife equally between the children.

In fact, the court also held that he was not bound by his holographic will and codicil forever. It
would remain revocable. Art. 828 provides that the testator can revoke the will at any time
before his death even if the previous will had already been probated.
o

Probate only authenticates the will and does not pass upon the efficacy of the
dispositions in it

The rights to the succession are transmitted only from the moment of death.

Examining the provisions of the will, the court found that those properties distributed under the
deed of 49 were not included in the distribution under the new will of Don Jesus. What he was
redistributing was his remaining estate or that portion of the conjugal assets left to his free
disposal. The court cant do about the motives and sentiments of Don Jesus in favoring
Francesca more than his other children.

The CA in denying the probate considered that Don Juan might have had diminished mental
faculties during the execution of the new will and the administration of the properties had been
left to his assistant who received instructions from Alsua-Betts and husband.

SC disagreed with this since under Art. 799 mere weakness of the mind during the
making of the will (which is the time that should be the basis for measuring the mental
capacity of the testator) does not render a person incapable of making a will.

Also sound mind is presumed under Art. 800 until there is proof to the contrary (which
was absent in this case)

In fact it was Don Jesus himself who gave detailed instructions to his lawyer as to how
he wanted to divide his properties; that the semi final draft was even corrected by Don
Jesus; that on the day of the signing, Don Jesus even engaged in conversation about
farming and French-made wines; and that on the day of the signing of the will, he
himself disclosed to the witnesses why they were meeting

The CA also used as basis for denying probate details which were a little bit difficult to
reconcile with the ordinary course of things and of life
o

It appeared that he had no intention to probate the new will

That it was redundant to sell to Francisca the properties which were already bequeathed
to her in the new will

o
-

And that they cant find any reason why Don Jesus would favor Francisca (echoserang
CA)

SC: These circumstances do not warrant or justify disallowance of the probate of the will of Don
Jesus.
o

The law does not require that a will be probated during the lifetime of the testator and
for not doing so there cannot arise any favorable or unfavorable consequence therefrom

Parties cannot correctly guess or surmise the motives of the testator and neither can
the courts. Same can be said on the sale of properties to Francisca

There was a discussion on the annulment of the sale between Francisco And Don Jesus. SC
found that the declaration of nullity by the CA was not supported by evidence. No forgery,
fraud, force or threat. The consideration was paid. The alleged inadequacy of the consideration
does not vitiate a contract unless it is proven which in this case was not.

Decision Appealed from SET ASIDE. CFI ruling REINSTATED.

Justin Benedict A. Moreto