PASTOR vs.

CAGO
FACTS: Spouses Alvaro Pastor, Sr. and Sofia Bossio were
survived by their two legitimate children Alvaro Pastor, Jr.
(Pastor Jr.) and Sofia Pastor (Sofia), and an illegitimate child,
Lewellyn Quemada. Quemada filed a petition for the probate
and allowance of an alleged holographic will of Pastor Sr. with
the CFI which contained only one testamentary disposition: a
legacy in favor of Quemada consisting of 30% of Pastor Sr.s
42% share in the operation by ATLAS.
Thereafter, the probate court appointed Quemada as special
administrator of the entire estate of Pastor Sr. whether or not
covered or affected by the holographic will. Consequently,
Quemada instituted against Pastor Jr., and his wife an action
for reconveyance of alleged properties of estate which
included the properties subject of the legacy which were in the
names of spouses Pastor Sr. and Ma. Elena, who claimed to
be the owners in their own rights, and not by inheritance.
The probate court issued an order allowing the will to probate.
The order was affirmed by CA and on petition for review, the
SC dismissed the petition and remanded the same to the
probate court after denying reconsideration.
For two years after remand of the case to the probate court, all
pleadings of both parties remained unacted upon. Not long
after, the probate court set the hearing on the intrinsic validity
of the will but upon objection of Pastor Jr. and Sofia on the
ground of pendency of the reconveyance suit, no hearing was
held.
Instead, the probate court required the parties to submit their
respective position papers. While the reconveyance suit was
still pending in another court, the probate court issued Order of

Execution and Garnishment, resolving the question of

ownership of the royalties payable by ATLAS and ruling in
effect that the legacy to Quemada was not inofficious.
Pursuant to said order, ATLAS was directed to remit directly to
Quemada the 42% royalties due to decedents estate, of which
Quemada was authorized to retain 75% for himself as legatee.
Further, the 33% share of Pastor Jr. and/or his assignees was
ordered garnished to answer for the accumulated legacy of
Quemada. Being immediately executory, Quemada
succeeded in obtaining a Writ of Execution and Garnishment.
The oppositors sought reconsideration thereof but in the
meantime, the probate court ordered suspension of payment
of all royalties due Pastor Jr. and/or his assignees until after
resolution of oppositors motion for reconsideration. Pending
motion, Pastor Jr. and his wife filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction assailing the writ of execution and garnishment
issued by the probate court.
However, said petition was denied as well as their motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review by certiorari
with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: WON the Probate Order resolved with finality the
questions of ownership and intrinsic validity.
HELD: DEPENDS
RATIO: In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the
issue by and large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the
will. As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous
matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality.
Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain

SPEC PRO | ATTY. CUSTODIO | FAB DIGESTS | BATCH 2 | 1

property should or should not be included in the inventory of

estate properties, the Probate Court may pass upon the title
thereto, but such determination is provisional, not
conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a
separate action to resolve title.
The Order sought to be executed by the assailed Order of
execution is the Probate Order allegedly resolved the question
of ownership of the disputed mining properties. However,
nowhere in the dispositive portion is there a declaration of
ownership of specific properties. On the contrary, it is
manifested therein that ownership was not resolved. For it
confined itself to the question of extrinsic validity of the will,
and the need for and propriety of appointing a special
administrator. Thus it allowed and approved the holographic
will with respect to its extrinsic validity, the same having been
duly authenticated pursuant to the requisites or solemnities
prescribed by law. It declared that the intestate estate
administration aspect must proceed subject to the outcome of
the suit for reconveyance of ownership and possession of real
and personal properties.
The Probate Court did not resolve the question of ownership of
the properties listed in the estate inventory, considering that
the issue of ownership was the very subject of controversy in
the reconveyance suit that was still pending. It was, therefore,
error for the assailed implementing Orders to conclude that the
Probate Order adjudged with finality the question of ownership
of the mining properties and royalties, and that, premised on
this conclusion, the dispositive portion of the said Probate
Order directed special administrator to pay the legacy in
dispute.

Alvarado vs. Gaviola

FACTS: On November 5, 1977, 79 yr old Brigado Alvarado
executed a notarial will entitled Huling Habilin wherein he
disinherited an illegitimate son, Cesar Alvarado, herein
petitioner, and expressly revoked a previously executed
holographic will at the time awaiting probate before the RTC
Laguna. According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he
was present when the said notarial will was executed, together
with three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, where
the testator did not read the will himself, suffering from
glaucoma. Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight page document
and read the same aloud before the testator, the three
instrumental witnesses and the notary public, the latter four
following the reading with their own respective copies
previously furnished them.
Thereafter, a codicil Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng ilang
pagpapasiya na nasasaad sa huling habilin na may petsa
nobiembre 5 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado was executed changing
some dispositions in the notarial will to generate case for the
testators eye operation. Said codicil was likewise not read by
brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner as with the
previously executed will. When the notarial will was submitted
to the court for probate, cesar Alvarado filed his opposition as
he said that the will was not exected and attested as required
by law; that the testator was insane or mentally incapacitated
due to senility and old age; that the will was executed inder
duress, or influence of fear or threats; that it was procured by
undue pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary;
and that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or
trick.
ISSUE: WON notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be
admitted to probate despite allegations of defects in the

SPEC PRO | ATTY. CUSTODIO | FAB DIGESTS | BATCH 2 | 2

execution and attestation thereof as testator was allegedly

blind at the time of execution and the double reading
requirement under art 808 of the NCC was not complied with
HELD: YES, the spirit behind the law was served though the
letter was not.
RATIO: Although there should be strict compliance with the
substantial requirements of law in order to insure the
authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be
brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which,
when taken into account, may only defeat the testators will.
Cesar Alvarado was correct in asserting that his father was not
totally blind when the will and codicil were executed, but he
can be so considered for purposes of Art 808. That art 808
was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. However, in the case
at bar, there was substantial compliance where the purpose of
the law has been satisfied: that of making provisions known to
the testator who is blind or incapable of reading the will himself
and enabling him to object if they do not accord with his
wishes. Private respondent read the testator's will and codicil
aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental
witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent
thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the
contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then
did the signing and acknowledgement take place.
There is no evidence that the contents of the will and codicil
were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the
testator. With 4 persons, mostly known to the testator,
following the reading word for word with their own copies, it
can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably

assured that what was read to him were the terms actually
appearing on the typewritten documents
Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of
the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside
when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken
into account, may only defeat the testator's will.
Nepomuceno
vs.
CA
FACTS: Martin Jugo left a duly executed and notarized Last
Will and Testament before he died. Petitioner was named as
sole executor. It is clearly stated in the Will that he was legally
married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two
legitimate children, but he had been estranged from his lawful
wife. In fact, the testator Martin Jugo and the petitioner were
married despite the subsisting first marriage. The testator
devised the free portion of his estate to petitioner. On August
21, 1974, the petitioner filed a petition for probate. On May 13,
1975, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition
alleging undue and improper influence on the part of the
petitioner; that at the time of the execution of the Will, the
testator was already very sick and that petitioner having
admitted her living in concubinage with the testator.
The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground
that as the testator admitted in his Will to cohabiting with the
petitioner. Petitioner appealed to CA. On June 2, 1982, the
respondent court set aside the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal denying theprobate of the will. The
respondent court declared the Will to be valid except that the
devise in favor of the petitioner is null and void.
ISSUE: WON the CA acted in excess of its jurisdiction when
after declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased

SPEC PRO | ATTY. CUSTODIO | FAB DIGESTS | BATCH 2 | 3

Martin Jugo validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic

validity of the testamentary provision.
HELD: No.
RATIO: The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when
after declaring the Will to be validly drawn, it went on to pass
upon the intrinsic validity of the Will and declared the devise in
favor of the petitioner null and void. The general rule is that
in probate proceedings, the courts area of inquiry is limited to
an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the
Will. The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Given
exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless
to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon
certain provisions of the Will.
The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its
face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be
passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet
the issue (Nuguid v. Nuguid)
The Will is void under Article 739. The following donations
shall be void: (1) Those made between persons who were
guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation;
and Article 1028. The prohibitions mentioned in Article 739,
concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary
provisions.

AJERO vs. CA
Facts: The instrument submitted for probate is the holographic
will of the late Annie Sand, who died on November 25, 1982.
Petitioners instituted a special proceeding for allowance of
decedent's holographic will and alleged that at the time of its
execution, she was of sound and disposing mind, not acting
under duress, fraud or undue influence. Private respondent
opposed the petition on the grounds that the will contained
alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by
decedent. The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose
Ajero. He contested the disposition in the will of a house and
lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that
said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its
entirety, as she was not its sole owner. The Court of Appeals
found that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and
814of the New Civil Code. It alluded to certain dispositions in
the will which were either unsigned and undated, or signed but
not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations and
cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated by
decedent.
Issues: 1. WON said will was executed in accordance with
formalities prescribed in law.
2. WON the decedent could validly dispose of the house and
lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, in its entirety.
HELD: 1. YES 2. NO

There is no question from the records about the fact of

aprior existing marriage when Martin Jugo executed his Will.
The very wordings of the Will invalidate the legacy because
the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a
person with whom he had been living in concubinage.

RATIO: 1. The will was executed in accordance with the

formalities prescribed in law. In the case of holographic wills,
what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be
totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, as
provided under Article 810 of the New Civil Code.

SPEC PRO | ATTY. CUSTODIO | FAB DIGESTS | BATCH 2 | 4

A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its
requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in
the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to
sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these
dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however,
does not render the whole testament void, but at most only as
respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined.
Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or
insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on
testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will
itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance
of such changes. Moreover, the list enumerated in Article 839
of the New Civil Code is exclusive; no other grounds can serve
to disallow a will.
2. Decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic will
that the Cabadbaran property is in the name of her late father,
John H. Sand. Thus, as correctly held by respondent court,
she cannot validly dispose of the whole property, which she
shares with her father's other heirs.
ACAIN vs. IAC
FACTS: Constantitno filed for probate of the will of his
decased brother Nemesio. The spouse and adopted child of
the decedent opposed the probate of will because of
preterition. RTC dismissed the petition of the wife. CA
reversed and the probate thus was dismissed
ISSUE: WON there was preterition of compulsory heirs in the
direct line thus their omission shall not annul the institution of
heirs.
RULING: Preterition consists in the omission of the forced
heirs because they are not mentioned there in, or trough

mentioned they are neither instituted as heirs nor are

expressly disinherited. As for the widow there is no preterit ion
because she is not in the direct line. However, the same
cannot be said for the adopted child whose legal adoption has
not been questioned by the petitioner. Adoption gives to the
adopted person the same rights and duties as if he where a
legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person
a legal heir hence, this is a clear case of preterition. The
universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and
sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally
abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution
of universal heirs without any other testamentary disposition in
the will amounts to a declaration that nothing was written. No
legacies and devisees having been provided in the will, the
whole property of the deceased has been left by universal title
to petitioner and his brothers and sisters
De Guzman vs. Angeles
FACTS: De Guzman died in Makati and left personal and real
properties. His widow, Elaine, filed a petition for settlement of
his estate with list of creditors, probable value of property,
compulsory heirs, grant of letters of administration.
She filed a motion for writ of possession over 5 vehicles
registered under the name of Manolito but were in possession
of Manolitos father, Pedro. On the same day, court issued an
order directing the sheriff to notify Pedro of hearing. The
widow filed a motion to be appointed as Special Adminatrix,
which the court granted.
Court issued an order to assist Elaine in preserving the estate
of Manolito by appointing sheriffs and militarymen. Pedro
resisted when they tried to take the vehicles on the ground that
they were personal properties and he claims that a near shoot-

SPEC PRO | ATTY. CUSTODIO | FAB DIGESTS | BATCH 2 | 5

out occurred. Pedro alleges that he was not given notice of

appointment of Elaine as administratrix and court orders were
patent nullities.

The case is ordered remanded to the lower court for the

hearing of the petition with previous notice to all interested
parties as required by law.

ISSUE: 1. WON respondent court acquired jurisdiction over

the proceedings

VDA.DE PEREZ VS. TOLETE

FACTS: Subject of this case is the probate of the will of
Spouses Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan,
who became American citizens and practicing doctors in New
York, U.S.A. The spouses executed separate wills for the
benefit of each other. The spouses and their family perished
when they were trapped by fire that gutted their home.

2. WON court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a

writ of possession before notice is served upon all interested
parties
HELD: 1. YES. 2. NO
RATIO: 1. The petition for the settlement of an intestate estate
by the private respondent had alleged all the jurisdictional
facts, the residence of the deceased person, the possible heirs
and creditors and the probable value of the estate of the
deceased Manolito de Guzman pursuant to Section 2, Rule 79
of the Revised Rules of Court.
2. It is very clear from this provision that the probate court
must cause notice through publication of the petition after it
receives the same. The purpose of this notice is to bring all the
interested persons within the court's jurisdiction so that the
judgment therein becomes binding on all the world.

Thereafter, their wills were admitted to probate with the

Surrogate Court of the County of Onondaga, New York. Then,
petitioner who is the mother of Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan filed
for the reprobate of the will with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
The will was denied probate for the reason that the documents
did not establish the law of New York on the procedure and
allowance of wills. The petitioners motion for reconsideration
to be given sufficient time to prove New York law was denied.
On appeal, petitioner contend that the evidence submitted to
the RTC were already sufficient to allow probate of will.
ISSUE: WON it was necessary to prove the foreign law.
HELD: NO

Where no notice as required by Section 3, Rule 79 of the

Rules of Court has been given to persons believed to have an
interest in the estate of the deceased person; the proceeding
for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled.
The requirement as to notice is essential to the validity of the
proceeding in that no person may be deprived of his right to
property without due process of law

RATIO: The evidence necessary for the reprobate or

allowance of wills which have been probated outside of the
Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in
accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his
domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; (3)
the will has been admitted to probate in such country; (4) the
fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws

SPEC PRO | ATTY. CUSTODIO | FAB DIGESTS | BATCH 2 | 6

of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills.

Except for the first and last requirements, the petitioner
submitted all the needed evidence.
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon
which the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled
by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them
Petitioner must have perceived the omission of the fifth
requirement above as in fact she moved for more time to
submit the pertinent procedural and substantive New York
laws but which request respondent Judge just glossed over.
While the probate of a will is a special proceeding wherein
courts should relax the rules on evidence, the goal is to
receive the best evidence of which the matter is susceptible
before a purported will is probated or denied probate (Vda. de
Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 393 [1978]).
Respondent Judge was ordered to give the petitioner a
reasonable time within which to submit evidence.

SPEC PRO | ATTY. CUSTODIO | FAB DIGESTS | BATCH 2 | 7