Cases in Succession

CASES IN SUCCESSION
1.) MARIA USON, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARIA

DEL ROSARIO, CONCEPCION NEBREDA,
CONRADO NEBREDA, DOMINADOR NEBREDA,
AND FAUSTINO NEBREDA, Jr., defendants-
appellants.
G.R. No. L-4963, Ja!ar" #9, 19$3
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
No%&' This is an ACTION FOR RECO(ER) OF T*E
O+NERS*IP AND POSSESSION of five (5) parcels
of land situated in the Municipality of Labrador,
Province of Pangasinan, filed by Maria Uson against
Maria del Rosario and her four children named
oncepcion, onrado, !ominador, and "austino,
surnamed #ebreda, $ho are all of minor age, before
the ourt of "irst %nstance of Pangasinan&
FACTS'
Maria Uson $as the la$ful $ife of "austino
#ebreda $ho upon his death in '()5 left the lands
involved in this litigation& "austino #ebreda left no
other heir e*cept his $ido$ Maria Uson& +o$ever,
plaintiff,la$ful $ife claims that $hen "austino
#ebreda died in '()5, his common,la$ $ife Maria
del Rosario too- possession illegally of said lands
thus depriving her of their possession and
en.oyment&
DEED OF SEPARATION: !efendants in their
ans$er set up as special defense that on "ebruary
/', '(0', Maria Uson and her husband, the late
"austino #ebreda, e*ecuted a public document
$hereby they agreed to separate as husband and
$ife and, in consideration of their separation, Maria
Uson $as given a parcel of land by $ay of alimony
and in return she renounced her right to inherit any
other property that may be left by her husband upon
his death& (waiver of future inheritance)
RTC: Trial court rendered decision ruling in favor of
the la$ful $ife and ordering the defendants
(coon!"aw!wife # $i%&) to restore to the plaintiff
the o$nership and possession of the lands in
dispute&
DEFENDANTs ARGUMENT: %n its appeal to the 1,
defendant claimed that plaintiff has already
relin2uished her rights $hen she e*pressly
renounced any future property she $as to inherit
from her husband& %t $as also claimed that the
provisions of the #e$ ivil ode, giving status and
rights to natural children, should be given a
retroactive effect so that the illegitimate children of
!el Rosario $ill be entitled to the inheritance&
ISSUE 1'
May Maria Unson validly renounce her future
inheritance3
*ELD 1'
#4& There is no dispute that Maria Uson,
plaintiff,appellee, is the la$ful $ife of "austino
#ebreda, former o$ner of the five parcels of lands
litigated in the present case& There is li-e$ise no
dispute that Maria del Rosario, one of the
defendants,appellants, $as merely a common,la$
$ife of the late "austino #ebreda $ith $hom she
had four illegitimate children, her no$ co,
defendants& %t li-e$ise appears that "austino
#ebreda died in 194$ much 'rior to the effectivity of
the ne$ ivil ode& 5ith this bac-ground, it is
evident that $hen "austino #ebreda died in '()5
the five parcels of land he $as sei6ed of at the time
passed from the moment of his death to his only
heir, his $ido$ Maria Uson&
7pplying Ar%,-.& 6$/ o0 %1& o.2 C,3,. Co2&,
ourt ruled that the property belongs to the heirs at
the moment of the death of the ancestor as
completely as if the ancestor had e*ecuted and
delivered to them a deed for the same before his
death& The right of o$nership of Maria Uson over the
lands in 2uestion became ve&te% in '()5 upon the
death of her late husband and this is so because of
the imperative provision of the la$ $hich commands
that the rights to succession are transmitted from the
moment of death (7rticle 859, old ivil ode)&
The claim of the defendants that Maria Uson
had relin2uished her right over the lands in 2uestion
because she e*pressly renounced to inherit any
future property that her husband may ac2uire and
leave upon his death in the deed of separation they
had entered into on "ebruary /', '(0' cannot be
entertained for the simple reason that future
inheritance cannot be the sub.ect of a contract nor
can it be renounced& The decision appealed from is
affirmed&
ISSUE #'
5hether or not the illegitimate children of del
Rosario are entitled to the inheritance&
*ELD #'
#4&
!efendants contend that, $hile it is true that the
four minor defendants are illegitimate children of the
late "austino #ebreda and under the old ivil ode
are not entitled to any successional rights, ho$ever,
under the ne$ ivil ode $hich became in force in
:une, '(5;, they are given the status and rights of
natural children and are entitled to the successional
rights $hich the la$ accords to the latter (article
//8) and article /<9, ne$ ivil ode), and because
these successional rights $ere declared for the first
time in the ne$ code, they shall be given retroactive
effect even though the event $hich gave rise to them
may have occurred under the prior legislation (7rticle
//50, ne$ ivil ode)& There is no merit in this claim
PRINCIPE OF NON-IMPAIRMENT OF !ESTED
RIG"T AS AN E#CEPTION: Ar%,-.& ##$3 above
referred to provides indeed that rights $hich are
declared for the first time shall have retroactive
effect even though the event $hich gave rise to them
may have occurred under the former legislation,
BUT %1,4 ,4 4o o." 51& %1& &5 r,61%4 2o o%
7r&8!2,-& a" 3&4%&2 or a-9!,r&2 r,61% o0 %1&
4a:& or,6,& Thus, said article provides that =if a
right should be declared for the first time in this
ode, it shall be effective at once, even though the
act or event $hich gives rise thereto may have been
done or may have occurred under the prior
legislation, 'rovi%e% said ne$ right does not
pre.udice or impair any vested or ac2uired right, of
the same origin&= 7s already stated in the early part
of this decision, the right of o$nership of Maria Uson
over the lands in 2uestion ;&-a:& 3&4%&2 , 194$
!7o %1& 2&a%1 o0 1&r .a%& 1!4;a2 and this is so
because of the imperative provision of the la$ $hich
commands that the rights to succession are
transmitted from the moment of death (7rticle 859,
old ivil ode)& The ne$ right recogni6ed by the ne$
ivil ode in favor of the illegitimate children of the
deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to the
impairment of the vested right of Maria Uson over
the lands in dispute&
!OID DONATION: 7s regards the claim that Maria
Uson, $hile her deceased husband $as lying in
state, in a gesture of pity or compassion, agreed to
assign the lands in 2uestion to the minor children for
the reason that they $ere ac2uired $hile the
deceased $as living $ith their mother and Maria
Uson $anted to assuage some$hat the $rong she
has done to them, this much can be said> apart from
the fact that this claim is disputed, $e are of the
opinion that said assignment, if any, parta-es of the
nature of a DONATION OF REAL PROPERT),
inasmuch as it involves no material consideration,
and in order that it may be valid it shall be made in a
public document and must be accepted either in the
same document or in a separate one (7rticle 800,
old ivil ode)& %nasmuch as this essential formality
has not been follo$ed, it results that the alleged
a44,6:&% or 2oa%,o 1a4 o 3a.,2 &00&-%.
(ataue), Nic$ Jr. * A"ver&a%o
S!--&44,o a4 a Mo2& o0 Tra40&rr,6
O5&r41,7
19<) ROMULO A. CORONEL, ALARICO A.
CORONEL, ANNETTE A. CORONEL,
ANNABELLE C. GON=ALES >0or 1&r4&.0 a2 o
;&1a.0 o0 F.or,2a C. T!77&r, a4 a%%or&"-,-0a-%),
CIELITO A. CORONEL, FLORAIDA A. ALMONTE,
a2 CATALINA BALAIS MABANAG, 'etitioner&,
vs&
T*E COURT OF APPEALS, CONCEPCION D.
ALCARA=, a2 RAMONA PATRICIA ALCARA=,
a44,4%&2 ;" GLORIA F. NOEL a4 a%%or&"-,-0a-%,
re&'on%ent&.
?&R& #o& ';0599& 4ctober 9, '((8
+ELO, J.:
No%&' The petition before us has its roots in a
COMPLAINT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE to
compel herein petitioners (e*cept the last named,
atalina @alais Mabanag) to consummate the sale
of a parcel of land $ith its improvements located
along Roosevelt 7venue in Aue6on ity entered into
by the parties sometime in :anuary '(<5 for the
price of P',/);,;;;&;;&
FACTS'
$
st
CONTRACT OF A%SOUTE SAE: Peitioner,
Romulo oronel, et& al& being the 4o4 a2
2a!61%&r4 of the decedent onstancio P& oronel
(hereinafter referred to as oronels) e*ecuted a
document entitled BR&-&,7% o0 Do5 Pa":&%C in
favor of plaintiff Ramona Patricia 7lcara6& The
document provided that for the total amount of
P',/);,;;;&;;, $herein a do$npayment of
P5;,;;;&;; $as initially paid, the oronels bind
themselves to effect the transfer in their names the
certificate of title of the house and lot they inherited
from their father& They also promised that upon the
transfer of the TT in their names, they $ill
immediately e*ecute the 2&&2 o0 a;4o.!%& 4a.& of
the property, and the other party Ramona $ill pay
the balance of P','(;,;;;&;;&
(Note: The a)reeent cou"% not have ,een a
contract to &e"" ,ecau&e the &e""er& herein a%e no
e-'re&& re&ervation of owner&hi' or tit"e to the
&u,.ect 'arce" of "an%. /urtherore, the
circu&tance which 'revente% the 'artie& fro
enterin) into an a,&o"ute contract of &a"e 'ertaine%
to the &e""er& the&e"ve& (the certificate of tit"e wa&
not in their nae&) an% not the fu"" 'a*ent of the
'urcha&e 'rice. Un%er the e&ta,"i&he% fact& an%
circu&tance& of the ca&e, the 0ourt a* &afe"*
're&ue that, ha% the certificate of tit"e ,een in the
nae& of 'etitioner&!&e""er& at that tie, there wou"%
have ,een no rea&on wh* an a,&o"ute contract of
&a"e cou"% not have ,een e-ecute% an%
con&uate% ri)ht there an% then).
&
nd
CONTRACT OF A%SOUTE SAE'DOU%E
SAE: The oronels ho$ever, upon having the
property registered in their name, sold it to atalina
Mabanag for a higher price ((1,234,444.44), and
cancelled and rescinded the contract $ith Ramona
by depositing the amount of do$n payment to a
ban-, in trust for Ramona&
T"E COMPAINT FIED: 7 complaint for specific
performance $as filed by the oncepcionDs against
the oronels&
RTC: The RT ruled in favor of respondents
onceptionDs& :udgment for specific performance is
hereby rendered ordering defendant,oronelDs to
e*ecute in favor of plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale
covering that parcel of land
CA: 7ffirmed the same&
The petitioners claim that there could been no
perfected contract on :anuary '(, '(<5 because
they $ere then not yet the absolute o$ners of the
inherited property&
ISSUE 1'
5hether or not petitioners $ere already the
o$ners of the inherited property $hen they e*ecuted
the contract $ith respondents&
*ELD 1'
Ees& Ar%,-.& //4 of the ivil ode defines
1uccession as a mode of transferring o$nership as
follo$sF
Ar%. //4. 1uccession is a mode of ac2uisition
by virtue of $hich the property, rights and obligations
to the e*tent and value of the inheritance of a person
are transmitted through his death to another or
others by his $ill or by operation of la$&
Petitioners,sellers in the case at bar being the
4o4 a2 2a!61%&r4 of the decedent onstancio P&
oronel are -o:7!.4or" 1&,r4 $ho $ere called to
succession by operation of la$& Thus, at the point
their father dre$ his last breath, petitioners stepped
into his shoes insofar as the sub.ect property is
concerned, such that any rights or obligations
pertaining thereto became binding and enforceable
upon them& %t is e*pressly provided that rights to the
succession are transmitted from the moment of
death of the decedent&
MOOTNESS OF T"E ISSUE: @e it also noted that
petitionersD claim that succession may not be
declared unless the creditors have been paid is
rendered :oo% by the fact that they $ere able to
effect the transfer of the title to the property from the
decedentDs name to their names&
ESTOPPE: 7side from this, petitioners are
precluded from raising their supposed lac- of
capacity to enter into an agreement at that time and
they cannot be allo$ed to no$ ta-e a posture
contrary to that $hich they too- $hen they entered
into the agreement $ith private respondent Ramona
P& 7lcara6& The ivil ode e*pressly states thatF 7rt&
')0'& BThrough estoppel an admission or
representation is rendered conclusive upon the
person ma-ing it, and cannot be denied or disproved
as against the person relying thereonC& *a3,6
r&7r&4&%&2 %1&:4&.3&4 a4 %1& %r!& o5&r4 o0
%1& 4!;8&-% 7ro7&r%" a% %1& %,:& o0 4a.&,
7&%,%,o&r4 CANNOT -.a,: o5 %1a% %1&" 5&r&
o% "&% %1& a;4o.!%& o5&r4 %1&r&o0 a% %1a% %,:&.
The sale of the sub.ect parcel of land bet$een
petitioners and Ramona P& 7lcara6, is deemed
perfected&
PEITIONER(s ARGUMENT: Petitioners also
contend that although there $as in fact a perfected
contract of sale bet$een them and Ramona P&
7lcara6, the latter ;r&a-1&2 1&r r&-,7ro-a.
o;.,6a%,o $hen she rendered impossible the
consummation thereof by going to the United 1tates
of 7merica, $ithout leaving her address, telephone
number, and 1pecial Po$er of 7ttorney for $hich
reason, so petitioners conclude, they $ere correct in
!,.a%&ra.." r&4-,2,6 the contract of sale&
ISSUE #'
5hether or not peitioner,seller is correct in
unilaterraly rescinding the contract of sale bet$een
the latter and Ramona 7lcara6, the buyer&
*ELD #'
5e do not agree $ith petitioners that there $as a
valid rescission of the contract of sale in the instant
case& 5e note that these supposed grounds for
petitionersG rescission, are mere allegations found
only in their responsive pleadings, $hich by e*press
provision of the rules, are deemed controverted even
if no reply is filed by the plaintiffs (1ec& '', Rule 8,
Revised Rules of ourt)& The records are absolutely
bereft of any supporting evidence to substantiate
petitionersG allegations& 5e have stressed time and
again that allegations must be proven by sufficient
evidence (#g ho io vs& #g !iong, ''; Phil& <</
H'(8'I> Recaro vs& Jmbisan, / 1R7 5(< H'(8'I&
Mere allegation is not an evidence (Lagasca vs& !e
Kera, 9( Phil& 098 H'()9I)&
Jven assuming ar)uen%o that Ramona P&
7lcara6 $as in the United 1tates of 7merica on
"ebruary 8, '(<5, $e cannot .ustify petitioner,sellersG
act of unilaterally and e*tradicially rescinding the
contract of sale, there being no e*press stipulation
authori6ing the sellers to e*tar.udicially rescind the
contract of sale& (cf& !ignos vs& 7, '5< 1R7 095
H'(<<I> Taguba vs& Kda& de Leon, '0/ 1R7 9//
H'(<)I)
Moreover, petitioners are estopped from raising
the alleged absence of Ramona P& 7lcara6 because
although the evidence on record sho$s that the sale
$as in the name of Ramona P& 7lcara6 as the buyer,
the sellers had been dealing $ith oncepcion !&
7lcara6, RamonaGs mother, $ho had acted for and in
behalf of her daughter, if not also in her o$n behalf&
%ndeed, the do$n payment $as made by
oncepcion !& 7lcara6 $ith her o$n personal chec-
for and in behalf of Ramona P& 7lcara6& There is no
evidence sho$ing that petitioners ever 2uestioned
oncepcionGs authority to represent Ramona P&
7lcara6 $hen they accepted her personal chec-&
#either did they raise any ob.ection as regards
payment being effected by a third person&
7ccordingly, as far as petitioners are concerned, the
physical absence of Ramona P& 7lcara6 is not a
ground to rescind the contract of sale&
ISSUE 3'
@et$een the 7lcara6 and atalina Mabanag,
$ho bet$een them is the o$ner of the property
sub.ect to dispute3
*ELD 3'
%t belongs to 7lcara6&
Ar%. 1$44. %f the same thing should have been
sold to different vendees, the o$nership shall be
transferred to the person $ho may have first ta-en
possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property&
1hould if be immovable property, the o$nership shall
belong to the person ac2uiring it $ho in good faith
first recorded it in Registry of Property&
1hould there be no inscription, the o$nership shall
pertain to the person $ho in good faith $as first in
the possession> and, in the absence thereof to the
person $ho presents the oldest title, provided there
is good faith&
The record of the case sho$s that the !eed of
7bsolute 1ale dated 7pril /5, '(<5 as proof of the
second contract of sale $as registered $ith the
Registry of !eeds of Aue6on ity giving rise to the
issuance of a ne$ certificate of title in the name of
atalina @& Mabanag on :une 5, '(<5& Thus, the
second paragraph of 7rticle '5)) shall apply&
The above,cited provision on double sale
presumes title or o$nership to pass to the first buyer,
the e*ceptions beingF (a) $hen the second buyer, in
good faith, registers the sale ahead of the first buyer,
and (b) should there be no inscription by either of the
t$o buyers, $hen the second buyer, in good faith,
ac2uires possession of the property ahead of the
first buyer& Unless, the second buyer satisfies these
re2uirements, title or o$nership $ill not transfer to
him to the pre.udice of the first buyer&
%n his commentaries on the ivil ode, an accepted
authority on the sub.ect, no$ a distinguished
member of the ourt, :ustice :ose & Kitug,
e*plainsF
The governing principle is 'riu& te'ore, 'otior .ure
(first in time, stronger in right)& Lno$ledge by the first
buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first
buyerGs rights e*cept $hen the second buyer first
registers in good faith the second sale (4livares vs&
?on6ales, '5( 1R7 00)& onversely, -no$ledge
gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats
his rights even if he is first to register, since
-no$ledge taints his registration $ith bad faith (see
also 7storga vs& ourt of 7ppeals, ?&R& #o& 5<50;,
/8 !ecember '(<))& %n 0ru5 v&& 0a,ana (?&R& #o&
58/0/, // :une '(<), '/( 1R7 858), it has held
that it is essential, to merit the protection of 7rt&
'5)), second paragraph, that the second realty
buyer must act in good faith in registering his deed
of sale (citing arbonell vs& ourt of 7ppeals, 8(
1R7 ((, risostomo vs& 7, ?&R& #o& (5<)0, ;/
1eptember '((/)&
(J& 6itu) 0o'en%iu of 0ivi" Law an%
Juri&'ru%ence, 1778 E%ition, '. 94:)&
%n a case of double sale, $hat finds relevance
and materiality is not $hether or not the second
buyer $as a buyer in good faith but $hether or not
said second buyer registers such second sale in
good faith, that is, $ithout -no$ledge of any defect
in the title of the property sold&
7s clearly borne out by the evidence in this
case, petitioner Mabanag could not have in good
faith, registered the sale entered into on "ebruary
'<, '(<5 because as early as "ebruary //, '(<5, a
notice of "i& 'en%en& had been annotated on the
transfer certificate of title in the names of petitioners,
$hereas petitioner Mabanag registered the said sale
sometime in 7pril, '(<5& 7t the time of registration,
therefore, petitioner Mabanag -ne$ that the same
property had already been previously sold to private
respondents, or, at least, she $as charged $ith
-no$ledge that a previous buyer is claiming title to
the same property& Petitioner Mabanag cannot close
her eyes to the defect in petitionersG title to the
property at the time of the registration of the
property&
%f a vendee in a double sale registers that sale
after he has ac2uired -no$ledge that there $as a
previous sale of the same property to a third party or
that another person claims said property in a
pervious sale, the registration $ill constitute a
registration in bad faith and $ill not confer upon him
any right& (1alvoro vs& Tanega, <9 1R7 0)( H'(9<I>
citing Palarca vs& !irector of Land, )0 Phil& ')8>
agaoan vs& agaoan, )0 Phil& 55)> "ernande6 vs&
Mercader, )0 Phil& 5<'&)
Thus, the sale of the sub.ect parcel of land
bet$een petitioners and Ramona P& 7lcara6,
perfected on "ebruary 8, '(<5, prior to that bet$een
petitioners and atalina @& Mabanag on "ebruary
'<, '(<5, $as correctly upheld by both the courts
belo$&
199) ISIDORO M. MERCADO, '"aintiff!a''e""ee,
vs&
LEON C. (IARDO a2 PRO(INCIAL S*ERIFF OF
NUE(A ECIJA, %efen%ant&!a''e""ant&.
?&R& #o& L,')'/9, 7ugust /', '(8/
FACTS'
The spouses @artolome !ri6 and Pilar @elmonte
$ere defendants in a case $here a $rit of e*ecution
$as issued and levied upon rights and interests the
spouses have over a disputed land&
@y virtue of the $rit of e*ecution as above
mentioned, the sheriff sold at public acution M of the
lots sub.ect of controversy& This $as $as bought by
Leon Kiardo being the highest bidder&& The spouses
failed to redeem the property $ithin the statutory
period of one year from the date of sale& 7 final bill of
sale $as issued to buyer Kiardo, and a co,o$nerGs
copy of the certificate of title $as li-e$ise issued to
him&
4n /< !ecember '()5 the ourt of "irst %nstance of
#ueva Jci.a, in Land Registration ase acting upon
a verified petition of Leon & Kiardo, ordered the
Registrar of !eeds in and for #ueva Jci.a, to cancel
4riginal ertificate of Title and to issue another in
lieu thereof in the name of and in the proportion as
follo$sF LJ4#4R @JLM4#TJ N share> "JL%17
@JLM4#TJ, N share> P%L7R @JLM4#TJ, OP<
share> LJ4# & K%7R!4, OP< share> and %#J1 !J
?UQM7#, N share
1pouses !ri6 and @elmonte filed an action in the
"% against the buyer,Kiardo for reconveyance of
the said land&
CFI )n*+ RTC,: The court dismissed, including the
counterclaim of Kiardo& !efendant is the legal o$ner
of the land in 2uestion and the right of redemption of
the plaintiff of said land had already elapsed&
#ot satisfied $ith the .udgment dismissing his
counter,claim, the defendant Leon & Kiardo
appealed to the ourt of 7ppeals&
CA: Pending appeal $ith the ourt of 7ppeals,
@artolome !ri6 died& +is children of age substituted
him in the appeal&
The .udgment of the 7, granting the prayer of
Kiardo, eventually became final and e*ecutory& The
"% issued a $rit of e*ecution& Prior to the 7 ruling,
@elmonte sold her interest in the land to %sidoro
Mercado& Mercado then filed a third,party complaint
against @elmonte& Kiardo then sued @elmonte& "%
ruled that the heirs of @artolome could not be held
liable personally for .udgment rendered against
them& +ence, this appeal&
ISSUE'
5hether or not the heirs of @artolome !ri6 can
be held personally liable for the .udgment rendered
against their father3
*ELD'
#4& The only ground of appellant for this
contention is that the present o$ners of these lots
are the children of the spouses Pilar @elmonte and
@artolome !ri6, the plaintiffs in civil case #o& '8',
and that, upon the death of @artolome !ri6 during
the pendency of the appeal in civil case #o& '8',
these children $ere substituted as parties& This
assignment of error is $ithout merit&
The substitution of parties $as made obviously
because the children of @artolome !ri6 are his legal
heirs and therefore could properly represent and
protect $hatever interest he had in the case on
appeal& @ut such a substitution did not and cannot
have the effect of ma-ing these substituted parties
personally liable for $hatever .udgment might be
rendered on the appeal against their deceased
father&
A-ti.le //0 *f t1e Civil C*de p-*vides: 1uccession
is a mode of ac2uisition by virtue of $hich the
property, rights and obligations to the e*tent of the
value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted
through his death to another or others either by his
$ill or by operation of la$&
Moreover, it appears from the evidence that
@artolome !ri6 $as only a formal party to civil case
#o& '8', the real party in interest being his $ife Pilar
@elmonte& The sub.ect matter in litigation $as Pilar
@elmonteGs interest in the parcel of land described in
original certificate of title #o& 0)<), $hich appears to
be paraphernal property&
The trial court, therefore, correctly ruled that the
remedy of Leon & Kiardo, the creditor $as to
proceed against the estate of @artolome !ri6&
:udgment M4!%"%J!&
#??) I%&4%a%& o0 %1& .a%& AGUSTIN MONTILLA,
SR.@ PEDRO LITONJUA, a ovant!a''e""ant,
vs&
AGUSTIN B. MONTILLA, JR., a%ini&trator!
a''e""ee;
CLAUDIO MONTILLA, o''o&itor!a''e""ee.
?&R& #o& L,)'9;, :anuary 0', '(5/
P7R71, 0.J.F
FACTS'
%n a ivil ase rendered by the "% of #egros
4ccidental, Pedro L& Liton.ua obtained a .udgment
against laudio Montilla for the payment of the sum
of P),;;; $ith legal interest, plus costs amounting to
P0(&;; %n due time, a $rit of e*ecution $as issued,
but no property of laudio Montilla $as found $hich
could be levied upon&
%n order to satisfy the said .udgment Pedro L&
Liton.ua filed in special Proceeding of the "% of
#egros 4ccidental, %ntestate Jstate of 7gustin
Montilla, Sr., deceased, a motion praying that the
interest, property and participation of laudio
Montilla, o& o0 %1& 1&,r4 of 7gustin Montilla, 1r&, in
the latterGs intestate estate be sold and out of the
proceed the .udgment debt of laudio Montilla in
favor of Pedro L& Liton.ua be paid& This motion $as
opposed by laudio Montilla and by 7gustin Montilla,
:r&, administrator of the intestate estate
CFI : issued an order denying the motion& +ence,
this appeal to the 1&
ISSUE'
5hether or not Liton.ua, as a creditor, may go
after the interest of Montilla :r& in the intestate Jstate
of 7gustin Montilla 1r&
*ELD'
#4& The creditors of the heirs of a deceased
person is entitled to collect his claim out of the
property $hich pertains by inheritance to said heirs,
4#LE 7"TJR all debts of the testate or intestate
succession have been paid and $hen the net assets
that are divisible among the heirs -no$n& The debts
of the deceased must first be paid before his heirs
can inherit&
7 person $ho is not a creditor of a deceased, testate
or intestate, has #4 R%?+T to intervene either in the
proceedings brought in connection $ith the estate or
in the settlement of the succession&
7n e*ecution cannot legally be levied upon the
property of an intestate succession to pay the debts
of the $ido$ and heirs of the deceased, until the
credits held against the latter at the time of his death
shall have been paid can the remaining property that
pertains to the said debtors heirs can be attached&
#?1) SOCORRO LEDESMA a2 ANA AUITCO
LEDESMA, '"aintiff&!a''e""ee&,
vs&
CONC*ITA MCLAC*LIN, ET AL., %efen%ant&!
a''e""ant&.
?&R& #o& L,))<09, #ovember /0, '(0<
6ILLA!<EAL, J.:
No%&' This case is an appeal ta-en by the
defendants onchita McLachlin, Loren6o Auitco, :r&,
1abina Auitco, Rafael Auitco and Marcela Auitco,
from the decision of the ourt of "irst %nstance of
4ccidental #egros, ma-ing the heirs of their
deceased father solidary liable as to the
indebtedness incurred by their deceased father
instituted by the plaintiff,creditor in the %ntestate
Jstate of Jusebio, their grandfather and not in the
%ntestate Jstate of Auitco, their father&
FACTS'
!efendants in this case are the heirs of their
deceased debtor,father Loren6o M& Auitco&
COMMON A2 REATIONS"IP: %n the year '('8,
the plaintiff 1ocorro Ledesma lived maritally $ith
Loren6o M& Auitco, $hile the latter $as still single, of
$hich relation, lasting until the year '(/', $as born
a daughter $ho is the other plaintiff 7na Auitco
Ledesma& %n '(/', it seems hat the relation bet$een
1ocorro Ledesma and Loren6o M& Auitco came to
an end&
Loren6o M& Auitco e*ecuted a deed ac-no$ledging
the plaintiff 7na Auitco Ledesma as his natural
daughter&
T"E DE%T: 4n :anuary /', '(//, Loren6o issued in
favor of the plaintiff 1ocorro Ledesma a promissory
note for or on behalf of his indebtedness amounting
to /,;;; $Pc is to be paid on installment&
T"E MARRIAGE TO ANOT"ER: 1ubse2uently,
Loren6o married onchita McLachlin& They had four
()) children, $ho are the other defendants&
DEAT": 4n March (, '(0;, Loren6o M& Auitco died
predeceasing his father, but, still later, that is, on
!ecember '5, '(0/, his father Jusebio Auitco also
died, and as the latter left real and personal
properties upon his death&
7dministration proceedings of said properties $ere
instituted in this court, the said case being -no$n as
the =%ntestate of the deceased Jusebio Auitco,= civil
case #o& 8'50 of this court&

%n order to satisfy the remaining value of the P#,
1ocorro $ent after the %ntestate Jstate of Jusebio
Auitco, to claim the indebtedness of his debtor,
deceased son Loren6o&
ISSUE 1'
5hether or not the action for the recovery of the
sum of P',5;;, representing the last installment of
the promisorry note has already prescribed&
*ELD 1'
EJ1& 7ccording to the promissory note
e*ecuted by the deceased Loren6o M& Auitco, on
:anuary /', '(//, the last installment of P',5;;
should be paid t$o years from the date of the
e*ecution of said promissory note, that is, on
:anuary /', 19#4& The complaint in the present case
$as filed on :une /8, 1934, that is, more than ten
years after the e*piration of the said period& The fact
that the plaintiff 1ocorro Ledesma filed her -.a,:, o
A!6!4% #6, 1933, $ith the committee on claims and
appraisal appointed in the intestate of Jusebio
Auitco, does not suspend the running of the
prescriptive period of the .udicial action for the
recovery of said debt, because the claim for the
unpaid balance of the amount of the promissory note
should not have been presented in the intestate of
Jusebio Auitco, the said deceased not being the
one $ho e*ecuted the same, but in the intestate of
Loren6o M& Auitco, $hich should have been
instituted by the said 1ocorro Ledesma as provided
in section 8)/ of the ode of ivil Procedure,
authori6ing a creditor to institute said case through
the appointment of an administrator for the purpose
of collecting his credit& More than ten years having
thus elapsed from the e*piration of the period for the
payment of said debt of P',5;;, the action for its
recovery 1a4 7r&4-r,;&2 under section )0, #o& ', of
the ode of ivil Procedure&
ISSUE #'
5hether or not the properties inherited by the
defendants from their 2&-&a4&2 6ra20a%1&r by
re're&entation are sub.ect to the payment of debts
and obligations of their deceased father, $ho died
$ithout leaving any property
*ELD #'
#4& The claim for the unpaid balance of the
amount of the P# should have been presented in the
intestate of Loren6o and not in the intestate of
Jusebio, the formerDs father&
RIG"T OF REPRESENTATION: 5hile it is true that
under the provisions of articles (/) to (/9 of the
ivil ode, a children presents his father or mother
$ho died before him in the properties of his
grandfather or grandmother, this r,61% o0
r&7r&4&%a%,o 2o&4 o% :aB& %1& 4a,2 -1,.2
a45&ra;.& 0or %1& o;.,6a%,o4 -o%ra-%&2 ;" 1,4
2&-&a4&2 0a%1&r or :o%1&r, because, as may be
seen from the provisions of the ode of ivil
Procedure referring to partition of inheritances, the
inheritance is received $ith the benefit of inventory,
that is to say, the heirs only ans$er $ith the
properties received from their predecessor& The
herein defendants, as heirs of Jusebio Auitco, in
representation of their father Loren6o M& Auitco, are
not bound to pay the indebtedness of their said
father from $hom they did NOT inherit anything&
The appealed .udgment is reversed, and the
DEFENDANTS ARE ABSOL(ED from the
complaint, $ith the costs to the appellees
#?#) DCC *OLDINGS CORPORATION,'etitioner,
vs&
COURT OF APPEALS, (ICTOR U. BARTOLOME
a2 REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR METRO MANILA,
DISTRICT III, re&'on%ent&.
?&R& #o& ''</)<, 7pril 5, /;;;
=NA<ES!SANTIAGO, J.
No%&' This is a petition for revie$ on certiorari
see-ing the reversal !ecision of the 7 entitled
=!L +oldings orporation vs& Kictor U& @artolome,
et a"&=, affirming in toto the !ecision of the RT of
Kalen6uela, $hich dismissed ivil ase #o& 0009,K,
(; and ordered petitioner to pay P0;,;;;&;; as
attorneyGs fees&
FACTS'
T"E OT IN DISPUTE: The sub.ect of the
controversy is a '),;/' s2uare meter parcel of land
located in Malinta, Kalen6uela, Metro Manila $hich
$as originally o$ned by private respondent Kictor U&
@artolomeGs deceased mother, Jncarnacion
@artolome, under Transfer ertificate of Title #o& @,
098'5 of the Register of !eeds of Metro Manila,
!istrict %%%& This lot $as in front of one of the te*tile
plants of petitioner and, as such, $as seen by the
latter as a potential $arehouse site&
T"E CONTRACT: !L entered into a CONTRACT
OF LEASE +D OPTION TO BU) $ith Jncarnacion
@artolome ('"aintiff %ecea&e% other)& !L $as
given the option to a.) "ea&e or ,.) "ea&e with
'urcha&e the sub.ect land $Pc must be e*ercised
$ithin a period of t$o (/) years counted from the
signing of the contract&
$
st
REFUSA TO ACCEPT PA3MENT: !L
regularly paid its dues to Jncarnacion until her
death& !L coursed its payment to Kictor
@artolome, the 4o.& 1&,r of Jncarnacion& Kictor
refused to accept these payments&
T"E TRANSFER OF O2NERS"IP O!ER T"E
OT: Mean$hile, Kictor e*ecuted an A00,2a3,% o0
S&.0-A28!2,-a%,o over all the properties of
Jncarnacion, including the sub.ect lot& 7ccordingly,
respondent Register of !eeds cancelled Transfer
ertificate of Title #o& @,098'5 and issued Transfer
ertificate of Title #o& K,')/)( , %1& a:& o0
(,-%or Bar%o.o:&.
&
nd
REFUSA TO ACCEPT PA3MENT: 4n March
'), '((;, petitioner served upon Kictor, via
registered mail, notice that it $as e*ercising its
option to lease the property, tendering the amount of
P'5,;;;&;; as rent for the month of March& 7gain,
Kictor refused to accept the tendered rental fee and
to surrender possession of the property to petitioner&
!L deposited its payments at hina @an-& !L
filed a COMPLAINT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE AND DAMAGES against Kictor,
praying among others the surrender and delivery of
possession of the sub.ect land in accordance $ith
the ontract terms&
RTC: dismissed the complaint filed by !L, thus
ruling in favor of Kictor @artolome&
CA: affirmed in toto&
%ASIS OF RTC 4 CA: Kictor is not a party thereto
to the contract entered into bet$een his deceased
mother and plaintiff&
ISSUE 1'
5hether or not the Co%ra-% o0 L&a4& 5,%1
O7%,o %o B!" entered into by the late Jncarnacion
@artolome $ith petitioner $as terminated upon her
death or $hether it binds her sole heir, Kictor, even
after her demise& 1tated differently, $hether or not
ontract of Lease $ith 4ption to @uy entered into by
the late Jncarnacion @artolome $ith petitioner is
transmissible to his sole heir&
*ELD 1'
EJ1& G&&ra. R!.&' +eirs are bound by
contracts entered into by their predecessors,in,
interest &E-&7t $hen the rights and obligations
arising therefrom are not transmissible by (') their
nature, (/) stipulation or (0) provision of la$& (7rt
'0'' )
%n the present case, there is neither contractual
stipulation nor legal provision ma-ing the rights and
obligations under the ontract intransmissible& More
importantly, the nature of the rights and obligations
therein are, ;" %1&,r a%!r&, %ra4:,44,;.&.
The nature of intransmissible rights as e*plained
by 7rturo Tolentino, an eminent civilist, is as follo$sF
7mong contracts $hich are intransmissible are those
$hich are purely personal, either by provision of la$,
such as in cases of partnerships and agency, or by
the very nature of the obligations arising therefrom,
such as those re2uiring special personal
2ualifications of the obligor& %t may also be stated
that contracts for the payment of money debts are
not transmitted to the heirs of a party, but constitute
a charge against his estate& Thus, $here the client in
a contract for professional services of a la$yer died,
leaving minor heirs, and the la$yer, instead of
presenting his claim for professional services under
the contract to the probate court, substituted the
minors as parties for his client, it $as held that the
contract could not be enforced against the minors>
the la$yer $as limited to a recovery on the basis of
>uantu eruit&
%n 7merican .urisprudence, =(5)here acts stipulated
in a contract re2uire the e*ercise of special
-no$ledge, genius, s-ill, taste, ability, e*perience,
.udgment, discretion, integrity, or other personal
2ualification of one or both parties, the agreement is
of a personal nature, and terminates on the death of
the party $ho is re2uired to render such service&=
TEST:%t has also been held that a good measure for
determining $hether a contract terminates upon the
death of one of the parties is $hether it is of such a
character that it may be performed by the
promissorGs personal representative& ontracts to
perform personal acts $hich cannot be as $ell
performed by others are discharged by the death of
the promissor& onversely, $here the service or act
is of such a character that it may as $ell be
performed by another, or $here the contract, by its
terms, sho$s that performance by others $as
contemplated, death does not terminate the contract
or e*cuse nonperformance&
NO PERSONA ACT: %n the case at bar, there is no
personal act re2uired from the late Jncarnacion
@artolome& Rather, the obligation of Jncarnacion in
the contract to deliver possession of the sub.ect
property to petitioner upon the e*ercise by the latter
of its option to lease the same may very $ell be
performed by her heir Kictor&
ISSUE #'
5hether or not Kictor @artolome as sole heir is
not a party to the contract e*ecuted by his deceased
mother& The property sub.ect of the contract $as
inherited by Kictor&
*ELD #'
Kictor cannot insist that he is not a party to the
ontract because of the clear provision of 7rt '0''&
@eing an heir of Jncarnacion, there is PRI(IT) OF
INTEREST bet$een him and his deceases mother&
+e only succeeds to $hat rights his mother had and
$hat is valid and binding against her is also valid
and binding as against him&
The sub.ect matter of the ontract is lease, $hich is
a 7ro7&r%" r,61%& +ence, the death of a party !4J1
#4T e*cuse non,performance of a contract $hich
involves a property right, and the rights and
obligations thereunder pass to the personal
representatives of the deceased& #on,performance
is #4T e*cused by the death of the party $hen the
other party has a property interest in the sub.ect
matter of the contract&
#?3) ARUEGO (S CA
#$4 SCRA /11
"7T1F
:ose 7ruego 1r& had an amorous relationship $ith
Lu6 "abian, out of $hich $as born 7ntonia and
Jvelyn 7ruego&
7 omplaint for ompulsory Recognition and
Jnforcement of 1uccessional Rights $as filed by the
t$o children, represented by their mother, "abian&
1aid complaint prayed for the follo$ingF
a& That 7ntonia and Jvelyn be declared the
illegitimate children of the deceased :ose>
b& That petitioners be compelled to recogni6e
and ac-no$ledge them as the compulsory heirs of
the deceased :ose>
c& That their share and participation in the
estate of :ose be determined and ordered delivered
to them&
The main basis of the action for compulsory
recognition is their alleged Bopen and continuous
possession of the status of illegitimate children&C
RT declared 7ntonia as illegitimate daughter of
:ose but not as to Jvelyn& %t ordered petitioners to
recogni6e 7ntonia and to deliver to the latter her
share in the estate of :ose&
Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration
alleging loss of .urisdiction on the part of the trial
court by virtue of the advent of the "amily ode&
1aid motion $as denied& 7 affirmed&
%11UJF
54# the application of the "amily ode $ill
pre.udice or impair any vested right of 7ntonia such
that it should not be given retroactive effect&
+JL!F
EJ1& The action brought by 7ntonia for compulsory
recognition and enforcement of successional rights
$hich $as filed before the advent of the "amily
ode must be governed by 7rt /<5 of the ivil ode
and #4T by 7rt '95, par&/ of the "amily ode&
The "amily ode cannot be given retroactive effect
as its application $ill pre.udice the vested right of
7ntonia& The right $as vested to her by the fact that
she filed her action under the ivil ode&
The action $as not yet barred, not$ithstanding the
fact that it $as brought $hen the putative father $as
already deceased, since 7ntonia $as then still a
minor $hen it $as filed R an e*ception to the general
rule under 7rt /<5 of the ivil ode&
#?4) LOREN=O (S POSADAS
64 P*IL 3$3
!octrineF
7 transmission by inheritance is ta*able at the time
of the predecessorGs death, not$ithstanding the
postponement of the actual possession or en.oyment
of the estate by the beneficiary, and the ta*
measured by the value of the property transmitted at
that time regardless of its appreciation or
depreciation&
"actsF
%t appears that on May /9, '(//, one Thomas
+anley died in Qamboanga, Qamboanga, leaving a
$ill and considerable amount of real and personal
properties& 4n .une '), '(//, proceedings for the
probate of his $ill and the settlement and distribution
of his estate $ere begun in the ourt of "irst
%nstance of Qamboanga& The $ill $as admitted to
probate&
The ourt of "irst %nstance of Qamboanga
considered it proper for the best interests of the
estate to appoint a trustee to administer the real
properties $hich, under the $ill, $ere to pass to
Matthe$ +anley ten years after the t$o e*ecutors
named in the $ill, $as, on March <, '(/), appointed
trustee& Moore too- his oath of office and gave bond
on March ';, '(/)& +e acted as trustee until
"ebruary /(, '(0/, $hen he resigned and the
plaintiff herein $as appointed in his stead& !uring
the incumbency of the plaintiff as trustee, !efendant
ollector of %nternal Revenue assessed against the
estate of +anley an inheritance ta* together $ith the
penalties for delin2uency in payment& Loren6o paid
the amount under protest& %R overruled the said
protest and refused to refund the same&
"% held that the real property of Thomas +anley,
passed to his instituted heir, Matthe$ +anley, from
the moment of death of the former, and that from
that time, the latter became the o$ner thereof&
%ssueF
5hether an heir succeeds immediately to all of the
property of his or her deceased ancestor3
+eldF
%t is $ell,settled that inheritance ta*ation is governed
by the statute in force at the time of the death of the
decedent& The ta*payer can not foresee and ought
not to be re2uired to guess the outcome of pending
measures& The 1 hold that a transmission by
inheritance is ta*able at the time of the
predecessorGs death, not$ithstanding the
postponement of the actual possession or en.oyment
of the estate by the beneficiary, and the ta*
measured by the value of the property transmitted at
that time regardless of its appreciation or
depreciation& The mere fact that the estate of the
deceased $as placed in trust did not remove it from
the operation of our inheritance ta* la$s or e*empt it
from the payment of the inheritance ta*& The
corresponding inheritance ta* should have been
paid to escape the penalties of the la$s& This is so
for the reason already stated that the delivery of the
estate to the trustee $as in esse delivery of the
same estate to the cestui 2ue trust, the beneficiary in
this case& 7 trustee is but an instrument or agent for
the cestui 2ue trust& 5hen Moore accepted the trust
and too- possesson of the trust estate he thereby
admitted that the estate belonged not to him but to
his cestui 2ue trust&
#?$) CASTAFEDA 34. ALEMAN)
3 P*IL 4#6
%ssueF
5hether or not the $ill of !oSa :uana Moreno $as
duly signed by herself in the presence of three
$itnesses, $ho signed it as $itnesses in the
presence of the testratri* and of each other& %t $as
therefore e*ecuted in conformity $ith la$&
+eldF
There is nothing in the language of section 8'< of
the ode of ivil Procedure $hich supports the
claim of the appellants that the $ill must be $ritten
by the testator himself or by someone else in his
presence and under his e*press direction& That
section re2uires (') that the $ill be in $riting and (/)
either that the testator sign it himself or, if he does
sign it, that it be signed by some one in his presence
and by his e*press direction& 5ho does the
mechanical $or- of $riting the $ill is a matter of
indifference& The fact, therefore, that in this case the
$ill $as type$ritten in the office of the la$yer for the
testratri* is of no conse2uence& The Jnglish te*t of
section 8'< is very plain& The mista-es in translation
found in the first 1panish edition of the code have
been corrected in the second&
(/) To establish conclusively as against everyone,
and once for all, the facts that a $ill $as e*ecuted
$ith the formalities re2uired by la$ and that the
testator $as in a condition to ma-e a $ill, is the only
purpose of the proceedings under the ne$ code for
the probate of a $ill& (1ec& 8/5&) The .udgment in
such proceedings determines and can determine
nothing more& %n them the court has no po$er to
pass upon the validity of any provisions made in the
$ill& %t can not decide, for e*ample, that a certain
legacy is void and another one valid& %t could not in
this case ma-e any decision upon the 2uestion
$hether the testratri* had the po$er to appoint by
$ill a guardian for the property of her children by her
first husband, or $hether the person so appointed
$as or $as not a suitable person to discharge such
trust&
7ll such 2uestions must be decided in some other
proceeding& The grounds on $hich a $ill may be
disallo$ed are stated the section 80)& Unless one of
those grounds appears the $ill must be allo$ed&
They all have to do $ith the personal condition of the
testator at the time of its e*ecution and the
formalities connected there$ith& %t follo$s that
neither this court nor the court belo$ has any
.urisdiction in his proceedings to pass upon the
2uestions raised by the appellants by the
assignment of error relating to the appointment of a
guardian for the children of the deceased&
%t is claimed by the appellants that there $as no
testimony in the court belo$ to sho$ that the $ill
e*ecuted by the deceased $as the same $ill
presented to the court and concerning $hich this
hearing $as had& %t is true that the evidence does
not sho$ that the document in court $as presented
to the $itnesses and identified by them, as should
have been done& @ut $e thin- that $e are .ustified in
saying that it $as assumed by all the parties during
the trial in the court belo$ that the $ill about $hich
the $itnesses $ere testifying $as the document then
in court& #o suggestion of any -ind $as then made
by the counsel for the appellants that it $as not the
same instrument& %n the last 2uestion put to the
$itness ?on6ales the phrase =this $ill= is used by
the counsel for the appellants& %n their argument in
that court, found on page '5 of the record, they treat
the testimony of the $itnesses as referring to the $ill
probate they $ere then opposing&
The .udgment of the court belo$ is affirmed,
eliminating therefrom, ho$ever, the clause =el cual
debera e.ecutarse fiel y e*actamente en todas sus
partes&= The costs of this instance $ill be charged
against the appellants&
#?6) IN RE +ILL OF RIOSA
39 P*IL #3
"7T1F
:ose Riosa died on 7pril '9, '('9& +e left a $ill
made in the month of :anuary, '(;<, in $hich he
disposed of an estate valued at more than P05,;;;&
The $ill $as duly e*ecuted in accordance $ith the
la$ then in force, namely, section 8'< of the ode of
ivil Procedure& The $ill $as not e*ecuted in
accordance $ith 7ct #o& /8)5, amendatory of said
section 8'<, prescribing certain additional formalities
for the signing and attestation of $ills, in force on
and after :uly ', '('8& %n other $ords, the $ill $as in
$riting, signed by the testator, and attested and
subscribed by three credible $itnesses in the
presence of the testator and of each other> but $as
not signed by the testator and the $itnesses on the
left margin of each and every page, nor did the
attestation state these facts& The ne$ la$, therefore,
$ent into effect after the ma-ing of the $ill and
before the death of the testator, $ithout the testator
having left a $ill that conforms to the ne$
re2uirements&
1ection 8'< of the ode of ivil Procedure
readsF
#o $ill, e*cept as provided in the preceding
section, shall be valid to pass any estate, real or
personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be
in $riting and signed by the testator, or by the
testatorGs name $ritten by some other person in his
presence, and by his e*press direction, and attested
and subscribed by three or more credible $itnesses
in the presence of the testator and of each other&
The attestation shall state the fact that the testator
signed the $ill, or caused it to be signed by some
other person, at his e*press direction, in the
presence of three $itnesses, and that they attested
and subscribed it in his presence and in the
presence of each other& @ut the absence of such
form of attestation shall not render the $ill invalid if it
is proven that the $ill $as in fact signed and attested
as in this section provided&
7ct #o& /8)5 has amended section 8'< of the
ode of ivil Procedure so as to ma-e said section
read as follo$sF
1J& 8'<& Re2uisites of $ill& T #o $ill, e*cept
as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid
to pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge or
affect the same, unless it be $ritten in the language
or dialect -no$n by the testator and signed by him,
or by the testatorGs name $ritten by some other
person in his presence, and by his e*press direction,
and attested and subscribed by three or more
credible $itnesses in the presence of the testator
and of each other& The testator or the person
re2uested by him to $rite his name and the
instrumental $itnesses of the $ill, shall also sign, as
aforesaid, each, and every page thereof, on the left
margin, and said pages shall be numbered
correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of
each sheet& The attestation shall state the number of
sheets or pages used, upon $hich the $ill is $ritten,
and the fact that the testator signed the $ill and
every page thereof, or caused some other person to
$rite his name, under his e*press direction, in the
presence of three $itnesses, and the latter
$itnessed and signed the $ill and all pages thereof
in the presence of the testator and of each other&

The ourt of "irst %nstance for the province of 7lbay
rendered its decision on !ecember /(, '('9
disallo$ing the $ill of :ose Riosa&
%11UJF
The issue $hich this appeal presents is
$hether in the Philippine %slands the la$ e*isting on
the date of the e*ecution of a $ill, or the la$ e*isting
at the death of the testator, controls&

RUL%#?F
The rule prevailing in many other .urisdictions
is that the validity of the e*ecution of a $ill must be
tested by the statutes in force at the time of its
e*ecution and that statutes subse2uently enacted
have no retrospective effect& This doctrine is
believed to be supported by the $eight of authority& %t
$as the old Jnglish vie$> in !o$ns (or !o$ning) vs&
To$nsend (7mbler, /<;), Lord +ard$ic-e is reported
to have said that =the general rule as to testaments
is, that the time of the testament, and not the
testatorGs death, is regarded&= %t is also the modern
vie$, including among other decisions one of the
1upreme ourt of Kermont from $hich 1tate many
of the sections of the ode if ivil Procedure of the
Philippine %slands relating to $ills are ta-en&
(?iddings vs& Turgeon H'<<8I, 5< Kt&, ';0&)
4f the numerous decisions of divergent
tendencies, the opinion by the learned :ustice
1hars$ood (Taylor vs& Mitchell H'<8<I, 59 Pa& 1t&,
/;() is regarded to be the best considered& %n this
opinion is found the follo$ingF
Retrospective la$s generally if not universally
$or- in.ustice, and ought to be so construed only
$hen the mandate of the legislature is imperative&
5hen a testator ma-es a $ill, formally e*ecuted
according to the re2uirements of the la$ e*isting at
the time of its e*ecution, it $ould un.ustly disappoint
his la$ful right of disposition to apply to it a rule
subse2uently enacted, though before his death&
%t is, of course, a general rule of statutory
construction, as this court has said, that =all statutes
are to be construed as having only a prospective
operation unless the purpose and intention of the
Legislature to give them a retrospective effect is
e*pressly declared or is necessarily implied from the
language used& %n every case of doubt, the doubt
must be resolved against the restrospective effect&=
(Montilla vs& orporacion de PP& 7gustinos H'('0I,
/) Phil&, //;& 1ee also he$ +eong vs& U&1& H'<<)I,
''/ U&1&, 508> U&1& vs 7merican 1ugar Ref& o&
H'(;8I, /;/ U&1&, 580&) 1tatute la$, as found in the
ivil ode, is corroborative> article 0 thereof
provides that =la$s shall not have a retroactive
effect, unless therein other$ise prescribed&= The
language of 7ct #o& /8)5 gives no indication of
retrospective effect& 1uch, li-e$ise, has been the
uniform tendency of the 1upreme ourt of the
Philippine %slands on cases having special
application to testamentary succession& (7bello vs&
Loc- de Monaterio H'(;)I, 0 Phil&, 55<> Timbol vs&
Manalo H'(;8I, 8 Phil&, /5)> @ona vs& @riones, supra>
%n the Matter of the Probation of the 5ill of @ibiana
!i2uiSa H'('<I, R& ?& #o& '0'98,
'
concerning the
language of the 5ill& 1ee also section 8'9, ode of
ivil Procedure&)
The strongest argument against our accepting
the first t$o rules comes out of section 80) of the
ode of ivil Procedure $hich, in negative terms,
provides that a $ill shall be disallo$ed in either of
five cases, the first being =if not e*ecuted and
attested as in this 7ct provided&= 7ct #o& /8)5 has,
of course, become part and parcel of the ode of
ivil Procedure& The $ill in 2uestion is admittedly not
e*ecuted and attested as provided by the ode of
ivil Procedure as amended& #evertheless, it is
proper to observe that the general principle in the
la$ of $ills inserts itself even $ithin the provisions of
said section 80)& 4ur statute announces a positive
rule for the transference of property $hich must be
complied $ith as completed act at the time of the
e*ecution, so far as the act of the testator is
concerned, as to all testaments made subse2uent to
the enactment of 7ct #o& /8)5, but is not effective as
to testaments made antecedent to that date&
To ans$er the 2uestion $ith $hich $e began
this decision, $e adopt as our o$n the second rule,
particularly as established by the 1upreme ourt of
Pennsylvania& The $ill of :ose Riosa is valid&
The order of the ourt of "irst %nstance for the
Province of 7lbay of !ecember /(, '('9, disallo$ing
the $ill of :ose Riosa, is reversed, and the record
shall be returned to the lo$er court $ith direction to
admit the said $ill to probate, $ithout special
findings as to costs& 1o ordered&
#?/) ENRIAUE= (S ABADIA
9$ SCRA 6#/
"7T1F
4n 1eptember 8, '(/0, "ather 1ancho
7badia, parish priest of Talisay, ebu, e*ecuted a
document purporting to be his Last 5ill and
Testament& +e died on :anuary '), '()0 and left
properties estimated at P<,;;; in value& 4n 4ctober
/, '()8, one 7ndres Jnri2ue6, one of the legatees,
filed a petition for its probate in the ourt of "irst
%nstance of ebu& 1ome cousins and nephe$s, $ho
$ould inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no
$ill, filed opposition&
!uring the hearing one of the attesting $itnesses,
the other t$o being dead, testified $ithout
contradiction that in his presence and in the
presence of his co,$itnesses, "ather 1ancho $rote
out in longhand the sub.ect document in 1panish
$hich the testator spo-e and understood> that he
(testator) signed on the left hand margin of the front
page of each of the three folios or sheets of $hich
the document is composed, and numbered the same
$ith 7rabic numerals, and finally signed his name at
the end of his $riting at the last page, all this, in the
presence of the three attesting $itnesses after telling
that it $as his last $ill and that the said three
$itnesses signed their names on the last page after
the attestation clause in his presence and in the
presence of each other& The oppositors did not
submit any evidence&
The learned trial court found and declared the
sub.ect document to be a holographic $ill> that it $as
in the hand$riting of the testator and that although at
the time it $as e*ecuted and at the time of the
testatorGs death, holographic $ills $ere not permitted
by la$ still, because at the time of the hearing and
$hen the case $as to be decided the ne$ ivil ode
$as already in force, $hich ode permitted the
e*ecution of holographic $ills, under a liberal vie$,
and to carry out the intention of the testator $hich
according to the trial court is the controlling factor
and may override any defect in form, said trial court
admitted to probate the sub.ect document, as the
Last 5ill and Testament of "ather 1ancho 7badia&
%11UJF
5hether or not the provisions of the ivil
ode allo$ing holographic $ills should be applied&
+JL!F
#o& The ne$ ivil ode (Republic 7ct #o&
0<8) under article <'; thereof provides that a person
may e*ecute a holographic $ill $hich must be
entirely $ritten, dated and signed by the testator
himself and need not be $itnessed& %t is a fact,
ho$ever, that at the time the sub.ect document $as
e*ecuted in '(/0 and at the time that "ather 7badia
died in '()0, holographic $ills $ere not permitted,
and the la$ at the time imposed certain
re2uirements for the e*ecution of $ills, such as
numbering correlatively each page (not folio or
sheet) in letters and signing on the left hand margin
by the testator and by the three attesting $itnesses,
re2uirements $hich $ere not complied $ith in the
sub.ect document because the bac- pages of the
first t$o folios of the $ill $ere not signed by any one,
not even by the testator and $ere not numbered,
and as to the three front pages, they $ere signed
only by the testator&
@ut 7rticle 9(5 of this same ne$ ivil ode
e*pressly providesF =The validity of a $ill as to its
form depends upon the observance of the la$ in
force at the time it is made&= The above provision is
but an e*pression or statement of the $eight of
authority to the affect that the validity of a $ill is to be
.udged not by the la$ enforce at the time of the
testatorGs death or at the time the supposed $ill is
presented in court for probate or $hen the petition is
decided by the court but at the time the instrument
$as e*ecuted& 4ne reason in support of the rule is
that although the $ill operates upon and after the
death of the testator, the $ishes of the testator about
the disposition of his estate among his heirs and
among the legatees is given solemn e*pression at
the time the $ill is e*ecuted, and in reality, the
legacy or be2uest then becomes a completed act&
"rom the day of the death of the testator, if he leaves
a $ill, the title of the legatees and devisees under it
becomes a vested right, protected under the due
process clause of the constitution against a
subse2uent change in the statute adding ne$ legal
re2uirements of e*ecution of $ills $hich $ould
invalidate such a $ill& @y parity of reasoning, $hen
one e*ecutes a $ill $hich is invalid for failure to
observe and follo$ the legal re2uirements at the
time of its e*ecution then upon his death he should
be regarded and declared as having died intestate,
and his heirs $ill then inherit by intestate
succession, and no subse2uent la$ $ith more liberal
re2uirements or $hich dispenses $ith such
re2uirements as to e*ecution should be allo$ed to
validate a defective $ill and thereby divest the heirs
of their vested rights in the estate by intestate
succession& The general rule is that the Legislature
cannot validate void $ills&
%n vie$ of the foregoing, the order appealed from is
reversed, and the sub.ect document is denied
probate&
#?<) T&4%a%& E4%a%& o0 Jo4&71 G. Br,:o, JUAN
MICIANO, a2:,,4%ra%or 34. ANDRE BRIMO
$? P*IL <6/
"7T1F
The .udicial administrator of this estate filed a
scheme of partition& 7ndre @rimo, one of the
brothers of the deceased, opposed it& The court,
ho$ever, approved it&
The appellantGs opposition is based on the fact that
the partition in 2uestion puts into effect the
provisions of :oseph ?& @rimoGs $ill $hich are not in
accordance $ith the la$s of his Tur-ish nationality,
for $hich reason they are void as being in violation
or article '; of the ivil ode&
@ut the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that
said testamentary dispositions are not in accordance
$ith the Tur-ish la$s, inasmuch as he did not
present any evidence sho$ing $hat the Tur-ish la$s
are on the matter, and in the absence of evidence on
such la$s, they are presumed to be the same as
those of the Philippines&
There is, therefore, no evidence in the record that
the national la$ of the testator :oseph ?& @rimo $as
violated in the testamentary dispositions in 2uestion
$hich, not being contrary to our la$s in force, must
be complied $ith and e*ecuted& la$phil&net
7s to the e*clusion of the herein appellant as a
legatee, inasmuch as he is one of the persons
designated as such in $ill, it must be ta-en into
consideration that such e*clusion is based on the
last part of the second clause of the $ill, $hich
saysFC that although by la$, % am a Tur-ish citi6en,
this citi6enship having been conferred upon me by
con2uest and not by free choice, nor by nationality
and, on the other hand, having resided for a
considerable length of time in the Philippine %slands
$here % succeeded in ac2uiring all of the property
that % no$ possess, it is my $ish that the distribution
of my property and everything in connection $ith
this, my $ill, be made and disposed of in accordance
$ith the la$s in force in the Philippine islands,
re2uesting all of my relatives to respect this $ish,
other$ise, % annul and cancel beforehand $hatever
disposition found in this $ill favorable to the person
or persons $ho fail to comply $ith this re2uest&C
The institution of legatees in this $ill is conditional,
and the condition is that the instituted legatees must
respect the testatorGs $ill to distribute his property,
not in accordance $ith the la$s of his nationality, but
in accordance $ith the la$s of the Philippines&
%11UJF
5hether or not the condition imposed by the
decedent in his $ill is void being contrary to la$&
+JL!F
The 1upreme ourt held that the said condition is
void, being contrary to la$, for article 9(/ of the ivil
ode provides that B%mpossible conditions and
those contrary to la$ or good morals shall be
considered as not imposed and shall not pre.udice
the heir or legatee in any manner $hatsoever, even
should the testator other$ise provideC&
Moreover, the said condition is contrary to la$
because it e*pressly ignores the testatorGs national
la$ $hen, according to article '; of the civil ode
above 2uoted, such national la$ of the testator is the
one to govern his testamentary dispositions&
Therefore, the condition, in the light of the legal
provisions above cited, is considered un$ritten, and
the institution of legatees in said $ill is unconditional
and conse2uently valid and effective even as to the
herein oppositor&
The second clause of the $ill regarding the la$
$hich shall govern it, and to the condition imposed
upon the legatees, is null and void, being contrary to
la$&
Therefore, the orders appealed from are modified
and it is directed that the distribution of this estate be
made in such a manner as to include the herein
appellant 7ndre @rimo as one of the legatees&
#?9) BELLIS 34 BELLIS
#? SCRA 3$<
"7T1F 7mos ?& @ellis, born in Te*as, $as =a citi6en
of the 1tate of Te*as and of the United 1tates&= @y
his first $ife, Mary J& Mallen, $hom he divorced, he
had five legitimate childrenF Jd$ard, ?eorge, ($ho
pre,deceased him in infancy), +enry, 7le*ander and
7nna @ellis 7llsman> by his second $ife, Kiolet
Lennedy, $ho survived him, he had three legitimate
childrenF Jd$in, 5alter and !orothy and finally, he
had three illegitimate childrenF 7mos @ellis, :r&, Maria
ristina @ellis and Miriam Palma @ellis&
7mos ?& @ellis e*ecuted a $ill in the Philippines, in
$hich he directed that after all ta*es, obligations,
and e*penses of administration are paid for, his
distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the
follo$ing order and mannerF (a) U/);,;;;&;; to his
first $ife, Mary J& Mallen> (b) P'/;,;;;&;; to his
three illegitimate children, 7mos @ellis, :r&, Maria
ristina @ellis, Miriam Palma @ellis, or P);,;;;&;;
each and (c) after the foregoing t$o items have been
satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven
surviving children by his first and second $ives in
e2ual shares& 'V$phW'&SXt
1ubse2uently, died a resident of 1an 7ntonio, Te*as,
U&1&7& +is $ill $as admitted to probate in the ourt
of "irst %nstance
The PeopleGs @an- and Trust ompany, as e*ecutor
of the $ill, paid all the be2uests therein including the
amount of U/);,;;;&;; in the form of shares of stoc-
to Mary J& Mallen and to the three (0) illegitimate
children, 7mos @ellis, :r&, Maria ristina @ellis and
Miriam Palma @ellis, and pursuant to the =T$elfth=
clause of the testatorGs Last 5ill and Testament T
divided the residuary estate into seven e2ual
portions for the benefit of the testatorGs seven
legitimate children by his first and second marriages&
Maria ristina @ellis and Miriam Palma @ellis filed
their respective oppositions to the pro.ect of partition
on the ground that they $ere deprived of their
legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore,
compulsory heirs of the deceased&
The lo$er court, issued an order overruling the
oppositions and approving the e*ecutorGs final
account, report and administration and pro.ect of
partition& Relying upon 7rt& '8 of the ivil ode, it
applied the national la$ of the decedent, $hich in
this case is Te*as la$, $hich did not provide for
legitimes&
%ssueF 54# the national la$ of 7mos @ellis should
apply in the said partition&
+eldF EJ1&
%n the present case, it is not disputed that the
decedent $as both a national of Te*as and a
domicile thereof at the time of his death& 1o that
even assuming Te*as has a conflict of la$ rule
providing that the domiciliary system (la$ of the
domicile) should govern, the same $ould not result
in a reference bac- (renvoi) to Philippine la$, but
$ould still refer to Te*as la$& Rather, they argue that
their case falls under the circumstances mentioned
in the third paragraph of 7rticle '9 in relation to
7rticle '8 of the ivil ode&
7rticle '8, par& /, and 7rt& ';0( of the ivil ode,
render applicable the national la$ of the decedent, in
intestate or testamentary successions, $ith regard to
four itemsF (a) the order of succession> (b) the
amount of successional rights> (e) the intrinsic
validity of the provisions of the $ill> and (d) the
capacity to succeed&
7ppellants $ould ho$ever counter that 7rt& '9,
paragraph three, of the ivil ode, stating that T
Prohibitive la$s concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those $hich have for their ob.ect public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by la$s or .udgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country&
prevails as the e*ception to 7rt& '8, par& / of the ivil
ode afore,2uoted& This is not correct& %t is evident
that $hatever public policy or good customs may be
involved in our 1ystem of legitimes, ongress has
not intended to e*tend the same to the succession of
foreign nationals& "or it has specifically chosen to
leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights,
to the decedentGs national la$& 1pecific provisions
must prevail over general ones&
The parties admit that the decedent, 7mos ?& @ellis,
$as a citi6en of the 1tate of Te*as, U&1&7&, and that
under the la$s of Te*as, there are no forced heirs or
legitimes& 7ccordingly, since the intrinsic validity of
the provision of the $ill and the amount of
successional rights are to be determined under
Te*as la$, the Philippine la$ on legitimes cannot be
applied to the testacy of 7mos ?& @ellis&
5herefore, the order of the probate court is hereby
affirmed in toto&
#1?) B!6ao 3. U;a6
14 P*IL 163
"7T1F
The last $ill and testament of !omingo Ubag $as
admitted for probate& %t $as signed by him in the
presence of three subscribing and attesting
$itnesses and appears upon its face to have been
duly e*ecuted in accordance $ith the provisions of
the ode of ivil Procedure on the ma-ing of $ills&
The instrument $as propounded by his $ido$
atalina @ugnao $ho is the sole beneficiary&
The order admitting the $ill $as appealed by the
appellants $ho are brothers and sisters of the
deceased and $ould be entitled to share in the
distribution of his estate, if probate $ere denied, as it
appears that the deceased left no heirs in the direct
ascending or descending line& They contend that
Ubag $as not of sound mind and memory, and $as
physically and mentally incapable of ma-ing a $ill&
The appellants pointed out that one of the attesting
$itnesses stated that the decease sat up in bed and
signed his name to the $ill, and that after its
e*ecution food $as given him by his $ife> $hile the
other testified that he $as assisted into a sitting
position, and $as given something to eat before he
signed his name&
7ppellants also contended that the decedent $as
physically incapacitated to ma-e the $ill because he
$as then suffering from an advanced stage of
tuberculosis, such that he $as too $ea- to stand or
even sit up unaided, and that he could not spea-
$hen he had asthma attac-s&
4f the four $itnesses appellant presented $ho tried
to prove that the attesting $itnesses $ere not
present during the signing of the $ill by the
decedent, t$o of the $itnesses stand to inherit from
the decedent if the $ill $ere denied probate& These
t$o $itnesses, on direct cross,e*amination, later
admitted that they $ere not even in the house of the
decedent at the time of the e*ecution of the $ill& The
attesting $itnesses, on the other hand, testified on
the due e*ecution and testamentary capacity of the
decedent&
7ppellants, $ho are siblings of the decedent, also
claimed that the $ill $as obtained by fraud
considering that they $ere e*cluded therefrom&
%11UJF
5hether the evidence of the appellants is sufficient
to prove that the testator lac-ed testamentary
capacity at the time of the e*ecution of the $ill or
that he $as induced by fraud in ma-ing the same
+JL!F
That the testator $as mentally capable of ma-ing the
$ill is in our opinion fully established by the
testimony of the subscribing $itnesses $ho s$ore
positively that, at the time of its e*ecution, he $as of
sound mind and memory& %t is true that their
testimony discloses the fact that he $as at that time
e*tremely ill, in an advanced stage of tuberculosis
complicated $ith severe intermittent attac-s of
asthma> that he $as too sic- to rise unaided from his
bed> that he needed assistance even to rise himself
to a sitting position> and that during the paro*ysms of
asthma to $hich he $as sub.ect he could not spea->
but all this evidence of physical $ea-ness in no $ise
establishes his mental incapacity or a lac- of
testamentary capacity, and indeed the evidence of
the subscribing $itnesses as to the aid furnished
them by the testator in preparing the $ill, and his
clear recollection of the boundaries and physical
description of the various parcels of land set out
therein, ta-en together $ith the fact that he $as able
to give to the person $ho $rote the $ill clear and
e*plicit instructions as to his desires touching the
disposition of his property, is strong evidence of his
testamentary capacity&
ounsel for appellant suggests that the fact that the
alleged $ill leaves all the property of the testator to
his $ido$, and $holly fails to ma-e any provision for
his brothers or sisters, indicates a lac- of
testamentary capacity and undue influence> and
because of the inherent improbability that a man
$ould ma-e so unnatural and unreasonable a $ill,
they contend that this fact indirectly corroborates
their contention that the deceased never did in fact
e*ecute the $ill& @ut $hen it is considered that the
deceased at the time of his death had no heirs in the
ascending or descending line> that a bitter family
2uarrel had long separated him from his brothers
and sisters, $ho declined to have any relations $ith
the testator because he and his $ife $ere adherents
of the 7glipayano hurch> and that this 2uarrel $as
so bitter that none of his brothers or sisters, although
some of them lived in the vicinity, $ere present at
the time of his death or attended his funeral> $e
thin- the fact that the deceased desired to leave and
did leave all of his property to his $ido$ and made
no provision for his brothers and sisters, $ho
themselves $ere gro$n men and $omen, by no
means tends to disclose either an unsound mind or
the presence of undue influence on the part of his
$ife, or in any $ise corroborates contestantsG
allegation that the $ill never $as e*ecuted&
"or the purposes of this decision it is not necessary
for us to attempt to lay do$n a definition of
testamentary capacity $hich $ill cover all possible
cases $hich may present themselves, because, as
$ill be seen from $hat has already been said, the
testator $as, at the time of ma-ing the instrument
under consideration, endo$ed $ith all the elements
of mental capacity set out in the follo$ing definition
of testamentary capacity $hich has been fre2uently
announced in courts of last resort in Jngland and the
United 1tates> and $hile is some cases
testamentary capacity has been held to e*ist in the
absence of proof of some of these elements, there
can be no 2uestion that, in the absence of proof of
very e*ceptional circumstances, proof of the
e*istence of all these elements in sufficient to
establish the e*istence of testamentary capacity&
Testamentary capacity is the capacity to
comprehend the nature of the transaction $hich the
testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the
property to be disposed of and the person $ho
$ould naturally be supposed to have claims upon
the testator, and to comprehend the manner in $hich
the instrument $ill distribute his property among the
ob.ects of his bounty&
The order probating the $ill affirmed&
#11) JULIANA BAGTAS, 7.a,%,004-a77&..&&, 34.
ISIDRO PAGUIO, ET AL., 2&0&2a%4-a77&..a%4.
## P*IL ##/
"7T1F
The testator,Pio2uinto Paguio, for some ') or '5
years prior to the time of his death suffered from a
paralysis of the left side of his body> that a fe$ years
prior to his death his hearing became impaired and
that he lost the po$er of speech& 4$ing to the
paralysis of certain muscles his head fell to one side,
and saliva ran from his mouth& +e retained the use
of his right hand, ho$ever, and $as able to $rite
fairly $ell& Through the medium of signs he $as able
to indicate his $ishes to his $ife and to other
members of his family&
7t the time of the e*ecution of his $ill, four
testamentary $itnesses $ere presentF 7gustin
Paguio, 7nacleto Paguio, and Pedro Paguio, and
attorney, 1eSor Marco, and one "lorentino
Ramos&The testator, $rote out on pieces of paper
notes and items relating to the disposition of his
property, and these notes $ere in turn delivered to
1eSor Marco, $ho transcribed them and put them in
form& The $itnesses testify that the pieces of paper
upon $hich the notes $ere $ritten are delivered to
attorney by the testator> that the attorney read them
to the testator as-ing if they $ere his testamentary
dispositions> that the testator assented each time
$ith an affirmative movement of his head> that after
the $ill as a $hole had been thus $ritten by the
attorney, it $as read in a loud voice in the presence
of the testator and the $itnesses> that 1eSor Marco
gave the document to the testator> that the latter,
after loo-ing over it, signed it in the presence of the
four subscribing $itnesses> and that they in turn
signed it in the presence of the testator and each
other&
The e*ecutri* and $ido$ of the decedent, :uliana
@agtas, filed a petition to probate the $ill of Paguio&%t
$as opposed by %sidro Paguio, son of the deceased
and several grandchildren by a former marriage, the
latter being the children of a deceased daughter&
Their opposition is based on the ground that the $ill
$as not e*ecuted according to the formalities and
re2uirements of the la$, and further that the testator
$as not in the full of en.oyment and use of his
mental faculties to e*ecute a valid $ill& "% @ulacan
admits the $ill to probate& +ence, this appeal&
%11UJF !%! T+J TJ1T7T4R P411J11 T+J
RJAU%RJ! MJ#T7L 14U#!#J11 T4 K7L%!LE
JYJUTJ 7 5%LL3
+JL!F "% 7""%RMJ!
Upon this point considerable evidence $as adduced
at the trial& 4ne of the attesting $itnesses testified
that at the time of the e*ecution of the $ill the
testator $as in his right mind, and that although he
$as seriously ill, he indicated by movements of his
head $hat his $ishes $ere& 7nother of the attesting
$itnesses stated that he $as not able to say $hether
decedent had the full use of his mental faculties or
not, because he had been ill for some years, and
that he (the $itnesses) $as not a physician& The
other subscribing $itness, Pedro Paguio, testified in
the lo$er court as a $itness for the opponents& +e
$as unable to state $hether or not the $ill $as the
$ish of the testator& The only reasons he gave for his
statement $ere the infirmity and advanced age of
the testator and the fact that he $as unable to
spea-& The $itness stated that the testator signed
the $ill, and he verified his o$n signature as a
subscribing $itness&
"lorentino Ramos, although not an attesting $itness,
stated that he $as present $hen the $ill $as
e*ecuted and his testimony $as cumulative in
corroboration of the manner in $hich the $ill $as
e*ecuted and as to the fact that the testator signed
the $ill& This $itness also stated that he had
fre2uently transacted matters of business for the
decedent and had $ritten letters and made
inventories of his property at his re2uest, and that
immediately before and after the e*ecution of the $ill
he had performed offices of his character& +e stated
that the decedent $as able to communicate his
thoughts by $riting& The testimony of this $itness
clearly indicates the presence of mental capacity on
the part of the testator& 7mong other $itnesses for
the opponents $ere t$o physician, !octor @asa and
!octor Kiado& !octor @asa testified that he had
attended the testator some four or five years prior to
his death and that the latter had suffered from a
cerebral congestion from $hich the paralysis
resulted& The follo$ing 2uestion $as propounded to
!octor @asaF
?. <eferrin) to enta" con%ition in which *ou foun%
hi the "a&t tie *ou atten%e% hi, %o *ou thin$ he
wa& in hi& ri)ht in%@
A. I can not &a* e-act"* whether he wa& in hi& ri)ht
in%, ,ut I note% &oe enta" %i&or%er, ,ecau&e
when I &'o$e to hi he %i% not an&wer e.
!octor @asa testified at more length, but the
substance of his testimony is that the testator had
suffered a paralysis and that he had noticed some
mental disorder& +e does not say that the testator
$as not in his right mind at the time of the e*ecution
of the $ill, nor does he give it at his opinion that he
$as $ithout the necessary mental capacity to ma-e
a valid $ill& +e did not state in $hat $ay this mental
disorder had manifested itself other than that he had
noticed that the testator did not reply to him on one
occasion $hen he visited him&
!octor Kiado, the other physician, have never seen
the testator, but his ans$er $as in reply to a
hypothetical 2uestion as to $hat be the mental
condition of a person $ho $as 9( years old and $ho
had suffered from a malady such as the testator $as
supposed to have had according to the testimony of
!octor @asa, $hose testimony !octor Kiado had
heard& +e replied and discussed at some length the
symptoms and conse2uences of the decease from
$hich the testator had suffered> he read in support of
his statements from a $or- by a ?erman Physician,
!r& +erman Jichost& %n ans$er, ho$ever, to a direct
2uestion, he stated that he $ould be unable to certify
to the mental condition of a person $ho $as
suffering from such a disease&
5e do not thin- that the testimony of these t$o
physicians in any $ay strengthens the contention of
the appellants& Their testimony only confirms the fact
that the testator had been for a number of years
prior to his death afflicted $ith paralysis, in
conse2uence of $hich his physician and mental
strength $as greatly impaired& #either of them
attempted to state $hat $as the mental condition of
the testator at the time he e*ecuted the $ill in
2uestion& There can be no doubt that the testatorGs
infirmities $ere of a very serious character, and it is
2uite evident that his mind $as not as active as it
had been in the earlier years of his life& +o$ever, $e
cannot include from this that he $anting in the
necessary mental capacity to dispose of his property
by $ill&
The courts have been called upon fre2uently to
nullify $ills e*ecuted under such circumstances, but
the $eight of the authority is in support if the
principle that it is only $hen those see-ing to
overthro$ the $ill have clearly established the
charge of mental incapacity that the courts $ill
intervene to set aside a testamentary document of
this character&%n this .urisdiction the presumption of
la$ is in favor of the mental capacity of the testator
and the burden is upon the contestants of the $ill to
prove the lac- of testamentary capacity& The rule of
la$ relating to the presumption of mental soundness
is $ell established, and the testator in the case at
bar never having been ad.udged insane by a court of
competent .urisdiction, this presumption continues,
and it is therefore incumbent upon the opponents to
overcome this legal presumption by proper
evidence& This $e thin- they have failed to do& There
are many cases and authorities $hich $e might cite
to sho$ that the courts have repeatedly held that
mere $ea-ness of mind and body, induced by age
and disease do not render a person incapable of
ma-ing a $ill& The la$ does not re2uire that a person
shall continue in the full en.oyment and use of his
pristine physical and mental po$ers in order to
e*ecute a valid $ill
%n the above case the $ill $as sustained& %n the case
at bar $e might dra$ the same contrast as $as
pictured by the court in the case .ust 2uoted& The
stri-ing change in the physical and mental vigor of
the testator during the last years of his life may have
led some of those $ho -ne$ him in his earlier days
to entertain doubts as to his mental capacity to ma-e
a $ill, yet $e thin- that the statements of the
$itnesses to the e*ecution of the $ill and statements
of the conduct of the testator at that time all indicate
that he un2uestionably had mental capacity and that
he e*ercised it on this occasion& 7t the time of the
e*ecution of the $ill it does not appear that his
conduct $as irrational in any particular& +e seems to
have comprehended clearly $hat the nature of the
business $as in $hich he $as engaged& The
evidence sho$ that the $riting and e*ecution of the
$ill occupied a period several hours and that the
testator $as present during all this time, ta-ing an
active part in all the proceedings& 7gain, the $ill in
the case at bar is perfectly reasonable and its
dispositions are those of a rational person&
#1#) TRINIDAD NE)RA, 7.a,%,00-a77&..a%, 34.
ENCARNACION NE)RA, 2&0&2a%-a77&..&&
/6 P*IL 333
"7T1F
1evero #ayra died leaving certain properties and
t$o children, by his first marriage, named
Jncarnacion #eyra and Trinidad #eyra, and other
children by his second marriage> That after the death
of 1evero #eyra, the t$o sisters, Jncarnacion #eyra
and Trinidad #eyra, had serious misunderstandings,
in connection $ith the properties left by their
deceased father&Trinidad #eyra filed a complaint
against her sister, Jncarnacion #eyra, in "% Manila,
for the recovery of M of a property left by their
deceased father, and demanding at the same time M
of the rents collected on the said property by the
defendant Jncarnacion #eyra& "% decided in favour
of Trinidad but at the same time ordered her to pay
Jncarnacion the sum of P9/9&99, plus interests, by
virtue of said counterclaims&Trinidad #eyra appealed
from the said decision, to the ourt of 7ppeals&
The ourt of 7ppeals, dismissed the appeal on a
decision dated #ovember ';, '()/, by virtue of said
agreement or compromise, 7tty& Lucio :avillonar,
claiming to represent Jncarnacion #eyra, $ho had
died since #ovember ), '()/, and other relatives of
hers, The heirs of the deceased filed a motion for
reconsideration, claiming that the alleged
compromise or agreement, dated #ovember 0,
'()/, could not have been understood by
Jncarnacion #eyra, as she $as already then at the
threshold of death, and that as a matter of fact she
died the follo$ing day> and that if it had been signed
at all by said Jncarnacion #eyra, her thumbmar-
appearing on said document must have been affi*ed
thereto by Trinidad #eyraGs attorney, against
JncarnacionGs $ill&
Pending the appeal before 7, Jncarnacion became
seriously ill and $as advised by her religious adviser,
"r& ?arcia to reconcile $ith her sister& Trinidad $as
invited to her sisterDs home and they reconciled
$hile Jncarnacion $as lying in bed& %n the course of
their conversation $hich they also tal-ed about the
properties left by their father and their litigations
$hich had reached the ourt of 7ppeals, and they
agreed to have the latter dismissed, on the condition
that the property involved therein should be given
e*clusively to Trinidad #eyra, that the latter should
$aive her share in the rents of said property
collected by Jncarnacion, and the Trinidad had no
more indebtedness to Jncarnacion& 7ttorney Panis
prepared said document of compromise as $ell as
the ne$ $ill and testament, naming Trinidad #eyra
and Justa2uio Mendo6a beneficiaries therein,
pursuant to JncarnacionGs e*press instructions, and
the t$o documents $ere prepared, in duplicate, and
$ere ready for signature, since the morning of
#ovember 0, '()/> that in the afternoon of that day,
of compromise and last $ill and testament to
Jncarnacion #eyra, slo$ly and in a loud voice, in the
presence of "ather Teodoro ?arcia, !r& Moises @&
7bad, !r& Jladio 7ldecoa, Trinidad #eyra, and
others, after $hich he as-ed her if their terms $ere
in accordance $ith her $ishes, or if she $anted any
change made in said documents> that Jncarnacion
#eyra did not suggest any change, and as-ed for
the pad and the t$o documents, and, $ith the help
of a son of Trinidad, placed her thumbmar- at the
foot of each one of the t$o documents, in duplicate,
on her bed in the &a"a, in the presence of attesting
$itnesses, !r& Moises @& 7bad, !r& Jladio R&
7ldecoa and 7tty& 7le.andro M& Panis, after $hich
said $itnesses signed at the foot of the $ill, in the
presence of Jncarnacion #eyra, and of each other&
The agreement $as also signed by Trinidad #eyra,
as party, and by !r& M& @& 7bad and Justa2uio
Mendo6a, a protege, as $itnesses&
Teodora #eyra, Presentacion @lanco and eferina
de la ru6 argue, that $hen the thumbmar- of
Jncarnacion #eyra $as affi*ed to the agreement in
2uestion, dated #ovember 0, '()/, she $as
sleeping on her bed in the &a"a> and that the
attesting $itnesses $ere not present, as they $ere
in the cai%a&
%11UJ1F
'& 5+JT+JR J#7R#7%4# 571 4"
14U#! M%#! 5+J# 1+J 1%?#J! +JR 5%LL
7#! T+J 4MPR4M%1J 7?RJJMJ#T
/& 5+JT+JR T+J 5%T#J11J1 5JRJ
PRJ1J#T %# T+J 1%?#%#? 4" T+J 5%LL
+JL!F PJT%T%4# !J#%J!, 7 7""%RMJ!
'&%t has been conclusively sho$n that Jncarnacion
#eyra died on #ovember ), '()/, due to a heart
attac-, at the age of )<, after an illness of about t$o
(/) years& Presentacion @lanco, in the course of her
cross,e*amination, fran-ly admitted that, in the
morning and also at about 8 oGcloc- in he afternoon
of #ovember 0, '()/, Jncarnacion #eyra tal-ed to
her that they understood each other clearly, thus
sho$ing that the testatri* $as really of sound mind,
at the time of signing and e*ecution of the
agreement and $ill in 2uestion&
%t may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that the
mental faculties of persons suffering from 7ddisonGs
disease, li-e the testatri* in this case, remain
unimpaired, partly due to the fact that, on account of
the sleep they en.oy, they necessarily receive the
benefit of physical and mental rest& 7nd that li-e
patients suffering from tuberculosis, insomnia or
diabetes, they preserve their mental faculties until
the moments of their death&
:udging by the authorities above cited, the logical
conclusion is that Jncarnacion #eyra $as of sound
mind and possessed the necessary testamentary
and mental capacity, at the time of the e*ecution of
the agreement and $ill, dated #ovember 0, '()/&
/&The contention that the attesting $itnesses $ere
not present, at the time Jncarnacion #eyra
thumbmar-ed the agreement and $ill in 2uestion, on
her bed, in the &a"a of the house, as they $ere
allegedly in the cai%a, is untenable& %t has been fully
sho$n that said $itnesses $ere present, at the time
of the signing and e*ecution of the agreement and
$ill in 2uestion, in the &a"a, $here the testatri* $as
lying on her bed& The true test is not $hether they
actually sa$ each other at the time of the signing of
the documents, but $hether they might have seen
each other sign, had they chosen to do so> and the
attesting $itnesses actually sa$ it all in this case&
7nd the thumbmar- placed by the testatri* on the
agreement and $ill in 2uestion is e2uivalent to her
signature&
#13) I r& &4%a%& o0 P,ra4o, 2&-&a4&2. SIGTO
ACOP, 7&%,%,o&r-a77&..a%,
34. SALMING PIRASO, ET AL., o77o&%4-
a77&..&&4.
$# P*IL 66?
"7T1F
The proponent 7cop appeals the .udgment of the
"% @enguet, denying the probate of last $ill and
testament of the deceased Piraso& The $ill $as
$ritten in Jnglish> that Piraso -ne$ ho$ to spea- the
%locano dialect, although imperfectly, and could
ma-e himself understood in that dialect, and the
court is of the opinion that his $ill should have been
$ritten in that dialect&
%11UJF 571 T+J 5%LL K7L%!LE JYJUTJ!3
+JL!F "% 7""%RMJ!
1ection 8/< of the ode of ivil Procedure, strictly
provides thatF
=No wi"", e*cept as provides in the preceding section=
(as to $ills e*ecuted by a 1paniard or a resident of
the Philippine %slands, before the present ode of
ivil Procedure $ent into effect), =&ha"" ,e va"i% to
pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge or
affect the same, un"e&& it ,e written in the "an)ua)e
or %ia"ect $nown ,* the te&tator,=
#or can the presumption in favor of the $ill
established by this court in 7bangan vs& 7bangan
(); Phil&, )98), to the effect that the testator is
presumed to -no$ the dialect of the locality $here
he resides, unless there is proof to the contrary,
even he invo-ed in support of the probate of said
document as a $ill, because, in the instant case, not
only is it not proven that Jnglish is the language of
the ity of @aguio $here the deceased Piraso lived
and $here the $ill $as dra$n, but that the record
contains positive proof that said Piraso -ne$ no
other language than the %gorrote dialect, $ith a
smattering of %locano> that is, he did not -no$ the
Jnglish language in $hich then $ill is $ritten& 1o that
even if such a presumption could have been raised
in this case it $ould have been $holly contradicted
and destroyed&
1uch a result based upon solidly established facts
$ould be the same $hether or not it be technically
held that said $ill, in order to be valid, must be
$ritten in the %locano dialect> $hether or not the
%gorrote or %nibaloi dialect is a cultivated language
and used as a means of communication in $riting,
and $hether or not the testator Piraso -ne$ the
%locano dialect $ell enough to understand a $ill
$ritten in said dialect& The fact is, $e repeat, that it is
2uite certain that the instrument J*hibit 7 $as $ritten
in Jnglish $hich the supposed testator Piraso did
not -no$, and this is sufficient to invalidate said $ill
according to the clear and positive provisions of the
la$, and inevitably prevents its probate&
#14) GERMAN JABONETA, 7.a,%,00-a77&..a%, 34.
RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL., 2&0&2a%4-
a77&..&&4.
$ P*IL $41
"7T1F
Macario :aboneta e*ecuted under the follo$ing
circumstances the document in 2uestion, $hich has
been presented for probate as his $illF
@eing in the house of 7rcadio :arandilla, in :aro, in
this province, he ordered that the document in
2uestion be $ritten, and calling :ulio :avellana,
7niceto :albuena, and %sabelo :ena as $itnesses,
e*ecuted the said document as his $ill& They $ere
all together, and $ere in the room $here :aboneta
$as, and $ere present $hen he signed the
document, %sabelo :ena signing after$ards as a
$itness, at his re2uest, and in his presence and in
the presence of the other t$o $itnesses& 7niceto
:albuena then signed as a $itness in the presence
of the testator, and in the presence of the other t$o
persons $ho signed as $itnesses& 7t that moment
%sabelo :ena, being in a hurry to leave, too- his hat
and left the room& 7s he $as leaving the house :ulio
:avellana too- the pen in his hand and put himself in
position to sign the $ill as a $itness, but did not sign
in the presence of %sabelo :ena> but nevertheless,
after :ena had left the room the said :ulio :avellana
signed as a $itness in the presence of the testator
and of the $itness 7niceto :albuena&
The last $ill and testament of Macario :aboneta,
deceased, $as denied probate because the lo$er
court $as of the opinion from the evidence adduced
at the hearing that :ulio :avellana, one of the
$itnesses, did not attach his signature thereto in the
presence of %sabelo :ena, another of the $itnesses,
as re2uired by the provisions of section 8'< of the
ode of ivil Procedure&&
%11UJF JYTR%#1% K7L%!%TE 4" T+J 5%LL 5%T+
RJ1PJT T4 T+J 1T7TUT4RE RJAU%RJMJ#T
4" 5%T#J11J1 1%?#%#? T+J 5%LL %# T+J
PRJ1J#J 4" J7+ 4T+JR
+JL!F TR%7L 4URT RJKJR1J!
5e can not agree $ith so much of the above finding
of facts as holds that the signature of :avellana $as
not signed in the presence of :ena, in compliance
$ith the provisions of section 8'< of the ode of
ivil Procedure& The fact that :ena $as still in the
room $hen he sa$ :avellana moving his hand and
pen in the act of affi*ing his signature to the $ill,
ta-en together $ith the testimony of the remaining
$itnesses $hich sho$s that :avellana did in fact
there and then sign his name to the $ill, convinces
us that the signature $as affi*ed in the presence of
:ena& The fact that he $as in the act of leaving, and
that his bac- $as turned $hile a portion of the name
of the $itness $as being $ritten, is of no importance&
+e, $ith the other $itnesses and the testator, had
assembled for the purpose of e*ecuting the
testament, and $ere together in the same room for
that purpose, and at the moment $hen the $itness
:avellana signed the document he $as actually and
physically present and in such position $ith relation
to :avellana that he could see everything $hich too-
place by merely casting his eyes in the proper
direction, and $ithout any physical obstruction to
prevent his doing so, therefore $e are of opinion that
the document $as in fact signed before he finally left
the room&
The purpose of a statutory re2uirement that the
$itness sign in the presence of the testator is said to
be that the testator may have ocular evidence of the
identity of the instrument subscribed by the $itness
and himself, and the generally accepted tests of
presence are vision and mental apprehension& (1ee
7m& Z Jng& Jnc& of La$, vol& 0;, p& 5((, and cases
there cited&)
%n the matter of @edell (/ onnoly (#&E&), 0/<) it $as
held that it is sufficient if the $itnesses are together
for the purpose of $itnessing the e*ecution of the
$ill, and in a position to actually see the testator
$rite, if they choose to do so> and there are many
cases $hich lay do$n the rule that the true test of
vision is not $hether the testator actually sa$ the
$itness sign, but $hether he might have seen him
sign, considering his mental and physical condition
and position at the time of the subscription&
(1poonemore v&& ables, 88 Mo&, 59(&)
#1$) EUTIAUIA A(ERA, 7&%,%,o&r-a77&..&&, 34.
MARINO GARCIA, a2 JUAN RODRIGUE=, a4
6!ar2,a o0 %1& :,or4 C&4ar Gar-,a a2 Jo4&
Gar-,a,o;8&-%or4-a77&..a%4
4# P*IL 4$
"7T1F
Juti2uia 7vera instituted the probate of the $ill of
one Jsteban ?arcia> contest $as made by Marino
?arcia and :uan Rodrigue6, the latter in the capacity
of guardian for the minors :ose ?arcia and esar
?arcia& The proponent of the $ill introduced one of
the three attesting $itnesses $ho testified that the
$ill $as e*ecuted $ith all necessary e*ternal
formalities, and that the testator $as at the time in
full possession of disposing faculties& Upon the latter
point the $itness $as corroborated by the person
$ho $rote the $ill at the re2uest of the testator& T$o
of the attesting $itnesses $ere not introduced, nor
$as their absence accounted for by the proponent of
the $ill& The attorney for the opposition introduced a
single $itness $hose testimony tended to sho$ in a
vague and indecisive manner that at the time the $ill
$as made the testator $as so debilitated as to be
unable to comprehend $hat he $as about&
The trial .udge found that the testator at the time of
the ma-ing of the $ill $as of sound mind and
disposing memory and that the $ill had been
properly e*ecuted& +e accordingly admitted the $ill
to probate&+ence this appeal
%11UJ1F
'& $hether a $ill can be admitted to probate,
$here opposition is made, upon the proof of a single
attesting $itness, $ithout producing or accounting
for the absence of the other t$o>
/& $hether the $ill in 2uestion is rendered
invalid by reason of the fact that the signature of the
testator and of the three attesting $itnesses are
$ritten on the right margin of each page of the $ill
instead of the left margin&
+JL!F lo$er court affirmed
'& 5hile it is undoubtedly true that an
uncontested $ill bay be proved by the testimony of
only one of the three attesting $itnesses,
nevertheless in abang v&. !elfinado (0) Phil&, /('),
this court declared after an elaborate e*amination of
the 7merican and Jnglish authorities that $hen a
contest is instituted, all of the attesting $itnesses
must be e*amined, if alive and $ithin reach of the
process of the court&
%n the present case no e*planation $as made at the
trial as to $hy all three of the attesting $itnesses
$ere not produced, but the probable reason is found
in the fact that, although the petition for the probate
of this $ill had been pending from !ecember /',
'('9, until the date set for the hearing, $hich $as
7pril 5, '('(, no formal contest $as entered until the
very day set for the hearing> and it is probable that
the attorney for the proponent, believing in good faith
the probate $ould not be contested, repaired to the
court $ith only one of the three attesting $itnesses
at hand, and upon finding that the $ill $as
contested, incautiously permitted the case to go to
proof $ithout as-ing for a postponement of the trial
in order that he might produce all the attesting
$itnesses&7lthough this circumstance may e*plain
$hy the three $itnesses $ere not produced, it does
not in itself supply any basis for changing the rule
e*pounded in the case above referred to> and $ere it
not for a fact no$ to be mentioned, this court $ould
probably be compelled to reverse this case on the
ground that the e*ecution of the $ill had not been
proved by a sufficient number of attesting $itnesses&
/& 5e are of the opinion that the $ill in
2uestion is valid& %t is true that the statute says that
the testator and the instrumental $itnesses shall
sign their names on the left margin of each and
every page> and it is undeniable that the general
doctrine is to the effect that all statutory
re2uirements as to the e*ecution of $ills must be
fully complied $ith& 1o far as concerns the
authentication of the $ill, and of every part thereof, it
can ma-e no possible difference $hether the names
appear on the left or no the right margin, provided
they are on one or the other&
The controlling considerations on the point no$
before us $ere $ell stated In <e $ill of 7bangan ();
Phil&, )98, )9(), $here the court, spea-ing through
Mr& :ustice 7vanceSa, in a case $here the
signatures $ere placed at the bottom of the page
and not in the margin, saidF
The o,.ect of the &o"enitie& &urroun%in) the
e-ecution of wi""& i& to c"o&e the %oor a)ain&t ,a%
faith an% frau%, to avoi% &u,&titution o wi"" an%
te&taent& an% to )uarantee their truth an%
authenticit*. Therefore the "aw& on thi& &u,.ect
&hou"% ,e inter'rete% in &uch a wa* a& to attain
the&e 'rior%ia" en%&. But, on the other han%, a"&o
one u&t not "o&e &i)ht of the fact that it i& not the
o,.ect of the "aw to re&train an% curtai" the e-erci&e
of the ri)ht to a$e a wi"". So when an inter'retation
a"rea%* )iven a&&ure& &uch en%&, an* other
inter'retation what&oever, that a%%& nothin) ,ut
%ean%& ore re>ui&ite& entire"* unnece&&ar*,
u&e"e&& an% fru&trative of the te&tatorA& "a&t wi"", u&t
,e %i&re)ar%e%.
%n the case before us, $here ingenuity could not
suggest any possible pre.udice to any person, as
attendant upon the actual deviation from the letter of
the la$, such deviation must be considered too trivial
to invalidate the instrument&
#16) IN T*E MATTER OF T*E TESTATE ESTATE
OF T*E LATE JOSEFA (ILLACORTE.
CELSO ICASIANO, 7&%,%,o&r-a77&..&&, 34.
NATI(IDAD ICASIANO a2 ENRIAUE
ICASIANO, o77o4,%or4-a77&..a%4.
11 SCRA 4#3
"7T1F
7 special proceeding $as commenced on 4ctober /,
'(5< for the allo$ance and admission to probate of
the original $ill of :osefa Killacorte, deceased, and
for the appointment of petitioner elso %casiano as
e*ecutor thereof& #atividad %casiano, a daughter of
the testatri*, filed her opposition& Jnri2ue %casiano, a
son of the testatri*, also filed a manifestation
adopting as his o$n #atividadGs opposition to the
probate of the alleged $ill& Proponent subse2uently
filed a motion for the admission of an amended and
supplemental petition, alleging that the decedent left
a $ill e*ecuted in duplicate $ith all the legal
re2uirements, and that he $as, on that date,
submitting the signed duplicate , $hich he allegedly
found only on or about May /8, '(5(& oppositors
#atividad %casiano de ?ome6 and Jnri2ue %casiano
filed their .oint opposition to the admission of the
amended and supplemental petition, but by order,
the court admitted said petition&
The evidence presented for the petitioner is to the
effect that :osefa Killacorte died in the ity of Manila
on 1eptember '/, '(5<> that on :une /, '(58, the
late :osefa Killacorte e*ecuted a last $ill and
testament in duplicate at the house of her daughter
Mrs& "elisa %casiano at Pedro ?uevara 1treet,
Manila, published before and attested by three
instrumental $itnesses, namelyF attorneys :usto P&
Torres, :r& and :ose K& #atividad, and Mr& Kinicio @&
!iy> that the $ill $as ac-no$ledged by the testatri*
and by the said three instrumental $itnesses on the
same date before attorney :ose 4yengco 4ng,
#otary Public in and for the ity of Manila> and that
the $ill $as actually prepared by attorney "ermin
1amson, $ho $as also present during the e*ecution
and signing of the decedentGs last $ill and testament,
together $ith former ?overnor Jmilio Rustia of
@ulacan, :udge Ramon %casiano and a little girl& 4f
the said three instrumental $itnesses to the
e*ecution of the decedentGs last $ill and testament,
attorneys Torres and #atividad $ere in the
Philippines at the time of the hearing, and both
testified as to the due e*ecution and authenticity of
the said $ill& 1o did the #otary Public before $hom
the $ill $as ac-no$ledged by the testatri* and
attesting $itnesses, and also attorneys "ermin
1amson, $ho actually prepared the document& The
latter also testified upon cross e*amination that he
prepared one original and t$o copies of :osefa
Killacorte last $ill and testament at his house in
@aliuag, @ulacan, but he brought only one original
and one signed copy to Manila, retaining one
unsigned copy in @ulacan&
5itness #atividad $ho testified on his failure to sign
page three (0) of the original, admits that he may
have lifted t$o pages instead of one $hen he signed
the same, but affirmed that page three (0) $as
signed in his presence&
The court issued the order admitting the $ill and its
duplicate to probate& "rom this order, the oppositors
appealed directly to this ourt
%11UJF 5+JT+JR T+J 5%LL %1 K7L%! %# T+J
7@1J#J 4" 7 5%T#J11D 1%?#7TURJ %# 4#J
P7?J
+JL!F "% 7""%RMJ!
4n the 2uestion of la$, $e hold that the inadvertent
failure of one $itness to affi* his signature to one
page of a testament, due to the simultaneous lifting
of t$o pages in the course of signing, is not per se
sufficient to .ustify denial of probate& %mpossibility of
substitution of this page is assured not only the fact
that the testatri* and t$o other $itnesses did sign
the defective page, but also by its bearing the
coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public
before $hom the testament $as ratified by testatri*
and all three $itnesses& The la$ should not be so
strictly and literally interpreted as to penali6e the
testatri* on account of the inadvertence of a single
$itness over $hose conduct she had no control,
$here the purpose of the la$ to guarantee the
identity of the testament and its component pages is
sufficiently attained, no intentional or deliberate
deviation e*isted, and the evidence on record attests
to the full observance of the statutory re2uisites&
4ther$ise, as stated in 6%a. %e Gi". v&. +urciano, )(
4ff& ?a6& ')5(, at ')9( (decision on
reconsideration) =$itnesses may sabotage the $ill
by muddling or bungling it or the attestation clause=&
That the failure of $itness #atividad to sign page
three (0) $as entirely through pure oversight is
sho$n by his o$n testimony as $ell as by the
duplicate copy of the $ill, $hich bears a complete
set of signatures in every page& The te*t of the
attestation clause and the ac-no$ledgment before
the #otary Public li-e$ise evidence that no one $as
a$are of the defect at the time&
This $ould not be the first time that this ourt
departs from a strict and literal application of the
statutory re2uirements, $here the purposes of the
la$ are other$ise satisfied& Thus, despite the literal
tenor of the la$, this ourt has held that a testament,
$ith the only page signed at its foot by testator and
$itnesses, but not in the left margin, could
nevertheless be probated (7bangan vs& 7bangan, )'
Phil& )98)> and that despite the re2uirement for the
correlative lettering of the pages of a $ill, the failure
to ma-e the first page either by letters or numbers is
not a fatal defect (Lope6 vs& Liboro, <' Phil& )/()&
These precedents e*emplify the ourtGs policy to
re2uire satisfaction of the legal re2uirements in order
to guard against fraud and bid faith but $ithout
undue or unnecessary curtailment of the
testamentary privilege&
#1/) T&4%a%& &4%a%& o0 %1& .a%& (ICENTE CAGRO.
JESUSA CAGRO, 7&%,%,o&r-a77&..&&, 34.
PELAGIO CAGRO, ET AL., o77o4,%or4-
a77&..a%4.
9# P*IL 1?33
"7T1F
This is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from
a decision of the ourt of "irst %nstance of 1amar,
admitting to probate the $ill allegedly e*ecuted by
Kicente agro $ho died in Laoangan, Pambu.an,
1amar, on "ebruary '), '()(&
The main ob.ection insisted upon by the appellant in
that the $ill is fatally defective, because its
attestation clause is not signed by the attesting
$itnesses& The signatures of the three $itnesses to
the $ill do not appear at the bottom of the attestation
clause, although the page containing the same is
signed by the $itnesses on the left,hand margin&
The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures
of the three $itnesses on the left,hand margin
conform substantially to the la$ and may be deemed
as their signatures to the attestation clause&
%11UJF 5+JT+JR T+JRJ %1 1U@1T7#T%7L
4MPL%7#J 5+J# T+J 5%T#J11J1D
1%?#7TURJ1 7PPJ7R 4# T+J LJ"T M7R?%#1
@UT #4T %# T+J 7TTJ1T7T%4# L7U1J
+JL!F "% RJKJR1J!
5e are of the opinion that the position ta-en by the
appellant is correct& The attestation clause is Ga
memorandum of the facts attending the e*ecution of
the $illG re2uired by la$ to be made by the attesting
$itnesses, and it must necessarily bear their
signatures& 7n unsigned attestation clause cannot be
considered as an act of the $itnesses, since the
omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof
negatives their participation&
The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures
of the three $itnesses on the left,hand margin
conform substantially to the la$ and may be deemed
as their signatures to the attestation clause& This is
untenable, because said signatures are in
compliance $ith the legal mandate that the $ill be
signed on the left,hand margin of all its pages& %f an
attestation clause not signed by the three $itnesses
at the bottom thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it
$ould be easy to add such clause to a $ill on a
subse2uent occasion and in the absence of the
testator and any or all of the $itnesses
#1<) BEATRI= NERA, ET AL., 7.a,%,004-
a77&..&&4, 34. NARCISA RIMANDO, 2&0&2a%-
a77&..a%..
1< P*IL 4$?
"7T1F
The lo$er court admitted the instrument propounded
therein as the last $ill and testament of the
deceased, Pedro Rimando&The defendant appeals
the decision, contending that it one of the $itnesses
$as not present during the signing of the $ill by the
testator and of the other subscribing $itnesses& one
of the $itnesses $as the outside some < or '; feet
a$ay, in a small room connected by a door$ay from
$here the $ill $as signed ,across $hich $as hung a
curtain $hich made it impossible for one in the
outside room to see the testator and the other
subscribing $itnesses in the act of attaching their
signatures to the instrument&
%11UJF 5+JT+JR T+J 5%LL 571 K7L%!LE
JYJUTJ! JKJ# %" 4#J 4" T+J 5%T#J11J1
571 %# 7#4T+JR R44M !UR%#? T+J 1%?#%#?
4" T+J 5%LL
+JL!F L45JR 4URT 7""%RMJ!
%n the case .ust cited, on $hich the trial court relied,
$e held thatF
The true test of presence of the testator and the
$itnesses in the e*ecution of a $ill is not $hether
they actually sa$ each other sign, but $hether they
might have been seen each other sign, had they
chosen to do so, considering their mental and
physical condition and position $ith relation to each
other at the moment of inscription of each signature&
@ut it is especially to be noted that the position of the
parties $ith relation to each other at the oent of
the &u,&cri'tion of each &i)nature, must be such that
they may see each other sign if they choose to do
so& This, of course, does not mean that the testator
and the subscribing $itnesses may be held to have
e*ecuted the instrument in the presence of each
other if it appears that they $ould not have been
able to see each other sign at that moment, $ithout
changing their relative positions or e*isting
conditions& The trial courtDs decision merely laid
do$n the doctrine that the 2uestion $hether the
testator and the subscribing $itnesses to an alleged
$ill sign the instrument in the presence of each other
does not depend upon proof of the fact that their
eyes $ere actually cast upon the paper at the
moment of its subscription by each of them, but that
at that moment e*isting conditions and their position
$ith relation to each other $ere such that by merely
casting the eyes in the proper direction they could
have seen each other sign& To e*tend the doctrine
further $ould open the door to the possibility of all
manner of fraud, substitution, and the li-e, and
$ould defeat the purpose for $hich this particular
condition is prescribed in the code as one of the
re2uisites in the e*ecution of a $ill&
#19) CANEDA (S CA
### SCRA /<1
"7T1F Testator Mateo aballero is a $ido$er
$ithout any children& +e e*ecuted a $ill in the
presence of three $itnesses& +e $as assisted by his
la$yer and a notary public in the preparation of his
$ill& Under the said $ill, the testator disposed of his
properties to persons $ithout blood relation to the
testator& The testator himself submitted the $ill to the
probate court but the testator passed a$ay even
before his petition could be heard&
The petitioners, $ho claimed to be the nephe$s and
nieces of the testator, filed for the settlement of the
intestate estate of Mateo& The probate proceedings
and special proceedings filed $ere consolidated&
Petitioners opposed the allo$ance of the $ill of
Mateo on the ground that on the date stated in the
$ill, the testator $as already of poor health and
could not have e*ecuted the $ill& They li-e$ise
2uestioned the genuineness of the signature of the
testator in the said $ill&
The probate court allo$ed the $ill& 4n appeal, the
petitioners contended that the 7ttestation lause
$as fatally defective for failing to state that the
testator signed in the presence of the $itnesses and
the $itnesses signed in the presence of the testator
and of one another&
ourt of 7ppeals, nevertheless affirmed the probate
courtDs decision and held that there $as substantial
compliance $ith 7rt& <;5&
%11UJF 5hether or not the attestation clause
contained in the last $ill complies $ith the
re2uirements of 7rt& <;5 and <;(3
+JL!F %n the case of ordinary or notarial $ills, the
attestation clause need not be $ritten in a language
or dialect -no$n to the testator since it does not form
part of the disposition& The language used in the
attestation clause li-e$ise need not even be -no$n
to the attesting $itnesses& The last paragraph of 7rt&
<;5 merely re2uires that, in such a case, the
7ttestation lause shall be interpreted to said
$itnesses&
7n 7ttestation lause refers to that part of an
ordinary $ill $hereby the attesting $itnesses certify
that the instrument has been e*ecuted before them
and to the manner of the e*ecution of the same& %t is
a separate memorandum of the facts surrounding
the conduct of e*ecution of the same&
Paragraph 0 of 7rt& <;5 re2uires three things to be
stated in the 7ttestation lause, the lac- of $hich
$ould result in the invalidity of the $illF
a) The number of pages
b) That the testator signed or
e*pressly caused another to sign, the $ill and every
page thereof in the presence of the attesting
$itnesses and
c) That the attesting $itnesses
$itnessed the signing by the testator of the $ill and
all of its pages, and that said $itnesses also signed
the $ill and every page thereof in the presence of
the testator and of one another&
The purpose of the la$ is to safeguard against any
interpolation or omission of some of its pages,
$hereas the subscription of the signatures of the
testator and the attesting $itnesses is made for the
purpose of authentication and identification, and thus
indicates that the $ill is the very instrument e*ecuted
by the testator and attested to by the $itnesses& @y
attesting and subscribing to the $ill& The $itnesses
thereby declare that due e*ecution of the $ill as
embodied in the 7ttestation lause& The 7ttestation
lause provides strong legal guaranties for the due
e*ecution of a $ill and to ensure the authenticity
thereof& %t needs to be signed only by the $itnesses
and not the testator, absence of the signature of the
former invalidates the $ill&
%n the case at bar, the $ill $as comprised of three
pages, all numbered correlatively, $ith the left
margin of each page bearing the respective
signatures of the testator and the three attesting
$itnesses& The testamentary dispositions $ere
e*presses in ebuano, Kisayan dialect and $ere
signed at the foot by the testator& The 7ttestation
lause $as recite in Jnglish and is li-e$ise signed
at the end of three attesting $itnesses&
5hat is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the
7ttestation lause herein is the fact that $hile it
recites that the testator indeed signed the $ill and all
its pages in the presence of three attesting
$itnesses and stated as $ell the number of pages
that $ere used, the same does not e*pressly state
therein the circumstance that said $itnesses
subscribed their respective signatures to the $ill in
the presence of the testator and of each other& 5hat
is clearly lac-ing is the statement that the $itnesses
signed the $ill and every page thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another& The
absence of that statement is a fatal defect $hich
must necessarily result in the disallo$ance of the
$ill&
7s to the substantial compliance rule under 7rt& <;(,
$hile it may be true that the 7ttestation lause is
indeed subscribed at the end thereof and at the left
margin of each page by the three attesting
$itnesses, it certainly cannot be conclusively
inferred therefrom that the said $itnesses affi*ed
their respective signatures in the presence of the
testator and of each other, since the presence of
such signatures only establishes the fact that it $as
indeed signed, but it does not prove that the
attesting $itnesses did subscribe to the $ill in the
presence of the testator and of one another&
The e*ecution of a $ill is supposed to be one act so
that $here the testator and the $itnesses sign on
various days or occasions and in various
combinations, the $ill cannot be stamped $ith the
imprimatur of effectivity& %n a situation li-e in the
case at bar, the defects is not only in the form or
language of the 7ttestation lause but the total
absence of a specific element re2uires by 7rt& <;5&
%n order that 7rt& <;( can apply, the defects must be
remedied by intrinsic evidenced supplied by the $ill
itself& %n the case at bar, proof of the acts re2uires to
have been performed by the attesting $itnesses san
be supplied only by e*trinsic evidence thereof&
Reversal of the .udgment rendered by the 7&
##?) A=NAR (S GARCIA
/ SCRA9$
"7T1F 76nar (e*ecutor) filed a petition to probate
the $ill of the deceased Jd$ard hristensen giving
to +elen hristensen 0, 8;; pesos $hile Lucy all the
remainder of his property $hich $as opposed by
+elen because it deprives her legitime as an
ac-no$ledged natural children hence she is entitled
to M of the estate but "% opposes the final
accounting of the e*ecutor&
%11UJF54# +elen is entitled to M share of the
estate3
+JL!F Remand the case to Philippine court for
partition be made as the Philippine la$ on
succession provides& The citi6enship of the
deceases $as never lost by his stay in the
Philippines, hence the meaning of national la$ in 7rt
'8 is the conflict of la$ rules in alifornia& +o$ever,
7RT ()8 of alifornia ivil ode authori6es the
return of the 2uestion to the la$ of the testatorDs
domicile, The Philippines& Therefore, the Philippine
court should not refer bac- it to alifornia&
ourt of domicile is bound to apply its o$n la$ as
directed in conflict of la$ rule of decedent state&
##1) CRU= (S (ILLASOR
$4 SCRA 31
"7T1F Respondent Manuel Lugay filed a petition
for probate of the $ill of Kalente ru6 $ith the "%
$hich $as opposed by the petitioner, 7gapita ru6
on the ground that the one of the three $itnesses is
at the same time the #otary Public before $hom the
$ill $as supposed to have been ac-no$ledged&
%11UJF 5hether or not the $ill $as e*ecuted in
accordance $ith 7rt& <;5 and <;83
+JL!FThe notary public before $hom the $ill $as
ac-no$ledged cannot be considered as the third
instrumental $itness since he cannot ac-no$ledge
before himself his having signed the $ill& To
ac-no$ledge before means to avo$ or to o$n as
genuine, to assent and BbeforeC means in front or
preceding in space or ahead of& onse2uently, if the
third $itness $ere the notary public himself, he
$ould have to avo$ assent, or admit his having
signed the $ill in front of himself&
The function of a notary public is, among others, to
guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements&
That function $ould be defeated if the notary public
$ere one of the attesting or instrumental $itnesses&
"or them he $ould be interested in sustaining the
validity of the $ill as it directly involves himself and
the validity of his o$n act& %t $ould place him in an
inconsistent position and the very purpose of the
ac-no$ledgement, $hich is to minimi6e fraud $ould
be th$arted&
To allo$ the notary public to act as third $itness, or
one of the attesting and ac-no$ledging $itnesses,
$ould have the effect of having only t$o attesting
$itnesses to the $ill $hich $ould be in contravention
of the provisions of 7rt& <;5 re2uiring at least three
credible $itnesses to act as such and of 7rt <;8
$hich re2uires that the testator and the re2uired
number of $itnesses must appear before the notary
public to ac-no$ledge the $ill& The result $ou-d be,
as has been said, that only / $itnesses appeared
before the notary public for that purpose&
###) CALA+ (S RELO(A
13# SCRA #3/
"7T1F The private respondent, $ho claims to be
the sole heir of his sister $ho is #atividad Lala$,
filed for a petition to admit to probate the holographic
$ill of his sister& %n such $ill, private respondent
?regorio $as named as the sole heir of all the
properties left behind by the testatri* and $as also
named as the e*ecutor of the $ill&
The petition $as opposed by Rosa, the sister of the
testatri*, $ho claims to have been originally
instituted as the sole heir& 1he alleged that the
holographic $ill contained alterations, corrections
and insertions $ithout the proper authentication by
the full signature of the testatri* as re2uires by 7rt
<') of the ivil ode&
The court denied the petition& Rosa filed a Petition
for Revie$ on ertiorari&
%11UJF $hether or not the original unaltered te*t
after subse2uent alterations and insertions $ere
voided by the Trial ourt for lac- of authentication by
the full signature of the testatri*, should be probated
or not, $ith her as sole heir&
+eldF #o& ordinarily, $hen a number of erasures,
correction made by the testator on a holographic $ill
not be noted under his signature, hence the $ill is
not invalidated as a $hole but as most only as
respects the particular $ords erased or corrected&
+o$ever in this case, the holographic $ill in dispute
had only one substantial provision, $hich $as
altered by substituting the original heir $ith another,
but $hich alteration did not carry the re2uisite of full
authentication by the full signature of the testator,
the effect must be that the entire 5ill is voided or
revo-ed for the simple reason that nothing remains
in the 5ill after that $hich could remain valid& To
state that the $ill as first $ritten should be given
efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind
of the testatri*& @ut that change of mind can neither
be given effect because she failed to authenticate it
in the manner re2uired by la$ by affi*ing her full
signature, the intention of the testator could not be
ascertained& +o$ever, there is clear sho$ing of the
testatorDs intention to revo-e the institution of Rosa
as her sole heir&
Thus, the petition is hereby dismissed and the
decision of the respondent .udge is affirmed&
##3) AJERO (S CA
#36 SCRA 4<<
"7T1F Late 7nne 1and left a $ill and named as
devisees the petitioner, Roberto and Thelma 7.ero,
private respondent lemente 1and, Meriam 7rong,
Leah 1and, Lilia 1and, Jdgar 1and& "e 1and, Lisa
1and and !r& :ose 7.ero 1r and their children&
Petitioner filed for the allo$ance of decedent
holographic $ill contending that the latter $as of
sound mind and not acting under duress& Private
Respondent opposed it that the testament body and
signature $as not decedents hand$riting and such
properties, the decedent is not the sole o$ner& RT
admitted the $ill $hile 7 reversed it that the $ill
fails to meet the re2uirements for its validity under
7rt <'0 and <') because the dispositions $ere
either unsigned and undated or signed but not dated
and erasure had not been authenticated by
decedent&
%11UJF 54# the $ill is valid3
+JL!F Ees& 7rt <0(, in a petition to admit a
holographic $ill to probate, the only issues to be
resolved areF
(') $hether the instrument submitted is the
decedentDs $ill
(/) $hether said $ill $as e*ecuted in accordance
$ith formalities prescribed by la$
(0) $hether the decedent had the necessary
testamentary capacity at the time the $ill $as
e*ecuted and
()) $hether the e*ecution of the $ill and its signing
$ere voluntary acts of the decedent
7rt& <'0 of the ne$ ivil ode sho$s that its
re2uirement affects the validity of the dispositions
contained in the holographic $ill, but not its probate&
%f the testator fails to sign and date some of the
dispositions, the result is that these dispositions
cannot be effectuated& 1uch failure, ho$ever, does
not render the $hole testament void&
%n the case at bar, unless, the unauthenticated
alterations, cancellations or insertions $ere made on
the date of the holographic $ill or on testatorDs
signature, their presence does not invalidate the $ill
itself& The lac- of authentication $ill only result in
disallo$ance of such changes&
%n addition to, courts in probate are limited to pass
only upon the e*trinsic validity of the $ill& +o$ever,
e*ception, ourts are not po$erless to do $hat the
situation constrains them to do and pass upon
certain provisions of the $ill that abadbaran
property is in the name of her late father :ohn 1and
$hich !r 7.ero 2uestion her conveyance&
##4) LABRADOR (S CA
1<4 SCRA 1/?
"7T1F Testator Melencio died and left a parcel of
land and his children as heirs& +e allegedly e*ecuted
a holographic $ill& The holographic $ill $as
submitted for probate by petitioner 1agrado, the
devisee of the parcel of the land&
:esus and ?audencio opposed the probate of the
$ill on the ground that the $ill has been e*tinguished
or revo-ed by implications of la$, $hen the testator,
before his death, sold the parcel of land to the
oppositors& The said transaction $as evidenced by
the ne$ TT issued in the name of the oppositors
and the !eed of 1ale e*ecuted by the testator&
Mean$hile, :esus sold the parcel of land to a 0
rd
person, 1agrado sought to have the !eed of 1ale
annulled on the ground that it $as fictitious&
L allo$ed the probate of the $ill and declared null
and void the !eed of 1ale& 7 reversed the
.udgment and disallo$ed the probate of the $ill on
the ground that it $as undated&
%11UJF 54# the alleged holographic $ill is dated3
+JL!F The +olographic is dated& %t appears that the
date $hen the testator made the $ill $as stated in
the body of the complaint, on the /
nd
page of the $ill
Band this is the day in $hich $e agreed that
$e are ma-ing the partitioning and assigning the
respective assignment of the said fish pond, and this
being in the month of March, '9
th
day, in the year
'(8<, and this decision and or instruction of mine is
the matter to be follo$ed, and the one $ho made
this $riting is no other that MJLJ%4 L7@R7!4R,
their father&C
The la$ does not specify a particular location $here
the date should be placed in the $ill& The only
re2uirements are that the date be in the $ill itself
and e*ecuted in the hand of the testator& These
re2uirements are present in the sub.ect $ill&
##$) PERE= (S TOLETE
#3# SCRA /##
"7T1F !r& :ose unanan and !r& Jvelyn Pere6,
unanan are husband and $ife, $ho became
7merican citi6ens and residents of #e$ Eor-, U&1&7,
$ith their children, :ocelynm'<> :ac2ueline,'8> and
:osephine,')&
Jach e*ecuted a $ill also in #e$ Eor-, containing
provisions on presumption of survivorship (in the
event that it is not -no$n $hich one of the spouses
died first, the husband shall be presumed to have
predeceased his $ife)&
To $itF B%f my $ife, JKJLE# PJRJQ,U#7#7#, and
% shall die under such circumstances that there is not
sufficient evidence to determine the order of our
deaths, then it shall be presumed that % predeceased
her, and my estate shall be administered and
distributed, in all respects, in accordance $ith such
presumption&C
"our days later, on 7ugust /9, !r& Jvelyn P&
unanan e*ecuted her o$n last $ill and testament
containing the same provisions as that of the $ill of
her husband&
To $itF B%f my husband, :41J "& U#7#7#, and %
shall die under such circumstances that there is not
sufficient evidence to determine the order of our
deaths, then it shall be presumed that he
predeceased me, and my estate shall be
administered and distributed in all respects, in
accordance $ith such presumption&C
Later, the entire family perished in a fire that gutted
their home& Thus, Rafael, $ho $as named trustee in
:oseDs $ill, filed for separate probate proceedings of
the $ills&
Later, JvelynDs mother, 1alud Pere6, filed a petition
for reprobate in @ulacan& Rafael opposed, arguing
that 1alud $as not an heir according to #e$ Eor-
la$& +e contended that since the $ills $ere e*ecuted
in #e$ Eor-, #e$ Eor- la$ should govern& +e further
argued that, by #e$ Eor- la$, he and his brothers
and sisters $ere :oseDs heirs and as such entitled to
notice of the reprobate proceedings, $hich 1alud
failed to give&
"or her part, 1alud said she $as the sole heir of her
daughter, Jvelyn, and that the t$o $ills $ere in
accordance $ith #e$ Eor- la$& @ut before she could
present evidence to prove the la$ of #e$ Eor-, the
reprobate court already issued an order, disallo$ing
the $ills&
%11UJF 5hether or not the reprobate of the $ills
should be allo$ed
+JL!F The respective $ills of the unanan spouses,
$ho $ere 7merican citi6ens, $ill only be effective in
this country upon compliance $ith the follo$ing
provision of the ivil ode of the PhilippinesF
7rt& <'8& The $ill of an alien $ho is abroad produces
effect in the Philippines if made $ith the formalities
prescribed by the la$ of the place in $hich he
resides, or according to the formalities observed in
his country, or in conformity $ith those $hich this
ode prescribes&
Thus, proof that both $ills conform $ith the
formalities prescribed by #e$ Eor- la$s or by
Philippine la$s is imperative&
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or
allo$ance of $ills $hich have been probated outside
of the Philippines are as follo$sF (') the due
e*ecution of the $ill in accordance $ith the foreign
la$s> (/) the testator has his domicile in the foreign
country and not in the Philippines> (0) the $ill has
been admitted to probate in such country> ()) the
fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and
(5) the la$s of a foreign country on procedure and
allo$ance of $ills& J*cept for the first and last
re2uirements, the petitioner submitted all the needed
evidence&
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign
la$s upon $hich the probate in the foreign country is
based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot
ta-e .udicial notice of them&
This petition cannot be completely resolved $ithout
touching on a very glaring fact , petitioner has
al$ays considered herself the sole heir of !r& Jvelyn
Pere6 unanan and because she does not consider
herself an heir of !r& :ose "& unanan, she
noticeably failed to notify his heirs of the filing of the
proceedings& Thus, even in the instant petition, she
only impleaded respondent :udge, forgetting that a
.udge $hose order is being assailed is merely a
nominal or formal party&
The rule that the court having .urisdiction over the
reprobate of a $ill shall =cause notice thereof to be
given as in case of an original $ill presented for
allo$ance= (Revised Rules of ourt, Rule /9,
1ection /) means that $ith regard to notices, the $ill
probated abroad should be treated as if it $ere an
=original $ill= or a $ill that is presented for probate
for the first time& 7ccordingly, compliance $ith
1ections 0 and ) of Rule 98, $hich re2uire
publication and notice by mail or personally to the
=-no$n heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
resident in the Philippines= and to the e*ecutor, if he
is not the petitioner, are re2uired&
The brothers and sisters of !r& :ose "& unanan,
contrary to petitionerGs claim, are entitled to notices
of the time and place for proving the $ills& Under
1ection ) of Rule 98 of the Revised Rules of ourt,
the =court shall also cause copies of the notice of the
time and place fi*ed for proving the $ill to be
addressed to the designated or other -no$n heirs,
legatees, and devisees of the testator, & & & =
5+JRJ"4RJ, the 2uestioned 4rder is 1JT 71%!J&
Respondent :udge shall allo$ petitioner reasonable
time $ithin $hich to submit evidence needed for the
.oint probate of the $ills of the unanan spouses
and see to it that the brothers and sisters of !r& :ose
"& unanan are given all notices and copies of all
pleadings pertinent to the probate proceedings&
##6) TESTATE ESTATE OF BO*ANAN
1?6 P*IL. 99/
"7T1F C.O. Bohanan was born in Nebraska and
therefore a citizen of that state. Notwithstanding his long
residence in the Philippines, he continued and remained to
be a citizen of the United States and of the state of his
pertinent residence to spend the rest of his das in that
state. !is permanent residence or domicile in the United
States depended upon his personal intent or desire, and he
selected Ne"ada as his homicide and therefore at the time
of his death, he was a citizen of that state.
#he oppositors, $agadalena C. Bohanan and her two
children, %uestion the "alidit of the e&ecutor'testator
C.O. Bohanan(s last will and testament, claiming that the
ha"e been depri"ed of the legitimate that the laws of the
form concede to them.
)nother, is the claim of the testator*s children, +dward
and $ar ,dia Bohanan, who had recei"ed legacies in
the amount of P!P -, ... each onl, and, therefore, ha"e
not been gi"en their shares in the estate which, in
accordance with the laws, should be two/ thirds of the
estate left b the testator.
%11UJF 54# the testamentary dispositions of the
testator is validF as to Magdalena @ohanan and
second to his children3
+JL!F #he first issue refers to the share that the wife of
the testator, $agdalena C. Bohanan, should be entitled to
recei"e. #he will has not gi"en her an share in the estate
left b the testator. 0t is argued that it was error for the
trial court to ha"e recognized the 1eno di"orce secured b
the testator from his 2ilipino wife $agdalena C. Bohanan,
and that said di"orce should be declared a nullit in this
3urisdiction. #he court refused to recognize the claim of
the widow on the ground that the laws of Ne"ada, of
which the deceased was a citizen, allow him to dispose of
all of his properties without re%uiring him to lea"e an
portion of his estate to his former 4or di"orced5 wife. No
right to share in the inheritance in fa"or of a di"orced
wife e&ists in the State of Ne"ada, thus the oppositor can
no longer claim portion of the estate left b the testator.
6ith regards the second issue, the old Ci"il Code, which
is applicable to this case because the testator died in 7899,
e&pressl pro"ides that successional rights to personal
propert are to be earned b the national law of the person
whose succession is in %uestion, thus the two/third rule is
not enforceable.
5herefore, the court finds that the testator, &4
@ohanan $as at the time of his death a citi6en of the
United 1tates and declares that his $ill and
testament is fully in accordance $ith the la$s of the
1tate of #evada and admits the same to probate&
The validity of Testamentary dispositions are to be
governed by the national la$ of the testator and as it
has been decided and it is not disputed that the
national la$ of the testator is that 1tate of #evada,
$hich allo$s the testator to dipose his properties
according to his $ill, li-e in the case at bar&
Thus the order of the court approving the pro.ect
partition made in accordance to testamentary
provisions must be affirmed&
##/) T&4%a%& E4%a%& o0 Ma.o%o
1$< SCRA 4$1
FACTS'
7driana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and
nephe$s, the petitioners believing that no last $iil
and testament $as left they iniateda an intestate
proceeding for the settlement of their auntGs estate&
5hile the case $as still in progress, the parties
e*ecuted an agreement of e*tra.udicial settlement of
7drianaGs estate& The agreement provided for the
division of the estate into four e2ual parts among the
parties& They then presented the e*tra.udicial
settlement agreement to the trial court for approval&
Three years later, 7tty& 1ulpicio Palma discovered a
document entitled =L7T7PU17# #?7
P7?@U@UL7T,7# (Testamento),= dated :anuary
0,'();, and purporting to be the last $ill and
testament of 7driana& %t
1ignificantly, the appellate court $hile finding as
inconclusive the matter on $hether or not the
document or papers allegedly burned by the
househelp of 7driana, ?uadalupe Maloto Kda& de
oral, upon instructions of the testatri*, $as indeed
the $ill, contradicted itself and found that the $ill had
been revo-ed& The respondent court stated that the
presence of animus revocandi in the destruction of
the $ill had, nevertheless, been sufficiently proven&
The appellate court based its finding on the facts
that the document $as not in the t$o safes in
7drianaGs residence, by the testatri* going to the
residence of 7tty& +ervas to retrieve a copy of the
$ill left in the latterGs possession, and, her see-ing
the services of 7tty& Palma in order to have a ne$
$ill dra$n up&
ISSUE'
5hether or not the $ill $as revo-ed by 7driana&
*ELD'
%t is clear that the physical act of destruction of a $ill,
li-e burning in this case, does not per se constitute
an effective revocation, unless the destruction is
coupled $ith animus revocandi on the part of the
testator& %t is not imperative that the physical
destruction be done by the testator himself& %t may
be performed by another person but under the
e*press direction and in the presence of the testator&
4f course, it goes $ithout saying that the document
destroyed must be the $ill itself&
%n this case, $hile animus revocandi or the intention
to revo-e, may be conceded, for that is a state of
mind, yet that re2uisite alone $ould not suffice&
=7nimus revocandi is only one of the necessary
elements for the effective revocation of a last $ill
and testament& The intention to revo-e must be
accompanied by the overt physical act of burning,
tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the $ill carried out
by the testator or by another person in his presence
and under his e*press direction& There is paucity of
evidence to sho$ compliance $ith these
re2uirements& "or one, the document or papers
burned by 7drianaGs maid, ?uadalupe, $as not
satisfactorily established to be a $ill at all, much less
the $ill of 7driana Maloto& "or another, the burning
$as not proven to have been done under the
e*press direction of 7driana& 7nd then, the burning
$as not in her presence& @oth $itnesses, ?uadalupe
and Jladio, $ere one in stating that they $ere the
only ones present at the place $here the stove
(presumably in the -itchen) $as located in $hich the
papers proffered as a $ill $ere burned& #o$here in
the records before us does it appear that the t$o
$itnesses, ?uadalupe Kda& de orral and Jladio
%tchon, both illiterates, $ere une2uivocably positive
that the document burned $as indeed 7drianaGs $ill&
?uadalupe, $e thin-, believed that the papers she
destroyed $as the $ill only because, according to
her, 7driana told her so& Jladio, on the other hand,
obtained his information that the burned document
$as the $ill because ?uadalupe told him so, thus,
his testimony on this point is double hearsay&
##<) Mo.o 34. Mo.o
9? P*IL 3/
FACTS'
The deceased died leaving no forced heir in the
descending or ascending line, ho$ever he $as
survived by his $eife and and his nieces and
nephe$s $ho $ere the legitimate children of his
deceased brother, during his lifetime he e*ecuted
t$o $ills, one e*ecuted at '('< and the subse2uent
one in '(0(& The latter $ill contains a clause $hich
revo-es the $ill in '('<& The said $ill containing the
clause revo-ing the previous $ill, ho$ever, $as
disallo$ed&
ISSUE'
5hether the previous $ill $as annulled even if the
subse2uent $ill, $ith revo-ing clause, $as
disallo$ed&
*ELD'
7 subse2uent $ill containing a clause revo-ing a
previous $ill, having been disallo$ed for the reason
that it $as not e*ecuted in conformity $ith the
provisions of section 8'< of the ode of ivil
Procedure as to ma-ing of $ills, cannot produce the
effect of annulling the previous $ill, inasmuch as
said revocatory clause is void
EE&-!%,o o0 +,..4
##9) To.&%,o 3 Fra-,4-o
$/ P*IL /49
FACTS'
?regorio Tolentino had been married to @enita
"rancisco, but she predeceased him years ago& The
pair had no children $ith a number of his $ifeDs -in
as survivors& +o$ever, strained relations, resulting
from grave disagreements, developed bet$een
Tolentino and the "rancisco relations and he
determined to ma-e a ne$ $ill in $hich, apart from
certain legacies in favor of a fe$ individuals, the bul-
of his estate, $orth probably about P'5;,;;;, should
be given to 7delaida Tolentino de oncepcion, as his
universal heir&
To this end, Tolentino $ent to the office of Jduardo
?utierre6 Repide, an attorney and informed him that
he $anted to ma-e a ne$ $ill and desired Repide to
draft it for him& 7fter the necessary preliminary
in2uiries had been made, the attorney suggested to
him to bring a copy of the $ill previously made $hich
$as reduced to itsproper form& 7s the instrument
$as ta-ing shape Tolentino stated that he $anted
the $ill to be signed in RepideGs office, $ith the latter
as one of the attesting $itnesses& "or the other t$o
$itnesses Tolentino re2uested that t$o attorneys
attached to the office, namely, Leoncio @& Mon6on
and Ramon L& 1unico, should serve&
5hen the instrument had been reduced to proper
form, changes $ere made by Tolentino $ith regards
to the attesting $itnesses& Pursuant to these
instructions Repide made the desired changes in the
$ill and .ust before t$elve oGcloc- noon of the ne*t
day Tolentino returned to RepideGs office and
received from him the criminal document $ith a
carbon copy thereof& Repide advised the testator
that the copy should be e*ecuted $ith the same
formality as the original in order that the intention of
the testator should not be frustrated by the possible
loss or destruction of the original&la$phil&net%t is a
custom in the office of Repide not to number the
consecutive pages of a $ill, on the type$riting
machine, the duty of numbering the pages being left
to the testator himself&
Tolentino thereupon dre$ t$o documents from his
poc-et saving that it $as his last $ill and testament,
done in duplicate, and he proceeded to read the
original to the $itnesses& 7fter this had been
completed, Legarda himself too- the $ill in hand and
read it himself& +e then returned it to Tolentino, $ho
thereupon proceeded, $ith pen and in-, to number
the pages of the $ill thus, =Pagina Primera=, =Pagina
1egunda=, etc& +e then paged the duplicate copy of
the $ill in the same $ay& +e ne*t proceeded to sign
the original $ill and each of its pages by $riting his
name =?& Tolentino= in the proper places& "ollo$ing
this, each of the three $itnesses signed their o$n
respective names at the end of the $ill, at the end of
the attesting clause, and in the left margin of each
page of the instrument& !uring this ceremony all of
the persons concerned in the act of attestation $ere
present together, and all fully advertent to the
solemnity that engaged their attention&
7fter preliminary e*planations had been made,
Tolentino re2uested Repide to -eep the $ill
overnight in his safe, %n this connection the testator
stated that he did not $ish to ta-e the $ill to his
home, as he -ne$ that his relatives $ere $atching
him and $ould ta-e advantage of any carelessness
on his part to pry into his papers&
4n the morning of #ovember (, '(0;, ?regorio
Tolentino $as found dead in his bed, having
perished by the hands of an assassin&
ISSUE'
5hether the $ill $as e*ecuted and attested in the
manner re2uired by la$
*ELD'
The peculiarity of this case is that, upon the trial of
this proceeding for the probate of the $ill of the
decedent, t$o of the attesting $itnesses, :ose
1yyap and Kergel de !ios, repudiated their
participation in the e*ecution of the $ill at the time
and place stated> and $hile admitting the
genuineness of their signatures to the $ill, pretended
that they had severally signed the instrument, at the
re2uest of the testator, at different places& Thus
1yyap, testifying as a $itness, claimed that the
testator brought the $ill to 1yyapGs house on the
afternoon of 4ctober /' a time, be it remembered,
$hen the $ill had not yet left the hands of the
draftsman and upon learning that 1yyap could not
be present at the time and place then being
arranged for the e*ecution of the $ill, he re2uested
1yyap, as a mere matter of complaisance, to sign
the $ill then, $hich 1yyap did& Kergel de !ios has
another story to tell of isolated action, claiming that
he signed the $ill in the evening of 4ctober // at the
+ospital of 1an :uan de !ios in %ntramuros&
5e are unable to give any credence to the testimony
of these t$o $itnesses on this point, the same being
an evident fabrication designed for the purpose of
defeating the $ill& %n the first place, the affirmative
proof sho$ing that the $ill $as properly e*ecuted is
ade2uate, consistent, and convincing, consisting of
the testimony of the third attesting $itness, Kicente
Legarda, corroborated by Miguel Legarda and
Urbana Rivera, t$o disinterested individuals,
employees of La Previsora "ilipina, $ho $ere
present in LegardaGs office $hen the $ill $as
e*ecuted and $ho lent a discerning attention to $hat
$as being done& %n the second place, each of the
seven signatures affi*ed to his $ill by 1yyap appear
to the natural eye to have been made by using the
same pen and in- that $as used by Legarda in
signing the $ill& The same is also probably true of
the seven signatures made by Kergel de !ios& This
could hardly have happened if the signatures of
1yyap and Kergel de !ios had been affi*ed, as they
no$ pretend, at different times and places& %n the
third place, @oth 1yyap and Kergel de !ios are
impeached by proof of contradictory statements
made by them on different occasions prior to their
appearance as $itnesses in this case& %n this
connection $e note that, after the murder of
?regorio Tolentino, and $hile the police authorities
$ere investigating his death, #emesio 7lfere6, a
detective, sent for 1yyap and 2uestioned him
concerning his relations $ith the deceased& Upon
this occasion 1yyap stated that ?regorio Tolentino
had lately made a $ill, that it had been e*ecuted at
the office of La Previsora "ilipina under the
circumstances already stated, and that he himself
had served as one of the attesting $itnesses&
These circumstances and other incidents revealed in
the proof leave no room for doubt in our mind that
1yyap and Kergel de !ios have entered into a
conspiracy bet$een themselves, and in concert $ith
the opponents, to defeat the $ill of ?regorio
Tolentino although they are $ell a$are that said $ill
$as in all respects properly e*ecuted> and the trial
court, in our opinion, committed no error in admitting
the $ill to probate&
5hen a $ill is contested it is the duty of the
proponent to call all of the attesting $itnesses, if
available but the validity of the $ill in no $ise
depends upon the united support of the $ill by all of
those $itnesses& 7 $ill may be admitted to probate
not$ithstanding the fact that one or more of the
subscribing $itnesses do not unite $ith the other, or
others, in proving all the facts upon $hich the validity
of the $ill rests& ("ernande6 vs& Tantoco, )( Phil&,
0<;&) %t is sufficient if the court is satisfied from all
the proof that the $ill $as e*ecuted and attested in
the manner re2uired by la$& %n this case $e feel $ell
assured that the contested $ill $as properly
e*ecuted and the order admitting to it probate $as
entirely proper&
SUCCESSION H Pro;a%& o0 +,..4
#3?) M&r-a2o 34. Sa%o4
$/ P1,.. /49
FACTS'
Petitioner Mercado applied for the probate of the $ill
of his deceased $ife& There $as no opposition to it&
The court then admitted the $ill to probate& 7fter
more than a year, the relatives of his $ife filed a
complaint against Mercado on the ground of
falsifaction or forgery of the $ill probated& 7 motion
to 2uash $as filed by Mercado stating that the $ill
has already been admitted to probate& %t is therefore
conclusively presumed to be genuine&
RTF "or respondent& Motion denied&
7F 7ffirms RT&
ISSUE'
5hether the $ill is can be presumed to be genuine3
*ELD' Ees, it is&
7 criminal action for falsification of $ill, $ill not lie
after its admission to probate& This is the effect of
the probate of a $ill&
The probate of a $ill in this .urisdiction is a
proceeding in rem& The provision of notice by
publication as a prere2uisite to the allo$ance of a
$ill is constructive notice to the $hole $orld, and
$hen probate is granted, the .udgment of the court is
binding upon everybody, even against the 1tate&
The probate of a $ill by the probate court having
.urisdiction thereof is considered as conclusive as to
its due e*ecution and validity, and is also conclusive
that the testator $as of sound and disposing mind at
the time $hen he e*ecuted the $ill, and $as not
acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue
influence, and that the $ill is genuine and not a
forgery&
The $ill in 2uestion having been probated by a
competent court, the la$ $ill not admit any proof to
overthro$ the legal presumption that it is not a
forgery&
7 criminal action $ill not lie against a forger of a $ill
$hich had been duly admitted to probate by a court
of competent .urisdiction in vie$ of the provisions of
sections 0;8, 000, and 8/5 of the ode of ivil
Procedure&
#31) T&4%a%& E4%a%& o0 B,a4-a 34. B,a4-a
34/ SCRA 6#1
FACTS'
%n '(95, respondent Rosalina @iascon filed a petition
for her appointment as the administratri* of the
intestate estate of "lorencio @iascan and Timotea
Qulueta& The court issued an order appointing her as
the regular administrator& Maria @iascon $as the
legal $ife of "lorencio and filed an opposition to the
appointment& 4n 7pril /, '(<', the court issued an
order resolving that Maria as legal $ife, and
Rosalina and her brother as the natural children of
"lorencio, are the legal heirs of the deceased and
upheld the appointment of Rosalina as the
administratri*& 4n :une 8, '(<' or 5< days after the
receipt of the 4rder, Maria filed her M"R& 4n
#ovember '5, '(<', the fourth floor of the ity +all
of Manila $as completely gutted by fire& The records
of the settlement proceedings $ere among those
lost in the fire& Thus, on :anuary /, '(<5, private
respondent filed a Petition for Reconstitution of the
said records& !ue to the delay caused by the fire and
the reconstitution of the records, it $as only on 7pril
0;, '(<5 that the RT issued an 4rder denying
MariaDs :une 8, '(<' M"R& 1ometime thereafter,
Maria died and her la$yer 7tty& Lope6 $as appointed
as interim special administrator& #otice of this 7pril
0;, '(<5 4rder allegedly came to the attention of
MariaDs la$yer only on 7ugust /', '((8& +er la$yers
thereafter filed a #otice of 7ppeal and Record of
7ppeal on 1eptember /;, '((8& The T issued an
order denying the appeal on the ground that it $as
filed out of time& 7 petition for certiorari $as filed $ith
the 7 $hich $as li-e$ise denied&
ISSUE'
5hether the appeal $as filed on time3
*ELD'
#o, it $as not&
1ection '& Rule ';( of the RR4 enumerates the
orders and .udgments in special proceedings $hich
may be the sub.ect of an appeal& 7n appeal is
allo$ed in these cases as these orders, decrees or
.udgments issued by a court in a special proceeding
constitute a final determination of the rights of the
parties so appealing& The ruling of the T that Maria,
Rosalina and her brother $ere entitled to participate
in the settlement proceedings falls s2uarely under
paragraph b of section ', Rule ';( as the proper
sub.ect of appeal& @y so ruling, the T has
effectively determined that the three persons are the
la$ful heirs of the deceased& 7s such, the same may
be the proper sub.ect of an appeal&
1imilarly, the ruling of the T denying MariaDs motion
to set aside the order appointing Rosalina as the
regular administratri* of the estate of "lorencio
@iascan is li-e$ise a proper sub.ect of appeal& The
order of the T appointing a regular administrator of
a deceased personDs estate is a final determination
of the rights of the parties thereunder and is thus
appealable& This is in contrast $ith an order
appointing a special administrator $hich is appointed
only for a limited time and for a specific purpose&
@ecause of the temporary character and special
character of this appointment, the Rules deem it not
advisable for any party to appeal from said
temporary appointment&
%t is thus clear that the 4rder dated 7pril /, '(<' may
be the proper sub.ect of an appeal in a special
proceeding& %n special proceedings, the period of
appeal from any decision or final order rendered
therein is thirty days& The appeal period may only be
interrupted by the filing of a motion for a ne$ trial or
reconsideration& 4nce the appeal period e*pires
$ithout an appeal or a M"R or ne$ trial being
perfected, the decision or order becomes final&
onsidering that this $as only on :une 8, '(<' or a
full 5< days after the receipt of the order that the
M"R $as filed, it is clear that the same $as filed out
of time& There $as no more appeal period to
interrupt as the 4rder had already become final&
%t is $ell settled that .udgments or orders become
final and e*ecutory by operation of la$ and not by
.udicial declaration& Thus, finality of a .udgment
becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary
period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or M"R or
ne$ trial is filed& The T need not even pronounce
the finality of the order as the same becomes final by
operation of la$& @eing final and e*ecutory, the T
can no longer alter, modify or reverse the 2uestioned
order& The subse2uent filing of the M"R cannot
disturb the finality of the .udgment order&
The 4rder of the trial court denying petitionerDs
Motion for Reconsideration of the 7pril /, '(<' 4rder
$as issued on 7pril 0;, '(<5& 7llegedly, petitioner
$as only made a$are of this 7pril 0;, '(<5 4rder on
7ugust /', '((8 $hen it in2uired from the trial court
about the status of the case& ?iving petitioner the
benefit of the doubt that it had indeed received
notice of the order denying its motion for
reconsideration on 7ugust /', '((8, it follo$s that
petitioner only had until the follo$ing day or on
7ugust //, '((8 $ithin $hich to perfect the appeal&
7t this point, $e note $ith disapproval petitionerDs
attempt to pass off its #otice of 7ppeal as having
been filed on 7ugust //, '((8& %n all its pleadings
before this ourt and the ourt of 7ppeals, petitioner
insists that its #otice of 7ppeal $as filed the day
after it secured the 7ugust /', '((8 ertification
from the trial court& 5hile the #otice of 7ppeal $as
ostensibly dated 7ugust //, '((8, it is clear from the
stamp of the trial court that the same $as received
only on 1eptember /;, '((8& Moreover, in the 4rder
dated 4ctober //, '((8 of the trial court denying
petitionerDs appeal, the court clearly stated that the
#otice of 7ppeal $ith accompanying Record on
7ppeal $as filed on 1eptember /;, '((8&
onsidering that it is clear from the records that
petitionerDs notice of appeal $as filed on 1eptember
/;, '((8, the same $as clearly filed out of time as it
only had until 7ugust //, '((8 $ithin $hich to file the
said pleading&
#3#) N!6!,2 34. N!6!,2,
1/ SCRA 449
FACTS'
Rosario #uguid died and $as survived by her
parents, brothers and sisters& Petitioner Remedios,
her sister, filed for the probate of her holographic $ill
a year after her death& Remedios $as instituted as
the universal heir in the said $ill& The parents
opposed this, claiming that they $ere preterited by
the institution of Remedios as the sole heir thereby
invalidating the $ill& The trial court declared the $ill
to be a complete nullity and therefore creating an
intestacy of the estate of Rosario&
ISSUE'
5hether the parents $ere preterited creating
intestacy of RosarioDs estate3
*ELD'
Ees, they $ere&
%n a proceeding for the probate of a $ill, the courtDs
area of in2uiry is limited to an e*amination of, and
resolution on, the e*trinsic validity of the $ill> the due
e*ecution thereof> the testatri*Ds testamentary
capacity> and the compliance $ith the re2uisites or
solemnities prescribed by la$& %n the case at bar
ho$ever, a peculiar situation e*ists& The parties
shunned aside the 2uestion of $hether or not the $ill
should be allo$ed probate& They 2uestioned the
intrinsic validity of the $ill& #ormally, this comes only
after the court has declared that the $ill has been
duly authenticated& @ut if the case $ere to be
remanded for probate of the $ill, nothing $ill be
gained& %n the event of probate or if the court re.ects
the $ill, the probability e*ists that the case $ill come
up once again before the court on the same issue of
the instrinsic validity of or nullity of the $ill& The
result $ould be a $aste of time, effort, e*pense, plus
added an*iety& These practical considerations
induce the 1 to meet head,on the issue of the
nullity of the provisions of the $ill in 2uestion, there
being a .usticiable controversy&
The deceased left no descendants, legitimate or
illegitimate& @ut she left forced heirs in the direct
ascending line, her parents& +er $ill does not
e*plicitly disinherit them but simply omits their
names altogether& 1aid $ill rather than be labeled
ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in $hich the
said forced heirs suffer from preterition& There is no
other provision in the $ill e*cept the institution of
Remedios as the universal heir& 1uch institution by
itself is null and void and, intestate succession
ensues& The disputed order declares the $ill in
2uestion [a complete nullityD& 7rticle <5) of the ivil
ode in turn merely nullifies [the institution of the
heirD& The $ill ho$ever, provides for the institution of
the petitioner as the universal heir and nothing more&
The result is the same& The entire $ill is null&
Preterition [consists in the omission in the testatorDs
$ill of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either
because they are not mentioned therein or though
mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor
are e*pressly disinherited&D !isinheritance in turn [is
a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory
heir of his share in the legitime for a cause
authori6ed by la$&D The effects flo$ing from
preterition are totally different form those of
disinheritance& Preterition under 7rticle <5) [shall
annul the institution of an heir& This annulment is in
toto, unless in the $ill there are, in addition,
testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or
legacies& %n ineffective disinheritance under 7rticle
('<, such disinheritance shall also annul the
institution of the heirs but only insofar as it may
pre.udice the person disinherited, $hich last phrase
$as omitted in the case of preterition& %n
disinheritance, the nullity is limited to that portion of
the estate of $hich the disinherited heirs have been
illegally deprived&
#33) Ca,Ia 34. CA
#6< SCRA 641
FACTS'
ani6a $as () years old and $as declared
incompetent because of her advanced years& 1he
$as represented in this case by Jvangelista, her
guardian& ani6a previously allo$ed the spouses
and their relatives to occupy the house $ithout
paying any rent out of the goodness of her heart&
+o$ever, she needed money for her support,
maintenance and medical treatment& 7 demand by
Jvangelista $as made on the JstradaDs to vacate
the house but refused contending that they $ould
inherit the house as stated in ani6aDs holographic
$ill& Jvangelista then moved to e.ect the spouses
from the premises& The MetT ruled in favor of
ani6a $hich $as reversed by the RT on the
ground that the =action by $hich the issue of
defendantsG possession should be resolved is accion
publiciana, the obtaining factual and legal situation \\
demanding ad.udication by such plenary action for
recovery of possession cogni6able in the first
instance by the Regional Trial ourt&= This $as
affirmed by the 7& ani6a died during the
pendency of the appeal&
ISSUE'
5hether the JstradaDs may rightfully claim the
property through the holographic $ill3
*ELD'
#o, they cannot&
%t is settled that in an action for unla$ful detainer, it
suffices to allege that the defendant is unla$fully
$ithholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed
sufficient, and a complaint for unla$ful detainer is
sufficient if it alleges that the $ithholding of
possession or the refusal to vacate is unla$ful
$ithout necessarily employing the terminology of the
la$& The only issue that could legitimately be raised
under the circumstances $as that involving the
JstradaDs possession by tolerance, i&e&, possession
de facto, not de .ure& %t is therefore incorrect to
postulate that the proper remedy for aSi6a is not
e.ectment but accion publiciana, a plenary action in
the RT or an action that is one for recovery of the
right to possession de .ure&
The JstradaDs possession of the house stemmed
from the o$nerDs e*press permission& That
permission $as subse2uently $ithdra$n by the
o$ner, as $as her right> and it is immaterial that the
$ithdra$al $as made through her .udicial guardian,
the latter being indisputably clothed $ith authority to
do so& #or is it of any conse2uence that ani6a
e*ecuted a $ill be2ueathing the disputed property to
the Jstradas, that circumstance did not give them
the right to stay on the premises after demand to
vacate on the theory that they might in the future
become o$ners thereof& The JstradaDs right of
o$nership being at best inchoate, no transfer of
o$nership being possible unless and until the $ill is
duly probated& Prior to the probate of the $ill, any
assertion of possession by them $ould be premature
and inefficacious&
7 $ill is essentially ambulatory> at any time prior to
the testatorGs death, it may be changed or revo-ed>
and until admitted to probate, it has no effect
$hatever and no right can be claimed thereunder,
the la$ being 2uite e*plicitF =#o $ill shall pass either
real or personal property unless it is proved and
allo$ed in accordance $ith the Rules of ourt&= 7n
o$nerGs intention to confer title in the future to
persons possessing property by his tolerance, is not
inconsistent $ith the formerGs ta-ing bac-
possession in the meantime for any reason deemed
sufficient& 7nd that in this case there $as sufficient
cause for the o$nerGs resumption of possession is
apparentF she needed to generate income from the
house on account of the physical infirmities afflicting
her, arising from her e*treme age&
5hile it is indeed $ell,established rule that the
relationship of guardian and $ard is necessarily
terminated by the death of either the guardian or the
$ard, the rule affords no advantage to the Jstradas&
7mparo Jvangelista, as niece of armen aSi6a, is
one of the latterGs only t$o (/) surviving heirs, the
other being aSi6aGs nephe$, Ramon & #evado&
4n their motion and by Resolution of this ourt of
:une /;, '((), they $ere in fact substituted as
parties in the appeal at bar in place of the deceased,
in accordance $ith 1ection '9, Rule 0 of the Rules
of ourt& The heirs of the deceased may be allo$ed
to be substituted for the deceased, $ithout re2uiring
the appointment of an e*ecutor or administrator and
the court may appoint guardian ad litem for the
minor heirs& To be sure, an e.ectment case survives
the death of a party& aSi6aGs demise did not
e*tinguish the desahucio suit instituted by her
through her guardian& That action, not being a purely
personal one, survived her death> her heirs have
ta-en her place and no$ represent her interests in
the appeal at bar&
#34) PECSON (S. AGUSTIN CORONEL
G.R. No. L-#?3/4, 11 O-%o;&r 19#3
FACTS'
!ecedent !olores oronel died testate and $ithout
issue& 1he appointed as sole heir her nephe$,
Loren6o Pecson, $ife of her niece 7ngela oronel,
for the services he rendered for the decedent& +e
$as also appointed as e*ecutor thereof, and in his
absence, decedentDs grandson Kincent Pecson& 7s
she cannot read and $rite, he as-ed Kicente
"rancisco to $rite the $ill and sign it in her behalf& %n
the attestation clause, it stated that the $ill $as
signed by Beach of (the) u& &i)ne% the&e 're&ent&
in the 're&ence of other& an% of the te&tatri-...C
!ecedentDs relatives opposed the probate of the $ill,
contending that the $ill could not be valid because
first, it is not natural in our culture to e*clude a
personDs blood relatives from her vast estate and
hence at most, the decedent merely intended to
appoint Loren6o as e*ecutor> and second, that the
attestation clause failed to comply $ith the
provisions of 1ection 8'< of the ode of ivil
Procedure, as amended by 7ct #o& /8)5&
ISSUES'
'& 5hether or not the relativesD e*clusion in the
$ill amounts to preterition3
/& 5hether or not the defect in the attestation
clause invalidates the $ill3
RULINGS'
Fi-st iss5e: Relatives( E6.l5si*n f-*7 t1e 2ill
Their e*clusion in the $ill does not amount to
preterition& The liberty to dispose of oneDs estate by
$ill $hen there are no forced heirs is rendered
sacred by the ivil ode in force in the Philippines
since '<<( $hich providesF An* 'er&on who ha& no
force% heir& a* %i&'o&e ,* wi"" a"" of hi& 'ro'ert* or
an* 'art of it in favour of an* 'er&on >ua"ifie% to
ac>uire it. The preference given to Loren6o is not
purely arbitrary, nor a caprice or $him of the moment
as there $as sufficient proof that Loren6o indeed
rendered services for the decedent even prior to
'('), and $as the decedentDs administrator and
manager of her affairs in the last years of her life&
Se.*nd iss5e: Defe.t in t1e Attestati*n Cla5se
1ection 8'< of the ivil ode of Procedure provides
thatF The atte&tation &ha"" &tate the nu,er of &heet&
or 'a)e& u&e%, u'onwhich the wi"" i& written, an% the
fact that the te&tator &i)ne% the wi"" in each an%
ever* 'a)e thereof, or cau&e% &oe other 'er&on to
write hi& nae, un%er hi& e-'re&& %irection, in the
're&ence of three witne&&e&, an% the "atter
witne&&e% an% &i)ne% the wi"" an% a"" the 'a)e&
thereof in the p-esen.e *f t1e testat*- and *f ea.1
*t1e-.C +o$ever, the attestation clause of the
decedentDs $ill stated that it $as signed in the
Bpresence of others&C %n resolving the same, the
ourt relied on in its decision in %n Re 5ill of
7bangan $hereby it ruled that the ob.ect of
solemnities surrounding the e*ecution of $ills is to
close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of $ills and testaments and to guarantee
their truth and authenticity& +ence, the la$s on this
sub.ect should be interpreted in such a $ay as to
attain these primordial ends& +o$ever, one must not
lose sight of the fact that it is not the ob.ect of the
la$ to restrain and curtail the e*ercise of the right to
ma-e a $ill& 1o $hen an interpretation already given
assures such ends, any other interpretation
$hatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more
re2uisite entirely unnecessary, useless and
frustrative of the testatorDs $ill, must be disregarded&
The phrase is then construed to mean as Bof the
otherC and is a mere grammatical error& ?rammatical
or clerical errors are not usually considered of vital
importance $hen the intention is manifest in the $ill&
#3$) ACAIN (S. IAC
G.R. No. /#/?6, #/ O-%o;&r 19</
FACTS'
#emesio 7cain died testate, leaving the
follo$ing as heirsF his $ife Rosa !iongson Kda& de
7cain, his legally adopted daughter Kirginia
"ernande6, and his nephe$s and nieces from his
brother 1egundo 7cain& %n his $ill, he be2ueathed all
of his property to 1egundo, and in case the latter
predecease him, all his property $ill pass on to
1egundoDs children& 7s 1egundo predeceased
#emesio, the formerDs children moved for the
probate of the $ill& #emesioDs $ido$ and daughter
filed a motion to dismiss, contending that they $ere
preterited& The trial court denied their motion& 4n
appeal, the %7 reversed and ordered the trial court
to dismiss the probate of the $ill&
ISSUE'
5hether or not Rosa and Kirginia had been
preterited3
RULING'
Ees& 7rticle <5) of the ivil ode provides
thatF The 'reterition or oi&&ion of one, &oe, or a""
of the co'u"&or* heir& in the %irect "ine, whether
"ivin) at the tie of e-ecution of the wi"" or ,orn after
the %eath of the te&tator, &ha"" annu" the in&titution of
the heir; ,ut the %evi&e&e an% "e)acie& &ha"" ,e va"i%
in&ofar a& the* are not inofficiou&. If the oitte%
co'u"&or* heir &hou"% %ie ,efore the te&tator, the
in&titution &ha"" ,e effectua", without 're.u%ice to the
ri)ht of re're&entation.
Preterition consists in the omission in the testatorDs
$ill of the forced heirs or anyone of them either
because they are not mentioned therein , or even
though mentioned, they are neither instituted as
heirs nor are e*pressly disinherited& Preterition
annuls the institution of an heir and annulment
thro$s open to intestate succession the entire
inheritance, e*cept those legacies and devices,
unless it impairs the legitime of the heirs&
%n the case of Rosa, preterition shall not
apply as she does not ascend nor descend from the
testator, although she is a compulsory heir& There is
no preterition because she is not in the direct line&
+o$ever, in the case of Kirginia, preterition applies
because as a legal adoptee, she is vested $ith the
same rights and duties as that of a legitimate child of
the adopter and ma-es the adoptee the legal heir of
the adopter&
The universal institution of the petitioner and
his siblings to the entire inheritance of the testator
results in totally abrogating the $ill because the
nullification of such institution of universal heirs,
$ithout any other testamentary disposition in the $ill,
amounts to a declaration that nothing at all $as
$ritten&
#36) NERI (S. ACUTIN
G.R. No. L-4//99, 13 J!& 1941
FACTS'
7gripino #eri died on '/ !ecember '(0'
leaving 8 children from his first $ife, and 5 children
from his second $ife %gnacia 7-utin& %n his $ill, he
stated that his children by the first marriage shall
have no longer any participation in his estate as they
had already received their corresponding shares
during his lifetime& +o$ever, during the hearing for
declaration of heirs, the court found that contrary to
$hat 7gripino declared in his $ill, that all his children
by the first and second marriages are intestate heirs
of the deceased $ithout pre.udice to one,half of the
improvements introduced in the properties during the
e*istence of the last con.ugal partnership $hich
should belong to %gnacia 7-utin& The ourt of
7ppeals modified the decision and ruled that the $ill
$as valid $ith respect to the t$o,thirds part $hich
the testator can freely dispose of&
ISSUE'
5hether or not the omission of the children
by the first $ife annuls the institution of the children
by the second $ife as sole heirs of the testator3
RULING'
Ees& Preterition consists in the omission in
the testatorDs $ill of the forced heirs or anyone of
them, either because they are not mentioned
therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither
instituted as heirs nor are e*pressly disinherited& %n
this case, $hile the children of the first marriage
$ere mentioned in the $ill, they $ere not accorded
any share in the hereditary property, $ithout
e*pressly being disinherited& The omission of a
forced heir or anyone of them, $hether voluntary or
involuntary, is a preterition if the purpose to disinherit
is not e*pressly made or is not at least manifest&
J*cept as to Blegacies and devisesC $hich shall
remain valid insofar as they are not officious,
preterition avoids the institution of heirs and gives
rise to intestate succession& The $ill in this case,
there being no legacies or devises, is void&
#3/) (IADO NON (S. CA
G.R. No. 13/#</, 1$ F&;r!ar" #???
FACTS'
1pouses :ulian and Kirginia Kiado o$ned,
among others, a house and lot pertained to as the
%sarog property& Kirginia died on /; 4ctober '(</,
follo$ed by :ulian 0 years later& Left as heirs $ere
their children namelyF Rebecca Kiado #on, !elia
Kiado, #ilo Kiado, and Leah Kiado :acobs& @oth #ilo
and Leah died on // 7pril '(<9& #ilo left as heirs his
$ife 7licia and their / children&
The children of spouses Kiado lived in the
%sarog property together $ith #iloDs $ido$ and
children& +o$ever, a dispute arose $hen Rebecca
Kiado #on as-ed that the property be divided
e2ually bet$een the / families to ma-e room for
their gro$ing children& #iloDs $ife and children
claimed absolute o$nership over the property
evidence by a deed of donation e*ecuted by :ulian
in favour of #ilo, covering his M con.ugal share, and
a deed of e*tra.udicial partition settlement in $hich
:ulian, Leah, and Rebecca $aived in favour of #ilo
all their interests and rights over their share of the
property inherited from Kirginia& @oth documents
$ere registered 5 years after its e*ecution, and a
ne$ TT is issued by the Register of !eeds in #iloDs
favor&
Petitioner Rebecca contends that !elia
Kiado, their retardate sister, $as not part of the
e*tra.udicial settlement, and hence amounts to
preterition $hich should invalidate the settlement&
@oth the trial court and 7 ruled in favor of #iloDs
$ife and children& +ence this appeal&
ISSUE'
5hether or not !eliaDs e*clusion from the
e*tra.udicial settlement amounts to preterition3
RULING'
Ees& +o$ever, in the absence of bad faith
and fraud, 7rticle '';) of the ivil ode must apply
$hich, in essence, provides that $here the
preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud, the
partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir
shall be paid the value of the share pertaining to her&
#3<) PERE= (S. GARC*ITORENA
G.R. No. L-31/?3, 13 F&;r!ar" 193?
FACTS'
7na Maria 7lcantara died testate& The
pertinent provisions of her $ill are as follo$sF
#%#T+& @eing single and $ithout forced heir, to sho$
my gratitude to my niece,in,la$, armen
?architorena, of age, married to my nephe$,
:oa2uin Pere6 7lcantara *** as my sole and
universal heiress to the remainder of my estate ***
TJ#T+& 1hould my heiress armen ?architorena
dies, % order that my $hole estate shall passu
unimpaired to her surviving children> and should any
of these die, his share shall serve to increase the
portions of his surviving brothers (and sisters) by
accretion, *** the estate shall never pass out of the
hands of my heiress or her children insofar as it is
legally permissible&
7mong 7na MariaDs properties is a deposit
amounting to Php /',)/<&/0 $ith La Urbana&
Mariano ?architorena held a .udgment for Php 9,
<9/&/0 against :oa2uin, armenDs husband& +e
attached the La Urbana deposit to satisfy his claims&
armen secured an in.unction restraining the
e*ecution&
?architorena contends that the same can be
levied because armen is a universal heiress&
armen contends that the deposit belongs to
armenDs children as fideicommissary heirs of 7na
Maria&
ISSUE'
5hether or not the instant case is a
fideicommissary substitution3
RULING' Ees& Manresa provides 0 re2uisites for
fideicommissaryF
'& "irst heir called primarily to the en.oyment of
the estate>
/& 7n obligation clearly imposed upon him to
preserve and transmit to a 0
rd
person the $hole or a
part of the estate>
0& 1econd heir&
7pplying the foregoing to the case, armen $as
called to the en.oyment of the estate according to
the (
th
clause of the $ill& lause ';
th
$hich provides
that the B$hole estate shall pass unimpaired to her
(armenDs) surviving children,C thus, instead of
leaving armen at liberty to dispose of the estate by
$ill, or by living the la$ to ta-e its course in case she
dies intestate, the said clause not only disposes of
the estate in favour of the disposition thereof in case
she should die after the testatri*& The children of
armen are referred to as second heirs& +ence, the
deposit does not belong to armen as her absolute
property, but also to her children, from the moment
of death of 7na Maria& %t cannot be attached by
Mariano&
#39) RABADILLA (S. CA
G.R. No. 113/#$, #9 J!& #???
FACTS'
7le.andra @elle6a e*ecuted a odicil ma-ing :orge
Rabadilla as her heir& The odicil provides that she
is be2ueathing #o& '0(/ of the @acolod adastre
and that should !r& Rabadilla predecease her, the lot
$ill go to his $ife and children& 1he also stated that it
shall be !r& RabadillaDs obligation to deliver in favour
of Marlina oscolluela 95 piculs of J*port sugar and
05 piculs of domestic sugar, until MarlinaDs death& %n
case of !r& RabadillaDs death, his heir shall fulfil such
obligation& %n the event that !r& Rabadilla or his heirs
shall later sell, lease, mortgage the Lot, the buyer,
lessee, mortgagee, shall also have the obligation to
respect and deliver to Marlina yearly ';; piculs of
sugar ever !ecember&
!r& Rabadilla died in '(<0 and $as survived
by his $ife and children& +is son :ohnny is herein
petitioner& Marlina then filed a complaint against the
heirs of !r& Rabadilla for the enforcement of the
odicil& The parties came up $ith a Memorandum of
7greement $hch $as, ho$ever, not complied $ith
by the heirs& The RT dismissed the complaint&
ISSUE'
5hehter or not !r& RabadillaDs institution in
the odicil is in the nature of a modal institution3
RULING'
Ees& 7rticle <</ of the #e$ ivil ode
provides that the statement of the ob.ect of the
institution or the application of the property left by
the testator, or the charge imposed on him, shall not
be considered as a condition unless it appears that
such $as his intention& That $hich has been left in
this manner may be claimed at once provided that
the instituted heir or his heirs give security for
compliance $ith the $ishes of the testator and for
the return of anything he or they may receive,
together $ith its fruits and interests, if he or they
should disregard this obligation& 7rticle <<0 provides
that $hen $ithout the fault of the heir, an institution
referred to in the preceding article cannot ta-e effect
in the e*act manner stated by the testator, it shall be
complied $ith in a manner most analogous to and in
conformity $ith his $ishes&
The institution of an heir in the manner
prescribed in article <</ is -no$n as an in&titucion
&u, o%o or modal substitution& %n a modal
substitution, the testator statesF
'& The ob.ect of the institution>
/& Purpose or application o the property left by
the testator>
0& harge imposed by the testator upon the
heir&
7 [modeD imposes an obligation upon the heir or
legatee but it does not affect the efficscy of his rights
to the succession& %n a conditional testamentary
disposition, the condition must happen or be fulfilled
in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the
testator& The condition suspends but not obligate>
and the mode obligates but does not suspend&
%n this case, 7le.andra intended !r& Rabadilla to
inherit the property& 1he li-e$ise imposed an
obligation on him and to his heirs to deliver ';;
piculs of sugar to Marlina& +o$ever, 7le.andra did
not ma-e !r& RabadillaDs inheritance and effectivity
of his institution as a devisee, dependent on the
performance of the said obligation& 1hould the
obligation be not complied $ith, the property shall be
turned over to 7le.andraDs near descendants& The
institution of !r& Rabadilla is evidently modal in
nature because it imposes a charge upon the
instituted heir $ithout, ho$ever, affecting the efficacy
of such institution& 1ince testamentary dispositions
are generally acts of liberality, an obligation imposed
upon the heirs should not be considered a condition
unless it clearly appears from the 5ill itself that such
$as the intention of the testator& %n case of doubt,
the institution should be considered as modal
institution&
#4?) MORENTE (S. DE LA SANTA
G.R. No. L-3<91, 19 D&-&:;&r 19?/
FACTS'
onsuelo Morente died testate& %n her $ill,
her husbnd ?umersindo de la 1anta $as made sole
heir, sub.ect to the condition that he shall not
remarry, remain to live $ith her brothers, and that
should he have children $ith anyone, the /P0 of the
estate shall remain for her brother Kicente, or the
latterDs children, and the remaining 'P0 is sub.ect to
?umersindoDs disposal&
?umersindo married again ) months after
his $ifeDs death& onsueloDs sister as-ed for the
annulment of the legacy in the $ill on the ground of
remarriage& 1he contends that the mere act off
remarriage of ?umersindo strips him off of his rights
ac2uired from the $ill&
ISSUE'
5hether or not onsuleloDs intention that
?umersindoDs remarriage $ould forfeit the legacy3
RULING'
#o& 7rticle 9(; of the ivil ode provides
that testamentary provisions may be made
confidential and 7rticle 9(< provides that a
prohibition against another marriage may in certain
cases be validly imposed upon the $ido$ or
$ido$er&
%n this case, there $as nothing in the $ill
$hich $ould mean that it $as onsueloDs intention
that ?umersindoDs remarriage $ould strip him of his
rights from the legacy& There is no e*press condition
attached to that legacy in references to the /
nd
marriage, as the $ill simply said he $ill not marry
again& #o condition $as attached in case of non,
compliance&
#41) ROSALES (S. ROSALES
No L-4?/<9, #/ F&;r!ar" 19</
FACTS'
Petra Rosales died intestate, leaving as
heirs her husband "ortunato and their / children&
arterio Rosales, also a child of 1pouses Rosales,
predeceased her, and left as heirs his son
Maci-e2uero* and $ido$ %renea& The estimated
gross value of PetraDs estate $as about Php 0;,
;;;&;;&
Magna Rosales 7cebes, her daughter, filed
for intestate proceedings and $as later on appointed
as administratri*& The court then declared the
follo$ing as PetraDs legal heirs, and their respective
sharesF
'& "ortunato Rosales (husband) N>
/& Magna Rosales 7cebes (daughter) N>
0& Maci-e2uero* Rosales (grandson) N>
)& 7ntonio Rosales (son) N&
%rena appealed, contending that as the surviving
spouse of arterio, she is compulsory heir of Petra
together $ith her son& The court denied her plea&
+ence this petition&
ISSUE'
5hether or not a $ido$ (surviving spouse)
is an intestate heir of her mother,in,la$3
RULING'
#o& %ntestate heirsP legal heirs are divided
into t$oF those $ho ,1&r,% , %1&,r o5 r,61% (as in
the order of intestate succession provided for in the
ivil ode), and those $ho ,1&r,% ;" r,61% o0
r&7r&4&%a%,o as provided in 7rticle (<' of the ivil
ode&
There is nothing in the ivil ode $hich
states that a $ido$ (surviving spouse) is an intestate
heir of her mother,in,la$& The provisions of the ode
$hich relates to intestate succession (7rticles (9< to
';')) enumerate $ith meticulous e*actitude the
intestate heirs of a decedent, $ith the 1tate as the
final intestate heir&
7rticle <<9, from $hich %renea bases her
claim refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in
$hich case the surviving spouse is a compulsory
heir& %t does not apply to the estate of the parent,in,
la$& The surviving spouse is considered as a 0
rd
person as regards the estate of the parent,in,la$&
The estate in this case is that of Petra
Rosales, the mother,in,la$ of %renea& %t is from
PetraDs estate that Maci-e2uero* dra$s a share of
the inheritance by right of representation as provided
in 7rticle (<'& 7rticle (9' e*plicitly declares that
Maci-e2uero* is called to succession by la$
because of his blood relationship& +e does not
succeed his father arterio $ho predeceased his
grandmother, Petra Rosales, but the latter $hom his
father $ould have succeeded& %renea cannot assert
the same right of representation as she has no
filiation by blood $ith her mother,in,la$&
#4#) FRANCISCO vs. FRANCISCO-ALFONSO
G.R. No. 13<//4. Mar-1 <, #??1
FACTSF
Respondent 7ida "rancisco,7lfonso (hereafter 7ida)
is the only daughter of spouses ?regorio "rancisco
and irila de la ru6, $ho are no$ both deceased&
Petitioners, on the other hand, are daughters of the
late ?regorio "rancisco $ith his common la$ $ife
:ulia Mendo6a, $ith $hom he begot seven (9)
children& ?regorio "rancisco (hereafter ?regorio)
o$ned t$o parcels of residential land, situated in
@arangay Lolomboy, @ocaue, @ulacan, covered by
TT #os& T,0/9); and T,''9'8;& 5hen ?regorio
$as confined in a hospital in '((;, he confided to his
daughter 7ida that the certificates of title of his
property $ere in the possession of Regina "rancisco
and Qenaida Pascual&
7fter ?regorio died on :uly /;, '((;, 7ida in2uired
about the certificates of title from her half sisters&
They informed her that ?regorio had sold the land to
them on 7ugust '5, '(<0& 7fter verification, 7ida
learned that there $as indeed a deed of absolute
sale in favor of Regina "rancisco and Qenaida
Pascual& Thus, on 7ugust '5, '(<0, ?regorio
e*ecuted a BLasulatan sa ?anap na @ilihan,
$hereby for P/5,;;;&;;, he sold the t$o parcels of
land to Regina "rancisco and Qenaida Pascual& @y
virtue of the sale, the Register of !eeds of @ulacan
issued TT #o& T,5(&5<5 to Regina "rancisco and
TT T,5(&5<8 to Qenaida Pascual&
4n 7pril ', '((', 7ida filed $ith the Regional Trial
ourt, @ulacan a complaint against petitioners for
annulment of sale $ith damages& 1he alleged that
the signature of her late father, ?regorio "rancisco,
on the Da&u"atan &a Gana' na Bi"ihan dated 7ugust
'5, '(<0, $as a forgery&
%n their .oint ans$er to the complaint, petitioners
denied the alleged forgery or simulation of the deed
of sale& 7fter due proceedings, on :uly /', '((), the
trial court rendered a decision dismissing the
complaint& The ourt of 7ppeals Reversed the
decision of the RT&
ISSUE'
May a legitimate daughter be deprived of her share
in the estate of her deceased father by a simulated
contract transferring the property of her father to his
illegitimate children3
*ELD'
The 1upreme ourt ruled that the $a&u"atan $as
simulated& There $as no consideration for the
contract of sale& "elicitas de la ru6, a family friend
of the "ranciscos, testified that Qenaida Pascual and
Regina "rancisco did not have any source of
income in '(<0, $hen they bought the property, until
the time $hen "elicitas testified in '(('&
7s proof of income, ho$ever, Qenaida Pascual
testified that she $as engaged in operating a
canteen, $or-ing as cashier in Mayon #ight lub as
$ell as buying and selling RT5 (Ready to 5ear)
items in 7ugust of '(<0 and prior thereto& Qenaida
alleged that she paid her father the amount of
P';,;;;&;;& 1he did not $ithdra$ money from her
ban- account at the Rural @an- of Meycauayan,
@ulacan, to pay for the property& 1he had personal
savings other than those deposited in the ban-& +er
gross earnings from the RT5 for three years $as
P(,;;;&;;, and she earned P5;&;; a night at the
club&
Regina "rancisco, on the other hand, $as a mar-et
vendor, selling ni"u)aw, earning a net income of
P0;;&;; a day in '(<0& 1he bought the property
from the deceased for P'5,;;;&;;& 1he had no other
source of income&The testimonies of petitioners $ere
incredible considering their inconsistent statements
as to $hether there $as consideration for the sale
and also as to $hether the property $as bought
belo$ or above its supposed mar-et value& They
could not even present a single $itness to the
$a&u"atan that $ould prove receipt of the purchase
price& 1ince there $as no cause or consideration for
the sale, the same $as a simulation and hence, null
and void&
Jven if the $a&u"atan $as not simulated, it still
violated the ivil ode provisions insofar as the
transaction affected respondentDs legitime& The sale
$as e*ecuted in '(<0, $hen the applicable la$ $as
the ivil ode, not the "amily ode& 4bviously, the
sale $as ?regorioDs $ay to transfer the property to
his illegitimate daughters at the e*pense of his
legitimate daughter& The sale $as e*ecuted to
prevent respondent 7lfonso from claiming her
legitime and rightful share in said property& @efore
his death, ?regorio had a change of heart and
informed his daughter about the titles to the property&
7ccording to 7rticle <<<, ivil odeF
BThe legitime of legitimate children and descendants
consists of one,half of the hereditary estate of the
father and of the mother&
BThe latter may freely dispose of the remaining half
sub.ect to the rights of illegitimate children and of
the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided&C
?regorio "rancisco did not o$n any other property&
%f indeed the parcels of land involved $ere the only
property left by their father, the sale in fact $ould
deprive respondent of her share in her fatherDs
estate& @y la$, she is entitled to half of the estate of
her father as his only legitimate child& The legal heirs
of the late ?regorio "rancisco must be determined in
proper testate or intestate proceedings for
settlement of the estate& +is compulsory heir can
not be deprived of her share in the estate save by
disinheritance as prescribed by la$&
#43) NIE(A 34. ALCALA
G.R. No. L-133<6 O-%o;&r #/, 19#?
FACTS'
:uliana #ieva, the alleged natura"
mother of the plaintiff 1egunda Maria #ieva, married
"rancisco !eocampo& 4f said marriage 7lfeo
!eocampo $as born& :uliana #ieva died intestate on
7pril '(, '<<(, and her said son, 7lfeo !eocampo,
inherited from her, ab intestate, the parcels of land
described in Paragraphs K and Y of the complaint&
7lfeo !eocampo died intestate and $ithout
issue on :uly 9, '<(;& Thereupon the t$o parcels of
land above,mentioned passed to his father,
"rancisco !eocampo, by intestate succession&
Thereafter "rancisco !eocampo married the herein
defendant Manuela 7lcala, of $hich marriage $as
born :ose !eocampo, the other defendant herein&
"rancisco !eocampo died on 7ugust '5,
'('), $hereupon his $ido$ and son, the defendants
herein, too- possession of the parcels of land in
2uestion, under the claim that the said son, the
defendant :ose !eocampo (a minor) had inherited
the same, a, inte&tate, from his deceased father&
4n 1eptember 0;, '('5, the plaintiff herein,
claiming to be an ac-no$ledged natural daughter of
the said :uliana #ieva, instituted the present action
for purposes of recovering from the defendants the
parcels of land in 2uestion, particularly described in
Paragraphs K and Y of the complaint, invo-ing the
provisions of article <'' of the ivil ode&
ISSUE'
5hether or not the plaintiff is an
ac$now"e%)e% natura" %au)hter of the deceased
:uliana #ieva and if an i""e)itiate relative $ithin the
third degree is entitled to the re&erva tronca"
provided for by article <'' of the ivil ode&
*ELD'
The lo$er court held that, even granting, $ithout
deciding, that the plaintiff $as an ac-no$ledged
natural daughter of :uliana #ieva, she $as not
entitled to the property here in 2uestion because, in
its opinion, an illegitimate relative has no right to the
re&erva tronca" under the provisions of article <'' of
the ivil ode and $hich reads as follo$sF
J 7ny ascendant $ho inherits from his descendant
any property ac2uired by the latter gratuitously from
some other ascendant, or from a brother or sister, is
obliged to reserve such of the property as he may
have ac2uired by operation of la$ for the benefit of
relatives $ithin the third degree belonging to the line
from $hich such property came&C
1 held that the ob.ect is to protect the patrimony of
the legitimate family, follo$ing the precedents of the
foral la$& An% it cou"% not ,e otherwi&e. Artic"e 7:8
%enie& to "e)itiate 'arent& the ri)ht to &uccee% the
natura" chi"% an% vicever&a, fro which it u&t ,e
%e%uce% that natura" 'arent& neither have the ri)ht
to inherin) fro "e)itiate one&> the la$ in the article
cited established a barrier bet$een the t$o families>
properties of the legitimate family shall never pass
by operation of la$ to the natural family& (I,i%& pp&
/5',/5/&)
7rticle ()0, above referred to provides as follo$sF
7 natural or legitimated child has no right to
succeed a, inte&tate the legitimate children and
relatives of the father or mother $ho has
ac-no$ledged it> nor shall such children or relatives
so inherit from the natural or legitimated child&
To hold that the appellant is entitled to the
property left by her natural brother, 7lfeo !eocampo,
by operation of la$, $ould be a fragrant violate of the
e*press provision of the foregoing article (()0)&
"or all of the foregoing reasons, the .udgment of the
lo$er court is hereby affirmed, $ithout any finding as
to costs& 1o ordered&
#44) SOLI(IO vs& CA
G.R. No. <34<4 F&;r!ar" 1#, 199?
FACTS'
This case involves the estate of the late novelist,
Jsteban :avellana, :r&, author of the first post,$ar
"ilipino novel =5ithout 1eeing the !a$n,= $ho died
a bachelor, $ithout descendants, ascendants,
brothers, sisters, nephe$s or nieces& +is only
surviving relatives areF (') his maternal aunt,
petitioner eledonia 1olivio, the spinster half,sister
of his mother, 1alustia 1olivio> and (/) the private
respondent, oncordia :avellana,Killanueva, sister
of his deceased father, Jsteban :avellana, 1r& +e
$as a posthumous child& +is father died barely ten
(';) months after his marriage in !ecember, '('8 to
1alustia 1olivio and four months before Jsteban, :r&
$as born&
1alustia brought to her marriage paraphernal
properties (various parcels of land in alinog, %loilo
covered by /) titles) $hich she had inherited from
her mother, ?regoria elo, Jngracio 1olivioGs first
$ife (p& 0/5, Record), but no con.ugal property $as
ac2uired during her short,lived marriage to Jsteban,
1r&
4n 4ctober '', '(5(, 1alustia died, leaving all her
properties to her only child, Jsteban, :r&, including a
house and lot in La Pa6, %loilo ity, $here she, her
son, and her sister lived& %n due time, the titles of all
these properties $ere transferred in the name of
Jsteban, :r&
!uring his lifetime, Jsteban, :r& had, more than
once, e*pressed to his aunt eledonia and some
close friends his plan to place his estate in a
foundation to honor his mother and to help poor but
deserving students obtain a college education&
Unfortunately, he died of a heart attac- on "ebruary
/8,'(99 $ithout having set up the foundation&
T$o $ee-s after his funeral, oncordia and
eledonia tal-ed about $hat to do $ith JstebanGs
properties& eledonia told oncordia about
JstebanGs desire to place his estate in a foundation
to be named after his mother, from $hom his
properties came, for the purpose of helping indigent
students in their schooling& oncordia agreed to
carry out the plan of the deceased&
eledonia $as appointed as the
administrati* of the estate and later on the court
ad.udicated her as the sole heir of the estate of
Jsteban :avallana :r& and proceeded to set up the
ESALUSTIA SOLI6IO 6FA. FE JA6ELLANA
/OUNFATIONE
"our months later, or on 7ugust 9, '(9<, oncordia
:avellana Killanueva filed a motion for
reconsideration of the courtGs order declaring
eledonia as =sole heir= of Jsteban, :r&, because
she too $as an heir of the deceased& 4n 1eptember
0, '(<), the said trial court rendered .udgment in
ivil ase #o& '0/;9, in favor of oncordia
:avellana,Killanueva&
ISSUE'
5hether or not the property of the deceased $as
sub.ect to reserve troncal&
*ELD'
The ourt finds no merit in the petitionerGs argument
that the estate of the deceased $as sub.ect to
re&erva tronca" and that it pertains to her as his only
relative $ithin the third degree on his motherGs side&
The re&erva tronca" provision of the ivil ode is
found in 7rticle <(' $hich reads as follo$sF
7RT& <('& The ascendant $ho inherits from his
descendant any property $hich the latter may have
ac2uired by gratuitous title from another ascendant,
or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such
property as he may have ac2uired by operation of
la$ for the benefit of relatives $ho are $ithin the
third degree and $ho belong to the line from $hich
said property came&
The persons involved in re&erva tronca" areF
'& The person obliged to reserve is the reservor
(re&ervi&ta)Tthe ascendant $ho inherits by
operation of la$ property from his descendants&
/& The persons for $hom the property is reserved
are the reservees (re&ervatario&)Trelatives $ithin
the third degree counted from the descendant
('ro'o&itu&), and belonging to the line from $hich
the property came&
0& The 'ro'o&itu&Tthe descendant $ho received by
gratuitous title and died $ithout issue, ma-ing his
other ascendant inherit by operation of la$& (p& 8(/,
ivil La$ by Padilla, Kol& %%, '(58 Jd&)
learly, the property of the deceased, Jsteban
:avellana, :r&, is not reservable property, for
Jsteban, :r& $as not an ascendant, but the
descendant of his mother, 1alustia 1olivio, from
$hom he inherited the properties in 2uestion&
Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance sub.ect to
a reservation in favor of his aunt, eledonia 1olivio,
$ho is his relative $ithin the third degree on his
motherGs side& The re&erva tronca" applies to
properties inherited by an ascendant from a
descendant $ho inherited it from another ascendant
or ( brother or sister& %t does not apply to property
inherited by a descendant from his ascendant, the
reverse of the situation covered by 7rticle <('& 1ince
the deceased, Jsteban :avellana, :r&, died $ithout
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children,
surviving spouse, brothers, sisters, nephe$s or
nieces, $hat should apply in the distribution of his
estate are 7rticles ';;0 and ';;( of the ivil ode
$hich provideF
7RT& ';;0& %f there are no descendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate
of the deceased in accordance $ith the follo$ing
articles&
7RT& ';;(& 1hould there be neither brothers nor
sisters, nor children of brothers or sisters, the other
collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate&
The latter shall succeed $ithout distinction of lines or
preference among them by reason of relationship by
the $hole blood&
+o$ever, %t is true that by the agreement, she did
not $aive her inheritance in favor of eledonia, but
she did agree to place all of JstebanGs estate in the
=1alustia 1olivio Kda& de :avellana "oundation, and
therefore, oncordia is obligated to honor her
commitment as eledonia has honored hers&
The petition for revie$ $as granted& The decision of
the trial court and the ourt of 7ppeals $ere 1JT
71%!J& oncordia :& Killanueva is declared an heir
of the late Jsteban :avellana, :r& entitled to one,half
of his estate& +o$ever, comformably $ith the
agreement bet$een her and her co,heir, eledonia
1olivio, the entire estate of the deceased should be
conveyed to the =1alustia 1olivio Kda& de :avallana
"oundation,= of $hich both the petitioner and the
private respondent shall be trustees, and each shall
be entitled to nominate an e2ual number of trustees
to constitute the @oard of Trustees of the "oundation
$hich shall administer the same for the purposes set
forth in its charter&
#4$) SUMA)A 34. IAC
G.R. No. 6<<43-44 S&7%&:;&r #, 1991
FACTS'
Raul @alanta-bo inherited from t$o (/) different
ascendants the t$o (/) sets of properties sub.ect of
this caseF ') 7 one,third ('P0) interest, 'ro!in%ivi&o in
a parcel of land situated in !ita, Lilio (Lili$) Laguna
from his father :ose, 1r&, $ho died on :anuary /<,
'()5> and /) 7 one,seventh ('P9) interest 'ro!
in%ivi&o in ten (';) parcels of registered lands from
his maternal grandmother, Luisa @autista, $ho died
on #ovember 0, '(5;&
4n :une '0, '(5/, Raul died intestate, single,
$ithout any issue, and leaving only his mother,
onsuelo :oa2uin Kda& de @alanta-bo, as his sole
surviving heir to the real properties above,
mentioned& 4n #ovember 0, '(5/, onsuelo
ad.udicated unto herself the above described
properties in an 7ffidavit entitled =audal
+erederario del finado Raul @alanta-bo&=
onsuelo then sold some properties to Mari2uita +&
1umaya and Killa +onorio !evelopment orporation
$hich the latter in turn transferred and assigned all
its rights to the properties in favor of Laguna 7gro,
%ndustrial oconut ooperative&
4n :une 0, '(8<, onsuelo :oa2uin vda& de
@alanta-bo died& 4n March ), '(9;, 7madeo,
1ancho, !onato, Luis, and Jrasto, all surnamed
@alanta-bo, brothers in full blood of Raul @alanta-bo
and Luisa, :ose and !olores, also all surnamed
@alanta-bo, surviving children of deceased :ose
@alanta-bo, :r&, another brother of the first named
@alanta-bos, filed the above mentioned civil cases
to recover the properties described in the respective
complaints $hich they claimed $ere sub.ect to a
re&erva tronca" in their favor&
ISSUE'
5hether or not the properties sold $ere
sub.ect to a reserva troncal and if it is necessary to
reserve and annotate the same&
*ELD'
The trial court rendered a decision in favor
of the @alanta-bos and the oust of 7ppeals
affirmed said decision&
The 1 +eld that consistent $ith the rule in re&erva
viu%a" $here the person obliged to reserve (the
$ido$ed spouse) had the obligation to annotate in
the Registry of Property the reservable character of
the property, in re&erva tronca", the reservor (the
ascendant $ho inherited from a descendant property
$hich the latter inherited from another descendant)
has the duty to reserve and therefore, the duty to
annotate also&
The .urisprudential rule re2uiring annotation in the
Registry of Property of the right reserved in real
property sub.ect of re&erva viu%a" insofar as it is
applied to re&erva tronca" stays despite the abolition
of re&erva viu%a" in the #e$ ivil ode& This rule is
consistent $ith the rule provided in the second
paragraph of 1ection 5' of P&!& '5/(, $hich
provides thatF =The act of registration shall be the
operative act to convey or affect the "an% in&ofar a&
thir% 'er&on& are concerne% & & &= (emphasis
supplied)
The properties involved in this case are already
covered by a Torrens title and unless the registration
of the limitation is effected (either actual or
constructive), no third persons shall be pre.udiced
thereby&
The respondent appellate court did not err in finding
that the cause of action of the private respondents
did not prescribe yet& The cause of action of the
reservees did not commence upon the death of the
propositus Raul @alanta-bo on :une '0, '(5/ but
upon the death of the reservor onsuelo Kda& de
@alanta-bo on :une 0, '(8<& Relatives $ithin the
third degree in $hose favor the right (or property) is
reserved have no title of o$nership or of fee simple
over the reserved property during the lifetime of the
reservor& 4nly $hen the reservor should die before
the reservees $ill the latter ac2uire the reserved
property, thus creating a fee simple, and only then
$ill they ta-e their place in the succession of the
descendant of $hom they are relatives $ithin the
third degree (See Kelayo @ernardo v& 1io.o, ?&R& #o&
08;9<, March '', '(00, 5< Phil& <()& The reserva is
e*tinguished upon the death of the reservor, as it
then becomes a right of full o$nership on the part of
the reservatarios, $ho can bring a reivindicatory suit
therefor& #onetheless, this right if not e*ercised
$ithin the time for recovery may prescribe in ten (';)
years under the old ode of ivil Procedure (&ee
arillo v& !e Pa6, ?&R& #o& L,//8;', 4ctober /<,
'(88, '< 1R7 )89, )90) or in thirty years under
7rticle '')' of the #e$ ivil ode& The actions for
recovery of the reserved property $as brought by
herein private respondents on March ), '(9; or less
than t$o (/) years from the death of the reservor&
Therefore, private respondentsG cause of action has
not prescribed yet&
74R!%#?LE, the petition is !J#%J!& The
2uestioned decision of the %ntermediate 7ppellate
ourt is 7""%RMJ!, e*cept for the modification on
the necessity to annotate the reversable character of
a property sub.ect of re&erva tronca"&
#46) RIOSA vs& ROC*A
G.R. No. L-#3//?, F&;r!ar" 1<, 19#6
FACTS'
Maria orral $as united in marriage $ith the
deceased Mariano Riosa, it being her first and only
marriage and during $hich time she bore him three
children named 1antiago, :ose and 1everina& The
latter died during infancy and the other t$o survived
their father, Mariano Riosa& 1antiago Riosa, no$
deceased, married "rancisca Killanueva, $ho bore
him t$o children named Magin and onsolacion
Riosa& :ose Riosa, also deceased, married
Marcelina asas and they had one child $ho died
before the father, the latter therefore leaving no
issue& Mariano Riosa left a $ill dividing his property
bet$een his t$o children, 1antiago and :ose Riosa,
giving the latter the eleven parcels of land described
in the complaint& Upon the death of :ose Riosa he
left a $ill in $hich he named his $ife, Marcelina
asas, as his only heir&
4n May '8, '('9, the $ill of :ose Riosa $as
filed for probate& #ot$ithstanding the fact that
Marcelina asas $as the only heir named in the $ill,
on account of the preterition of Maria orral $ho,
being the mother of :ose Riosa, $as his legitimate
heir, % Marcelina asas and Maria orral, on the
same date of the filing of the $ill for probate, entered
into a contract by $hich they divided bet$een
themselves the property left by :ose Riosa, the
eleven parcels of land described in the complaint
being assigned to Maria orral&
Maria oral then sold some parcels of land
to Marcelina asas and the latter to Pablo Rocha&
+o$ever some of the parcels of land $ere returned
by Pablo to Marcelina alleging that the said parcels
of land $ere erroneously transferred by Maria to
Marcelina&
7n action $as brought by Magin Riosa, for
$hom the property should have been reserved,
against Maria orral, $hose duty it $as to reserve it,
and against Marcelina asas and Pablo Rocha as
purchasers of parcels '; and ''& The complaint
prays that the property therein described be
declared reservable property and that the plaintiffs
:ose and onsolacion Riosa be declared reservees>
that this reservation be noted in the registry of
deeds> that the sale of parcels '; and '' to
Marcelina asas and Pablo Rocha be declared valid
only in so far as it saves the right of reservation in
favor of the plaintiff Magin Riosa and of the
defendant onsolacion Riosa, and that this right of
reservation be also noted on the deeds of sale
e*ecuted in favor of Marcelina asas and Pablo
Rocha>
ISSUE'
5hether or not the parcels of land sub.ect to
reserva troncal necessitates the recording of $hich
in the registry of deeds&
*ELD'
The 1upreme ourt held that Marcelina
asas, as $ell as Pablo Rocha, Lne$ of the
reservable character of the property $hen they
bought it& They had -no$ledge of the provisions of
the last $ill and testament of Mariano Riosa by virtue
of $hich these parcels $ere transferred to :ose
Riosa& Pablo Rocha $as one of the legatees in the
$ill& Marcelina asas $as the one $ho entered into
the contract of partition $ith Maria orral, $hereby
these parcels $ere ad.udicated to the latter, as a
legitimate heir of :ose Riosa& Pablo Rocha $as the
very person $ho drafted the contracts of sale of
these parcels of land by Maria orral to Marcelina
asas and by the latter to himself& These facts,
together $ith the relationship e*isting bet$een Maria
orral and Marcelina asas and Pablo Rocha, the
former a daughter,in,la$ and the latter a nephe$ of
Maria orral, amply support the conclusion that both
of them -ne$ that these parcels of land had been
inherited by Maria orral, as her legitime from her
son :ose Riosa $ho had inherited them, by $ill, from
his father Mariano Riosa, and $ere reservable
property& 5herefore, the duty of Maria orral of
recording the reservable character of lots '; and ''
has been transferred to Pablo Rocha and the
reservees have an action against him to compel him
to comply $ith this obligation& The .udgment
appealed from is modified and Pablo Rocha is
ordered to record in the registry of deeds the
reservable character of parcels '; '', the sub.ect of
this complaint&
#4/) DE PAPA 34. CAMAC*O
G.R. No. L-#<?3# S&7%&:;&r #4, 19<6
FACTS'
!efendant !alisay !& Tong-o,amacho and
the plaintiffs, "rancisco Tioco de Papa, Manuel Tioco
and #icolas Tioco, are legitimate relatives, plaintiffs
being said defendantGs grandaunt and granduncles
and having a common ancestor the late @albino
Tioco ($ho had a sister by the name of Romana
Tioco), father of plaintiffs and great grandfather of
defendant&
Toribia Tioco died intestate in l(l5, survived by her
husband, Justacio !i6on, and their t$o legitimate
children, "austino !i6on and Trinidad !i6on (mother
of defendant !alisay !, Tong-o,amacho) and
leaving the four ()) parcels of land as the inheritance
of her said t$o children in e2ual pro,indiviso shares&
@albino Tioco died intestate, survived by his
legitimate children by his $ife Marciana "eli*
(among them plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren
"austino !i6on and Trinidad !i6on& %n the partition of
his estate, three (0) parcels of land no$ covered by
Transfer ertificates of Title #os& '85)5 and '855)
of the Registry of !eeds of Manila, $ere ad.udicated
as the inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco, but as
she had predeceased her father, @albino Tioco, the
said three (0) parcels of land devolved upon her t$o
legitimate children "austino !i6on and Trinidad
!i6on in e2ual
"austino !i6on died intestate, single and $ithout
issue, leaving his one,half ('P/) pro,indiviso share in
the seven (9) parcels of land above,mentioned to his
father, Justacio !i6on, as his sole intestate heir, $ho
received the said property sub.ect to a reserva
troncal $hich $as subse2uently annotated on the
Transfer ertificates of Title&
Trinidad !i6on,Tong-o died intestate, and her rights
and interests in the parcels of land abovementioned
$ere inherited by her only legitimate child, defendant
!alisay !& Tong-o,amacho, sub.ect to the
usufructuary right of her surviving husband,
defendant Primo Tong-o&
Justacio !i6on died intestate, survived his only
legitimate descendant, defendant !alisay !& Tong-o,
amacho&
!efendant !alisay !& Tong-o,amacho no$ o$ns
one,half ('P/) of all the seven (9) parcels of land
abovementioned as her inheritance from her mother,
Trinidad !i6on,Tong-o&
!efendant !alisay !& Tong-o,amacho also claims,
upon legal advice, the other half of the said seven
(9) parcels of land abovementioned by virtue of the
reserva troncal imposed thereon upon the death of
"austino !i6on and under the la$s on intestate
succession> but the plaintiffs, also upon legal advice,
oppose her said claim because they claim three,
fourths (0P)) of the one,half pro,indiviso interest in
said parcel of land, $hich interest $as inherited by
Justacio !i6on from "austino !i6on, or three,eights
(0P<) of the said parcels of land, by virtue of their
being also third degree relatives of "austino !i6on&
ISSUE'
5hether or not all relatives of the 'rae'o&itu& $ithin
the third degree in the appropriate line succeed
$ithout distinction to the reservable property upon
the death of the re&ervi&ta, or, as asserted by the
defendant,appellant, the rights of said relatives are
sub.ect to, and should be determined by, the rules
on intestate succession&
*ELD'
The 1upreme ourt, spea-ing through Mr&
:ustice :&@&L& Reyes in (a%ura v&. Ba"%ovino,,
declared the principles of intestacy to be controlling,
Reversion of the reservable property being governed
by the rules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs,
appellees must be held $ithout any right thereto
because, as aunt and uncles, respectively, of
"austino !i6on (the 'rae'o&itu&), they are e*cluded
from the succession by his niece, the defendant,
appellant, although they are related to him $ithin the
same degree as the latter& The court, therefore, held,
and so rule, that under our la$s of succession, a
decedentGs uncles and aunts may not succeed a,
inte&tato so long as nephe$s and nieces of the
decedent survive and are $illing and 2ualified to
succeed&
+ad the reversionary property passed
directly from the 'rae'o&itu&, there is no doubt that
the plaintiffs,appellees $ould have been e*cluded by
the defendant,appellant under the rules of intestate
succession& There is no reason $hy a different result
should obtain simply because =the transmission of
the property $as delayed by the interregnum of the
re&erva>=
6
i&e&, the property too- a =detour= through
an ascendant,thereby giving rise to the reservation
before its transmission to the re&ervatario&
Upon the stipulated facts, and by virtue of the rulings
already cited, the defendant,appellant !alisay
Tong-o,amacho is entitled to the entirety of the
reversionary property to the e*clusion of the
plaintiffs,appellees&
5+JRJ"4RJ, the appealed .udgment of the lo$er
ourt is reversed and set aside and the complaint is
dismissed&
#4<) LLor&%& 34. Ro2r,6!&I, &%. A..
G.R. NO. L-3339, MARC* #6, 19?<
"7T1F
Martina 7valle, $ido$ of Llorente, had
during her marriage four legitimate children named
:acinta, :ulio, Martin, and "rancisco, all $ith the
surname of Llorente y 7valle& %n the $ill e*ecuted by
her on the 0'st of !ecember, '(;;, she instituted as
her sole and general heirs her three first,named
children, :acinta, :ulio, and Martin, and the children
of the late "rancisco, named 1oledad and 7dela
Llorente&
:acinta died prior to the testatri*, on the ''th
of 7ugust, '(;', leaving several legitimate children
$ith the surname of Rodrigue6 y Llorente, and
besides them, a natural daughter named Rosa
Llorente&
The said Rosa Llorente, the natural
daughter of :acinta Llorente, $anted to become a
party in the proceedings for the probate of the $ill of
Martina 7valle, but the legitimate children of the said
:acinta Llorente ob.ected thereto on the ground that
they $ere the sole and e*clusive heirs of their
mother, the late :acinta Llorente, and that the
plaintiff, Rosa Llorente, absolutely cannot be a party
thereto&
The ourt of "irst %nstance of ebu, $here
the $ill $as admitted for probate, held that Rosa
Llorente had no right $hatever to the inheritance of
the late Martina 7valle, and denied her all right to
intervene in the proceedings regarding the estate of
the said deceased&
%11UJF 5hether or not the hereditary portion $hich
Martina 7valle left in her $ill to her legitimate
daughter :acinta Llorente, and $hich the latter had
not been able to possess because of her death
before that of the testatri*, should also pass to her
natural daughter, Rosa Llorente, the same as to her
legitimate children&
+JL!F #o& "rom the fact that a natural son has the
right to inherit from the father or mother $ho
ac-no$ledged him, con.ointly $ith the other
legitimate children of either of them, it does not
follo$ that he has the right to represent either of
them in the succession to their legitimate
ascendants> his right is direct and immediate in
relation to the father or mother $ho ac-no$ledged
him, but it cannot be indirect by representing them in
the succession to their ascendants to $hom he is
not related in any manner, because he does not
appear among the legitimate family of $hich said
ascendants are the head&
%f :acinta Llorente had survived her mother,
Martina 7valle, she $ould have inherited from her,
and in $hat she inherited from her mother, her
natural daughter, Rosa Llorente $ould have
participated, in con.unction $ith her legitimate
children, from the day in $hich the succession
became operative, because she $ould then appear
by virtue of her o$n right to inherit from her mother
the legal 2uota that pertained to her> but, not
because she has said right, $ould she also be
entitled to that of representation, inasmuch as there
is no legal provision establishing such a doctrine>
that Rosa Llorente might and should inherit from her
natural mother is one thing, and that she should
have the right to inherit from her $ho $ould be
called her natural grandmother, representing her
natural mother, is 2uite another thing& The latter right
is not recogni6ed by the la$ in force&
Therefore, the .udgment appealed from is
hereby affirmed&
#49) FILOMENA PECSON, a4 a2:,,4%ra%,E o0 %1&
.a4% 5,.. a2 %&4%a:&% o0 F.or&-,o P&-4o, &% a..
34. ROSARIO MEDIA(ILLO
#< P*IL. <1
"7T1F
1ome time prior to the '9th day of 1eptember, '(';,
the last $ill and testament of "lorencio Pecson $as
presented to the ourt of "irst %nstance of the
Province of 7lbay for probate&
Mr& Tomas Lorayes, an attorney at la$, opposed the
legislation of the $ill on the ground that it had not
been authori6ed nor signed by the deceased&
+o$ever, after hearing the respective parties, the
court found that the $ill had been signed and
e*ecuted in accordance $ith the provisions of la$&
4n the '<th day of 1eptember, '(';, the said Tomas
Lorayes, representing @asiliso Mediavillo and
Rosario Mediavillo, presented a motion alleging that
Rosario Mediavillo is and :oa2uin Mediavillo $as a
legitimate child of the deceased Teresa Pecson&
Teresa $as a daughter of the testator> that the said
granddaughter, Rosario Mediavillo y Pecson, $as
disinherited by her grandfather, the testator
"lorencio Pecson, according to clause 0 of the $ill,
because she failed to sho$ him due respect and on
a certain occasion raised her hand against him&
4n his $ill, "lorencio Pecson state that he
disinherited Rosario Mediavillo =because she $as
grossly disrespectful to me and because on one
occasion, $hen it $as % do not remember, she raised
her hand against me& Therefore it is my $ill that she,
the said Rosario Mediavillo, shall have no share in
my property&=
%11UJ1F 5hether or not the court may in2uire into
the cause of the disinheritance and decide $hether
there is a ground for such disinheritance&
5hether or not @asiliso Mediavillo, the father of
:oa2uin Mediavillo, is the lattersD heir by
representation&
+JL!F Ees, the ivil ode (art& <)<) provides that
disinheritance shall only ta-e place for one of the
causes e*pressly fi*ed by la$& %n accordance $ith
the provisions of that article (<)<) $e find that
articles 958 and <50 provide the cases or causes for
disinheritance> or, in other $ords, the cases or
causes in $hich the ancestors may by $ill disinherit
their heirs&
7rticle <)( of the ivil ode provides that the
disinheritance can only be effected by the testament,
in $hich shall be mentioned the legal grounds or
causes for such disinheritance& %f it is true that heirs
can be disinherited only by $ill, and for causes
mentioned in the ivil ode, it $ould seen to follo$
that the courts might properly in2uire $hether the
disinheritance has been made properly and for the
causes provided for by la$&
The right of the courts to in2uire into the causes and
$hether there $as sufficient cause for the
disinheritance or not, seems to be supported by
e*press provisions of the ivil ode& 7rticle <5;
provides that =the proof of the truthfulness of the
reason for disinheritance shall be established by the
heirs of the testator, should the disinherited person
deny it&= %t $ould appear then that if the person
disinherited should deny the truthfulness of the
cause of disinheritance, he might be permitted to
support his allegation by proof& The right of the court
to in2uire $hether or not the disinheritance $as
made for .ust cause is also sustained by the
provisions of article <5', $hich in part provides
thatF!isinheritance made $ithout statement of the
reason, or for a cause the truth of $hich, if
contradicted, should not be proven & & & shall annul
the designation of heirship, in so far as it pre.udices
the person disinherited&
5ith reference to the second assignment of error,
The 1upreme ourt held that the right of
representation shall al$ays ta-e place in the direct
descending line, but never in the ascending& %n
collateral lines, it shall ta-e place only in favor of the
children of brothers or sisters, $hether they be of the
$hole or half blood&
%t $ill be remembered that the $hole argument of the
appellants $ith reference to the first assignment of
error $as that Rosario Mediavillo had been
disinherited and the court evidently believed that
there $ere no =legitimate children, descendants of
the deceased, surviving,= and that therefore the
father or mother of said legitimate children $ould
inherit as ascendants& %nasmuch, ho$ever, as there
$as a descendant in the direct line, surviving, the
inheritance could not ascend, and for the reason the
lo$er court committed an error in declaring that
@asiliso Mediavillo $as entitled to inherit that share
of the estate that $ould have belonged to :oa2uin
Mediavillo, had he been living&
Therefore, and for all the foregoing, that part of the
.udgment of the lo$er court nullifying and setting
aside paragraph 0 of the $ill is hereby affirmed, and
that art of said .udgment $hich decrees to @asiliso
Mediavillo one,half of the estate of "lorencio
Pecson, belonging to Teresa Pecson and $hich
$ould have been given to :oa2uin Mediavillo, had
he been surviving, is hereby revo-ed&
7nd $ithout any findings as to costs, it is hereby
ordered that the cause be remanded to the lo$er
court&
#$?) DOROT*EO 34 CA
3#? SCRA 1#
"7T1F
Private respondents $ere the legitimate
children of 7le.andro !orotheo and 7niceta Reyes&
The latter died in '(8( $ithout her estate being
settled& 7le.andro died thereafter& 1ometime in
'(99, after 7le.androDs death, petitioner, $ho claims
to have ta-en care of 7le.andro before he died, filed
a special proceeding for the probate of the latterDs
last $ill and testament& %n '(<', the court issued an
order admitting 7le.androDs $ill to probate& Private
respondents did not appeal from said order& %n '(<0,
they filed a BMotion To !eclare The 5ill %ntrinsically
Koid&C The trial court granted the motion and issued
an order, declaring Lourdes Legaspi not the $ife of
the late 7le.andro !orotheo, the provisions of the
last $ill and testament of 7le.andro !orotheo as
intrinsically void, and declaring the oppositors
Kicente !orotheo, :ose !orotheo and #ilda
!orotheo Auintana as the only heirs of the late
spouses 7le.andro !orotheo and 7niceta Reyes,
$hose respective estates shall be li2uidated and
distributed according to the la$s on intestacy upon
payment of estate and other ta*es due to the
government&C
Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing
that she is entitled to some compensation since she
too- care of 7le.andro prior to his death although she
admitted that they $ere not married to each other&
Upon denial of her motion for reconsideration,
petitioner appealed to the ourt of 7ppeals, but the
same $as dismissed for failure to file appellantDs
brief $ithin the e*tended period granted& This
dismissal became final and e*ecutory on "ebruary 0,
'(<( and a corresponding entry of .udgment $as
forth$ith issued by the ourt of 7ppeals on May '8,
'(<(&
Petitioner assails the 4rder of the ourt of
7ppeals upholding the validity of the :anuary 0;,
'(<8 4rder $hich declared the intrinsic invalidity of
7le.androDs $ill that $as earlier admitted to probate&
%ssueF May a last $ill and testament admitted to
probate but declared intrinsically void in an order
that has become final and e*ecutory still be given
effect3
+eldF The petition is $ithout merit&
%t should be noted that probate proceedings
deals generally $ith the e*trinsic validity of the $ill
sought to be probated, particularly on three aspectsF
] $hether the $ill submitted is indeed, the
decedentDs last $ill and testament>
] compliance $ith the prescribed formalities for
the e*ecution of $ills>
] the testamentary capacity of the testator>
] and the due e*ecution of the last $ill and
testament&
Under the ivil ode, due e*ecution includes a
determination of $hether the testator $as of sound
and disposing mind at the time of its e*ecution, that
he had freely e*ecuted the $ill and $as not acting
under duress, fraud, menace or undue influence and
that the $ill is genuine and not a forgery, that he $as
of the proper testamentary age and that he is a
person not e*pressly prohibited by la$ from ma-ing
a $ill&
The intrinsic validity is another matter and
2uestions regarding the same may still be raised
even after the $ill has been authenticated& Thus, it
does not necessarily follo$ that an e*trinsically valid
last $ill and testament is al$ays intrinsically valid&
Jven if the $ill $as validly e*ecuted, if the testator
provides for dispositions that deprives or impairs the
la$ful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance
according to the la$s on succession,
iH'0I
the unla$ful
provisionsPdispositions thereof cannot be given
effect& This is specially so $hen the courts had
already determined in a final and e*ecutory decision
that the $ill is intrinsically void& 1uch determination
having attained that character of finality is binding on
this ourt $hich $ill no longer be disturbed& #ot that
this ourt finds the $ill to be intrinsically valid, but
that a final and e*ecutory decision of $hich the party
had the opportunity to challenge before the higher
tribunals must stand and should no longer be
reevaluated& "ailure to avail of the remedies
provided by la$ constitutes $aiver& 7nd if the party
does not avail of other remedies despite its belief
that it $as aggrieved by a decision or court action,
then it is deemed to have fully agreed and is
satisfied $ith the decision or order
Petitioner $as privy to the suit calling for the
declaration of the intrinsic invalidity of the $ill, as she
precisely appealed from an unfavorable order
therefrom& 7lthough the final and e*ecutory 4rder of
:anuary 0;, '(<8 $herein private respondents $ere
declared as the only heirs do not bind those $ho are
not parties thereto such as the alleged illegitimate
son of the testator, the same constitutes res .udicata
$ith respect to those $ho $ere parties to the
probate proceedings& Petitioner cannot again raise
those matters ane$ for relitigation other$ise that
$ould amount to forum,shopping& %t is clear from the
e*ecutory order that the estates of 7le.andro and his
spouse should be distributed according to the la$s
of intestate succession&
#o intestate distribution of the estate can be
done until and unless the $ill had failed to pass both
its e*trinsic and intrinsic validity& %f the $ill is
e*trinsically void, the rules of intestacy apply
regardless of the intrinsic validity thereof& %f it is
e*trinsically valid, the ne*t test is to determine its
intrinsic validity R that is $hether the provisions of
the $ill are valid according to the la$s of succession&
%n this case, the court had ruled that the $ill of
7le.andro $as e*trinsically valid but the intrinsic
provisions thereof $ere void& Thus, the rules of
intestacy apply as correctly held by the trial court&
5+JRJ"4RJ, the petition is !J#%J! and the
decision appealed from is 7""%RMJ!&
#$1) URIARTE 34. COURT OF APPEALS a2
BENEDICTO ESTRADA
#<4 SCRA $11
"7T1F
7gatonica 7rre6a is the offspring of Pedro 7rre6a
and Ursula Tubil& The Private respondent @enedicto
Jstrada is the son of 7gatonica& Upon the death of
Pedro 7rre6a, Ursula married :uan 7rnaldo by $hom
she had another daughter, the decedent :usta&
Private respondent @enedicto Jstrada is thus the
nephe$ of :usta by her half sister 7gatonica&
!omingo 7rnaldo is the brother of :uan 7rnaldo&
!omingo and his $ife atalina 76arcon had a
daughter, Primitiva 7rnaldo& Primitiva then married
onrado Uriarte $ho had children, one of $hom $as
Pascasio Uriarte& The $ido$ and daughters of
Pascasio are the petitioners in his case& Petitioners
are thus grandchildren, the relatives $ithin the fifth
degree of consanguinity, of :usta by her cousin
Primitiva 7rnaldo Uriarte&
The other petitioners are the children of Primitiva
and those of her brother ?regorio& The children of
Primitiva by onrado Uriarte, aside from Pascasio,
are :osefina, ?audencio, 1implicio, !omingo and
Kirgilio, all surnamed Uriarte& The children of
?regorio 7rnaldo, PrimitivaGs brother, by :ulieta
%logon, are :orencio, Jnecia, #icolas, Lupecino and
"elisa& These other petitioners are thus
grandchildren and relatives $ithin the fifth degree of
consanguinity of :usta by her cousins ?regorio
7rnaldo and Primitiva 7rnaldo&
Private respondent @enedicto Jstrada brought this
case in the Regional Trial ourt for the partition of
the land left by :usta 7rnaldo,1ering& The land,
consisting of /&9 hectares, had been ac2uired by
:usta as follo$sF ;&5 hectare by inheritance from her
parents :uan 7rnaldo and Ursula Tubil, and /&/
hectares by purchase& Private respondent claimed
to be the sole surviving heir of :usta, on the ground
that the latter died $ithout issue& +e complained that
Pascasio Uriarte $ho, he claimed, $or-ed the land
as :ustaGs tenant, refused to give him (private
respondent) his share of the harvest& +e contended
that Pascasio had no right to the entire land of :usta
but could claim only one,half of the ;&5 hectare land
$hich :usta had inherited from her parents :uan
7rnaldo and Ursula Tubil&
Pascasio died during the pendency of the case and
$as substituted by his heirs& %n their ans$er, the
heirs denied they $ere mere tenants of :usta but
the latterGs heirs entitled to her entire land&
They claimed that the entire land, sub.ect of the
case, $as originally o$ned by 7mbrocio 7rnaldo,
their great granduncle& %t $as allegedly be2ueathed
to !omingo and :uan 7rnaldo, 7mbrocioGs nephe$s,
in a holographic $ill e*ecuted by 7mbrocio in '(;<&
!omingo $as to receive t$o,thirds of the land and
:uan, one,third& The heirs claimed that the land had
al$ays been in their possession and that in her
lifetime :usta never asserted e*clusive right over the
property but only received her share of the harvest
from it& They alleged that private respondent did not
have any right to the property because he $as not
an heir of 7mbrocio 7rnaldo, the original o$ner of
the property&
%11UJF 5hether a nephe$ is considered a
collateral relative $ho may inherit if no descendant,
ascendant or spouse survive the decedent
+JL!F EJ1& Petitioners misappreciate the
relationship bet$een :usta and private respondent&
7s already stated, private respondent is the son of
:ustaGs half,sister 7gatonica& +e is therefore :ustaGs
nephe$& 7 nephe$ is considered a collateral relative
$ho may inherit if no descendant, ascendant, or
spouse survive the decedent& That private
respondent is only a half,blood relative is immaterial&
This alone does not dis2ualify him from being his
auntGs heir& 7s the ourt of 7ppeals correctly pointed
out, =The determination of $hether the relationship is
of the full or half blood is important only to determine
the e*tent of the share of the survivors&
#$#) SA)SON 34. COURT OF APPEALS
#?$ SCRA 3#1
"7T1F
Jleno and Rafaela 1ayson begot five children,
namely, Mauricio, Rosario, @asilisa, Remedios and
Teodoro& Jleno died on '(5/, and Rafaela on '(98&
Teodoro, $ho had married %sabel @autista, died on
'(9/& +is $ife died nine years later, on, '(<'& Their
properties $ere left in the possession of !elia,
Jdmundo, and !oribel, all surnamed 1ayson, $ho
claim to be their children&
4n 7pril /5, '(<0, Mauricio, Rosario, @asilisa, and
Remedios, together $ith :uana & @autista, %sabelGs
mother, filed a complaint for partition and accounting
of the intestate estate of Teodoro and %sabel 1ayson&
The action $as resisted by !elia, Jdmundo and
!oribel 1ayson, $ho alleged successional rights to
the disputed estate as the decedentGs la$ful
descendants&
!elia, Jdmundo and !oribel filed their o$n
complaint, this time for the accounting and partition
of the intestate estate of Jleno and Rafaela 1ayson,
against the coupleGs four surviving children& The
complainants asserted the defense, that !elia and
Jdmundo $ere the adopted children and !oribel
$as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and %sabel&
7s such, they $ere entitled to inherit TeodoroGs share
in his parentsG estate by right of representation&
%11UJF 5hether the adopted children of Teodoro
(!elia and Jdmundo) are entitled to inherit TeodoroDs
share by right of representation3
+JL!F#4^ There is no 2uestion that as the
legitimate daughter of Teodoro and thus the
granddaughter of Jleno and Rafaela, !oribel has a
right to represent her deceased father in the
distribution of the intestate estate of her
grandparents& Under 7rticle (<', 2uoted above, she
is entitled to the share her father $ould have directly
inherited had he survived, $hich shall be e2ual to
the shares of her grandparentsG other children&
@ut a different conclusion must be reached in the
case of !elia and Jdmundo, to $hom the
grandparents $ere total strangers& 5hile it is true
that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a
legitimate child and have the same right as the latter,
these rights do not include the right of
representation& The relationship created by the
adoption is bet$een only the adopting parents and
the adopted child and does not e*tend to the blood
relatives of either party&
#$3) Ba6!! 34. P,&2a2
G.R. No. L-66$/4 J!& 1/, 19</
!octrineF The rule on pro*imity is a concept that
favors the relatives nearest in degree to the
decedent and e*cludes the more distant ones e*cept
$hen and to the e*tent that the right of
representation can apply& @y right of representation,
a more distant blood relative of a decedent is, by
operation of la$, =raised to the same place and
degree= of relationship as that of a closer blood
relative of the same decedent& %n the direct line, right
of representation is proper only in the descending,
never in the ascending, line& %n the collateral line, the
right of representation may only ta-e place in favor
of the children of brothers or sisters of the decedent
$hen such children survive $ith their uncles or
aunts&
The right of representation does not apply to =other
collateral relatives $ithin the fifth civil degree= (to
$hich group both petitioner and respondent belong)
$ho are si*th in the order of preference follo$ing,
firstly, the legitimate children and descendants,
secondly, the legitimate parents and ascendants,
thirdly, the illegitimate children and descendants,
fourthly, the surviving spouse, and fifthly, the
brothers and sistersPnephe$s and nieces, fourth
decedent& 7mong collateral relatives, e*cept only in
the case of nephe$s and nieces of the decedent
concurring $ith their uncles or aunts, the rule of
pro*imity, e*pressed in 7rticle (8/, afore2uoted, of
the ode, is an absolute rule& %n determining the
degree of relationship of the collateral relatives to
the decedent, 7rticle (88 of the ivil ode gives
direction&
"actsF
4n /< 7ugust '((5, herein petitioner 4felia
+ernando @agunu moved to intervene in 1pecial
Proceedings #o& 085/, entitled =%n the matter of the
%ntestate Proceedings of the Jstate of 7ugusto +&
Piedad,= pending before the Regional Trial ourt
(=RT=), @ranch ''9, of Pasay ity& 7sserting
entitlement to a share of the estate of the late
7ugusto +& Piedad, petitioner assailed the finality of
the order of the trial court a$arding the entire estate
to respondent Pastora Piedad contending that the
proceedings $ere tainted $ith procedural infirmities,
including an incomplete publications of the notice of
hearing, lac- of personal notice to the heirs and
creditors, and irregularity in the disbursements of
allo$ances and $ithdra$als by the administrator of
the estate&
%ssueF 54# petitioner, a collateral relative of the fifth
civil degree, can inherit alongside respondent, a
collateral relative of the third civil degree3 Jlse$ise
stated does the rule of pro*imity in intestate
succession find application among collateral
relatives3
+eldF#o& 7ugusto +& Piedad died $ithout any direct
descendants or ascendants& Respondent is the
maternal aunt of the decedent, a third,degree
relative of the decedent, $hile petitioner is the
daughter of a first cousin of the deceased, or a fifth,
degree relative of the decedent& The right of
representation does not apply to =others collateral
relatives $ithin the fifth civil degree= (to $hich group
both petitioner and respondent belong) $ho are si*th
in the order of preference follo$ing, firstly, the
legitimate children and descendants, secondly, the
legitimate parents and ascendants, thirdly, the
illegitimate children and descendants, fourthly, the
surviving spouse, and fifthly, the brothers and
sistersPnephe$s and nieces, fourth decedent&
7mong collateral relatives, e*cept only in the case of
nephe$s and nieces of the decedent concurring $ith
their uncles or aunts, the rule of pro*imity, e*pressed
in 7rticle (8/, afore2uoted, of the ode, is an
absolute rule& %n determining the degree of
relationship of the collateral relatives to the
decedent, 7rticle (88 of the ivil ode gives
direction& R&47o2&%, ;&,6 a r&.a%,3& 5,%1, %1&
%1,r2 -,3,. 2&6r&&, o0 %1& .a%& A!6!4%o *. P,&2a2
&E-.!2&4 7&%,%,o&r, a r&.a%,3& o0 %1& 0,0%1 2&6r&&,
0ro: 4!--&&2,6 an intestat* %o %1& &4%a%& o0 %1&
2&-&2&%.
#$4) DIA=, 6!ar2,a o0 (ICTOR, RODRIGO,
7&%,%,o&r4, a2 FELIGBERTA PACURSA
6!ar2,a o0 FEDERICO SANTERO, &% a.., 34.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT a2 FELISA
PAMUTI JARDIN, r&47o2&%4
1<# SCRA 4#/
"7T1F 7#1JLM%#7 and M%?UJL, all surnamed
17#TJR4, "7T1F Private respondent filed a
Petition dated :anuary /0, '(98 $ith the "% of
avite in a special proceeding =%n The Matter of the
%ntestate Jstate of the late 1imona Pamuti Kda& de
1antero,= praying among other things, that the
corresponding letters of 7dministration be issued in
her favor and that she be appointed as special
7dministratri* of the properties of the deceased
1imona Pamuti Kda& de 1antero&
"elisa Pamuti :ardin is a niece of 1imona Pamuti
Kda& de 1antero $ho together $ith "elisaGs mother
:uliana $ere the only legitimate children of the
spouses "elipe Pamuti and Petronila 7suncion&
:uliana married 1imon :ardin and out of their union
$ere born "elisa Pamuti and another child $ho died
during infancy& 1imona Pamuti Kda& de 1antero is
the $ido$ of Pascual 1antero and the mother of
Pablo 1antero& Pablo 1antero $as the only
legitimate son of his parents Pascual 1antero and
1imona Pamuti Kda& de 1antero&
Pascual 1antero died in '(9;, $hile Pablo 1antero
died in '(90 and 1imona 1antero died in '(98&
Pablo 1antero, at the time of his death $as survived
by his mother 1imona 1antero and his si* minor
natural children to $itF four minor children $ith
7nselma !ia6 and t$o minor children $ith "eli*berta
Pacursa&
%n '(98, the court declared "elisa Pamuti :ardin as
the sole legitimate heir of 1imona Pamuti Kda& de
1antero&
@efore the trial court, there $ere ) interrelated cases
filed to $itF Petition for the Letters of 7dministration
of the intestate Jstate of Pablo 1antero> Petition for
the Letters of 7dministration of the %ntestate Jstate
of Pascual 1antero> Petition for ?uardianship over
the properties of an incompetent Person, 1imona
Pamuti Kda& de 1antero> and Petition for 1ettlement
of the %ntestate Jstate of 1imona Pamuti Kda& de
1antero&
"elisa :ardin upon her Motion to %ntervene $as
allo$ed to intervene in the intestate estates of Pablo
1antero and Pascual 1antero by 4rder of the ourt
in '(99& Petitioner 7nselma !ia6, as guardian of her
minor children, filed her =4pposition and Motion to
J*clude "elisa Pamuti from further ta-ing part or
intervening in the settlement of the intestate estate
of 1imona Pamuti Kda& de 1antero, as $ell as in the
intestate estate of Pascual 1antero and Pablo
1antero& "eli*berta Pacursa guardian for her minor
children&
%n '(<;, the court issued an order e*cluding "elisa
:ardin =from further ta-ing part or intervening in the
settlement of the intestate estate of 1imona Pamuti
Kda& de 1antero, as $ell as in the intestate estates
of Pascual 1antero and Pablo 1antero and declared
her to be, not an heir of the deceased 1imona
Pamuti Kda& de 1antero&=
"elisa :ardin filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and
it $as denied by the trial court& 4n appeal, the
%ntermediate 7ppellate ourt reversed the decision
of the trial court and declaring the "elisa :ardin as
the sole heir of 1imona Pamuti Kda& de 1antero and
ordering oppositors,appellees not to interfere in the
proceeding for the declaration of heirship in the
estate of 1imona Pamuti Kda& de 1antero&
%11UJF 5hether petitioners as illegitimate children
of Pablo 1antero could inherit from 1imona Pamuti
Kda& de 1antero, by right of representation of their
father Pablo 1antero $ho is a legitimate child of
1imona Pamuti Kda, de 1antero&
+JL!F #4& 1ince the hereditary conflict refers
solely to the intestate estate of 1imona Pamuti Kda&
de 1antero, $ho is the legitimate mother of Pablo
1antero, the applicable la$ is the provision of 7rt&
((/ of the ivil ode $hich reads as follo$sF
7RT& ((/& 7n illegitimate child has no right to inherit
ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives
of his father or mother> nor shall such children or
relatives inherit in the same manner from the
illegitimate child& (()0a)
Pablo 1antero is a legitimate child, he is not an
illegitimate child& 4n the other hand, the oppositors
(petitioners herein) are the illegitimate children of
Pablo 1antero&
7rticle ((/ of the #e$ ivil ode provides a barrier
or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a
succession ab intestato bet$een the illegitimate
child and the legitimate children and relatives of the
father or mother of said legitimate child& They may
have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recogni6ed
by la$ for the purposes of 7rt& ((/, @et$een the
legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is
presumed to be an intervening antagonism and
incompatibility& The illegitimate child is disgracefully
loo-ed do$n upon by the legitimate family> the family
is in turn, hated by the illegitimate child> the latter
considers the privileged condition of the former, and
the resources of $hich it is thereby deprived> the
former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing
but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a
blemish bro-en in life> the la$ does no more than
recogni6e this truth, by avoiding further grounds of
resentment& Thus, petitioners herein cannot
represent their father Pablo 1antero in the
succession of the letter to the intestate estate of his
legitimate mother 1imona Pamuti Kda& de 1antero,
because of the barrier provided for under 7rt& ((/ of
the #e$ ivil ode&
%t is therefore clear from 7rticle ((/ of the #e$ ivil
ode that the phrase =legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother= includes 1imona
Pamuti Kda& de 1antero as the $ord =relative=
includes all the -indred of the person spo-en of&
The record sho$s that from the commencement of
this case the only parties $ho claimed to be the
legitimate heirs of the late 1imona Pamuti Kda& de
1antero are "elisa Pamuti :ardin and the si* minor
natural or illegitimate children of Pablo 1antero&
1ince petitioners herein are barred by the provisions
of 7rticle ((/, the respondent %ntermediate 7ppellate
ourt did not commit any error in holding "elisa
Pamuti,:ardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the
intestate estate of the late 1imona Pamuti Kda& de
1antero&
#$$) +ENCESLA CAC*O, petitioner,appellee, vs&
JO*N G. UDAN, a2 RUSTICO G. UDAN,
oppositors,appellants&
G.R. No. L-19996 A7r,. 3?, 196$
RE)ES, J.B.L., 8.
FACTS'
:ohn, Rustico and 1ilvina are siblings& 1ilvina ?&
Udan died leaving a purported $ill naming her
illegitimate son, "rancisco ?& Udan, and one
5encesla acho, as her sole heirs, share and share
ali-e& !uring the probate of the $ill, opposition $as
made by her t$o brothers on the ground that the $ill
$as not attested and e*ecuted as re2uired by la$,
that the testatri* $as incapacitated to e*ecute it> and
that it $as procured by fraud or undue influence&
"rancisco died pending the probate& The RT
denied the oppositions filed by the t$o brothers&
+ence, this appeal
ISSUE'
54# oppositor brothers, :ohn and Rustico Udan,
may claim to be heirs intestate of their legitimate
sister, the late 1ilvina Udan&
*ELD'
The ourt ruled that the court belo$ correctly held
that they $ere not, for at the time of her death
1ilvinaGs illegitimate son, "rancisco Udan, $as her
heir intestate, to the e*clusion of her brothers under
7rticles (<< and ';;0 of the governing ivil ode of
the Philippines in force at the time of the death of the
testatri*
%t decreed that collateral relatives of one $ho died
intestate inherit only in the absence of descendants,
ascendants, and illegitimate children& 7lbeit the
brothers and sisters can concur $ith the $ido$ or
$ido$er under 7rticle '';', they do, not concur, but
are e*cluded by the surviving children, legitimate or
illegitimate (7rt& ';;0)& The trial court committed no
error in holding that :ohn and Rustico Udan had no
standing to oppose the probate of the $ill& "or if the
$ill is ultimately probated :ohn and Rustico are
e*cluded by its terms from participation in the estate>
and if probate be denied, both oppositors,appellants
$ill be e*cluded by the illegitimate son, "rancisco
Udan, as sole intestate heir, by operation of la$&
The death of "rancisco t$o years after his motherGs
demise does not improve the situation of appellants&
The rights ac2uired by the former are only
transmitted by his death to his o$n heirs at la$ not
to the appellants, $ho are legitimate brothers of his
mother, for the reason that, as correctly decided by
the court belo$, the legitimate relatives of the mother
cannot succeed her illegitimate child& This is clear
from 7rticle ((/ of the ivil ode&
The legitimate relatives of the mother cannot
succeed her illegitimate child& This is clear from
7rticle ((/ of the ivil ode&
Da3,2 T. To.&%,o
#$6) ISABEL DE LA PUERTA, petitioner, vs& T*E
*ONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS a2
CARMELITA DE LA PUERTA, respondents&
G.R. No. //<6/ F&;r!ar" 6, 199?
CRU=, 8.:
FACTS'
The testator, !ominga Revuelta died on :uly 0,
'(88, at the age of (/, leaving her properties to her
three surviving children, 7lfredo, Kicente and %sabel&
%sabel $as given the free portion in addition to her
legitime and $as appointed e*ecutri* of the $ill&
Kicente and 7lfredo opposed the petition for the
probate of the $ill filed by %sabel& The t$o claimed
that their mother $as already senile at the time of
the e*ecution of the $ill and did not fully
comprehend its meaning, that the properties listed in
the inventory of her estate belonged to them
e*clusively&
7lfredo subse2uently died, leaving Kicente the lone
oppositor& Kicente de la Puerta filed $ith the "% of
Aue6on, a petition to adopt armelita de la Puerta,
$hich $as thereafter granted& %sabel appealed the
said decision to the 7& Kicente died during the
pendency of the appeal, prompting her to move for
the dismissal of the case& armelita filed a motion
for the payment to her of a monthly allo$ance as the
ac-no$ledged natural child of Kicente de la Puerta&
The said motion $as granted by the probate court
granted the motion, declaring that armelita $as a
natural child of Kicente de la Puerta and $as entitled
to the amounts claimed for her support& 7 affirmed
this order of the lo$er court& +ence, this petition
$herein the petitionerGs main argument is that
armelita $as not the natural child of Kicente de la
Puerta, $ho $as married to ?enoveva de la Puerta
in '(0< and remained his $ife until his death in
'(9<& armelitaGs real parents are :uanito 7ustrial
and ?loria :ordan&
ISSUE'
54# respondent armelita de la Puerta, can claim
successional rights to the estate of her alleged
grandmother&
*ELD'
The ourt held that Kicente de la Puerta did not
predecease his mother and armelita is a spurious
child& %t is settled that in testamentary succession,
the right of representation can ta-e place only in the
follo$ing casesF first, $hen the person represented
dies before the testator> second, $hen the person
represented is incapable of succeeding the testator>
and third, $hen the person represented is
disinherited by the testator& %n all of these cases,
since there is a vacancy in the inheritance, the la$
calls the children or descendants of thefiliation of
private respondent armelita de la Puerta, $ho
claims successional rights to the estate of her
alleged grandmother& person represented to
succeed by right of representation&
The la$ is clear that there is representation only
$hen relatives of a deceased person try to succeed
him in his rights $hich he $ould have had if still
living&
#ot having predeceased !ominga Revuelta, her son
Kicente had the right to inherit from her directly or in
his o$n right& #o right of representation $as
involved, nor could it be invo-ed by armelita upon
her fatherGs death, $hich came after his o$n
motherGs death& %t $ould have been different if
Kicente $as already dead $hen !ominga Revuelta
died& armelita could then have inherited from her in
representation of her father Kicente, assuming the
private respondent $as a la$ful heir& 7s a spurious
child of Kicente, armelita is barred from inheriting
from !ominga because of 7rticle ((/ of the ivil
ode, $hich lays do$n the barrier bet$een the
legitimate and illegitimate families& This article
provides 2uite clearlyF
7rt& ((/& 7n illegitimate child has no right to inherit
ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives
of his father or mother> nor shall such children or
relatives inherit in the same manner from the
illegitimate child&
Jven as an adopted child, armelita $ould still be
barred from inheriting from !ominga Revuelta for
there $ould be no natural -indred ties bet$een them
and conse2uently, no legal ties to bind them either&
armelita, as the spurious daughter of Kicente de la
Puerta, has successional rights to the intestate
estate of her father but not to the estate of !ominga
Revuelta& +er claims for support and inheritance
should therefore be filed in the proceedings for the
settlement of her o$n fatherGs estate and cannot be
considered in the probate of !ominga RevueltaGs
$ill&
Da3,2 T. To.&%,o
#$/) BENIGNO MANUEL, LIBERATO MANUEL,
LOREN=O MANUEL, PLACIDA MANUEL,
MADRONA MANUEL, ESPERAN=A MANUEL,
AGAPITA MANUEL, BASILISA MANUEL, EMILIA
MANUEL a2 NUMERIANA MANUEL, petitioners,
vs& *ON. NICODEMO T. FERRER, Pr&4,2,6
J!26&, R&6,oa. Tr,a. Co!r%, Bra-1 3/,
L,6a"&, Pa6a4,a, MODESTA BALTA=AR
a2 ESTANISLAOA MANUEL, respondents&
G.R. No. 11/#46 A!6!4% #1, 199$
(ITUG, 8.:
FACTS'
The property involved in this petition for revie$ on
certiorari is the inheritance left by an illegitimate child
$ho died intestate $ithout any surviving descendant
or ascendant&
Petitioners, the legitimate children of spouses
7ntonio Manuel and @eatri6 ?uiling, filed this suit&
!uring his marriage $ith @eatri6, 7ntonio had an
e*tra,marital affair $ith Ursula @autista& "rom this
relationship, a child named :uan Manuel $as born&
:uan Manuel, the illegitimate son of 7ntonio, married
Jsperan6a ?amba& %n consideration of the marriage,
a donation propter nuptias over a parcel of land, $ith
an area of /,9;; s2m $as e*ecuted in favor of :uan
Manuel by Laurenciana Manuel& T$o other parcels
of land, $ere later bought by :uan and registered in
his name& The couple $ere not blessed $ith a child
that is $hy they too- private respondent Modesta
Manuel,@alta6ar into their fold and so raised her as
their o$n =daughter&= 4n :une 0, '(<;, :uan Manuel
e*ecuted in favor of Jstanislaoa Manuel a !eed of
1ale on Pacto de Retro over a one,half ('P/)
portion of his land& :uan Manuel died intestate on
"ebruary /', '((;& T$o years later, Jsperan6a
?amba also passed a$ay& 7 month after the death
of Jsperan6a, Modesta e*ecuted an 7ffidavit of 1elf,
7d.udication claiming for herself the three parcels of
land&
"ollo$ing the registration of the document of
ad.udication $ith the 4ffice of the Register of !eeds,
the three titles in the name of :uan Manuel $ere
canceled and ne$ titles, $ere issued in the name of
Modesta Manuel,@alta6ar& Modesta e*ecuted in
favor of her co,respondent Jstanislaoa Manuel a
!eed of Renunciation and Auitclaim over the
unredeemed one,half ('P/) portion of the land that
$as sold to the latter by :uan Manuel under the
'(<; !eed of 1ale on Pacto de Retro& The
petitioners filed a complaint filed before the RT
Lingayen, Pangasinan, see-ing the declaration of
nullity of the aforesaid instruments& The trial court
dismissed the complaint holding that petitioners, not
being heirs ab intestato of their illegitimate brother
:uan Manuel, $ere not the real parties,in,interest to
institute the suit& The motion for reconsideration
filed by the petitioners $as denied by the trial court&
+ence, this Petition for revie$ on certiorari&
ISSUE'
54# the petitioners are entitled to inherit in the
intestate estate of their illegitimate brother, :uan
Manuel&
RULING'
The ourt ruled that the petitioners are not entitled
to inherit from the intestate estate of their illegitimate
brother, :uan Manuel under 7RT%LJ ((/, an
illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother> nor shall such children or relative
inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child&
The principle of absolute separation bet$een the
legitimate family and the illegitimate family $herein
such doctrine re.ects succession ab intestato in the
collateral line bet$een legitimate relatives, on the
one hand, and illegitimate relatives, on other hand,
although it does not totally disavo$ such succession
in the direct line& 1ince the rule is predicated on the
presumed $ill of the decedent, it has no application,
ho$ever, on testamentary dispositions&
7 barrier dividing members of the illegitimate family
from members of the legitimate family $herein the
legitimate brothers and sisters as $ell as the
children, $hether legitimate or illegitimate, of such
brothers and sisters, cannot inherit from the
illegitimate child&
7dmittedly in her ans$er, Modesta is not an intestate
heir of :uan Manuel& 7 $ard, $ithout the benefit of
formalP.udicial adoption, is neither a compulsory nor
a legal heir& #evertheless, the complaint of
petitioners see-ing the nullity of the 7ffidavit of 1elf,
7d.udication e*ecuted by Modesta, the three TTGs
issued to her favor, as $ell as the !eed of
Renunciation and Auitclaim in favor of Jstanislaoa
Manuel, $as properly dismissed by the trial court&
Da3,2 T. To.&%,o
#$<) OLI(IA S. PASCUAL a2 *ERMES S.
PASCUAL, petitioners, vs& ESPERAN=A C.
PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, MANUEL C. PASCUAL,
JOSE C. PASCUAL, SUSANA C. PASCUAL-
BAUTISTA, ERLINDA C. PASCUAL, +ENCESLAO
C. PASCUAL, JR., INTESTATE ESTATE OF
ELEUTERIO T. PASCUAL, A(ELINO PASCUAL,
ISOCELES PASCUAL, LEIDA PASCUAL-
MARTINES, (IRGINIA PASCUAL-NER, NONA
PASCUAL-FERNANDO, OCTA(IO PASCUAL,
GERANAIA PASCUAL-DUBERT, a2 T*E
*ONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE MANUEL S.
PADOLINA o0 Br. 16#, RTC, Pa4,6, M&%ro Ma,.a,
respondents&
G.R. No. <4#4? Mar-1 #$, 199#
PARAS, 8.:
Fa-%4'
Petitioners 4livia and +ermes both surnamed
Pascual are the ac-no$ledged natural children of
the late Jligio Pascual, the latter being the full blood
brother of the decedent !on 7ndres Pascual&
!on 7ndres Pascual died intestate on 4ctober '/,
'(90 $ithout any issue, legitimate, ac-no$ledged
natural, adopted or spurious children&
7dela 1oldevilla de Pascual, the surviving spouse of
the late !on 7ndres Pascual, filed $ith the Regional
Trial ourt (RT), a 1pecial Proceeding for
administration of the intestate estate of her late
husband& 4n 4ctober '8, '(<5, all the heirs entered
into a 4MPR4M%1J 7?RJJMJ#T, over the
vehement ob.ections of the herein petitioners 4livia
1& Pascual and +ermes 1& Pascual
The ompromise 7greement had been entered into
despite the ManifestationPMotion of the petitioners
4livia Pascual and +ermes Pascual, manifesting
their hereditary rights in the intestate estate of !on
7ndres Pascual, their uncle& 4n 1eptember 0;,
'(<9, petitioners filed their Motion to Reiterate
+ereditary Rights and the Memorandum in 1upport
of Motion to reiterate +ereditary Rights&
@oth the RT and 7 dismissed the submitted
Motions as $ell as Motions for reconsideration
reiterating the hereditary rights of 4livia and +ermes
Pascual&
+ence, this petition for revie$ on certiorari&
I44!&'
54# 7rticle ((/ e*cludes recogni6ed natural
children from the inheritance of the deceased&
R!.,6'
The ourt dismissed the instant petition for lac- of
merit and affirmed the assailed decision of the
respondent ourt of 7ppeals& %t cited the previous
decided case of !ia6 v& %7, $here such ourt ruled
that 7rticle ((/ of the ivil ode provides a barrier
or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a
succession ab intestato bet$een the illegitimate
child and the legitimate children and relatives of the
father or mother of said legitimate child& They may
have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recogni6ed
by la$ for the purposes of 7rticle ((/& @et$een the
legitimate family and illegitimate family there is
presumed to be an intervening antagonism and
incompatibility& The illegitimate child is disgracefully
loo-ed do$n upon by the legitimate family> the family
is in turn hated by the illegitimate child> the latter
considers the privileged condition of the former, and
the resources of $hich it is thereby deprived> the
former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing
but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a
blemish bro-en in life> the la$ does no more than
recogni6e this truth, by avoiding further grounds of
resentment&
Jligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are
his illegitimate children&
7pplying the doctrine, respondent %7 did not err in
holding that petitioners herein cannot represent their
father Jligio Pascual in the succession of the latter
to the intestate estate of the decedent 7ndres
Pascual, full blood brother of their father&
Da3,2 T. To.&%,o
#$9) MANUEL SARITA, ET AL., plaintiffs,
appellants, vs& ANDRES CANDIA, defendant,
appellee&
G.R. No. L-//6< No3&:;&r 14, 191#
ARELLANO, C.8.:
FACTS'
1pouses 7polinario edenio and Roberta Montesa
are allegedly the o$ners of a parcel of land
apparently of an area of / cavanes of corn upon
$hich they had planted fruit trees& Respondent
andia claims o$nership over the land having
purchased the same from Killarosa, the vendee of
7polinario& Petitioners claim on the other hand, that
as nieces and nephe$s,they are the collateral heirs
of 7polinario, through the latterDs brothers and
sisters& 1arita, ho$ever, is the grandnephe$ of
7polinario&
The RT absolved the defendant from the
complainant, on the grounds that, $ith regard to the
animals and real property sued for, there $as no
proof $hatever that they $ere in possession of the
spouses at the time of their death, and, $ith respect
to the landF (') That the defendant $as the
possessor in good faith continuously and $as
presumed to hold under .ust title so long as the
contrary should not be proved> and (/) that neither
the plaintiffs nor their alleged predecessors in
interest made demand for it during the period of
t$enty,si* years, since the o$nership thereof $as
conveyed by %sidario or 7polinario edeSo to :uan
@asa Killarosa, on the /)th of :une, '<<', it being
that during this very long period of time they did not
obtain possession of the property&
+ence, the .udgment having been appealed through
a bill e*ceptions&
ISSUE'
54# grandnephe$s have a right of representation
over the estate of the deceased&
*ELD'
The ourt ruled that the right of representation is
limited to nephe$s and nieces $ho are children of
brothers and sisters of decedent& The plaintiff 1arita
$ho .oins as the representative of his grandfather in
a complaint $ith others, $ho are brothers and
nephe$s of the predecessor in interest, lac-s such
right of representation, for it belongs in the collateral
line only to the nephe$s and not to the
grandnephe$s& +ence, sister and nephe$s of the
deceased having appeared to claim the inheritance,
they, as the nearest of -in, e*clude a remote relative
li-e a grandnephe$&
Da3,2 T. To.&%,o
#6?) CORA=ON DE=OLLER TISON a2 RENE R.
DE=OLLER, petitioners, vs&COURT OF APPEALS
a2 TEODORA DOMINGO, respondents&
G.R. No. 1#1?#/ J!." 31, 199/
REGALADO, 8.:
FACTS'
This case involves an action for reconveyance filed
by herein petitioners against herein private
respondent before the Regional Trial ourt of
Aue6on ity, @ranch (<, doc-eted as the aforesaid
ivil ase #o& A,<<,';5), over a parcel of land $ith
a house and apartment thereon located at 1an
"rancisco del Monte, Aue6on ity and $hich $as
originally o$ned by the spouses Martin ?uerrero
and Teodora !e6oller ?uerrero&
Petitioners ora6on Tison and Rene !e6oller are the
niece and nephe$, respectively, of the deceased
Teodora !e6oller ?uerrero $ho is the sister of
petitionerGs father, +ermogenes !e6oller& Teodora
!e6oller ?uerrero died on March 5, '(<0 $ithout
any ascendant or descendant, and $as survived
only by her husband, Martin ?uerrero, and herein
petitioners& PetitionersG father, +ermogenes, died on
4ctober 0, '(90, hence they see- to inherit from
Teodora !e6oller ?uerrero by right of
representation&
Records revealed that upon the death of Teodora
!e6oller ?uerrero, her surviving spouse, Martin,
e*ecuted an 7ffidavit of J*tra.udicial 1ettlement
ad.udicating unto himself, allegedly as sole heir, the
land in dispute $hich is covered by Transfer
ertificate of Title #o& 88<<8, as a conse2uence of
$hich Transfer ertificate of Title #o& 05<;9) $as
issued in the name of Martin ?uerrero& Martin
?uerrero then sold the lot to herein private
respondent Teodora !omingo and thereafter,
Transfer ertificate of Title #o& 09);'/ $as issued
in the latterGs name&
7fter Martin ?uerreroDs death, Petitioners filed an
action for reconveyance claiming that they are
entitled to inherit one,half of the property in 2uestion
by right of representation&
@oth the RT and 7 granted the demurrer to
evidence and dismissed the complaint for
reconveyance and declared that the documentary
evidence presented by herein petitioners, such as
the baptismal certificates, family picture, and .oint
affidavits are all inadmissible and insufficient to
prove and establish filiation&
+ence, this appeal&
ISSUE'
54# petitioners failed to meet the 2uantum of proof
re2uired by 7rticle '9/ of the "amily ode to
establish legitimacy and filiation
*ELD'
The ourt ruled for the petitioners and reversed and
set aside the 2uestioned .udgment of respondent
ourt of 7ppeals& Petitioners and Private
Respondent $ere declared co,o$ners of the sub.ect
property $ith an undivided one,fourth ('P)) and
three,fourths (0P)) share therein, respectively&
The ourt considered t$o pointsF
Fi-st ,4 %1& ,44!& o 7&%,%,o&rK4 .&6,%,:a-".
The documentary evidence adduced by petitioners,
ta-en separately and independently of each other,
are not 'er &e sufficient proof of legitimacy nor even
of pedigree& %t seems that the lo$er courts have
regrettably overloo-ed the universally recogni6ed
presumption on legitimacy& There is no presumption
of the la$ more firmly established and founded on
sounder morality and more convincing reason than
the presumption that children born in $edloc- are
legitimate&

7nd $ell settled is the rule that the issue
of legitimacy cannot be attac-ed collaterally&
The issue, therefore, as to $hether petitioners are
the legitimate children of +ermogenes !e6oller
cannot be properly controverted in the present action
for reconveyance& This is aside, of course, from the
further consideration that private respondent is not
the proper party to impugn the legitimacy of herein
petitioners& The presumption conse2uently continues
to operate in favor of petitioners unless and until it is
rebutted&
%ndubitably, $hen private respondent opted not to
present countervailing evidence to overcome the
presumption, by merely filing a demurrer to evidence
instead, she in effect impliedly admitted the truth of
such fact& %ndeed, she overloo-ed or disregarded the
evidential rule that presumptions li-e .udicial notice
and admissions, relieve the proponent from
presenting evidence on the facts he alleged and
such facts are thereby considered as duly proved&
Se.*nd ,4 %1& 9!&4%,o r&6ar2,6 %1&,r 0,.,a%,o
5,%1 T&o2ora D&Io..&r G!&rr&ro.
The ourt is sufficiently convinced, and so hold, that
the present case is one instance $here the general
re2uirement on evidence a"iun%e may be rela*ed&
Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the estate
of the declarant herself& onformably, the
declaration made by Teodora !e6oller ?uerrero that
petitioner ora6on is her niece, is admissible and
constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship,
not$ithstanding the fact that there $as no other
preliminary evidence thereof, the reason being such
declaration is rendered competent by virtue of the
necessity of receiving such evidence to avoid a
failure of .ustice& More importantly, there is in the
present case an absolute failure by all and sundry to
refute that declaration made by the decedent&
"rom the foregoing dis2uisitions, it may thus be
safely concluded, on the sole basis of the decedentGs
declaration and $ithout need for further proof
thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephe$ of
Teodora !e6oller ?uerrero&
7pplying the general rule in the present case $ould
nonetheless produce the same result& "or $hile the
documentary evidence submitted by petitioners do
not strictly conform to the rules on their admissibility,
$e are ho$ever of the considered opinion that the
same may be admitted by reason of private
respondentGs failure to interpose any timely ob.ection
thereto at the time they $ere being offered in
evidence& Da3,2 T. To.&%,o
#61) =OSIMA (ERDAD 34. CA
G.R. No. 1?99/# A7r,. #9, 1996
(ITUG, 8.:
FACTS'
Petitioner Qosima Kerdad is the purchaser of a /)<,
s2uare meter residential lot at Magallanes 1treet,
no$ Marcos M& alo 1t&, @utuan ity& Private
respondent 1ocorro ordero Kda& de Rosales,
see-s to e*ercise a right of legal redemption over
the sub.ect property and traces her title to the late
Macaria 7tega, her mother,in,la$, $ho died intestate
on ;< March '(58&
!uring her lifetime, Macaria contracted t$o
marriagesF the first $ith 7ngel @urdeos and the
second, follo$ing the latterGs death, $ith anuto
Rosales& 7t the time of her o$n death, Macaria $as
survived by her son Ramon 7& @urdeos and her
grandchild (by her daughter "elicidad 7& @urdeos)
Jstela Lo6ada of the first marriage and her children
of the second marriage, namely, !avid Rosales,
:usto Rosales, Romulo Rosales, and 7urora
Rosales (notice that other respondents in this case
are the children from the /
nd
marriage)& 1ocorro is
the $ife of !avid Rosales $ho sometime after the
death of Macaria, died intestate $ithout issue&
%t $as discovered that the heirs of Ramon @uderos
sold the lot in 2uestion to petitioner in an instrument
dated '), :une '(</ (for P55,)8;) and another
instrument on ') #ov '(</ (this time a duly
notari6ed deed of sale for P/0,;;;), $hich sale $as
later discovered by respondent 1ocorro on 0; Mar
'(<9& 1ettlement $as attempted at the "ailure of
settlement at the Lupong Tagapamayapa prompted
the Respondent to initiated a case for the =Legal
Redemption $ith Preliminary %n.unction= before the
Regional Trial ourt of @utuan ity&
RT decided that the private respondentsG right to
redeem the property had already lapsed& 4n appeal
by respondents, ourt of 7ppeals reversed the lo$er
courtDs decision declaring plaintiff,appellant, 1ocorro
& Rosales, entitled to redeem the inheritance rights
(7rt& ';<<, #) or 'ro in%ivi&o share (7rt& '8/;,
#) of the +eirs of Ramon @urdeos, 1r& in Lot 5/(,
Ts,85 of the @utuan adastre, $ithin the remaining
JLJKJ# ('') !7E1 from finality hereon, unless
$ritten notice of the sale and its terms are received
in the interim, under the same terms and conditions
appearing under J*hibit =:= and after returning the
purchase price of P/0,;;;&;; $ithin the foregoing
period&
+ence, this petition&
ISSUE'
54# respondents may initiate redemption
proceedings over the lot, her not being a legal co,
heir, as $ell as the timeliness of that the said case
$as instituted&
*ELD'
The ourt denied the petition& 4n the contention of
petitioner as to the capacity of 1ocorro to initiate the
redemption proceedings, the ourt ruled that
Respondent possess the capacity to as- for a
redemption& %t is true that 1ocorro, a daughter,in,la$
(or, for that matter, a mere relative by affinity), is not
an intestate heir of her parents,in,la$>

ho$ever,
1ocorroGs right to the property is not because she
rightfully can claim heirship in MacariaGs estate but
that she is a legal heir of her husband, !avid
Rosales, part of $hose estate is a share in his
motherGs inheritance&
!avid Rosales, incontrovertibly, survived his
motherGs death& 5hen Macaria died on ;< March
'(58 her estate passed on to her surviving children,
among them !avid Rosales, $ho thereupon became
co,o$ners of the property& 5hen !avid Rosales
himself later died, his o$n estate, $hich included
his undivided interest over the property inherited
from Macaria, passed on to his $ido$ 1ocorro and
her co,heirs pursuant to the la$ on succession(7rt
((5 and ';;')& 1ocorro and herein private
respondents, along $ith the co,heirs of !avid
Rosales, thereupon became co!owner& of the
property that originally descended from Macaria&
7s to the timeliness of the filing of the petition, the
ourt ruled that such $as e*ercised on time&
oncededly, no $ritten notice of the sale $as given
by the @urdeos heirs (vendors) to the co,
o$ners

re2uired under 7rticle '8/0 of the ivil ode&
+ence, the thirty,day period of redemption had yet to
commence $hen private respondent Rosales sought
to e*ercise the right of redemption on 0' March
'(<9, a day after she discovered the sale from the
4ffice of the ity Treasurer of @utuan ity, or $hen
the case $as initiated, on '8 4ctober '(<9, before
the trial court& The $ritten notice of sale is
mandatory& This ourt has long established the rule
that not$ithstanding actual -no$ledge of a co,
o$ner, the latter is still entitled to a $ritten notice
from the selling co,o$ner in order to remove all
uncertainties about the sale, its terms and
conditions, as $ell as its efficacy and status&
Da3,2 T. To.&%,o
#6#) FILOMENA ABELLANA DE
BACA)O, petitioner,appellant, vs&GAUDENCIA
FERRARIS DE BORROMEO, CATALINA FERARIS
DE (ILLEGAS,
JUANITO FERRARIS a2 CONC*ITA
FERRARIS, oppositors,appellees&
?&R& #o& L,'(0</ 7ugust 0', '(85
"7T1F
Melodia "erraris $as a resident of ebu ity until
'(09 $hen she transferred to %ntramuros, Manila&
1he $as -no$n to have resided in
Manilacontinuously until '())& More than ten (';)
years having elapsed since the last time she $as
-no$n to be alive, she $as declared presumptively
dead for purposes of opening her succession and
distributing her estate among her heirs&
Melodia "erraris left properties in ebu ity& The
deceased Melodia "erraris left no surviving direct
descendant, ascendant, or spouse, but $as survived
only by collateral relatives, namely, "ilomena
7bellana de @acayo, an aunt and half,sister of
decedentGs father, 7nacleto "erraris> and by
?audencia, atalina, onchita, and :uanito, all
surnamed "erraris, her nieces and nephe$, $ho
$ere the children of MelodiaGs only brother of full
blood, 7rturo "erraris, $ho pre,deceased her (the
decedent)&
The trial court ruled that the appellees, as children of
the only predeceased brother of the decedent, are
nearer in degree than the appellant since nieces and
nephe$s succeed by right of representation&
%11UJF
5ho amongst the claimants are entitled to the
inheritance3
+JL!F
5e agree $ith appellants that as an aunt of the
deceased she is as far distant as the nephe$s from
the decedent (three degrees) since in the collateral
line to $hich both -inds of relatives belong degrees
are counted by first ascending to the common
ancestor and then descending to the heir& 7ppellant
is li-e$ise right in her contention that nephe$s and
nieces alone do not inherit by right of representation
(i&e&, 'er &tri'e&) unless concurring $ith brothers or
sisters of the deceased&
#evertheless, the trial court $as correct $hen it held
that, in case of intestacy, nephe$s and nieces of
the %e cu.u& e*clude all other collaterals (aunts and
uncles, first cousins, etc&) from the succession&
Under 7rticle ';;(, the absence of brothers, sisters,
nephe$s and nieces of the decedent is a
precondition to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins,
etc&) being called to the succession&
@rothers and sisters and nephe$s and nieces
inherited a, inte&tato ahea% of the surviving spouse,
$hile other collaterals succeeded only after the
$ido$er or $ido$& The present ivil ode of the
Philippines merely placed the spouse on a par $ith
the nephe$s and nieces and brothers and sisters of
the deceased, but $ithout altering the preferred
position of the latter vi&!a!vi& the other collaterals&
Therefore, a decedentGs uncles and aunts may not
succeed a, inte&tato so long as nephe$s and
nieces of the decedent survive and are $illing and
2ualified to succeed&
#63) BICOMONG 34. ALMAN=A
G.R. No. L-3/36$ No3. #9, 19//
"actsF
1imeon @agsic $as married to 1isenanda @arcenas
having three childrenF Perpetua, %gmedia and
%gnacio& 5hen 1isenda died, 1imeon married
1ilvestra producing t$o childrenF "elipa and Maura&
The sub.ect matter of the complaint concerns the
one,half undivided share of Maura @agsic in the 5
parcels of land $hich she inherited from her
deceased mother, 1ilvestra ?lorioso&
Three sets of plaintiffs filed the complaint, namelyF
(a) the @icomongs, children of Perpetua @agsic> (b)
the Tolentinos, children of %gmedia @agsic> and (c)
"rancisco @agsic, daughter of %gnacio @agsic, in the
"% of Laguna and 1an Pablo ity against the
defendants ?eronimo 7lman6a and Jngracio
Menese for the recovery of their la$ful shares in the
properties left by Maura @agsic&
7fter the death of Maura @agsic, properties passed
on to ristela 7lman6a $ho too- charge of the
administration of the same& Thereupon, the plaintiffs
approached her and re2uested for the partition of
their auntGs properties& +o$ever, they $ere prevailed
upon by risteta 7lman6a not to divide the
properties yet as the e*penses for the last illness
and burial of Maura @agsic had not yet been paid&
+aving agreed to defer the partition of the same, the
plaintiffs brought out the sub.ect again sometime in
'(5( only& This time risteta 7lman6a acceded to
the re2uest as the debts, accordingly, had already
been paid& Unfortunately, she died $ithout the
division of the properties having been effected,
thereby leaving the possession and administration of
the same to the defendants&
The trial court rendered .udgment in favor of
plaintiffs& The respondents have the right to inherit
from Maura by right of representation&
The appellate court certified the case to the
1upreme ourt&
%ssueF
5hether the nephe$s and nieces from the brothers
and sisters $hether full or half blood has the right to
inherit
+eldF
Ees& The nephe$s and nieces from the brothers and
sisters $hether full or half blood has the right to
inherit&
%n the absence of defendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, 7rt& ';;0
of the # provides that collateral relatives shall
succeed to the entire estate of the deceased& %t
appearing that Maura @agsic died intestate $ithout
an issue, and her husband and all her ascendants
had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by the
surviving collateral relatives, namely the daughter of
her sister of full blood and the ten (';) children of
her brother and t$o (/) sisters of half blood in
accordance $ith the provision of 7rt& (95 of the
#&
Under the same provision, 7rt& (95, $hich ma-es no
2ualification as to $hether the nephe$s or nieces
are on the maternal or paternal line and $ithout
preference as to $hether their relationship to the
deceased is by $hole or half blood, the sole niece of
$hole blood of the deceased does not e*clude the
ten nephe$s and n of half blood& The only difference
in their right of succession is provided in 7rt& ';;<,
# in relation to 7rt& ';;8 of the #, $hich
provisions, in effect, entitle the sole niece of full
blood to a share double that of the nephe$s and
nieces of half blood&
#64) CIT) OF MANILA (S. ARC*BIS*OP
G.R. No. L-1??33 D A!6!4% 3?, 191/
"7T1F %n '88<, 7na 1armiento resided $ith her
husband in the ity of Manila& 1he o$ned properties
consisted of five parcels of land in Malate and Paco&
1he made a $ill and later on added a codicil to said
$ill& The $ill contained provisions for the
establishment of a =apellania de Misas=> that the
first chaplain of said capellania should be her
nephe$ Pedro del astillo> that said $ill contained a
provision for the administration of said property in
relation $ith the said =apellania de Misas=
succeeding administration should continue
perpetually& %n '89/, 7na 1armiento died& "or more
than t$o hundred years, respondent Roman atholic
7rchbishop of Manila, through his various agencies,
has administered said property&
Petitioner city of Manila filed an action before the
"% to have declared escheated to the city of Manila
the mentioned property& The theory of the petitioner
is that one 7na 1armiento $as the o$ner of said
property and died in the year '88< $ithout leaving
=her or person entitled to the same&= +o$ever, the
respondent opposed alleging that it has rightfully and
legally succeeded to the possession and
administration of the property in accordance $ith the
terms and provisions of the $ill of 7na 1armiento&
The trial court denied the petition&
%11UJF 5hether the property can be escheated in
favor of ity of Manila&
+JL!F #o
1ection 95; of 7ct #o& '(; provides $hen property
may be declared escheated& %t provides, =$hen a
person dies intestate, sei6ed of real or personal
property & & & leaving no heir or person by la$ entitled
to the same,= that then and in that case such
property under the procedure provided for by
sections 95' and 95/, may de declared escheated&
The proof sho$s that 7na 1armiento did not die
intestate& 1he left a $ill& The $ill provides for the
administration of said property by her nephe$ as
$ell as for the subse2uent administration of the
same& 1he did not die $ithout an heir nor $ithout
persons entitled to administer her estate& %t further
sho$s that she did not die $ithout leaving a person
by la$ entitled to inherit her property& Therefore, the
property in 2uestion cannot be declared escheated&
The $ill clearly, definitely and une2uivocally defines
and designates $hat disposition shall be made of
the property in 2uestion& The heir mentioned in said
$ill evidently accepted its terms and permitted the
property to be administered in accordance there$ith&
7nd, so far as the record sho$s, it is still being
administered in accordance $ith the terms of said
$ill for the benefit of the real beneficiary as $as
intended by the original o$ner&
#6$) TORRES 34. LOPE=
G.R. No. L-#$966 No3&:;&r 1, 19#6
"7T1F
Tomas Rodrigue6, had been .udicially declared
incapable of ta-ing care of himself and had been
placed under the care of his cousin Kicente "&
Lope6, as guardian& The $ill instituted as universal
heirs of all his property his daughter Lu6 Lope6 de
@ueno and cousin Lope6& Lope6 died ) days from
the time the $ill $as made and the testator died
about a month thereafter& The time the $ill $as
made Lope6 had not presented his final accounts as
guardian, and no such accounts had been presented
by him at the time of his death&
Margarita Lope6 $as a cousin and nearest relative
of the decedent, filed a case claiming half of the
estate of Tomas by intestate succession as ne*t of
-in and nearest heir& Lu6, on the other hand, claims
the same by accretion and in the character of
universal heir under the $ill of Tomas& 7ppellant
contends that there has supervened a partial
intestacy $ith respect to the half of the estate $hich
$as intended for Kicente "& Lope6 and that this half
has descended to the appellant&
The trial court ruled in favor of Lu6&
%11UJF
5hether or not one,half of the estate of Tomas
Rodri2ue6 should go to Margarita Lope6 being the
ne*t of -in and nearest heir of Kicente Lope6 or to
his daughter by accretion3
+JL!F
7rticle 950 of the ivil ode $hich in effect declares
that, $ith certain e*ceptions in favor of near
relatives, no testamentary provision shall be valid
$hen made by a $ard in favor of his guardian before
the final accounts of the latter have been approved&
This provision is of undoubted application to the
situation before the court and the provision made in
the $ill of Tomas Rodrigue6 in favor of Kicente "&
Lope6 $as not any general incapacity on his part,
but a special incapacity due to the accidental relation
of guardian and $ard e*isting bet$een the parties&
7ccretion ta-es place in a testamentary success
$hen t$o or more persons are called to the same
inheritance or the same portion thereof $ithout
special designation of shares and secondly, $hen
one of the persons so called dies before the testator
or renounces the inheritance or is dis2ualified to
receive it& %n the case before us $e have a $ill
calling Kicente "& Lope6 and his daughter, Lu6 Lope6
de @ueno, to the same inheritance $ithout special
designation of shares& %n addition to this, one of the
persons named as heir has predeceased the
testator, this person being also dis2ualified to
receive the estate even if he had been alive at the
time of the testatorGs death by reason of his being
then the legal guardian of the testator $ith accounts
unsettled, does not ma-e a case for intestate
succession as to his part of the estate& This article
((</) is the e*act application to the case and its
effect is to give to the survivor, Lu6 Lope6 de @ueno,
not only the undivided half $hich she $ould have
received in con.unction $ith her father if he had been
alive and 2ualified to ta-e, but also the half $hich
pertained to him& There $as no error $hatever,
therefore in the order of the trial court declaring Lu6
Lope6 de @ueno entitled to the $hole estate&
#66) NEPOMUCENO 34. IAC
139 SCRA #?6
"7T1F
4n :uly '8, '(9), Martin :ugo died and left a $ill& %n
the said $ill, the testator named and appointed
herein petitioner 1ofia :& #epomuceno as his sole
and only e*ecutor of his estate& %t is clearly stated in
the 5ill that the testator $as legally married to a
certain Rufina ?ome6 by $hom he had t$o
legitimate children, 4scar and armelita, but since
'(5/, he had been estranged from his la$fully
$edded $ife and had been living $ith petitioner as
husband and $ife& The estate $as devised to his
legal heirs, e*cept the free portion $hich $as
devised to petitioner& Petitioner filed a petition for the
probate of the $ill but $as denied by the court on the
opposition of the legal heirs on the ground that
petitioner admitted her living in concubinage $ith the
testator, thus, she is $anting in integrity and letters
testamentary should not be issued to her&
The ourt of 7ppeals declared the $ill to be valid
e*cept that the devise in favor of the petitioner is null
and void, Petitioner contends that the lo$er court
has no .urisdiction in passing upon the 2uestion of
the intrinsic validity of the $ill&
%11UJF 5hether or not the probate court may pass
upon the provisions of the $ill&
+JL!F #4&
The respondent court acted $ithin its .urisdiction
$hen after declaring the $ill to be validly dra$n, it
$ent on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the 5ill
and declared the devise in favor of the petitioner null
and void&
The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the
courtDs area of in2uiry is limited to an e*amination
and resolution of the e*trinsic validity of the $ill& The
rule, ho$ever, is not infle*ible and absolute& ?iven
e*ceptional circumstances, the probate court is not
po$erless to do $hat the situation constrains it to do
and pass upon certain provisions of the $ill& The fact
that the probate court declared a devise made in a
$ill null and void $ill be sustained $here no useful
purpose $ill be served by re2uiring the filing of a
separate civil action and restricting the court only to
the issue of e*trinsic validity of the $ill& There is no
useful purpose that $ould be served if $e remand
the nullified provision to the proper court in a
separate action for that purpose simply because, in
the probate of a $ill, the court does not ordinarily
loo- into the intrinsic validity of its provisions&
The prohibition in 7rticle 90( of the ivil ode is
against the ma-ing of a donation bet$een persons
$ho are living in adultery or concubinage& %t is the
donation $hich becomes void& The giver cannot give
even assuming that the recipient may receive& The
very $ordings of the $ill invalidate the legacy
because the testator admitted he $as disposing the
properties to a person $ith $hom he had been living
in concubinage&
#6/) PASTOR 34. CA
1## SCRA <<$
"7T1F
7lvaro Pastor, 1r& (P71T4R, 1R&), a 1panish
sub.ect, died in ebu ity on :une 5, '(88, survived
by his 1panish $ife 1ofia @ossio ($ho also died),
their t$o legitimate children 7lvaro Pastor, :r&
(P71T4R, :R&) and 1ofia Pastor de Midgely
(14"%7), and an illegitimate child, not natural, by the
name of Le$ellyn @arlito Auemada (AUJM7!7)&
AUJM7!7 filed a petition for the probate and
allo$ance of an alleged holographic $ill of P71T4R,
1R&, $hich contained a legacy in favor of Auenada
consisting of 0;_ of Pastor 1r&Ds )/_ share in the
operation of 7tlas Mining&
P71T4R, :R& and his $ife claimed to be the o$ners
thereof in their o$n rights, and not by inheritance
Thus, Auemada appointed as special administrator
filed for reconveyance of said claims of alleged
properties including the sub.ect of legacy&
%11UJF
5hether the probate order resolved $ith finality the
2uestions of o$nership&
5hether the probate ordere resolved the intrinsic
validity of the $ill&
+JL!F
%n a special proceeding for the probate of a $ill, the
issue by and large is restricted to the e*trinsic
validity of the $ill, 7s a rule, the 2uestion of
o$nership is an e*traneous matter $hich the
Probate ourt cannot resolve $ith finality& Thus, for
the purpose of determining $hether a certain
property should or should not be included in the
inventory of estate properties, the Probate ourt
may pass upon the title thereto, but such
determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is
sub.ect to the final decision in a separate action to
resolve title&
Probate court erred in assuming in its implementing
order that the probate order ad.udged the issues of
o$nership& %n case of death of one of the spouses,
their respective rights must be li2uidated and the
debts paid in the succession proceedings for the
deceased spouse& ertiorari is proper $here probate
court issued erroneous implementing orders of its
probate order& Legacy made in a $ill cannot be
distributed $ithout a prior li2uidation of the
decedentDs estate and payment of debts and ta*es&
7 legacy is not a debt of the estate for $hich a $rit of
e*ecution may issue& 7n order of e*ecution that
varies the terms of a final order can be 2uestioned in
a certiorari proceeding&
#6<) SANC*E= 34. CA
G.R. No. 1?<94/ S&7%&:;&r #9, 199/
"7T1F
Private respondent Rosalia 1& Lugod is the only child
of spouses :uan & 1anche6 and Maria Killafranca
$hile 7rturo 1& Lugod, Jvelyn L& Ranises and
Roberto 1& Lugod are the legitimate children of
Rosalia& Petitioners Rolando, "lorida Mierly, 7lfredo
and Myrna, all surnamed 1anche6, are the
illegitimate children of :uan & 1anche6& Rosalia
filed a petition for letters of administration over the
estate of her mother follo$ing her death and the
estate of her father, :uan, $ho $as at the time in a
state of senility& @ut before the administration
proceedings could formally be terminated and
closed, :uan died& 1uch that petitioners as heirs of
:uan, filed a petition for letters of administration over
the intestate estate of :uan, $hich petition $as
opposed by Rosalia& Thereafter, Rosalia and
petitioners e*ecuted a ompromise 7greement
$herein they agreed to divide the properties
enumerated therein of the late :uan 1anche6&
Petitioners filed a Motion to re2uire administratri*,
Rosalia, to deliver deficiency of /) hectares andPor
to set aside compromise agreement& Private
respondent Rosalia and petitioners entered into and
e*ecuted a memorandum of agreement $hich
modified the compromise agreement& #ine years
later, petitioners filed a motion to re2uire Rosalia to
submit a ne$ inventory and to render an accounting
over properties not included in the compromise
agreement& They li-e$ise filed a motion to defer the
approval of the compromise agreement, in $hich
they prayed for the annulment of the compromise
agreement on the ground of fraud&
The trial court declared the compromise agreement
void and unenforceable, the same not having been
approved by the intestate court and that the same
having been seasonably repudiated by petitioners on
the ground of fraud& The ourt of 7ppeals reversed
the trial court and declared the modified compromise
agreement valid and binding& Petitioners contend
that, because the compromise agreement $as
e*ecuted during the pendency of the probate
proceedings, .udicial approval is necessary to
shroud it $ith validity&
%ssueF 5hether or not the compromise agreement
entered by the parties during the pendency of
probate proceedings is valid and binding&
+eldF Ees& 7rticle /;/< of the ivil ode defines a
compromise agreement as =a contract $hereby the
parties, by ma-ing reciprocal concessions, avoid a
litigation or put an end to one already commenced&=
@eing a consensual contract, it is perfected upon the
meeting of the minds of the parties& :udicial approval
is not re2uired for its perfection& PetitionersG
argument that the compromise $as not valid for lac-
of .udicial approval is not novel> the same $as raised
in Mayuga vs& ourt of 7ppeals, $here the ourt
ruledF B%t is alleged that the lac- of .udicial approval is
fatal to the compromise& 7 compromise is a
consensual contract& 7s such, it is perfected upon
the meeting of the minds of the parties to the
contract& 7nd from that moment not only does it
become binding upon the parties, it also has upon
them the effect and authority of res .udicata (ivil
ode, 7rt& /;09), even if not .udicially approved &C %n
the case before us, it is ineludible that the parties
-no$ingly and freely entered into a valid
compromise agreement& 7de2uately assisted by
their respective counsels, they each negotiated its
terms and provisions for four months> in fact, said
agreement $as e*ecuted only after the fourth draft&
7s noted by the trial court itself, the first and second
drafts $ere prepared successively in :uly, '(8(> the
third draft on 1eptember /5, '(8(> and the fourth
draft, $hich $as finally signed by the parties on
4ctober 0;, '(8(, follo$ed& 1ince this compromise
agreement $as the result of a long dra$n out
process, $ith all the parties ably striving to protect
their respective interests and to come out $ith the
best they could, there can be no doubt that the
parties entered into it freely and voluntarily&
7ccordingly, they should be bound thereby& To be
valid, it is merely re2uired under the la$ to be based
on real claims and actually agreed upon in good faith
by the parties thereto& %ndeed, compromise is a form
of amicable settlement that is not only allo$ed but
also encouraged in civil cases& 7rticle /;/( of the
ivil ode mandates that a =court shall endeavor to
persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon
some fair compromise&=%n opposing the validity and
enforcement of the compromise agreement,
petitioners harp on the minority of "lorida Mierly,
7lfredo and Myna& iting 7rticle /;0/ of the ivil
ode, they contend that the courtGs approval is
necessary in compromises entered into by guardians
and parents in behalf of their $ards or children&
+o$ever, $e observe that although denominated a
compromise agreement, the document in this case is
essentially a deed of partition, pursuant to 7rticle
';</ of the ivil ode $hich provides that =HeIvery
act $hich is intended to put an end to indivision
among co,heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed
to be a partition, although it should purport to be a
sale, an e*change, a compromise, or any other
transaction&="or a partition to be valid, 1ection ',
Rule 9) of the Rules of ourt, re2uires the
concurrence of the follo$ing conditionsF (') the
decedent left no $ill> (/) the decedent left no debts,
or if there $ere debts left, all had been paid> (0) the
heirs and li2uidators are all of age, or if they are
minors, the latter are represented by their .udicial
guardian or legal representatives> and ()) the
partition $as made by means of a public instrument
or affidavit duly filed $ith the Register of !eeds& 5e
find that all the foregoing re2uisites are present in
this case& 5e therefore affirm the validity of the
partiesG compromise agreementPpartition in this case&
#69) NA=ARENO (S. CA
343 SCRA 63/

"7T1
Ma*iminoo #a6areno 1r& and 7urea Poblete $ere
husband and $ife& 7urea died on 7pril '5, '(9; ,
$hile Ma*imo 1r& died on !ecember '<, '(<; & They
$ere survived by their children, #atividad, Romeo,
:ose, Pacifico and Ma*iminoo :r& Ma*iminoo :r& and
#atividad are petitioners in this case, $hile Romeo
and his $ife are respondents&

!eceased spouses #a6areno ac2uired properties in
Aue6on ity and in avite & %t is the o$nership of
some of these properties that is in 2uestion in this
case&

%t appears that after the death of Ma*imino 1r&
Romeo filed an intestate case in the "% of avite&
Romeo $as appointed administrator of his fatherDs
estate& %n the course of the proceedings, Romeo
discovered that his parents e*ecuted several deeds
of sale conveying a number of real properties in
favor of his sister, #atividad& This involved 8 lots in
A one of $hich is a lot occupied by Romeo and his
$ife& This lot $as later sold by #atividad to Ma*imino
:r&

Romeo filed on behalf of the estate of Ma*imino 1r&,
a case for annulment of sale $ith damages against
#atividad and Ma*imino :r& on the ground that both
sales $ere void for lac- of consideration& Trial ourt
rendered .udgement declaring the nullity of the deed
of sale& 7 modified RT, ordered lots cancelled
and restored to the estate of Ma*imino 1r&

%11UJF 5hether upon death of the deceased
spouses their estate alone can see- the annulment
of said sale3 5hether the sale is valid3

+JL!

The petition is $ithout merit&
The fact that other properties had allegedly been
sold by the spouses Ma*imino 1r& and 7urea does
not necessarily sho$ that the deed of sale made in
favor of #atividad is valid&

The trial court and 7 found that the #a6areno
spouses transferred their properties to their children
by fictitious sales in order to avoid payment of
inheritance ta*es& %t $as also found out that
#atividad had no means to pay for the si* lots
sub.ect of the deed of sale&

The estate of Ma*imino alone cannot contest the
validity of the deed of sale because the estate of
7urea has not been settled& 7 decision affirmed&

#/?) =ARAGO=A (S. CA
341 SCRA 3?9

"7T1
"lavio Qarago6a ano $as a registered o$ner of
certain parcels of land situated at the municipalities
of abatuan, #e$ Lucena and 1ta& @arbara, %loilo &
+e had four children, ?loria, Qacaria6, "lorentina
and 7lberta & 4n !ecemeber '(8) he died $ithout a
$ill&

7lberta Qarago6a,Morgan filed a complaint against
"lorentino for delivery of her inheritance share,
consisting of lots ()0 and <9' and for payment of
damages& 1he claims that, his father in his lifetime
partitioned the said properties among his children&
The shares of her brothers and sisters $ere given to
them in advance by $ay of deed of sale, but $ithout
valid consideration& +er share, lots ()0 and <9'
$ere not conveyed then& 1he averred that because
of her marriage, she became an 7merican citi6en
and $as prohibited to ac2uire lands in the
Philippines e*cept by hereditary succession&

Petitioners denied that there $as partition of the
estate of their father during his lifetime& The trial
court ruled and ordered ad.udication lot <9' to the
plaintiff 7lberta , the claim for lot ()0 is dismissed&
a reversed RT in so far as lot ()0 is concerned,
ordered 7lberta as o$ner of lot ()0&

%11UJF '& 5hether the partition inter vivos by "lavio
Qarago6a of his properties $hich includes lot <9'
and ()0 valid3
/& 5hether the validity of the sale and
conse2uently, the TT over lot ()0 registered in the
name of Petitioners "lorentina be a valid sub.ect
matter of the entire proceeding for the delivery of the
inheritance share&

+JL!
This court affirms the decision of 7, lots <9' and
()0 $ere inheritance shares of respondent, based
on documentary evidence and testimonial evidence&
Partition during the lifetime of "lavio 6arago6a is
valid& %t is basic in the la$ of succession that a
partition inter vivos may be done for as long as
legitimes are not pre.udiced& 7rticle ';<; of the ivil
ode is clear, the petition, must be dismissed
$ithout pre.udice to the institution of a ne$
proceeding $ere all the indispensable parties are
present for the rightful determination of their
respective legitime&

1econd %ssue& Petition is a collateral attac-& %t is not
allo$ed by 1ec )< of P! '5/(& The certificate, in
absence of fraud, is eveidence of title and sho$s
e*actly the real interest of the o$ner& The title once
registered& 1hould not be thereafter impugned,
altered or changed e*cept in direct proceeding
permitted by la$&

#/1) MENDO=A (S CA
199 SCRA //<

"7T1
Petitioner Mendo6a % et al instituted before "% of
@ulacan an action for reconveyance of real property
against private respondents spouses 1amonte&
Petitioners are legitimate children of deceased
Mendo6a , Trinidad , their mother sold a parcel of
land to respondents spouses 1amonte& Petitioners
aver that they are entitled to legal redemption&

7ccording to the plaintiff, the sale of the disputed
property in favor of the defendants $as null and void
on the ground that, as a mere co,o$ner of an
undivided estate, Trinidad Mendo6a had no right to
divide the estate into parts and then convey a part
thereof by metes and bounds to a third person, since
there had never been any partition, .udicial or e*tra
.udicial, of the estate among the heirs of their late
father, 7rcadio&

The trial court dismissed the the petitionerDs
complaint& 7 affirmed the decision of the trial court&

%11UJF 5hether the deed of sale is void3 5hether
petitioners can still e*ercise the right of legal
redemption3

+JL!F
Petitioner Trinidad is not entitled to one,half ('P/) of
said lot but only to the share of one legitimate child
or ' and 'P0 rights and interest, citing article ((8 of
the ivil ode&

The deed of sale is void insofar as it affects the
rights and interests of other petitioners because
petitioner Trinidad can only sell her ' 'P0 rights and
interest over the said lot and no more than that&
orollary, the remaining petitioners can still e*ercise
the right of legal redemption, conformably $ith
7rticle '8/; of the civil code&

#/#) A=NAR BROT*ERS REALT CO. (S CA
3#/ SCRA 3$9

"7T1
Lot no& )0(( containing an area of 0),0/5 s2uare
meters located at @rgy& Mactan, Lapu Lapu ity $as
ac2uired @y 76nar from the heirs of risanta
Maloloy,on by virtue of an e*tra.udicial Partition of
real estate $ith deed of absolute sale&

Private respondents $ere allegedly allo$ed to
occupy portions of lot )0(( provided that they leave
the land in the event that the company $ould use the
property for its purpose& Later, 76nar entered into a
.oint venture $ith 1ta& Lucia Realty for development
of the sub.ect lot into a multi,million peso housing
subdivision and beach resort&

5hen demands to vacate failed, 76nar filed $ith
MT a case for unla$ful detainer and damages&
Private Respondents alleged that they are the
successors and descendants of the eight children of
the late risanta and that they had been residing in
the concept of o$ner since the time of their parents
and grandparents& They claim that the deed of
absolute sale $as simulated and fraudulent& Thus
files $ith RT a complaint see-ing to declare the
sub.ect document null and void&

MT favored 76nar& RT ordered demolition& 7
reversed and set aside RT and declared Private
Respondents as the rightful possessors&

%11UJF 5hether the e*tra.udicial partition $ith deed
of absolute sale is valid&

+JL!F
Private respondents claim that not all the -no$n
heirs participated in the e*tra.udicial partition, and
that t$o persons $ho participated and $ere made
parties thereto $ere not the heirs of risanta&

This claim even if true $ould not $arrant rescission
of the deed& 7rticle '';) of the ivil ode as to
parties $ho $ere allegedly not heirs, article '';5 is
in point&

J*tra.udicial partition $ith deed of absolute sale is a
notari6ed document& 7s such, it has in its favor the
presumption of regularity and it carries the
evidentiary $eight conferred upon it $ith respect to
its due e*ecution& %t is admissible in evidence $ithout
further proof of authenticity& !ecision of RT
reinstated&

#/3) RALLA (S. UNTALAN
L-63#$3-$4 APRIL #/ 19<9

"7T1
Rosendo Ralla, a $ido$er, filed a petition for the
probate of his $ill in the RT of 7lbay& %n his $ill he
left his entire estate to his son, Pablo (herein
petitioner substituted by heirs), leaving nothing to his
other son, Pedro&

7t the same time, Pedro filed an action for the
partition of the estate of their mother, Pa6& 5ith this
case, the brothers agreed to amicably compromise
via pro.ect partition, $hereby si*ty,three parcels of
land, apparently forming the estate of their deceased
mother $as divided bet$een them&

%n the course of the proceeding for the probate of
Rosendo, Pablo filed a motion to dismiss the petition
for probate on the ground that he $as no longer
interested in the allo$ance of the $ill of his late
father for its probate $ould no longer be beneficial to
him& This motion $as denied, it $as also denied at
the 7& %n its decision the 7 said, indeed the
petitioner stood to gain if the testate proceedings
$ere to be dismissed because then he $ould not be
compelled to submit for inclusion in the inventory of
the estate of Rosendo comprising ')( parcels of
land from $hich he alone had been collecting rentals
and receiving income, to the e*clusion and
pre.udiced of hi s brother $ho $as being deprived of
his successional rights& onse2uently, the court
declared Pedro and Pablo the only heirs of Rosendo
$ho should share e2ually upon the division of the
latterDs estate and thereupon converted the testate
proceedings into one of intestacy&

7fter eleven years, one :oa2uin hancoco brother in
la$ of Pablo filed a petition for the probate of the
same $ill of Rosendo on the ground that the
decedent o$ed him P5;;;& The petition for probate
$as granted& Teodorico 7lmine, son,in,la$ of Pablo
$as appointed special administrator, over and above
the ob.ections of the heirs of Pedro& %n ta-ing
possession, Teoderico also too- possession of the
80 parcels of land sub.ect of the partition earlier&

:udge Untalan orderd that the 80 parcels of land
should be included in the proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of Rosendo and thereafter
proceed as probate proceedings& 7fter / years,
:udge Untalan reconsidered his order and held that
the pro.ect partition is respected and upheld&

Petitioners filed an MR but $as denied hence the
instant case&

%11UJF 5hether the partition should be regarded or
respected in vie$ $ith the probate proccedings of
the estate of Rosendo

+JL!F
Kerily, the rule that there can be no valid partition
among the heirs till after the $ill has been probated&
This, of course, presupposes that the properties to
be partitioned are the same properties embraced in
the $ill& Thus this rule invo-ed, is inapplicable in the
instant case $here there are t$o separate cases
each involving the estate of t$o different person
comprising dissimilar properties&

The pro.ect partition is valid and binding upon the
brothers as $ell as upon their heirs especially as this
$as accompanied by delivery of possession to them
of their respective shares& They are duty bound to
respect the division agreed upon by them and
embodied in the document of partition&

Thus the petitioner could no longer 2uestion the
e*clusion of the lands sub.ect of the partition from
the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of
Rosendo& Petition dismissed&

#/4) FELIG BALANA), Jr. 34. Mar%,&I
L-39#4/ J!& #/, 19/$

"7T1
Leodegaria :ulian died in !avao ity , she $as
survived by her husband "eli* @alanay 1r& and by
their 8 children, "eli* :r&, 7velina, @eatri6, arolina
!elia and Jmilia&

"eli* :r& filed in the lo$er court a petition for the
probate of his motherDs notarial $ill& %n the said $ill, it
$as declared that, '&) 1he $as the o$ner of the
southern half of the nine con.ugal lots, /&) That it $as
her desire that her properties should not be divided
among her heirs during her husbandDs lifetime& 1he
devised and partitioned the con.ugal lands as if they
$ere all o$ned by her& 1he disposed of in the $ill
her husbandDs one half share of the con.ugal assets&

"eli6 1r& and 7velina opposed the probate on the
ground of lac- of testamentary capacity, undue
influence preterition of the husband and alleged
improper partitioned of the con.ugal estate& They
claim that "eli* :r& should collate certain properties
$hich he had received from the testatri*& "eli* :r& in
his reply attatched an affidavit signed by "eli6 1r
$aiving and renouncing hereditary rigts in the estate
of his $ife in favor of their children& 7velina
contended that the affidavit $as void& Lo$er court
denied and gave effect to the affidavit and
conformity of "eli* 1r&

%n the meantime, 7 la$yer Montana appeared
claiming to be a la$yer of "eli* :r, he filed a motion
to $ithdra$ the probate and to proceed by intestae
estae proceeding& The lo$er court adopted the vie$
of 7tty , Montana that the $ill $as void& 1o, it
dismissed the petition for probate and converted the
testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding&

%11UJF 5hether the probate court erred in passing
upon the intrinsic validity of the $ill, before ruling on
its allo$ance or formal validity, and declaring it void&

+JL!

5e are of the opinion that in vie$ of certain unusual
provisions of the $ill, $hich are of dubious legality,
and because of the motion to $ithdra$ the petition
for probate& The trial court acted correctly in passing
upon the $illDs intrinsic validity even before its formal
validity had been established& @ut the probate court
erred in declaring the $ill $as void and in converting
the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding
not$ithstanding the fact that in its order it gave effect
to the surviving husbandDs conformity to the $ill and
to his renunciation of his hereditary rights $hich
presumably included in one,half share of the
con.ugal estate&
The rule is that Bthe invalidity of one of several
dispositions contained in a $ill does not result in the
invalidity of the other dispositions, unless it is to be
presumed that the testator $ould not have made
such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition
had not been made&C (7rt&9(/ ) B5here some
valid parts $ill be upheld if they can be separated
from the invalid $ithout defeating the intention of the
testator or interfering $ith the general testamentary
scheme, or doing in.ustice to the beneficiaries&C
The provision of the $ill of the testatri* should not be
divided among her heirs during her husbandDs
lifetime but should be -ept intact and that the
legitimes should be paid in cash is contrary to article
';<; of the ivil ode&
"eli* 1r& could validly renounce his hereditary rights
and his one,half share of the con.ugal partnership
(7rt& '9( and 7rt ';)' ) but insofar as said
renunciation parta-es of a donation of his hereditary
rights and his one,half share in the con.ugal estate
(';8' ) it should be sub.ect to the limitations
prescribed in 7rticles 95; and 95/ of the & 7
portion of the estate should be ad.udicated to the
$ido$er for his support and maintenance or at least
his legitime should be respected&
%n the instant case there is no doubt that the testatri*
and her husband intended to partition the con.ugal
estate in the manner set forth in paragraph K of her
$ill& %t is true that she could dispose of by $ill only
her half of the con.ugal estate but since the
husband, after the dissolution of the con.ugal
partnership, had assented to her testamentary
partition of the con.ugal estate, such partition has
become valid assuming that the $ill may be
probated&
%n the instant case, the preterited heir $as the
husband, the surviving spouse& +is preteritiion did
not produce intestacy& Moreover, he signified his
conformity to his $ifeDs $ill and renounced his
hereditary rights&
+earing for the petition for probate affirmed&
#/$) A:ora%& P.a 34. IAC
L-6$6$6 F&;r!ar" #<,19<$
"7T1
%n the intestate proceeding for the settlement of
Regino @autistaDs estate, his $ido$ filed a motion
dated !ecember (, '(8) for authority to sell to Plan
the t$o lots and theater for not less than P');,;;;&
The purpose $as to pay the debts amounting to
P''9,//;& The motion $as set for hearing& %t $as
indicated that the children $ere notified through one
child Milagros @autista&
:udge :imene6 of the probate court granted the
authority to sell to Plan the entire estate of the
deceased for not less than P');,;;; so as to pay
the obligations of the estate, appearing that all heirs
have conformed thereto&
4n that day, "lorencia and Plan e*ecuted a deed of
sale $ith assumption of mortgage obligations for the
t$o lots& 7 motion to approve the sale $as filed&
:udge signed the original deed of sale under the
$ord approved to indicate that the sale $as o-ayed
by probate court&
1i*teen days after the sale an opposition to the
agreement of absolute sale $as filed by "ederico
@autista child of the deceased& "edericoDs counsel
did not file any ob.ection to the pro.ect of partition as
per order by the :udge& The reason is not hard to
surmise& The estate sought to be partitioned had
already been sold to Plan&
"ederico contended that because there $as no
compliance $ith 1ection 9 Rule <( of the Rules of
ourt the sale $as void& %nstead of as-ing the court
to act on his petition for relief from the orders
authori6ing and approving the sale, "ederico filed a
separate action against Plan to nullify the sale&
:udge dismissed the action& +e ruled that the nullity
of the sael as to "edericoDs 'P'8 share should be
resolved in the intestae proceeding& +e filed three
times same action, all have been dismissed&
a ruled in favor of "ederico, it declared void the
agreement to sell based on article ';<< of the ivil
ode&
%11UJF 5hether "ederico could nullify in a separate
action, instead of an intestate proceeding his fatherDs
estate, the sale of t$o con.ugal lots made by his
mother, $ith authori6ation and approval of the
probate court&
+JL!
5e hold that the appellate court erred in ordering
Plan to reconvey the disputed property to "ederico&
1aid .udgment is bereft of factual and legal basis&
"ederico did not pray for reconveyance he prayed
for receivership for nullification of the agreement to
sell and the sale itself& 7rticle ';<< of the ivil ode
does not .ustify legal redemption in this case
because it refers to the sale of hereditary rights, and
not to specific properties, for the payment of the
debts of the decedentDs estate as to $hich there is
no legal redemption&
%n the instant case $e agree $ith the decision of the
:udges that "edericoDs remedy is in the intestate
proceeding $here his petition for relief has been
pending for nearly t$enty years&
#/6) Mar,a B,-ar:& 34. CA a2 Cr,4%,a B,-ar:&
L-$1914 J!& 6, 199?
"7T1
Maria @icarme and ristina @icarme are the only
surviving co,heirs and co,o$ners and entitled in
e2ual shares over the parcel of lands (cornland and
Riceland) in litigation& 1pouses @icarme died
intestate and $ere survived by children, Maria and
Kictoria (mother of ristina)& ristina instituted this
action for partition, because her aunt, Maria refused
to share $ith her the yearly fruits of the disputed
parcels of lan& Maria ho$eve, maintains that Bshe
ac2uired these t$o parcels of land from deceased
spouses @idaya and since then until the present,
had been in open, public, peaceful and contionous,
adverse possession and en.oyment in the concept of
absolute o$ner& Maria further claims that ristina
never shared or contributed to the payment of ta*es
of said t$o parcels of land&
The trial court stated that the provision in the deed of
sale (Maria subscribed that the property is inherited
from her father) $as in the nature of trust provision
in favor of ristina as co,o$ner and co,heir&
%11UJF
5ho has o$nership rights over the litigated parcels
of land
+JL!F 5e agree $ith the trial court& @y admitting
that the cornland is inherited property, Maria in effect
recogni6ed ritinaDs rights thereto as a co,o$ner co,
heir&
+aving established that ritinaDs co,o$nership
rights, maria nonetheless insists that ristinaDs rights
are barred by prescription under secs ); and )/ of
act '(; P art '''8 of the ivil ode $here the
longest period of both ac2uisitive and e*tinctive
prescription is ten years& %n the present case,
ristina, it is alleged, asserted her claims 0) yers
after her right of action accrued& 4n MariaDs claims
of ac2uisitive prescription, the trial court held that
Maria $as a trustee $ith respect to ristinaDs share&
7s such, prescription, as a mode of ac2uiring title,
could not apply&
7n action for partition implies that the thing is still
o$ned in common& %f a co,o$ner holds the property
in e*clusive adverse possession as o$ner, asserting
the property in e*clusive dominion for a re2uired
period, he can ac2uire sole title to it as against co,
heirs or co,o$ners& The imprescriptibly of an action
for partition cannot thus be invo-ed $hen one of the
co,o$ners has possessed the property as e*clusive
o$ner, and for a period sufficient to ac2uire it by
prescription& "rom the moment one of the
co;o$ners claims that he is absolute o$ner and
denies other any 2uestion involve is no longer of
partition but of o$nership&
7c2uisitive prescription cannot apply in this case&
7 mere silent possession by a co,o$ner, his receipt
of rents fruits or profit from the property cannot serve
as proof of e*clusive o$nership, it is not borne out of
clear and complete evidence that he e*ercise acts of
possession $hich une2uivocally constitute an ouster
of the other co,o$ners& ristinaDs rights to partition
$ill therefore prosper&
i

Cases in Succession

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 Succession

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CASES IN SUCCESSION

1.) MARIA USON, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARIA

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen