Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Testamentary Capacity
Estate of the Deceased Victorina Villaranda, Eusebia
Lim,vs. Juliana Chinco
G. R. No. L-33592, March 31, 1931
FACTS: This is a contest over the probate of a paper
writing purporting to be the will of Victorina Villaranda y
Diaz, a resident of Meycauayan, Bulacan, who died in
Manila, on June 9, 1929. The deceased left no
descendants or ascendants, and the document produced
as her will purports to leave her estate, consisting of
properties valued at P50,000, more or less, chiefly to
three collateral relatives, Eusebia, Crispina, and Maria, of
the surname of Lim. The opposition was made by Juliana
Chinco, a full sister of the deceased.
Bellis v.Bellis
L-23678, June 6, 1967
FACTS: Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of
the State of Texas and of the United States." By his first
wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had five
legitimate children and by his second wife, Violet
Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate
children and finally, he had three illegitimate children. On
August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the
Philippines, in which he directed that after all taxes,
obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for,
his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the
following order and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first
wife, Mary E. Mallen; (b) P120,000.00 to his three
illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis,
and Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each and (c)
after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the
remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his
first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, Henry
A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis, and Anna Bellis Allsman,
Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis, in
equal shares. Subsequently, or on July 8, 1958, Amos
G. Bellis died, a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.
ISSUE: Whether or not it is the Philippine law that will
govern the disposition of the estate.
Whether or not the children are entitled to their legitimes.
HELD: TRIAL COURT -- No, the Texas Law will govern
applying Article 16 of the Civil Code.
No, since it is the Texas Law that will apply, there can be
no legitimes for under such law there are no legitimes.
SUPREME COURT -- No, a provision in a foreigner's will
to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in
accordance with Philippine law and not with his national
law, is illegal and void for his national law cannot be
ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10 now
Article 16 of the Civil Code states said national law
should govern. The parties admit that the decedent, Amos
G.Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and
that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or
legitimates. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the
provision of the will and the amount of successional rights
are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law
on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos
G. Bellis.
No, since it is the Texas Law that will apply, there can be
no legitimes for under such law there are no legitimes.
Lourdes Dorotheo v. CA, Nilda Quintana, et al.,
G.R. No. 108581, December 8, 1999
FACTS: Private respondents were the legitimate children
of Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes. The latter died
in 1969 without her estate being settled. Alejandro died
thereafter. Sometime in 1977, after Alejandros death,
petitioner, who claims to have taken care of Alejandro
before he died, filed a special proceeding for the probate
of the latters last will and testament. In 1981, the court
issued an order admitting Alejandros will to
probate. Private respondents did not appeal from said
order. In 1983, they filed a Motion To Declare The Will
Intrinsically Void. The trial court granted the motion and
issued an order, declaring Lourdes Legaspi not the wife
of the late Alejandro Dorotheo, the provisions of the last
will and testament of Alejandro Dorotheo as intrinsically
void, and declaring the oppositors as the only heirs of the
late spouses Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes,
whose respective estates shall be liquidated and
distributed according to the laws on intestacy upon
payment of estate and other taxes due to the
government.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is
entitled to some compensation since she took care of
Alejandro prior to his death although she admitted that
they were not married to each other, which was denied.
On appeal, the same was dismissed for failure to file
appellants brief within the extended period granted. This
dismissal became final and executory on February 3,
1989. An Order was issued by Judge Zain B. Angas
setting aside the final and executory Order on the ground
that the order was merely interlocutory, hence not final
Notarial Will
Felix Azuela v. CA, Geralda Aida Castillo, substituted
by Ernesto Castillo
G.R. No. 12280, April 12, 2006
FACTS: A petition for probate filed by petitioner Felix
Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of
Eugenia E. Igsolo, which was notarized on June 10,1981.
Petitioner is the son of the cousin of the decedent.
The will, consisting of two (2) pages and written in the
vernacular Filipino.
The three named witnesses to the will affixed their
signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the
will, but not at the bottom of the attestation clause. And in
the place of the Notary Public a Jurat was written by the
Notary Public swearing that he notarized the document.
The probate petition adverted to only two (2) heirs,
legatees and devisees of the deedent, and the
executor, Vart Prague.
The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo , who
represented herself the attorney of "the 12 legitimate
heirs" of the decedent. She claimed that the will is a
forgery, and that the true purpose of its emergence was
so it could be utilized as a defense in several court cases
filed by oppositor against petitioner.
Centering on petitioners right to occupy the properties of
the decedent. It also alleged that the decedent was
actually survived by 12 legitimate heirs, namely her
grandchildren, who were then residing abroad.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject will complied with the
requirements of the law and, hence, should be admitted
to probate.
HELD: The petition is DENIED. A will whose attestation
clause does not contain the number of pages on which
the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose
attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental
witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most
importantly, a will which does not contain an
acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective.
Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A
notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial
rejection.
The subject will cannot be considered to have been
validly attested to by the instrumental witnesses. While
Blind Testator
In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and
Testament of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, Cesar
Alvarado, petitioner, v. Hon. Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr., et
al.,
G.R.No. 74695, September 14, 1993
FACTS: On November 5, 1977, the 79-year old Brigido
Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled Huling Habilin
wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son (herein
petitioner) and expressly revoked a previously executed
holographic will. The notarial will was testified to by the
three instrumental witnesses, the notary public and by
private respondent who were present at the execution.
The testator did not read the final draft of the will. Instead,
private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the eightpaged document, read the same aloud in the presence of
the testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the
notary public. The latter four followed the reading with
their own respective copies.
Meanwhile, the holographic will of Brigido was
admitted to probate. A codicil was then executed
changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate
cash for his eye operation as he was suffering from
glaucoma. However the disinheritance and revocatory
clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial
will, the testator did not personally read the final draft of
the codicil.
Herein private respondent filed a petition for the
probate of the notarial will and codicil. Petitioner, in turn,
filed an opposition on the ground that the deceased was
blind within the meaning of the law at the time the will and
codicil was executed and that the reading required by
Article 808 was not complied with hence the probate
should be denied.
ISSUE: Whether the foregoing circumstances would
qualify Brigido as a blind testator under Article 808 of
the Civil Code
HELD: Yes. Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of
reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the
separate occasions of their execution due to his "poor,"
"defective," or "blurred" vision, there can be no other
course for us but to conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes