Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

1

gigiheartsryuuk
A. General Provisions; Wills; Testamentary Capacity
1. ALVAREZ v IAC
The general rule is that a partys contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the
successors.
The blinding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the
provision of the Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid from
his estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs.
2. GEVERO v IAC
The hereditary share in a decedents estate is transmitted or vested immediately from the
moment of the death of the causante or predecessor in interest (Art. 777), and there is no legal
bar to a successor (with requisite requesting capacity) disposing of his hereditary share
immediately after such death, even is the actual extend of such share is not determined until the
subsequent liquidation of the estate.
3. LOCSIN v CA
The trial court and the CA erred in declaring the private respondents, nephews and nieces of
Dona Catalina J. Vda. De Locsin, entitled to inherit the properties which she had already disposed
of more than ten years before her death. For those properties did not form part of her hereditary
estate, i.e., the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of the
decedents death and those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. The
rights to a persons succession are transmitted from the moment of his death, and do not vest in
his heirs until such time. Property which Dona Catalina had transferred or conveyed to other
persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of her estate at the time of her death to which
her heirs may lay claim.
4. OPULENCIA v CA
Sec 7 Rule 89 of the Rules of Court is not applicable because petitioner entered into the Contract
to Sell in her capacity as an heiress, not as an executrix or administratrix of the estate. In the
contract, she represented herself as the lawful owner and seller of the subject parcel of land.
She also explained the reason for the sale to be difficulties in her living conditions and
consequent need of cash. These representations clearly evince that she was not acting on
behalf of the estate under probate when she entered into the Contract to Sell. Accordingly, the
jurisprudence cited by petitioner has no application.
It is emphasised that hereditary rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the
decedents death. Petitioner, therefore, became the owner of her hereditary share the moment
her father died. Thus, the lack of judicial approval does not invalidate the contract to sell,
because the petitioner has the substantive right to sell the whole or part of her share in the
estate of her late father.
The sale made by an heir of his share in an inheritance, subject to the pending administration, in
no wise stands in the way of such administration.

gigiheartsryuuk
5. EMNACE v CA
From the very moment of Vicente Tabanaos death, his rights insofar as the partnership was
concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent. Whatever claims and rights Vicente had against the
partnership and petitioner were transmitted to respondents by operation of law, more
particularly by succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights
and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted.
A prior settlement of the estate, or even the appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as executrix or
administratrix, is not necessary for any of the heirs to acquire legal capacity to sue.
6. TANEDO v CA
No contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorised
by law such a contract is not valid and cannot be the source of any right or the creator of any
obligation between the parties. (Art. 1347)
An affidavit of conformity seeking to validate or ratify a sale of future inheritance is useless.
7. SANTOS v LUMBAO
Art 1311 provides that whatever rights and obligations the decedent had over the property were
transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and
obligations of the decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs. Thus, the
heirs cannot escape the legal consequences of a transaction entered into by their predecessor in
interest because they have inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common
ancestor. Being heirs, there is privity of interest between them and their deceased mother. The
death of a party does not excuse non-performance of a contract which involves a property right
and the rights and obligations thereunder parr to the personal representative of the deceased.
8. NHA v ALMEIDA
Margarita Herrera had an interest in the property and that interest should go to her estate upon
her demise so as to be able to properly distribute them later to her heirs - in accordance with a
will or by operation of law. The death of Margarita Herrera does not extinguish her interest over
the property. Margarita Herrera had an existing Contract to Sell with the NHA as the seller. Upon
Margaritas demise, this Contract to Sell was neither nullified nor revoked. This Contract to Sell
was an obligation on both parties. Obligations are transmissible. Margaritas obligation to pay
became transmissible at the time of her death either by will or by operation of law.
The NHA cannot make another contract to sell to other properties of a property already initially
paid for by the decedent such act would be an act contrary to the law on succession and the
law on sales and obligations. When the original buyer died, the NHA should have considered the
estate as the next person.
9. PEOPLE v UMAIL

gigiheartsryuuk
Since the witness Manalo is not convicted of any of the above-mentioned crimes to qualify him
as a witness and this case does not involve the probate of a will, We rule that the fact that said
witness is facing several criminal charges when he testified did not in any way disqualify him as
a witness.

B. Forms of Wills; Witnesses to Wills


1. CONDE v ABAYA
While an estate is in the course of settlement in a special proceeding, no ordinary action can be
maintained by a person claiming to be an heir, against the executor or administrator, for the
purpose of having his rights in the estate determined.
As a general rule, the right of action of a child to enforce recognition of its legitimacy lasts during
the lifetime of such child, but the right of a natural child to compel acknowledgment of its status
continues only during the life of the alleged parents. The right of action for a declaration of
legitimacy is transmitted to the heirs of the child only when the latter dies during the minority or
while insane, or in case the action has already been instituted. Action by a natural child can only
be brought against the heirs of the parents in the event of the death of the parents during the
minority of the child, or upon the discovery of a document, after the death of the parents,
expressly acknowledging such child. This right of action which the law conceded to this natural
child is not transmitted to his ascendants or decendants.
2. PAMPLONA v MORETO
Under Art. 776, the inheritance which private respondents received from their deceased parents
and/or predecessors in interest included all the property rights and obligations which were not
extinguished by their parents death. And under Art 1311 (1), the contract of sale executed by
the deceased took effect between the parties, theirs assigns and heirs, who are the private
respondents herein. Accordingly, to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation to
deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sqm to the petitioners (which was the original
obligation of their predecessor) and not only thereof. Private respondents must comply with
said obligation.
3. GUERRERO v BIHIS
One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a notarial will is that it
must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. This formal
requirement is one of the indispensable requisites for the validity of a will. In other words, a
notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the instrumental
witnesses is faceless void and cannot be accepted for probate. An acknowledgment is the act on
one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer and declaring it to be his
act or deed.

gigiheartsryuuk
The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to
declare before an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed and subscribed to the
will as their own free act or deed. Acknowledgement can only be made before a competent
officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.
4. DOLOR v DIANCIN
The requirement of the stature that the will be signed is satisfied not only by the customary
written signature but also by the testators or testatrix thumb mark. Expert testimony as to the
identity of thumb marks or finger prints is admissible. The method of identification of finger
prints is a science requiring close study. Where thumb impressions are blurred and many of the
characteristic marks far from clear, thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated by
experts as showing the identity or lack of it of the impressions, the court is justified in refusing to
accept the opinions of alleged experts and in substituting its own opinion that a distinct similarity
in some respects between the admittedly genuine thumb mark and the questioned thumb marks
is evident.
5. YAP TUA v YAP CA KUAN
It has been held that one who makes a will may sign the same by the use of a mark, the name
having been written by others. If the writing of a mark simply upon a will is sufficient indication
of the intention of the person to make and execute it, then certainly the writing of a portion or all
of the name ought to be accepted as a clear indication of an intention to execute it. The man
who cannot write and who is obliged to make his mark simply therefor upon the will is held to
sign as effectually as if he had written his initials or his full name. it would seem to be
sufficient, under the law requiring a signature by the person making a will to make his mark, to
place his initials or all or any part of his name thereon.
While the rule is absolute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the presence of the
witnesses and that the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as well as in the
presence of the one making the will, yet, nevertheless, the actual seeing of the signature made
is not necessary. It is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possible for each of the
necessary parties, if they so desire, to see the signature placed upon the will.
6. AVERA v GARCIA AND RODRIGUEZ
When the petition for probate of a will is contested the proponent should introduce all three of
the attesting witnesses. If alive and within reach of the process of the court; and the execution of
the will cannot be considered sufficiently proved by the testimony of only one, without
satisfactory explanation of the failure to produce the other two.
Nevertheless, in a case where the attorney for the contestants raised no question upon this point
in the court below, either at the hearing upon the petition or in the motion to rehear, it is held
that an objection to the probate of the will on the ground that only one attesting witness was
examined by the proponent of the will, without accounting for the absence of the others, cannot
be made for the first time in this court.
A will otherwise properly executed in accordance with the requirements of existing law is not
rendered invalid by the fact that the paginal signatures of the testator and attesting witnesses
appear in the right margin instead of the left.
7. NAYVE v MOJAL AND AGUILAR

gigiheartsryuuk
Where each and every page upon which the will is written was signed by the testator and the
witnesses, the fact that the signature on each page do not appear on the left margin thereof
does not detract from the validity of the will.
Paging with Arabi numerals and not with letters is within the spirit of the law, and is just as valid
as paging with letters.
The number of sheets or pages of which the will is composed must be stated in the attestation
clause; but where such a fact appears at the end of the will so that no proof aliunde is necessary
of the number of its sheets, then the failure to state in the attestation clause the number of the
pages of the instrument does not invalidate it.
The attestation clause must state the fact that the testator and the witnesses reciprocally saw
the signing of the will for such an act cannot be proved by the mere exhibition of the will, if it is
not stated therein. but the fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and every paged
of the will can be proved also by the mere examination of the signature appearing on the
document itself, and the omission to state such evident fact does not invalidate the will.
8. TESTATE OF THE LATE ALIPIO ABADA v ABAJA
If the surrounding circumstances point to a regular execution of the will, and the instrument
appears to have been executed substantially in accordance with the requirements of the law, the
inclination should, in the absence of any suggestion of bad faith, forgery or fraud, lean towards
its admission to probate, although the document may suffer from some imperfection of
language, or other non-essential defect. An attestation clause is made for the purpose of
preserving, in permanent form, a record of the facts attending the execution of the will, so that in
case of failure of the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other casualty, they may still be
proved. A will, therefore, should not be rejected where its attestation clause serves the purpose
of the law.
Precision in the drafting of the attestation clause is desirable, but not imperative.
9. CANEDA v CA
In addition, the ordinary will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and
the attesting witnesses, hence, it is likewise known as a notarial will. Where the testator is a
deaf-mute, Art 807 requires that he must personally read the will, if able to do so. Otherwise, he
should designate two persons who will read the will and communicate its contents to him in a
practicable manner. On the other hand, if the testator is blind, the will should be read to him
twice, once by anyone of the witnesses thereto, and again, by the notary public before whom it is
acknowledged. The other kind of will is the holographic will, which Art 810 defines as one that is
entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. This kind of will, unlike the
ordinary type, requires no attestation by witnesses. A common requirement in both kinds of wills
is that they should be in writing and must have been executed in a language or dialect known to
the testator.
The attestation clause is valid even if in a language not known to the testator.

gigiheartsryuuk
An attestation clause which does not state that the testament was signed by the witnesses in
the presence of one another and of the testator renders the will null and void.
10. CODOY v CALUGAY
Art. 811 is mandatory. The goal to be achieved by 811 is to give effect to the wishes of the
deceased and the evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for
their benefit will employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator.
The possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of the testator cannot be
eliminated, which is why the holographic will is contested, the law required three witnesses to
declare the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.
11. AJERO v CA
The ground enumerated in the Civil Code and the Rules of Court for the disallowance of wills are
exclusive. However, failure to observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a
holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator.
The requirement of Art 813 affects the validity of the disposition contained in the holographic
will, but not its probate. Unauthenticated cancellations or insertions do not invalidate a
holographic will, unless they were made on the date of the testators signature.
Only the requirements of Art 810 and not those found in 813 and 814 are essential to the
probate of the will.
While courts in probate proceedings are generally limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity
of the will sough to be probated, in exceptional cases, courts are not powerless to do what the
situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will.
12. AZAOLA v SINGSON
Since the authenticity of the holographic will was not contested, proponent was not required to
produce more that one witness, but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, Art 811 cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three
witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate denied.
Resort to expert evidence is conditioned by the words if the Court deems it necessary.
13. NAZARENO v CA
The estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity that has a personality of its own. Judgment in
a case binds only the parties therein and not the estate of a deceased person which might have
been represented at one time by one of the parties.
There is an implied trust when a donation is made to a person but it appears that though the
legal estate is transmitted to the donee, he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest
or only a part thereof. Property received by compulsory heirs from the decedent under an implied
trust is subject to collation.

gigiheartsryuuk
14. RIVERA v IAC
When the authenticity of the will is not being questioned, there is no necessity of presenting the
three witnesses required under 811. An opposition made by a mere stranger did not have the
legal effect of requiring the three witnesses.
15. LABRADOR v CA
The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The
only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.
These requirements are present in the subject will.
16. SEANGIO v REYES
A holographic will must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself
it is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be
witnessed.
It is fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed in the form and
within the limits prescribed by law, must be recognised as the supreme law in succession.
Holographic wills, being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law, should be
construed more liberally that the ones draw by experts, taking into account the circumstances
surrounding the execution of the instrument and the intention of the testator.
17. CAPITLE v ELBAMBUENA
Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir
of the deceased spouse.
18. SAMANIEGO-CELADA v ABENA
While it is true that the attestation clause is not a part of the will, the court, after examining the
totality of the will, is of the considered opinion that error in the number of pages of the will as
stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will.
Further, petitioner and her siblings are not compulsory heirs of the decedent under 887 and as
the decedent validly disposed of her properties in a will duly executed and probated, petitioner
has no legal right to claim any part of the decedents estate.
C. Codicils, Revocation of Wills, Republication and Revival, Allowance and Disallowance
1. RODELAS v ARANZA
If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will cannot
be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It
is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator
and the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or Xerox copy of the holographic will may be
allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator.

gigiheartsryuuk
2. NEPOMUCENO v CA
A devise made by a married man estranged from his wife for 22 years prior to his death, to a
woman with whom he has been living for said period of time is void.
3. CAYETANO v LEONIDAS
It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, as provided for
by Art 16 (2) and 1039, the national law of the decedent must apply.
4. MOLO v MOLO
A subsequent will containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the
reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of Sec 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure as to the making of wills, cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will,
inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void.
Even in the supposition that the destruction of the original will by the testator could be presumed
from the failure of the petitioner, to produce it in court, such destruction cannot have the effect
of defeating the prior will where it is founded on the mistaken belief that the later will has been
validly executed and would be given due effect. The earlier will can still be admitted to probate
under the principle of dependent relative revocation. The theory on which this principle is
predicated is that the testator did not intend to die intestate. And this intention is clearly
manifest where he executed two wills on two different occasions and instituted his wife as
universal heir.

5. HEIRS OF THE LATE JESUS FRAN v SALAS


It is not necessary to attach the original will to petition for probate.
Failure to attach original of will to petition is not critical where the will itself was adduced in
evidence.
A probate judgment long closed cannot be attacked by mere motion for reconsideration. Where
part of estate not distributed, recourse is not to re-open probate proceedings, but motion for
execution or action for Reconveyance.
6. AGAPAY v PALANG
Only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. However, in this case, where a woman who cohabited with a married man fails to
prove that she contributed money to the purchase of a riceland, there is no basis to justify her

gigiheartsryuuk
co-ownership over the same the riceland should revert to the conjugal partnership property of
man and his lawful wife.
7. REYES v CA
As a general rule, the courts in probate proceedings are limited to passing only upon the extrinsic
validity of the will sought to be probated. The intrinsic validity of a will may be passed upon
where practical considerations demanded it as when there is preterition of heirs or the
testamentary provisions are of doubtful legality, or where the parties agree that the intrinsic
validity be first determined.
(In this case, Torcuato referred to Asuncion as his wife vs the case of Nepomuceno where the
testator admitted that Sofia was not his legally married wife.)
8. SANCHEZ v CA
It is hornbook doctrine that in a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the question of
ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality, a
pronouncement that applies with equal force to an intestate proceeding.
A probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate
or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed to
belong outside parties.
9. GANUELAS v CAWED
Donation inter vivos differs from donation mortis causa in that the former, the act is immediately
operative even if the actual execution may be deferred until the death of the donor, while the
latter, nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the donee until the death of the donor-testator.
Donation mortis causa must comply with the formalities of a will under Art 728, failing which the
donation is void and produces no effect.

10. CANIZA v CA
A will is essentially ambulatory at any time prior to the testators death, it may be changed or
revoked, and until admitted for probate, it has no effect whatever an no right can be claimed
thereunder.
Art 838.
An owners intention to confer title in the future to persons to possessing property by his
tolerance, is not inconsistent with the formers taking back possession in the meantime for any
reason deemed sufficient. And that in this case there was sufficient cause for the owners
resumption of possession is apparent: she needed to generate income from the house on
account of the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her extreme age.

10
11. CUA v VARGAS

gigiheartsryuuk

The heirs who actually participated in the execution of the extrajudicial settlement, which
included the sale to a third person of their pro indiviso shares in the property, are bound by the
same while the co-heirs who did not participate are given the right to redeem their shares
pursuant to Art 1088.
12. RABADILLA v CA
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir
or heirs first instituted. Under substitutions in general, the testator may either (1) provide for
designation of another heir to whom the property shall pass in case the original heir should die
before him/her, renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple
substitution, or (2) leave his/her property to one person with the express charge that it be
transmitted subsequently to another or others, as in a fideicommissary substitution.
In a fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the property and
to transmit the same later to the second heir. Without the obligation to preserve clearly imposed
by the testator in his will, there is no fideicommissary substitution.
A fideicommissary substitution is void if the first heir is not related by first degree to the second
heir.
The institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in Art 882 is what is known in the law of
succession as an institucion sub modo or modal substitution. In a modal substitution, the testator
states the (1) the object of the institution, (2) the purpose or application of the property left by
the testator, or (3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir. A mode imposes an
obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the
succession. On the other hand, in a conditional testamentary disposition, the condition must
happen or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator. The condition
suspends but does not obligate; and the mode obligates but does not suspend. To some extent, it
is similar to a resolutory condition.
In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as modal and not conditional. Since
testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality, an obligation imposed upon the heir
should not be considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the Will itself that such was
the intention of the testator.
A Will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a person disposes of his property, to
take effect after his death. Thus, a will cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which
would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a will.
13. BORDALBA v CA
The dead mans statute does not operate to close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact
coming to his knowledge in any other way than through personal dealings with the deceased
person, or communication made by the deceased to the witness.

11
gigiheartsryuuk
In order that an heir may assert his right to the property of a deceased, no previous judicial
declaration of Heirship is necessary.
14. HEIRS OF IGNACIO CONTI v CA
A prior settlement of the estate is not essential before the heirs can commence any action
originally pertaining to the deceased. The title to the property owned by a person who dies
intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such transmission is, under the present law, subject to the
claims of administration and the property may be taken from the heirs for the purpose of paying
debts and expenses, but this does not prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the death
of the intestate, from himself to his heirs. Without some showing that a judicial administrator had
been appointed in proceedings to settle the estate, the right of the plaintiffs to maintain this
action is established.
There is no need for publication in a simple case of ordinary partition between co-owners.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen