HOLOGRAPHIC WILL

General

Art 810. A person may execute a holographic will

which 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.

Art 811. In the probate of a holographic will.

it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator
explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the writing of the testator.
If the will is contested,
at least three of such witnesses shall be required

In re: intestate estate of Andres and Bibiana de Jesus

Simeon Roxas, Pedro de Jesus v Andres de Jesus (1985, Gutierrez)

- Deceased: sps Andres and Bibiana

- Simeon: brother of Bibiana
o Found holographic will <notebook, pp 21-24: letter will to children
 Dated Feb 61; entirely written and sgd by Bibana; in English
 “This is my will which I want to be respected altho it is not written by a lawyer”
- CFI: Simeon: intestate estate special proceeding by Simeon, administrator
o Simeon delivered holographic will
 Pedro and Manuel testified that letter is mother’s. handwriting and sign OK
o Henson, compulsory heir: opposed
 Not executed || law; through force, intimidation, duress, undue influence, improper
pressure; by mistake, no intent to execute will
o Colayco allowed probate
o Luz de Jesus: MR
o Colayco disallowed probate: dated should include month, day, year
- SC:
o Simeon, et al: Art 685 of OCC require yr, mo, day BUT NCC simply requires will be dated
 Liberal construction should prevail
o Will should be allowed
 G: day, mo, year; BUT X: [substantial compliance rule]
 Liberal construction
 || liberal trend of CC in the manner of execution of wills
o Code Commission: to prevent intestacy: the underlying and fundamental
objectives permeating the provisions of the law on wills in this project consists in
the liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the
testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient safeguards
and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and
improper pressure and influence upon the tor. Objective in accord with the modern
tendency with respect to the formalities in the execution of wills
 || Heirs of Castro v Bustos, Capistrano concurring: law has a tender regard for the
will of the tor expressed in his last will and testament on the ground that any
disposition made by the tor is better than that which the law can make. For this
 reason, intestate succession is nothing more than a disposition based upon the
presumed will of the decedent
 Prevailing policy: require satisfaction of legal requirements in order to guard against
fraud and bad faith
o BUT without undue or unnecessary curtailment of testamentary privilege ||
Icasiano v Icasiano
o If executed in substantial compliance with formalities of law and possibility
of bad faith and fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, will should be
admitted to probate || Rey v Cartagena
 If surrounding circumstances point to regular execution of will and
instruement executed substantially in accordance with law,
inclination should, absent suggestion of bad faith, forgery, fraud,
lean towards admission to probate; although the doc may suffer
from some imperfection of language or non-essential defect ||
Leynez v Leynez
 Purpose of solemnities re wills: the object of the solemnities surrounding the
execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity ||
Abangan v Abangan
 Here,
 no evidence of bad faith, fraud, nor substitution of wills and testaments
 no question that will entirely written, dated, sgd by Bibiana herself
 no question as to genuineness, due execution (children agreed on this)
 objection too technical to be entertained
o GRANTED. Reversed, set aside. Probate of will allowed reinstated
In re: petition to approve will of Melecio Labrador

Sagrado substituted by Rosita Labrador, Enrica, Cristobal Labrador v CA, Gaudencio, Jesus Labrador (1990, Paras)

- Deceased: Melecio (father; children with two mothers lol)

o Left parcel of land, Zambales (fishpond, Tagale, ~1 ha)
o With holographic will, in Ilocano; executed when 93 y/o
 Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal share in above property
o Page 2: And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the
respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the
year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one
who made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father
o Allegedly sold parcel in 71 to Jesus and gaudencio for 6k; in 73, Jesus to Navat for 5k
- Heirs: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria, Jovita
- LC: Sagrado: probate of will
o Jesus, substituted by Gaudencio: opposed; will extinguished or revoked by law
 Melecio executed deed of absolute sale in favor of Jesus and Gaudencio; OCT cancelled by
TCT on 1971
o Sagrado: annulment of Deed; acquired parcel as devisee || 1968 will; sale fictitious
o Probate allowed
o Sale null and void; reimburse the 5k as redemption price paid by Sagrado, paid to vendee a retro
- CA: disallowed will; undated; reversed reimbursement
- SC:
o Rosita, et al: dated although not in its usual place; therefore OK for probate
o Respondents: date not the date of the execution but the date of the agreement to partition; will
more of an agreement to prejudice of other compulsory heirs
o Will OK for probate
 Will signed and written by tor himself
 Will dated
 In hand of Melecio himself
 Law does not specify particular location where date should be placed
o Only requires that date be in will itself and executed in hand of tor
 Here, requirements present
o March 17 the date of the execution || tenor of succeeding words
o Will not an agreement but a will that Melecio knew was what he was
executing
 Act of partitioning and declaration that partitioning as tor’s
instruction or decision to be followed = Melecio aware of nature of
property and character of testamentary act as means to contro
disposition of estate
o Reimbursement correct
 Sale null and void
 Jesus did not have authority to sell
 Property not theirs
o REVERSED. Will OK to probate. Reimburse
Testate estate of Felicidad Alto-Yap

Fausto Gan v Ildefonso Yap (1958, Bengzon)

- Deceased: Felicidad, died of heart failure, UST

o Was ill and went to US to be treated; felt well but aliment recurred; stayed in bed the whole Nov 5
o Left properties in Pulilan and Mnl
o Allegedly left will
 In Filipino; dated Nov 1951
 Heirs: Bulacan to Vicente, Fasto, Rosario, Filomena, Beatriz; Mnl to Ildefonso (h of F), make
health center in Pulilan with deceased’s name
- CFI: Fausto: probate of above
o Ildefonso: opposed; no will during wife’s lifetime
o Will not presented
 Execution || statements of Felina, Primitivo, Socorro, Rosario
 Felicidad mentioned to cousin Vicente desire to make will; would be useless if h
knew of will
 Consulted with bar candidate nephew Fausto re making of holographic will
 Wrote will on 5 Nov 51 in presence of niece Felina who read it; read will to Primitivo
 Had visitors Socorro and Rosario: were showed will in presence of Felina, who again
read will
 Entrusted will to Felina who kept will in purse (UST)
 Ildefonso asked for purse; Felina gave purse due to Ildefonso’s temper
o Attendad Bantique and husband: Felicidad stayed in bed all day; no will made
o Cannot credit testimonies
 If Felicidad wanted secrecy, why execute in presence of Felina knowing that witnesses
unnecessary; no showing that Felina a confidant; why be read to Primitivo, et al when she
wanted it secret; why carry it around if purpose was to conceal; why did h return will
without destroying it (theory being that h wanted to destroy will hence taking)
o No probate. MR denied
- SC:
o No probate; will cannot be allowed. Lost or destroyed holo will may not be proved by bare testimony
of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will
 History of holographic will [rules]
 Sp Civil Code permitted holographic wills
 Code of Civil procedure repealed holographic: wills be subscribed by tor and 3
credible witnesses in each and every page; attestation
o Object of above || Abangan: to close door aginst bad faith, fraud, prevent
substitution; guarantee truth and autheniticity
 Prevent those who have no right to succeed to benefit from probate
|| Mendoza v Pilapil
o BUT || Rodriguez v Yap: formal imperfections may be brushed aside when
authenticity duly proved
 NCC revived holographic wills || 810-14
o Radical departure from form and solemnities under Civ Pro
 Authenticity and due execution the dominant requirement when sill submitted to
courts for allowance; testimony of one w sufficient if no opposition; 3 if opposed
 BUT as to holographic wills
 No such guarantees of truth and veracity demanded since such do not need witnesses
o Provided, entirely written, dated, sgd by hand of tor himself
o Law regards doc as material proof of authenticity and as its own safeguard
 BUT as to holographic wills
 No such guarantees of truth and veracity demanded since such do not need
witnesses
o Provided, entirely written, dated, sgd by hand of tor himself
o Law regards doc as material proof of authenticity and as its own safeguard
 Because it could at any time be demonstrated to be or not to be in
hands of tor himself
 || CC: necessary that at least one witness who knows handwriting
and sig of tor explicitly declare will and signature are in handwriting
of tor; if contested, three; absent: expert testimony
 Such w do not need to see execution of will
 Courts will not distribute property of deceased in accordance with his holographic will unless
they are shown in his handwriting and signature
 Here, will itself not submitted
 Therefore, means of opposition and of assessing evidence not available
o The only guaranty of authenticity—tor’s handwriting—disappeared
o Cannot probate will upon testimony of witnesses who allegedly saw it
 Otherwise, how can oppositor prove document not in tor’s
handwriting?
 Witnesses who know tor’s handwriting cannot examine will
 Experts cannot testify since no way to compare testament
with other specimen
 Therefore, oppositor caught bet lack of knowledge of will and
inability to prove falsity
 Witnesses may be honest, but may have seen faked will
 Cannot be proved to not have been shown doc which they
believed was in handwriting of deceased
o Cannot be convicted of perjury
 Can be shown handwriting of deceased and asked if same as
will, but what witness or lawyer would not foresee move
and prep for it
 Witnesses say one statement: seen and read document
which he believed was in deceased’s handwriting
 Court at the mercy of such witness as to execution and
contents of will
o Rule 77 canot be extended to holographic wills (secondary evidence allowed
to est wills)—must present will
 One of the greatest objections to holographic: lost or stolen; implied
admission that loss or theft renders will useless
 Note: CC requires will to be protocoled and presented to judge who
shall subsribe it and require its identity to be est by three witnesses
who depose that they have no reasonable doubt that will written by
tor
 Also requires sp and desc, asc be summoned to make
statement with respect to authenticity of will
 Implies presentation of will itself
 Note: holographic wills usu done by tor and by self alone to prevent
others from knowing its execution or its contents
  Requirement of sp, asc, desc not to determine won they
know of will, but whether in face of doc itself they thnk tor
wrote it
o Cannot do this unless will presented
o Intent of law: give near relatives choice of either
complying with will if they think it authentic or
oppose it if they think it spurious
 || Sp Court: will itself, whole and unmutiliated must be presented;
otherwise, no effect
 || Juzgo: will itself must be compared with specimens of tor’s
handwriting
 || French Civil Law: loss of holographic will fatal
 V ordinary wills
 May be proved by testimonial evidence when lost or destroyed
 Because of nature of wills
o Guarantee of authenticity
 Ordinary: testimony of witnesses
 Holographic: handwriting itself
o Loss of wills entails
 Holographic: loss of only medium of proof
 Witnesses to testify as to their opinion of handwriting which
they allegedly saw—opinion which cannot be tested in court
nor directly contradicted because handwriting itself not at
hand
 Ordinary: subscribing witnesses to authenticate
 Witnesses to testify to a fact which they saw—the act of tor
subscribing will
o + hard to convince three and notary to lie; lies can be checked and exposed
as to whereabout and acts on day, etc; and cannot receive anything on
account of will
o V holographic: if oral admissible, only one man could engineer the fraud
after making imitation of handwriting
 May contrive to let three honest, credible witnesses to read forgery
and those w having no int can fall for it and affirm its genuineness
and authenticity despite orchestrated loss
 If testimonial permitted, feasibility of forgery would be added to objections to
holographic wills
 Sufficiency rather than insufficiency of evidence should decide appeal
 Circumstances of revealing will to relatives dubious
 Why show to disinterested the existence of will
o Might pester deceased to alter will under threat of exposing same to
husband
 Why not entrust to beneficiaries?
 Even if oral admissible, evidence submitted so tainted with improbabilities and
inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to clear and distinct proof required by 77
o AFFIRMED. No probate
In re petition to approve will of Ricardo Bonilla

Marcela Rodelas v Amparo Aranza, et al; Atty Sumulong, intervenor (1982, Relova)

- Deceased: Ricardo Bonilla

- CFI: Marcela: probate of will
o Amparo, et al opposed:
 estopped from claiming Ric left will since failed to produce will within 20 d of death of tor ||
ROC;
 copy did not contain disposition after death;
 will must be presented, not copy thereof;
 no will made; mere instruction as to mgt and improvement of schools and colleges founded;
 lost or destroyed holo wills cannot be proved by secondary evidence unlike ordinary wills
o No probate. If original lost, copy cannot be admitted in lieu of original || Gan v Yap—doc itself as
material proof of authenticity of wills + 14 years bet execution and death and fact that will lost = Ric
discarded will
- CA: fwded to CA since no question of fact
- SC:
o Probate OK
 Lost holo will can be proved by photostatic copy
 Probate of holo wills = allowance of will by court after its due execution has been
proved
o May be uncontested or not
 If uncontested, one identifying witness OK; if contested, 3
 If holo will lost or destroyed and no other copy available, no probate since best and
only evidence is handwriting of tor in will
 BUT if copy of will available, probate can be allowed
o Since comparison can be made with standard writings of tor
o Footnote 8 of Gan v Yap: perhaps, it may be proved by a photographic or
photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy, or by other similar
means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased
may be exhibited and tested before the probate court
o SET ASIDE. Probate OK
Federico Azaola v Cesario Singson (1960, Reyes, JBL)

- Deceased: Fortunata Vda de Yance

o Left holo will
 Maria Azaola sole heir (none for nephew)
 Allegedly seen by Francisco a month or less before death of Fortunata; handed over to him
and his wife and recognized all signatures in will and handwriting of Fortunata
o Nephew: Singson
- CFI: Francisco: probate of holo will
o Presented mortgage, spa, gpa, deeds of sale, affidavits showing signature of Fortunata; penmanship
and signatures are Fortunata’s (testimonies: handed will, apparently must have been written by her;
later: definitely hers)
o Opposed by Singson: undue and improper pressure and influence from Francisco and wife; no
intention to be last will and will written either 5 or 6 Aug 57, not Nov 56 as appearing on will
o Denied probate. || 811, CC: present three witnesses who could declare will and sig in writing of F
 No sufficient proof that body of will in handwriting of F
- SC:
o Federico: not bound to produce more than one w since authenticity not questioned; 811 not
mandatary requirement of production of 3 w to identify handwriting and sign of holo will, even if
authenticity denied by adverse party
o Will should be allowed
 No need to produce more than one witness
 Authenticity not contested
 Even if contested, no need to produce more than one witness
 811 cannot be interpreted as to require compulsory presentation of 3 w to identify
handwriting of tor. 811 (1) merely directory; not mandatory
o Since no witness present at exec of holo will
 Law requires none be present
o Compliance with 811 (1) may become an impossibility
 There may be no available witness acquainted with tor’s hand
 Or even if familiarized, witnesses may be unwilling to give positive
opinion
o Hence 811 (2) prescription: absent competent witness, expert testimony OK
 811 (2) foresees possibility that no qualified witness may be found
or willing to testify to authenticity of will
 Therefore, resort to experts provided for
 BUT such requirement mandatory in case of ordinary testatments
o Since presence of at least three witnesses is made by law essential to
validity
 V holographic: no witness required
 Requirement of three witnesses permissive if absurd results are to be avoided
 Expert witnesses not always required
 Only if court deems it necessary
 If court finds one witness OK, no need to call for expert evidence
 If no witness, court may still and should resort to handwriting experts
 Therefore, duty of court: exhaust all available lines of inquiry for state is as much
interested as the proponent that the true intention of the tor be carried into effect
o Therefore, no unfavourable inference can be drawn from party’s failure to
offer expert evidence, until and unless the court expresses dissatisfaction
with testimony of lay witness
 o SET ASIDE. New trial || opinion. Evidence not to be retaken. No costs

Eugenia Codoy, Manuel Ramonal v Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo, Eufemia Patigas (1999, Pardo)

- Deceased: Matlide vda de Ramonal

o With 400,000 realty and personalty at time of death
o Left holographic will
 In Visayan
 Devisees, legatees: Calugay (share at Cogon, Ramnila st + jewelry + 1 ha + 2,500 m2), ( 1,500
m2, Pinikitan St) Salcedo, Patigas (jewelry)
 + bury with husband
 Follow my instr in order that I will rest peacefully, Mama Matilde Vda de Ramonal
 Found not in personal belongings but with Binanay (in possession as early as 85, 5 years
before death of Matilde)
o Legally adopted Codoy, Ramonal
- RTC: Calugay,et al: probate of will
o Calugay, et al: 6 witnesses, documentary evidence
 Neri: clerk of court. Produced records of case: documents with signature of Matilde. Basis
for comparison of handwriting of trix
 Senon: election registrar of CDO: voter’s affidavit but not produced since destroyed, no
longer available
 Binanay: niece. Lived in with her for 11 years. Became familiar with signature and
handwriting since Matilde always issued receipts; assisted in posting records of accts; carried
personal letters of Matilde to cors
 At time of death, left holo will personally and entirely written, dated, sgd
 Waga: fiscal. Was practicing lawyer who handled pleadings and docs sgd by Matilde in
connection with intestate proceedings of her late husband; familiar with handwriting and
signature similar, but not sure
 Vedad: DENR ee. Processed app for pasture permit; familiar with signature since Matilde sgd
docs in her presence
 Calugay: lived with Matilde; became familiar with signature
o Codoy, Ramonal: opposed. Will forged; illegible; third hand of interested party other than true hand
executed will—if own, undue and improper influence, fraud, trickery; dated after every disposition
out of the ordinary = forced, dates and sig should be at the bottom only, not after every disposition
 Demurred
o Denied probate. Insufficient evidence, lack of merit
- CA: probate OK || Azaola v Singson (on 811, witnesses)
o Witnesses unrebutted as to certainty with handwriting and sig of Matilde
- SC:
o Will cannot be allowed
 811 mandatory; 3 witnesses required
 “shall” = mandatory order
o || statutory constr: shall in statute commonly denotes imperative obligation
and inconsistent with idea of discretion; presumption: when used,
mandatory
 Laws enacted to achiev goal intended and to guide against evil or mischeilf that it
aims to prevent
o Here, goal: give effect to wishes of deceased
o Evil sought to be prevented: possibility that unscrupulous individuals who
for their benefit will employ means to defeat wishes of tor
  Therefore, paramount consideration in present petition: determine true intent of
deceased
o Via exhaustive and objective consideration of evidence
 Testimonies not OK
 Neri only identified spec pro readings beforecourt; did not declare that signature
was Matilde’s
 Senon: voter’s affidavit not even produced
 Binanay: saw pre-prepared receipts and letters; not Matilde sgg a doc or note;
o + will in her possession, not in Matilde’s personal belongings
o Kept fact of will from Codoy, Ramonal
 Calugay: why familiar: lived with Matilde since birth; no declaration that she saw
Matilde write note or sgn doc
 Waga: not definite that signature was that of Matilde; only seems similar
 Ajero v CA: obj of solemnities surrounding execution of will is to close door against bad faith
and fraud, avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and
authenticitiy
 Therefore, laws on this subj should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these
primordial ends
 But one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the obj of the law to restrain and
curtail the exercise of the right to make a will
 BUT cannot eliminate the possibility of a false doc being adjudged as will of tor
 Therefore, if holo will contested, law requires three witnesses to declare will in
handwriting of deceased
 No expert presented
 No opportunity for expert to compare signature and handwriting of deceased with
other documents sgd and executed by her during her lifetime
 Only chance was during cross-exam when Binanay asked to compare docs which
contained sigs of Matilde with that of holo will
o And Binanay not a handwriting expert
 + visual exam: strokes different + in some, not readable
 Continuous flow v not continuous flow in holo will
o SET ASIDE. Remanded to RTC to allow Codoy to adduce evidence in support of their opposition to
probate of holo will. No costs

Formal requirements

Art 812. In holographic wills.

the dispositions of the testator written below his signature
must be dated and signed by him
in order to make them valid as testamentary dispositions

Art 813. When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will

are signed without being dated,
and the last disposition has a signature and a date,
such date validates the dispositions preceding it,
whatever be the time of prior dispositions

Art 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will,
the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature
Sps Roberto, Thelma Ajero v CA, Clemente Sand (1994, Puno)

- Deceased: Annie Sand

o Left holo will
 Devisees: sps Ajero, Sand, Arong, Sands, Ajero Sr and children
- RTC: Sps Ajero: probate. Annie of sound and disposing mind, no duress, fraud, undue influence, capacitated
o Sand opposed: not in handwriting of Anniel improper pressure and undue influence
o Ajero Sr opposed: one property cannot be conveyed by Annie in its entirety—not sole owner
o Probate OK.
 Probate proceedings must decide only the question of identity of will,
 No reason to disallow will for failure to comply with formalities prescribed by law or lack of testamentary
capacity of trix
 No evidence to shown will different from will actually executed by Annie.
 Only objections: not written by Annie—refers to due execution and not to question of identity. No
other will alleged to have been executed
 Will indeed written, dated and sgd by Annie || law
 Testamentary capacity OK. Even had detailed knowledge of nature of estate and lot number and sq meters +
identified explicitly + wrote nursing book which contained law and juris on will and succession
 No evidence of improper pressure, influence. Annie still alert
 Since identity OK, due exec and testamentary capacity to be resolved in favor of allowance
 + in case of douct, testate preferred to intestate
- CA: reversed and set aside. No probate
o Requirements not met || 813, 14: dispositions unsigned, undated or signed but not dated. Erasures,
alterations, cancellations not authenticated by Annie
- SC:
o Will should be allowed
 Rules/law:
 ROC, Rule 76, Sec 9: when will disallowed
 CC, Art 839: When will disallowed
 Above exclusive and no other grounds can serve to disallow will
 Only issues to be resolved in petition to admit holo will to probate:
 Whether instr is indeed last will and testament
 Executed in accordance with formalities || law
 Decedent had necessary testamentary capacity at time of execution
 Execution of will and signing were voluntary acts
 Form of will OK
 || Abangan v Abangan: obj is to close door against bad faith, fraud, avoid sub of wills and
testaments and guaranty truth and authenticity
o Therefore, primordial ends should be attained
o But must not lose sight of fact that it is not the obj of the law to restrain and curtail the
exercise of the rt to make a will
 Therefore, when interpreatation already given assures such ends, any other
interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely
unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the tor’s last will, must be disregarded
 Holo will authenticity assured by requirement that they be totally autographic or
handwritten || 810
o 813 shows that requirement affects validity of dispositions but not its probate
Hence, if tor fails to sgn and date some of the dispositions, result is
that these cannot be effectuated
 BUT does not render whole testament void
 || Kalaw v Relova: modifications not noted under sig, but will not invalidated wholly
 813 and 814 (changes) separate from 810 (validity of will) <Sp Civil Code: combined
three articles. Separation indicates 13 and 14 not essential to validity in 810
o Cannot dispose of house and lot in its entirety since not soe owner
o GRANTED. REVERSED, SET ASIDE. Probate OK
Rosa Kalaw v Presiding CFI Judge Relova, Gregorio Kalaw (1984, Melencio-Herrera)

- Deceased: Natividad Kalaw

o Brother: Gregorio
o Sister: Rosa
o Left holo will
 In the name of god, amen
 Burial
 All realty and personalty to beloved brother Gregorio and sole “executrix”
 Witnessed by Lydia Recio
o Holo will first written with Rosa as sole heir
- CFI: Gregorio: probate of Natividad’s will
o Rosa opposed: holo altered, corrected, and inserted to without proper authentication by full sig ||
814; first version OK
o Denied probate
 Will written by Natividad –NBI
 BUT insertions/alterations not authenticated. No estoppel despite agreement to submit will
to NBI for disposition
o MR denied
- SC:
o Rosa: were original unaltered texts voided after subsequent alterations? Can original with Rosa as
sole heir be probated?
o No probate
 Entire will voided
 G: even when number of erasures, corrections, interlineations made by tor in holo
will have not been noted, will not thereby invalidated as a whole but at most only as
respects the particular words erased, corrected, interlined
o || Manresa
 X: substantial provision altered and no full authentication
o Because nothing remains in will after that which could remain valid
o To state otherwise is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the trix
 But change of mind cannot be given effect since she failed to
authenticate it in manner required by law
 Velasco only confined to insertaions, cancellations, erasures, alterations which affect
only the efficacy of the altered words themselves
o BUT not the validity and essence of will itself
 Here: Original heir substituted with another and without authentication
 Substantial provision
o DISMISSED. Affirmed in toto
- Teehankee, concurring: changes too crude for an educated person
CODICILS and INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Art 825. A codicil is supplement or addition to a will,

made after the execution of a will
and annexed to be taken as a part thereof,
by which disposition made in the original will is explained, added to or altered

Art 826. In order that a codicil may be effective,

it shall be executed as in the case of a will

Art 827. If a will,

executed as required by this Code,
incorporates into itself by reference
any document or paper,
such document or paper shall not be considered a part of the will
unless the ff requisites are present:

(1) The document or paper referred to in the will must be in existence at the time of the execution of the will
(2) The will must clearly describe and identify the same, stating among other things the number of pages
thereof
(3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred to there in; and
(4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every page, except in case of voluminous
books of account or inventories
REVOCATION OF WILLS

Time

Art 828. A will may be revoked by the testator

at any time before his death.
Any waiver or restriction of this right is void.

Place

Art 829. A revocation done

outside the Philippines,
by a person who does not have his domicile in this country,
is valid when it is done according to the law of the place where the will was made,
or according to the law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the time;
and if the revocation takes place in this country,
when it is in accordance with the provisions of this Code

Manner

Art 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:

(1) By implication of law; or

(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills; or
(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator
himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction.
If burned, torn, cancelled, or obliterated
by some other person,
without the express direction of the testator,
the will may still be established,
and the estate distributed in accordance therewith,
if its contents, and due execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration
are established according to the ROC

Art 831. Subsequent wills which

do not revoke the previous ones in an express manner,
annul only such dispositions in the prior wills
as are inconsistent with or contrary to those contained in the later wills.

Effect

Art 832. A revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect,

even if the new will should become inoperative
by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein,
or by their renunciation

Art 833. A revocation of a will

based in a false cause or an illegal cause
is null and void

Art 834. The recognition of an illegitimate child

does not lose its legal effect,
even though the will wherein it was made should be revoked
Francisco Gago v Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, Catalina Mamuyac (1927, Johnson)

- Deceased: Miguel Mamuyac

o Executed last will and testament in 1919
o Revoked it before death || Bejar testimony below
- CFI: Francisco Gago: probate
o Exhibit A: carbon of original
o Opposed by Cornelio, et al. will presented a copy of the second will and testament already cancelled
and revoked during lifetime of Miguel; not last will and testament of Miguel
 Fenoy: typed will
 Bejar: saw original actually cancelled by Miguel; was assured by Miguel that inasmuch as he
sold him house and land, had to cancel will. Executed new testament in 1920
o Denied probate. Will cancelled and revoked in 1920 + original could not be found
- SC:
o Will already revoked
 Positive proof as to cancellation not denied
 Law does not require evidence of revocation or cancellation of will to be preserved
 Therefore, difficult to prove revocation
 Where will cannot be found, presumed same cancelled or destroyed
o Absent competent evidence
 Where tor had access to will and cannot be found after death, presumed cancelled
 No presumption that will destroyed by any other person without knowledge, auth of
tor
 Presumptions may be overcome
 Here: original could not be found
 + positive proof of cancellation
o Burden of proof upon proponent to clearly establish not only its execution
but its existence
 Execution proved, but existence not
 Copies of wills should be admitted by courts with great caution
 Duplicate may be admitted when original lost and not cancelled or destroyed by tor
o AFFIRMED
Testate Estate of Adriana Maloto (Maloto v CA)

Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Purificacion Miraflor, Roman Catholic Church of Molo, Asilo de Molo v
CA, Panfilo Maloto, Felino Maloto (1977, Fernandez)

- Deceased: Adriana
o Niece, nephews: Aldina, Consancio, Panfilo, Felino
- CFI: Aldina, et al: intestate proceeding
o EJ partition of estate: ¼ share for each
o Document delivered to clerk of court: will: bigger shares of Constancio and Aldina; also divsees,
legatees: Asilo, Roman Catholic Church, Miraflor
o Aldina and Constancio: annul proceedings; allow will
o Denied motion since filed out of time. MR dismissed
- SC:
o Petitioners: certiorari, mandamus
o Dismissed. More appropriate remedy: initiate separate proceeding for probate
- CFI 2: Aldina, et al: probate
o Panfilo and Felino opposed with MTD: will destroyed, revoked; res judicata; estate already passed
out of existence and title already with distributes; estopped
o Dismissed. Will revoked (but found inconclusive the matter on whether or not document or papers
allegedly burned by Adriana, upon instructions of Adriana. BUT animus revocandi sufficiently proven
since doc not in two safes in residence and Adriana wanted to have new will drawn + went to Hervas
to retrieve will)and barred ||intestate proceeding
- SC:
o Petitioners: LC erred in holding testate revoked, action barred, dismissing petition
o Probate OK
 CFI 1 without jurisdiction to entertain petition for probate of will
 Not proper to make finding in intestate estate proceeding that will revoked
 Separate action dapat
 CFI 2 probate action not barred by CFI 1
o SET ASIDE. Proceed with probate
Testate Estate of Adriana Maloto (Casiano v CA)

Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Purificacion Miraflor, Roman Catholic Church of Molo, Asilo de Molo v
CA, Panfilo Maloto, Melino MAloto (1988, Sarmiento)

- Deceased: Adriana
o Heirs believed no will so initiated intestate proceedings where they executed EJ settlement
o But three yrs later, Atty Palma, former associate of Adriana counsel Hervas discovered KATAPUSAN
NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN, original copy, while going through materials of Hervas
o Aldina and Constancio with much bigger and more valuable shares than EJ settlement + more
devisees and legatees
- CFI then: will revoked (see previous case)
- SC:
o Will not revoked
 Facts, viewed collectively, not sufficient bases for conclusion that Adriana’s will revoked
 || NCC, 830: how will revoked: (3)
 Physical act of destruction as in burning as in this case does not per se constitute
effective revocation
o Unless coupled with animus revocandi
 State of mind
 Must be accompanied by overt physical act of destruction
o Not required that be done by tor himself
o But required that such be under tor’s express direction and in presence of
tor
 It is an important matter of public interest that a purported will is not denied legalization on
dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will be shaken
to its very foundations
 Here, paucity of evidence to show compliance with above requirements
 Not shown that maid burned will
 Not shown to have been done under express direction of Adriana
 Burning not in her presence. Only witnesses Guada and Eladio present where stove
located
o Testimonies inconclusive. Witnesses illiterate. Guada only told that papers
were will. Double hearsay on Eladio’s part who was told same by Guada
 Revocation could not be inferred from fact that major and substantial bulk of properties in
will disposed of
 Matters extraneous to special proceeding. Should be taken up after will duly
probated and certificate of allowance issued
o Res judicata not applicable
 Requisites: final former judgment rendered by court with juris over subject matter and
parties; judgment on merits; identity of parties, subj matter, coa
 Not present: final judgment. Jurisdiction
o REVERSED. Set aside. Allow will and testament

-
Doctrine of dependent relative revocation

Testate Estate of Mariano Molo

Juana Vda de Molo, pet-ee, v Gliceria Luz, Cornelio Molo, opp-ant (1951, Bautista Angelo)

- Deceased: Mariano Molo

o No forced heir
o Wife: Juana
o Niece, nephew: Luz, Cornelio
 Children of Mariano’s brother: Candido
o Left two wills
 Will 1: 17 Aug 1918
 Will 2: 20 Jun 1939
- CFI: Juana: probate of 1939 will
o Probate OK. No opposition
o But oppositors filed petition; order set aside and case reopened
o No probate. Not proved that executed || law
- CFI 2: Juana: probate of 1918 will
o Opposed by Gliceria and Cornelio: estopped. Not in manner required by law; revoked

BATTLE FOR LIBERATION. CASE RECORDS DESTROYED

- CFI: petition for reconstitution

o Impossible since nobody could produce copies required for reconstitution
- CFI: Juana: new petition for probate
o Same opposition
o Probate OK
- SC:
o Cornelio, Gliceria: Juana voluntarily, deliberately frustrated probate of 1939 to enable her to obtain
probate of 1918; estopped; unclean hands; not executed || law; revoked by Molo himself and ||
1939 will (revocatory clause valid and nullified 1918 will)—Naval a minority view and should follow
US, basis of law anyway (express revocation immediately effective. Does not require probate)
o No evidence that Juana deliberately intended to rustrate probate of 39 will; conjectures
 Juana’s failures re witnesses explained
 + note that 39 will actually allowed but only disallowed after rigorous opposition
 39 denied probate due to own opposition
 If Juana knew 39 will defective, why go through with petition
 Cannot impute bad faith to Juana who exerted every effort to protect int and prevent
intestacy of husband
o No estoppel
o No revocation
 Juana: || Samson v Naval: facts similar
 Subsequent will containing revocatory clause disallowed since not in conformity
with Civ Pro as to making of wills
o CANNOT ANNUL previous will
o Since revocatory clause void
 Samson v Naval still good law
 US cases conflicting
 Am Jur vol 57: present trend really: a writing fails as a revoking sintr where it is not
executed with the formalities requisite for the execution of a will, though inscribed
on will itself; invalid will has no effect as a revoking will. Will not revoked by
 defectively executed will or codicil though the latter contains a clause expressly
revoking the former will
 Am Law Reports: where second will invalid, no revocation of first will
 1939 still will despite being denied probate
o But anyway, does not revoke 1918
 No evidence that tor deliberately destroyed original of 1918
 Gave copy to wife. If destroyed (copy of original not found), should have recalled
wife’s copy
 + possible that original only lost or misplaced because of lapse of 21 years
 Arguendo: first will voluntarily destroyed
 Question: can we not say that destruction of earlier will the necessary consequence
of tor’s belief that revocatory clause was valid and latter to be given effect?
o Nope
 || dependent relative revocation
 Usu applied where tor cancels will and makes new one as
sub for old and new fails
 Also applied where will destroyed as consequence of
mistake of law
 Where destruction connected with making of new will so
much so that tor inferred to have meant revocation,
revocation conditional and dependent upon efficacy of new
disposition
o So if new will not operative, revocation fails. Original
in force
 Failure of new disposition upon whose validity the
revocation depends – non-fulfilment of suspensive condition
o Prevents revocation
 Therefore, supposing first destroyed because of new will but new will inoperative,
revocation not effective. First subsists
o Will proved to be duly executed
 2/3 witnesses dead
 But aside from surviving witness Cuenca, notary public also testified
o AFFIRMED. Probate OK. Costs against Luz and Cornelio
REPUBLICATION AND REVIVAL

Art 835. The testator cannot republish,

without reproducing in a subsequent will,
the dispositions contained in a previous one
which is void as to its form.

Art 836. The execution of a codicil

referring to a previous will
has the effect of republishing the will as modified

Art 837. If after making a will

the testator makes a second will
expressly revoking the first.
the revocation of the second will
does not revive the first will,
which can be revived only by another will or codicil.
ALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS

Probate

Art 838. No will shall pass either real or personal property

unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court

The testator himself may,

during his lifetime,
petition the court having jurisdiction
for the allowance of his will.
In such case, the pertinent provisions of the ROC for the allowance of wills after the tor’s death shall govern

The Supreme Court shall formulate

such additional ROC
as may be necessary for the allowance of wills
on petition of the tor.

Subj to the right of appeal,

the allowance of the will,
either during the lifetime of the tor
or after his death.
shall be conclusive as to its due execution.

Gallanosas (widow and children and grandchildren of Pedro) v CFI Judge Arcangel, Hitosis, et al (1978, Aquino)

- Deceased: Florentino Hitosis

o Left 61 parcels in Sorsogon, worth 50k
o Damages in trial exceeding one M
o Executed will when 80 y/o
 In Bicol dialect
 One-half of share in conjugal estate to second wife Dollentas. Should Dollentas die, to sps
Pedro (son of Dollentas in first marriage. Foster child of Florentino) and Corazon Gallanosa
 Also to Fortajada, minor, Florentino’s protege
o Childless widower
o Brother: Leon. Other siblings dead
- CFI: probate [by Gallanosas?]
o Opposed by Leon et al but no evidence
o Probate OK. Gallanosa as executor
o Gallanosas submitted partition of 61 parcels in Sorsogon, large cattle, personalty || will. Also
assumed obligations
 Approved. Confirmed possession of shares
o legal heirs did not appeal from decree of probate trial
- CFI 2: Leon v Gallanosa: recovery of 61 parcels. In continuous possession of lands. Be declared owners
o Gallanosa: MTD. Lack of coa. Res judicata
o Dismissed || res judicata. Leon et al intervened in CFI probate
- CFI 3: 28 years after probate and 15 years after CFI 2, Hitosis: annulment of will and recovery of 61 parcels
o Hitosis: fraud, deceit, cause execution of will. Admitted that Gallanosas since 78 in possession
o Gallanosas: MTD
o Dismissed
o MR: granted. Set aside dismissal. Action for declaration of inexistence of contracts (wills) || 1410, CC
- SC:
o Gallanosas: no jurisdiction to set aside CFIs 1 and 2
o Hitosis without cause of action
o No cause of action
 Complaint baseless. Trial unwarranted
 Action a mere resuscitation of earlier cases
 Barred by res judicata, double barreled defense, trial by prescription, acquisitive trial
extinctive
 Res judicata a two pronged defense here || Rule 39, ROC, Sec 49
o As to CFI 1 (39): conclusive as to due execution or formal validity of will
 Tor was of sound mind, no duress, menace, fraud, undue influence,
sgd || witnesses; genuine, not forged. Cannot be questioned in
subsequent proceeding, even in crim action for forgery
 || Austria v Ventenilla: petition for annulment not entertained after
decree of probate final. Probate of will conclusive as to its due
execution and as to the testamentary capacity of the testator
o CFI 2 (43):
 proceeding in rem; binding upon whole world
 dismissal a judgment in personam that was an adjudication on
merits
 = bar by former judgment
 Final judgment or order can be set aside only on grounds of lack of juris or lack of
due process; or that judgement obtained by extrinsic or collateral fraud (4 yrs from
discovery of fraud)
 1410 of CC does not apply to last wills and testaments
 Law does not sanction action for annulment of will
 For will to take effect, must be probated, legalized, allowed in proper testamentary
proceeding, which is mandatory
o Probate a special proceeding for the settlement of the tor’s estate
o A special proceeding is distinct trial different from ordinary action
o REVERSED. Dismissal affirmed. Costs against Hitoses
Francisca Alsua-Betts, Joseph Betts, Jose Madareta, Ramirez, Register of Deeds, Albay v CA, Amparo Alsua Buenviaje,
Fernando Buenviaje, Fernando Alsu by guardian Clotilde and Pablo Alsua (1979, Guerrero)

- Deceased: Don Jesus Alsua

o Wife: Florentina Rella
o Executed Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial
 Notarized
 With wife and children (Francisca, Pablo, Fernando, Amparo)
 Inventory: 97 pages. Sgd by sps and heirs. All properties conjugal except 5 parcels and shares
of San Miguel Brewery (Florentina)
 Acknowledged 9 children. 5 died. Minors, unmarried
 Francisca: pp 1-12. Pablo: pp 12-20; Fernando: pp 20-33; Amparo: pp 33-47
 Heirs acknowledge and admit
 that totality of properties constitute half of the properties in Annex A, including cash deposited
 that properties assigned represent half not only of conjugal but includes paraphernal properties
o waiving now and forever any claim they have or may have
 that in case of death of one of the sps, each and every heir acknowledges that properties left in
possession of surviving spouse are even less than half that should correspond in absolute ownership as
legit participation in conjugal properties. Waiver of claim over said protion of properties…
o surviving spouse waives claim over properties adjudicated to heirs
o each heir = absolute owner of properties adjudicated under deed
 any heir who questions to pay damages of 5,000 plus fees
 binding upon successors of heirs
- Jesus and Florentina executed respective holographic wills || EJ partition. + in case of future acquisitions,
half to belong to other spouse. Other among four children
o Also executed reciprocal codicils
 properties to be divided into two: half to children, other half to spouse
- Florentina died. Jesus named executor without bond
- Jesus cancelled holographic will in presence of Esteban Ramirez
o Ramirez to make list of all remaining properties
o Lawyer Imperial to draft new will duly sgd by Jesus and attesting witnesses. Three features
 Cancelled, revoked, annulled previous will and codicil
 Collation of properties donated to children || EJ partition
 Children as legatees/devisees. Francesca as executrix
- Florentina will probated. Partition executed confirming EJ partition. Terminated Florentina proceedings
- Jesus died
- CFI: Francisca Alsua Betts: probate of new will
o Opposed by Pablo, Amparo, Fernando: Jesus not of sound mind, under duress, influence of fear,
threats, undue, improper pressure, fraud; not executed according to formal requirements of law;
will contravened EJ partition agreed upon and contravened own probated holo will and codicil
already partially executed in partition of estate of Florentina
o Francisca: ownership over properties not included in inventory of estate. Bought same from father.
Presented two deeds of sale
o Brothers: annulment of deeds of sale. Jointly heard with probate
o Probate OK. Sales lawful and valid
- CA: Reversed. Jesus cannot revoke previous will. Sales null and void. Francisca to pay damages and fees.
Restore properties
- SC:
o Francisca: oppositors estopped from questioning competence of Jesus; Jesus can revoke will;
misapprehension of facts; sales valid
o Not estopped
 Estoppel not applicable in probate
  Probate
 Probate
 || Obispo v Obispo: probate involve public interest and application when it will
block ascertainment of truth as to circumstances surrounding execution of
testament would seem inimical to public policy
o Over and above int of private parties is that of the state to see that
testamentary dispositions be carried out if and only if executed conformably
to law
 In Re Canfield’s Will: primary purpose of proceeding not to est existence of rt of any
living person, but to determine whether or not the decedent has performed the acts
specified by pertinent statues, which are the essential prerequisites to personal
direction of the mode of devolution of his property on death
o No legal but merely moral duty resting upon a proponent to attempt to
validate the wishes of the departed and he may and frequently does receive
no personal benefit from perforamce of act
o One of the most fundamental conceptions of probate law: duty of court to
effectuate, in so far as may be compatible with public int, the devolutionary
wishes of a deceased
 Court in effect an additional party to every litigation affecting the
disposal of the assets of the deceased
o Probate should be allowed
 Grounds for disallowance in CC, 839
 Here, will validly executed as found by trial court and adopted by CA
 CA erred in disallowing because of peculiar circumstances (particularly: EJ partition)
 EJ partition null and void. Involves future inheritance
o || 1056, 1271
 If tor to partition property by inter vivos act or will, shall stand in so
far as it does not prejudice legitime of forced heirs (1056)
 All things, even future ones, may be subj matter of contracts
 But no contract may be entered into with respect to future
inheritances, X: those the obj of which is to make a division
inter vivos of an estate || 1056 (1271)
o Intent of law || above provisions: privilege of partitioneing estate by
interviviso acts restricted to one who has made a prior will or testament
 || use of “testator”
 1056 an exception and cannot be given a wider scope
 Legastos v Verzoasa: necessity of prior will before tor can partition
his properties among his heirs
 || Sp SC: if without will, partition would amt to making will
in manner not provided for
 || Manresa: tor may partitioni by act inter vivos but must
first make a will | law formalities. Without will, not testator.
Person who disposes gratis inter vivos not tor, but donor.
Tor used—evident desire to distinguihse bet donor and tor
o EJ partition not ratified by will subsequently executed
o There was valid donation to each child
 But not as to half reserved as free portion of Jeses and Florentina since not specifically
described in the public instr || 633, CC
o Probate of Florentina will independent of Jesus
 Otherwise, circumvents CC prohibition on joint wills
  Her estate settled. Free portion OK (to Jesus)
 Jesus not obliged to give equally to the children
 Not bound by EJ partition
 Not bound by will
o Will revocable any time before death. Any waiver or restriction void || CC
o Still revocable even if previous wll already probated
 Probate only authenticates the will and does not pass upon the
efficacy of dispositions therein
 Rights passed upon only from moment of death of decedent
 Jesus retained liberty of disposing property before his death to whomsoever he
chose, provided forced heir legitime not prejudiced
o Will valid
 Court decided upon validity of disposition to save time || Nuguid v Nuguid
 Dispositions in first not included in latter
 Presumption therefore: Jesus did not intentd to revoke donations already made, but
only intended to redistribute remaining estate or portion of conjugal assets totally
left to his free disposal from Florentina
 Cannot pass upon Jesus’ decision to favor Francisca more
 || Bustamante v Arevalo: court cannot advance its own idea of just distribution of
property in face of different mode of disposition so clearly expressed by trix in will
 Only fxn of court: carry out intention of deceased || will
 Jesus capacitated. Mere weakness of mind or partial imbecility from disease of body or from
age does not render person incapable of making will
 + presumption: sound mind
 + finding that will duly executed forecloses claims to contrary that will not executed
in accordance with law
 Jesus still OK. Gave detailed instructions. Even corrected draft; bright and lievely
spirits (farming to French wines).
 Details (Jesus sought probate of earlier will but not the later will, etc) CA found difficult to
reconcile with ordinary course of things and life mere conjectures
o Sales valid
 No forgery; signature of witness not assailed
 Pablo did not deny acknowledging recitip
 Consideration paid || receipts (even sgd by Pablo) of checks
 Inadequacy of consideration does not vitiate contract unless there was fraud, mistake,
undue influence
 Here, price not so inadequate as to shock the conscience
 Price actually higher than assessed value considering that sale bet father and
daughter
o SET ASIDE. CFI reinstated. Costs against respondents
Dela Cerna v Potot (supra)

12 SCRA 576 | JEN SUCCESSION REVIEWER

FACTS:

Spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint last will ad testament where they willed that
their 2 parcels of land be given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece and that while each of them are living, he/she will
continue to enjoy the fruits of the lands mentioned.

Bernabe died. Gervasia submitted the will for probated. By order of Oct. 31, 1939, the Court admitted for probate
the said will but only for the part of Bernabe.

When Gervasia died, another petition for probate was instituted by Manuela, but because she and her attorney
failed to appear in court, the petition was dismissed. When the same was heard, the CFI declared the will void for
being executed contrary to the prohibition on joint wills. On appeal, the order was reversed.

ISSUE:

W/N the will may be probated.

HELD:

Admittedly the probate of the will in 1939 was erroneous, however, because it was probated by a court of
competent jurisdiction it has conclusive effect and a final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is
binding upon the whole world. However, this is only with respect to the estate of the husband but cannot affect the
estate of the wife; considering that a joint will is a separate will of each testator.

The joint will being prohibited by law, its validity, in so far as the estate of the wife is concerned, must be reexamine
and adjudicated de novo.

The undivided interest of the wife should pass upon her death to her intestate heirs and not to the testamentary
heir. Thus as to the disposition of the wife, the will cannot be given effect.

A decree of probate decree is conclusive on the due execution and the formal validity of the will subject to such
probate.
Ethel Grimm Roberts v CFI Mnl Judge Leonidas, Maxine Tate-Grim, Edward Grimm II, Linda Grimm (1984, Aquino)

- Deceased: Edward Grimm

o Second wife: Maxine
 Children: Edward II (Pete), Linda
o Children from first: Juanita, Ethel
o Two wils in SF, Ca
 First will: Philippine estate (conjugal, him and second w) disposition
 Second will: estate outside Ph
 Favored scond wife and their two children
 First marriage children given legitimes in Ph
 None for Juanita and Ethel in second because already in first
- Jan 78: RTC intestate petition by Ethel
o Maxine: opposition and motion to dismiss on the ground of pending probate
 Withdrew above
o Maxine, Ethel, Pete as administrators || Apr compromise agreement below
 Sold Palawan Pearl Project business to corporation of Ethel and h
 RFM Corp shares for 1.5M pesos
o Ignored will found in record
o Judge Molina adjudicated to Maxine half of Ph estate and 1/8 each to four children
o Maxine moved to defer approval of project of partition
 Court: nope. Moot. Approved declaration of heirs and project of partition
o Maxine submitted cert of CIR: paid 2M pesos as estate tax and penalties and no objection to transfer
of estate to heirs. Noted by court
o Juanita, Nov 79: motion for accounting so estate can be partitioned and present estate be closed
- March 78: California district court probate: two wills and codicil, by Maxine and E LaVar Tate
o Maxine admitted notice received (intestate petition, RTC)
o Admitted to probate
- Apr: compromise agreement among Maxine, Linda, Pete; Ethel, Juanita, Juanita
o Maxine, Pete, Ethel as administrators of Phil estate.
o Half conjugal share in estate reserved for Maxine would not be less than 1.5M dollars
o Net distributable estate computed
 Four children to share equally
 Ethel and Juanita at least 12 ½% of total net distributable estate and marital share
o Liable to Angara law firm for fees
- Sep 80: petition for probate of two wills. Petition to annul partition and revoke letters of administration.
Maxine as executrix and Ethel and Juanita to account for properties received and return to Maxine
o Maxine: defrauded by machinations of Roberts spouses. Compromise agreement illegal and intestate proceeding void because died
testate and partition contrary to wills
o Ethel: MTD. Denied
- SC: Ethel: dismiss or consolidate proceedings with annulment of compromise agreement
o Denial of MTD proper
 Testate proceeding proper
 Probate of will mandatory
 Anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an
intestate proceeding
 Intestate should be consolidated with testate proceeding and judge assigned to
testate proceeding should continue hearing two cases
 No will shall pass either real or personal property unless proved and allowed, 838 CC
 Here: Grimm died with two wills
o Ethel may file opposition and answer to petition unless she considers her motions and pleadings sufficient
 o DISMISSED.

Sofia Nepomuceno v CA, Rufina Gomez, Oscar Jugo Ang, Carmelita Jugo (1985, Gutierrez)

- Deceased: Martin Jugo

o Will and testament
 Form:
 Sgd at end of will, p 3; left margin pp 1-2, and 4
 In presence of Alejandro, Cortez, Leano
o Who sgd the attestation clause and left margins of 1, 2, 4
 Acknowledged before notary public Escareal
 Contents
 Nepomuceno as sole and only executor
 Martin married to Rufina Gomez with two legit children: Oscar, Carmelita
o But estranged
o Lived with Nepomuceno as h and w
 Married in Tarlac before justice of peace
 Left to forced heirs entire estate
 Free portion to Nepomuceno
- CFI: Nepomuceno: probate of will. Letters testamentary
o Opposed by Gomez, Oscar, Carmelita: undue and improper influence; already very sick; as
concubine, Nepomuceno wanting in integrity; no letters testamentary
o Denied probate. Probate an idle exercise because on face of will, invalidity of intrinsic provisions
evident
- CA: set aside
o Will valid except devise in favor of Nepomuceno. Properties so devised passed on in intestacy to
appellant
 Gomez and children: motion for correction of clerical error. Appellant to ee. Granted
o MR denied
- SC:
o Nepomuceno: validity of testamentary provision in her favor cannot be passed upon and decided in
probate; must be in some other proceeding since purpose of probate: est conlusively as against
everyone that will executed || formalities under law and tor had testamentary capacity. Declaration
of nullity only in separate action for specific purpose of declaring nullity of provision by legal wife
o Gomez and children: will expressly admits indubitably on its face the meretricious rel bet tor and N;
therefore presented contrary evidence in answer to N’s own evidence. Admission of illicit
relationship put in issue the legality of the devise
o Court right and with juris to declare will validly drawn and dispositions in favor of N null and void
 Probate proceedings, generally
 Court’s area of inquiry: limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic
validity of the will
 Probate decree finally and definitively settles all questions concerning capacity of
the tor and proper execution and witnessing of last will and testament, irrespective
of whether its provisions are valid and enforceable or otherwise
o Testamentary capacity and compliance with formal requisites are the only
questions presented for resolution of the court
o Any inquiry into the intrinsic validity of the will Is premature
 Probate is one thing; validity of provisions is another
 Probate decides execution and capacity
 Validity relates to descent and distribution
 Purpose: to establish conclusively as against everyone, and once for all, the facts
 o that a will was executed with the formalities required by law and
o that the tor was in a condition to make a will
 courts can determine that and nothing more
o no power to determine validity of provisions. Cannot decide if legacy void
 BUT rule above not inflexible and absolute
 Exceptional circumstances
o || Nuguid v Nuguid: complete preterition by appointing a universal heir.
Clearly null and void. Separate or latter proceedings would be superfluous
o || BAlanay Jr v Martinez: practical considerations. Provisions of will of
dubious legality. Probate idle ceremony if on its face appears intrinsically
void. Even before probated, court should meet issue of intrinsic validity
 Here, no dispute over extrinsic validity
 And CA has jurisdiction
 || Nuguid v Nuguid: if case to be remanded for probate, nothing will be gained; on
the contrary, the litigation will be protracted
o In the event the court rejects the will, probable that case will come up to the
court again on the issue of intrinsic validity or nullity of will
o Result: waste of time, effort, expense, added anxiety
 Practical considerations that induce court to belief that court might
as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of
the will in ?
 After all, there exists a justiciable controversy crying for solution
 No useful prupose to be served upon remand
 || Art 739, CC: donations void: guilty of adultery or concubinage at time of donation
 || 1028: prohibitions mentioned in 739 concerning donations inter vivos shall apply
to testamentary provisions
 Donation becomes void; not the will
o Giver cannot give even assuming recipient may receive
 Here: will: Nepomuceno represented Jugo as h, but “in truth and in fact, as well as in the
eyes of the law, I could not bind her to me in the holy bonds of matrimony because of my
aforementioned previous marriage”. For 22 years
 No good faith marrying on part of Nepomuceno. Will itself says so. And testimonies.
Why hide marriage if nothing to hide from? 30 years since they were first
sweethearts. Why did N not wonder on span of time before their own marriage?
And broke off from Jugo = conclusive demo that she knew the man married, w/ kids.
Knew of children of Gomez, why not ask how related? Went to parents of Jugo, with
Gomez and kids nearby
o DISMISSED. Affirmed.
Manuel, Mila, Danilo Reyes, Lyn, Marites, Celsa Agape, Estebana Galolo v CA, Julio Vivares (1997, Torres)

- Deceased: Torcuato Reyes

o Will and testament
 Form: two pages; sgd by Reyes and three w.
 Contents:
 To wife Asuncion all personal properties and half of realties in Camiguin, Misamis Or
 Vivares as executor; in default, son Roch
o With other children:
 Manuel, Mila, Danilo with Estebana Galolo
 Lyn and Marites with Celsa Agape
- RTC: Vivares: probate of will. Set for hearing and published in Mindanao Daily Post + notice
o Other children opposed: not || law; Asuncion exerted undue, improer influence; Asuncion never
married to Reyes since Asuncion married to Lupo Ebarle and marriage never annulled
o Relationship with Asuncion adulterous since Ebarle marriage not annulled || witnesses. Relationship
as consideration; therefore, will [provisions] intrinsically invalid
o Probate OK. Letter testamentary in favor of Vivares. (a) and (b) null and void
- CA: modified. Provisions valid
o No evidence of marriage nullity. Asuncion his wife
- SC:
o Petitioners: marriage void ab initio; cousins (4 th degree) + already married to Lupo Ebarle ||
testimonies, personal delcaraion of Reyes himself
o Probate OK
 G: probate proceedings limited to pass only upon extrinsic validity of the will sought to be
probated
 Court merely inquires on due execution
o WON complies with formalities and testamentary capacity
o Does not determine expressly or impliedy the validity or efficacy of wills
 Intrinsic validity not considered since consideration thereof usually comes only after
the will has been proved and allowed
 X: will defect apparent on its face and probate a useless ceremony if intrinsically invalid;
practical considerations
 Here, the only issues to be resolved
 WON Reyes had animus testandi
 WON vices of consent attended execution
 WON formalities of will complied with
 NOT intrinsic validity or efficacy of will provisions
 Nepomuceno not applicable
o There, testator himself acknowledged illicit rel. very tenor of will invalidates
legacy and to remand would be a waste of time
 V here: to wife. No mention of illicit relationship
o Testimonial evidence on prior marriage uncorroborated. Lupo even
unknown where or if alive
o || Alvarado v Tacloban: declaration of h competent evidence to show fact of
marriage
 || Moreland, Santos v Manarang: A will is the tor speaking after death. Its provisions have substantially the same force and
effect in the probate court as if the tor stood before the court in full life making the declarations by word of mouth as they
appear in the will
 That was the special purpose of law in creation of the instr known as the last will and testament
 Men whised to speak after they were dead and the law permitted them to do so
 By creation of that instrument
 All doubts must be resolved in fovor of tors having meant just what he said
 DENIED. Affirmed
Lourdes Dorotheo v CA, Nilda Quintana for self and atty-in-fact of Vicente, Jose Dorotheo (1999, Ynares-Santiago)
- Deceased: Alejandro Dorotheo
o Wife: Aniceta. Died without settling estate
o Was claimed to be taken care of by Lourdes
- RTC: Lourdes: probate of will
o Probate OK. No appeal
o Nilda, Vic, Jo: motion to declare will intrinsically void
o Granted
 Lourdes not wife of Alejandro. Last will and testament provisions void
 Nilda, Vic, Jo only heirs
o MR, Lourdes: entitled to compensation for taking care of Alejandro but not married
o Motion to compel Lourdes to surrender TCTs. Lourdes refused
- CA: dismissed for failure to file appellants brief within extended period of time
o Dismissal final and executory
- RTC: cancellation of TCTs in Lourdes’ possession and issuance of new ones in their names
o Lourdes opposed
o Order: set aside orders of writ of execution, etc
 Dipsositive directed distribution of estate
 MR denied
o CA: nullified above
- CA: Lourdes: grave abuse of discretion. + order cannot declare intinrisic invalidity of will earlier admitted to probate +
reinstate as executrix
- SC:
o Final order of RTC binding
 Final and executory decision can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous
 lower court cannot set aside decisions of superior court || hierarchy of courts
 here, RTC reversed CA
 if no appeal within period, final by lapse of time
 final judgment on probated will, although erroneous, is binding on the whole world
 cannot be questioned in same proceedings or different motion
 matters of due execution and capacity of tor acquired res judicata; cannot be brought into question
 all juridical questions in connection therewith being for once and forever closed
 will conclusive against whole world as to its extrinsic validity and due execution
o on probate proceedings
 deals only with extrinsic validity, particularly three aspects
 whether will indeed the decedent’s last will and testament
 compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of wills
 testamentary capacity of the tor
 [due execution of last will and testament]
 Intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding same may still be raised even after will
authenticated
 Does not follow that extrinsically valid last will and testament always intrinsically valid
 Can still be not given effect if [provisions] found void specially when courts already
determined in final and executory that will intrinsically void
 Final and executory decision of which the party had opp to challenge bmust stand
o Failure to avail of remedies = waiver
 Here, Lourdes was privy to suit calling for declaration of intrinsic invalidity since herself appealed from
unfavorable order
 + order already called for distribution of estate. Cannot reopen and re-examine
o Before distribution, will must pass probate. And then determine if provisions valid
o If not, intestate distribution
 Here: determined extrinsically valid, but intrinsically, some void
 Hence, rules of intestacy apply || RTC
 + testacy preferred to intestacy
 + cannot give effect to disposition of properties part of conjugal regime
o DENIED. Affirmed
Carolina, Ferdinand, Edgardo Camaya, Anselmo Mangulabnan v Bernardo Patulandong (2004, Carpio-Morales)

- Deceased: Rufina Reyes

o Notarized will
 Lot 288 A, among others, to grandson Anselmo
 Bernardo as executor
- CFI: Rufina: probate of own will
o Probate OK
- Rufina executed codicil modifying will: 288 A to Anselmo now to Bernardo, Simlicia, Guillerma, Juan, Anselm
- Anselmo: deliver lot to me
o Bernardo refused || codicil
- RTC: Anselmo v Bernardo: partition. Deliver property to Anselmo
o Bernardo to partition and deliver
o Without prejudice to probate of codicil || ROC
 || Palacios v Catimbang P: after will probated during lifetime, does not mean he cannot alter
or revoke same before death
 If new will and should die before included in petition to probate, ordinary probate
proceedings after death in order
- RTC: probate of codicil by Bernardo
o || Anselmo caused cancelation of title || RTC above. Sold to Camayas
o Probate OK. Sale null and void. Issue title || codicil
o MR by intervenors Camayas denied
- CA: Petitioners: paritition already final, cannot be negated by questionable codicil; lot no long within reach
since clean title and innocent purchaser
o Affirmed
- SC:
o Petitioners: probate court without power and auth to declare null and void the sale and titles of
petitioners and can only resolve three issues: is it last will and testament? Execution? Capacity?
o Court without jurisdiction. Cannot allow probate of codicil since amended final judgment in partition
 || Cuizon v Ramolete: probate court or one in charge of estate proceedings cannot
adjudicate title to properties claimed to be part of estate and which are equally claimed to
belong to outside parties. Must resort to ordinary action for final determination of
conflicting claims
 || Sec 48 of property registry: certificate not subj to collateral attack
o Probate of codicil OK
 Though judgment in partition case final and executory since not appealed
 Specifically provided: decision without prejudice to probate of codicil
o GRANTED in part. Affirmed as to probate. Set aside as to ownership.
In re: will of Ruperta Palaganas with prayer for appointment of special admin

Manuel Palaganas, Benjamin Palagans v Ernesto Palaganas (2011, Abad)

- Deceased: Ruperta
o Naturalized US citizen. Single, childless
o Will: executed in CA. Not probated in place of execution. Sergio as executor of properties in Ph, US
- RTC: Ernesto, brother: probate and appointment as special administrator
o Manuel and Benjamin, nephews: opposed. Probate in US where executed. If in Ph, invalid for
executioni under duress and incapacity. Ernesto also not qualified
o Ernesto moved to depose siblings on visit to Ph
o Can take cognizance of petition Ernesto as special administrator. Letters of admin to Ernesto. Submit
will and laws of succession and probate of CA
- CA: Manuel and Benjamin: no probate for first time in Ph. US first
o Affirmed.
o ROC does not require prior probate in country of execution before Ph probate. Not reprobate
- SC:
o Manuel and Benjamin: proponent must first prove tor admitted for probate in foreign country, will
admitted to probate, probate court has jurisdiction, law on probate procedure in country and proof
of compliance with same, legal requirements for valid execution of will.
o Probate OK
 Ph court can probate
 Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreginers abroad
o Though not yet probated and allowed in countries of execution
o The only require that petition for allowance of will must show, so far as
known to petitioner
 The jurisdictional facts
 fact of death, residence, estate in province. No proof that
will already allowed and probated in country of execution
 Names, ages, residences of heirs, legatees, devisees
 Probable value and character of property of estate
 Name of person for whom letters are prayed
 If will not delivered to court, name of person with custody
 Foreign will can be given legal effects in our juris
o || 816, CC: will of alien abroad produces effect in Ph if made with formalities
prescribed by law of place where he resides or accdg to formalities in his
country
o || ROC, Rule 73, Sec 1: if decedent inhabitant of foreign country, RTC where
he has estate may take cognizance of settlement of estate
 Sec 2: interested person may petition court to have will allowed
 What petitioners had in mind was the reprobate of a will
o BUT reprobate different from probate
o + stance impractical
 If instituted heirs do not have means to go abroad for probate, it is
as good as depriving them outright of their inheritance since law: no
will to pass property unless will proved and allowed
 + RTC: nothing more than initial ruling that court can take cognizance of petition of
probate and in the meantime Ernesto as administrator. No evidence yet on due
execution || CA laws
o DENIED. CA affirmed
Grounds for disallowance

Art 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the ff cases:

(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with
(2) If the tor was insane or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution
(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or influence of fear or threats
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some
other person
(5) If the signature of the tor was procured by fraud
(6) If the tor acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of
affixing his signature thereto

Art 1331. In order that mistake may invalidate consent,

it should refer to the substance of the thing
which is the object of the contract,
or to those conditions which have principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract.

Mistake as to
the identity
or qualifications of one of the parties
will vitiate consent
only when such identity or qualifications
have been the principal cause of the contract.

A simple mistake of account shall give rise to its correction.

Art 1335. There is violence when

in order to wrest consent,
serious or irresistible force is employed

There is intimidation when

one of the contracting parties
is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear
of an imminent and grave evil
upon his person or property,
or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants,
to give his consent

To determine the degree of intimidation,

the age, sex, and condition of the person shall be borne in mind.

A threat to enforce one’s claim

through competent authority,
if the claim is just or legal,
does not vitiate consent

Art 1336. Violence or intimidation

shall annul the obligation,
although it may have been employed
by a third person who did not take part in the contract

Art 1337. There is undue influence when

a person takes improper advantage of his power
over the will of another,
depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice/
The following circumstances shall be considered:
the confidential, family, spiritual and other relations between the parties,
or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly influenced was suffering from mental weakness
or was ignorant or in financial distress

Art 1338. There is fraud when,

through insidious words or machinations
of one of the contracting parties,
the other is induced to enter into a contract which,
without them,
he would not have agreed to.

Sec 9. Rule 76. ROC. Grounds for disallowing will. The will shall be disallowed in any of the ff cases:

(a) If not executed and attested as required by law

(b) If the tor was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution
(c) If it was executed under duress or the influence of fear or threats
(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary, or of some
other person for his benefit
(e) If the signature of the tor was procured by fraud or trick and he did not intend that the instrument should be
his will at the time of fixing his signature thereto

Alsua Betts (supra)

In re: testate estate of Catalina de la Cruz

Andres Pascual, ee, v Pedro Dela Cruz, et al, ant (1969, Reyes, JBL)

- Deceased: Catalina. No desc, asc. At 89

o Will: Andres as executor and sole heir
- CFI: Andres: probate of will
o Opposed by nephews and nieces (26): undue, improper pressure; fraudulent sig
o Inconsistencies not substantial (re weather condition, sequence of signing, length of time)
o Probate OK
- SC:
o Dela Cruz, et al: erred in giving credence to testimonies of subscribing witnesses notwithstanding
inconsistencies
 Tape crecording: conversation bet witness Jiongco and oppositor Cruz: without Jiongco’s
knowledge. stated that Jiongco sgd will when other signature already affixed and not
present
o Testimonies OK
 Inconsistencies would not alter probative value of testimonies
 inconsistencies not substantial
 || Estate of Javellana v JAvellana: not necessary that instrumental witnesses should
give an accurate and detailed acct of the proceeding such as recalling th order of
signing…. Only that they sgd in the presence of each other and every one of them
 That witnesses known to Andres more than to trix does not render testimony suspect
 + already 83. Not unlikely that task of looking for witness entrusted to Andres
although said that it was Catalina who requested. Error of recall forgivable
 Recording not authenticated
 Similar but not enough to justify definite conclusion
 V testimony of Jiongco: denied voice his
 + voice: sgd testament in 58 or 59. But notary: entry: 54
o that heir = stranger OK
 sometimes, preferred to blood relatives
 and Andres not really a stranger
 was loved by Catalina and her sisters (Florentina also made hime heir without
objection from siblings)
 no undue pressure and influence
 must be of a kind that so overpowers and subjugates the mind of the tor as to
destroy his free agency and make him express the will of another rather than his
own
 cannot be sustained on mere conjecture or suspicion
 must be supported by substantial evidence
 and burden on person challenging will
 here, no evidence
 that deceased would not sign anything unless she knew it does not amt to proof that
she would not sign anything that Andres desired
 + if true Andres deceived trix into placing title in his name (one building) no need to
have gone through deception of painting Catalina de la Cruz
o Since Catalina would then have been really subjugated
 + Knuston case: truth of the matter is that bequests and devises to those in whome the tor
has confidence and who have won his affection are more likely to be free from undue
influence that bequests or devises to others
 Presumption of undue influence || Am auth not applicable
 AFFIRMED.