Succession Digests Balane

ClVlL LAW REVlEW (ATTY.
RUBEN BALANE)
ARTICLES 774/776
Union Bank v. Santibanez
452 SCRA 228 | Abu
FACTS:
On May 31, 1980, the Frst Countrysde Credt Corporaton
(FCCC) and Efram Santbaez entered nto a oan agreement n the
amount of P128,000.00. The amount was ntended for the payment
of one (1) unt Ford 6600 Agrcutura Tractor. In vew thereof,
Efram and hs son, Edmund, executed a promssory note n favor of
the FCCC, the prncpa sum payabe n fve equa annua
amortzatons. On Dec. 1980, FCCC and Efram entered nto another
oan agreement for the payment of another unt of Ford 6600 and
one unt of a Rotamotor. Agan, Efram and Edmund executed a
promssory note and a Contnung Guaranty Agreement for the ater
oan. In 1981, Efram ded, eavng a hoographc w. Testate
proceedngs commenced before the RTC of Ioo Cty. Edmund was
apponted as the speca admnstrator of the estate. Durng the
pendency of the testate proceedngs, the survvng hers, Edmund
and hs sster Forence, executed a |ont Agreement, wheren they
agreed to dvde between themseves and take possesson of the
three (3) tractors: (2) tractors for Edmund and (1) for Forence.
Each of them was to assume the ndebtedness of ther ate father
to FCCC, correspondng to the tractor respectvey taken by them.
In the meantme, a Deed of Assgnment wth Assumpton of
Labtes was executed by and between FCCC and Unon Bank,
wheren the FCCC assgned a ts assets and abtes to Unon
Bank.
Demand etters were sent by Unon Bank to Edmund, but
the atter refused to pay. Thus, on February 5, 1988, Unon Bank
fed a Compant for sum of money aganst the hers of Efram
Santbaez, Edmund and Forence, before the RTC of Makat Cty.
Summonses were ssued aganst both, but the one ntended for
Edmund was not served snce he was n the Unted States and
there was no nformaton on hs address or the date of hs return to
the Phppnes. Forence fed her Answer and aeged that the oan
documents dd not bnd her snce she was not a party thereto.
Consderng that the |ont agreement sgned by her and her brother
Edmund was not approved by the probate court, t was nu and
vod; hence, she was not abe to Unon Bank under the |ont
agreement.
Unon Bank asserts that the obgaton of the deceased had
passed to hs egtmate hers (Edmund and Forence) as provded
n Artce 774 of the Cv Code; and that the uncondtona sgnng
of the |ont agreement estopped Forence, and that she cannot
deny her abty under the sad document.
In her comment to the petton, Forence mantans that
Unon Bank s tryng to recover a sum of money from the deceased
Efram Santbaez; thus the cam shoud have been fed wth the
probate court. She ponts out that at the tme of the executon of
the |ont agreement there was aready an exstng probate
proceedngs. She asserts that even f the agreement was
vountary executed by her and her brother Edmund, t shoud st
have been sub|ected to the approva of the court as t may
pre|udce the estate, the hers or thrd partes.
ISSUE:
W/N the cam of Unon Bank shoud have been fed wth the
probate court before whch the testate estate of the ate Efram
Santbaez was pendng. W/N the agreement between Edmund and
Forence (whch was n effect, a partton of hte estate) was vod
consderng that t had not been approved by the probate court.
W/N there can be a vad partton among the hers before the w s
probated.
HELD:
We-setted s the rue that a probate court has the
|ursdcton to determne a the propertes of the deceased, to
determne whether they shoud or shoud not be ncuded n the
nventory or st of propertes to be admnstered. The sad court s
prmary concerned wth the admnstraton, qudaton and
dstrbuton of the estate.
In our |ursdcton, the rue s that there can be no vad
partton among the hers unt after the w has been probated. In
the present case, Efram eft a hoographc w whch contaned the
provson whch reads as foows:
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 1
ClVlL LAW REVlEW (ATTY. RUBEN BALANE)
(e) A other propertes, rea or persona, whch I own and
may be dscovered ater after my demse, sha be
dstrbuted n the proporton ndcated n the mmedatey
precedng paragraph n favor of Edmund and Forence, my
chdren.
The above-quoted s an a-encompassng provson
embracng a the propertes eft by the decedent whch mght have
escaped hs mnd at that tme he was makng hs w, and other
propertes he may acqure thereafter. Incuded theren are the
three (3) sub|ect tractors. Ths beng so, any partton nvovng the
sad tractors among the hers s not vad. The |ont agreement
executed by Edmund and Forence, parttonng the tractors among
themseves, s nvad, specay so snce at the tme of ts
executon, there was aready a pendng proceedng for the probate
of ther ate fathers hoographc w coverng the sad tractors.
The Court notes that the oan was contracted by the
decedent. The bank, purportedy a credtor of the ate Efram
Santbaez, shoud have thus fed ts money cam wth the probate
court n accordance wth Secton 5, Rue 86 of the Revsed Rues of
Court.
The fng of a money cam aganst the decedents estate n
the probate court s mandatory. Ths requrement s for the purpose
of protectng the estate of the deceased by nformng the executor
or admnstrator of the cams aganst t, thus enabng hm to
examne each cam and to determne whether t s a proper one
whch shoud be aowed. The pan and obvous desgn of the rue s
the speedy settement of the affars of the deceased and the eary
devery of the property to the dstrbutees, egatees, or hers.
Perusng the records of the case, nothng theren coud hod
Forence accountabe for any abty ncurred by her ate father.
The documentary evdence presented, partcuary the promssory
notes and the contnung guaranty agreement, were executed and
sgned ony by the ate Efram Santbaez and hs son Edmund. As
the pettoner faed to fe ts money cam wth the probate court,
at most, t may ony go after Edmund as co-maker of the decedent
under the sad promssory notes and contnung guaranty.
ARTICLE 77
Uson v. Del Rosario
92:530| Andres
FACTS:
Ths s an acton for recovery of the ownershp and
possesson of fve (5) parces of and n Pangasnan, fed by Mara
Uson aganst Mara de Rosaro and her four egt chdren. Mara
Uson was the awfu wfe of Faustno Nebreda who upon hs death
n 1945 eft the ands nvoved n ths tgaton. Faustno Nebreda
eft no other her except hs wdow Mara Uson. However, pantff
cams that when Faustno Nebreda ded n 1945, hs common-aw
wfe Mara de Rosaro took possesson egay of sad ands thus
deprvng her of ther possesson and en|oyment. Defendants n
ther answer set up as speca defense that Uson and her husband,
executed a pubc document whereby they agreed to separate as
husband and wfe and, n consderaton of whch Uson was gven a
parce of and and n return she renounced her rght to nhert any
other property that may be eft by her husband upon hs death. CFI
found for Uson. Defendants appeaed.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 2
ISSUE:
1. W/N Uson has a rght over the ands from the moment of
death of her husband.
2. W/N the egt chdren of deceased and hs common-aw
wfe have successona rghts.
HELD:
1. Yes. There s no dspute that Mara Uson, s the awfu wfe of
Faustno Nebreda, former owner of the fve parces of ands
tgated n the present case. There s kewse no dspute that
Mara de Rosaro, was merey a common-aw wfe wth whom
she had four egtmate chdren wth the deceased. It kewse
appears that Faustno Nebreda ded n 1945 much pror to the
effectvty of the new Cv Code. Wth ths background, t s
evdent that when Faustno Nebreda ded n 1945 the fve
parces of and he was sezed of at the tme passed from the
moment of hs death to hs ony her, hs wdow Mara Uson (Art
777 NCC).As ths Court apty sad, "The property beongs to the
hers at the moment of the death of the ancestor as competey
as f the ancestor had executed and devered to them a deed
for the same before hs death". From that moment, therefore,
the rghts of nhertance of Mara Uson over the ands n
queston became vested.
The cam of the defendants that Mara Uson had
renqushed her rght over the ands n queston because she
expressy renounced to nhert any future property that her
husband may acqure and eave upon hs death n the deed of
separaton, cannot be entertaned for the smpe reason that
future nhertance cannot be the sub|ect of a contract nor can t
be renounced.
2. No. The provsons of the NCC sha be gven retroactve
effect even though the event whch gave rse to them may have
occurred under the pror egsaton ony f no vested rghts are
mpared. Hence, snce the rght of ownershp of Mara Uson
over the ands n queston became vested n 1945 upon the
death of her ate husband, the new rght recognzed by the new
Cv Code n favor of the egtmate chdren of the deceased
cannot, therefore, be asserted to the mparment of the vested
rght of Mara Uson over the ands n dspute.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 3
Borja v. Borja
46 SCRA 577 | Ang
FACTS:
Francsco de Bor|a fed a petton for probate of the w of
hs wfe who ded, |osefa Tangco, wth the CFI of Rza. He was
apponted executor and admnstrator, unt he ded; hs son |ose
became the soe admnstrator. Francsco had taken a 2
nd
wfe
Tasana before he ded; she nsttuted testate proceedngs wth the
CFI of Nueva Ec|a upon hs death and was apponted speca
admnstatrx. |ose and Tasana entered upon a compromse
agreement, but Tasana opposed the approva of the compromse
agreement. She argues that t was no vad, because the hers
cannot enter nto such knd of agreement wthout frst probatng
the w of Francsco, and at the tme the agreement was made, the
w was st beng probated wth the CFI of Nueva Ec|a.
ISSUE:
W/N the compromse agreement s vad, even f the w of
Francsco has not yet been probated.
HELD:
YES, the compromse agreement s vad.
The agreement stpuated that Tasana w receve P800,000
as fu payment for her heredtary share n the estate of Francsco
and |osefa.
There was here no attempt to sette or dstrbute the estate
of Francsco de Bor|a among the hers thereto before the probate of
hs w. The cear ob|ect of the contract was merey the conveyance
by Tasana Ongsngco of any and a her ndvdua share and
nterest, actua or eventua, n the estate of Francsco de Bor|a and
|osefa Tangco. There s no stpuaton as to any other camant,
credtor or egatee.
And as a heredtary share n a decedent's estate s
transmtted or vested mmedatey from the moment of the death
of such causante or predecessor n nterest (Cv Code of the
Phppnes, Art. 777) there s no ega bar to a successor (wth
requste contractng capacty) dsposng of her or hs heredtary
share mmedatey after such death, even f the actua extent of
such share s not determned unt the subsequent qudaton of the
estate.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 4
Bonilla v. Barcena
71 SCRA 491 | Angliongto
FACTS:
On March 31, 1975 Fortunata Barcena, mother of mnors
Rosao Bona and Savacon Bona and wfe of Poncano Bona,
nsttuted a cv acton n the CFI of Abra, to quet tte over certan
parces of and ocated n Abra. The defendants fed a moton to
dsmss the compant on the ground that Fortunata Barcena s
dead and, therefore, has no ega capacty to sue. In the hearng for
the moton to dsmss, counse for the pantff confrmed the death
of Fortunata Barcena, and asked for substtuton by her mnor
chdren and her husband; but the court after the hearng
mmedatey dsmssed the case on the ground that a dead person
cannot be a rea party n nterest and has no ega personaty to
sue.
ISSUE:
W/N the CFI erred n dsmssng the compant.
HELD:
Whe t s true that a person who s dead cannot sue n
court, yet he can be substtuted by hs hers n pursung the case
up to ts competon. The records of ths case show that the death
of Fortunata Barcena took pace on |uy 9, 1975 whe the compant
was fed on March 31, 1975. Ths means that when the compant
was fed on March 31, 1975, Fortunata Barcena was st ave, and
therefore, the court had acqured |ursdcton over her person.
Under Secton 16, Rue 3 of the Rues of Court "whenever a party to
a pendng case des ... t sha be the duty of hs attorney to nform
the court prompty of such death ... and to gve the name and
resdence of hs executor, admnstrator, guardan or other ega
representatves." Ths duty was comped wth by the counse for
the deceased pantff when he manfested before the respondent
Court that Fortunata Barcena ded on |uy 9, 1975 and asked for the
proper substtuton of partes n the case. The respondent Court,
however, nstead of aowng the substtuton, dsmssed the
compant on the ground that a dead person has no ega
personaty to sue. Ths s a grave error. Artce 777 of the Cv
Code provdes "that the rghts to the successon are transmtted
from the moment of the death of the decedent." From the moment
of the death of the decedent, the hers become the absoute
owners of hs property, sub|ect to the rghts and obgatons of the
decedent, and they cannot be deprved of ther rghts thereto
except by the methods provded for by aw. The moment of death
s the determnng factor when the hers acqure a defnte rght to
the nhertance whether such rght be pure or contngent. The rght
of the hers to the property of the deceased vests n them even
before |udca decaraton of ther beng hers n the testate or
ntestate proceedngs. When Fortunata Barcena, therefore, ded,
her cam or rght to the parces of and n tgaton n Cv Case No.
856, was not extngushed by her death but was transmtted to her
hers upon her death. Her hers have thus acqured nterest n the
propertes n tgaton and became partes n nterest n the case.
There s, therefore, no reason for the respondent Court not to aow
ther substtuton as partes n nterest for the deceased pantff.
The cam of the deceased pantff whch s an acton to
quet tte over the parces of and n tgaton affects prmary and
prncpay property and property rghts and therefore s one that
survves even after her death. It s, therefore, the duty of the
respondent Court to order the ega representatve of the deceased
pantff to appear and to be substtuted for her. But what the
respondent Court dd, upon beng nformed by the counse for the
deceased pantff that the atter was dead, was to dsmss the
compant. Ths shoud not have been done for under Secton 17,
Rue 3 of the Rues of Court, t s even the duty of the court, f the
ega representatve fas to appear, to order the opposng party to
procure the appontment of a ega representatve of the deceased.
Unquestonaby, the respondent Court has gravey abused ts
dscreton n not compyng wth the cear provson of the Rues of
Court n dsmssng the compant of the pantff n Cv Case No.
856 and refusng the substtuton of partes n the case.
ARTICLE 783
Vitug v. CA
183 SCRA 755 | jEN 5UCCE55lON REVlEWER
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 5
FACTS:
Romarco Vtug and Nenta Aonte were co-admnstrators of
Doores Vtugs (deceased) estate. Rowena Corona was the
executrx. Romarco, the deceaseds husband, fed a moton wth
the probate court askng for authorty to se certan shares of stock
and rea propertes beongng to the estate to cover aeged
advances to the estate, whch he camed as persona funds. The
advances were used to pay estate taxes.
Corona opposed the moton on ground that the advances
came from a savngs account whch formed part of the con|uga
partnershp propertes and s part of the estate. Thus, there was no
ground for rembursement. Romarco cams that the funds are hs
excusve property, havng been acqured through a survvorshp
agreement executed wth hs ate wfe and the bank.
The agreement stated that after the death of ether one of
the spouses, the savngs account sha beong to and be the soe
property of the survvor, and sha be payabe to and coectbe or
wthdrawabe by such survvor.
The ower court uphed the vadty of the agreement and
granted the moton to se. CA reversed statng that the
survvorshp agreement consttutes a conveyance morts causa
whch dd not compy wth the formates of a vad w. Assumng
that t was a donaton nter vvos, t s a prohbted donaton
(donaton between spouses).
ISSUE:
W/N the survvorshp agreement was vad.
HELD:
YES. The conveyance s not morts causa, whch shoud be
emboded n a w. A w s a persona, soemn, revocabe and free
act by whch a capactated person dsposes of hs property and
rghts and decares or compes wth dutes to take effect after hs
death. The bequest or devse must pertan to the testator.
In ths case, the savngs account nvoved was n the nature
of con|uga funds. Snce t was not shown that the funds beonged
excusvey to one party, t s presumed to be con|uga.
It s aso not a donaton nter vvos because t was to take
effect after the death of one party. It s aso not a donaton between
spouses because t nvoved no conveyance of a spouses own
propertes to the other.
It was an error to ncude the savngs account n the
nventory of the deceaseds assets because t s the separate
property of Romarco.
Thus, Romarco had the rght to cam rembursement.
A w s a persona, soemn, revocabe and free act by whch
a capactated person dsposes of hs property and rghts and
decares or compes wth dutes to take effect after hs death.
Survvorshp agreements are permtted by the NCC.
However, ts operaton or effect must not be voatve of the aw
(.e. used as a coak to hde an noffcous donaton or to transfer
property n fraud of credtors or to defeat the egtme of a forced
her).
ARTICLE 804
Suroza v. Honrado
110 SCRA 388 | Atcheco
FACTS:
Spouses Mauro Suroza and Marcena Savador, who were
chdess, reared a boy named Agapto. Agapto and hs wfe Nenta
de Vera had a daughter named La. Nenta became Agaptos
guardan when he became dsabed. A certan Arsena de a Cruz
aso wanted to be hs guardan n another proceedng but t was
dsmssed. Arsena then devered a chd named Maryn Sy to
Marcena who brought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapto.
Maryn used the surname Suroza athough not egay adopted by
Agapto. When Marcena (who was an terate) was 73 years od,
she supposedy executed a notara w whch was n Engsh and
thumbmarked by her. In the w, she aegedy bequeathed a her
propertes to Maryn. She aso named as executrx her
aundrywoman, Marna Pa|e. Pa|e fed a petton for probate of
Marcenas w. |udge Honrado apponted Pa|e as admnstratrx
and ssued orders aowng the atter to wthdraw money from the
savngs account of Marcena and Maryn, and nstructng the
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 6
sherff to e|ect the occupants of testatrxs house, among whom
was Nenta. She and the other occupants fed a moton to set asde
the order e|ectng them, aegng that Agapto was the soe her of
the deceased, and that Maryn was not the decedents
granddaughter. Despte ths, |udge Honrado ssued an order
probatng Marcenas w.
Nenta fed an omnbus petton to set asde proceedngs,
admt opposton wth counter-petton for admnstraton and
premnary n|uncton, and an opposton to the probate of the w
and a counter-petton for etters of admnstraton, whch were
dsmssed by |udge Honrado. Instead of appeang, Nenta fed a
case to annu the probate proceedngs but |udge Honrado
dsmssed t. The |udge then cosed the testamentary proceedng
after notng that the executrx had devered the estate to Maryn,
and that the estate tax had been pad.
Ten months ater, Nenta fed a compant before the SC,
chargng |udge Honrado wth havng probated the frauduent w of
Marcena. She reterated her contenton that the testatrx was
terate as shown by the fact that she affxed her thumbmark to
the w and that she dd not know Engsh, the anguage n whch
the w was wrtten. She further aeged that |udge Honrado dd not
take nto account the consequences of the preterton of testatrxs
son, Agapto. |udge Honrado n hs comment dd not dea
specfcay wth the aegatons but merey ponted to the fact that
Nenta dd not appea from the decree of probate and that n a
moton, she asked for a thrty day perod wthn whch to vacate the
house of the testatrx. Nenta subsequenty fed n the CA a petton
for certorar and prohbton aganst |udge Honrado wheren she
prayed that the w, the decree of probate and a the proceedngs
n the probate case be decared vod. The CA dsmssed the petton
because Nentas remedy was an appea and her faure to do so dd
not entte her to resort to the speca cv acton of certorar.
Reyng on that decson, |udge Honrado fed a MTD the
admnstratve case for havng aegedy become moot and
academc.
ISSUE:
W/N dscpnary acton be taken aganst respondent |udge for
havng admtted to probate a w, whch on ts face s vod because
t s wrtten n Engsh, a anguage not known to the terate
testatrx, and whch s probaby a forged w because she and the
attestng wtnesses dd not appear before the notary as admtted
by the notary hmsef.
HELD:
YES. Respondent |udge, on perusng the w and notng that
t was wrtten n Engsh and was thumbmarked by an obvousy
terate testatrx, coud have ready perceved that the w s vod.
In the openng paragraph of the w, t was stated that Engsh was
a anguage "understood and known" to the testatrx. But n ts
concudng paragraph, t was stated that the w was read to the
testatrx "and transated nto Fpno anguage". That coud ony
mean that the w was wrtten n a anguage not known to the
terate testatrx and, therefore, t s vod because of the
mandatory provson of artce 804 of the Cv Code that every w
must be executed n a anguage or daect known to the testator.
The hasty preparaton of the w s shown n the attestaton
cause and notara acknowedgment where Marcena Savador
Suroza s repeatedy referred to as the "testator" nstead of
"testatrx". Had respondent |udge been carefu and observant, he
coud have noted not ony the anomay as to the anguage of the
w but aso that there was somethng wrong n nsttutng the
supposed granddaughter as soe heress and gvng nothng at a to
her supposed father who was st ave. Furthermore, after the
hearng conducted by the deputy cerk of court, respondent |udge
coud have notced that the notary was not presented as a wtness.
In spte of the absence of an opposton, respondent |udge shoud
have personay conducted the hearng on the probate of the w so
that he coud have ascertaned whether the w was vady
executed.
Noble v. Abaja
450 SCRA 265 | 8autista
FACTS:
The case s about the probate of the w of Apo Abada (Not
respondent Aba|a). Pettoner Benda Nobe s the admnstratrx of
the estate of Abada. Respondent Apo Aba|a fed a petton for the
probate of Abadas w. Pettoner Nobe moved for dsmssa of the
petton for probate.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 7
Caponong-Nobe ponts out that nowhere n the w can one
dscern that Abada knew the Spansh anguage. She aeges that
such defect s fata and must resut n the dsaowance of the w.
ISSUE:
Shoud t be expressy stated n the w that t (the w) was n a
anguage known by the testator?
HELD:
No. There s no statutory requrement to state n the w
tsef that the testator knew the anguage or daect used n the w.
|25| Ths s a matter that a party may estabsh by proof aunde. In
ths case, Apo testfed that Abada used to gather Spansh-
speakng peope n ther pace. In these gatherngs, Abada and hs
companons woud tak n the Spansh anguage. Ths suffcenty
proves that Abada speaks the Spansh anguage.
ARTICLES 805-806
Matias v. Salud
L-10751, 23 |une 1958 | jEN 5UCCE55lON REVlEWER
FACTS:
The CFI dened probate of the w of Gabna Raque. It must
be noted that Gabna Raque was sufferng from herpes zoster that
affcted the rght arm and shouder of the testatrx, whch made
wrtng dffcut and a panfu act. Thus, upon the nsstence of the
attorney, Gabna attempted to sgn, but snce t was so panfu she
|ust managed to thumbmarked the foot of the document and the
eft margn at each page. The partes opposng the probate of the
w contended that the w was vod due to the rreguartes n the
executon thereof.
One of the ponts rased by the oppostors was that the
fnger mark can not be regarded as the decedents vad sgnature
as t does not show dstnct dentfyng rdgenes. And snce the
fnger mark was an nvad sgnature, there must appear n the
attestaton cause that another person wrote the testators name at
hs request.
ISSUE:
W/N the w was vad.
HELD:
YES. As to the carty of the rdge mpressons, t s so
dependent on aeatory requrements as to requre dexterty that
can be expected of very few persons; testators shoud not be
requred to possess the sk of traned offcers.
And as to the vadty of the thumbprnts as sgnature, the SC hed
that t has been hed n a ong ne of cases that a thumbprnt s
aways a vad and suffcent sgnature for the purpose of compyng
wth the requrement of the artce.
Furthermore, the vadty of thumbprnts shoud not be mted n
cases of ness or nfrmty. A thumbprnt s consdered as a vad
and suffcent sgnature n compyng wth the requrements of the
artce.
Garcia v. Lacuesta
90:489 | Castillo
FACTS:
Ths case nvoves the w of Antero Mercado, whch among
other defects was sgned by the testator through a cross mark (an
"X"). The w was sgned by Atty. |aver who wrote the name of
Mercado as testator and the atter aegedy wrote a cross mark
after hs name. The CFI aowed the w but the CA dsaowed t
because ts attestaton cause was defectve for fang to certfy 1)
that the w was sgned by Atty. |aver at the express drecton of
the testator, 2) that the testator wrote a cross at the end of hs
name after Atty. |aver sgned for hm, and 3) that the 3 wtnesses
sgned the w n the presence of the testator and of each other.
ISSUE:
Whether the w shoud be aowed despte the defect of the
attestaton cause snce the testator had paced a cross mark
hmsef as hs sgnature.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 8
HELD:
The attestaton cause s fatay defectve for fang to state
that Mercado drected |aver to wrte the testators name under hs
express drecton. Pettoners argument that such recta s
unnecessary because the testator sgned the w hmsef usng a
cross mark whch shoud be consdered the same as a thumb-mark
(whch has been hed suffcent n past cases) s not acceptabe. A
cross mark s not the same as a thumb mark, because the cross
mark does not have the same trustworthness of a thumb mark.
Barut v. Cabacungan
21:461 | Casuela
FACTS:
Barut apped for the probate of the w of deceased, Mara
Saomon. The testatrx stated n the w that beng unabe to read
or wrte, the w was read to her by Craco Concepcon and
Tmotea Inoseda and that she had nstructed Severo Agayan to
sgn her name to t as testatrx. The probate was contested by a
number of the reatves of the deceased on varous grounds.
The probate court found that the w was not entted to
probate because "the handwrtng of the person who t s aeged
sgned the name of the testatrx to the w for and on her behaf
ooked more ke the handwrtng of one of the other wtnesses to
the w than to the person whose handwrtng t was aeged to be"
(.e. The probate court dened probate because the sgnature
seemed to not have been by Severo Agayan but by another
wtness).
ISSUE:
Was the dssmarty n handwrtng suffcent to deny probate of
the w?
HELD:
No. The SC found that the mere dssmarty n wrtng s
suffcent to overcome the uncontradcted testmony of a the
wtnesses that the sgnature of the testatrx was wrtten by Severo
Agayan. It s aso mmatera who wrtes the name of the testatrx
provded t s wrtten at her request and n her presence and n the
presence of a the wtnesses to the executon of the w.
Based on Secton 618 of the Code of Cv Procedure, t s
cear that wth respect to the validity of the w, t s unmportant
whether the person who wrtes the name of the testatrx sgns hs
own or not. The mportant thng s that t ceary appears that the
name of the testatrx was sgned at her express drecton n the
presence of 3 wtnesses and that they attested and subscrbed t n
her presence and n the presence of each other. It may be wse that
the one who sgns the testators name sgns aso hs own; but that
s not essenta to the vadty of the w.
The court aso hed that the 3 cases cted by the ower court
was not appcabe. In those cases, the person who sgned the w
for the testator wrote hs own name nstead of the testators, so
that the testators name nowhere appeared n the w, and were
thus ws not duy executed.
Nera v. Rimando
18:450 | Cukingnan
FACTS:
The ony queston rased by the evdence n ths case as to
the due executon of the nstrument propounded as a w n the
court beow, s whether one of the subscrbng wtnesses was
present n the sma room where t was executed at the tme when
the testator and the other subscrbng wtnesses attached ther
sgnatures; or whether at that tme he was outsde, some eght or
ten feet away, n a arge room connectng wth the smaer room by
a doorway, across whch was hung a curtan whch made t
mpossbe for one n the outsde room to see the testator and the
other subscrbng wtnesses n the act of attachng ther sgnatures
to the nstrument.
HELD:
Ctng |aboneta v. Gusto, the court hed that "The true test
of presence of the testator and the wtnesses n the executon of a
w s not whether they actuay saw each other sgn, but whether
they mght have been seen each other sgn, had they chosen to do
so, consderng ther menta and physca condton and poston
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 9
wth reaton to each other at the moment of nscrpton of each
sgnature."
But t s especay to be noted that the poston of the
partes wth reaton to each other at the moment of the
subscrpton of each sgnature, must be such that they may see
each other sgn f they choose to do so.
The queston s whether the testator and the subscrbng
wtnesses to an aeged w sgned the nstrument n the presence
of each other does not depend upon proof of the fact that ther
eyes were actuay cast upon the paper at the moment of ts
subscrpton by each of them, but that at that moment exstng
condtons and ther poston wth reaton to each other were such
that by merey castng the eyes n the proper drecton they coud
have seen each other sgn. To extend the doctrne further woud
open the door to the possbty of a manner of fraud, substtuton,
and the ke, and woud defeat the purpose for whch ths partcuar
condton s prescrbed n the code as one of the requstes n the
executon of a w.
lcasiano v. lcasiano
11 SCRA 422 | Dela Cuesta
FACTS:
Ceso Icasano fed a petton for the aowance and
admsson to probate of the aeged w of |osefa Vacorte, and for
hs appontment as executor thereof. Natvdad and Enrque
Icasano, a daughter and son of the testatrx, fed ther opposton
thereto. Durng the course of the tra, on 19 March 1959, Ceso,
started to present hs evdence. But ater, on 1 |une 1959, he then
fed an amended and suppementa petton, aegng that the
decedent had eft a w executed n dupcate and wth a the ega
requrements, and that he was submttng the dupcate to the
court, whch he found ony on 26 May 1959. Natvdad and Enrque
fed ther opposton, but the w and ts dupcate was admtted to
probate by the tra court. Hence, ths appea by the oppostors.
Oppostors-appeants (Natvdad and Enrque) n turn
ntroduced expert testmony to the effect that the sgnatures of the
testatrx n the dupcate are not genune, nor were they wrtten or
affxed on the same occason as the orgna, and further aver that
grantng that the documents were genune, they were executed
through mstake and wth undue nfuence and pressure because
the testatrx was deceved nto adoptng as her ast w and
testament the wshes of those who w stand to beneft from the
provsons of the w, as may be nferred from the facts and
crcumstances surroundng the executon of the w and the
provsons and dspostons thereof, whereby proponents- appeees
stand to proft from propertes hed by them as attorneys- n-fact of
the deceased and not enumerated or mentoned theren, whe
oppostors-appeants are en|oned not to ook for other propertes
not mentoned n the w, and not to oppose the probate of t, on
penaty of forfetng ther share n the porton of free dsposa.
ISSUE:
Was the tra court correct n admttng the w and ts dupcate to
probate gven the aegatons of forgery of the testators sgnature,
or that the w was executed under crcumstances consttutng
fraud and undue nfuence and pressure?
(Not raised by the appellants in the case but discussed by the
Court and in 5irs book) Is the faure of one of the wtnesses to sgn
a page of the w fata to ts vadty?
HELD:
The Supreme Court dsmssed the appea, hodng that both
the w and ts dupcate are vad n a respects.
On the aegatons of forgery, fraud and undue nfuence:
The Court s satsfed that a the requstes for the vadty of
a w have been comped wth. The opnon of a handwrtng
expert tryng to prove forgery of the testatrx's sgnature faed to
convnce the Court, not ony because t s drecty contradcted by
another expert but prncpay because of the paucty of the
standards used by hm (ony three other sgnatures), consderng
the advanced age of the testatrx, the evdent varabty of her
sgnature, and the effect of wrtng fatgue.
Smary, the aeged sght varance n bueness of the nk n
the admtted and questoned sgnatures does not appear reabe,
consderng that standard and chaenged wrtngs were affxed to
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 10
dfferent knds of paper, wth dfferent surfaces and refectng
power. On the whoe, the testmony of the oppostor's expert s
nsuffcent to overcome that of the notary and the two
nstrumenta wtnesses as to the ws executon, whch were
presented by Ceso durng the tra.
Nor s there adequate evdence of fraud or undue nfuence.
The fact that some hers are more favored than others s proof of
nether. Dversty of apportonment s the usua reason for makng
a testament; otherwse, the decedent mght as we de ntestate.
The testamentary dsposton that the hers shoud not nqure nto
other property and that they shoud respect the dstrbuton made
n the w, under penaty of forfeture of ther shares n the free
part, do not suffce to prove fraud or undue nfuence. They appear
motvated by the desre to prevent proonged tgaton whch, as
shown by ordnary experence, often resuts n a szeabe porton of
the estate beng dverted nto the hands of non- hers and
specuators. Whether these causes are vad or not s a matter to
be tgated on another occason. It s aso we to note that fraud
and undue nfuence are mutuay repugnant and excude each
other; ther |onng as grounds for opposng probate shows absence
of defnte evdence aganst the vadty of the w.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 11
On the faure of a wtness to sgn a page n the orgna, but sgned
a pages n the dupcate:
The records show that the orgna of the w conssts of fve
pages, and whe sgned at the end and n every page, t does not
contan the sgnature of one of the attestng wtnesses, Atty. |ose V.
Natvdad, on page 3 thereof; but the dupcate copy attached to
the amended and suppementa petton s sgned by the testatrx
and her three attestng wtnesses n each and every page.
Wtness Atty. Natvdad, who testfed on hs faure to sgn
page 3 of the orgna, admts that he may have fted two pages
nstead of one when he sgned the same, but affrmed that page 3
was sgned n hs presence.
The faure Atty. Natvdad to sgn page three (3) was
entrey through pure oversght s shown by hs own testmony as
we as by the dupcate copy of the w, whch bears a compete
set of sgnatures n every page. The text of the attestaton cause
and the acknowedgment before the Notary Pubc kewse
evdence that no one was aware of the defect at the tme.
Therefore, Atty. Natvdads faure to sgn page 3 of the orgna
through mere nadvertence does not affect the ws vadty.
Impossbty of substtuton of ths page s assured not ony
the fact that the testatrx and two other wtnesses dd sgn the
defectve page, but aso by ts bearng the concdent mprnt of the
sea of the notary pubc before whom the testament was ratfed
by testatrx and a three wtnesses. The aw shoud not be so
strcty and teray nterpreted as to penaze the testatrx on
account of the nadvertence of a snge wtness over whose conduct
she had no contro, where the purpose of the aw to guarantee the
dentty of the testament and ts component pages s suffcenty
attaned, no ntentona or deberate devaton exsted, and the
evdence on record attests to the fu observance of the statutory
requstes.
Ths woud not be the frst tme that ths Court departs from
a strct and tera appcaton of the statutory requrements, where
the purposes of the aw are otherwse satsfed. Thus, despte the
tera tenor of the aw, ths Court has hed that a testament, wth
the ony page sgned at ts foot by testator and wtnesses, but not
n the eft margn, coud nevertheess be probated (Abangan vs.
Abangan, 41 Ph. 476); and that despte the requrement for the
correatve etterng of the pages of a w, the faure to mark the
frst page ether by etters or numbers s not a fata defect (Lopez
vs. Lboro, 81 Ph. 429). These precedents exempfy the Court's
pocy to requre satsfacton of the ega requrements n order to
guard aganst fraud and bad fath but wthout undue or
unnecessary curtament of the testamentary prvege.
The appeants aso argue that snce the orgna of the w s
n exstence and avaabe, the dupcate s not entted to probate.
Snce they opposed probate of the orgna because t acked one
sgnature n ts thrd page, t s easy dscerned that oppostors-
appeants run here nto a demma: f the orgna s defectve and
nvad, then n aw there s no other w but the duy sgned carbon
dupcate, and the same s probatabe. If the orgna s vad and
can be probated, then the ob|ecton to the sgned dupcate need
not be consdered, beng superfuous and rreevant. At any rate,
sad dupcate serves to prove that the omsson of one sgnature n
the thrd page of the orgna testament was nadvertent and not
ntentona.
Cagro v. Cagro
92:1032 | Dina
FACTS:
Vcente Cagro ded on Feb. 14, 1949 n Samar. Snce the
decedent aegedy made a w pror to hs death, the w was
probated before the CFI of Samar. However, the oppostors-
appeant ob|ected the probate proceedng aegng that the w s
fatay defectve because ts attestaton cause s not sgned by the
attestng wtnesses. It s undsputed that the sgnatures of the three
wtnesses to the w do not appear at the bottom of the attestaton
cause, athough the page contanng the same s sgned by the
wtnesses on the eft-hand margn.
ISSUE:
W/N the w may be probated even f the sgnatures of the
wtnesses do not appear at the bottom of the attestaton cause,
and nstead, they were paced on the eft-hand margn of the page
contanng the same.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 12
HELD:
No. The poston taken by the oppostor-appeant s correct.
The attestaton cause s 'a memorandum of the facts attendng the
executon of the w' requred by aw to be made by the attestng
wtnesses, and t must necessary bear ther sgnatures. An
unsgned attestaton cause cannot be consdered as an act of the
wtnesses, snce the omsson of ther sgnatures at the bottom
thereof negatves ther partcpaton.
The pettoner-appeee contends that sgnatures of the
three wtnesses on the eft-hand margn conform substantay to
the aw and may be deemed as ther sgnatures to the attestaton
cause. Ths s untenabe, because sad sgnatures are n
compance wth the ega mandate that the w be sgned on the
eft-hand margn of a ts pages. If an attestaton cause not sgned
by the three wtnesses at the bottom thereof, be admtted as
suffcent, t woud be easy to add such cause to a w on a
subsequent occason and n the absence of the testator and any or
a of the wtnesses.
8autista Angelo, j. dssentng:
I dssent. In my opnon the w n queston has substantay
comped wth the formates of the aw and, therefore, shoud be
admtted to probate. It appears that the w was sgned by the
testator and was attested by three nstrumenta wtnesses, not ony
at the bottom, but aso on the eft-hand margn. The wtnesses
testfed not ony that the w was sgned by the testator n ther
presence and n the presence of each other but aso that when they
dd so, the attestaton cause was aready wrtten thereon. Ther
testmony has not been contradcted. The ony ob|ecton set up by
the oppostors to the vadty of the w s the fact that the
sgnatures of the nstrumenta wtnesses do not appear
mmedatey after the attestaton cause.
Ths ob|ecton s too technca to be entertaned. In the case
of Abangan vs. Abangan, (40 Ph. 476), ths court sad that when
the testamentary dspostons "are whoy wrtten on ony one sheet
sgned at the bottom by the testator and three wtnesses (as the
nstant case),ther sgnatures on the eft margn of sad sheet woud
be competey purposeess." In such a case, the court sad, the
requrement of the sgnatures on the eft hand margn was not
necessary because the purpose of the aw - whch s to avod the
substtuton of any of the sheets of the w, thereby changng the
testator's dspostons - has aready been accompshed. We may
say the same thng n connecton wth the w under consderaton
because whe the three nstrumenta wtnesses dd not sgn
mmedatey by the ma|orty that t may have been ony added on a
subsequent occason and not at the uncontradcted testmony of
sad wtnesses to the effect that such attestaton cause was
aready wrtten n the w when the same was sgned.
TUA5ON, j., dssentng:
I concur n Mr. |ustce Bautsta's dssentng opnon and may
add that the ma|orty decson erroneousy sets down as a fact that
the attestaton cause was not sgned when the wtnesses
sgnatures appear on the eft margn and the rea and ony queston
s whether such sgnatures are egay suffcent. The aw on ws
does not provde that the attestng wtness shoud sgn the cause
at the bottom. In the absence of such provson, there s no reason
why the sgnatures on the margn are not acceptabe
Cruz v. Villasor
54 SCRA 752 | Dizon
FACTS:
The CFI of Cebu aowed the probate of Vaente Z. Cruzs ast
w and testament. Hs survvng spouse, Agapta Cruz, opposed the
aowance of the w aegng t was executed through fraud, decet,
msrepresentaton and undue nfuence; that the sad nstrument
was execute wthout the testator havng been fuy nformed of the
content thereof, partcuary as to what propertes he was dsposng
and that the supposed ast w and testament was not executed n
accordance wth aw. Agapta appeaed the aowance of the w by
certorar.
ISSUE:
W/N the w was executed n accordance wth aw (partcuary
Artces 805 and 806 of the NCC, the frst requrng at east three
credbe wtnesses to attest and subscrbe to the w, and the
second requrng the testator and the wtnesses to acknowedge
the w before a notary pubc.).
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 13
HELD:
NO. Of the three nstrumenta wtnesses to the w, one of
them (Atty. Teves) s at the same tme the Notary Pubc before
whom the w was supposed to have been acknowedged. The
notary pubc before whom the w was acknowedged cannot be
consdered as the thrd nstrumenta wtness snce he cannot
acknowedge before hmsef hs havng sgned the w. To
acknowedge before means to avow (|aveana v. Ledesma; Castro
v. Castro); to own as genune, to assent, to admt; and "before"
means n front or precedng n space or ahead of. Consequenty, f
the thrd wtness were the notary pubc hmsef, he woud have to
avow assent, or admt hs havng sgned the w n front of hmsef.
Ths cannot be done because he cannot spt hs personaty nto
two so that one w appear before the other to acknowedge hs
partcpaton n the makng of the w. To permt such a stuaton to
obtan woud be sanctonng a sheer absurdty. Furthermore, the
functon of a notary pubc s, among others, to guard aganst any
ega or mmora arrangement (Banon v. De Leon). That functon
woud defeated f the notary pubc were one of the attestng
nstrumenta wtnesses. It woud pace hm n nconsstent poston
and the very purpose of acknowedgment, whch s to mnmze
fraud, woud be thwarted.
Admttedy, there are Amercan precedents hodng that
notary pubc may, n addton, act as a wtness to the executve of
the document he has notarzed. There are others hodng that hs
sgnng merey as notary n a w nonetheess makes hm a wtness
thereon. But these authortes do not serve the purpose of the aw
n ths |ursdcton or are not decsve of the ssue heren because
the notares pubc and wtnesses referred to n these cases merey
acted as nstrumenta, subscrbng attestng wtnesses, and not as
acknowedgng wtnesses. Here, the notary pubc acted not ony as
attestng wtness but aso acknowedgng wtness, a stuaton not
envsaged by Artce 805-06. Probate of w set asde.
javellana v. Ledesma
97:258 | Enriquez
FACTS:
The Court of Frst Instance of Ioo admtted to probate the
documents n the Vsayan daectas the testament and codc duy
executed by the deceased Da. Aponara Ledesma Vda. de
|aveana, on March 30, 1950, and May 29, 1952, respectvey, wth
Ramon Tabana, Gora Montnoa de Tabana and Vcente Yap as
wtnesses. The contestant, Matea Ledesma, sster and nearest
survvng reatve of sad deceased, appeaed from the decson,
nsstng that the sad exhbts were not executed n conformty wth
aw. Ledesma s questonng the vadty of the codc contendng
that the fact that the notary dd not sgn the nstrument n the
presence of the testator and the wtness made the codc was not
executed n conformty wth the aw
ISSUE:
W/N the codc was vady executed.
HELD:
The nstrumenta wtnesses (who happen to be the same
ones who attested the w of 1950) asserted that after the codc
had been sgned by the testatrx and the wtnesses at the San
Pabo Hospta, the same was sgned and seaed by notary pubc
Gmotea on the same occason. On the other hand, Gmotea
affrmed that he dd not do so, but brought the codc to hs offce,
and sgned and seaed t there. The varance does not necessary
mpy conscous perverson of truth on the part of the wtnesses,
but appears rather due to a we-estabshed phenomenon, the
tendency of the mnd, n recang past events, to substtute the
usua and habtua for what dffers sghty from t.
Whether or not the notary sgned the certfcaton of
acknowedgment n the presence of the testatrx and the wtnesses,
does not affect the vadty of the codc. The new Cv Code does
not requre that the sgnng of the testator, wtnesses and notary
shoud be accompshed n one snge act. A comparson of Artces
805 and 806 of the new Cv Code reveas that whe testator and
wtnesses sgn n the presence of each other, a that s thereafter
requred s that "every w must be acknowedged before a notary
pubc by the testator and the wtnesses" (Art. 806); .e., that the
atter shoud avow to the certfyng offcer the authentcty of ther
sgnatures and the vountarness of ther actons n executng the
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 14
testamentary dsposton. Ths was done n ths case. The
subsequent sgnng and seang by the notary of hs certfcaton
that the testament was duy acknowedged by the partcpants
theren s no part of the acknowedgment tsef nor of the
testamentary act. Hence ther separate executon out of the
presence of the testatrx and her wtnesses cannot be sad to
voate the rue that testaments shoud be competed wthout
nterrupton. It s noteworthy that Artce 806 of the new Cv Code
does not contan words requrng that the testator and the
wtnesses shoud acknowedge the testament on the same day or
occason that t was executed.
Ortega v. Valmonte
478 SCRA 247 | Escosia
FACTS:
Two years after the arrva of Pacdo from the Unted States
and at the age of 80 he wed |osefna who was then 28 years od.
But n a tte more than two years of wedded bss, Pacdo ded.
Pacdo executed a notara ast w and testament wrtten n
Engsh and consstng of 2 pages, and dated 15 |une 1983but
acknowedged ony on 9 August 1983. The aowance to probate of
ths w was opposed by Letca, Pacdos sster. Accordng to the
notary pubc who notarzed the testators w, after the testator
nstructed hm on the terms and dspostons he wanted on the w,
the notary pubc tod them to come back on 15 August 1983 to
gve hm tme to prepare. The testator and hs wtnesses returned
on the apponted date but the notary pubc was out of town so
they were nstructed by hs wfe to come back on 9 August 1983.
The forma executon was actuay on 9 August 1983. He reasoned
he no onger changed the typewrtten date of 15 |une 1983
because he dd not ke the document to appear drty.
Pettoners argument:
1. At the tme of the executon of the notara w Pacdo was
aready 83 years od and was no onger of sound mnd.
2. |osefna conspred wth the notary pubc and the 3 attestng
wtnesses n decevng Pacdo to sgn t. Decepton s aegedy
refected n the varyng dates of the executon and the
attestaton of the w.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Pacdo has testamentary capacty at the tme he
aegedy executed the w.
2. W/N the sgnature of Pacdo n the w was procured by
fraud or trckery.
HELD:
1. YES. Despte hs advanced age, he was st abe to dentfy
accuratey the knds of property he owned, the extent of hs
shares n them and even ther ocaton. As regards the proper
ob|ects of hs bounty, t was suffcent that he dentfed hs wfe
as soe benefcary. The omsson of some reatves from the w
dd not affect ts forma vadty. There beng no showng of
fraud n ts executon, ntent n ts dsposton becomes
rreevant.
2. NO. Fraud s a trck, secret devse, fase statement, or
pretense, by whch the sub|ect of t s cheated. It may be of
such character that the testator s msed or deceved as to the
nature or contents of the document whch he executes, or t
may reate to some extrnsc fact, n consequence of the
decepton regardng whch the testator s ed to make a certan
w whch, but for fraud, he woud not have made.
The party chaengng the w bears the burden of provng
the exstence of fraud at the tme of ts executon. The burden
to show otherwse shfts to the proponent of the w ony upon a
showng of credbe evdence of fraud.
Omsson of some reatves does not affect the due
executon of a w. Moreover, the confct between the dates
appearng on the w does not nvadate the document,
"because the law does not even require that a notarial
will be executed and acknowledged on the same
occasion. The varance n the dates of the w as to ts
supposed executon and attestaton was satsfactory and
persuasvey expaned by the notary pubc and nstrumenta
wtnesses.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 15
Guerrero v. Bihis
521 SCRA 394 | Estorninos
FACTS:
Fesa Tamo de Buenaventura, mother of pettoner Bea A.
Guerrero and respondent Resurreccon A. Bhs, ded. Guerrero fed
for probate n the RTC OC. Respondent Bhs opposed her eder
sster's petton on the foowng grounds: the w was not executed
and attested as requred by aw; ts attestaton cause and
acknowedgment dd not compy wth the requrements of the aw;
the sgnature of the testatrx was procured by fraud and pettoner
and her chdren procured the w through undue and mproper
pressure and nfuence. Pettoner Guerrero was appontes speca
admnstratrx. Respondent opposed pettoner's appontment but
subsequenty wthdrew her opposton. The tra court dened the
probate of the w rung that Artce 806 of the Cv Code was not
comped wth because the w was "acknowedged" by the testatrx
and the wtnesses at the testatrx's resdence at No. 40 Kanaon
Street, Ouezon Cty before Atty. Macaro O. Drecto who was a
commssoned notary pubc for and n Caoocan Cty.
ISSUE:
Dd the w "acknowedged" by the testatrx and the nstrumenta
wtnesses before a notary pubc actng outsde the pace of hs
commsson satsfy the requrement under Artce 806 of the Cv
Code?
HELD:
No. One of the formates requred by aw n connecton wth
the executon of a notara w s that t must be acknowedged
before a notary pubc by the testator and the wtnesses. 6 Ths
forma requrement s one of the ndspensabe requstes for the
vadty of a w. 7 In other words, a notara w that s not
acknowedged before a notary pubc by the testator and the
nstrumenta wtnesses s vod and cannot be accepted for probate.
cDICaS
The Notara aw provdes: SECTION 240.Terrtora
|ursdcton. - The |ursdcton of a notary pubc n a provnce sha
be co-extensve wth the provnce. The |ursdcton of a notary
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 16
pubc n the Cty of Mana sha be co-extensve wth sad cty. No
notary sha possess authorty to do any notara act beyond the
mts of hs |ursdcton.
The compusory anguage of Artce 806 of the Cv Code
was not comped wth and the nterdcton of Artce 240 of the
Notara Law was breached. Ineuctaby, the acts of the testatrx,
her wtnesses and Atty. Drecto were a competey vod.
Lee v. Tambago
544 SCRA 393 | Fortea
FACTS:
Companant, Manue L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty.
Regno B. Tambago, wth voaton of Notara Law and the Ethcs of
the ega professon for notarzng a w that s aeged to be
spurous n nature n contanng forged sgnatures of hs father, the
decedent, Vcente Lee Sr. and two other wtnesses. In the sad w,
the decedent supposedy bequeathed hs entre estate to hs wfe
Lm Hock Lee, save for a parce of and whch he devsed to Vcente
Lee, |r. and Eena Lee, haf-sbngs of companant.
The w was purportedy executed and acknowedged before
respondent on |une 30, 1965.

Companant, however, ponted out
that the resdence certfcate

of the testator noted n the
acknowedgment of the w was dated |anuary 5, 1962.
Furthermore, the sgnature of the testator was not the same as hs
sgnature as donor n a deed of donaton

whch supposedy
contaned hs purported sgnature. Companant averred that the
sgnatures of hs deceased father n the w and n the deed of
donaton were "n any way entrey and dametrcay opposed from
one another n a ange|s|."
Companant aso questoned the absence of notaton of the
resdence certfcates of the purported wtnesses Noynay and Gra|o.
He aeged that ther sgnatures had kewse been forged and
merey coped from ther respectve voters affdavts.
Companant further asserted that no copy of such
purported w was on fe n the archves dvson of the Records
Management and Archves Offce of the Natona Commsson for
Cuture and the Arts (NCCA).
ISSUE:
Was the w spurous?
HELD:
Yes, thus Tambago voated the Notara Law and the ethcs
of ega professon.
The aw provdes for certan formates that must be
foowed n the executon of ws. The ob|ect of soemntes
surroundng the executon of ws s to cose the door on bad fath
and fraud, to avod substtuton of ws and testaments and to
guarantee ther truth and authentcty.
A notara w, as the contested w n ths case, s requred
by aw to be subscrbed at the end thereof by the testator hmsef.
In addton, t shoud be attested and subscrbed by three or more
credbe wtnesses n the presence of the testator and of one
another. The w n queston was attested by ony two wtnesses.
On ths crcumstance aone, the w must be consdered vod. Ths
s n consonance wth the rue that acts executed aganst the
provsons of mandatory or prohbtory aws sha be vod, except
when the aw tsef authorzes ther vadty. The Cv Code kewse
requres that a w must be acknowedged before a notary pubc
by the testator and the wtnesses. An acknowedgment s the act of
one who has executed a deed n gong before some competent
offcer or court and decarng t to be hs act or deed. It nvoves an
extra step undertaken whereby the sgnatory actuay decares to
the notary pubc that the same s hs or her own free act and deed.
The acknowedgment n a notara w has a two-fod purpose: (1) to
safeguard the testators wshes ong after hs demse and (2) to
assure that hs estate s admnstered n the manner that he
ntends t to be done.
A cursory examnaton of the acknowedgment of the w n
queston shows that ths partcuar requrement was nether strcty
nor substantay comped wth. For one, there was the conspcuous
absence of a notaton of the resdence certfcates of the notara
wtnesses Noynay and Gra|o n the acknowedgment. Smary, the
notaton of the testators od resdence certfcate n the same
acknowedgment was a cear breach of the aw. These omssons by
respondent nvadated the w.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 17
As the acknowedgng offcer of the contested w,
respondent was requred to fathfuy observe the formates of a
w and those of notarzaton. These formates are mandatory and
cannot be dsregarded.
ARTICLE 808
Garcia v. Vasquez
32 SCRA 489 | Crapilon
FACTS:
Ths s a petton for appea from the CFI of Mana admttng
to probate the w of Gcera Aveno de Rosaro ("Gcera")
executed n 1960. Lkewse, ths s aso an appea to remove the
current admnstrator, Consueo Gonzaes-Preca( "Consueo") as
speca admnstratrx of the estate on the ground of Consueo
possesses nterest adverse to the estate and to order the RD of
Mana to annotate on the regstered ands a notce of Ls Pendens.
When Gcera ded she had no descendants, ascendants,
bros or ssses and 90 yrs od. After whch, her nece, Consueo
pettoned the court to be the admnstratrx of the propertes. The
court approved ths because Consueo has been was aready
managng the propertes of the deceased durng her fetme. What
the respondents aege s that n the ast years of the deceased,
Consueo sought the transfer of certan parces of and vaued at
300k for a sae prce of 30k to her husband Afonso through fraud
and ntmdaton. In addton, the oppostors presented evdence
that Consueo asked the court to ssue new Certfcates of Ttes to
certan parces of and for the purpose of preparng the nventory to
be used n the probate. Aso shown was that NEW TCTs were ssued
by the RD for certan ands of the deceased after Consueo asked
for the od TCTs.
At the end of the probate proceedngs, the court rued that
Counsueo shoud be made the admnstrator, and that the w was
duy executed because of these reasons: NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN
PRESENTED to estabsh that the deceased was not of sound mnd,
that eventough the aegatons state that the deceased prepared
another w n 1956 (12pages), the atter s not prevented from
executng another w n 1960 (1page), and that nconsstences n
the testmones of the wtnesses prove ther truthfuness.
ISSUE:
Was the w n 1960 (1 page) duy/propery executed?
HELD:
NO. Provson of Artce 808 mandatory. Therefore, For a
ntents and purposes of the rues on probate, the testatrx was ke
a bnd testator, and the due executon of her w woud have
requred observance of Artce 808. The ratonae behnd the
requrement of readng the w to the testator f he s bnd or
ncapabe of readng the w hmsef (as when he s terate) , s to
make the provsons thereof known to hm, so that he may be abe
to ob|ect f they are not n accordance wth hs wshes. Lkewse,
the 1970 w was done n Tagaog whch the deceased s not we
versed but n Spansh. Ths creates doubt as to the due executon
of the w and as we as the typographca errors contan theren
whch show the haste n preparng the 1 page w as compared to
the 12 page w created n 1956 wrtten n Spansh. ALSO, as to the
bndness, there was proof gven by the testmony of the doctor
that the deceased coud not read at near dstances because of
cataracts. (Testatrxs vson was many for vewng dstant ob|ects
and not for readng prnt.) Snce there s no proof that t was read to
the deceased twce, the w was NOT duy executed.
ALSO, Consueo shoud be removed as admnstrator
because she s not expected to sue her own husband to reconvey
the ands to the estate aeged to have been transferred by the
deceased to her own husband.
The notce of s pendens s aso not proper where the ssue
s not an acton n rem, affectng rea property or the tte thereto.
Alvarado v. Gaviola
FACTS:
On 5 November 1977, 79-year od Brgdo Avarado
executed a notara w entted "Hung Habn" wheren he
dsnherted an egtmate son, pettoner Cesar Avarado, and
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 18
expressy revoked a prevousy executed hoographc w at the
tme awatng probate before the RTC of Laguna.
Accordng to Bayan Ma. Rno, prvate respondent, he was
present when the sad notara w was executed, together wth
three nstrumenta wtnesses and the notary pubc, where the
testator dd not read the w hmsef, sufferng as he dd from
gaucoma.
Rno, a awyer, drafted the eght-page document and read
the same aoud before the testator, the three nstrumenta
wtnesses and the notary pubc, the atter four foowng the
readng wth ther own respectve copes prevousy furnshed them.
Thereafter, a codc entted "Kasuatan ng Pagbabago ng
Iang Pagpapasya na Nasasaad sa Hung Habn na May Petsa
Nobembre 5, 1977 n Brgdo Avarado" was executed changng
some dspostons n the notara w to generate cash for the
testators eye operaton.
Sad codc was kewse not read by Brgdo Avarado and
was read n the same manner as wth the prevousy executed w.
When the notara w was submtted to the court for
probate, Cesar Avarado fed hs opposton as he sad that the w
was not executed and attested as requred by aw; that the testator
was nsane or mentay ncapactated due to senty and od age;
that the w was executed under duress, or nfuence of fear or
threats; that t was procured by undue pressure and nfuence on
the part of the benefcary; and that the sgnature of the testator
was procured by fraud or trck.
ISSUE:
W/N notara w of Brgdo Avarado shoud be admtted to probate
despte aegatons of defects n the executon and attestaton
thereof as testator was aegedy bnd at the tme of executon and
the doube-readng requrement under Art. 808 of the NCC was not
comped wth.
HELD:
YES. The sprt behnd the aw was served though the etter
was not. Athough there shoud be strct compance wth the
substanta requrements of aw n order to nsure the authentcty
of the w, the forma mperfectons shoud be brushed asde when
they do not affect ts purpose and whch, when taken nto account,
may ony defeat the testators w.
Cesar Avardo was correct n assertng that hs father was
not totay bnd (of countng fngers at 3 feet) when the w and
codc were executed, but he can be so consdered for purposes of
Art. 808.
That Art. 808 was not foowed strcty s beyond cav.
However, n the case at bar, there was substanta
compance where the purpose of the aw has been satsfed: that of
makng the provsons known to the testator who is blind or
incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is
illiterate) and enabng hm to ob|ect f they do not accord wth hs
wshes.
Rno read the testators w and codc aoud n the
presence of the testator, hs three nstrumenta wtnesses, and the
notary pubc.
Pror and subsequent thereto, the testator affrmed, upon
beng asked, that the contents read corresponded wth hs
nstructons.
Ony then dd the sgnng and acknowedgment take pace.
There s no evdence that the contents of the w and the
codc were not suffcenty made known and communcated to the
testator.
Wth four persons, mosty known to the testator, foowng
the readng word for word wth ther own copes, t can be safey
concuded that the testator was reasonaby assured that what was
read to hm were the terms actuay appearng on the typewrtten
documents.
The ratonae behnd the requrement of readng the w to
the testator f he s bnd or ncapabe of readng the w to hmsef
(as when he s terate), s to make the provsons thereof known to
hm, so that he may be abe to ob|ect f they are not n accordance
wth hs wshes.
Athough there shoud be strct compance wth the
substanta requrements of aw n order to nsure the authentcty
of the w, the forma mperfectons shoud be brushed asde when
they do not affect ts purpose and whch, when taken nto account,
may ony defeat the testators w.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 19
ARTICLE 809
Caneda v. CA
FACTS:
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Cabaero, a wdower wthout
any chdren and aready n the twght years of hs fe, executed a
ast w and testament at hs resdence before 3 wtnesses.
He was asssted by hs awyer, Atty. Emo Lumontad.
In the w, t was decared that the testator was eavng by
way of egaces and devses hs rea and persona propertes to
severa peope a of whom do not appear to be reated to the
testator.
4 months ater, Mateo Cabaero hmsef fed a case seekng
the probate of hs ast w and testament, but numerous
postponements pushed back the nta hearng of the probate court
regardng the w.
On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before hs
petton coud fnay be heard by the probate court.
Thereafter one of the egatees, Benon Cabrera, sought hs
appontment as speca admnstrator of the testators estate.
Thereafter, the pettoners, camng to be nephews and
neces of the testator, nsttuted a second petton for ntestate
proceedngs. They aso opposed the probate of the testators w
and the appontment of a speca admnstrator for hs estate.
Benon Cabrera ded and was repaced by Wam Cabrera
as speca admnstrator and gave an order that the testate
proceedngs for the probate of the w had to be heard and
resoved frst.
In the course of the proceedngs, pettoners opposed to the
aowance of the testators w on the ground that on the aeged
date of ts executon, the testator was aready n poor state of
heath such that he coud not have possby executed the same.
Aso the genuneness of the sgnature of the testator s n doubt.
On the other hand, one of the attestng wtnesses and the
notary pubc testfed that the testator executed the w n
queston n ther presence whe he was of sound and dsposng
mnd and that the testator was n good heath and was not unduy
nfuenced n any way n the executon of hs w.
Probate court then rendered a decson decarng the w n
queston as the ast w and testament of the ate Mateo Cabaero.
CA affrmed the probate courts decson statng that t
substantay compes wth Artce 805. Hence ths appea.
ISSUE:
W/N the attestaton cause n the w of the testator s fatay
defectve or can be cured under the art. 809.
HELD:
No. It does not compy wth the provsons of the aw.
Ordnary or attested ws are governed by Arts. 804 to 809.
The w must be acknowedged before a notary pubc by the
testator and the attestng wtnesses. The attestaton cause need
not be wrtten n a anguage known to the testator or even to the
attestng wtnesses.
It s a separate memorandum or record of the facts
surroundng the conduct of executon and once sgned by the
wtnesses t gves affrmaton to the fact that compance wth the
essenta formates requred by aw has been observed.
The attestaton cause, therefore, provdes strong ega
guarantes for the due executon of a w and to nsure the
authentcty thereof.
It s contended by pettoners that the attestaton cause n
the w faed to specfcay state the fact that the attestng
wtnesses wtnessed the testator sgn the w and a ts pages n
ther presence and that they, the wtnesses, kewse sgned the w
and every page thereof n the presence of the testator and of each
other. And the Court agrees.
The attestaton cause does not expressy state theren the
crcumstance that sad wtnesses subscrbed ther respectve
sgnatures to the w n the presence of the testator and of each
other.
The phrase, "and he has sgned the same and every page
thereof, on the space provded for hs sgnature and on the eft
hand margn," obvousy refers to the testator and not the
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 20
nstrumenta wtnesses as t s mmedatey preceded by the words"
as hs ast w and testament."
Ceary ackng s the statement that the wtnesses sgned
the w and every page thereof n the presence of the testator and
of one another. That the absence of the statement requred by aw
s a fata defect or mperfecton whch must necessary resut n the
dsaowance of the w that s here sought to be probated.
Aso, Art. 809 does not appy to the present case because
the attestaton cause totay omts the fact that the attestng
wtnesses sgned each and every page of the w n the presence of
the testator and of each other. The defect n ths case s not ony
wth respect to the form or the anguage of the attestaton cause.
The defects must be remeded by ntrnsc evdence supped by the
w tsef whch s ceary ackng n ths case.
Therefore, the probate of the w s set asde and the case
for the ntestate proceedngs sha be revved.
Artce 809 cannot be used to cure the defects of the w
when t does not pertan to the form or anguage of the w. Ths s
because there s not substanta compance wth Artce 805.
Azuela v. CA
487 SCRA 119 | jalipa
ARTICLE 810
Roxas v. De jesus
134 SCRA 245 | Lantion
FACTS:
Bbane Roxas ded. Her brother, Smeon Roxas, fed a spec.
pro. for partton of the estate of the deceased and aso devered
the hoographc w of the deceased. Smeon stated that he found a
notebook beongng to deceased, whch contaned a "etter-w"
entrey wrtten and sgned n deceaseds handwrtng. The w s
dated "FEB./61 " and states: "Ths s my w whch I want to be
respected athough t s not wrtten by a awyer. Roxas reatves
corroborated the fact that the same s a hoographc w of
deceased, dentfyng her handwrtng and sgnature. Respondent
opposed probate on the ground that t such does not compy wth
Artce 810 of the CC because the date contaned n a hoographc
w must sgnfy the year, month, and day.
ISSUE:
W/N the date "FEB./61 " appearng on the hoographc W of the
deceased Bbana Roxas de |esus s a vad compance wth the
Artce 810 of the Cv Code.
HELD:
Vad date.
Ths w not be the frst tme that ths Court departs from a
strct and tera appcaton of the statutory requrements regardng
the due executon of Ws. The underyng and fundamenta
ob|ectves permeatng the provsons of the aw ws conssts n the
berazaton of the manner of ther executon wth the end n vew
of gvng the testator more freedom n expressng hs ast wshes,
but wth suffcent safeguards and restrctons to prevent the
commsson of fraud and the exercse of undue and mproper
pressure and nfuence upon the testator. If a W has been
executed n substanta compance wth the formates of the aw,
and the possbty of bad fath and fraud n the exercse thereof s
obvated, sad W shoud be admtted to probate (Rey v. Cartagena
56 Ph. 282).
If the testator, n executng hs W, attempts to compy wth
a the requstes, athough compance s not tera, t s suffcent f
the ob|ectve or purpose sought to be accompshed by such
requste s actuay attaned by the form foowed by the testator.
In Abangan v. Abanga 40 Ph. 476, we rued that: The ob|ect of the
soemntes surroundng the executon of ws s to cose the door
aganst bad fath and fraud, to avod substtuton of ws and
testaments and to guaranty ther truth and authentcty. ...
In partcuar, a compete date s requred to provde aganst
such contngences as that of two competng Ws executed on the
same day, or of a testator becomng nsane on the day on whch a
W was executed (Veasco v. Lopez, 1 Ph. 720). There s no such
contngency n ths case.
We have carefuy revewed the records of ths case and
found no evdence of bad fath and fraud n ts executon nor was
there any substtuton of Wns and Testaments. There s no
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 21
queston that the hoographc W of the deceased Bbana Roxas
de |esus was entrey wrtten, dated, and sgned by the testatrx
hersef and n a anguage known to her. There s aso no queston
as to ts genuneness and due executon. A the chdren of the
testatrx agree on the genuneness of the hoographc W of ther
mother and that she had the testamentary capacty at the tme of
the executon of sad W. The ob|ecton nterposed by the
oppostor-respondent Luz Henson s that the hoographc W s
fatay defectve because the date "FEB./61 " appearng on the
hoographc W s not suffcent compance wth Artce 810 of the
Cv Code. Ths ob|ecton s too technca to be entertaned.
As a genera rue, the "date" n a hoographc W shoud ncude
the day, month, and year of ts executon. However, when as n the
case at bar, there s no appearance of fraud, bad fath, undue
nfuence and pressure and the authentcty of the W s
estabshed and the ony ssue s whether or not the date "FEB./61"
appearng on the hoographc W s a vad compance wth Artce
810 of the Cv Code, probate of the hoographc W shoud be
aowed under the prncpe of substanta compance.
Labrador v. CA
FACTS:
Meeco ded eavng behnd a parce of and to hs hers.
However, durng probate proceedngs, |esus and Gaudenco fed an
opposton on the ground that the w has been extngushed by
mpcaton of aw aegng that before Meecos death, the and
was sod to them evdenced by TCT No. 21178. |esus eventuay
sod t to Navat.
Tra court admtted the w to probate and decared the TCT
nu and vod. However, the CA on appea dened probate on the
ground that t was undated.
ISSUE:
W/N the aeged hoographc w s dated, as provded for n Artce
810 of CC.
HELD:
YES. The aw does not specfy a partcuar ocaton where
the date shoud be paced n the w. The ony requrements are
that the date be n the w tsef and executed n the hand of the
testator.
The ntenton to show March 17 1968 as the date of the
executon s pan from the tenor of the succeedng words of the
paragraph. It states that "ths beng n the month of March 17
th
day,
n the year 1968, and ths decson and or nstructon of mne s the
matter to be foowed. And the one who made ths wrtng s no
other than Meeco Labrador, ther father." Ths ceary shows that
ths s a unatera act of Meeco who pany knew that he was
executng a w.
ARTICLE 811
Gan v. Yap
104:509 | Lugtu
FACTS:
Fecdad Yap ded of a heart faure, eavng propertes n
Puan, Buacan, and n Mana.
Fausto E. Gan, her nephew, ntated the proceedngs n the
Mana CFI wth a petton for the probate of a hoographc w
aegedy executed by the deceased.
The w was not presented because Fecdads husband,
Idefonso, supposedy took t. What was presented were wtness
accounts of reatves who knew of her ntenton to make a w and
aegedy saw t as we. Accordng to the wtnesses, Fecdad dd
not want her husband to know about t, but she had made known to
her other reatves that she made a w.
Opposng the petton, her survvng husband Idefonso Yap
asserted that the deceased had not eft any w, nor executed any
testament durng her fetme.
After hearng the partes and consderng ther evdence, the
|udge refused to probate the aeged w on account of the
dscrepances arsng from the facts. For one thng, t s strange that
Fecdad made her w known to so many of her reatves when she
wanted to keep t a secret and she woud not have carred t n her
purse n the hospta, knowng that her husband may have access
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 22
to t. There was aso no evdence presented that her nece was her
confdant.
In the face of these mprobabtes, the tra |udge had to
accept the oppostors evdence that Fecdad dd not and coud not
have executed such hoographc w.
ISSUE:
1. May a hoographc w be probated upon the testmony of
wtnesses who have aegedy seen t and who decare that t
was n the handwrtng of the testator?
2. W/N Fecdad coud have executed the hoographc w.
HELD:
1. No. The w must be presented.
The New Cv Code effectve n 1950 revved hoographc
ws n ts arts. 810-814. "A person may execute a hoographc
w whch must be entrey wrtten, dated, and sgned by the
hand of the testator hmsef. It s sub|ect to no other form and
may be made n or out of the Phppnes, and need not be
wtnessed."
Ths s a radca departure from the form and soemntes
provded for ws under Act 190, whch for ffty years (from
1901 to 1950) requred ws to be subscrbed by the testator
and three credbe wtnesses n each and every page; such
wtnesses to attest to the number of sheets used and to the fact
that the testator sgned n ther presence and that they sgned
n the presence of the testator and of each other. Authentcty
and due executon s the domnant requrements to be fufed
when such w s submtted to the courts for aowance. For that
purpose the testmony of one of the subscrbng wtnesses
woud be suffcent f there s no opposton (Sec. 5, Rue 77). If
there s, the three must testfy, f avaabe. From the testmony
of such wtnesses (and of other addtona wtnesses) the court
may form ts opnon as to the genuneness and authentcty of
the testament, and the crcumstances ts due executon.
Wth regard to hoographc ws, no such guarantes of truth
and veracty are demanded, snce as stated, they need no
wtnesses; provded however, that they are "entrey wrtten,
dated, and sgned by the hand of the testator hmsef."
"In the probate of a hoographc w" says the New Cv
Code, "t sha be necessary that at east one wtness who
knows the handwrtng and sgnature of the testator expcty
decare that the w and the sgnature are n the handwrtng of
the testator. If the w s contested, at east three such
wtnesses sha be requred. In the absence of any such
wtnesses, (famar wth decedent's handwrtng) and f the
court deem t necessary, expert testmony may be resorted to."
The wtnesses need not have seen the executon of the
hoographc w, but they must be famar wth the decedents
handwrtng. Obvousy, when the w tsef s not submtted,
these means of opposton, and of assessng the evdence are
not avaabe. And then the ony guaranty of authentcty

- the
testator's handwrtng - has dsappeared.
The Rues of Court, (Rue 77) approved n 1940 aow proof
(and probate) of a ost or destroyed w by secondary -
evdence the testmony of wtnesses, n eu of the orgna
document. Yet such Rues coud not have contempated
hoographc ws whch coud not then be vady made here.
Coud Rue 77 be extended, by anaogy, to hoographc ws?
(NO)
Spansh commentators agree that one of the greatest
ob|ectons to the hoographc w s that t may be ost or
stoen - an mped admsson that such oss or theft renders t
useess.
As t s unversay admtted that the hoographc w s
usuay done by the testator and by hmsef aone, to prevent
others from knowng ether ts executon or ts contents, the
above artce 692 coud not have the dea of smpy permttng
such reatves to state whether they know of the w, but
whether n the face of the document tsef they thnk the
testator wrote t. Obvousy, ths they can't do uness the w
tsef s presented to the Court and to them.
Ths hodng agns wth the deas on hoographc ws n the
Fuero |uzgo, admttedy the bass of the Spansh Cv Code
provsons on the matter.(Accordng to the Fuero, the w tsef
must be compared wth specmens of the testators
handwrtng.)
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 23
A of whch can ony mean: the courts w not dstrbute the
property of the deceased n accordance wth hs hoographc
w, uness they are shown hs handwrtng and sgnature.
Takng a the above crcumstances together, we reach the
concuson that the executon and the contents of a ost or
destroyed hoographc w may not be proved by the bare
testmony of wtnesses who have seen and/or read such w.
At ths pont, before proceedng further, t mght be
convenent to expan why, unke hoographc ws, ordnary
ws may be proved by testmona evdence when ost or
destroyed. The dfference es n the nature of the ws. In the
frst, the ony guarantee of authentcty s the handwrtng tsef;
n the second, the testmony of the subscrbng or nstrumenta
wtnesses (and of the notary, now). The oss of the hoographc
w entas the oss of the ony medum of proof; f the ordnary
w s ost, the subscrbng wtnesses are avaabe to
authentcate.
In the case of ordnary ws, t s qute hard to convnce
three wtnesses (four wth the notary) deberatey to e. And
then ther es coud be checked and exposed, ther
whereabouts and acts on the partcuar day, the kehood that
they woud be caed by the testator, ther ntmacy wth the
testator, etc. And f they were ntmates or trusted frends of the
testator they are not key to end themseves to any frauduent
scheme to dstort hs wshes. Last but not east, they can not
receve anythng on account of the w.
Whereas n the case of hoographc ws, f ora testmony
were admssbe ony one man coud engneer the fraud ths
way: after makng a cever or passabe mtaton of the
handwrtng and sgnature of the deceased, he may contrve to
et three honest and credbe wtnesses see and read the
forgery; and the atter, havng no nterest, coud easy fa for t,
and n court they woud n a good fath affrm ts genuneness
and authentcty. The w havng been ost - the forger may
have purposey destroyed t n an "accdent" - the oppostors
have no way to expose the trck and the error, because the
document tsef s not at hand. And consderng that the
hoographc w may consst of two or three pages, and ony
one of them need be sgned, the substtuton of the unsgned
pages, whch may be the most mportant ones, may go
undetected.
If testmona evdence of hoographc ws be permtted,
one more ob|ectonabe feature - feasbty of forgery - woud
be added to the severa ob|ectons to ths knd of ws sted by
Castan, Sanchez Roman and Vaverde and other we-known
Spansh Commentators and teachers of Cv Law.
One more fundamenta dfference: n the case of a ost w,
the three subscrbng wtnesses woud be testfyng to a
fact whch they saw, namey the act of the testator of
subscrbng the w; whereas n the case of a ost hoographc
w, the wtnesses woud testfy as to ther opnon of the
handwrtng whch they aegedy saw, an opnon whch can not
be tested n court, nor drecty contradcted by the oppostors,
because the handwrtng tsef s not at hand.
In fne, even f ora testmony were admssbe to estabsh
and probate a ost hoographc w, we thnk the evdence
submtted by heren pettoner s so tanted wth mprobabtes
and nconsstences that t fas to measure up to that "cear and
dstnct" proof requred by Rue 77, sec. 6.
2. No. Even f ora testmony were admssbe to estabsh and
probate a ost hoographc w, we thnk the evdence submtted
by heren pettoner s so tanted wth mprobabtes and
nconsstences that t fas to measure up to that "cear and
dstnct" proof requred by Rue 77, sec. 6.
Rodelas v. Aranza
119 SCRA 16 | Nieves
FACTS:
Rodeas fed a petton wth the CFI of Rza for the probate
of the hoographc w of Rcardo B. Bona and the ssuance of
etters testamentary n her favor.
Aranza, et a. fed a MTD on the grounds of:
1. Rodeas was estopped from camng that the deceased eft
a w by fang to produce the w wthn twenty days of the
death of the testator as requred by Rue 75, secton 2 of the
Rues of Court;
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 24
2. the copy of the aeged hoographc w dd not contan a
dsposton of property after death and was not ntended to take
effect after death, and therefore t was not a w, t was merey
an nstructon as to the management and mprovement of the
schoos and coeges founded by the decedent;
3. the hoographc w tsef, and not an aeged copy thereof,
must be produced, otherwse t woud produce no effect
because ost or destroyed hoographc ws cannot be proved by
secondary evdence unke ordnary ws
4. the deceased dd not eave any w, hoographc or
otherwse, executed and attested as requred by aw.
MTD was dened. Aranza et a. fed an MR, Rodeas fed an
opposton.
The CFI set asde ts order and dsmssed the petton for the
probate of the w statng that "n the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104
Ph. 509, 522, the Supreme Court hed that 'n the matter of
hoographc ws the aw, t s reasonabe to suppose, regards the
document tsef as the matera proof of authentcty of sad ws."
And that the aeged hoographc w was executed on
|anuary 25, 1962 whe Rcardo B. Bona ded on May 13, 1976.
The apse of more than 14 years from the tme of the executon of
the w to the death of the decedent and the fact that the orgna
of the w coud not be ocated shows to that the decedent had
dscarded the aeged hoographc w before hs death.
Rodeas fed an MR whch was dened. Rodeas appeaed to
the CA. Aranza et a. moved to forward the case to the SC as t
nvoves a queston of aw not of fact.

ISSUE:
W/N a hoographc w whch was ost or cannot be found can be
proved by means of a photostatc copy.
HELD:
If the hoographc w has been ost or destroyed and no
other copy s avaabe, the w cannot be probated because the
best and ony evdence s the handwrtng of the testator n sad
w. It s necessary that there be a comparson between sampe
handwrtten statements of the testator and the handwrtten w.
But, a photostatc copy or xerox copy of the hoographc w may
be aowed because comparson can be made by the probate court
wth the standard wrtngs of the testator. The probate court woud
be abe to determne the authentcty of the handwrtng of the
testator.
In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court rued
that "the executon and the contents of a ost or destroyed
hoographc w may not be proved by the bare testmony of
wtnesses who have seen and/or read such w. The w tsef must
be presented; otherwse, t sha produce no effect. The aw regards
the document tsef as matera proof of authentcty." But, n
Footnote 8 of sad decson, t says that "Perhaps t may be proved
by a photographc or photostatc copy. Even a mmeographed or
carbon copy; or by other smar means, f any, whereby the
authentcty of the handwrtng of the deceased may be exhbted
and tested before the probate court,"
Azaola v. Singson
109:102 | Ong
FACTS:
Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance ded n Ouezon Cty on
September 9, 1957. Pettoner submtted for probate her
hoographc w, n whch Mara Azaoa was made the soe her as
aganst the nephew, who s the defendant. Ony one wtness,
Francsoco Azaoa, was presented to testfy on the handwrtng of
the testatrx. He testfed that he had seen t one month, more or
ess, before the death of the testatrx, as t was gven to hm and
hs wfe; and that t was n the testatrxs handwrtng. He presented
the mortgage, the speca power of the attorney, and the genera
power of attorney, and the deeds of sae ncudng an affdavt to
renforce hs statement. Two resdence certfcates showng the
testatrxs sgnature were aso exhbted for comparson purposes.
The probate was opposed on the ground that (1) the
executon of the w was procured by undue and mproper pressure
and nfuence on the part of the pettoner and hs wfe, and (2) that
the testatrx dd not serousy ntend the nstrument to be her ast
w, and that the same was actuay wrtten ether on the 5th or 6th
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 25
day of August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as appears on
the w.
The probate was dened on the ground that under Artce
811 of the Cv Code, the proponent must present three wtnesses
who coud decare that the w and the sgnature are n the wrtng
of the testatrx, the probate beng contested; and because the one
wtness presented "dd not prove suffcenty that the body of the
w was wrtten n the handwrtng of the testatrx."
Pettoner appeaed, urgng: frst, that he was not bound to
produce more than one wtness because the w's authentcty was
not questoned; and second, that Artce 811 does not mandatory
requre the producton of three wtnesses to dentfy the
handwrtng and sgnature of a hoographc w, even f ts
authentcty shoud be dened by the adverse party.
ISSUE:
W/N Artce 811 of the Cv Code s mandatory or permssve.
HELD:
Artce 811
1
s merey permssve and not mandatory. Snce
the authentcty of the w was not contested, pettoner was not
requred to produce more than one wtness; but even f the
genuneness of the hoographc w were contested, Artce 811 can
not be nterpreted to requre the compusory presentaton of three
wtnesses to dentfy the handwrtng of the testator, under penaty
of havng the probate dened. Snce no wtness may have been
present at the executon of a hoographc w, none beng requred
by aw (Art. 810, new Cv Code), t becomes obvous that the
exstence of wtness possessng the requste quafcatons s a
matter beyond the contro of the proponent. For t s not merey a
queston of fndng and producng any three wtnesses; they must
!
ART. 811. In the probate of a hoographc w, t sha be necessary that at
east one wtness who knows the handwrtng and sgnature of the testator
expcty decare that the w and the sgnature are n the handwrtng of
the testator. If the w s contested, at east three of such wtnesses sha
be requred.
In the absence of any competent wtnesses referred to n the precedng
paragraph, and f the court deems t necessary, expert testmony may
be resorted to. (691a)
be wtnesses "who know the handwrtng and sgnature of the
testator" and who can decare (truthfuy, of course, even f the aw
does not so express) "that the w and the sgnature are n the
handwrtng of the testator". There may be no avaabe wtness of
the testator's hand; or even f so famarzed, the wtnesses may be
unwng to gve a postve opnon. Compance wth the rue of
paragraph 1 of Artce 811 may thus become an mpossbty.
Ths s the reason why the 2
nd
paragraph of Artce 811
aows the court to resort to expert evdence. The aw foresees the
possbty that no quafed wtness may be found (or what amounts
to the same thng, that no competent wtness may be wng to
testfy to the authentcty of the w), and provdes for resort to
expert evdence to suppy the defcency.
What the aw deems essenta s that the court shoud be
convnced of the w's authentcty. Where the prescrbed number
of wtnesses s produced and the court s convnced by ther
testmony that the w s genune, t may consder t unnecessary to
ca for expert evdence. On the other hand, f no competent
wtness s avaabe, or none of those produced s convncng, the
Court may st, and n fact t shoud, resort to handwrtng experts.
The duty of the Court, n fne, s to exhaust a avaabe nes of
nqury, for the state s as much nterested as the proponent that
the true ntenton of the testator be carred nto effect.
Codoy v. Calugay
FACTS:
On 6 Apr 1990, Evangene Caugay, |osephne Sacedo and
Eufema Patgas, devsees and egatees of the hoographc w of
the deceased Matde Seo Vda. de Ramona, fed a petton for
probate of the sad w. They attested to the genuneness and due
executon of the w on 30 August 1978.
Eugeno Ramona Codoy and Manue Ramona fed ther
opposton camng that the w was a forgery and that the same s
even egbe. They rased doubts as regards the repeated
appearng on the w after every dsposton, cang the same out
of the ordnary. If the w was n the handwrtng of the deceased,
t was mpropery procured.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 26
Evangene Caugay, etc. presented 6 wtnesses and varous
documentary evdence.
The frst wtness was the clerk of court of the probate
court who produced and dentfed the records of the case bearng
the sgnature of the deceased.
The second wtness was election registrar who was made
to produce and dentfy the voters affdavt, but faed to as the
same was aready destroyed and no onger avaabe.
The thrd, the deceased's niece, camed that she had
acqured famarty wth the deceaseds sgnature and handwrtng
as she used to accompany her n coectng rentas from her varous
tenants of commerca budngs and the deceased aways ssued
recepts. The nece aso testfed that the deceased eft a
hoographc w entrey wrtten, dated and sgned by sad
deceased.
The fourth wtness was a former lawyer for the deceased
n the ntestate proceedngs of her ate husband, who sad that the
sgnature on the w was smar to that of the deceased but that he
can not be sure.
The ffth was an employee of the DENR who testfed that
she was famar wth the sgnature of the deceased whch
appeared n the atters appcaton for pasture permt. The ffth,
respondent Evangeline Calugay, camed that she had ved
wth the deceased snce brth where she had become famar wth
her sgnature and that the one appearng on the w was genune.
Codoy and Ramonas demurrer to evdence was granted by
the ower court. It was reversed on appea wth the Court of
Appeas whch granted the probate.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Artce 811 of the Cv Code, provdng that at east
three wtnesses expcty decare the sgnature n a contested
w as the genune sgnature of the testator, s mandatory or
drectory.
2. Whether or not the wtnesses suffcenty estabsh the
authentcty and due executon of the deceaseds hoographc
w.
HELD:
1. YES. The word "sha" connotes a mandatory order, an
mperatve obgaton and s nconsstent wth the dea of
dscreton and that the presumpton s that the word "sha",
when used n a statute, s mandatory.
In the case at bar, the goa to be acheved by the aw, s to
gve effect to the wshes of the deceased and the ev to be
prevented s the possbty that unscrupuous ndvduas who
for ther beneft w empoy means to defeat the wshes of the
testator.
The paramount consderaton n the present petton s to
determne the true ntent of the deceased.
2. NO. We cannot be certan that the hoographc w was n
the handwrtng of the deceased.
The cerk of court was not presented to decare expcty
that the sgnature appearng n the hoographc w was that of
the deceased.
The eecton regstrar was not abe to produce the voters
affdavt for verfcaton as t was no onger avaabe.
The deceaseds nece saw pre-prepared recepts and etters
of the deceased and dd not decare that she saw the deceased
sgn a document or wrte a note.
The w was not found n the persona beongngs of the
deceased but was n the possesson of the sad nece, who kept
the fact about the w from the chdren of the deceased,
puttng n ssue her motve.
Evangene Caugay never decared that she saw the
decreased wrte a note or sgn a document.
The former awyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to
the authentcty of the sgnature n the hoographc w.
(As t appears n the foregong, the three-wtness
requrement was not comped wth.)
A vsua examnaton of the hoographc w convnces that
the strokes are dfferent when compared wth other documents
wrtten by the testator.
The records are remanded to aow the oppostors to
adduce evdence n support of ther opposton.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 27
The ob|ect of soemntes surroundng the executon of ws
s to cose the door aganst bad fath and fraud, to avod
substtuton of ws and testaments and to guaranty ther truth
and authentcty. Therefore, the aws on ths sub|ect shoud be
nterpreted n such a way as to attan these prmorda ends.
But, on the other hand, aso one must not ose sght of the fact
that t s not the ob|ect of the aw to restran and curta the
exercse the rght to make a w.
However, we cannot emnate the possbty of a fase
document beng ad|udged as the w of the testator, whch s
why f the hoographc w s contested, the aw requres three
wtnesses to decare that the w was n the handwrtng of the
deceased.
Artce 811, paragraph 1. provdes: "In the probate of a
hoographc w, t sha be necessary that at east one wtness
who knows the handwrtng and sgnature of the testator
expcty decare that the w and the sgnature are n the
handwrtng of the testator. If the w s contested, at east
three of such wtnesses shall be requred."
The word "sha" connotes a mandatory order, an mperatve
obgaton and s nconsstent wth the dea of dscreton and
that the presumpton s that the word "sha", when used n a
statute, s mandatory.
ARTICLES 813-814
Ajero v. CA
FACTS:
The hoographc w of Anne San was submtted for probate.
Prvate respondent opposed the petton on the grounds
that: nether the testaments body nor the sgnature theren was n
decedents handwrtng; t contaned ateratons and correctons
whch were not duy sgned by decedent; and, the w was procured
by pettoners through mproper pressure and undue nfuence.
The petton was aso contested by Dr. A|ero wth respect to
the dsposton n the w of a house and ot. He camed that sad
property coud not be conveyed by decedent n ts entrety, as she
was not ts soe owner.
However, the tra court st admtted the decedents
hoographc w to probate.
The tra court hed that snce t must decde ony the
queston of the dentty of the w, ts due executon and the
testamentary capacty of the testatrx, t fnds no reason for the
dsaowance of the w for ts faure to compy wth the formates
prescrbed by aw nor for ack of testamentary capacty of the
testatrx.
On appea, the CA reversed sad Decson hodng that the
decedent dd not compy wth Artces 313 and 314 of the NCC. It
found that certan dspostons n the w were ether unsgned or
undated, or sgned by not dated. It aso found that the erasures,
ateratons and canceatons made had not been authentcated by
decedent.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred n hodng that Artces 813 and 814 of the
NCC were not compes wth.
HELD:
YES. A readng of Artce 813 shows that ts requrement
affects the vadty of the dspostons contaned n the hoographc
w, but not ts probate. If the testator fas to sgn and date some
of the dspostons, the resut s that these dspostons cannot be
effectuated. Such faure, however, does not render the whoe
testament vod.
Lkewse, a hoographc w can st be admtted to probate
notwthstandng non-compance wth the provsons of Artce 814.
Uness the authentcated ateratons, canceatons or
nsertons were made on the date of the hoographc w or on
testators sgnature, ther presence does not nvadate the w
tsef. The ack of authentcaton w ony resut n dsaowance of
such changes.
It s aso proper to note that he requrements of
authentcaton of changes and sgnng and datng of dspostons
appear n provsons (Artce 813 and 814) separate from that whch
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 28
provdes for the necessary condtons for the vadty of the
hoographc w (Artce 810).
Ths separaton and dstncton adds support to the
nterpretaton that ony the requrements of Artce 810 of the NCC
- and not those found n Artces 813 and 814 - are essenta to the
probate of a hoographc w.
Secton 9, Rue 76 of the Rues of Court and Artce 839 of
the Cv Code enumerate the grounds for dsaowance of ws.
These sts are excusve; no other grounds can serve to dsaow a
w.
In a petton to admt a hoographc w, the ony ssues to
be resoved are:
1. whether the nstrument submtted s, ndeed, the decedents
ast w and testament;
2. whether sad w was executed n accordance wth the
formates prescrbed by aw;
3. whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary
capacty at the tme the w was executed; and
4. whether the executon of the w and ts sgnng were the
vountary acts of the decedent.
The ob|ect of the soemntes surroundng the executon of
ws s to cose the door aganst bad fath and fraud; accordngy,
aws on ths sub|ect shoud be nterpreted to attan these prmorda
ends.
In the case of hoographc ws, what assures authentcty s
the requrement that they be totay authographc or handwrtten
by the testator hmsef. Faure to strcty observe other formates
w no resut n the dsaowance of a hoographc w that s
unquestonabe handwrtten by the testator.
ARTICLE 814
Kalaw v. Relova
132 SCRA 237 | Posadas
FACTS:
On September 1, 1971,Gregoro Kaaw, camng to be the
soe her of hs deceased sster, Natvdad Kaaw, fed a petton for
the probate of her hoographc W executed on December 24,
1968.
The hoographc W, as frst wrtten, named Rosa Kaaw, a
sster of the testatrx as her soe her. She opposed probate aegng
that the hoographc W contaned ateratons, correctons, and
nsertons wthout the proper authentcaton by the fu sgnature of
the testatrx as requred by Artce 814 of the Cv Code readng:
Art. 814. In case of any nserton, canceaton, erasure or ateraton
n a hoographc w the testator must authentcate the same by hs
fu sgnature.
ROSA's poston was that the hoographc W, as frst
wrtten, shoud be gven effect and probated so that she coud be
the soe her thereunder.
Tra Court dened petton to probate the hoographc w.
Reconsderaton dened.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 29
ISSUE:
W/N the original unaltered text after subsequent ateratons and
nsertons were voded by the Tra Court for ack of authentcaton
by the fu sgnature of the testatrx, shoud be probated or not,
wth Rosa as soe her.
HELD:
Ordnary, when a number of erasures, correctons, and
nterneatons made by the testator n a hoographc W tem not
been noted under hs sgnature, ... the W s not thereby
nvadated as a whoe, but at most ony as respects the partcuar
words erased, corrected or nterned.
However, when as n ths case, the hoographc W n
dspute had ony one substanta provson, whch was atered by
substtutng the orgna her wth another, but whch ateraton dd
not carry the requste of fu authentcaton by the fu sgnature of
the testator, the effect must be that the entre W s voded or
revoked for the smpe reason that nothng remans n the W after
that whch coud reman vad. To state that the W as frst wrtten
shoud be gven effcacy s to dsregard the seemng change of
mnd of the testatrx. But that change of mnd can nether be gven
effect because she faed to authentcate t n the manner requred
by aw by affxng her fu sgnature,
The rung n Velasco, supra, must be hed confned to such
nsertons, canceatons, erasures or ateratons n a hoographc
W, whch affect ony the effcacy of the atered words themseves
but not the essence and vadty of the W tsef. As t s, wth the
erasures, canceatons and ateratons made by the testatrx
heren, her rea ntenton cannot be determned wth certtude.
ARTICLES 820-821
Gonzales v. CA
90 SCRA 183 | Reyes
FACTS:
Isabe Gabre ded on |une 7, 1961 wthout ssue. Lutgarda
Santago (respondent), nece of Isabe, fed a petton for probate
of Isabe's w desgnatng her as the prncpa benefcary and
executrx. The w was typewrtten n Tagaog and was executed 2
months pror to death of Isabe.
The petton was opposed by Rzana Gonzaes (pettoner),
aso a nece of Isabe, on the foowng grounds: 1. the w s not
genune, 2. w was not executed and attested as requred by aw,
3. the decedent at the tme of the makng of the w dd not have
testamentary capacty due to her age and sckness, and 4. the w
was procured through undue nfuence.
The tra court dsaowed the probate of the w but the
Court of Appeas Reversed the sad decson of the tra court. The
pettoner fed a petton for revew wth SC camng that the CA
erred n hodng that the w of the decedent was executed and
attested as requred by aw when there was absoutey no proof
that the 3 nstrumenta wtnesses are credible.
ISSUE:
1. 1. Can a wtness be consdered competent under Art 820-
821 and st not be consdered credible as requred by Art.
805?
2. Is t requred that there must be evdence on record that the
wtness to a w has good standng n hs/her communty or
that he/she s honest or uprght?
HELD:
1. Yes. The pettoner submts that the term credible n Artce
805 requres somethng more than |ust beng competent and,
therefore, a wtness n addton to beng competent under
Artces 820-821 must aso be credbe under Art. 805. The
competency of a person to be an nstrumenta wtness to a w
s determned by the statute (Art. 820 and 821), whereas hs
credbty depends on the apprecaton of hs testmony and
arses from the beef and concuson of the Court that sad
wtness s teng the truth. In the case of Vda. de Aroyo v. El
8eaterio del 5antissimo Rosario de Molo, No. L-22005, May 3,
1968, the Supreme Court hed and rued that: "Competency as
a wtness s one thng, and t s another to be a credbe wtness,
so credbe that the Court must accept what he says. Tra
courts may aow a person to testfy as a wtness upon a gven
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 30
matter because he s competent, but may thereafter decde
whether to beeve or not to beeve hs testmony."
2. No. There s no mandatory requrement that the wtness
testfy ntay or at any tme durng the tra as to hs good
standng n the communty, hs reputaton for trustworthness
and for beng reabe, hs honesty and uprghtness (such
attrbutes are presumed of the wtness uness the contrary s
proved otherwse by the opposng party) n order that hs
testmony may be beeved and accepted by the tra court. It s
enough that the quafcatons enumerated n Artce 820 of the
Cv Code are comped wth, such that the soundness of hs
mnd can be shown by or deduced from hs answers to the
questons propounded to hm, that hs age (18 years or more) s
shown from hs appearance, testmony , or competenty proved
otherwse, as we as the fact that he s not bnd, deaf or dumb
and that he s abe to read and wrte to the satsfacton of the
Court, and that he has none of the dsquafcatons under
Artce 821 of the Cv Code.
ARTICLE 830
Gago v. Mamuyac
49:902| 5aranillo
FACTS:
Mgue Mamuyac ded on |anuary 2, 1922. It appears from
the record that Mgue executed a ast w and testament on |uy
27, 1918. Gago presented such w for probate whch was opposed
by Corneo Mamuyac et. a. Sad petton for probate was dened on
the ground that the deceased executed another w on Apr 16,
1919. Gago presented the Apr 16 w for probate whch was agan
opposed by Corneo et. a. aegng that the w presented by Gago
s a carbon copy of the orgna Apr 16 w; such w was canceed
durng the fetme of the deceased; and that sad w was not the
ast w and testament of the deceased. The RTC found that the
deceased executed another w on December 30, 1920.
ISSUE:
W/N the Apr 16 w was canceed.
HELD:
YES. Wth reference to the sad canceaton, t may be
stated that there s postve proof, not dened, whch was accepted
by the ower court, that w n queston had been canceed n 1920.
The aw does not requre any evdence of the revocaton or
canceaton of a w to be preserved. It therefore becomes dffcut
at tmes to prove the revocaton or canceaton of ws. The fact
that such canceaton or revocaton has taken pace must ether
reman unproved of be nferred from evdence showng that after
due search the orgna w cannot be found. Where a w whch
cannot be found s shown to have been n the possesson of the
testator, when ast seen, the presumpton s, n the absence of
other competent evdence, that the same was canceed or
destroyed. The same presumpton arses where t s shown that the
testator had ready access to the w and t cannot be found after
hs death. It w not be presumed that such w has been destroyed
by any other person wthout the knowedge or authorty of the
testator. The force of the presumpton of canceaton or revocaton
by the testator, whe varyng greaty, beng weak or strong
accordng to the crcumstances, s never concusve, but may be
overcome by proof that the w was not destroyed by the testator
wth ntent to revoke t.
In vew of the fact that the orgna w of 1919 coud not be
found after the death of the testator Mgue Mamuyac and n vew
of the postve proof that the same had been canceed, we are
forced to the concuson that the concusons of the ower court are
n accordance wth the weght of the evdence. In a proceedng to
probate a w the burden of proofs s upon the proponent ceary to
estabsh not ony ts executon but ts exstence. Havng proved ts
executon by the proponents, the burden s on the contestant to
show that t has been revoked. In a great ma|orty of nstances n
whch ws are destroyed for the purpose of revokng them there s
no wtness to the act of canceaton or destructon and a evdence
of ts canceaton pershes wth the testator. Copes of ws shoud
be admtted by the courts wth great cauton. When t s proven,
however, by proper testmony that a w was executed n dupcate
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 31
and each copy was executed wth a the formates and
requrements of the aw, then the dupcate may be admtted n
evdence when t s made to appear that the orgna has been ost
and was not canceed or destroyed by the testator.
Casiano v. CA
158 SCRA 451 | 5ia
FACTS:
On October 20, 1963, Adrana Maoto ded eavng as hers
her nece and nephews, the pettoners Adna Maoto-Casano and
Constanco, Maoto, and the prvate respondents Panfo Maoto and
Feno Maoto. Beevng that the deceased dd not eave behnd a
ast w and testament, these four hers commenced on November
4, 1963 an ntestate proceedng for the settement of ther aunt's
estate n the CFI of Ioo. Whe the case was st pendng the
partes - Adna, Constanco, Panfo, and Feno - executed an
agreement of extra|udca settement of Adrana's estate. The
agreement provded for the dvson of the estate nto four equa
parts among the partes. The Maotos then presented the
extra|udca settement agreement to the tra court for approva
whch the court dd on March 21, 1964.
3 years ater, Atty. Supco Pama, a former assocate of Adrana's
counse, the ate Atty. Eseo Hervas, dscovered a document
entted "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," dated
|anuary 3,1940, and purportng to be the ast w and testament of
Adrana. Atty. Pama camed to have found the testament, the
orgna copy, whe he was gong through some materas nsde
the cabnet drawer formery used by Atty. Hervas. The document
was submtted to the cerk of court of the Ioo CFI. Incdentay,
whe Panfo and Feno are st named as hers n the sad w,
Adna and Constanco are bequeathed much bgger and more
vauabe shares n the estate of Adrana than what they receved by
vrtue of the agreement of extra|udca settement they had earer
sgned. The w kewse gves devses and egaces to other partes,
among them beng the pettoners Aso de Moo, the Roman
Cathoc Church of Moo, and Purfcacon Mrafor.
Adna and Constanco, |oned by the other devsees and
egatees named n the w, fed n the same court whch approved
the E| setteement a moton for reconsderaton and annument of
the proceedngs theren and for the aowance of the w whch was
dened by the CFI. Upon petton to the SC for certorar and
mandamus, the SC dsmssed that petton and advsed that a
separate proceedng for the probate of the aeged w woud be
the approprate vehce to thresh out the matters rased by the
pettoners. The CFI and CA found that the w to be probated had
been revoked by the burnng thereof by the housemad upon
nstructon of the testatrx.
ISSUE:
W/N the w was revoked by Adrana.
HELD:
No. The provsons of the new Cv Code pertnent to the
ssue can be found n Artce 830.
The physca act of destructon of a w, ke burnng n ths
case, does not per se consttute an effectve revocaton, uness the
destructon s couped wth animus revocandi on the part of the
testator. It s not mperatve that the physca destructon be done
by the testator hmsef. It may be performed by another person but
under the express direction and n the presence of the testator. Of
course, t goes wthout sayng that the document destroyed must
be the w tsef.
"Animus revocandi" s ony one of the necessary eements
for the effectve revocaton of a ast w and testament. The
ntenton to revoke must be accompaned by the overt physca act
of burnng, tearng, obteratng, or canceng the w carred out by
the testator or by another person n hs presence and under hs
express drecton.
There s paucty of evdence to show compance wth these
requrements. For one, the document or papers burned by
Adrana's mad, Guadaupe, was not satsfactory estabshed to be
a w at a, much ess the w of Adrana Maoto. For another, the
burnng was not proven to have been done under the express
drecton of Adrana. And then, the burnng was not n her presence.
Both wtnesses, Guadaupe and Eado, were one n statng that
they were the ony ones present at the pace where the stove
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 32
(presumaby n the ktchen) was ocated n whch the papers
proffered as a w were burned.
The two wtnesses were terate and does not appear to be
unequvocaby postve that the document burned was ndeed
Adrana's w. Guadaupe beeved that the papers she destroyed
was the w ony because, accordng to her, Adrana tod her so.
Eado, on the other hand, obtaned hs nformaton that the burned
document was the w because Guadaupe tod hm so, thus, hs
testmony on ths pont s doube hearsay.
It s an mportant matter of pubc nterest that a purported wn s
not dened egazaton on dubous grounds. Otherwse, the very
nsttuton of testamentary successon w be shaken to ts very
foundatons.
ARTICLE 838
Gallanosa v. Arcangel
FACTS:
Forentno Htoss was a chdess wdower and was survved
by hs brother Lto. In hs w, Forentno bequeathed hs share n
the con|uga estate to hs second wfe, Teca, and, shoud Teca
predecease hm, as was the case, hs share woud be assgned to
spouses Gaanosa. Pedro Gaanosa was Tecas son by her frst
marrage who grew up under the care of Forentno. Hs other
propertes were bequeathed to hs protg Adofo Forta|ada.
Upon hs death, a petton for the probate of hs w was
we. Opposton was regstered by Forentnos brother, nephews
and neces.
After a hearng, where the oppostors dd not present any
evdence, the |udge admtted the w to probate.
The testators ega hers dd not appea from the decree of
probate and from the order of partton and dstrbuton.
Later, the ega hers fed a case for recovery of 61 parces
of and aganst Pedro aegng that they had been n contnuous
possesson of those ands and prayng that they be decared
owners thereof.
Pedro moved for a dsmssa whch was ater granted by the
|udge on the ground of res |udcata.
The ega hers dd not appea from the order of dsmssa.
15 years after the dsmssa of the frst cv case and 28
years after the probate of the w, the ega hers fed a case for
"annument of the w" aegng fraud and decet.
The court dsmssed sad acton. However, the court set
asde the dsmssa after the hers fed a moton for
reconsderaton. Hence, ths appea.
ISSUE:
Whether the ega hers have a cause of acton for the "annument"
of the w of Forentno and for the recovery of the 61 parces of
and ad|udcated under that w to the pettoners.
HELD:
NO. The SC hed that the ower court commtted a grave
abuse of dscreton n settng asde ts order of dsmssa and
gnorng the testamentary case and the frst cv case whch s the
same as the nstant case. It s evdent that second cv case s
barred by res |udcata and by prescrpton.
The decree of probate s concusve as to the due executon
or forma vadty of the w. That means that the testator was of
sound and dsposng mnd at the tme he executed the w and was
not actng under duress, menace, fraud, or undue nfuence; that
the w was sgned by hm n the presence of the requred number
of wtnesses, and that the w s genune.
Accordngy, these facts cannot agan be questoned n a
subsequent proceedng, not even n a crmna acton for the
forgery of the w.
After the fnaty of the aowance of a w, the ssue as to
the vountarness of ts executon cannot be rased anymore.
The SC aso hed that the decree of ad|udcaton, havng
rendered n a proceedng n rem, s bndng upon the whoe word.
Moreover, the dsmssa of the frst cv case, whch s a |udgment
n personam, was an ad|udcaton on the merts. Thus. It consttutes
a bar by former |udgment under the Rues of Court.
The SC aso hed that the ower court erred n sayng that
the acton for the recovery of the ands had not prescrbed. The SC
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 33
rued that the Art. 1410 of NCC (the acton or defense for the
decaraton of the nexstence of a contract does not prescrbe)
cannot appy to ast ws and testaments.
The Rues of Court does not sancton an acton for
"annument" of a w.
A fna decree of probate s concusve as to the due
executon of the w.
A decree of ad|udcaton n a testate proceedng s bndng
on the whoe word.After the perod for seekng reef from a fna
order or |udgment under Rue 38 of the Rues of court has expred,
a fna |udgment or order can be set asde ony on the grounds of:
(a) ack of |ursdcton or ack of due process of aw or (b) that the
|udgment was obtaned by means of extrnsc or coatera fraud. In
the atter case, the perod for annung the |udgment s four (4)
years from the dscovery of fraud.
The Cv Law rue that an acton for decaraton of nexstence of a
contract does not prescrbe cannot be apped to ast ws and
testaments.
Dela Cerna v. Potot
FACTS:
Spouses Bernabe de a Serna and Gervasa Rebaca,
executed a |ont ast w ad testament where they wed that ther
2 parces of and be gven to Manuea Rebaca, ther nece and that
whe each of them are vng, he/she w contnue to en|oy the
fruts of the ands mentoned.
Bernabe ded. Gervasa submtted the w for probated. By
order of Oct. 31, 1939, the Court admtted for probate the sad w
but ony for the part of Bernabe.
When Gervasa ded, another petton for probate was
nsttuted by Manuea, but because she and her attorney faed to
appear n court, the petton was dsmssed. When the same was
heard, the CFI decared the w vod for beng executed contrary to
the prohbton on |ont ws. On appea, the order was reversed.
ISSUE:
W/N the w may be probated.
HELD:
Admttedy the probate of the w n 1939 was erroneous,
however, because t was probated by a court of competent
|ursdcton t has concusve effect and a fna |udgment rendered
on a petton for the probate of a w s bndng upon the whoe
word. However, ths s ony wth respect to the estate of the
husband but cannot affect the estate of the wfe; consderng that a
|ont w s a separate w of each testator.
The |ont w beng prohbted by aw, ts vadty, n so far as
the estate of the wfe s concerned, must be reexamne and
ad|udcated de novo.
The undvded nterest of the wfe shoud pass upon her
death to her ntestate hers and not to the testamentary her. Thus
as to the dsposton of the wfe, the w cannot be gven effect.
A decree of probate decree s concusve on the due
executon and the forma vadty of the w sub|ect to such
probate.
Roberts v. Leonidas
129 SCRA 754 | 5uarez
FACTS:
Grmm, an Amercan resdent of Mana, ded n 1977. He
was survved by hs second wfe (Maxne), ther two chdren (Pete
and Lnda), and by hs two chdren by a frst marrage (|uanta and
Ethe) whch ended by dvorce.
Grmm executed two ws n San Francsco, Caforna on
|anuary 23, 1959. One w dsposed of hs Phppne estate
descrbed as con|uga property of hmsef and hs second wfe. The
second w dsposed of hs estate outsde the Phppnes. The two
ws and a codc were presented for probate n Utah by Maxne on
March 1978. Maxne admtted that she receved notce of the
ntestate petton fed n Mana by Ethe n |anuary 1978. The Utah
Court admtted the two ws and codc to probate on Apr 1978
and was ssued upon consderaton of the stpuaton between the
attorneys for Maxne and Ethe.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 34
Aso n Apr 1978, Maxne and Ethe, wth knowedge of the
ntestate proceedng n Mana, entered nto a compromse
agreement n Utah regardng the estate.
As mentoned, n |anuary 1978, an ntestate proceedng was
nsttuted by Ethe. On March 1978, Maxne fed an opposton and
moton to dsmss the ntestate proceedng on the ground of
pendency of the Utah probate proceedngs. She submtted to the
court a copy of Grmms w. However, pursuant to the compromse
agreement, Maxne wthdrew the opposton and the moton to
dsmss. The court gnored the w found n the record.The estate
was parttoned.
In 1980, Maxne fed a petton prayng for the probate of
the two ws (aready probated n Utah), that the partton approved
by the ntestate court be set asde and the etters of admnstraton
revoked, that Maxne be apponted executrx and Ethe be ordered
to account for the propertes receved by them and return the same
to Maxne. Maxne aeged that they were defrauded due to the
machnatons of Ethe, that the compromse agreement was ega
and the ntestate proceedng was vod because Grmm ded testate
so partton was contrary to the decedents ws.
Ethe fed a moton to dsmss the petton whch was dened
by |udge Leondas for ack of mert.
ISSUE:
Whether the |udge commtted grave abuse of dscreton amountng
to ack of |ursdcton n denyng Ethes moton to dsmss.
HELD:
We hod that respondent |udge dd not commt any grave
abuse of dscreton, amountng to ack of |ursdcton, n denyng
Ethe's moton to dsmss.
A testate proceedng s proper n ths case because Grmm
ded wth two ws and "no w sha pass ether rea or persona
property uness t s proved and aowed" (Art. 838, Cv Code; sec.
1, Rue 75, Rues of Court).
The probate of the w s mandatory. It s anomaous that
the estate of a person who ded testate shoud be setted n an
ntestate proceedng. Therefore, the ntestate case shoud be
consodated wth the testate proceedng and the |udge assgned to
the testate proceedng shoud contnue hearng the two cases.
Nepomuceno v. CA
139 SCRA 206 | 5umagaysay
FACTS:
Martn |ugo eft a duy executed and notarzed Last W and
Testament before he ded. Pettoner was named as soe executor.
It s ceary stated n the W that he was egay marred to a
certan Rufna Gomez by whom he had two egtmate chdren, but
he had been estranged from hs awfu wfe. In fact, the testator
Martn |ugo and the pettoner were marred despte the subsstng
frst marrage. The testator devsed the free porton of hs estate to
pettoner. On August 21, 1974, the pettoner fed a petton for
probate. On May 13, 1975, Rufna Gomez and her chdren fed an
opposton aegng undue and mproper nfuence on the part of the
pettoner; that at the tme of the executon of the W, the testator
was aready very sck and that pettoner havng admtted her vng
n concubnage wth the testator.
The ower court dened the probate of the W on the ground
that as the testator admtted n hs W to cohabtng wth the
pettoner. Pettoner appeaed to CA. On |une 2, 1982, the
respondent court set asde the decson of the Court of Frst
Instance of Rza denyng the probate of the w. The respondent
court decared the W to be vad except that the devse n favor of
the pettoner s nu and vod.
ISSUE:
W/N the CA acted n excess of ts |ursdcton when after decarng
the ast W and Testament of the deceased Martn |ugo vady
drawn, t went on to pass upon the ntrnsc vadty of the
testamentary provson.
HELD:
No. The respondent court acted wthn ts |ursdcton when
after decarng the W to be vady drawn, t went on to pass upon
the ntrnsc vadty of the W and decared the devse n favor of
the pettoner nu and vod. The genera rue s that n probate
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 35
proceedngs, the court's area of nqury s mted to an examnaton
and resouton of the extrnsc vadty of the W. The rue,
however, s not nfexbe and absoute. Gven exceptona
crcumstances, the probate court s not poweress to do what the
stuaton constrans t to do and pass upon certan provsons of the
W.
The probate of a w mght become an de ceremony f on
ts face t appears to be ntrnscay vod. Where practca
consderatons demand that the ntrnsc vadty of the w be
passed upon, even before t s probated, the court shoud meet the
ssue (Nugud v. Nugud)
The W s vod under Artce 739. The foowng donatons
sha be vod: (1) Those made between persons who were guty of
adutery or concubnage at the tme of the donaton; and Artce
1028. The prohbtons mentoned n Artce 739, concernng
donatons nter vvos sha appy to testamentary provsons.
There s no queston from the records about the fact of a
pror exstng marrage when Martn |ugo executed hs W. The
very wordngs of the W nvadate the egacy because the testator
admtted he was dsposng the propertes to a person wth whom he
had been vng n concubnage.
Reyes v. CA
281 SCRA 277 | Tan
FACTS:
Ths case nvoves a 383 sq.m. parce of and owned by
petttoners and respondents father. Pettoner aeges that a Deed
of Exra|udca Partton (Deed) was entered nto between hm and
the respondents. Pettoner managed to regster 335 sq.m. of the
and under hs name; whe 50 sq.m. of the and was regstered
under the name of hs sster, Paua (one of the respondents). After
dscoverng the regstraton of the Deed, respondents dened
havng knowedge of ts executon and dscamed havng sgned
the same; nor dd they ever wave ther rghts, shares and nterest
n the sub|ect parce of and. Accordng to respondents, sub|ect
Deed was frauduenty prepared by pettoner and that ther
sgnatures thereon were forged. They aso assert that one Atty.
|ose Vena, the Notary Pubc who notarzed the sad Deed was not
even regstered n the st of accredted Notares Pubc of Pasay
Cty.
Thereafter, pettoner executed a Deed of Absoute Sae
seng 240 square meters of the and to hs chdren. After the
property was parttoned, pettoner, hs chdren and prvate
respondent Paua aegedy executed a Deed of Co-owners' Partton
dvdng the property among themseves. Ths ed the respondents
to fe a Compant for "Annument of Sae and Damages Wth
Prayer for Premnary In|uncton/Restranng Order" before the RTC,
whch rued that prvate respondents' sgnatures on the questoned
Deed of Extra|udca Partton and Settement were ndeed forged
and smuated. The CA affrmed. Hence, ths petton.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Deed was forged.
2. Whether pettoner(s) had become absoute owners of the
sub|ect property by vrtue of acqustve prescrpton.
RULING:
1. YES. Pettoner(s) cast doubt on the fndngs of the ower
court as affrmed by the Court of Appeas regardng the
exstence of forgery. Factua fndngs of the tra court, adopted
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 36
and confrmed by the Court of Appeas, are fna and concusve
and may not be revewed on appea. Pettoners' udcrous cam
that prvate respondents mputed no decepton on hs part but
ony forgery of the sub|ect Deed and the smuaton of ther
sgnatures s nothng short of beng oxymoronc. For what s
forgery and smuaton of sgnatures f not arrant decepton! The
aegaton made by pettoner that the executon of a pubc
document ratfed before a notary pubc cannot be mpugned
by the mere dena of the sgnatory s baseess. It shoud be
noted that there was a fndng that the sub|ect Deed was
notarzed by one Atty. Vena who at that tme was not
commssoned as a notary n Pasay Cty.
2. NO. Pettoners cannot |ustfy ther ownershp and
possesson of the sub|ect parce of and snce they coud not
ave been possessors n good fath of the sub|ect parce of and
consderng the fndng that at the very ncepton they forged
the Deed of Extra|udca Partton and Settement whch they
cam to be the bass for ther |ust tte. Havng forged the Deed
and smuated the sgnatures of prvate respondents,
pettoners, n fact, are n bad fath. The forged Deed contanng
prvate respondents' smuated sgnatures s a nuty and
cannot serve as a |ust tte. There can be no acqustve
prescrpton consderng that the parce of and n dspute s
tted property, .e., tted n the name of the ate Bernardno
Reyes, the father of both pettoner Forentno and the prvate
respondents.
Dorotheo v. CA
320 SCRA 12 | Tuazon
FACTS:
Prvate respondents were the egtmate chdren of
Ae|andro Dorotheo and Anceta Reyes. The atter ded n 1969
wthout her estate beng setted. Ae|andro ded thereafter.
Sometme n 1977, after Ae|andro's death, pettoner, who cams
to have taken care of Ae|andro before he ded, fed a speca
proceedng for the probate of the atter's ast w and testament. In
1981, the court ssued an order admttng Ae|andro's w to
probate. Prvate respondents dd not appea from sad order. In
1983, they fed a "Moton To Decare The W Intrnscay Vod."
The tra court granted the moton and ssued an order.
Pettoner moved for reconsderaton argung that she s
entted to some compensaton snce she took care of Ae|andro
pror to hs death athough she admtted that they were not marred
to each other.
Later on, |udge Zan B. Angas set asde the fna and
executory Order, as we as the Order drectng the ssuance of the
wrt of executon, on the ground that the order was merey
"nterocutory", hence not fna n character.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 37
ISSUE:
May a ast w and testament admtted to probate but decared
ntrnscay vod n an order that has become fna and executory
st be gven effect?
HELD:
No. A fna and executory decson or order can no onger be
dsturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous t may be. In
settng asde the Order that has attaned fnaty, the tra court n
effect nufed the entry of |udgment made by the Court of Appeas.
It s we setted that a ower court cannot reverse or set asde
decsons or orders of a superor court, for to do so woud be to
negate the herarchy of courts and nufy the essence of revew. It
has been rued that a fna |udgment on probated w, abet
erroneous, s bndng on the whoe word.
Camaya v. Patulandong
423 SCRA 480 | Valdez
FACTS:
On November 17, 1972, Rufna Reyes (testatrx) executed a
notarzed w wheren she devsed Lot no. 288-A to her grandson
Ansemo Manguabnan. Durng her fetme, the testatrx hersef
fed the petton for the probate of her w before the CFI. Later, on
|une 27, 1973, the testatrx executed a codc modfyng her w by
devsng the sad Lot 288-A n favor of her four chdren Bernardo
(the executor), Smpca, Huerma and |uan (a surnamed
Patuandong), and her grandson Manguabnan - to the extent of 1/5
each.
Manguabnan ater sought the devery to hm by executor
Patuandong of the tte of Lot 288-A, but Patuandong refused to
heed the request because of the codca whch modfed the w of
the testatrx. Thus, Manguabnan fed an acton for partton
aganst Patuandong n the RTC. The court n ths partton ordered
the parttonng of the property. However, the court hods that the
partton s wthout pre|udce to the probate of the codc n
accordance wth the Rues of Court. So, by vrtue of the decson n
partton case, Manguabnan caused the canceaton of the tte of
the testatrx over Lot 288-A, and another TCT was ssued n hs
name. Manguabnan ater sod to heren pettoners Camayas Lot
no. 288-A by a Deed of Sae, and thus, a TCT was ssued under the
name of the Camayas.
However, come now the decson of the probate court
admttng the codc, and dsposng that the Deed of Sae n favor
of the Camayas, and the correspondng TCT ssued n ther name
are nu and vod, and that the Regster of Dees was ordered to
ssue nstead correspondng certfcates of ttes to the aforesad
four chdren of the testatrx, and her grandson Manguabnan to the
extent of 1/5 each pursuant to the codc.
The Camayas and Manguabnan fed an MR. But the probate court
dened ths. The CA affrmed the decson of the probate court.
Thus, the case was brought to the SC va a petton for revew on
certorar.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the probate court exceeded ts |ursdcton when t
decared nu and vod and ordered the canceaton of the TCT
of Camayas and the deed of sae.
2. Whether the fna |udgment n partton case bars the
aowance of the codc.
HELD:
1. As to the frst ssue, the probate court exceeded ts
|ursdcton when t decared the deed of sae as nu and vod,
and aso as to the canceaton of the TCTs under the name of
the Camayas. It s we-setted rue that a probate court or one
n charge of proceedngs whether testate or ntestate cannot
ad|udcate or determne tte to propertes camed to be a part
of the estate and whch are equay camed to beong to outsde
partes. A that sad court coud do as regards sad propertes s
to determne whether they shoud not be ncuded n the
nventory. If there s no dspute, we and good; but f there s,
then the partes, the admnstrator, and the opposng partes
have to resort to an ordnary acton for fna determnaton of
the confctng cams of tte because the probate court cannot
do so. Havng been apprsed of the fact that the property n
queston was n the possesson of thrd partes and more
mportant, covered by a transfer certfcate of tte ssued n the
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 38
name of such thrd partes, the respondent court shoud have
dened the moton of the respondent admnstrator and
excuded the property n queston from the nventory of the
property of the estate. lt had no authorty to deprve such thrd
persons of ther possesson and ownershp of the property. The
probate court exceeded ts |ursdcton when t decared the
deed of sae and the ttes of the Camayas as nu and vod, t
havng had the effect of deprvng them possesson and
ownershp of the property.
2. As to the second ssue, pettoners argue that by aowng
the codc to probate, t n effect amended the fna |udgment n
the partton case whch s not aowed by aw;

and that
pettoner Camayas are nnocent purchasers for vaue and en|oy
the ega presumpton that the transfer was awfu.

Pettoners
argument does not persuade. Though the |udgment n the
partton case had become fna and executory as t was not
appeaed, t specfcay provded n ts dspostve porton that
the decson was "wthout pre|udce |to| ... the probate of the
codc." The rghts of the prevang partes n sad case were
thus sub|ect to the outcome of the probate of the codc.
The probate court beng bereft of authorty to rue upon the
vadty of pettoners ttes, there s no onger any necessty to
dwe on the merts of pettoners Camayas cam that they are
nnocent purchasers for vaue and en|oy the ega presumpton
that the transfer was awfu.
The petton s granted n part. The decson of the probate
court aowng the codc s affrmed. But, the decaraton of the
aforesad Deed of Sae, and the order to ressue correspondng
certfcates of ttes to the four chdren of the testratrx, and her
grandson Manguabnan are set asde, wthout pre|udce to the
respondents ventaton of ther rght n an approprate acton.
ARTICLE 850
Austria v. Reyes
31 SCRA 754 | Vargas
FACTS:
Basa Austra vda. de Cruz fed wth the CFI of Rza a
petton for probate, ante mortem, of her ast w and testament.
The probate was opposed by the present pettoners, who are
nephews and neces of Basa. The w was subsequenty aowed
wth the buk of her estate desgnated for respondents, a of whom
were Basas egay adopted chdren. The pettoners, camng to
be the nearest of kn of Basa, assert that the respondents had not
n fact been adopted by the decedent n accordance wth aw,
thereby makng them mere strangers to the decedent and wthout
any rght to succeed as hers. Pettoners argue that ths
crcumstance shoud have eft the whoe estate of Basa open to
ntestacy wth pettoners beng the compusory hers.
It s aeged by pettoners that the anguage used mpy that
Basa was deceved nto beevng that she was egay bound to
bequeath one-haf of her entre estate to the respondents as the
atter's egtme, wth the nference that respondents woud not
have nsttuted the respondents as hers had the fact of spurous
adopton been known to her. The pettoners nferred that from the
use of the terms, "sapilitang tagapagmana" (compusory hers) and
"saptang mana" (egtme), the mpeng reason or cause for the
nsttuton of the respondents was the testatrx's beef that under
the aw she coud not do otherwse. Thus Artce 850 of the Cv
Code appes whereby, "the statement of a fase cause for the
nsttuton of an her sha be consdered as not wrtten, uness t
appears from the w that the testator woud not have made such
nsttuton f he had known the fasty of such cause."
ISSUE:
W/N the ower court commtted grave abuse of dscreton n barrng
the pettoners nephews and nece from regsterng ther cam even
to propertes ad|udcated by the decedent n her w.
HELD:
No. Before the nsttuton of hers may be annued under
artce 850 of the Cv Code, the foowng requstes must concur:
First, the cause for the nsttuton of hers must be stated n the w;
second, the cause must be shown to be fase; and third, t must
appear from the face of the w that the testator woud not have
made such nsttuton f he had known the fasty of the cause. The
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 39
decedent's w does not state n a specfc or unequvoca manner
the cause for such nsttuton of hers. Absent such we ook at other
consderatons. The decedents dsposton of the free porton of her
estate, whch argey favored the respondents, compared wth the
reatvey sma devse of and whch the decedent eft for her bood
reatves, shows a perceptbe ncnaton on her part to gve the
respondents more than what she thought the aw en|oned her to
gve to them. Excudng the respondents from the nhertance,
consderng that pettoner nephews and neces woud succeed to
the buk of the testate by vrtue of ntestacy, woud subvert the
cear wshes of the decedent.
Testacy s favored and doubts are resoved on ts sde,
especay where the w evnces an ntenton on the part of the
testator to dspose of practcay hs whoe estate, as was done n
ths case. Intestacy shoud be avoded and the wshes of the
testator shoud be aowed to preva. Granted that a probate court
has found, by fna |udgment, that the decedent possessed
testamentary capacty and her ast w was executed free from
fasfcaton, fraud, trckery or undue nfuence, t foows that gvng
fu expresson to her w must be n order.
ARTICLE 854
Reyes v. Barretto-Datu
19 SCRA 85 | Ventura
FACTS:
Bbano Barretto was marred to Mara Gerardo. When
Bbano Barretto ded he eft hs share n a w to Saud Barretto
and Luca Magros Barretto and a sma porton as egaces to hs
two ssters Rosa Barretto and Fesa Barretto and hs nephew and
neces. The usufruct of a fshpond was reserved for hs wdow,
Mara Gerardo. Mara Gerardo, as admnstratrx prepared a pro|ect
of partton. It was approved and the estate was dstrbuted and the
shares devered.
Later on, Mara Gerardo ded. Upon her death, t was
dscovered that she executed two ws, n the frst, she nsttuted
Saud and Magros, both surnamed Barretto, as her hers; and, n
the second, she revoked the same and eft a her propertes n
favor of Magros Barretto aone. The ater w was aowed and the
frst re|ected. In re|ectng the frst w presented by Trso Reyes, as
guardan of the chdren of Saud Barretto, the LC hed that Saud
was not the daughter of the decedent Mara Gerardo by her
husband Bbano Barretto. Ths rung was appeaed to the SC,
whch affrmed the same.
Havng thus ost ths fght for a share n the estate of Mara
Gerardo, as a egtmate her of Mara Gerardo, pantff now fas
back upon the remnant of the estate of the deceased Bbano
Barretto, whch was gven n usufruct to hs wdow Mara Gerardo.
Hence, ths acton for the recovery of one-haf porton, thereof.
Ths acton afforded the defendant an opportunty to set up her
rght of ownershp, not ony of the fshpond under tgaton, but of
a the other propertes wed and devered to Saud Barretto, for
beng a spurous her, and not entted to any share n the estate of
Bbano Barretto, thereby drecty attackng the vadty, not ony of
the pro|ect of partton, but of the decson of the court based
thereon as we.
ISSUE:
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 40
W/N the partton from whch Saud acqured the fshpond s vod ab
nto and Saud dd not acqure vad tte to t.
HELD:
NO. Saud Barretto admttedy had been nsttuted her n
the ate Bbano Barretto's ast w and testament together wth
defendant Magros; hence, the partton had between them coud
not be one such had wth a party who was beeved to be an her
wthout reay beng one, and was not nu and vod. The ega
precept (Artce 1081) does not speak of chdren, or descendants,
but of heirs (wthout dstncton between forced, vountary or
ntestate ones), and the fact that Saud happened not to be a
daughter of the testator does not precude her beng one of the
hers expressy named n hs testament; for Bbano Barretto was at
berty to assgn the free porton of hs estate to whomsoever he
chose. Whe the share () assgned to Saud mpnged on the
egtme of Magros, Saud dd not for that reason cease to be a
testamentary her of Bbano Barretto.
Nor does the fact that Magros was aotted n her father's
w a share smaer than her egtme nvadate the nsttuton of
Saud as her, snce there was here no preterition, or tota
ommsson of a forced her.
Aznar v. Duncan
17 SCRA 590 | Villarica
FACTS:
Chrstensen ded testate. The w was admtted to probate.
The court decared that Heen Garca was a natura chd of the
deceased. The Court of Frst Instance equay dvded the propertes
of the estate of Chrstensen between Lucy Duncan (whom testator
expressy recognzed n hs w as hs daughter) and Heen Garca.
In the order, the CFI hed that Heen Garca was preterted n the
w thus, the nsttuton of Lucy Duncan as her was annued and
the propertes passed to both of them as f the deceased ded
ntestate.
ISSUE:
Whether the estate, after deductng the egaces, shoud be equay
dvded or whether the nhertance of Lucy as nsttuted her shoud
be merey reduced to the extent necessary to cover the egtme of
Heen Garca, equvaent to V of the entre estate.
HELD:
The nhertance of Lucy shoud be merey reduced to cover
the egtme of Heen Garca.
Chrstensen refused to acknowedge Heen Garca as hs
natura daughter and mted her share to a egacy of P3,600.00.
When a testator eaves to a forced her a egacy worth ess than the
egtme, but wthout referrng to the egatee as an her or even as
a reatve, and wed the rest of the estate to other persons, the
her coud not ask that the nsttuton of the hers be annued
entrey, but ony that the egtme be competed.
Ateneo Law 4A 2011 | AY 2010-2011 41

Succession Digests Balane

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Succession Digests Balane

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ClVlL LAW REVlEW (ATTY.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen