WILLS & SUCCESSION

November 11, 2015

Devises and Legacies
1. FERNANDEZ vs. DIMAGIBA
FACTS:
Benedicta de los Reyes left a
will which was then submitted by
ismaela Dimagiba for probate to
the CFI of Bulacan. In the said will,
Ismaela was instituted as the sole
heir of the deceased.
Oppositors who claim that they
are the intestate heirs of the
deceased, filed an opposition
alleging forgery, vices of consent,
estoppel by laches and revocation
of the will by two deeds of
conveyance in favor of the
proponent.
In another case involving the
intrinsic validity of the will, the CFI
held that there had been no
revocation of the will of the
testator. This decision was affirmed
by the CA stating that: the
execution of the testatrix of the
deed of sales were made in favor of
a testamentary heir, there had
been no legal revocation by the
execution of the deeds of sale,
because the latter had been made
in favor of the legatee herself.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will of the
deceased had been impliedly
revoked
by
the
deeds
of
conveyance in favour of the
legatee.
HELD:
The alleged revocation implied
from the execution of the deeds of
conveyance in favor of the
testamentary heir is irrelevant to
the probate of the will. For one, if
the will is not entitled for probate,
or if the probate is denied, all

questions for revocation become

superfluous in law, there is no such
will and hence, there is nothing to
revoke. But then again, the
revocation
invoked
by
the
oppositors-appellants is not an
express one, but merely implied
from subsequent acts of the
testatrix, allegedly evidencing an
abandonment
of
the
original
intention to bequeath or devise the
property concerned. As such, the
revocation would not affect the will
itself, but merely the particular
devise or legacy. Only the total and
absolute revocation can preclude
probate of the revoked testament.
On the issue that revocation is
predicated on par. 2, art. 957: As
correctly observed by the CA, the
existence of any such change or
departure from the original intent
of the testatrix, is rendered
doubtful by the circumstance that
the subsequent alienations were
executed in favour of the legatee
herself. There was no consideration
paid by the respondent Dimagiba
on account of the transfers,
thereby rendering it even more
doubtful whether in conveying the
property to the legatee, the
testatrix
merely
intended
to
comply in advance with what she
has ordained in her testament,
rather than an alteration or
departure therefrom. Revocation,
being an exception, therefore, is
not applicable in the present case.
However, given that it was
applicable, the annulment of the
conveyances would not necessarily
result in the revocation of the
legacies: It was the moral influence
originating from their confidential
relationship, which was the cause
of the execution of the deeds of
sale.
If the annulment was due to
undue
influence,
then
the

transferor is not expressing her

own free will and intent in making
the conveyances. Hence, it cannot
be concluded either, that such
conveyances established a decision
on the part of the testator to
abandon the property.
2. BELEN vs. BPI
FACTS:
Benigno Diaz executed a will as
well as a codicil where, in the said
codicil, he instituted Filomena Diaz

as a voluntary heir where she

would get 10% of the estate.
Benigno
died
and
the
administration of the estate was
given to BPI.
Filomena Diaz died, leaving two
children, Milagros and Onesima
Belen.
Osemina Belen then filed a
petition contending that the share
of Filomena Diaz should be equally
divided