Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FACTS:
Adriana
Maloto
died
on
October
1963
in
Iloilo
City,
her
place
of
residence.
On
November
1963,
Aldina
Maloto
Casiano,
Constancio
Maloto,
Panfilo
Maloto,
and
Felino
Maloto,
niece
and
nephews
respectively,
of
Adriana
Maloto
commenced
an
intestate
proceeding
in
the
CFI
of
Iloilo
that
was
docketed
as
Spec.
Pro.
No.
1736.
They
executed
an
intestate
proceeding
and
divided
the
estate
in
the
proportion
of
one-fourth
(1/4)
share
for
each.
The
CFI
judge
approved
the
partition.
Subsequently,
on
April
1,
1967,
a
document
purporting
to
be
the
last
will
and
testament
of
Adriana
Maloto
was
delivered
to
the
CFI
of
Iloilo.
Aldina
et
al.
were
all
named
as
heirs
but
Aldina
and
Constancio
appeared
to
have
bigger
shares
in
the
will
than
what
they
received
in
the
extrajudicial
partition.
There
were
also
dispositions
in
favor
of
Asilo
de
Molo,
the
Roman
Catholic
Church
of
Molo,
and
Purificacion
Miraflor.
Aldino
and
Constancio,
along
with
the
other
devisees
and
legatees,
filed
a
motion
in
S.P.
No.
1736
for,
among
others,
the
allowance
of
the
will
of
Adriana
Maloto.
The
CFI
judge
denied
the
motion
on
the
ground
that
the
said
motion
had
been
filed
out
of
time.
The
petitioners
(Aldino
et
al.)
filed
a
petition
for
certiorari
and
mandamus
with
the
SC
but
it
was
denied
on
the
ground
of
improper
remedy.
The
petitioners
then
commenced
S.P.
No.
2176
in
the
CFI
of
Iloilo
for
the
probate
of
the
alleged
last
will
and
testament.
The
probate
court
dismissed
the
petition
on
the
basis
of
the
finding
of
said
court
in
S.P.
No.
1736
that
the
alleged
will
sought
to
be
probated
had
been
destroyed
and
revoked
by
the
testatrix
ISSUE:
WON
the
will
was
revoked
by
Adriana
HELD:
REVOCATION
THEREOF;
PHYSICAL
ACT
OF
DESTRUCTION;
ANIMUS
REVOCANDI,
A
NECESSARY
ELEMENT.
The
physical
act
of
destruction
of
a
will,
like
burning
in
this
case,
does
not
per
se
constitute
an
effective
revocation,
unless
the
destruction
is
coupled
with
animus
revocandi
on
the
part
of
the
testator.
It
is
not
imperative
that
the
physical
destruction
be
done
by
the
testator
himself.
It
may
be
performed
by
another
person
but
under
the
express
direction
and
in
the
presence
of
the
testator.
Of
course,
it
goes
without
saying
that
the
document
destroyed
must
be
the
will
itself.
In
this
case,
while
animus
revocandi,
or
the
intention
to
revoke,
may
be
conceded,
for
that
is
a
state
of
mind,
yet
that
requisite
alone
would
not
suffice.
"Animus
revocandi
is
only
one
of
the
necessary
elements
for
the
effective
revocation
of
a
last
will
and
testament.
The
intention
to
revoke
must
be
accompanied
by
the
overt
physical
act
of
burning,
tearing,
obliterating,
or
cancelling
the
will
carried
out
by
the
testator
or
by
another
person
in
his
presence
and
under
his
express
direction
[There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these
original
will.
But
a
mere
intent
to
make
at
some
time
a
will
in
the
place
of
that
destroyed
will
not
render
the
destruction
conditional.
It
must
appear
that
the
revocation
is
dependent
upon
the
valid
execution
of
a
new
wil