3/3/2019 Specpro_85 to 100_Santos - Google Docs
(85) Testate Estate of Felicidad Esguerra handwriting of the deceased can be determined by
Alto-Yap. Fausto Gan
Topic: Probate Proper
QUICK FACTS: Upon the death of Felicidad Yap,
Fausto Gan initiated a probate proceeding seeking
the probate of the holographic will allegedly
executed by Felicidad. This petition was opposed
by Felicidad’s surviving husband, Ildefonso
stating that she did not leave any will, nor
executed any testament during her lifetime. The
will itself was not presented. However, Gan
presented witnesses to testify to the due execution
of the alleged holographic will. The Court herein
ruled that it cannot apply the provisions of the
Civil Code (Succession) and that of the Rules of
Court regarding handwriting of the deceased
because Gan failed to present the will itself.
DOCTRINE: The execution and the contents of a
lost and destroyed holographic will may not be
proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who
have seen and/or read such will.
(86) In the Matter of the Petition to Approve
the Will of Ricardo B. Bonilla Deceased,
Marcela Rodelas, petitioner-appellant vs.
Amparo Aranza, et al., oppositors-appellees,
Atty. Lorenzo Sumulong, intervenor
Topic: Probate Proper
QUICK FACTS: Upon the death of Ricardo Bonilla,
appellant herein iled for probate of his
holographic will. The petition was opposed by
appellees, Amparo, Wilferine, and Expedita
Bonilla. The appellees allege that, among other
things, the holographic will itself and not an
alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise
it would produce no effect. The Court herein held
that the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or
destroyed holographic will may be admitted
because then the authenticity of the handwriting
of the deceased can be determined by the probate
court
DOCTRINE: The photostatic or xerox copy of the
lost or destroyed holographic will may be
admitted because then the authenticity of the
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18RvML6yBPO8A_bta-fGzca0_i4I76ewoU20QtcJdQFc/edit
the probate court.
(87) Federico Azaola v. Cesario Singson
Topic: Proof when Will is Contested
QUICK FACTS: Upon the death of Fortunata, Maria
Azaola was made her sole heir. Following such
death, the witness, Francisco Azaola, testi ied that
he and his wife was handed the holographic will
and last saw it one month, more or less, before the
testator’s death. The witness claims that he knows
the signature of the testator. The probate was
opposed by Singson stating that the testator did
not intend the instrument to be her last will, and
that the same was actually written either on the
5th or 6th day of August 1957 and not on
November 20, 1956. The Trial Court denied
probate on grounds: under Article 811 of the
Civil Code, the proponent must present three
witnesses who could declare that the will and
the signature are in the writing of the testatrix.
Petitioner argued that he is not bound to produce
more than one witness because the authenticity of
the will was not questioned. The Supreme Court
held that The Court found that since the
authenticity of the will was not contested, he was
not required to produce more than one witness;
but even if the genuineness of the holographic will
were contested, Article 811 does not require the
compulsory presentation of 3 witnesses.
DOCTRINE: The presentation of 3 witness is not
mandatory in holographic cases and in case of
absence of competent witnesses, the court may
resort to handwriting experts.
(88) Maloles II v. Phillips
Topic; When the Testator is the Petitioner
QUICK FACTS: Arturo Delos Santos iled before
Makati City Branch 61 for probate of his will in
1995. He declared that he has no compulsory heirs
and named Arturo Delos Santos Foundation, Inc.
as the sole devisee and legatee. He also named
Pacita De Los Reyes Phillips as the executrix. The
trial court accepted the will for probate. 10 days
later, he died. Pacita then filed for motion for
1/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_85 to 100_Santos - Google Docs
issuance of letters testamentary before Branch
61 but withdrew the said motion and
transferred the same to Branch 65. This was
opposed by Maloles II contending that he is the
next in kin, being the nephew of Arturo - he should
be administrator. Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65
issued an order transferring the motion iled by
Pacita to Branch 61 on the ground that since the
probate proceeding started in Branch 61, then it
should be the same court which should hear
Pacita’s motion since probate proceedings
continues until distribution of the estate. Branch
61 however refused to consolidate and referred
the case back to Branch 65 on the ground that
there is no pending case relating to the said estate
since the probated proceeding was already done
and inal. The Court held that after the allowance
of the will of Dr. De Santos on February 16, 1996,
there was nothing else for Branch 61 to do except
to issue a certi icate of allowance of the will
pursuant to Rule 73, 12 of the Rules of Court as he
was still living and succession has not taken place
yet.
DOCTRINE: Ordinarily, probate proceedings are
instituted only after the death of the testator, so
much so that, after approving and allowing the
will, the court proceeds to issue letters
testamentary and settle the estate of the testator.
The cases cited by petitioner are of such nature. In
fact, in most jurisdictions, courts cannot entertain
a petition for probate of the will of a living testator
under the principle of ambulatory nature of wills. ·
It is far easier for the courts to determine the
mental condition of a testator during his lifetime
than after his death. Fraud, intimidation and
undue in luence are minimized. Furthermore, if a
will does not comply with the requirements
prescribed by law, the same may be corrected at
once.
(89) In the matter of the last will and
testament of Jose Vaño v. Vda. de Garces, et. al.
Topic: Oppositor’s evidence not limited to grounds
alleged in the opposition
QUICK FACTS: Jose vano died on January 28,
1950. Teodoro Vano petitioned for probate the last
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18RvML6yBPO8A_bta-fGzca0_i4I76ewoU20QtcJdQFc/edit
will and testament of Jose Vano before the CFI of
Cebu and likewise asked to be appointed as
administrator. Paz Vano, the cousin of Teodoro
iled an opposition stating that such will was
procured by undue and improper pressure and
in luence, Teodoro is not an acknowledged natural
child of the deceased, Jose was mentally incapable
of making the will, and that the deceased signature
was procured through fraud and trickery.
However, three witnesses attested to Jose’s
soundness of mind when he made the will. The
Supreme Court held that the will should be
probated. The Court found credence in the fact
that Jose Vano was suffering from advanced
pulmonary tuberculosis as well as rheumatism
when he was signing the will, hence the apparent
discrepancy in the two signatures presented.
DOCTRINE: Before the probate court can allow
the will, it must be satis ied upon proof taken and
iled that the will was duly executed, and that the
testator at the time of its execution was of sound
and disposing mind and not acting under duress,
menace, and undue in luence, or fraud. When the
genuineness of the testator’s signature is put in
issue, his age, in irmity, and state of health should
be given due consideration.
(90) In the matter of the last will and
testament of Jose Vaño v. Vda. de Garces, et. al.
(Supra)
Topic: Sufficiency of Evidence
DOCTRINE/RULING: It must be noted as well
that on December 11th of the same year when he
executed Exhibit "A", he was suffering from
apparently advanced pulmonary tuberculosis as
well as rheumatism which according to Dr.
Osmundo Rama who had been treating him until
the day he died. With the situation of the testator
at that time, It is natural that his signatures on
Exhibit "A" should lack the irmness, rhythm, lack
of effort and continuity of motion that they had
before he became quite ill and in irm. Examining
the signatures on Exhibit "A", the original of the
will, and those on "3-A", a carbon copy thereof, it
will be readily observed that while the signatures
on the original are already in irm, rough and
2/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_85 to 100_Santos - Google Docs
jagged, suggesting a hand in irm and trembling,
those on the duplicate (Exhibit "3-A") are still
more so, showing the effects of the concentration
of attention, exertion and effort of the testator in
reading and signing the original.
(91) Ortega v. Valmonte
Topic: Sufficiency of Evidence
QUICK FACTS: Placido and Jose ina got married.
Placido was 80 years old while Jose ina was 28
years old. Placido died 2 years later. He executed a
last will and testament before he died. It contained
2 pages, one dated June 15 1983 and one August 9
1983 The probate of the will was opposed by
Leticia, the sister of Placido. According to the
notary public who notarized the testator’s will,
after the testator instructed him on the terms and
dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary
public told them to come back on 15 August 1983
to give him time to prepare. Petitioners argue that
Placido was already 83 years old and no longer of
sound mind and that his signature was procured
by fraud. The Supreme Court held that Placido was
of sound mind as he was able to identify
accurately his properties. And that the petitioner
failed to convince the Court that there was indeed
fraud.
DOCTRINE: The party challenging the will bears
the burden of proving the existence of fraud at the
time of its execution. The burden to show
otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only
upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.
(92) Testate Estate of Vito Borromeo v. Crispin
Borromeo, et. al.,
Topic: Sufficiency of Evidence
QUICK FACTS: Vito Borromeo died at the age of 88
without any forced heirs. Jose Junquera iled
before the CFI a petition for probate of the will of
the deceased. Teo ilo Borromeo iled an opposition
stating that, among others, the signature of the
deceased was a forgery. The trial court granted the
opposition. Witnesses argue that it was impossible
for Vito to sign the will because of his physical
condition. He was believed to have been positive
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18RvML6yBPO8A_bta-fGzca0_i4I76ewoU20QtcJdQFc/edit
for bacillus leprosy according to Dr. Antonio Garcia
and an expert from the NBI who con irmed that
the signature was forged. The Supreme Court held
that there was suf icient evidence in proving that
it was impossible for Vito to sign the will.
DOCTRINE: It must be conceded that in this
jurisdiction, the subscribing witnesses to a
contested will are regarded as the best witnesses
in connection with its due execution. It is similarly
true, however, that to deserve full credit, their test,
testimony must be reasonable and unbiased, and
that, as in the case of any other witness, their
testimony may be overcome by any competent
evidence — direct or circumstantial.
(92) Testate Estate of Catalina de la Cruz v.
Pedro de la Cruz, et. al.
Topic; Sufficiency of Evidence
QUICK FACTS: Catalina de la Cruz died, signle and
without any surviving descendant or ascendant.
Petition for probate of her will was iled by Andres
Pascual, who was named in the will as the
executor and sole heir. It was opposed by Pedro
Dela Cruz and 26 other nephews stating that the
formalities of law were not complied with, that
Catalina was mentally incapable, that it was
procured by undue and improper in luence, and
that the signature was obtained through fraud.
The Supreme Court admitted the probate of the
will. As regards to undue in luence, which the
Court herein focused on, it held that to be
suf icient to avoid a will, the in luence must be of a
kind that so overpowers and subjugates the mind
of the testator as to destroy his free agency and
make him express the will of another rather than
his own. That mere general or reasonable
in luence is not suf icient to invalidate a will. The
contestants simply failed to establish actual undue
in luence or improper pressure exercised on the
testatrix by the proponent.
DOCTRINE: A mere general or reasonable
in luence is not suf icient to invalidate a will. That
to be suf icient to avoid a will, the in luence
exerted must be of a kind that so overpowers and
subjugates the mind of the testator as to destroy
3/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_85 to 100_Santos - Google Docs
his free agency and make him express the will of
another rather than his own
(93) Testate Estate of The Late Adriana Maloto,
et. al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al.,
Topic; Sufficiency of Evidence
QUICK FACTS: Adriana Maloto died, she left four
heirs, Aldina, Constancio (Petitioners), Pan ilo, and
Felino (Respondents). The said heirs proceeded to
ile a petition for intestate proceedings because
they believed that the deceased did not leave any
will. Pending the case, the heirs decided to settle
the estate extrajudicially. Three years later, the
former associate of Adriana’s counsel discovered a
will which the deceased wrote. The will favored
two (petitioners) of the four heirs as they were
given a bigger share, and the will named a few
more devisees and legatees. A motion to cancel the
proceedings was initiated by the respondents
because according to them, the will was deemed
revoked because of the presence of burned marks.
The Supreme Court held that the will was not
deemed revoked. To constitute as such would
require intent to revoke (animus revocandi)
coupled with the actual physical act of destruction.
No such destruction was made since the will was
still presented in Court.
DOCTRINE: The intention to revoke must be
accompanied by the overt physical act of
burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the
will carried out by the testator or by another
person in his presence and under his express
direction.
(94) IN RE: Petition to Approve the Will of
Ruperta Palaganas
Topic: Reprobate
QUICK FACTS: Ruperta Palaganas, a naturalized
US citizen, died single and childless. In her last will
and testament which was executed in California,
named her brother Sergio as the executor of her
estate (Properties in the US and in the PH).
Ernesto Palaganas, the other brother of Ruperta,
iled before the RTC of Malolos a petition for
probate of her will and prayed to be appointed as
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18RvML6yBPO8A_bta-fGzca0_i4I76ewoU20QtcJdQFc/edit
special administrator. This was opposed by
Manuel and Benjamin Palaganas, stating that the
will should not be probated in the Philippines
because it was already probated in the US. The
Supreme Court held that our laws do not prohibit
the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad
although the same have not as yet been probated
and allowed in the countries of their execution.
DOCTRINE: The rules do not require proof that
the foreign will has already been allowed and
probated in the country of its execution. Our laws
do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by
foreigners abroad although the same have not as
yet been probated and allowed in the countries of
their execution.
(95) Vda. de Perez v. Tolete
Topic: Reprobate
QUICK FACTS: Spouses Jose and Evelyn Cunanan,
both doctors, together with their family, all died in
a ire in New York. Rafael, the trustee of Jose in the
latter’s will, iled for probate of the said will.
Thereafter, Evelyn’s mother iled a petition for
reprobate in Bulacan. This was opposed by Rafael
stating that Salud (mother) was not an heir
according to New York Law. Reprobate was not
allowed in the trial court, petitioner failed to prove
the law and procedure in New York relating to
succession. Moreover, respondent judge stated
that the probate of separate wills of two or more
different persons even if they are husband and
wife cannot be undertaken in a single petition. The
Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to
provide for the due execution of the will in
accordance with the laws of New York and that it
failed to provide for the laws of New York
altogether. Further, the Court held that the joint
probate of the wills of Jose and Evelyn was valid
since both wills contain the same provisions and
dispositions. Also, there no rule prohibiting such
join probate.
DOCTRINE: 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
4/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_85 to 100_Santos - Google Docs
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 of a foreign country on procedure and
allowance of wills.
(96) Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon
Topic: Reprobate
QUICK FACTS: Audrey O’Neil, married to Richard
Guersey, died and her will was probated in
Maryland, US. the will named James Phillips as
executor. Atty. Ancheta (petitioner) was likewise
designated by the court as ancillary administrator.
Richard then married respondent Candelaria.
Upon Richard’s death, his will was admitted for
probate in a court in Maryland. Likewise,
petitioner iled a petition for probate before the
Makati RTC. This petition was opposed by
respondent on the ground that under the law of
the State of Maryland, a legacy passes to the
legatee the entire interest of the testator in the
property subject of the legacy. In the CA, petitioner
failed to present the pertinent laws of Maryland on
Estates and Trusts. The Supreme Court held that
such failure was fatal to his case as the
presentation of the foreign law is necessary for
reprobate.
DOCTRINE: While foreign laws do not prove
themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are
not authorized to take judicial notice of them;
owever, petitioner, as ancillary administrator of
Audreys estate, was duty-bound to introduce in
evidence the pertinent law of the State of
Maryland.
(97) Testate Estate of Idonah Slade Perkins v.
Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
Topic: Reprobate
QUICK FACTS: Idonah Slade Perkins (Perkins)
died on March 27, 1960 in New York City leaving
33,002 shares of stock of Benguet Consolidated
Inc. (Benguet) the certi icates of which are in the
possession of the County Trust Co. of New York
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18RvML6yBPO8A_bta-fGzca0_i4I76ewoU20QtcJdQFc/edit
which is the domiciliary administrator of the
estate. On August 12, 1960, Prospero Sanidad
instituted ancillary administration proceedings
with CFI-Manila which appointed Renato Tayag as
the ancillary administrator. A dispute arose
between domiciliary administrator in New York
and ancillary administrator in the Philippines as to
which of them is entitled to possession of the
stock certi icates of Perkins. CFI-Manila ordered
the domiciliary administrator to produce and
deposit the stock certi icates with the ancillary
administrator of with the Clerk of Court to which it
did not comply with. The ancillary administrator
iled a petition to declare the stock certi icates
issued in the name of Perkins to be considered as
lost. Benguet Consolidated stated that it is
immaterial as to who possess the stock
certi icates. They opposed the petition stating that
the shares of stock are in existence and is not lost
as it is in the possession of the domiciliary
administrator, the County Trust Co. of New York.
Thus, they cannot be declared or considered as
lost. The Supreme Court held here that the shares
of stock should be declared lost because Benguet
did not dispute the power the ancillary
administrator to gain control and possession of all
the assets of the decedent within the jurisdiction
of the Philippines.
DOCTRINE: The ancillary administration is
proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a
country other than that of his last domicile,
property to be administered in the nature of assets
of the deceased liable for his individual debts or to
be distributed among his heirs. Ancillary
administration is necessary or the reason for such
administration is because a grant of
administration does not ex proprio vigore have
any effect beyond the limits of the country in
which it is granted. Hence, an administrator
appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the
Philippines.
(98) Testate Estate of Suntay v. Intestate Estate
of Suntay L-3081 and L-3088
Topic: Reprobate
5/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_85 to 100_Santos - Google Docs
QUICK FACTS: In 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino
citizen and a resident of the Philippines, died in
Amoy, China. He left real and personal properties
in the Philippines and a house in Amoy. During his
lifetime, he married twice, the irst wife was
Manuela Cruz, with whom he had several children.
The second marriage was with Maria Natividad
Lim Brillian, with whom he had a son, petitioner
Silvino Suntay. Intestate proceedings were
instituted by the heirs from the irst marriage.
While the second wife, the surviving widow who
remained in Amoy China, iled a petition for the
probate of the last will and testament of the
deceased which was claimed to have been
executed and signed in the Philippines on
November, 1929. The petition was denied due to
the loss of the will before the hearing thereof.
After the paci ic war, Silvino, claimed to have
found among the records of his father, a last will
and testament in Chinese characters executed and
signed by the deceased on January, 1931 and
probated in the Amoy District Court. He iled a
petition in the intestate proceedings for the
probate of the will executed in the Philippines on
November 1929 or the will executed in Amoy
China on November, 1931.The Supreme Court held
that the probate of the will in the PH cannot be
done because the petitioner failed to provide the
fact that the municipal district court of Amoy,
China is a probate court must be proved and the
law of China on procedure in the probate or
allowance of wills.
DOCTRINE: The presentation of evidence such as
the laws of another country is requirement for
reprobate in the Philippines.
(99) Edgar Y. Teves, Petitioner, vs. The
Commission on Elections and Herminio G.
Teves
Topic: Who are Competent to Serve as Executors or
Administrators
QUICK FACTS: Petitioner Edgar Teves was
running as Representative of the 3rd legislative
district of Negros Oriental during the May 14,
2007 elections. On March 30, private respondent
Herminio Teves iled a petition to disqualify Edgar
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18RvML6yBPO8A_bta-fGzca0_i4I76ewoU20QtcJdQFc/edit
on the ground that the former has already been
convicted in Teves v. Sandiganbayan of violating
Sec. 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act (R.A. 3019), for possessing pecuniary or
inancial interest in a cockpit (prohibited under
Sec. 89(2) of the LGC of 1991). Herminio claims
that the crime under which Edgar was convicted
was a crime involving moral turpitude, which
carries the accessory penalty of perpetual
disquali ication from public of ice. On May 11,
2007, COMELEC First Division disquali ied Edgar;
an Motion for Reconsideration was iled but the
same was denied by COMELEC en banc, on the
ground that the issue had now become moot and
academic since petitioner lost in the May 2007
elections anyway. The Supreme Court held that
gambling is a malum prohibitum that is not
intrinsically evil and, thus, is not a crime involving
moral turpitude
DOCTRINE: Moral turpitude has been de ined as
everything which is done contrary to justice,
modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private and social
duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to
society in general.
(100) Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand
Marcos II and Imelda Marcos
Topic: Who are Competent to Serve as Executors or
Administrators
QUICK FACTS: The Pasig Court granted the
issuance of letters testamentary in solidum to
Bongbong and Imelda as executors of the last will
and testament of the late (dictator) Ferdinand
Marcos, with BIR Commissioner Vinzons-Chato
appointed as special administrator.Except for
petitioner Republic's allegation of want of
integrity on the part of Imelda and Bongbong,
named executors in the last will and testament,
the Court sees at this time that NO evidence on
record, oral or documentary, to substantiate and
support the said allegation. The petitioner
republic iled for a review (Rule 45) questioning
the validity of the order granting the letters
testamentary in favor of the respondents. The
Supreme Court held that the RTC committed no
6/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_85 to 100_Santos - Google Docs

error or grave abuse in inding that the allegations

of want of integrity is unfounded and
unsubstantiated so as to disqualify them from
being executors and administrators.

DOCTRINE: The Rules of Court gives the lower

court the duty and discretion to determine
whether in its opinion an individual is un it to
serve as an executor.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18RvML6yBPO8A_bta-fGzca0_i4I76ewoU20QtcJdQFc/edit 7/7