In re: Will and Testament of the deceased REVEREND SANCHO ABADIA. SEVERINA A. VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. vs.

MIGUEL ABADIA, ET AL. G.R. No. L-7188 August 9, 1954 Facts: Andres Enriquez, as one of the legatees in a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Father Sancho Abadia, which was executed on September 6, 1923, filed a petition for its probate. Some cousins and nephews of the deceased, who would inherit his estate if he left no will, filed opposition. The trial court ruled in favor of Enriquez, stating that even if the said document is a holographic will, one which is not permitted by law at the time it was executed and at the time of the testators death, such form of a will is already allowed at the time of the hearing of the case since the new Civil Code is already enforced, and that to carry out the intention of the testator which according to the trial court is the controlling factor and may override any defect in form. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether the reckoning period in deciding the validity of the holographic will of Rev. Sanchio, the time of the hearing of the case shall be considered and not the time of its execution Held: No. The validity of a will is to be judged not by the law enforce at the time of the testator's death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the petition is decided by the court but at the time the instrument was execute, as supported by Art. 795 of the new Civil Code. One reason in support of the rule is that although the will operates upon and after the death of the testator, the wishes of the testator about the disposition of his estate among his heirs and among the legatees is given solemn expression at the time the will is executed, and in reality, the legacy or bequest then becomes a completed act. When one executes a will which is invalid for failure to observe and follow the legal requirements at the time of its execution then upon his death he should be regarded and declared as having died intestate, and his heirs will then inherit by intestate succession, and no subsequent law with more liberal requirements or which dispenses with such requirements as to execution should be allowed to validate a defective will and thereby divest the heirs of their vested rights in the estate by intestate succession. The general rule is that the Legislature cannot validate void wills. Hence, the trial courts decision was reversed. Probate of the late William R. Giberson. LELA G. DALTON vs. SPRING GIBERSON G.R. No. L-4113 June 30, 1952 Facts: Lela Dalton presented an application in the CFI of Cebu asking for the legalization of a document, which was awarded in San Francisco, California, purporting to be the holographic will of William Giberson, who was a citizen of the State of Illinois, USA, a resident of Cebu and died in Manila. Spring Giberson, son of the deceased, filed an opposition claiming that the will is apocryphal, that it does not represent the true will of the deceased, and that it has not been in accordance with law. The trial court dismissed the application stating that under our existing rules only those wills that have previously been proved to be allowed in the United States, or any state or territory thereof, or any foreign country, according to their laws, may be allowed to be filed or recorded in the proper court of first instance in the Philippines. Hence, this petition Issue: Whether the will of William Giberson can be authenticated in the Philippines, although such document Held: No. A will awarded outside the Philippine can be legalized and registered in the Philippines, provided that it was awarded in accordance with the laws of the State or country where it was awarded. This is supported by Article 637 of the Civil Code wherein it was stated that wills authenticated and legalized in the United States, or any state or territory thereof in accordance with the laws of that state, may be be legalized and recorded in the CFI of the province in which the testator has a real property or estate. Testate estate of the late Bernabe Rodriguez. MARTINA ARANIEGO vs. ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ ET AL. No. 1627-R. July 1, 1948 Facts: Martine Araniego, widow of the deceased, filed a petition for probate of the latters alleged will before the CFI of Bulacan. Herein respondents, the deceased brother, niece and heirs of Bernabes brother, opposed the petition alleging among others that the will was obtained by undue influence, that the deceased had no mental capacity to execute the same and such was not the will of Bernabe. The will was then admitted for probate by the court. Oppositors then alleged that

the deceased named petitioner as universal heir and was likewise named the deceased by the latter as her universal heir in her own will, making them reciprocal beneficiaries of each other, thus violating the prohibition on joint wills under the Civil Code. Issue: Whether the will is valid, given that it violates the prohibition on joint wills under the Civil Code Held: Yes. It will be noted that the law prohibits two or more persons to make a will conjointly or in the same document. In the case at bar, the subject wills are not conjoint since they are in a separate documents. Hence, the provision in the Civil code does not apply. As to other allegations of the respondents, no sufficient evidence was presented. In fact, there is a testimony by a medical doctor that testator is of sound mind when the will was executed. Hence, the decision was affirmed. TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased. PEOPLE'S BANK and TRUST COMPANY, executor. MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, vs. EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967 Facts: Amos Bellis was a citizen of the state of Texas of the United States. In his first wife whom he divorced, he had five legitimate children; by his second wife, who survived him, he had three legitimate children. Before he died, he made two wills, one disposing of his Texas properties and the other disposing his Philippine Properties. In both wills, his illegitimate children were not given anything. The illegitimate children opposed the will on the ground that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they should be entitled if Philippine law were to apply. Issue: Whether the national law of the deceased should determine the sucessional rights of the illegitimate children Held: Yes Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of the decedent, inintestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) theamount of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacityto succeed The parties admit that the decedent was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law,the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REVEREND FATHER PASCUAL RIGOR. THE PARISH PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF VICTORIA, TARLAC vs. BELINA RIGOR et. al G.R. No. L-22036 April 30, 1979 Facts: Father Pascual Rigor, herein deceased, left a will which was executed on Oct. 29, Dec. 1933 and contained a provision that his ricelands shall be given to his nearest male relative who shall enter priesthood, and that during the interval of time that no nearest male relative of the testator was studying for the priesthood or the testator's nephew became a priest and was excommunicated, the parish priest of Victoria would administer these propertied. When a new administrator was appointed as prayed by herein petitioner, a petition for the delivery of the ricelands to the church as trustee was filed by petitioner. The intestate heirs of the deceased countered with a petition praying that the bequest be inoperative and that they be adjudged as the persons entitled to the said ricelands since no nearest male relative of the testator has ever studied for the priesthood. The lower court granted the legal heirs petition. This was reversed on Dec. 10, 1957 in a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner on the ground that the testator had a grandnephew, Edgardo Cunanan, who was a seminarian. On appeal to CA, the order was reversed, hence, this petition. Issue: Whether Cunanan entering the seminary shall affect the legal heirs right to inherit the subject ricelands Held: No. As provided in Article 1025 of the Civil Code, in order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper.

In 1935, when the testator died, his nearest leagal heirs were his three sisters or second-degree relatives, Mrs. Escobar, Mrs. Manaloto and Mrs. Quiambao. Obviously, when the testator specified his nearest male relative, he must have had in mind his nephew or a son of his sister, who would be his third-degree relative, or possibly a grandnephew. Following that interpretation of the will the inquiry would be whether at the time Father Rigor died in 1935 he had a nephew who was studying for the priesthood or who had manifested his desire to follow the ecclesiastical career. This was answered in the negative. Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual or inoperative. There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands the same should be distributed among the testator's legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said ricelands. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria, as envisaged in the wilt was likewise inoperative. Hence, CAs decision is affirmed.