Cases in Rule 75-76

Vitug v. Court of Appeals Facts: 1.
The case is a chapter in an earlier suit involving the issue on two (2) wills of the late Dolores Vitug who died in New Yor ! "#$ in Nov 1%&'. #he na(ed therein private respondent )owena *orona (+,ecutri,) while Nenita $lonte was cospecial ad(inistrator together with petitioner )o(arico pending pro.ate. 2. /n 0anuar1 1%&2! )o(arico filed a (otion as ing for authori3ation of the pro.ate court to sell shares of stoc s and real propert1 of the estate as rei(.urse(ents for advances he (ade to the estate. The said a(ount was spent for pa1(ent of estate ta, fro( a savings account in the 4an of $(erica. 5. )owena *orona opposed the (otion to sell contending that fro( the said account are con6ugal funds! hence part of the estate. Vitug insisted sa1ing that the said funds are his e,clusive propert1 ac7uired .1 virtue of a survivorship agree(ent e,ecuted with his late wife and the .an previousl1. /n the said agree(ent! the1 agreed that in the event of death of either! the funds will .eco(e the sole propert1 of the survivor. 8. The lower court upheld the validit1 of the survivorship agree(ent and granted )o(arico9s (otion to sell. The *ourt of $ppeals however held that said agree(ent constituted a conve1ance (ortis causa which did not co(pl1 with the for(alities of a valid will. Further! assu(ing that it is donation inter vivos! it is a prohi.ited donation. Vitug petitioned to the *ourt contending that the said agree(ent is an aleator1 contract. Issue: Whether or not the conveyance is one of mortis causa hence should conform to the form required of wills NO. The survivorship agree(ent is a contract which i(posed a (ere o.ligation with a ter(--.eing death. #uch contracts are per(itted under $rticle 2'12 on aleator1 contracts. :hen Dolores predeceased her hus.and( the latter ac7uired upon her death a vested right over the funds in the account. The conve1ance is therefore not mortis causa.
[G.R. No. 82027. March 29, 1990.] ROMARICO G. VITUG, Petitioner, v. THE HONORAB E COURT O! A""EA # a$% RO&ENA !AU#TINO' CORONA, Respondents. This case is a chapter in an earlier suit decided by this Court 1 involving the probate of the two wills of the late Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in New York, !"!#!, on Nove$ber 1%, 1&'%, na$ing private respondent (owena )austino*Corona e+ecutri+! ,n our said decision, we upheld the appoint$ent of Nenita #lonte as co*special ad$inistrator of -rs! Vitug.s estate with her /-rs! Vitug.s0 widower, petitioner (o$arico 1! Vitug, pending probate! 2n 3anuary 14, 1&'5, (o$arico 1! Vitug filed a $otion asking for authority fro$ the probate court to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his advances to the estate in the su$ of 6778,841!77, plus interests, which he clai$ed were personal funds! #s found by the Court of #ppeals, 9 the alleged advances consisted of 65',1:8!:% spent for the pay$ent of estate ta+, 651','4:!98 as deficiency estate ta+, and 6&%,8:&!&& as ;incre$ent thereto!; 4 #ccording to -r! Vitug, he withdrew the su$s of 651','4:!98 and 6&%,8:&!&& fro$ savings account No! 454:9*%4' of the <ank of #$erica, -akati, -etro -anila! 2n #pril 19, 1&'5, (owena Corona opposed the $otion to sell on the ground that the sa$e funds withdrawn fro$ savings account No! 454:9*%4' were con=ugal partnership properties and part of the estate, and hence, there was allegedly no ground for rei$burse$ent! "he also sought his ouster for failure to include the su$s in >uestion for inventory and for ;conceal$ent of funds belonging to the estate!; Vitug insists that the said funds are his e+clusive property having ac>uired the sa$e through a survivorship
agree$ent e+ecuted with his late wife and the bank on 3une 1&, 1&8%! The agree$ent provides?
chanrob1e s virtual 1aw library
@e hereby agree with each other and with the <#NA 2) #-B(,C#N N#T,2N#L T( "T #ND "#V,N1" #""2C,#T,2N /hereinafter referred to as the <#NA0, that all $oney now or hereafter deposited by us or any or either of us with the <#NA in our =oint savings current account shall be the property of all or both of us and shall be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by either or any of us during our lifeti$e, and after the death of either or any of us shall belong to and be the sole property of the survivor or survivors, and shall be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by such survivor or survivors!
chanroble s law library ? red
@e further agree with each other and the <#NA that the receipt or check of either, any or all of us during our lifeti$e, or the receipt or check of the survivor or survivors, for any pay$ent or withdrawal $ade for our above*$entioned account shall be valid and sufficient release and discharge of the <#NA for such pay$ent or withdrawal! 5 The trial court 7 upheld the validity of this agree$ent and granted ;the $otion to sell so$e of the estate of Dolores L! Vitug, the proceeds of which shall be used to pay the personal funds of (o$arico Vitug in the total su$ of 6778,841!77 ! ! ! !; 2n the other hand, the Court of #ppeals, in the petition for certiorari filed by the herein private respondent, held that the above*>uoted survivorship agree$ent constitutes a conveyance $ortis causa which ;did not co$ply with the for$alities of a valid will as prescribed by #rticle '%5 of the Civil Code,; ' and secondly, assu$ing that it is a $ere donation inter vivos, it is a prohibited donation under the provisions of #rticle 144 of the Civil Code! & The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of #ppeals states?
@CB(B)2(B, the order of respondent 3udge dated Nove$ber 97, 1&'5 /#nne+ ,,, petition0 is hereby set aside insofar as it granted private respondent.s $otion to sell certain properties of the estate of Dolores L! Vitug for rei$burse$ent of his alleged advances to the estate, but the sa$e order is sustained in all other respects! ,n addition, respondent 3udge is directed to include provisionally the deposits in "avings #ccount No! 454:9*%4' with the <ank of #$erica, -akati, in the inventory of actual properties possessed by the spouses at the ti$e of the decedent.s death! @ith costs against private Respondent! 1% ,n his petition, Vitug, the surviving spouse, assails the appellate court.s ruling on the strength of our decisions in (ivera v! 6eople.s <ank and Trust Co! 11 and -aca$ v! 1at$aitan 19 in which we sustained the validity of ;survivorship agree$ents; and considering the$ as aleatory contracts! 14 The petition is $eritorious! The conveyance in >uestion is not, first of all, one of $ortis causa, which should be e$bodied in a will! # will has been defined as ;a personal, sole$n, revocable and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or co$plies with duties to take effect after his death!; 1: ,n other words, the be>uest or device $ust pertain to the testator! 15 ,n this case, the $onies sub=ect of savings account No! 454:9*%4' were in the nature of con=ugal funds! ,n the case relied on, (ivera v! 6eople.s <ank and Trust Co!, 17 we re=ected clai$s that a survivorship agree$ent purports to deliver one party.s separate properties in favor of the other, but si$ply, their =oint holdings?
! ! ! "uch conclusion is evidently predicated on the assu$ption that "tephenson was the e+clusive owner of the funds deposited in the bank, which assu$ption was in turn based on the facts /10 that the account was originally opened in the na$e of "tephenson alone and /90 that #na (ivera ;served only as house$aid of the deceased!; <ut it not infre>uently happens that a person deposits $oney in the bank in the na$e of anotherD and in the instant case it also appears that #na (ivera served her $aster for about nineteen years without actually receiving her salary fro$ hi$! The fact that subse>uently "tephenson transferred the account to the na$e of hi$self andEor #na (ivera and e+ecuted with the latter the survivorship agree$ent in >uestion although there was no relation of kinship between the$ but only that of $aster and servant, nullifies the assu$ption that "tephenson was the e+clusive owner of the bank account! ,n the absence, then, of clear proof to the contrary, we $ust give full faith and credit to the certificate of deposit which recites in effect that the funds in >uestion belonged to Bdgar "tephenson and #na (iveraD that they were =oint /and several0 owners thereofD and that either of the$ could withdraw any part or the whole of said account during the lifeti$e of both, and the balance, if any, upon the death of either, belonged to the survivor! 18 ,n -aca$ v! 1at$aitan, 1' it was held?
This Court is of the opinion that B+hibit C is an aleatory contract whereby, according to article 18&% of the Civil Code, one of the parties or both reciprocally bind the$selves to give or do so$ething as an e>uivalent for that which the other party is to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which is uncertain or will happen at an indeter$inate ti$e! #s already stated, Leonarda was the owner of the house and 3uana of the <uick auto$obile and $ost of the furniture! <y virtue of B+hibit C, 3uana would beco$e the owner of the house in case Leonarda died first, and Leonarda would beco$e the owner of the auto$obile and the furniture if 3uana were to die first! ,n this $anner Leonarda and 3uana reciprocally assigned their respective property to one another conditioned upon who $ight die first, the ti$e of death deter$ining the event upon which the ac>uisition of such right by the one or the other depended! This contract, as any other contract, is binding upon the parties thereto! ,nas$uch as Leonarda had died before 3uana, the latter thereupon ac>uired the ownership of the house, in the sa$e $anner as Leonarda would have ac>uired the ownership of the auto$obile and of the furniture if 3uana had died first! There is no showing that the funds e+clusively belonged to one party, and hence it $ust be presu$ed to be con=ugal, having been ac>uired during the e+istence of the $arital relations! 9% Neither is the survivorship agree$ent a donation inter vivos, for obvious reasons, because it was to take effect after the death of one party! "econdly, it is not a donation between the spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse.s own properties to the other!
chanroble s law library
,t is also our opinion that the agree$ent involves no $odification of the con=ugal partnership, as held by the Court of #ppeals, 91 by ;$ere stipulation,; 99 and that it is no ;cloak; 94 to circu$vent the law on con=ugal property relations! Certainly, the spouses are not prohibited by law to invest con=ugal property, say, by way of a =oint and several bank account, $ore co$$only deno$inated in banking parlance as an ;andEor; account! ,n the case at bar, when the spouses Vitug opened savings account No! 454:9*%4', they $erely put what rightfully belonged to the$ in a $oney* $aking venture! They did not dispose of it in favor of the other, which would have arguably been sanctionable as a prohibited donation! #nd since the funds were con=ugal, it can not be said that one spouse could have pressured the other in placing his or her deposits in the $oney pool! The validity of the contract see$s debatable by reason of its ;survivor*take*all; feature, but in reality, that contract i$posed a $ere obligation with a ter$, the ter$ being death! "uch agree$ents are per$itted by the Civil Code! nder #rticle 9%1% of the Code?
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
#(T! 9%1%! <y an aleatory contract, one of the parties or both reciprocally bind the$selves to give or to do so$ething in consideration of what the other shall give or do upon the happening of an event which is uncertain, or which is to occur at an indeter$inate ti$e! nder the afore>uoted provision, the fulfill$ent of an aleatory contract depends on either the happening of an event which is /10 ;uncertain,; /90 ;which is to occur at an indeter$inate ti$e!; # survivorship agree$ent, the sale of a sweepstake ticket, a transaction stipulating on the value of currency, and insurance have been held to fall under the first category, while a contract for life annuity or pension under #rticle 9%91, et se>uentia, has been categoriFed under the second! 95 ,n either case, the ele$ent of risk is present! ,n the case at bar, the risk was the death of one party and survivorship of the other!
chanrobles!co$ ? virtual law library
Cowever, as we have warned?
<ut although the survivorship agree$ent is per se not contrary to law its operation or effect $ay be violative of the law! )or instance, if it be shown in a given case that such agree$ent is a $ere cloak to hide an inofficious donation, to transfer property in fraud of creditors, or to defeat the legiti$e of a forced heir, it $ay be assailed and annulled upon such grounds! No such vice has been i$puted and established against the agree$ent involved in this case! 97 There is no de$onstration here that the survivorship agree$ent had been e+ecuted for such unlawful purposes, or, as held by the respondent court, in order to frustrate our laws on wills, donations, and con=ugal partnership! The conclusion is accordingly unavoidable that -rs! Vitug having predeceased her husband, the latter has ac>uired upon her death a vested right over the a$ounts under savings account No! 454:9*%4' of the <ank of #$erica! ,nsofar as the respondent court ordered their inclusion in the inventory of assets left by -rs! Vitug, we hold that the court was in error! <eing the separate property of petitioner, it for$s no $ore part of the estate of the deceased!
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
@CB(B)2(B, the decision of the respondent appellate court, dated 3une 9&, 1&'8, and its resolution, dated )ebruary &, 1&'', are "BT #",DB!
[G.R. No. 7270(. Oc)o*+r 27, 1987.] CON#TANTINO C. ACAIN, Petitioner, v. HON. INTERME,IATE A""E ATE COURT -Th.r% #/+c.a0 Ca1+1 ,.v.1.o$2, VIRGINIA A. !ERNAN,E3 a$% RO#A ,IONG#ON, Respondents. This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision G of respondent Court of #ppeals in #C*1!(! "6 No! %58:: pro$ulgated on #ugust 4%, 1&'5 /(ollo, p! 1%'0 ordering the dis$issal of the petition in "pecial 6roceedings No! 5&1* #*CB< and its (esolution issued on 2ctober 94, 1&'5 /(ollo, p! 890 denying respondents. /petitioners herein0 $otion for reconsideration! The dispositive portion of the >uestioned decision reads as follows?
=gc?chanrobles!co$ !ph
;@CB(B)2(B, the petition is hereby granted and respondent (egional Trial Court of the "eventh 3udicial (egion, <ranch H,,, /Cebu City0, is hereby ordered to dis$iss the petition in "pecial 6roceedings No! 5&1*#*CB<! No special pronounce$ent is $ade as to costs!;
cralaw virtua1aw library
The antecedents of the case, based on the su$$ary of the ,nter$ediate #ppellate Court, now Court of #ppeals, /(ollo, pp! 1%'*1%&0 are as follows?
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
2n -ay 9&, 1&': petitioner Constantino #cain filed in the (egional Trial Court of Cebu City <ranch H,,,, a petition for the probate of the will of the late Ne$esio #cain and for the issuance to the sa$e petitioner of letters testa$entary, docketed as "pecial 6roceedings No! 5&1*#*CB< /(ollo, p! 9&0, on the pre$ise that Ne$esio #cain died leaving a will in which petitioner and his brothers #ntonio, )lores and 3ose and his sisters #nita, Concepcion, Iuirina and Laura were instituted as heirs! The will allegedly e+ecuted by Ne$esio #cain on )ebruary 18, 1&7% was written in <isaya /(ollo, p! 980 with a translation in Bnglish /(ollo, p! 410 sub$itted by petitioner without ob=ection raised by private respondents! The will contained provisions on burial rites, pay$ent of debts, and the appoint$ent of a certain #tty! ,gnacio 1! VillagonFalo as the e+ecutor of the testa$ent! 2n the disposition of the testator.s property, the will provided?
;TC,(D? #ll $y shares that , $ay receive fro$ our properties, house, lands and $oney which , earned =ointly with $y wife (osa Diongson shall all be given by $e to $y brother "B1 ND2 #C#,N, )ilipino, widower, of legal age and presently residing at 458*C "anciangko "treet, Cebu City! ,n case $y brother "egundo #cain predeceases $e, all the $oney properties, lands, houses there in <antayan and here in Cebu City which constitute $y share shall be given by $e to his children, na$ely? #nita, Constantino, Concepcion, Iuirina, Laura, )lores, #ntonio and 3ose all surna$ed #cain!;
2bviously, "egundo pre*deceased Ne$esio! Thus, it is the children of "egundo who are clai$ing to be heirs, with Constantino as the petitioner in "pecial 6roceedings No! 5&1*#*CB<!
chanrobles law library
#fter the petition was set for hearing in the lower court on 3une 95, 1&': the oppositors /respondents herein Virginia #! )ernandeF, a legally adopted daughter of the deceased and the latter.s widow (osa Diongson Vda! de #cain0 filed a $otion to dis$iss on the following grounds? /10 the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedingsD /90 he is $erely a universal heir and /40 the widow and the adopted daughter have been preterited! /(ollo, p! 15'0! "aid $otion was denied by the trial =udge! #fter the denial of their subse>uent $otion for reconsideration in the lower court, respondents filed with the "upre$e Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preli$inary in=unction which was subse>uently referred to the ,nter$ediate #ppellate Court by (esolution of the Court dated -arch 11, 1&'5 /-e$orandu$ for 6etitioner, p! 4D (ollo, p! 15&0! (espondent ,nter$ediate #ppellate Court granted private respondents. petition and ordered the trial court to dis$iss the petition for the probate of the will of Ne$esio #cain in "pecial 6roceedings No! 5&1*#*CB<! Cis $otion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this present petition for the review of respondent Court.s decision on Dece$ber 1', 1&'5 /(ollo, p! 70! (espondents. Co$$ent was filed on 3une 7, 1&'7 /(ollo, p! 1:70! 2n #ugust 11, 1&'7 the Court resolved to give due course to the petition /(ollo, p! 1540! (espondents. -e$orandu$ was filed on "epte$ber 99, 1&'7 /(ollo, p! 1580D the -e$orandu$ for petitioner was filed on "epte$ber 9&, 1&'7 /(ollo, p! 1880! 6etitioner raises the following issues /-e$orandu$ for 6etitioner, p! :0?
/#0 The petition filed in #C*1!(! No! %58:: for certiorari and prohibition with preli$inary in=unction is not the proper re$edy under the pre$isesD
/<0 The authority of the probate courts is li$ited only to in>uiring into the e+trinsic validity of the will sought to be probated and it cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity thereof before it is ad$itted to probateD /C0 The will of Ne$esio #cain is valid and $ust therefore, be ad$itted to probate! The preterition $entioned in #rticle '5: of the New Civil Code refers to preterition of ;co$pulsory heirs in the direct line,; and does not apply to private respondents who are not co$pulsory heirs in the direct lineD their o$ission shall not annul the institution of heirsD /D0 D,C#T TB"T#T2( BT B(,T LBH! @hat the testator says will be the lawD /B0 There $ay be nothing in #rticle '5: of the New Civil Code that suggests that $ere institution of a universal heir in the will would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance but there is a definite distinct intention of the testator in the case at bar, e+plicitly e+pressed in his will! This is what $atters and should be inviolable! /)0 #s an instituted heir, petitioner has the legal interest and standing to file the petition in "p! 6roc! No! 5&1*#*CB< for probate of the will of Ne$esio #cainD and /10 #rticle '5: of the New Civil Code is a bill of attainder! ,t is therefore unconstitutional and ineffectual! The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not private respondents have been preterited! #rticle '5: of the Civil Code provides? ;#rt! '5:! The preterition or o$ission of one, so$e, or all of the co$pulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the ti$e of the e+ecution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heirD but the devisees and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious! ,f the o$itted co$pulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without pre=udice to the right of representation!;
cralaw virtua1aw library chanroble s lawlibrary ? re dnad
6reterition consists in the o$ission in the testator.s will of the forced heirs or anyone of the$ either because they are not $entioned therein, or, though $entioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are e+pressly disinherited /Nuguid v! Nuguid, 18 "C(# :5% J1&77KD -aninang v! Court of #ppeals, 11: "C(# :8' J1&'9K0! ,nsofar as the widow is concerned, #rticle '5: of the Civil Code $ay not apply as she does not ascend or descend fro$ the testator, although she is a co$pulsory heir! "tated otherwise, even if the surviving spouse is a co$pulsory heir, there is no preterition even if she is o$itted fro$ the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line! /#rt! '5:, Civil Code0 Cowever, the sa$e thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia #! )ernandeF, whose legal adoption by the testator has not been >uestioned by petitioner /-e$orandu$ for the 6etitioner, pp! '*&0! nder #rticle 4& of 6!D! No! 7%4, known as the Child and Youth @elfare Code, adoption gives to the adopted person the sa$e rights and duties as if he were a legiti$ate child of the adopter and $akes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter! ,t cannot be denied that she was totally o$itted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legiti$e! Neither can it be denied that they were not e+pressly disinherited! Cence, this is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child! 6reterition annuls the institution of an heir and annul$ent throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance including ;la porcion libre />ue0 no hubiese dispuesto en virtual de legado, $e=ora o donacion; /-anresa, as cited in Nuguid v! Nuguid, supra, -aninang v! Court of #ppeals, 11: "C(# J1&'910! The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises $ade in the will for they should stand valid and respected, e+cept insofar as the legiti$es are concerned! The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs * without any other testa$entary disposition in the will * a$ounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written! Carefully worded and in clear ter$s, #rticle '5: of the Civil Code offers no leeway for inferential interpretation /Nuguid v! Nuguid0, supra! No legacies nor devises having been provided in the will the whole property of the deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner and his brothers and sisters! The effect of annulling the institution of heirs will be, necessarily, the opening of a total intestacy /Neri v! #kutin, 8: 6hil! 1'5 J1&:4K0 e+cept that proper legacies and devises $ust, as already stated above, be respected! @e now deal with another $atter. I$ or%+r )ha) a /+r1o$ 4a5 *+ a00o6+% )o .$)+rv+$+ .$ a /ro*a)+ /roc++%.$7 h+ 481) hav+ a$ .$)+r+1) .$ )h+ +1)a)+, or .$ )h+ 6.00, or .$ )h+ /ro/+r)5 )o *+ a99+c)+% *5 .) +.)h+r a1 +:+c8)or or a1 a c0a.4a$) o9 )h+ +1)a)+ a$% a$ .$)+r+1)+% /ar)5 .1 o$+ 6ho 6o80% *+ *+$+9.)+% *5 )h+ +1)a)+ 18ch a1 a$ h+.r or o$+ 6ho ha1 a c0a.4 a7a.$1) )h+ +1)a)+ 0.;+ a cr+%.)or -#84.0a$7 v. Ra4a7o1a, 21 #CRA 1<(9=19(72. "+).).o$+r .1 $o) )h+ a//o.$)+% +:+c8)or, $+.)h+r a %+v.1++ or a 0+7a)++
)h+r+ *+.$7 $o 4+$).o$ .$ )h+ )+1)a4+$)ar5 %.1/o1.).o$ o9 a$5 7.9) o9 a$ .$%.v.%8a0 .)+4 o9 /+r1o$a0 or r+a0 /ro/+r)5 h+ .1 ca00+% 8/o$ )o r+c+.v+ -Ar).c0+ 782, C.v.0 Co%+2. A) )h+ o8)1+), h+ a//+ar1 )o hav+ a$ .$)+r+1) .$ )h+ 6.00 a1 a$ h+.r, %+9.$+% 8$%+r Ar).c0+ 782 o9 )h+ C.v.0 Co%+ a1 a /+r1o$ ca00+% )o )h+ 18cc+11.o$ +.)h+r *5 )h+ /rov.1.o$ o9 a 6.00 or *5 o/+ra).o$ o9 0a6. Ho6+v+r, .$)+1)ac5 hav.$7 r+180)+% 9ro4 )h+ /r+)+r.).o$ o9 r+1/o$%+$) a%o/)+% ch.0% a$% )h+ 8$.v+r1a0 .$1).)8).o$ o9 h+.r1, /+).).o$+r .1 .$ +99+c) $o) a$ h+.r o9 )h+ )+1)a)or. H+ ha1 $o 0+7a0 1)a$%.$7 )o /+).).o$ 9or )h+ /ro*a)+ o9 )h+ 6.00 0+9) *5 )h+ %+c+a1+% a$% #/+c.a0 "roc++%.$71 No. >91'A'CEB 481) *+ %.14.11+% !
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
#s a general rule certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, e+cept when the >uestioned order is an oppressive e+ercise of =udicial authority /6eople v! Villanueva, 11% "C(# :75 J1&'1KD Vda! de Caldito v! "egundo, 118 "C(# 584 J1&'9KD Co Chuan "eng v! Court of #ppeals, 19' "C(# 4%' J1&':KD and <autista v! "ar$iento, 14' "C(# 5'8 J1&'5K0! ,t is a+io$atic that the re$edies of certiorari and prohibition are not available where the petitioner has the re$edy of appeal or so$e other plain, speedy and ade>uate re$edy in the course of law /D!D! Co$endador Construction Corporation v! "ayo /11' "C(# 5&% J1&'9K0! They are, however, proper re$edies to correct a grave abuse of discretion of the trial court in not dis$issing a case where the dis$issal is founded on valid grounds /Vda! de <acang v! Court of #ppeals, 195 "C(# 148 J1&'4K0! "pecial 6roceedings No! 5&1*CB< is for the probate of a will! #s stated by respondent Court, the general rule is that the probate court.s authority is li$ited only to the e+trinsic validity of the will, the due e+ecution thereof, the testator.s testa$entary capacity and the co$pliance with the re>uisites or sole$nities prescribed by law! The intrinsic validity of the will nor$ally co$es only after the Court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated! "aid court at this stage of the proceedings is not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will /Nuguid v! Nuguid, 18 "C(# ::& J1&77KD "u$ilang v! (a$agosa, supraD -aninang v! Court of #ppeals, 11: "C(# :8' J1&'9KD Cayetano v! Leonidas, 19& "C(# 599 J1&':KD and Nepo$uceno v! Court of #ppeals, 14& "C(# 9%7 J1&'5K0! The rule, however, is not infle+ible and absolute! nder e+ceptional circu$stances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the will /Nepo$uceno v! Court of #ppeals, supra0! ,n Nuguid v! Nuguid the oppositors to the probate $oved to dis$iss on the ground of absolute preterition! The probate court acting on the $otion held that the will in >uestion was a co$plete nullity and dis$issed the petition without costs! 2n appeal the "upre$e Court upheld the decision of the probate court, induced by practical considerations! The Court said?
;@e pause to reflect! ,f the case were to be re$anded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained! 2n the contrary, this litigation will be protracted! #nd for aught that appears in the record, in the event of probate or if the court re=ects the will, probability e+ists that the case will co$e up once again before us on the sa$e issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will! (esult? waste of ti$e, effort, e+pense, plus added an+iety! These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief that we $ight as well $eet head*on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in >uestion! #fter all there e+ists a =usticiable controversy crying for solution!;
,n "agui$si$ v! Lindayag /7 "C(# '8: J1&79K0 the $otion to dis$iss the petition by the surviving spouse was grounded on petitioner.s lack of legal capacity to institute the proceedings which was fully substantiated by the evidence during the hearing held in connection with said $otion! The Court upheld the probate court.s order of dis$issal!
chanroble s law library ? red
,n Cayetano v! Leonidas, supra one of the issues raised in the $otion to dis$iss the petition deals with the validity of the provisions of the will! (espondent 3udge allowed the probate of the will! The Court held that as on its face the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner the respondent =udge should have denied its probate outright! @here circu$stances de$and that intrinsic validity of testa$entary provisions be passed upon even before the e+trinsic validity of the will is resolved, the probate court should $eet the issue! /Nepo$uceno v! Court of #ppeals, supraD Nuguid v! Nuguid, supra0! ,n the instant case private respondents filed a $otion to dis$iss the petition in "p! 6roceedings No! 5&1*CB< of the (egional Trial Court of Cebu on the following grounds? /10 petitioner has no legal capacity to institute the proceedingsD /90 he is $erely a universal heirD and /40 the widow and the adopted daughter have been preterited /(ollo, p! 15'0! ,t was denied by the trial court in an order dated 3anuary 91, 1&'5 for the reason that ;the grounds for the $otion to dis$iss are $atters properly to be resolved after a hearing on the issues in the course of the trial on the $erits of the case /(ollo, p! 490! # subse>uent $otion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on )ebruary 15, 1&'5 /(ollo, p! 1%&0! )or private respondents to have tolerated the probate of the will and allowed the case to progress when on its face the will appears to be intrinsically void as petitioner and his brothers and sisters were instituted as universal heirs coupled with the obvious fact that one of the private respondents had been preterited would have been an e+ercise in futility! ,t would have $eant a waste of ti$e, effort, e+pense, plus added futility! The trial court could have denied its probate
outright or could have passed upon the intrinsic validity of the testa$entary provisions before the e+trinsic validity of the will was resolved /Cayetano v! Leonidas, supraD Nuguid v! Nuguid, supra0! The re$edies of certiorari and prohibition were properly availed of by private respondents! Thus, this Court ruled that where the grounds for dis$issal are indubitable, the defendants had the right to resort to the $ore speedy, and ade>uate re$edies of certiorari and prohibition to correct a grave abuse of discretion, a$ounting to lack of =urisdiction, co$$itted by the trial court in not dis$issing the case, /Vda! de <acang v! Court of #ppeals, supra0 and even assu$ing the e+istence of the re$edy of appeal, the Court harkens to the rule that in the broader interests of =ustice, a petition for certiorari $ay be entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and ade>uate relief! /-aninang v! Court of #ppeals, supra0!
chanroble s!co$ ? virtual law library
6(B-,"B" C2N",DB(BD, the petition is hereby DBN,BD for lack of $erit and the >uestioned decision of respondent Court of #ppeals pro$ulgated on #ugust 4%, 1&'5 and its (esolution dated 2ctober 94, 1&'5 are hereby #)),(-BD!
[G.R. NO. 122880 ? A/r.0 12, 200(]
!E I@ A3UE A, Petitioner, v. COURT O! A""EA #, GERA ,A AI,A CA#TI CA#TI O, Respondents!
O 18*1).)8)+% *5 ERNE#TO G.
The core of this petition is a highly defective notarial will, purportedly e+ecuted by Bugenia B! ,gsolo /decedent0, who died on 17 Dece$ber 1&'9 at the age of '%! ,n refusing to give legal recognition to the due e+ecution of this docu$ent, the Court is provided the opportunity to assert a few i$portant doctrinal rules in the e+ecution of notarial wills, all self*evident in view of #rticles '%5 and '%7 of the Civil Code! A 6.00 6ho1+ a))+1)a).o$ c0a81+ %o+1 $o) co$)a.$ )h+ $84*+r o9 /a7+1 o$ 6h.ch )h+ 6.00 .1 6r.))+$ .1 9a)a005 %+9+c).v+. A 6.00 6ho1+ a))+1)a).o$ c0a81+ .1 $o) 1.7$+% *5 )h+ .$1)r84+$)a0 6.)$+11+1 .1 9a)a005 %+9+c).v+. A$% /+rha/1 4o1) .4/or)a$)05, a 6.00 6h.ch %o+1 $o) co$)a.$ a$ ac;$o60+%74+$), *8) a 4+r+ jurat, .1 9a)a005 %+9+c).v+. A$5 o$+ o9 )h+1+ %+9+c)1 .1 1899.c.+$) )o %+$5 /ro*a)+. A $o)ar.a0 6.00 6.)h a00 )hr++ %+9+c)1 .1 A81) ach.$7 9or A8%.c.a0 r+A+c).o$. There is a distinct and conse>uential reason the Civil Code provides a co$prehensive catalog of i$peratives for the proper e+ecution of a notarial will! )ull and faithful co$pliance with all the detailed re>uisites under #rticle '%5 of the Code leave little roo$ for doubt as to the validity in the due e+ecution of the notarial will! #rticle '%7 likewise i$poses another safeguard to the validity of notarial wills * that they be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses! # notarial will e+ecuted with indifference to these two codal provisions opens itself to nagging >uestions as to its legiti$acy! The case ste$s fro$ a petition for probate filed on 1% #pril 1&': with the (egional Trial Court /(TC0 of -anila! The petition filed by petitioner )eli+ #Fuela sought to ad$it to probate the notarial will of Bugenia B! ,gsolo, which was notariFed on 1% 3une 1&'1! 6etitioner is the son of the cousin of the decedent! The will, consisting of two /90 pages and written in the vernacular 6ilipino, read in full? C L,N1 C#<,L,N N, B 1BN,# B! ,1"2L2 "# N1#L#N N1 -#YA#6#L, #-BN? #A2, si B 1BN,# B! ,1"2L2, nakatira sa 5%% "an Diego "t!, "a$paloc, -anila, pitongput siya$ /8&0 na gulang, nasa hustong pagi*isip, pag*unawa at $e$oria ay nag*hahayag na ito na ang aking huling habilin at testa$ento, at binabali wala ko lahat ang naunang ginawang habilin o testa$ento? na*Cinihiling ko na ako ay $ailibing sa "e$enterio del Norte, La Lo$a sang*ayong sa kaugalian at patakaran ng si$bahang katoliko at ang taga*pag*ingat /B+ecutor0 ng habiling ito ay $agtatayo ng bantayog upang silbing ala*ala sa akin ng aking pa$ilya at kaibiganD 6angalawa*#king ipinagkakaloob at isinasalin ang lahat ng karapatan sa aking pa$angkin na si )eli+ #Fuela, na siyang nag*alaga sa akin sa $ahabang panahon, yaong $ga bahay na nakatirik sa lote nu$ero 9', <lock 9: at nakapangalan sa 6echaten Aorporasyon, ganoon din ibinibigay ko ang lahat ng karapatan sa bahay na nakatirik sa inoopahan kong lote, nu$ero :4, <lock 9: na pag*aari ng 6echaten Corporation! ,pinagkakaloob kong buong buo ang lahat ng karapatan sa bahay at lupa na nasa 5%% "an Diego "t!, Lot :9, <lock 9:, "a$paloc, -anila kay )eli+ #Fuela at ang pagkakaloob kong ito ay walang pasubaliLt at kondicionesD 6angatlo * Na ninunu$brahan ko si V#(T 6#1 B na siyang nagpapatupad ng huling habiling ito at kagustuhan ko rin na hindi na kailan$an siyang $ag*lagak ng piyansiya!
#king nilagdaan ang Culing Cabilin na ito dito sa -aynila ika 1% ng Cunyo, 1&'1!
/"gd!0 B 1BN,# B! ,1"2L2 /Tagapag$ana0 6#T N#Y N1 -1# "#A", #ng kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng MMMM dahon pati ang huling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a$in ni Bugenia B! ,gsolo, tagapag$ana na siya niyang Culing Cabilin, ngayon ika*1% ng Cunyo 1&'1, ay nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapag$ana sa ilali$ ng kasulatang nabanggit at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawaLt dahon, sa harap ng lahat at bawaLt sa a$in, at ka$i na$ang $ga saksi ay lu$agda sa harap ng nasabing tagapag$ana at sa harap ng lahat at bawaLt isa sa a$in, sa ilali$ ng nasabing kasulatan at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawaLt dahon ng kasulatan ito! B 1BN,# B! ,1"2L2 address? 5%% "an Diego "t! "a$paloc, -anila (es! Cert! No! #*8818*48 ,ssued at -anila on -arch 1%, 1&'1! I ,(,N2 #1(#V# address? 199'*,nt! 4, Aahilu$ 6andacan, -anila (es! Cert! No! #*:5'475 ,ssued at -anila on 3an! 91, 1&'1 L#-<B(T2 C! LB#NO2 address? #venue 9, <lcok 8, Lot 71, "an 1abriel, 1!-#!, Cavite (es! Cert! No! #*87'988 issued at Car$ona, Cavite on )eb! 8, 1&'1 3 #N,T2 B"T(B(# address? City Court Co$pound, City of -anila (es! Cert! No! #58:'9& ,ssued at -anila on -arch 9, 1&'1! Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 1% ng Cunyo 1%, 1&'1 dito sa Lungsod ng -aynila! /"gd!0 6BT(2N,2 Y! <# T,"T# Doc! No! 1949 D N2T#(,2 6 <L,A2 6age No! '7 D ntil Dec! 41, 1&'1 <ook No! :4 D 6T(*159%:1*1E9E'1*-anila "eries of 1&'1 T#N P 1:48*&88*'1 The three na$ed witnesses to the will affi+ed their signatures on the left*hand $argin of both pages of the will, but not at the botto$ of the attestation clause! The probate petition adverted to only two /90 heirs, legatees and devisees of the decedent, na$ely? petitioner hi$self, and one ,rene Lynn ,gsolo, who was alleged to have resided abroad! 6etitioner prayed that the will be allowed, and that letters testa$entary be issued to the designated e+ecutor, Vart 6rague! The petition was opposed by 1eralda #ida Castillo /1eralda Castillo0, who represented herself as the attorney*in*fact of ;the 19 legiti$ate heirs; of the decedent! 9 1eralda Castillo clai$ed that the will is a forgery, and that the true purpose of its e$ergence was so it could be utiliFed as a defense in several court cases filed by oppositor against
petitioner, particularly for forcible entry and usurpation of real property, all centering on petitionerLs right to occupy the properties of the decedent!4 ,t also asserted that contrary to the representations of petitioner, the decedent was actually survived by 19 legiti$ate heirs, na$ely her grandchildren, who were then residing abroad! 6er records, it was subse>uently alleged that decedent was the widow of <onifacio ,gsolo, who died in 1&75, : and the $other of a legiti$ate child, #suncion B! ,gsolo, who predeceased her $other by three /40 $onths! 5 2ppositor 1eralda Castillo also argued that the will was not e+ecuted and attested to in accordance with law! "he pointed out that decedentLs signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not properly acknowledged! These twin argu$ents are a$ong the central $atters to this petition! #fter due trial, the (TC ad$itted the will to probate, in an 2rder dated 1% #ugust 1&&9! 7 The (TC favorably took into account the testi$ony of the three /40 witnesses to the will, Iuirino #grava, La$berto Leano, and 3uanito Bstrada! The (TC also called to fore ;the $odern tendency in respect to the for$alities in the e+ecution of a will + + + with the end in view of giving the testator $ore freedo$ in e+pressing his last wishesD; 8 and fro$ this perspective, rebutted oppositorLs argu$ents that the will was not properly e+ecuted and attested to in accordance with law! #fter a careful e+a$ination of the will and consideration of the testi$onies of the subscribing and attesting witnesses, and having in $ind the $odern tendency in respect to the for$alities in the e+ecution of a will, i!e!, the liberaliFation of the interpretation of the law on the for$al re>uire$ents of a will with the end in view of giving the testator $ore freedo$ in e+pressing his last wishes, this Court is persuaded to rule that the will in >uestion is authentic and had been e+ecuted by the testatri+ in accordance with law! 2n the issue of lack of acknowledge$ent, this Court has noted that at the end of the will after the signature of the testatri+, the following state$ent is $ade under the sub*title, ;6atunay Ng -ga "aksi;? ;#ng kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng MMMMM dahon pati ang huling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a$in ni Bugenia N! ,gsolo, tagapag$ana na siya niyang Culing Cabilin, ngayong ika*1% ng Cunyo 1&'1, ay nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapag$ana sa ilali$ ng kasulatang nabanggit at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawaLt dahon, sa harap ng lahat at bawaLt sa a$in, at ka$i na$ang $ga saksi ay lu$agda sa harap ng nasabing tagapag$ana at sa harap ng lahat at bawaLt isa sa a$in, sa ilali$ ng nasabing kasulatan at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawaLt dahon ng kasulatan ito!; The afore>uoted declaration co$prises the attestation clause and the acknowledge$ent and is considered by this Court as a substantial co$pliance with the re>uire$ents of the law! 2n the oppositorLs contention that the attestation clause was not signed by the subscribing witnesses at the botto$ thereof, this Court is of the view that the signing by the subscribing witnesses on the left $argin of the second page of the will containing the attestation clause and acknowledg$ent, instead of at the botto$ thereof, substantially satisfies the purpose of identification and attestation of the will! @ith regard to the oppositorLs argu$ent that the will was not nu$bered correlatively in letters placed on upper part of each page and that the attestation did not state the nu$ber of pages thereof, it is worthy to note that the will is co$posed of only two pages! The first page contains the entire te+t of the testa$entary dispositions, and the second page contains the last portion of the attestation clause and acknowledge$ent! "uch being so, the defects are not of a serious nature as to invalidate the will! )or the sa$e reason, the failure of the testatri+ to affi+ her signature on the left $argin of the second page, which contains only the last portion of the attestation clause and acknowledg$ent is not a fatal defect!
#s regards the oppositorLs assertion that the signature of the testatri+ on the will is a forgery, the testi$onies of the three subscribing witnesses to the will are convincing enough to establish the genuineness of the signature of the testatri+ and the due e+ecution of the will! ' The 2rder was appealed to the Court of #ppeals by Brnesto Castillo, who had substituted his since deceased $other* in*law, 1eralda Castillo! ,n a Decision dated 18 #ugust 1&&5, the Court of #ppeals reversed the trial court and ordered the dis$issal of the petition for probate!& The Court of #ppeals noted that the attestation clause failed to state the nu$ber of pages used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate! 1% Cence, the present petition! 6etitioner argues that the re>uire$ent under #rticle '%5 of the Civil Code that ;the nu$ber of pages used in a notarial will be stated in the attestation clause; is $erely directory, rather than $andatory, and thus susceptible to what he ter$ed as ;the substantial co$pliance rule!; 11 The solution to this case calls for the application of #rticles '%5 and '%7 of the Civil Code, which we replicate in full! #rt! '%5! Bvery will, other than a holographic will, $ust be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator hi$self or by the testatorLs na$e written by so$e other person in his presence, and by his e+press direction, and attested and subscribed by three or $ore credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another! The testator or the person re>uested by hi$ to write his na$e and the instru$ental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, e+cept the last, on the left $argin, and all the pages shall be nu$bered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page! The attestation shall state the nu$ber of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused so$e other person to write his na$e, under his e+press direction, in the presence of the instru$ental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another! ,f the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to the$! #rt! '%7! Bvery will $ust be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses! The notary public shall not be re>uired to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court! The appellate court, in its Decision, considered only one defect, the failure of the attestation clause to state the nu$ber of pages of the will! <ut an e+a$ination of the will itself reveals several $ore deficiencies! #s ad$itted by petitioner hi$self, the attestation clause fails to state the nu$ber of pages of the will! 19 There was an inco$plete atte$pt to co$ply with this re>uisite, a space having been allotted for the insertion of the nu$ber of pages in the attestation clause! Yet the blank was never filled inD hence, the re>uisite was left unco$plied with! The Court of #ppeals pounced on this defect in reversing the trial court, citing in the process Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca14 and In re: Will of Andrada.1: ,n Uy Coque, the Court noted that a$ong the defects of the will in >uestion was the failure of the attestation clause to state the nu$ber of pages contained in the will! 15 ,n ruling that the will could not be ad$itted to probate, the Court $ade the following consideration which re$ains highly relevant to this day? ;The purpose of re>uiring the nu$ber of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause is obviousD )h+ %oc84+$) 4.7h) +a1.05 *+ 1o /r+/ar+% )ha) )h+ r+4ova0 o9 a 1h++) 6o80% co4/0+)+05 cha$7+ )h+ )+1)a4+$)ar5 %.1/o1.).o$1 o9 )h+ 6.00 a$% .$ )h+ a*1+$c+ o9 a 1)a)+4+$) o9 )h+ )o)a0 $84*+r o9 1h++)1 18ch r+4ova0
4.7h) *+ +99+c)+% *5 )a;.$7 o8) )h+ 1h++) a$% cha$7.$7 )h+ $84*+r1 a) )h+ )o/ o9 )h+ 9o00o6.$7 1h++)1 or /a7+1! ,f, on the other hand, the total nu$ber of sheets is stated in the attestation clause the falsification of the docu$ent will involve the inserting of new pages and the forging of the signatures of the testator and witnesses in the $argin, a $atter attended with $uch greater difficulty!; 17 The case of In re Will of Andrada concerned a will the attestation clause of which failed to state the nu$ber of sheets or pages used! This consideration alone was sufficient for the Court to declare ;unani$JityK upon the point that the defect pointed out in the attesting clause is fatal!; 18 ,t was further observed that ;it cannot be denied that the + + + re>uire$ent affords additional security against the danger that the will $ay be ta$pered withD and as the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe this re>uire$ent, it $ust be considered $aterial!; 1' #gainst these cited cases, petitioner cites Singson v. lorentino1& and !a"oada v. #on. Rosal,9% wherein the Court allowed probate to the wills concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation clause did not state the nu$ber of pages of the will! Yet the appellate court itself considered the i$port of these two cases, and $ade the following distinction which petitioner is unable to rebut, and which we adopt with approval? Bven a cursory e+a$ination of the @ill /B+hibit ;D;0, will readily show that the attestation does not state the nu$ber of pages used upon which the will is written! Cence, the @ill is void and undeserving of probate! @e are not i$pervious of the Decisions of the "upre$e Court in ;-anuel "ingson v! B$ilia )lorentino, et al!, &9 6hil! 171 and #polonio JTaboadaK v! Con! #velino (osal, et al!, 11' "C(# 1&5,; to the effect that a will $ay still be valid even if the attestation does not contain the nu$ber of pages used upon which the @ill is written! Cowever, the Decisions of the "upre$e Court are not applicable in the afore$entioned appeal at bench! This is so because, in the case of ;-anuel "ingson v! B$ilia )lorentino, et al!, supra,; although the attestation in the sub=ect @ill did not state the nu$ber of pages used in the will, however, the sa$e was found in the last part of the body of the @ill? The law referred to is article 71' of the Code of Civil 6rocedure, as a$ended by #ct No! 97:5, which re>uires that the attestation clause shall state the nu$ber of pages or sheets upon which the will is written, which re>uire$ent has been held to be $andatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or o$ission of so$e of the pages of the will to the pre=udice of the heirs to who$ the property is intended to be be>ueathed /,n re @ill of #ndrada, :9 6hil! 1'%D y Co>ue v! Navas L! "ioca, :4 6hil!, :%5D 1u$ban v! 1orcho, 5% 6hil! 4%D Iuinto v! -orata, 5: 6hil! :'1D Bchevarria v! "ar$iento, 77 6hil! 7110! The ratio decidendi of these cases see$s to be that the attestation clause $ust contain a state$ent of the nu$ber of sheets or pages co$posing the will and that if this is $issing or is o$itted, it will have the effect of invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot be supplied, not by evidence aliunde, but by a consideration or e+a$ination of the will itself! <ut here the situation is different! @hile the attestation clause does not state the nu$ber of sheets or pages upon which the will is written, however, the last part of the body of the will contains a state$ent that it is co$posed of eight pages, which circu$stance in our opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of construction and places it within the real$ of si$ilar cases where a broad and $ore liberal view has been adopted to prevent the will of the testator fro$ being defeated by purely technical considerations!; /page 175*175, supra0 /Underscoring supplied0 ,n ;#polonio Tabaoda v! Con! #velino (osal, et al!; supra, the notarial acknowledge$ent in the @ill states the nu$ber of pages used in the? @e have e+a$ined the will in >uestion and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the nu$ber of pages used in writing the will! This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible fro$ the entire will that it is really and actually co$posed of only two pages duly signed by the testatri+ and her instru$ental witnesses! #s earlier stated, the first page which contains the entirety of the testa$entary dispositions is
signed by the testatri+ at the end or at the botto$ while the instru$ental witnesses signed at the left $argin! The other page which is $arked as ;6agina dos; co$prises the attestation clause and the acknowledg$ent! The acknowledg$ent itself states that ;this Last @ill and Testa$ent consists of two pages including this page; /pages 9%%* 9%1, supra0 / nderscoring supplied0! Cowever, in the appeal at bench, the nu$ber of pages used in the will is not stated in any part of the @ill! The will does not even contain any notarial acknowledg$ent wherein the nu$ber of pages of the will should be stated! 91 <oth Uy Coque and #ndrada were decided prior to the enact$ent of the Civil Code in 1&5%, at a ti$e when the statutory provision governing the for$al re>uire$ent of wills was "ection 71' of the Code of Civil 6rocedure!99 (eliance on these cases re$ains apropos, considering that the re>uire$ent that the attestation state the nu$ber of pages of the will is e+tant fro$ "ection 71'! 94 Cowever, the enact$ent of the Civil Code in 1&5% did put in force a rule of interpretation of the re>uire$ents of wills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned, that $ay vary fro$ the philosophy that governed these two cases! #rticle '%& of the Civil Code states? ;,n the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and i$proper pressure and influence, defects and i$perfections in the for$ of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact e+ecuted and attested in substantial co$pliance with all the re>uire$ents of article '%5!; ,n the sa$e vein, petitioner cites the report of the Civil Code Co$$ission, which stated that ;the underlying and funda$ental ob=ective per$eating the provisions on the JlawK on JwillsK in this pro=ect consists in the JliberaliFationK of the $anner of their e+ecution with the end in view of giving the testator $ore Jfreedo$K in Je+pressingK his last wishes! This ob=ective is in accord with the J$odern tendencyK in respect to the for$alities in the e+ecution of wills!;9: Cowever, petitioner conveniently o$its the >ualification offered by the Code Co$$ission in the very sa$e paragraph he cites fro$ their report, that such liberaliFation be ;but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the co$$ission of fraud and the e+ercise of undue and i$proper pressure and influence upon the testator!; 95 Caneda v. Court of Appeals97 features an e+tensive discussion $ade by 3ustice (egalado, speaking for the Court on the conflicting views on the $anner of interpretation of the legal for$alities re>uired in the e+ecution of the attestation clause in wills!98 Uy Coque and #ndrada are cited therein, along with several other cases, as e+a$ples of the application of the rule of strict construction! 9' Cowever, the Code Co$$ission opted to reco$$end a $ore liberal construction through the ;substantial co$pliance rule; under #rticle '%&! # cautionary note was struck though by 3ustice 3!<!L! (eyes as to how #rticle '%& should be applied? + + + The rule $ust be li$ited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an e+a$ination of the will itself? whether all the pages are consecutively nu$beredD whether the signatures appear in each and every pageD whether the subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notariFed! #ll these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even o$issions concerning the$ in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded! B8) )h+ )o)a0 $84*+r o9 /a7+1, a$% 6h+)h+r a00 /+r1o$1 r+B8.r+% )o 1.7$ %.% 1o .$ )h+ /r+1+$c+ o9 +ach o)h+r 481) 18*1)a$).a005 a//+ar .$ )h+ a))+1)a).o$ c0a81+, *+.$7 )h+ o$05 ch+c; a7a.$1) /+rA8r5 .$ )h+ /ro*a)+ /roc++%.$71!9& /$%p&asis supplied!0 The Court of #ppeals did cite these co$$ents by 3ustice 3!<!L! (eyes in its assailed decision, considering that the failure to state the nu$ber of pages of the will in the attestation clause is one of the defects which cannot be si$ply disregarded! ,n Caneda itself, the Court refused to allow the probate of a will whose attestation clause failed to state that the witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other,4% the other o$ission cited by 3ustice 3!<!L! (eyes which to his esti$ation cannot be lightly disregarded!
Caneda suggested? ;J,Kt $ay thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that o$ission which can be supplied by an e+a$ination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to e+trinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed! Cowever, those o$issions which cannot be supplied e+cept by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ulti$ately, of the will itself!;41 Thus, a failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can be liberally construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual e+a$inationD while a failure by the attestation clause to state that the witnesses signed in one anotherLs presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the only te+tual guarantee of co$pliance!49 The failure of the attestation clause to state the nu$ber of pages on which the will was written re$ains a fatal flaw, despite #rticle '%&! The purpose of the law in re>uiring the clause to state the nu$ber of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or o$ission of one or so$e of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages!44 The failure to state the nu$ber of pages e>uates with the absence of an aver$ent on the part of the instru$ental witnesses as to how $any pages consisted the will, the e+ecution of which they had ostensibly =ust witnessed and subscribed to! )ollowing Caneda, there is substantial co$pliance with this re>uire$ent if the will states elsewhere in it how $any pages it is co$prised of, as was the situation in Singson and Taboada! Cowever, in this case, there could have been no substantial co$pliance with the re>uire$ents under #rticle '%5 since there is no state$ent in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the nu$ber of pages which co$prise the will! #t the sa$e ti$e, #rticle '%& should not deviate fro$ the need to co$ply with the for$al re>uire$ents as enu$erated under #rticle '%5! @hatever the inclinations of the $e$bers of the Code Co$$ission in incorporating #rticle '%5, the fact re$ains that they saw fit to prescribe substantially the sa$e for$al re>uisites as enu$erated in "ection 71' of the Code of Civil 6rocedure, convinced that these re$ained effective safeguards against the forgery or intercalation of notarial wills!4: Co$pliance with these re>uire$ents, however picayune in i$pression, affords the public a high degree of co$fort that the testator hi$self or herself had decided to convey property post %orte% in the $anner established in the will! 45 Th+ )ra$1c+$%+$) 0+7.10a).v+ .$)+$), +v+$ a1 +:/r+11+% .$ )h+ c.)+% co44+$)1 o9 )h+ Co%+ Co44.11.o$, .1 9or )h+ 9r8.).o$ o9 )h+ )+1)a)orC1 .$co$)+1)a*0+ %+1.r+1, a$% $o) 9or )h+ .$%807+$) a%4.11.o$ o9 6.001 )o /ro*a)+! The Court could thus end here and affir$ the Court of #ppeals! Cowever, an e+a$ination of the will itself reveals a couple of even $ore critical defects that should necessarily lead to its re=ection! !or o$+, )h+ a))+1)a).o$ c0a81+ 6a1 $o) 1.7$+% *5 )h+ .$1)r84+$)a0 6.)$+11+1. @hile the signatures of the instru$ental witnesses appear on the left*hand $argin of the will, they do not appear at the botto$ of the attestation clause which after all consists of their aver$ents before the notary public! Cagro v. Cagro47 is $aterial on this point! #s in this case, ;the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the botto$ of the attestation clause, although the page containing the sa$e is signed by the witnesses on the left*hand $argin!;48 @hile three /40 3ustices4' considered the signature re>uire$ent had been substantially co$plied with, a $a=ority of si+ /70, speaking through Chief 3ustice 6aras, ruled that the attestation clause had not been duly signed, rendering the will fatally defective! There is no >uestion that the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the botto$ of the attestation clause, although the page containing the sa$e is signed by the witnesses on the left*hand $argin! @e are of the opinion that the position taken by the appellant is correct! The attestation clause is ;a $e$orandu$ of the facts attending the e+ecution of the will; re>uired by law to be $ade by the attesting witnesses, and it $ust
necessarily bear their signatures! #n unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses, since the o$ission of their signatures at the botto$ thereof negatives their participation! The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on the left*hand $argin confor$ substantially to the law and $ay be dee$ed as their signatures to the attestation clause! This is untenable, because said signatures are in co$pliance with the legal $andate that the will be signed on the left*hand $argin of all its pages! ,f an attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the botto$ thereof, be ad$itted as sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause to a will on a subse>uent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses!4& The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro! #rticle '%5 particularly segregates the re>uire$ent that the instru$ental witnesses sign each page of the will, fro$ the re>uisite that the will be ;attested and subscribed by Jthe instru$ental witnessesK!; The respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct fro$ each other! The signatures on the left*hand corner of every page signify, a$ong others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing for$s part of the will! 2n the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the state$ents contained in the attestation clause itself! ,ndeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart fro$ the disposition of the will! #n unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will! Bven if the instru$ental witnesses signed the left*hand $argin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such signatures cannot de$onstrate these witnessesL undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal! The Court $ay be $ore charitably disposed had the witnesses in this case signed the attestation clause itself, but not the left*hand $argin of the page containing such clause! @ithout di$inishing the value of the instru$ental witnessesL signatures on each and every page, the fact $ust be noted that it is the attestation clause which contains the utterances reduced into writing of the testa$entary witnesses the$selves! ,t is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are re>uired under #rticle '%5 to state the nu$ber of pages used upon which the will is writtenD the fact that the testator had signed the will and every page thereofD and that they witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another! The only proof in the will that the witnesses have stated these ele$ental facts would be their signatures on the attestation clause! Thus, the sub=ect will cannot be considered to have been validly attested to by the instru$ental witnesses, as they failed to sign the attestation clause! Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition should also hinge! The re>uire$ent under #rticle '%7 that ;every will $ust be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses; has also not been co$plied with! The i$portance of this re>uire$ent is highlighted by the fact that it had been segregated fro$ the other re>uire$ents under #rticle '%5 and entrusted into a separate provision, #rticle '%7! The non* observance of #rticle '%7 in this case is e>ually as critical as the other cited flaws in co$pliance with #rticle '%5, and should be treated as of e>uivalent i$port! ,n lieu of an acknowledg$ent, the notary public, 6etronio Y! <autista, wrote ; Nilagdaan 'o at ninotario 'o ngayong () ng #unyo () *sic+, (-.( dito sa Lungsod ng /aynila !;:% <y no $anner of conte$plation can those words be construed as an acknowledg$ent! #n acknowledg$ent is the act of one who has e+ecuted a deed in going before so$e co$petent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed! :1 ,t involves an e+tra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the e+ecutor of a docu$ent has attested to the notary that the sa$e is hisEher own free act and deed!
,t $ight be possible to construe the aver$ent as a 0urat, even though it does not hew to the usual language thereof! # 0urat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before hi$Eher, the docu$ent was subscribed and sworn to by the e+ecutor!:9 2rdinarily, the language of the 0urat should avow that the docu$ent was subscribed and sworn before the notary public, while in this case, the notary public averred that he hi$self ;signed and notariFed; the docu$ent! 6ossibly though, the word ;ninotario; or ;notariFed; enco$passes the signing of and swearing in of the e+ecutors of the docu$ent, which in this case would involve the decedent and the instru$ental witnesses! Yet even if we consider what was affi+ed by the notary public as a 0urat, the will would nonetheless re$ain invalid, as the e+press re>uire$ent of #rticle '%7 is that the will be ;acknowledged;, and not $erely subscribed and sworn to! The will does not present any te+tual proof, $uch less one under oath, that the decedent and the instru$ental witnesses e+ecuted or signed the will as their own free act or deed! The acknowledg$ent $ade in a will provides for another all*i$portant legal safeguard against spurious wills or those $ade beyond the free consent of the testator! #n acknowledge$ent is not an e$pty $eaningless act!:4 The acknowledg$ent coerces the testator and the instru$ental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had e+ecuted and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed! "uch declaration is under oath and under pain of per=ury, thus allowing for the cri$inal prosecution of persons who participate in the e+ecution of spurious wills, or those e+ecuted without the free consent of the testator! ,t also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of certain $indset in $aking the testa$entary dispositions to those persons heEshe had designated in the will! ,t $ay not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, self*evident as it is under #rticle '%7! A $o)ar.a0 6.00 )ha) .1 $o) ac;$o60+%7+% *+9or+ a $o)ar5 /8*0.c *5 )h+ )+1)a)or a$% )h+ 6.)$+11+1 .1 9a)a005 %+9+c).v+, +v+$ .9 .) .1 18*1cr.*+% a$% 16or$ )o *+9or+ a $o)ar5 /8*0.c ! There are two other re>uire$ents under #rticle '%5 which were not fully satisfied by the will in >uestion! @e need not discuss the$ at length, as they are no longer $aterial to the disposition of this case! The provision re>uires that the testator and the instru$ental witnesses sign each and every page of the will on the left $argin, e+cept the lastD and that all the pages shall be nu$bered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page! ,n this case, the decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both pages of the will on the left $argin, her only signature appearing at the so*called ;logical end; :: of the will on its first page! #lso, the will itself is not nu$bered correlatively in letters on each page, but instead nu$bered with #rabic nu$erals! There is a line of thought that has disabused the notion that these two re>uire$ents be construed as $andatory!:5Taken in isolation, these o$issions, by the$selves, $ay not be sufficient to deny probate to a will! Yet even as these o$issions are not decisive to the ad=udication of this case, they need not be dwelt on, though indicative as they $ay be of a general lack of due regard for the re>uire$ents under #rticle '%5 by whoever e+ecuted the will! #ll told, the string of $ortal defects which the will in >uestion suffers fro$ $akes the probate denial ine+orable! @CB(B)2(B, the petition is DBN,BD! Costs against petitioner!
[G.R. No. 7(D(D. !+*r8ar5 29, 1988.] TE#TATE E#TATE O! THE ATE A,RIANA MA OTO, A ,INA MA OTO CA#IANO, CON#TANCIO MA OTO, "URI!ICACION MIRA! OR, ROMAN CATHO IC CHURCH O! MO O, AN, A#I O ,E MO O, Petitioners, v. COURT O! A""EA #, "AN!I O MA OTO AN, !E INO MA OTO, Respondents. #E ABU#
1! C,V,L L#@D " CCB"",2ND @,LL"D (BV2C#T,2N TCB(B2)D 6CY",C#L #CT 2) DB"T( CT,2ND #N,- " (BV2C#ND,, # NBCB""#(Y BLB-BNT! Q The physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with ani$us revocandi on the part of the testator! ,t is not i$perative that the physical destruction be done by the testator hi$self! ,t $ay be perfor$ed by another person but under the e+press direction and in the presence of the testator! 2f course, it goes without saying that the docu$ent destroyed $ust be the will itself! ,n this case, while ani$us revocandi, or the intention to revoke, $ay be conceded, for that is a state of $ind, yet that re>uisite alone would not suffice! ;#ni$us revocandi is only one of the necessary ele$ents for the effective revocation of a last will and testa$ent! The intention to revoke $ust be acco$panied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his e+press direction! 9! (B-BD,#L L#@D C,V,L #CT,2N"D (B" 3 D,C#T#D BLB-BNT"! Q )or a =udg$ent to be a bar to a subse>uent case, the following re>uisites $ust concur? /10 the presence of a final for$er =udg$entD /90 the for$er =udg$ent was rendered by a court having =urisdiction over the sub=ect $atter and the partiesD /40 the for$er =udg$ent is a =udg$ent on the $eritsD and /:0 there is, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of sub=ect $atter, and of cause of action! @e do not find here the presence of all the enu$erated re>uisites! 4! ,D!D ,D!D ,D!D D2CT(,NB N2T #66L,C#<LB ,N C#"B #T <#(! Q There is yet, strictly speaking, no final =udg$ent rendered insofar as the probate of #driana -aloto.s will is concerned! The decision of the trial court in "pecial 6roceeding No! 1847, although final, involved only the intestate settle$ent of the estate of #driana! #s such, that =udg$ent could not in any $anner be construed to be final with respect to the probate of the subse>uently discovered will of the decedent! Neither is it a =udg$ent on the $erits of the action for probate! This is understandably so because the trial court, in the intestate proceeding, was without =urisdiction to rule on the probate of the contested will! #fter all, an action for probate, as it i$plies, is founded on the presence of a will and with the ob=ective of proving its due e+ecution and validity, so$ething which can not be properly done in an intestate settle$ent of estate proceeding which is predicated on the assu$ption that the decedent left no will! Thus, there is likewise no identity between the cause of action in intestate proceeding and that in an action for probate! <e that as it $ay, it would be re$e$bered that it was precisely because of our ruling in 1!(! No! L*4%:8& that the petitioners instituted this separate action for the probate of the late #driana -aloto.s will! Cence, on these grounds alone, the position of the private respondents on this score can not be sustained! This is not the first ti$e that the parties to this case co$e to us! ,n fact, two other cases directly related to the present one and involving the sa$e parties had already been decided by us in the past! ,n 1!(! No! L*4%:8&, 1 which was a petition for certiorari and $anda$us instituted by the petitioners herein, we dis$issed the petition ruling that
the $ore appropriate re$edy of the petitioners is a separate proceeding for the probate of the will in >uestion! 6ursuant to the said ruling, the petitioners co$$enced in the then Court of )irst ,nstance of ,loilo, "pecial 6roceeding No! 9187, for the probate of the disputed will, which was opposed by the private respondents presently, 6anfilo and )elino, both surna$ed -aloto! The trial court dis$issed the petition on #pril 4%, 1&8%! Co$plaining against the dis$issal, again, the petitioners ca$e to this Court on a petition for review by certiorari! 9 #cting on the said petition, we set aside the trial court.s order and directed it to proceed to hear the case on the $erits! The trial court, after hearing, found the will to have already been revoked by the testatri+! #driana -aloto, and thus, denied the petition! The petitioners appealed the trial court.s decision to the ,nter$ediate #ppellate Court which, on 3une 8, 1&'5, affir$ed the order! The petitioners. $otion for reconsideration of the adverse decision proved to be of no avail, hence, this petition! )or a better understanding of the controversy, a factual account would be a great help! 2n 2ctober 9%, 1&74, #driana -aloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners #ldina -aloto* Casiano and Constancio -aloto, and the private respondents 6anfilo -aloto and )elino -aloto! <elieving that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testa$ent, these four heirs co$$enced on Nove$ber :, 1&74 an intestate proceeding for the settle$ent of their aunt.s estate! The case was instituted in the then Court of )irst ,nstance of ,loilo and was docketed as "pecial 6roceeding No! 1847! Cowever, while the case was still in progress, or to be e+act on )ebruary 1, 1&7:, the parties Q #ldina, Constancio, 6anfilo, and )elino Q e+ecuted an agree$ent of e+tra=udicial settle$ent of #driana.s estate! The agree$ent provided for the division of the estate into four e>ual parts a$ong the parties! The -alotos then presented the e+tra=udicial settle$ent agree$ent to the trial court for approval which the court did on -arch 91, 1&7:! That should have signalled the end of the controversy, but, unfortunately, it had not! Three years later, or so$eti$e in -arch 1&78, #tty! "ulpicio 6al$a, a for$er associate of #driana.s counsel, the late #tty! Bliseo Cervas, discovered a docu$ent entitled ;A#T#6 "#N N1# 6#1< L T*#N /Testa$ento0,; dated 3anuary 4, 1&:%, and purporting to be the last will and testa$ent of #driana! #tty! 6al$a clai$ed to have found the testa$ent, the original copy, while he was going through so$e $aterials inside the cabinet drawer for$erly used by #tty! Cervas! The docu$ent was sub$itted to the office of the clerk of the Court of )irst ,nstance of ,loilo on #pril 1, 1&78! ,ncidentally, while 6anfilo and )elino are still na$ed as heirs in the said will, #ldina and Constancio are be>ueathed $uch bigger and $ore valuable shares in the estate of #driana than what they received by virtue of the agree$ent of e+tra=udicial settle$ent they had earlier signed! The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties, a$ong the$ being the petitioners #silo de -olo, the (o$an Catholic Church of -olo, and 6urificacion -iraflor! Thus, on -ay 9:, 1&78, #ldina and Constancio, =oined by the other devisees and legatees na$ed in the will, filed in "pecial 6roceeding No! 1847 a $otion for reconsideration and annul$ent of the proceedings therein and for the allowance of the will! @hen the trial court denied their $otion, the petitioner ca$e to us by way of a petition for certiorariand $anda$us assailing the orders of the trial court! 4 #s we stated earlier, we dis$issed that petition and advised that a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will would be the appropriate vehicle to thresh out the $atters raised by the petitioners! "ignificantly, the appellate court while finding as inconclusive the $atter on whether or not the docu$ent or papers allegedly burned by the househelp of #driana, 1uadalupe -aloto Vda! de Coral, upon instructions of the testatri+, was indeed the will, contradicted itself and found that the will had been revoked! The respondent court stated that the presence of ani$us revocandi in the destruction of the will had, nevertheless, been sufficiently proven! The appellate court based its finding on the facts that the docu$ent was not in the two safes in #driana.s residence, by the testatri+ going to the residence of #tty! Cervas to retrieve a copy of the will left in the latter.s possession, and, her seeking the services of #tty! 6al$a in order to have a new will drawn up! )or reasons shortly to be e+plained, we do not view such facts, even considered collectively, as sufficient bases for the conclusion that #driana -aloto.s will had been effectively revoked! There is no doubt as to the testa$entary capacity of the testatri+ and the due e+ecution of the will! The heart of the case lies on the issue as to whether or not the will was revoked by #driana! The provisions of the new Civil Code pertinent to the issue can be found in #rticle '4%! #rt! '4%! No will shall be revoked e+cept in the following cases? /10 <y i$plication of lawD or /90 <y so$e will, codicil, or other writing e+ecuted as provided in case of wills? or /40 <y burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator hi$self, or by so$e other person in his presence, and by his e+press direction! ,f burned, torn, cancelled, or obliterated by so$e
other person, without the e+press direction of the testator, the will $ay still be established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due e+ecution, and the fact of its unauthoriFed destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the (ules of Court! /B$phasis "upplied!0 ,t is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with ani$us revocandi on the part of the testator! ,t is not i$perative that the physical destruction be done by the testator hi$self! ,t $ay be perfor$ed by another person but under the e+press direction and in the presence of the testator! 2f course, it goes without saying that the docu$ent destroyed $ust be the will itself! ,n this case, while ani$us revocandi, or the intention to revoke, $ay be conceded, for that is a state of $ind, yet that re>uisite alone would not suffice! ;#ni$us revocandi is only one of the necessary ele$ents for the effective revocation of a last will and testa$ent! The intention to revoke $ust be acco$panied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his e+press direction! There is paucity of evidence to show co$pliance with these re>uire$ents! )or one, the docu$ent or papers burned by #driana.s $aid, 1uadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, $uch less the will of #driana -aloto! )or another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the e+press direction of #driana! #nd then, the burning was not in her presence! <oth witnesses, 1uadalupe and Bladio, were one in stating that they were the only ones present at the place where the stove /presu$ably in the kitchen0 was located in which the papers proffered as a will were burned! The respondent appellate court in assessing the evidence presented by the private respondents as oppositors in the trial court, concluded that the testi$ony of the two witnesses who testified in favor of the will.s revocation appear ;inconclusive!; @e share the sa$e view! Nowhere in the records before us does it appear that the two witnesses, 1uadalupe Vda! de Corral and Bladio ,tchon, both illiterates, were une>uivocably positive that the docu$ent burned was indeed #driana.s will! 1uadalupe, we think, believed that the papers she destroyed was the will only because, according to her, #driana told her so! Bladio, on the other hand, obtained his infor$ation that the burned docu$ent was the will because 1uadalupe told hi$ so, thus, his testi$ony on this point is double hearsay! #t this =uncture, we reiterate that; /it0 is an i$portant $atter of public interest that a purported will is not denied legaliFation on dubious grounds! 2therwise, the very institution of testa$entary succession will be shaken to its very foundations ! ! !; : The private respondents in their bid for the dis$issal of the present action for probate instituted by the petitioners argue that the sa$e is already barred by res ad=udicata! They clai$ that this bar was brought about by the petitioners. failure to appeal ti$ely fro$ the order dated Nove$ber 17, 1&7' of the trial court in the intestate proceeding /"pecial 6roceeding No! 18470 denying their /petitioners.0 $otion to reopen the case, and their prayer to annul the previous proceedings therein and to allow the last will and testa$ent of the late #driana -aloto! This is untenable! The doctrine of res ad=udicata finds no application in the present controversy! )or a =udg$ent to be a bar to a subse>uent case, the following re>uisites $ust concur? /10 the presence of a final for$er =udg$entD /90 the for$er =udg$ent was rendered by a court having =urisdiction over the sub=ect $atter and the partiesD /40 the for$er =udg$ent is a =udg$ent on the $eritsD and /:0 there is, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of sub=ect $atter, and of cause of action! 5 @e do not find here the presence of all the enu$erated re>uisites! )or one, there is yet, strictly speaking, no final =udg$ent rendered insofar as the probate of #driana -aloto.s will is concerned! The decision of the trial court in "pecial 6roceeding No! 1847, although final, involved only the intestate settle$ent of the estate of #driana! #s such, that =udg$ent could not in any $anner be construed to be final with respect to the probate of the subse>uently discovered will of the decedent! Neither is it a =udg$ent on the $erits of the action for probate! This is understandably so because the trial court, in the intestate proceeding, was without =urisdiction to rule on the probate of the contested will! 7 #fter all, an action for probate, as it i$plies, is founded on the presence of a will and with the ob=ective of proving its due e+ecution and validity, so$ething which can not be properly done in an intestate settle$ent of estate proceeding which is predicated on the assu$ption that the decedent left no will! Thus, there is likewise no identity between the cause of action in intestate proceeding and that in an action for probate! <e that as it $ay, it would be re$e$bered that it was precisely because of our ruling in 1!(! No! L*4%:8& that the petitioners instituted this separate action for the probate of the late #driana -aloto.s will! Cence, on these grounds alone, the position of the private respondents on this score can not be sustained! 2ne last note! The private respondents point out that revocation could be inferred fro$ the fact that; /a0 $a=or and substantial bulk of the properties $entioned in the will had been disposed of? while an insignificant portion of the properties re$ained at the ti$e of death /of the testatri+0D and, further$ore, $ore valuable properties have been ac>uired after the e+ecution of the will on 3anuary 4, 1&:%!; 8 "uffice it to state here that as these additional $atters raised by the private respondents are e+traneous to this special proceeding, they could only be appropriately taken up
after the will has been duly probated and a certificate of its allowance issued! @CB(B)2(B, =udg$ent is hereby rendered (BVB(",N1 and "BTT,N1 #",DB the Decision dated 3une 8, 1&'5 and the (esolution dated 2ctober 99, 1&'7, of the respondent Court of #ppeals, and a new one BNTB(BD for the allowance of #driana -aloto.s last will and testa$ent! Costs against the private respondents! This Decision is ,--BD,#TBLY BHBC T2(Y!
[G.R. NO. 1>(021. #+/)+4*+r 2<, 200>] CENTHIA C. A ABAN v. COURT O! A""EA # a$% !RANCI#CO H. "ROVI,O, Respondent!
This is a 6etition for (eview of the Resolutions1 of the Court of #ppeals /C#0 in C#*1!(! "6 No! 7&991, 9 dis$issing petitionersL petition for annul$ent of =udg$ent! 2n ' Nove$ber 9%%%, respondent )rancisco 6rovido /respondent0 filed a petition, docketed as "6 6roc! No! %%*145, for the probate of the Last Will and !esta%ent4 of the late "oledad 6rovido Blevencionado /;decedent;0, who died on 97 2ctober 9%%% in 3aniuay, ,loilo! : (espondent alleged that he was the heir of the decedent and the e+ecutor of her will! 2n 4% -ay 9%%1, the (egional Trial Court /(TC0, <ranch 7', in 6!D! -onfort North, Du$angas, ,loilo, rendered its 1ecision,5 allowing the probate of the will of the decedent and directing the issuance of letters testa$entary to respondent!7 -ore than four /:0 $onths later, or on : 2ctober 9%%1, herein petitioners filed a $otion for the reopening of the probate proceedings!8 Likewise, they filed an opposition to the allowance of the will of the decedent, as well as the issuance of letters testa$entary to respondent, ' clai$ing that they are the intestate heirs of the decedent! 6etitioners clai$ed that the (TC did not ac>uire =urisdiction over the petition due to non*pay$ent of the correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs! -oreover, they alleged that the will could not have been probated because? /10 the signature of the decedent was forgedD /90 the will was not e+ecuted in accordance with law, that is, the witnesses failed to sign below the attestation clauseD /40 the decedent lacked testa$entary capacity to e+ecute and publish a willD /:0 the will was e+ecuted by force and under duress and i$proper pressureD /50 the decedent had no intention to $ake a will at the ti$e of affi+ing of her signatureD and /70 she did not know the properties to be disposed of, having included in the will properties which no longer belonged to her! 6etitioners prayed that the letters testa$entary issued to respondent be withdrawn and the estate of the decedent disposed of under intestate succession!& 2n 11 3anuary 9%%9, the (TC issued an 2rder1% denying petitionersL $otion for being un$eritorious! (esolving the issue of =urisdiction, the (TC held that petitioners were dee$ed notified of the hearing by publication and that the deficiency in the pay$ent of docket fees is not a ground for the outright dis$issal of the petition! ,t $erely re>uired respondent to pay the deficiency! 11 -oreover, the (TCLs 1ecision was already final and e+ecutory even before petitionersL filing of the $otion to reopen!19 6etitioners thereafter filed a petition 14 with an application for preli$inary in=unction with the C#, seeking the annul$ent of the (TCLs 1ecision dated 4% -ay 9%%1 and 2rderdated 11 3anuary 9%%9! They clai$ed that after the death of the decedent, petitioners, together with respondent, held several conferences to discuss the $atter of dividing the estate of the decedent, with respondent agreeing to a one*si+th /1E70 portion as his share! 6etitioners allegedly drafted a co$pro$ise agree$ent to i$ple$ent the division of the estate! Despite receipt of the agree$ent, respondent refused to sign and return the sa$e! 6etitioners opined that respondent feigned interest in participating in the co$pro$ise agree$ent so that they would not suspect his intention to secure the probate of the will! 1: They
clai$ed that they learnt of the probate proceedings only in 3uly of 9%%1, as a result of which they filed their $otion to reopen the proceedings and ad$it their opposition to the probate of the will only on : 2ctober 9%%1! They argued that the (TC 1ecision should be annulled and set aside on the ground of e+trinsic fraud and lack of =urisdiction on the part of the (TC!15 ,n its Resolution17 pro$ulgated on 9' )ebruary 9%%9, the C# dis$issed the petition! ,t found that there was no showing that petitioners failed to avail of or resort to the ordinary re$edies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent, or other appropriate re$edies through no fault of their own! 18 -oreover, the C# declared as baseless petitionersL clai$ that the proceedings in the (TC was attended by e+trinsic fraud! Neither was there any showing that they availed of this ground in a $otion for new trial or petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent in the (TC, the C# added!1' 6etitioners sought reconsideration of the Resolution, but the sa$e was denied by the C# for lack of $erit! 1& 6etitioners now co$e to this Court, asserting that the C# co$$itted grave abuse of discretion a$ounting to lack of =urisdiction when it dis$issed their petition for the alleged failure to show that they have not availed of or resorted to the re$edies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent or other re$edies through no fault of their own, and held that petitioners were not denied their day in court during the proceedings before the (TC! 9% ,n addition, they assert that this Court has yet to decide a case involving (ule :8 of the (ules of Court and, therefore, the instant petition should be given due course for the guidance of the bench and bar! 91 )or his part, respondent clai$s that petitioners were in a position to avail of the re$edies provided in (ules 48 and 4', as they in fact did when they filed a $otion for new trial! 99 -oreover, they could have resorted to a petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent since they learned of the (TCLs =udg$ent only three and a half $onths after its pro$ulgation!94(espondent likewise $aintains that no e+trinsic fraud e+ists to warrant the annul$ent of the (TCLs 1ecision, since there was no showing that they were denied their day in court! 6etitioners were not $ade parties to the probate proceedings because the decedent did not institute the$ as her heirs! 9: <esides, assu$ing arguendo that petitioners are heirs of the decedent, lack of notice to the$ is not a fatal defect since personal notice upon the heirs is a $atter of procedural convenience and not a =urisdictional re>uisite! 95 )inally, respondent charges petitioners of foru$Lshopping, since the latter have a pending suit involving the sa$e issues as those in "6 No! %%*145, that is "6 No! 11'1 97 filed before <ranch 94, (TC of 1eneral "antos City and subse>uently pending on appeal before the C# in C#*1!(! No!8:&9:! 98 ,t appears that one of the petitioners herein, Dolores -! )lores /;)lores;0, who is a niece of the decedent, filed a petition for letters of ad$inistration with the (TC of 1eneral "antos City, clai$ing that the decedent died intestate without any issue, survived by five groups of collateral heirs! )lores, ar$ed with a "pecial 6ower of #ttorney fro$ $ost of the other petitioners, prayed for her appoint$ent as ad$inistratri+ of the estate of the decedent! The (TC dis$issed the petition on the ground of lack of =urisdiction, stating that the probate court in 3aniuay, ,loilo has =urisdiction since the venue for a petition for the settle$ent of the estate of a decedent is the place where the decedent died! This is also in accordance with the rule that the first court ac>uiring =urisdiction shall continue hearing the case to the e+clusion of other courts, the (TC added! 9' 2n & 3anuary 9%%9, )lores filed a Notice of Appeal 9' 3anuary 9%%9, the case was ordered forwarded to the C#!
4% 9&
and on
6etitioners $aintain that they were not $ade parties to the case in which the decision sought to be annulled was rendered and, thus, they could not have availed of the ordinary re$edies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent and other appropriate re$edies, contrary to the ruling of the C#! They aver that respondentLs offer of a false co$pro$ise and his failure to notify the$ of the probate of the will constitute e+trinsic fraud that necessitates the annul$ent of the (TCLs =udg$ent!41 The petition is devoid of $erit!
"ection 48 of the (ules of Court allows an aggrieved party to file a $otion for new trial on the ground of fraud, accident, $istake, or e+cusable negligence! The sa$e (ule per$its the filing of a $otion for reconsideration on the grounds of e+cessive award of da$ages, insufficiency of evidence to =ustify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law! 49 <oth $otions should be filed within the period for taking an appeal, or fifteen /150 days fro$ notice of the =udg$ent or final order! -eanwhile, a petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent under "ection 4 of (ule 4' is resorted to when a =udg$ent or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken, against a party in any court through fraud, accident, $istake, or e+cusable negligence! "aid party $ay file a petition in the sa$e court and in the sa$e case to set aside the =udg$ent, order or proceeding! ,t $ust be filed within si+ty /7%0 days after the petitioner learns of the =udg$ent and within si+ /70 $onths after entry thereof!44 # $otion for new trial or reconsideration and a petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent are re$edies available only to parties in the proceedings where the assailed =udg$ent is rendered!4: ,n fact, it has been held that a person who was never a party to the case, or even su$$oned to appear therein, cannot avail of a petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent! 45 Cowever, petitioners in this case are $istaken in asserting that they are not or have not beco$e parties to the probate proceedings! nder the (ules of Court, any e+ecutor, devisee, or legatee na$ed in a will, or any other person interested in the estate $ay, at any ti$e after the death of the testator, petition the court having =urisdiction to have the will allowed!47 Notice of the ti$e and place for proving the will $ust be published for three /40 consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, 48 as well as furnished to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator! 4' Thus, it has been held that a proceeding for the probate of a will is one in re%, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the courtLs =urisdiction e+tends to all persons interested in said will or in the settle$ent of the estate of the decedent! 4& 6ublication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its ob=ect to bar indefinitely all who $ight be $inded to $ake an ob=ection of any sort against the right sought to be established! ,t is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with =urisdiction to hear and decide it! :%Thus, even though petitioners were not $entioned in the petition for probate, they eventually beca$e parties thereto as a conse>uence of the publication of the notice of hearing! #s parties to the probate proceedings, petitioners could have validly availed of the re$edies of $otion for new trial or reconsideration and petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent! ,n fact, petitioners filed a $otion to reopen, which is essentially a $otion for new trial, with petitioners praying for the reopening of the case and the setting of further proceedings! Cowever, the $otion was denied for having been filed out of ti$e, long after the 1ecision beca$e final and e+ecutory! Conceding that petitioners beca$e aware of the 1ecision after it had beco$e final, they could have still filed a petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent after the denial of their $otion to reopen! 6etitioners clai$ that they learned of the 1ecision only on : 2ctober 9%%1, or al$ost four /:0 $onths fro$ the ti$e the 1ecision had attained finality! <ut they failed to avail of the re$edy! )or failure to $ake use without sufficient =ustification of the said re$edies available to the$, petitioners could no longer resort to a petition for annul$ent of =udg$entD otherwise, they would benefit fro$ their own inaction or negligence!:1
Bven casting aside the procedural re>uisite, the petition for annul$ent of =udg$ent $ust still fail for failure to co$ply with the substantive re>uisites, as the appellate court ruled! #n action for annul$ent of =udg$ent is a re$edy in law independent of the case where the =udg$ent sought to be annulled was rendered!:9 The purpose of such action is to have the final and e+ecutory =udg$ent set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation! ,t is resorted to in cases where the ordinary re$edies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent, or other appropriate re$edies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner, :4 and is based on only two grounds? e+trinsic fraud, and lack of =urisdiction or denial of due process! :: # person need not be a party to the =udg$ent sought to be annulled, and it is only essential that he can prove his allegation that the =udg$ent was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he would be adversely affected thereby! :5 #n action to annul a final =udg$ent on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is e+trinsic or collateral in character!:7 )raud is regarded as e+trinsic where it prevents a party fro$ having a trial or fro$ presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon $atters pertaining not to the =udg$ent itself but to the $anner in which it is procured! The overriding consideration when e+trinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent sche$e of the prevailing litigant prevented a party fro$ having his day in court! :8 To sustain their allegation of e+trinsic fraud, petitioners assert that as a result of respondentLs deliberate o$ission or conceal$ent of their na$es, ages and residences as the other heirs of the decedent in his petition for allowance of the will, they were not notified of the proceedings, and thus they were denied their day in court! ,n addition, they clai$ that respondentLs offer of a false co$pro$ise even before the filing of the petition prevented the$ fro$ appearing and opposing the petition for probate! The Court is not convinced! #ccording to the (ules, notice is re>uired to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator!:' # perusal of the will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent! 6etitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither co$pulsory nor testate heirs :& who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the (ules! (espondent had no legal obligation to $ention petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify the$ of the sa$e! <esides, assu$ing arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the purported infir$ity is cured by the publication of the notice! #fter all, personal notice upon the heirs is a $atter of procedural convenience and not a =urisdictional re>uisite!5% The non*inclusion of petitionersL na$es in the petition and the alleged failure to personally notify the$ of the proceedings do not constitute e+trinsic fraud! 6etitioners were not denied their day in court, as they were not prevented fro$ participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court! 2ne other vital point is the issue of foru$*shopping against petitioners! )oru$*shopping consists of filing $ultiple suits in different courts, either si$ultaneously or successively, involving the sa$e parties, to ask the courts to rule on the sa$e or related causes andEor to grant the sa$e or substantially sa$e reliefs, 51 on the supposition that one or the other court would $ake a favorable disposition!59 2bviously, the parties in the instant case, as well as in the appealed case before the C#, are the sa$e! <oth cases deal with the e+istence and validity of the alleged will of the decedent, with petitioners anchoring their cause on the state of intestacy! ,n the probate proceedings, petitionersL position has always been that the decedent left no will and if she did, the will does not co$ply with the re>uisites of a valid will! ,ndeed, that position is the bedrock of their present petition! 2f course, respondent $aintains the contrary stance! 2n
the other hand, in the petition for letters of ad$inistration, petitioner )lores prayed for her appoint$ent as ad$inistratri+ of the estate on the theory that the decedent died intestate! The petition was dis$issed on the ground of lack of =urisdiction, and it is this order of dis$issal which is the sub=ect of review in C#*1!(! No! 8:&9:! Clearly, therefore, there is foru$* shopping! -oreover, petitioners failed to infor$ the Court of the said pending case in their certification against foru$ * shopping! Neither have they done so at any ti$e thereafter! The Court notes that even in the petition for annul$ent of =udg$ent, petitioners failed to infor$ the C# of the pendency of their appeal in C#*1!(! No! 8:&9:, even though the notice of appeal was filed way before the petition for annul$ent of =udg$ent was instituted! @CB(B)2(B, the petition is DBN,BD! Costs against petitioners!

Cases in Rule 75-76

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Cases in Rule 75-76

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Vitug v. Court of Appeals Facts: 1.

chanrob1e s virtual 1aw library

chanrob1e s virtual 1aw library

chanrob1e s virtual 1aw library

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Cowever, as we have warned?

chanrob1e s virtual 1aw library

[G.R. NO. 122880 ? A/r.0 12, 200(]

!E I@ A3UE A, Petitioner, v. COURT O! A""EA #, GERA ,A AI,A CA#TI CA#TI O, Respondents!

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen