******* & ***********

WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Succession
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY vs. SEGUNDA ALMEIDA, COURT
OF APPEALS, et al.
G.R. No. 162784, June 22, 2007
PUNO, C.J.:
FACTS: The Land Tenure Administration (Predecessor of NHA) awarded to
Margarita Herrera several portions of land. Margarita Herrera had two children:
Beatriz Herrera-Mercado (the mother of private respondent) and Francisca Herrera.
Beatriz Herrera-Mercado predeceased her mother and left heirs.
Margarita Herrera passed away on October 27, 1971. Francisca Herrera, the
remaining child of the late Margarita Herrera executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication
claiming that she is the only remaining relative, being the sole surviving daughter
of the deceased. She also claimed to be the exclusive legal heir of the late
Margarita Herrera. The Deed of Self-Adjudication was based on a Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated October 7, 1960, allegedly executed by Margarita Herrera. The
pertinent portions of which are as follows:
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
Akong si MARGARITA HERRERA x x x sa ilalim ng panunumpa ay
malaya at kusang loob kong isinasaysay at pinagtitibay itong mga
sumusunod: x x x 2. Na ang nasabing lote ay aking binibile, sa
pamamagitan ng paghuhulog sa Land Tenure Administration x x x; 3. Na
dahilan sa akoy matanda na at walang ano mang hanap buhay, ako ay
nakatira at pinagsisilbihan nang aking anak na si Francisca Herrera, at
ang tinitirikan o solar na nasasabi sa unahan ay binabayaran ng kaniyang
sariling cuarta sa Land Tenure Administration; 4. Na alang-alang sa
nasasaysay sa unahan nito, sakaling akoy bawian na ng Dios ng aking
buhay, ang lupang nasasabi sa unahan ay aking ipinagkakaloob sa nasabi
kong anak na FRANCISCA HERRERA, x x x, o sa kaniyang mga
tagapagmana at; x x x
The said document was signed by two witnesses and notarized. The
witnesses signed at the left-hand side of both pages of the document with the said
document having 2 pages in total. Margarita Herrera placed her thumbmark above

her name in the second page and at the left-hand margin of the first page of the
document.
ISSUE:
Can the NHA rely on the Sinumpaang Salaysay by transferring the
grant of the aforementioned lots in favor of the heirs of Francisca and disregard the
other heirs of Margarita?
HELD:
No. When the petitioner received the Sinumpaang Salaysay, it
should have noted that the effectivity of the said document commences at the time
of death of the author of the instrument; in her words sakaling akoy bawian na
ng Dios ng aking buhay Hence, in such period, all the interests of the person
should cease to be hers and shall be in the possession of her estate until they are
transferred to her heirs by virtue of Article 774 of the Civil Code. Hence, the
transfer mandated by the Sinumpaang Salaysasay is embodied in a will, as such,
the same must first be probated before it can effectively transfer property in
accordance with the New Civil Code
Disinheritance
DY YIENG SEANGIO, BARBARA D. SEANGIO and VIRGINIA D.
SEANGIO
vs. HON. AMOR A. REYES, et al.
G.R. No. 140371 72, November 27, 2006
AZCUNA, J.:
FACTS: Private respondents in the case at bar, allege that the document purporting
to be the holographic will of Segundo does not contain any disposition of the estate
of the deceased and thus does not meet the definition of a will under Article 783 of
the Civil Code. According to private respondents, the will only shows an alleged
act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and nothing else;
that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as heir, devisee or
legatee, hence, there is preterition which would result to intestacy.
ISSUE:
Can the probate court order the dismissal of the petition for probate
when on the face of the will it is clear that it contains no testamentary disposition
of the property of the decedent?
HELD:
No. Segundos document, although it may initially come across as a
mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will
prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself.

An intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the
instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latters
property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in
itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of
the testator Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of
Alfredo.
Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the
testator, expressed in the form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be
recognized as the supreme law in succession. All rules of construction are designed
to ascertain and give effect to that intention.