1.) In re: Will OF REV. ABADIA G.R. No. L-7188 August ! 1 "# $ON%E$A&OR! J.

: FA'%(: On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisay, Cebu, e ecuted a document purportin! to be his "ast #ill and Testament$ %e died on &anuary 1', 19'3, in the municipality of Alo!uinsan, Cebu, (here he (as an e)acuee$ %e left properties estimated at *+,,,, in )alue$ On October 2, 19'6, one Andres -nri.ue/, one of the le!atees, filed a petition for its probate in the Court of First 0nstance of Cebu$ Some cousins and nephe(s (ho (ould inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no (ill, filed opposition$ One of the attestin! (itnesses testified (ithout contradiction that in his presence and in the presence of his co1(itnesses, Father Sancho (rote out in lon!hand said (ill in Spanish (hich the testator spo2e and understood3 that he 4testator5 si!ned on he left hand mar!in of the front pa!e of each of the three folios or sheets of (hich the document is composed, and numbered the same (ith Arabic numerals, and finally si!ned his name at the end of his (ritin! at the last pa!e, all this, in the presence of the three attestin! (itnesses after tellin! that it (as his last (ill and that the said three (itnesses si!ned their names on the last pa!e after the attestation clause in his presence and in the presence of each other$ The oppositors did not submit any e)idence$ The trial court found said (ill to be a holo!raphic (ill$ Althou!h at the time it (as e ecuted and at the time of the testator6s death, holo!raphic (ills (ere not permitted by la( , the trial court still admitted to probate the "ast #ill and Testament of Father Sancho Abadia$ The TC did so because at the time of the hearin! and (hen the case (as to be decided the ne( Ci)il Code (as already in force, (hich permitted the e ecution of holo!raphic (ills$ Accordin! to the trial court, to carry out the intention of the testator is the controllin! factor and may o)erride any defect in form$

I(()E: #O7 The 7e( Ci)il Code may be applied to the probate of Father Abadia8s (ill R)LING: No. #hen one e ecutes a (ill (hich is in)alid for failure to obser)e and follo( the le!al re.uirements at the time of its e ecution then upon his death he should be re!arded and declared as ha)in! died intestate, and his heirs (ill then inherit by intestate succession, and no subse.uent la( (ith more liberal re.uirements or (hich dispenses (ith such re.uirements as to e ecution should be allo(ed to )alidate a defecti)e (ill and thereby di)est the heirs of their )ested ri!hts in the estate by intestate succession$ The !eneral rule is that the "e!islature can not )alidate )oid (ills 0t is a fact, ho(e)er, that at the time that the "ast #ill and Testament (as e ecuted in 1923 and at the time that Father Abadia died in 19'3, holo!raphic (ills (ere not permitted, and the la( at the time imposed certain re.uirements for the e ecution of (ills, such as numberin! correlati)ely each pa!e in letters and si!nin! on the left hand mar!in by the testator and by the three attestin! (itnesses, re.uirements (hich (ere not complied (ith in "ast #ill and Testament because the bac2 pa!es of the first t(o folios of the (ill (ere not si!ned by any one, not e)en by the testator and (ere not numbered, and as to the three front pa!es, they (ere si!ned only by the testator$

0nterpretin! and applyin! this re.uirement the Court ruled in the case of 0n re -state of Sa!uinsin, that the failure of the testator and his (itnesses to si!n on the left hand mar!in of e)ery pa!e totally )itiates the testament$ And in the case of Aspe vs. Prieto, the Court declared that attestin! (itnesses (ho omitted to si!n (ith the testator at the left mar!in of each of the fi)e pa!es of the document alle!ed to be the (ill of 9entura *rieto, is a fatal defect that constitutes an obstacle to its probate$ The pro)isions of the ne( Ci)il Code (hich not allo(s holo!raphic (ills (ere in)o2ed by the appellee1 petitioner and applied by the lo(er court, but article :9; of this same ne( Ci)il Code e pressly pro)ides< =The )alidity of a (ill as to its form depends upon the obser)ance of the la( in force at the time it is made$= The abo)e pro)ision is but an e pression or statement of the (ei!ht of authority to the affect that the )alidity of a (ill is to be >ud!ed at the time the instrument (as e ecuted$ One reason in support of the rule is that althou!h the (ill operates upon and after the death of the testator, the (ishes of the testator about the disposition of his estate amon! his heirs and amon! the le!atees is !i)en solemn e pression at the time the (ill is e ecuted, and in reality, the le!acy or be.uest then becomes a completed act$ Of course, there is the )ie( that the intention of the testator should be the rulin! and controllin! factor and that all ade.uate remedies and interpretations should be resorted to in order to carry out said intention, and that (hen statutes passed after the e ecution of the (ill and after the death of the testator lessen the formalities re.uired by la( for the e ecution of (ills, said subse.uent statutes should be applied so as to )alidate (ills defecti)ely e ecuted accordin! to the la( in force at the time of e ecution$ %o(e)er, (e should not for!et that from the day of the death of the testator, if he lea)es a (ill, the title of the le!atees and de)isees under it becomes a )ested ri!ht, protected under the due process clause of the constitution a!ainst a subse.uent chan!e in the statute addin! ne( le!al re.uirements of e ecution of (ills (hich (ould in)alidate such a (ill$ *.) Fleu+er ,s. -i. "# /0il 112 F34ts: A paper (ritin! purportin! to be the last (ill and testament of -d(ard ?andolph %i , deceased, (as presented for probate on &une +, 1929, to the cler2 of ?andolph County, State of #est 9ir!inia$ Claude #$ @a (ell (as appointed as the administratorof the estate of -d(ard ?andolph %i $ Application for the probate of the (ill in the *hilippines (as filed on February 2,, 1929$ The petitioner, as a special administrator of the estate of -d(ard %i alle!ed that the latter8s (ill (as e ecuted in -l2ins, #est 9ir!inia on 7o)ember 3, 192; by %i (ho had his residence in that >urisdiction, and that the la(s of that state !o)ern$ To this end, the petitioner submitted a copy of Section 3+6+ of Acts 1++2, c$+' as found in #est 9ir!inia Code, annotated by %o!!, Charles -$, )ol$2 191', p$ 169, and as certified to by the Airector of 7ational "ibrary$ These facts are stron!ly indicati)e of an intention to ma2e the *hilippines the principal administration and #est 9ir!inia the ancillary administration$ %0e 5u6ge o7 t0e First Inst3n4e 0o8e,er 6enie6 t0e 9ro:3te o7 t0e 8ill on t0e groun6s t03t (e4 ;22 3n6;21 o7 t0e 'o6e o7 'i,il /ro4e6ure 8ere not 4o+9lie6 8it0. -en4e! t0is 399e3l. Issue: 0s it necessary to pro)e in this >urisdiction the e istence of such la( in #est 9ir!inia as a prere.uisite to the allo(ance and recordin! of said (ill$ -el6: Bes$ The la(s of the forei!n >urisdiction do not pro)e themsel)es in our courts$ The courts of the *hilippine 0slands are not authori/ed to ta2e >udicial notice of the la(s of the )arious states of the American Cnion$ Such la(s must be pro)ed as facts$ %ere the re.uirements of the la( (ere

not met$ There (as no sho(in! that the boo2 from (hich an e tract (as ta2en (as printed or published under the authority of the state of #est 9ir!inia, as pro)ided in Sec 3, of the Code of Ci)il *rocedure$ 7or (as the e tract from the la( attested by the certificate of the officer ha)in! char!e of the ori!inal, under the seal of the State of #est 9ir!inia as pro)ided in Sec 3,1$ 7o e)idence (as introduced sho(in! that the e tract from the la(s of #est 9ir!inia (as in force at the time alle!ed (ill (as e ecuted$ The court therefore did not err in denyin! the probate of the (ill$ The e istence of such la( in #est 9ir!inia must be pro)ed$

;.) E(%A%E OF GIBER(ON

#.) DE LA 'ERNA! et 3l.! )s$ /O%O%! et 3l.! D$?$ 7o$ "12,23', Aecember 23, 196' FA'%(: Spouses Eernabe de la Serna and Der)asia ?ebaca, e ecuted a >oint last (ill and testament (hereby they (illed that their t(o parcels of land ac.uired durin! their marria!e to!ether (ith all impro)ements thereon shall be !i)en to @anuela ?ebaca, their niece$ Eernabe died and the (ill (as probated in 1939 after due publication as re.uired by la( and there bein! no opposition$ Cpon the death of Der)asia ?ebaca, another petition for the probate of the same (ill insofar as Der)asia (as concerned (as filed by @anuela but the court dismissed it for failure of @anuela to appear$ *aula de la Cerna .uestioned for the nullity of the >oint (ill of Eernabe bein! prohibited in the *hilippine la($ The Court of First 0nstance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and )oid, for bein! e ecuted contrary to the prohibition of >oint (ills in the Ci)il Code but on appeal by the testamentary heir, the Court of Appeals re)ersed, on the !round that the decree of probate in 1939 (as issued by a court of probate >urisdiction and conclusi)e on the due e ecution of the testament$ %ence, this appeal$ I(()E(: 1$ #hether or not an error of la( affects the conclusi)e effect of its decision$ 2$ #hether or not the >oint (ill is )alid as to the share of Der)asia (ho died later than Eernabe$ R)LING: The appealed decision correctly held that the final decree of probate, entered in 1939 by the Court of First 0nstance of Cebu 4(hen the testator, Eernabe de la Cerna, died5, has conclusi)e effect as to his last (ill and testament despite the fact that e)en then the Ci)il Code already decreed the in)alidity of >oint (ills, (hether in fa)or of the >oint testators, reciprocally, or in fa)or of a third party 4Art$ 669, old Ci)il Code5$ A final >ud!ment rendered on a petition for the probate of a (ill is bindin! upon the (hole (orld$ The probate decree in 19+9 could only affect the share of the deceased husband, Eernabe de la Cerna$ 0t could not include the disposition of the share of the (ife, Der)asia ?ebaca, (ho (as then still ali)e, and o)er (hose interest in the con>u!al properties the probate court ac.uired no >urisdiction, precisely because her estate could not then be in issue$ Ee it remembered that prior to the ne( Ci)il Code, a (ill could not be probated durin! the testator6s lifetime$ 0t follo(s that the )alidity of the >oint (ill, in so far as the estate of the (ife (as concerned, must be, on her death, ree amined and ad>udicated de novo, since a >oint (ill is considered a separate (ill of each testator$ Therefore, the undi)ided interest of Der)asia ?ebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs8 intestate, and not e clusi)ely to the testamentary heir,

unless some other )alid (ill in her fa)or is sho(n to e ist, or unless she be the only heir intestate of said Der)asia$ ".) E(%A%E OF RODRIG)E<

1.) E(%A%E OF EDWARD E. '-RI(%EN(EN 53nu3r= ;1! 1 1; FA'%(: -d(ard -$ Christensen, thou!h born in 7e( Bor2, mi!rated to California, (here he resided and conse.uently (as considered a California citi/en$ 0n 1913, he came to the *hilippines (here he became a domiciliary until his death$ %o(e)er, durin! the entire period of his residence in this country he had al(ays considered himself a citi/en of California$ 0n his (ill e ecuted on @arch ;, 19;1, he instituted an ac2no(led!ed natural dau!hter, @aria "ucy Christensen as his only heir, but left a le!acy of sum of money in fa)or of %elen Christensen Darcia (ho (as rendered to ha)e been declared ac2no(led!ed natural dau!hter$ Counsel for appellant claims that California la( should be applied3 that under California la(, the matter is referred bac2 to the la( of the domicile3 that therefore *hilippine la( is ultimately applicable3 that finally, the share of %elen must be increased in )ie( of the successional ri!hts of ille!itimate children under *hilippine la($ On the other hand, counsel for the heir of Christensen contends that inasmuch as it is clear that under Article 16 of our Ci)il Code, the national la( of the deceased must apply, our courts must immediately apply the internal la( of California on the matter3 that under California la( there are no compulsory heirs and conse.uently a testator could dispose of any property possessed by him in absolute dominion and that finally, ille!itimate children not bein! entitled to anythin! and his (ill remain undisturbed$ I(()E: #hether or not the *hilippine la( should pre)ail in administerin! the estate of ChristensenF R)LING: The court in decidin! to !rant more successional ri!hts to %elen said in effect that there are t(o rules in California on the matter< the internal la( (hich should apply to Californians domiciled in California3 and the conflict rule (hich should apply to Californians domiciled outside of California$ The California conflict rule says< G0f there is no la( to the contrary in the place (here personal property is situated, is deemed to follo( the person of its o(ner and is !o)erned by the la( of his domicile$H Christensen bein! domiciled outside California, the la( of his domicile, the *hilippines, ou!ht to be follo(ed$ #here it is referred bac2 to California, it (ill form a circular pattern referrin! to both country bac2 and forth$ 7.) E(%A%E OF A$O( G. BELLI( 5une 1! 1 17 FA'%(: Amos Eellis, born in Te as, (as a citi/en of the State of Te as and of the Cnited States$ %e had ; le!itimate children (ith his (ife, @ary @allen, (hom he had di)orced, 3 le!itimate children (ith his 2nd (ife, 9iolet Iennedy and finally, 3 ille!itimate children$ *rior to his death, Amos Eellis e ecuted a (ill in the *hilippines in (hich his distributable estate should be di)ided in trust in the follo(in! order and manner< a$ J2',,,,, to his 1st (ife @ary @allen3 b$ *12,,,,, to his 3 ille!itimate children at *',,,,, each3 c$ The remainder shall !o to his sur)i)in! children by his 1st and 2nd (i)es, in e.ual shares$

Subse.uently, Amos Eellis died a resident of San Antonio, Te as, CSA$ %is (ill (as admitted to probate in the *hilippines$ The *eople8s Ean2 and Trust Company, an e ecutor of the (ill, paid the entire be.uest therein$ *reparatory to closin! its administration, the e ecutor submitted and filed its G- ecutor8s Final Account, ?eport of Administration and *ro>ect of *artitionH (here it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the le!acy of @ary @allen by the shares of stoc2 amountin! to J2',,,,, deli)ered to her, and the le!acies of the 3 ille!itimate children in the amount of *',,,,, each or a total of *12,,,,,$ 0n the pro>ect partition, the e ecutor di)ided the residuary estate into : e.ual portions for the benefit of the testator8s : le!itimate children by his 1st and 2nd marria!es$ Amon! the 3 ille!itimate children, @ari Cristina and @iriam *alma Eellis filed their respecti)e opposition to the pro>ect partition on the !round that they (ere depri)ed of their le!itimates as ille!itimate children$ The lo(er court denied their respecti)e motions for reconsideration$ I(()E: #hether Te as "a( or *hilippine "a( must apply$ R)LING: Article 16, par$ 2, and Art$ 1,39 of the Ci)il Code, render applicable the national la( of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, (ith re!ard to four items< 4a5 the order of succession3 4b5 the amount of successional ri!hts3 4c5 the intrinsic )alidity of the pro)isions of the (ill3 and 4d5 the capacity to succeed$ #hate)er public policy or !ood customs may be in)ol)ed in our system of le!itimes, Con!ress has not intended to e tend the same to the succession of forei!n nationals$ For it has specifically chosen to lea)e, inter alia, the amount of successional ri!hts, to the decedent6s national "a($ Specific pro)isions must pre)ail o)er !eneral ones$ Appellants (ould also point out that the decedent e ecuted t(o (ills K one to !o)ern his Te as estate and the other his *hilippine estate K ar!uin! from this that he intended *hilippine la( to !o)ern his *hilippine estate$ Assumin! that such (as the decedent6s intention in e ecutin! a separate *hilippine (ill, it (ould not alter the la(, for as this Court ruled in @iciano )s$ Erimo, ;, *hil$ +6:, +:,, a pro)ision in a forei!ner6s (ill to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance (ith *hilippine la( and not (ith his national la(, is ille!al and )oid, for his national la( cannot be i!nored in re!ard to those matters that Article 1, K no( Article 16 K of the Ci)il Code states said national la( should !o)ern$ The parties admit that the decedent, Amos D$ Eellis, (as a citi/en of the State of Te as, C$S$A$, and that under the la(s of Te as, there are no forced heirs or le!itimes$ Accordin!ly, since the intrinsic )alidity of the pro)ision of the (ill and the amount of successional ri!hts are to be determined under Te as la(, the *hilippine la( on le!itimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos D$ Eellis$ 8.) '3=et3no ,s. Leoni6es 1* ('RA "** FA'%(: 1 Adoracion Campos died, lea)in! her father, %ermo!enes and her sisters, 7enita *a!uia, ?emedios "ope/ and @arieta @edina as the sur)i)in! heirs$ 1 As %ermo!enes Campos (as the only compulsory heir, he e ecuted an Affida)it of Ad>udication (hereby he ad>udicated unto himself the o(nership of the entire estate of Adoracion 1 -le)en months after, 7enita *a!uia filed a petition for the reprobate of a (ill of Adoracion, (hich (as alle!edly e ecuted in the CS and for her appointment as administratri of the estate of the deceased testatri $

1 An opposition to the reprobate of the (ill (as filed by %ermo!enes alle!in! amon! other thin!s, that he has e)ery reason to belie)e that the (ill in .uestion is a for!ery3 that the intrinsic pro)isions of the (ill are null and )oid3 and that e)en if pertinent American la(s on intrinsic pro)isions are in)o2ed, the same could not apply inasmuch as they (ould (or2 in>ustice and in>ury to him$ 1 %ermo!enes filed a @otion to Aismiss Opposition 4#ith #ai)er of ?i!hts or 0nterests5 statin! that he =has been able to )erify the )eracity thereof 4of the (ill5 and no( confirms the same to be truly the probated (ill of his dau!hter Adoracion$= %ence, an ex-parte presentation of e)idence for the reprobate of the .uestioned (ill (as made$ 1 ?espondent >ud!e issued an order admittin! the "ast #ill and Testament of Adoracion and allo(ed probate in the *hilippines, and 7enita *a!uia (as appointed Administratri of the estate of said decedent$ 1 %ermo!enes filed a petition for relief, prayin! that the order allo(in! the (ill be set aside on the !round that the (ithdra(al of his opposition to the same (as secured throu!h fraudulent means$ %e filed another motion entitled =@otion to 9acate andLor Set Aside the Order of &anuary 1,, 19:9, andLor dismiss the case for lac2 of >urisdiction$ 1 ?espondent >ud!e issued an order dismissin! the petition for relief for failure to present e)idence in support thereof$ *etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same (as denied$ 0n the same order, respondent >ud!e also denied the motion to )acate for lac2 of merit$ I(()E: #hether or not a compulsory heir may be )alidly e cluded by a (ill e ecuted by a forei!n testatorF -ELD: B-S ?AT0O< Althou!h on its face, the (ill appeared to ha)e preterited the petitioner and thus, the respondent >ud!e should ha)e denied its reprobate outri!ht, the pri)ate respondents ha)e sufficiently established that Adoracion (as, at the time of her death, an American citi/en and a permanent resident of *hiladelphia, *ennsyl)ania, C$S$A$ Therefore, under Article 16 par$ 425 and 1,39 of the Ci)il Code (hich respecti)ely pro)ide< Art$ 16 par$ 425$=%o(e)er, intestate and testamentary successions, both (ith respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri!hts and to the intrinsic )alidity of testamentary pro)isions, shall be re!ulated by the national la( of the person (hose succession is under consideration, (hate)er may be the nature of the property and re!ardless of the country (herein said property may be found$= Art$ 1,39$=Capacity to succeed is !o)erned by the la( of the nation of the decedent$= the la( (hich !o)erns Adoracion Campo6s (ill is the la( of *ennsyl)ania, C$S$A$, (hich is the national la( of the decedent$ Althou!h the parties admit that the *ennsyl)ania la( does not pro)ide for le!itimes and that all the estate may be !i)en a(ay by the testatri to a complete stran!er, the petitioner ar!ues that such la( should not apply because it (ould be contrary to the sound and established public policy and (ould run counter to the specific pro)isions of *hilippine "a($ 0t is a settled rule that as re!ards the intrinsic )alidity of the pro)isions of the (ill, as pro)ided for by Article 16 425 and 1,39 of the Ci)il Code, the national la( of the decedent must apply$ This (as s.uarely applied in the case of Eellis )$ Eellis 42, SC?A 3;+5 (herein (e ruled<=0t is therefore e)ident that (hate)er public policy or !ood customs may be in)ol)ed in our system of le!itimes, Con!ress has not intended to e tend the same to the succession of forei!n nationals$ For it has specifically chosen to lea)e, inter alia, the amount of successional ri!hts, to the decedent6s national la($ Specific pro)isions must pre)ail o)er !eneral ones$ .) '3=et3no ,s. Leoni6es 1* ('RA "** > /LEA(E REFER %O 'A(E NO. 8

12.) /3ris0 /riest o7 Vi4tori3 ,s. Rigor

FA'%(: 1 Father ?i!or, the parish priest of *ulilan, Eulacan, died in 193;, lea)in! a (ill (hich (as probated by the CF0 of Tarlac$ 7amed as de)isees in the (ill (ere the testator6s nearest relati)es< his 3 sisters and a cousin$ 1 0n addition, the (ill contained a contro)ersial be.uest< a de)ise of rice lands (ith a total area of around '' hectares in fa)or of his nearest male relati)e (ho (ould study for the priesthood$ The parish priest of 9ictoria (ould administer the rice lands durin! the inter)al of time that no nearest male relati)e of the testator (as studyin! for the priesthood$ 1 0nasmuch as no nephe( of the testator claimed the de)ise and as the administratri and the le!al heirs belie)ed that the parish priest of 9ictoria had no ri!ht to administer the rice lands, the same (ere not deli)ered to that ecclesiastic$ The testate proceedin! remained pendin!$ 1 0n 19;: the parish priest filed a petition for the deli)ery of the rice lands to the church as trustee$ The intestate heirs of Father ?i!or countered (ith a petition prayin! that the be.uest he declared inoperati)e and that they be ad>ud!ed as the persons entitled to the said rice lands since no nearest male relati)e of the testator has e)er studied for the priesthood$ The lo(er court declared the be.uest inoperati)e and ad>udicated the rice lands to the testator6s le!al6s heirs$ The parish priest filed t(o motions for reconsideration$ The second @? (as !ranted on the !round that the testator had a !randnephe( named -d!ardo Cunanan 4his cousin8s !randson (ho appears to ha)e been born after his death5 (ho (as a seminarian in the San &ose Seminary of the &esuit Fathers in MC$ The administrator (as directed to deli)er the rice lands to the parish priest of 9ictoria as trustee$ 4#hile the case (as pendin!, in 1961, -d!ardo ceased to be a seminarian$5 1 The CA re)ersed that order$ 0t held that Father ?i!or had created a testamentary trust for his nearest male relati)e (ho (ould ta2e the holy orders but that such trust could e ist only for 2, years because to enforce it beyond that period (ould )iolate =the rule a!ainst perpetuities=$ 0t ruled that since no le!atee claimed the rice lands (ithin 2, after the testator6s death, the same should pass to his le!al heirs, citin! Arts +++ and 912425 of the old CC and Art +:, of the ne( CC$ I(()E: #O7 the testator contemplated only his nearest male relati)e at the time of his death and not any of his nearest male relati)es at anytime after his deathF R)LING: B-S$ Only his nearest male relati)e at the time of his death$ Ratio 0n order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, de)isee or le!atee must be li)in! at the moment the succession opens, e cept in case of representation, (hen it is proper$ Reasoning The said testamentary pro)isions should be sensibly or reasonably construed$ To construe them as referrin! to the testator6s nearest male relati)e at anytime after his death (ould render the pro)isions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate$ That could not ha)e been his intention$ 1 %ad the testator intended to include indefinitely anyone of his nearest male relati)es born after his death he could ha)e so specified in his (ill$ %e must ha)e 2no(n that such a broad pro)ision (ould suspend for an unlimited period of time the efficaciousness of his be.uest$ The reasonable )ie( is that he (as referrin! to a situation (hereby his nephe( li)in! at the time of his death, (ho (ould li2e to become a priest, (as still in !rade school or in hi!h school or (as not yet in the Seminary$ 0n that case, the parish priest of 9ictoria (ould administer the rice lands before the nephe( entered the seminary$ Eut the moment the testator6s nephe( entered the seminary, he (ould be entitled to en>oy and administer the rice lands and recei)e the fruits$ 0n that e)ent, the trusteeship (ould be terminated$

1 Follo(in! that interpretation of the (ill, the in.uiry (ould be (hether at the time Father ?i!or died he had a nephe( (ho (as studyin! for the priesthood or (ho had manifested his desire to follo( the ecclesiastical career$ That .uery is cate!orically ans(ered in para!raph ' of appellant priest6s petitions$ %e une.ui)ocally alle!ed therein that Gno nearest male relati)e of the late Father ?i!or has e)er studied for the priesthood$H 1 0nasmuch as the testator (as not sur)i)ed by any nephe( (ho became a priest, the una)oidable conclusion is that the be.uest in .uestion (as ineffectual or inoperati)e$ Therefore, the administration of the rice lands by the parish priest of 9ictoria, as en)isa!ed in the (ill, (as li2e(ise inoperati)e$ 1 This case is co)ered by Art 912425 of the old CC, no( Art 96,425, (hich pro)ides that le!al succession ta2es piece (hen the (ill =does not dispose of all that belon!s to the testator$= There bein! no substitution or accretion as to the said rice lands, it should be distributed amon! the testator6s le!al heirs$ The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said rice lands$ 11.) Re=es ,. 'A (' L-"1*2 5ul= ;1! 1 "# FA'%(: I(()E: R)LING:

1*.) Guinto ,. $e6in3 "2 OG ? 1! 91 FA'%(: I(()E: R)LING:

! O4t 7! 1 ";

1;.) )son ,s. Del Ros3rio FA'%(: This is an action for reco)ery of the o(nership and possession of fi)e 4;5 parcels of land in *an!asinan, filed by @aria Cson a!ainst @aria del ?osario and her four ille!it children$ @aria Cson (as the la(ful (ife of Faustino 7ebreda (ho upon his death in 19'; left the lands in)ol)ed in this liti!ation$ Faustino 7ebreda left no other heir e cept his (ido( @aria Cson$ %o(e)er, plaintiff claims that (hen Faustino 7ebreda died in 19';, his common1la( (ife @aria del ?osario too2 possession ille!ally of said lands thus depri)in! her of their possession and en>oyment$ Aefendants in their ans(er set up as special defense that Cson and her husband, e ecuted a public document (hereby they a!reed to separate as husband and (ife and, in consideration of (hich Cson (as !i)en a parcel of land and in return she renounced her ri!ht to inherit any other property that may be left by her husband upon his death$ CF0 found for Cson$ Aefendants appealed$ I(()E(: 1$ #L7 Cson has a ri!ht o)er the lands from the moment of death of her husband$ 2$ #L7 the ille!it children of deceased and his common1la( (ife ha)e successional ri!hts$ -ELD: 1$ Bes$ There is no dispute that @aria Cson, is the la(ful (ife of Faustino 7ebreda, former o(ner of the fi)e parcels of lands liti!ated in the present case$ There is li2e(ise no dispute that @aria del ?osario,

(as merely a common1la( (ife (ith (hom she had four ille!itimate children (ith the deceased$ 0t li2e(ise appears that Faustino 7ebreda died in 19'; much prior to the effecti)ity of the ne( Ci)il Code$ #ith this bac2!round, it is e)ident that (hen Faustino 7ebreda died in 19'; the fi)e parcels of land he (as sei/ed of at the time passed from the moment of his death to his only heir, his (ido( @aria Cson 4Art ::: 7CC5$As this Court aptly said, =The property belon!s to the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had e ecuted and deli)ered to them a deed for the same before his death=$ From that moment, therefore, the ri!hts of inheritance of @aria Cson o)er the lands in .uestion became )ested$ The claim of the defendants that @aria Cson had relin.uished her ri!ht o)er the lands in .uestion because she e pressly renounced to inherit any future property that her husband may ac.uire and lea)e upon his death in the deed of separation, cannot be entertained for the simple reason that future inheritance cannot be the sub>ect of a contract nor can it be renounced$ 2$ 7o$ The pro)isions of the 7CC shall be !i)en retroacti)e effect e)en thou!h the e)ent (hich !a)e rise to them may ha)e occurred under the prior le!islation only if no )ested ri!hts are impaired$ %ence, since the ri!ht of o(nership of @aria Cson o)er the lands in .uestion became )ested in 19'; upon the death of her late husband, the ne( ri!ht reco!ni/ed by the ne( Ci)il Code in fa)or of the ille!itimate children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to the impairment of the )ested ri!ht of @aria Cson o)er the lands in dispute$ 1#.) De Bor@3 ,s. De Bor@3 FA'%(: Francisco de Eor>a filed a petition for probate of the (ill of his (ife (ho died, &osefa Tan!co, (ith the CF0 of ?i/al$ %e (as appointed e ecutor and administrator, until he died3 his son &ose became the sole administrator$ Francisco had ta2en a 2 nd (ife Tasiana before he died3 she instituted testate proceedin!s (ith the CF0 of 7ue)a -ci>a upon his death and (as appointed special administatri $ Children of the 1st marria!e .uestioned the )alidity of 2 nd marria!e$ ?elationship bet(een 2nd (ife and children of 1st marria!e since then had been pla!ued (ith many suits 41+ pendin!5$ To put and end to the numerous liti!ations, a compromise a!reement (as entered into, bet(een &ose personally and as administrator of the estate of &osefa, and Tasiana, as the sur)i)in! spouse and administratri of the estate of Francisco$ 0t pro)ided that (ith the mutual desire to terminate and settle the )arious court liti!ations, &ose (ill pay Tasiana *+,,,,,, 4*2,,,,,, for each child5 (hich amount shall be considered as the complete and full payment and settlement of her hereditary share in the estate of Francisco$ The compromise also ser)ed as .uit claim$ Tasiana opposed the appro)al of the compromise a!reement$ She ar!ues that it (as no )alid, because the heirs cannot enter into such 2ind of a!reement (ithout first probatin! the (ill of Francisco, and at the time the a!reement (as made, the (ill (as still bein! probated (ith the CF0 of 7ue)a -ci>a$ I(()E: #L7 the compromise a!reement is )alid, e)en if the (ill of Francisco has not yet been probated$ -ELD: B-S, the compromise a!reement is )alid$ #1: that probate is first required before any agreement may be entered: 1 Tasiana relies on the rulin! in Guevara v. Guevara, (herein the court said that Gthe presentation of the (ill for probate is mandatory and that the settlement and distribution of the estate on the basis of intestacy

(hen the decedent left a (ill, is a!ainst la( and public policy$H Thus, Tasiana mainatains that since Francisco left a (ill, the same must be probated and any a!reement to the contrary is in)alid$ 1 %o(e)er, SC ruled in this case that Guevara is not applicable since (hat is in)ol)ed is not the distribution or settlement of the entire estate, but the sale of the share of Tasiana in fa)or of the other heirs$ 1 there is no le!al bar to an heir 4(ith re.uisite contractin! capacity5 disposin! of his hereditary share immediately after such death, e)en if the actual e tent of such share is not determined until the subse.uent li.uidation of the estate$ Of course, the effect of such alienation is to be deemed limited to (hat is ultimately ad>udicated to the )endor heir 1 bein! the sur)i)in! spouse of the decedent, Tasiana need not a(ait the outcome of the probate proceedin!s since she (as considered by la( as a compulsory heir$ Thus, the prere.uisite of a pre)ious probate of the (ill, as established in Guevara can not apply to the case of Tasiana

#2: that it involves ompromise of the validity of the 2 nd marriage 1 the marria!e has impliedly been reco!ni/ed by &ose in si!nin! the compromise a!reement (hich described Tasiana as the Gsur)i)in! spouse of Francisco$H This ser)es as reco!nition of her ci)il status

#!: that it eased to have for e and effe t 1this (as raised because &ose filed a motion AFT-? submittin! the compromise a!reement for appro)al, (hich stated that Gno amicable settlement had been arri)ed atH and that Gthe compromise a!reement failed to materiali/e,H alle!edly sho(in! abandonment of the compromise a!reement si!ned 1SC said that such declaration in the motion only sho(s that any effort to reach an amicable settlement after Tasiana unilaterally bac2ed out of the compromise had failed$ %o(e)er, this does not affect the )alidity and bindin! force of the compromise a!reement already reached, si!ned, and notari/ed$ The failure to reach a no)atory accord can not in)alidate the ori!inal compromise$ 1".) Bonill3 ,s. B3r4en3 FA'%(: On @arch 31, 19:; Fortunata Earcena, mother of minors ?osalio Eonilla and Sal)acion Eonilla and (ife of *onciano Eonilla, instituted a ci)il action in the CF0 of Abra, to .uiet title o)er certain parcels of land located in Abra$ The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the !round that Fortunata Earcena is dead and, therefore, has no le!al capacity to sue$ 0n the hearin! for the motion to dismiss, counsel for the plaintiff confirmed the death of Fortunata Earcena, and as2ed for substitution by her minor children and her husband3 but the court after the hearin! immediately dismissed the case on the !round that a dead person cannot be a real party in interest and has no le!al personality to sue$ I(()E: #L7 the CF0 erred in dismissin! the complaint$ -ELD: #hile it is true that a person (ho is dead cannot sue in court, yet he can be substituted by his heirs in pursuin! the case up to its completion$ The records of this case sho( that the death of Fortunata Earcena too2 place on &uly 9, 19:; (hile the complaint (as filed on @arch 31, 19:;$ This means that

(hen the complaint (as filed on @arch 31, 19:;, Fortunata Earcena (as still ali)e, and therefore, the court had ac.uired >urisdiction o)er her person$ Cnder Section 16, ?ule 3 of the ?ules of Court =(hene)er a party to a pendin! case dies $$$ it shall be the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of such death $$$ and to !i)e the name and residence of his e ecutor, administrator, !uardian or other le!al representati)es$= This duty (as complied (ith by the counsel for the deceased plaintiff (hen he manifested before the respondent Court that Fortunata Earcena died on &uly 9, 19:; and as2ed for the proper substitution of parties in the case$ The respondent Court, ho(e)er, instead of allo(in! the substitution, dismissed the complaint on the !round that a dead person has no le!al personality to sue$ This is a !ra)e error$ Article ::: of the Ci)il Code pro)ides =that the ri!hts to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent$= From the moment of the death of the decedent, the heirs become the absolute o(ners of his property, sub>ect to the ri!hts and obli!ations of the decedent, and they cannot be depri)ed of their ri!hts thereto e cept by the methods pro)ided for by la($ The moment of death is the determinin! factor (hen the heirs ac.uire a definite ri!ht to the inheritance (hether such ri!ht be pure or contin!ent$ The ri!ht of the heirs to the property of the deceased )ests in them e)en before >udicial declaration of their bein! heirs in the testate or intestate proceedin!s$ #hen Fortunata Earcena, therefore, died, her claim or ri!ht to the parcels of land in liti!ation in Ci)il Case 7o$ +;6, (as not e tin!uished by her death but (as transmitted to her heirs upon her death$ %er heirs ha)e thus ac.uired interest in the properties in liti!ation and became parties in interest in the case$ There is, therefore, no reason for the respondent Court not to allo( their substitution as parties in interest for the deceased plaintiff$ The claim of the deceased plaintiff (hich is an action to .uiet title o)er the parcels of land in liti!ation affects primarily and principally property and property ri!hts and therefore is one that sur)i)es e)en after her death$ 0t is, therefore, the duty of the respondent Court to order the le!al representati)e of the deceased plaintiff to appear and to be substituted for her$ Eut (hat the respondent Court did, upon bein! informed by the counsel for the deceased plaintiff that the latter (as dead, (as to dismiss the complaint$ This should not ha)e been done for under Section 1:, ?ule 3 of the ?ules of Court, it is e)en the duty of the court, if the le!al representati)e fails to appear, to order the opposin! party to procure the appointment of a le!al representati)e of the deceased$ Cn.uestionably, the respondent Court has !ra)ely abused its discretion in not complyin! (ith the clear pro)ision of the ?ules of Court in dismissin! the complaint of the plaintiff in Ci)il Case 7o$ +;6 and refusin! the substitution of parties in the case$

11.) Boug0 ,s. $o6esto

17.) Borro+eo--errer3 ,s. Borro+eo FA'%(:

9ito Eorromeo, a (ido(er died (ithout forced heirs but lea)in! e tensi)e properties in the pro)ince of Cebu$ &ose &un.uera filed a petition for the probate of a one pa!e d o cu m e n t a s t h e la st (i ll a n d t e st a m e n t le f t b y t h e sa id d e c e a s e d $ Oppositions to the probate of the (ill (ere filed$ After due trial, t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e d o c u m e n t presented as the (ill (as a for!ery$ On appeal to this Court, the decision of the probate court disallo(in! the probate of the (ill (as affirmed$ The testate proceedin! (as con)erted into an intestate p ro ce e d in ! $ S e )e ra l p a rt ie s ca m e b e f o re t h e co u rt f il in ! claims$ Fortunato Eorromeo, filed a motion before the trial court prayin! that he be declared as one of the heirs$ %e asserted a n d i n co rp o ra t e d a # a i)e r o f %e re d it a ry ?i !h t s $ 0 n t h e (ai)er, fi)e of the nine heirs relin.uished to Fortunato their shares in the disputed estate$ The petitioner see2s to annul and set aside the trial court6s order declarin! respondent Fortunato Eorromeo entitled to ;L9 of the estate of 9ito Eorromeo$ The petitioner ar!ued that the document entitled =#ai)er of %ereditary ?i!hts= e ecuted on &uly 31, 196:, aside from ha)in! been cancelled and re)o2ed on &une 29, 196+, by Tomas "$ Eorromeo, Fortunato Eorromeo and Amelia Eorromeo, is "ithout for e and effe t be ause there an be no effe tive "aiver of hereditary rights before there has been a valid a eptan e of the inheritan e the heirs intend to transfer $ #espondent $ortunato %orromeo on the other hand& ontends that under Arti le 1'(! of the )ivil )ode there is no need for a person to be first de lared as heir before he an a ept or repudiate an inheritan e. *hat is required is that he must first be ertain of the death of the person from "hom he is to inherit and that he must be ertain of his right to the inheritan e. +e points out that at the time of the signing of the "aiver do ument on ,uly !1& 1-./& the signatories to the "aiver do ument "ere ertain that 0ito %orromeo "as already dead as "ell as of their rights to the inheritan e as sho"n in the "aiver do ument itself. I(()E: #hether or not the (ai)er of hereditary ri!ht is )alid$ R)LING: The pre)ailin! >urisprudence on (ai)er of hereditary ri!hts is that =the properties included in an e istin! inheritance cannot be considered as belon!in! to third persons (ith respect to the heirs, (ho by fiction of la( continue the personality of the former$ 7or do such properties ha)e the character of future property & be ause the heirs a quire a right to su ession from the moment of the death of the de eased , by principle established in article 6;: and applied by article 661 of the Ci)il Code$ Accordin! to (hich the heirs succeed the deceased by the mere fact of death$ @ore or less, time may elapse from the moment of the death of the deceased until the heirs enter into possession of the hereditary property, but the a eptan e in any event retroa ts to the moment of the death& in a ordan e "ith arti le -1- of the )ivil )ode$ The ri!ht is )ested, althou!h conditioned upon the ad>udication of the correspondin! hereditary portion$= 4Osorio )$ Osorio and Bnchausti Steamship Co$, '1 *hil$, ;315$ 2he heirs& therefore& ould "aive their hereditary rights in 1-./ even if the order to partition the estate "as issued only in 1-.-. 0n this case, ho(e)er, the purported =#ai)er of %ereditary ?i!hts= cannot be considered to be effecti)e$ For a (ai)er to e ist, three elements are essential< 415 the e istence of a ri!ht3 425 the 2no(led!e of the e istence thereof3 and 435 an intention to relin.uish such ri!ht$ 4*eople )$ Sal)ador, 4CA5 ;3 O$D$ 7o$ 22, p$ +116, +12,5$ The intention to (ai)e a ri!ht or ad)anta!e must be sho(n clearly and con)incin!ly, and (hen the only proof of intention rests in (hat a party does, his act should be so manifestly consistent (ith, and indicati)e of an intent to, )oluntarily relin.uish the particular ri!ht or ad)anta!e that no other reasonable e planation of his conduct is possible 46: C$&$, 3115$ 4Fernande/ )$ Sebido, et al$, :, *hil$, 1;1, 1;95$ The circumstances of this case sho( that the si!natories to the (ai)er document did not ha)e the clear and con)incin! intention to relin.uish their ri!hts$ Thus< 415 On October 2:, 196:, Fortunato, Tomas, and Amelia Eorromeo filed a pleadin! entitled =Compliance= (herein they submitted a proposal for the amicable settlement of the case$ 0n that Compliance, they proposed to concede to all the ei!ht 4+5 intestate heirs of 9ito Eorromeo all properties, personal and real, includin! all cash and sums of money in

the hands of the Special Administrator, as of October 31, 196:, not contested or claimed by them in any action then pendin! in the Court of First 0nstance of Cebu$ 0n turn, the heirs (ould (ai)e and concede to them all the 1' contested lots$ 0n this document, the respondent reco!ni/es and concedes that the petitioner, li2e the other si!natories to the (ai)er document, is an heir of the deceased 9ito Eorromeo, entitled to share in the estate$

18.) (oll3 ,s. As4uent3

ANa$ @aria Solla died in &une, 1++3, in the municipality of Cabu!ao, 0locos Sur, lea)in! a (ill e ecuted and recorded in accordance (ith the la(s then in force, but (hich had not been probated in accordance (ith the Code of Ci)il *rocedure$ There (ere named in said (ill, as le!atees Ser!io Solla, Cayetano Solla, &osefa Solla, &acinto Serna, ?osenda "a!may$ Sil)estra Sa>or and @atias Se)edea, and "eandro Serrano, as uni)ersal heir, (ith their shares !i)en them by the (ill abo)e1mentioned$

Said le!atees or their descendants or heirs did not >udicially claim their le!acies durin! the life1time of "eandro Serrano, of (hich he had ta2en possession, neither (as any testamentary proceedin! instituted for the settlement of the estate left by @aria Solla and that "eandro Serrano did not deli)er the le!acies in .uestion, (hich he possessed in his name until his death, ha)in! declared the property for ta ation as his o(n and collected the income therefrom for himself$ As may also be seen 3eandro 4errano named his son 4imeon 4errano& as exe utor of his "ill and that he dire ted him to put all of his property in order and to separate that "hi h ame from his de eased grandmother 5aria 4olla& "hi h he gives to his said son 4imeon 4errano and orders that same be disposed of ex lusively in onformity "ith the "ishes of his said grandmother& not forgetting the souls of all of his grandmother6s relatives and of his o"n for "hose repose nine masses "ere to be said annually during nine days& "ith a solemn mass on the first and last days. I(()E: #hether the order of "eandro Serrano mentioned in his (ill is also applicable to the pro)isions of @aria Solla6s (ill relati)e to the le!acies and not to the pious be.uests e clusi)ely$ R)LING: 0n order to determine the testator6s intention, the court should place itself as near as possible in his position, and hence, (here the lan!ua!e of the (ill is ambi!uous or doubtful, should ta2e into consideration the situation of the testator and the facts and circumstances surroundin! him at the time the (ill (as e ecuted$ 4', Cyc$, 1392$5 #here the testator6s intention is manifest from the conte t of the (ill and surroundin! circumstances, but is obscured by inapt and inaccurate modes of e pression, the lan!ua!e (ill be subordinated to the intention, and in order to !i)e effect to such intention, as far as possible, the court may depart from the strict (ordin! and read a (ord or phrase in a sense different from that (hich is ordinarily attributed to it, and for such purpose may mould or chan!e the lan!ua!e of the (ill, such as restrictin! its application or supplyin! omitted (ords or phrases$ 4', Cyc$, 1399$5 0n the present case, it clearly appearin! that it (as @aria Solla6s intention, in orderin! her uni)ersal heir "eandro Serrano in her (ill at the hour of his death, to insist upon the compliance of her orders by his heirs, that the latter should comply (ith her pious orders and that she did not mean her orders concernin! her le!acies, the compliance of (hich she had entrusted to "eandro Serrano, (e are authori/ed to restrict the application of the (ords =all that 0 ha)e here ordered= used by the said @aria Solla and the (ords =all her orders= used by "eandro Serrano in their respecti)e (ills limitin! them to the pious orders and

substitutin! the phrase =in re!ard to the annual masses= after the (ords used by both testators, respecti)ely$ The trial court, therefore, committed an error in interpretin! the order of "eandro Serrano mentioned in his (ill as applicable to the pro)isions of @aria Solla6s (ill relati)e to the le!acies and not to the pious be.uests e clusi)ely$ 1 .) (uroA3 ,s. -on. -onr36o FA'%(: Spouses @auro Suro/a and @arcelina Sal)ador, (ho (ere childless, reared a boy named A!apito$ A!apito and his (ife 7enita de 9era had a dau!hter named "ilia$ 7enita became A!apito8s !uardian (hen he became disabled$ A certain Arsenia de la Cru/ also (anted to be his !uardian in another proceedin! but it (as dismissed$ Arsenia then deli)ered a child named @arilyn Sy to @arcelina (ho brou!ht her up as a supposed dau!hter of A!apito$ @arilyn used the surname Suro/a althou!h not le!ally adopted by A!apito$ #hen @arcelina 4(ho (as an illiterate5 (as :3 years old, she supposedly e ecuted a notarial (ill (hich (as in -n!lish and thumbmar2ed by her$ 0n the (ill, she alle!edly be.ueathed all her properties to @arilyn$ She also named as e ecutri her laundry(oman, @arina *a>e$ *a>e filed a petition for probate of @arcelina8s (ill$ &ud!e %onrado appointed *a>e as administratri and issued an order probatin! @arcelina8s (ill$ 7enita filed amon! others, an opposition to the probate of the (ill (hich (as dismissed by &ud!e %onrado$ 7enita filed a complaint before the SC, char!in! &ud!e %onrado (ith ha)in! probated the fraudulent (ill of @arcelina$ She reiterated her contention that the testatri (as illiterate as sho(n by the fact that she affi ed her thumbmar2 to the (ill and that she did not 2no( -n!lish, the lan!ua!e in (hich the (ill (as (ritten$ I(()E: (hether the (ill, (hich (as (ritten in -n!lish is )alid$ -ELD: 0n the openin! para!raph of the (ill, it (as stated that -n!lish (as a lan!ua!e =understood and 2no(n= to the testatri $ Eut in its concludin! para!raph, it (as stated that the (ill (as read to the testatri =and translated into Filipino lan!ua!e=$ 4p$ 16, ?ecord of testate case5$ That could only mean that the (ill (as (ritten in a lan!ua!e not 2no(n to the illiterate testatri and, therefore, it is )oid because of the mandatory pro)ision of article +,' of the Ci)il Code that e)ery (ill must be e ecuted in a lan!ua!e or dialect 2no(n to the testator$ Thus, a (ill (ritten in -n!lish, (hich (as not 2no(n to the 0!orot testator, is )oid and (as disallo(ed 4Acop )s$ *iraso, ;2 *hil$ 66,5$ The hasty preparation of the (ill is sho(n in the attestation clause and notarial ac2no(led!ment (here @arcelina Sal)ador Suro/a is repeatedly referred to as the =testator= instead of =testatri =$ *2.) G3r4i3 ,s. l3 'uest3 FA'%(: The (ill of Antero @ercado, (hich amon! other defects (as si!ned by the testator throu!h a cross mar2 4an GOH5$ The (ill (as si!ned by Atty$ &a)ier (ho (rote the name of @ercado as testator, follo(ed belo( by =A rue!o del testador= and the name of Florentino &a)ier$ Antero @ercado is alle!ed to ha)e (ritten a cross immediately after his name$ The CF0 allo(ed the (ill but the CA disallo(ed it because its attestation clause (as defecti)e for failin! to certify 15 that the (ill (as si!ned by Atty$ &a)ier at the e press direction of the testator, 25 that the testator (rote a cross at the end of his name after Atty$ &a)ier si!ned for him, and 35 that the 3 (itnesses si!ned the (ill in the presence of the testator and of each other$

0SSC-< #hether the (ill should be allo(ed despite the defect of the attestation clause since the testator had placed a cross mar2 himself as his si!nature$ %-"A< The attestation clause is fatally defecti)e for failin! to state that Antero @ercado caused Atty$ Florentino &a)ier to (rite the testator6s name under his e press direction, as re.uired by section 61+ of the Code of Ci)il *rocedure$ *etitioner ?osario Darcia8s ar!ument that such recital is unnecessary because the testator si!ned the (ill himself usin! a cross mar2 (hich should be considered the same as a thumb1mar2 4(hich has been held sufficient in past cases5 is not acceptable$ The court is not prepared to li2en the mere si!n of a cross to a thumbmar2, and the reason is ob)ious$ The cross cannot and does not ha)e the trust(orthiness of a thumbmar2$ *1.) B3lon3n ,s. A:ell3n3 FA'%( 1The last #ill and Testament, (hich is sou!ht to be probated, (as (ritten in the Spanish lan!ua!e and consists of t(o 425 type(ritten pa!es double spaced$ 2he first page "as signed by Juan Bello and under his name appears type"ritten "Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana, residence Certificate A116762 , !nero 2", 1 #1, Ciudad de $a%boanga& 4(hich 0 thin2 means, for the testatri Anacleta Abellana, residence certificate A1116:629, &anuary 2,, 19;1, City of Pamboan!a5 1On the second pa!e appears the si!nature of three 435 instrumental (itnesses Elas Sebastian, Faustino @acaso and ?afael 0!nacio, at the bottom of (hich appears the si!nature of T$ de los Santos and belo( his si!nature is his official desi!nation as the notary public (ho notari/ed the said testament$ On the first pa!e on the left mar!in of the said instrument also appear the si!natures of the instrumental (itnesses$ On the second pa!e, (hich is the last pa!e of said last #ill and Testament, also appears the si!nature of the three 435 instrumental (itnesses and on that second pa!e on the left margin appears the signature of ,uan %ello under "hose name appears hand"ritten the follo"ing phrase& 7Por la 2estadora Ana leta Abellana6. The (ill is duly ac2no(led!ed before 7otary *ublic Attorney Timoteo de los Santos$

I(()E: #O7 the si!nature of Ar$ &uan Abello abo)e the type(ritten statement =*or la Testadora Anacleta Abellana $ $ $, Ciudad de Pamboan!a,= comply (ith the re.uirements of la( prescribin! the manner in (hich a (ill shall be e ecuted

-ELD: 7O$ The deceased Anacleta Abellana may not be admitted to probate$ Article +,; of the Ci)il Code, as (ell as Section 61+ of the Code of Ci)il *rocedure 4Act 7o$ 19, Q probably old5 re.uire that the testator himself si!n the (ill, or if he cannot do so, the testator8s name must be (ritten by some other person in his presence and by his e press direction$

10n the case of - *arte *edro Arcenas, et al$, *hil, :,,< 0f the testator (ill not be able to si!n the (ill, the attestin! (itnesses should si!n the (ill at the testator8s re.uest, the notary certifyin! thereto, then the testator8s name should be (ritten by the person si!nin! in his stead in the place (here he could ha)e si!ned if he 2ne( ho( or (as able to do so, and do this in the testator8s presence and by the testator8s e press direction$ 0t should be si!ned in the follo(in! manner< &ohn Aoe by the testator, ?ichard Aoe3 or in this form< =Ey the testator, &ohn Aoe, ?ichard Aoe$= All this must be (ritten by the (itness si!nin! at the re.uest of the testator$ 10n Earut )s$ Cabacun!an, 21 *hil, '61< is should clearly appear that the name of the testatri (as si!ned at her e press direction3 it is unimportant (hether the person (ho (rites the name of the testatri si!ns his o(n or not$ 0n the case at bar the name of the testatri , Anacleta Abellana, does not appear "ritten under the "ill by said Abellana herself& or by 8r. ,uan Abello$ There is, therefore, a failure to comply (ith the e press re.uirement in the la( that the testator must himself si!n the (ill, or that his name be affi ed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his e press direction$ 0t appearin! that the abo)e pro)ision of the la( has not been complied (ith, (e are constrained to declare that the said (ill of the deceased Anacleta Abellana may not be admitted to probate$

**.) Ner3 ,s. Ri+3n6o FA'%(: 1 0t is alle!ed that at the time (hen the testator and the subscribin! (itnesses attached their si!natures to the instrument, one of the subscribin! parties 4&a)ellana5 (as in another room$ 1 %ence, it (as impossible for him to see the (hole act of si!nin! because a curtain (ould bloc2 his )ie($ This (ould then ne!ate the findin! of the CF0 as to the due e ecution of the instrument propounded as a (ill$ 1 The trial >ud!e did not consider this rele)ant as he (as of the opinion that this alle!ation, e)en if pro)en, (ould not be sufficient to in)alidate the (ill on the basis of &aboneta ) Dustilo$ I(()E: #O7 one of the subscribin! (itnesses (as present in the small room (here it (as e ecuted at the time (hen the testator and the other (itnesses attached their si!natures -ELD: Citin! &aboneta )$ Dustilo, the court held that GThe true test of presence of the testator and the (itnesses in the e ecution of a (ill is not (hether they actually sa( each other si!n, but (hether they mi!ht ha)e been seen each other si!n, had they chosen to do so, considerin! their mental and physical condition and position (ith relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each si!nature$H Eut it is especially to be noted that the position of the parties (ith relation to each other at the moment of the subscription of each si!nature, must be such that they may see each other si!n if they choose to do so$ The .uestion is (hether the testator and the subscribin! (itnesses to an alle!ed (ill si!ned the instrument in the presence of each other does not depend upon proof of the fact that their eyes (ere actually cast upon the paper at the moment of its subscription by each of them, but that at that moment e istin! conditions and their position (ith relation to each other (ere such that by merely castin! the eyes in the proper direction they could ha)e seen each other si!n$ To e tend the doctrine further (ould open the door to the possibility of all manner of fraud, substitution, and the li2e, and (ould defeat the purpose for (hich this particular condition is prescribed in the code as one of the re.uisites in the e ecution of a (ill$

*;.) %3:o36o ,s. Ros3l

FA'%(: 0n the petition for probate filed (ith respondent court, Taboada attached the alle!ed last (ill and testament of the late Aorotea *ere/ (hich (as (ritten in the Cebuano19isayan dialect and consistin! t(o pa!es< the first pa!e contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is si!ned at the bottom of the pa!e by the testatri alone and at the left hand mar!in by three 435 instrumental (itnesses3 and the second pa!e contains the attestation clause and the ac2no(led!ment is si!ned at the end of such clause by the said instrumental (itnesses and at the left hand mar!in by the testatri $ The trial court, throu!h &ud!e *amatian, denied the probate of the (ill for (ant of formality in its e ecution and ordered Taboada to submit the names of the intestate heirs, ho(e)er, the latter did not comply (ith the said order$ 0nstead, he filed a manifestation andLor motion ex parte prayin! for a thirty1day period (ithin (hich to deliberate on any step to be ta2en as a result of the disallo(ance of the (ill and further, he filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denyin! the probate of the (ill$ %o(e)er, the motions could not acted upon by &ud!e *amatian due to his transfer and thus, &ud!e ?osal assumed the position$ @ean(hile, Taboada filed a motion for the appointment of special administrator$ Subse.uently, the three motions filed by the petitioner (ere denied, hence this present petition$ I(()E: For the )alidity of a formal notarial (ill, does Article +,; of the Ci)il Code re.uire that the testatri and all the three instrumental and attestin! (itnesses si!n at the end of the (ill and in the presence of the testatri and of one anotherF -ELD: #hile perfection in the draftin! of a (ill may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be i!nored, especially (here the authenticity of the (ill is not assailed$ 1%0e res9on6ent 5u6ge inter9rets Art 82" o7 t0e '' to reBuire t03t! 7or 3 not3ri3l 8ill to :e ,3li6! it is not enoug0 t03t onl= t0e test3tri. signs 3t t0e Cen6C :ut t03t t0e t0ree su:s4ri:ing 8itnesses +ust 3lso sign 3t t0e s3+e 9l34eDat t'e end(not on t'e left 'and %argin. 1Cnder Article +,; of the Ci)il Code, the (ill must be subscribed or si!ned at its end by the testator himself or by the testator6s name (ritten by another person in his presence, and by his e press direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible (itnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another$ 1Attestation consists in (itnessin! the testator6s e ecution of the (ill in order to see and ta2e note mentally that those thin!s (hich the statute re.uires for the e ecution of a (ill are done, and that the si!nature of the testator e ists as a fact$ Subscription is the si!nin! of the (itnesses6 names upon the same paper 1The la( is to be liberally construed, the underlyin! and fundamental ob>ecti)e bein! the liberali/ation of the manner of their e ecution (ith the end in )ie( of !i)in! the testator more freedom in e pressin! his last (ishes but (ith sufficient safe!uards and restrictions to pre)ent the commission of fraud and the e ercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator$

1The ob>ects of attestation and of subscription (ere fully met and satisfied in the present case (hen the instrumental (itnesses si!ned at the left mar!in of the sole pa!e (hich contains all the testamentary dispositions, especially so (hen the (ill (as properly identified by subscribin! (itness 9icente Tim2an!$ 1#e ha)e e amined the (ill in .uestion and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pa!es used in (ritin! the (ill$ This (ould ha)e been a fatal defect (ere it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire (ill that it is really and actually composed of only t(o pa!es duly si!ned by the testatri and her instrumental (itnesses$

*#.) I43si3no ,s. I43si3no FA'%( $ This special proceedin! (as be!un on October 2, 19;+ by a petition for the allo(ance and admission to probate of the ori!inal as the alle!ed (ill of &osefa 9illacorte Etest3tri.), deceased$ $ The court set the pro)in! of the alle!ed (ill and caused notice thereof to be published for 3 successi)e (ee2s, pre)ious to the time appointed, in the ne(spaper =@anila Chronicle=, and also caused personal ser)ice of copies thereof upon the 2no(n heirs$ A dau!hter and son of the testatri opposed the probate of the alle!ed (ill$ $ 'elso later filed a motion for the admission of an amended and supplemental petition, alle!in! that the decedent left a (ill e ecuted in 6u9li43te 8it0 3ll t0e leg3l reBuire+ents, and that 0e 83s su:+itting t0e signe6 6u9li43te$ This (as also opposed$ 1Court, after hearin! the parties, issued the or6er 36+itting t0e 8ill 3n6 its 6u9li43te to 9ro:3te $ 7ati)idad and -nri.ue (ere unhappy so they appealed to SC directly $The e)idence presented for the petitioner is summari/ed as follo(s< Testatri e ecuted a last (ill and testament in duplicate at the house of her dau!hter @rs$ Felisa 0casiano at @anila, published before and attested by 3 instrumental (itnesses, namely3 attorneys Torres, &r$ and &ose 7ati)idad 4 5ose), and Ar$ Aiy3 that the (ill (as ac2no(led!ed by the testatri and by the said three instrumental (itnesses on the same date before attorney On!, 7otary *ublic in and for @anila3 and that the (ill (as actually prepared by attorney Samson, (ho (as also present durin! the e ecution and si!nin! of the decedent6s last (ill and testament, to!ether (ith former Do)ernor ?ustia of Eulacan, &ud!e ?amon 0casiano, and a little !irl$ Of the said three instrumental (itnesses to the e ecution of the decedent6s last (ill and testament 3ttorne=s %orres 3n6 5ose (ere in the *hilippines at the time of the hearin!, and both testified as to the due e ecution and authenticity of the said (ill$ So did the Not3r= /u:li4 before (hom the (ill (as ac2no(led!ed by the testatri and attestin! (itnesses, and also 3ttorne= (3+son$ $ The ori!inal consists of fi)e pa!es, and (hile si!ned at the end and in e)ery pa!e, it 6oes not 4ont3in t0e sign3ture o7 one o7 t0e 3ttesting 8itnesses , 5ose, on 93ge E;)3 but the 6u9li43te 4o9= is signe6 by the testatri and her ; 3ttesting 8itnesses in e340 3n6 e,er= 93ge. $Witness 5ose admits that he may ha)e lifted t(o pa!es instead of one (hen he si!ned the same, but affirmed that pa!e 3 (as si!ned in his presence$

I(()E #O7 the inad)ertent failure of one (itness to affi his si!nature to one pa!e of a testament, due to the simultaneous liftin! of t(o pa!es in the course of si!nin!, is NO% per se sufficient to >ustify denial of probate$

-ELD &E($ 0t DOE( NO% 5)(%IF& DENIAL of probate$ 0mpossibility of substitution of this pa!e is assured not only the fact that the testatri and t(o other (itnesses did si!n the defecti)e pa!e, but also by its bearin! the coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before (hom the testament (as ratified by testatri and all three (itnesses$ The la( should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penali/e the testatri on account of the inad)ertence of a sin!le (itness o)er (hose conduct she had no control, (here the purpose of the la( to !uarantee the identity of the testament and its component pa!es is sufficiently attained, no intentional or deliberate de)iation e isted, and the e)idence on record attests to the full obser)ance of the statutory re.uisites$ Other(ise, as stated in 9da$ de Dil )s$ @urciano, =(itnesses may sabota!e the (ill by muddlin! or bun!lin! it or the attestation clause=$ $This (ould not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literal application of the statutory re.uirements, (here the purposes of the la( are other(ise satisfied$ Thus, despite the literal tenor of the la(, this Court has held that a testament, (ith the only pa!e si!ned at its foot by testator and (itnesses, but not in the left mar!in, could ne)ertheless be probated 4Aban!an )s$ Aban!an53 and that despite the re.uirement for the correlati)e letterin! of the pa!es of a (ill, the failure to mar2 the first pa!e either by letters or numbers is not a fatal defect 4"ope/ )s$ "iboro5$ These precedents e emplify the Court6s policy to re.uire satisfaction of the le!al re.uirements in order to !uard a!ainst fraud and bad faith but (ithout undue or unnecessary curtailment of the testamentary pri)ile!e$ $ SC is satisfied that < the testatri si!ned both ori!inal and duplicate copies of the (ill spontaneously, on the same occasion, in the presence of the three attestin! (itnesses, the notary public (ho ac2no(led!ed the (ill, and Atty$ Samson, (ho actually prepared the documents3 that the (ill and its duplicate (ere e ecuted in Ta!alo!, a lan!ua!e 2no(n to and spo2en by both the testator and the (itnesses, and read to and by the testatri and Atty$ Samson to!ether before they (ere actually si!ned3 that the attestation clause is also in a lan!ua!e 2no(n to and spo2en by the testatri and the (itnesses$ $The opinion of e pert for oppositors did not con)ince the SC principally because said e pert failed to sho( con)incin!ly that there are radical differences that (ould >ustify the char!e of for!ery, ta2in! into account the ad)anced a!e of the testatri $ $There is also no ade.uate e)idence of fraud or undue influence$ The fact that some heirs are more fa)ored than others is proof of neither$ $That the carbon duplicate (as produced R admitted (ithout a ne( publication does not affect the >urisdiction of the probate court, already conferred by the ori!inal publication of the petition for probate *".) 'ruA ,s. Vill3sor FA'%(: *etitioner1appellant A!apita Cru/, the sur)i)in! spouse of 9alente Cru/ opposed the allo(ance of the (ill 4- hibit =-=5, alle!in! the (ill (as e ecuted throu!h fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence3

that the said instrument (as e ecute (ithout the testator ha)in! been fully informed of the content thereof, particularly as to (hat properties he (as disposin! and that the supposed last (ill and testament (as not e ecuted in accordance (ith la($ Of the three instrumental (itnesses thereto, one of them, the last named, is at the same time the 7otary *ublic before (hom the (ill (as supposed to ha)e been ac2no(led!ed$ As the third (itness is the notary public himself, petitioner ar!ues that the result is that only t(o (itnesses appeared before the notary public to ac2no(led!e the (ill$ On the other hand, pri)ate respondent1appellee "u!ay, (ho is the supposed e ecutor of the (ill, follo(in! the reasonin! of the trial court, maintains that there is substantial compliance (ith the le!al re.uirement of ha)in! at least three attestin! (itnesses e)en if the notary public acted as one of them, bolsterin! up his stand (ithAmerican &urisprudence$ 7ot(ithstandin! her ob>ection, the Court allo(ed the probate of the said last (ill and testament$ %ence this appeal by certiorari (hich (as !i)en due course$ I(()E: #L7 the (ill (as e ecuted in accordance (ith la( 4particularly Articles +,; and +,6 of the 7CC, the first re.uirin! at least three credible (itnesses to attest and subscribe to the (ill, and the second re.uirin! the testator and the (itnesses to ac2no(led!e the (ill before a notary public$5$ -ELD: 7O$ Of the three instrumental (itnesses to the (ill, one of them 4Atty$ Te)es5 is at the same time the 7otary *ublic before (hom the (ill (as supposed to ha)e been ac2no(led!ed$ The notary public before (hom the (ill (as ac2no(led!ed cannot be considered as the third instrumental (itness since he cannot ac2no(led!e before himself his ha)in! si!ned the (ill$ To ac2no(led!e before means to a)o( 4&a)ellana )$ "edesma3 Castro )$ Castro53 to o(n as !enuine, to assent, to admit3 and =before= means in front or precedin! in space or ahead of$ Conse.uently, if the third (itness (ere the notary public himself, he (ould ha)e to a)o( assent, or admit his ha)in! si!ned the (ill in front of himself$ This cannot be done because he cannot split his personality into t(o so that one (ill appear before the other to ac2no(led!e his participation in the ma2in! of the (ill$ To permit such a situation to obtain (ould be sanctionin! a sheer absurdity$ Furthermore, the function of a notary public is, amon! others, to !uard a!ainst any ille!al or immoral arran!ement 4Ealinon )$ Ae "eon5$ That function (ould defeated if the notary public (ere one of the attestin! instrumental (itnesses$ 0t (ould place him in inconsistent position and the )ery purpose of ac2no(led!ment, (hich is to minimi/e fraud, (ould be th(arted$ Admittedly, there are American precedents holdin! that notary public may, in addition, act as a (itness to the e ecuti)e of the document he has notari/ed$ There are others holdin! that his si!nin! merely as notary in a (ill nonetheless ma2es him a (itness thereon$ Eut these authorities do not ser)e the purpose of the la( in this >urisdiction or are not decisi)e of the issue herein because the notaries public and (itnesses referred to in these cases merely acted as instrumental, subscribin! attestin! (itnesses, and not as ac2no(led!in! (itnesses$ %ere, the notary public acted not only as attestin! (itness but also ac2no(led!in! (itness, a situation not en)isa!ed by Article +,;1,6$ *robate of (ill set aside$

*1.) G3:u43n ,s. $3nt3 FA'%( 1 This case is about the CF0 Cami!uin8s dismissal of a petition for the probate of a notarial (ill 4 of the late ?o!aciano Dabucan5 on the !round that the re.uisite documentary stamp (as not affi ed to the notarial ac2no(led!ment in the (ill and, hence, accordin! to &ud!e @anta, it (as not admissible in e)idence, citin! section 23+ of the Ta Code, no( section 2;, of the 19:: Ta Code, (hich reads< S-C$ 23+$ 9ffe t of failure to stamp taxable do ument $ An instrument, document, or paper (hich is re.uired by la( to be stamped and (hich has been si!ned, issued, accepted, or transferred (ithout bein! duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any opy thereof or any re ord of transfer of the same be admitted or used in eviden e in any court until the re.uisite stamp or stamps shall ha)e been affi ed thereto and cancelled$

7o notary public or other officer authori/ed to administer oaths shall add his >urat or ac2no(led!ment to any document sub>ect to documentary stamp ta unless the proper documentary stamps are affi ed thereto and cancelled$ 1 The probate court assumed that the notarial ac2no(led!ment of the said (ill is sub>ect to the thirty1 centa)o documentary stamp ta fi ed in section 22; of the Ta Code, no( section 23: of the 19:: Ta Code$ 1 &ud!e @anta refused to reconsider the dismissal in spite of petitioner6s manifestation that he had already attached the documentary stamp to the ori!inal of the (ill$ -ELD The lo(er court manifestly erred in declarin! that, because no documentary stamp (as affi ed to the (ill, there (as =no (ill and testament to probate= and, conse.uently, the alle!ed =action must of necessity be dismissed #hat the probate court should ha)e done (as to re.uire the petitioner or proponent to affi the re.uisite thirty1centa)o documentary stamp to the notarial ac2no(led!ment of the (ill (hich is the ta able portion of that document$ That procedure may be implied from the pro)ision of section 23+ that the non1admissibility of the document, (hich does not bear the re.uisite documentary stamp, subsists only 7until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and an elled.7 Thus, it (as held that the documentary stamp may be affi ed at the time the ta able document is presented in e)idence 4Ael Castillo )s$ @adrilena '9 *hil$ :'95$ 0f the promissory note does not bear a documentary stamp, the court should ha)e allo(ed plaintiff6s tender of a stamp to supply the deficiency$ 4?odri!ue/ )s$ @artine/, ; *hil$ 6:, :1$ 7ote the holdin! in A/arra!a )s$ ?odri!ue/, 9 *hil$ 63:, that the lac2 of the documentary stamp on a document does not in)alidate such document$ G *7.) 53,ell3n3 ,s. Le6es+3 FA'%(: The Court of First 0nstance of 0loilo admitted to probate the documents in the 9isayan dialectas the testament and codicil duly e ecuted by the deceased Aa$ Apolinaria "edesma 9da$ de &a)ellana, on @arch 3,, 19;,, and @ay 29, 19;2, respecti)ely, (ith ?amon Tabiana, Dloria @ontinola de Tabiana and 9icente Bap as (itnesses$ The contestant, @atea "edesma, sister and nearest sur)i)in! relati)e of said deceased, appealed from the decision, insistin! that the said e hibits (ere not e ecuted in conformity (ith la($ "edesma is .uestionin! the )alidity of the codicil contendin! that the fact that the notary did not si!n the instrument in the presence of the testator and the (itness made the codicil (as not e ecuted in conformity (ith the la( I(()E: #L7 the codicil (as )alidly e ecuted$ -ELD: The instrumental (itnesses 4(ho happen to be the same ones (ho attested the (ill of 19;,5 asserted that after the codicil had been si!ned by the testatri and the (itnesses at the San *ablo %ospital, the same (as si!ned and sealed by notary public Dimotea on the same occasion$ On the other hand, Dimotea affirmed that he did not do so, but brou!ht the codicil to his office, and si!ned and sealed it there$ The )ariance does not necessarily imply conscious per)ersion of truth on the part of the (itnesses, but appears rather due to a (ell1established phenomenon, the tendency of the mind, in recallin! past e)ents, to substitute the usual and habitual for (hat differs sli!htly from it$ #hether or not the notary si!ned the certification of ac2no(led!ment in the presence of the testatri and the (itnesses, does not affect the )alidity of the codicil$ The ne( Ci)il Code does not re.uire that the si!nin! of the testator, (itnesses and notary should be accomplished in one sin!le act$ A comparison of Articles +,; and +,6 of the ne( Ci)il Code re)eals that (hile testator and (itnesses si!n in the presence of each other, all that is thereafter re.uired is that =e)ery (ill must be ac2no(led!ed before a notary public by the testator and the (itnesses= 4Art$ +,653 i$e$, that the latter should a)o( to the certifyin! officer the authenticity of their si!natures and the )oluntariness of their actions in e ecutin! the

testamentary disposition$ This (as done in this case$ The subse.uent si!nin! and sealin! by the notary of his certification that the testament (as duly ac2no(led!ed by the participants therein is no part of the ac2no(led!ment itself nor of the testamentary act$ %ence their separate e ecution out of the presence of the testatri and her (itnesses cannot be said to )iolate the rule that testaments should be completed (ithout interruption$ 0t is note(orthy that Article +,6 of the ne( Ci)il Code does not contain (ords re.uirin! that the testator and the (itnesses should ac2no(led!e the testament on the same day or occasion that it (as e ecuted$ *8.) GonA3les ,s. 'A FACTS< 0sabel Dabriel died on &une :, 1961 (ithout issue$ "ut!arda Santia!o 4respondent5, niece of 0sabel, filed a petition for probate of 0sabel6s (ill desi!natin! her as the principal beneficiary and e ecutri $ The (ill (as type(ritten in Ta!alo! and (as e ecuted 2 months prior to death of 0sabel$ The petition (as opposed by ?i/alina Don/ales 4petitioner5, also a niece of 0sabel, on the follo(in! !rounds< 1$ the (ill is not !enuine, 2$ (ill (as not e ecuted and attested as re.uired by la(, 3$ the decedent at the time of the ma2in! of the (ill did not ha)e testamentary capacity due to her a!e and sic2ness, and '$ the (ill (as procured throu!h undue influence$ The trial court disallo(ed the probate of the (ill but the Court of Appeals ?e)ersed the said decision of the trial court$ The petitioner filed a petition for re)ie( (ith SC claimin! that the CA erred in holdin! that the (ill of the decedent (as e ecuted and attested as re.uired by la( (hen there (as absolutely no proof that the 3 instrumental (itnesses are redible$ 0SSC-< 1$ 1$ Can a (itness be considered competent under Art +2,1+21 and still not be considered redible as re.uired by Art$ +,;F 2$ 0s it re.uired that there must be e)idence on record that the (itness to a (ill has !ood standin! in hisLher community or that heLshe is honest or upri!htF %-"A< 1$ Bes$ The petitioner submits that the term redible in Article +,; re.uires somethin! more than >ust bein! competent and, therefore, a (itness in addition to bein! ompetent under Articles +2,1+21 must also be credible under Art$ +,;$ The competency of a person to be an instrumental (itness to a (ill is determined by the statute 4Art$ +2, and +215, (hereas his credibility depends on the appreciation of his testimony and arises from the belief and conclusion of the Court that said (itness is tellin! the truth$ 0n the case of 0da. de Aroyo v. 9l %eaterio del 4antissimo #osario de 5olo& 7o$ "1 22,,;, @ay 3, 196+, the Supreme Court held and ruled that< =Competency as a (itness is one thin!, and it is another to be a credible (itness, so credible that the Court must accept (hat he says$ Trial courts may allo( a person to testify as a (itness upon a !i)en matter because he is competent, but may thereafter decide (hether to belie)e or not to belie)e his testimony$= 2$ 7o$ There is no mandatory re.uirement that the (itness testify initially or at any time durin! the trial as to his !ood standin! in the community, his reputation for trust(orthiness and for bein! reliable, his honesty and upri!htness 4such attributes are presumed of the (itness unless the contrary is pro)ed other(ise by the opposin! party5 in order that his testimony may be belie)ed and accepted by the trial court$ 0t is enou!h that the .ualifications enumerated in Article +2, of the Ci)il Code are complied (ith, such that the soundness of his mind can be sho(n by or deduced from his ans(ers to the .uestions propounded to him, that his a!e 41+ years or more5 is sho(n from his appearance, testimony , or competently pro)ed other(ise, as (ell as the fact that he is not blind, deaf or dumb and that he is able to read and (rite to the satisfaction of the Court, and that he has none of the dis.ualifications under Article +21 of the Ci)il Code$ * .) G3r4i3 ,s. V3sBueA

FA'%( 1 Dilceria A)elino del ?osario died unmarried (ithout any descendants, ascendants, brother or sister$ Consuelo S$ Don/ales 9da$ de *recilla, niece of the deceased, petitioned the CF0 for probate of the alle!ed last (ill and testament of the deceased, e ecuted on 29 Aecember 196,, and for her appointment as special administratri of the latter8s estate pendin! the appointment of a re!ular administrator thereof$ 1 The petition (as opposed by se)eral !roups of alle!ed heirs$ Their ma>or contentions (ere that the instrument e ecuted in 196, (as not intended by the deceased to be her true (ill and that the formalities re.uired by la( ha)e not been complied (ith$ They also opposed the appointment of Consuelo as special administratri on the !round that the latter possesses interest ad)erse to the estate$ 1 CF0 !ranted petitioner8s prayer and appointed her special administratri $ 1 Oppositors filed se)eral other motions and petitions in connection (ith the administration of the estate$ 1 Called to testify on the due e ecution of the (ill, the 3 instrumental (itnesses uniformly declared that they (ere uniformly re.uested by the late husband of petitioner, Alfonso *recilla, to (itness the e ecution of the last (ill of the deceased3 that the testatri at that time (as apparently of clear and sound mind, althou!h she (as bein! aided by *recilla (hen she (al2ed3 that the (ill, (hich (as already prepared, (as first read GsilentlyH by the testatri herself before she si!ned it3 that the 3 (itnesses thereafter si!ned the (ill in the presence of the testatri and the notary public and of one another$ They also testified, amon! other thin!s, that on that occasion no pressure or influence has been e erted by any person upon the testatri to e ecute the (ill$ 1 CF0 issued an order admittin! to probate the 196, (ill and appointed the petitioner re!ular administratri $ 1 Oppositor1appellants maintain that on date of e ecution of the (ill, the eyesi!ht of the deceased (as so poor and defecti)e that she could not ha)e read the pro)isions of the (ill$ They called the ophthalmolo!ist of the decedent to the (itness stand to pro)e this fact$

I(()E #O7 the CF0 erred in admittin! the (ill to probate

-ELD B-S 1 The testimony of the ophthalmolo!ist (ho treated the deceased fully established the fact that not(ithstandin! the operation and remo)al of the cataract in her left eye and her bein! fitted (ith apha2ic lens, the deceased8s )ision remained mainly for )ie(in! distant ob>ects and not for readin! print$ Thus, the conclusion is inescapable that (ith the condition of her eyesi!ht and there is no e)idence that it had impro)ed by the time of the e ecution of the (ill, Dilceria del ?osario (as incapable of readin!, and could not ha)e read the pro)isions of the (ill supposedly si!ned by her on Aecember 29, 196,$

1 A!ainst the bac2!round of the defecti)e eyesi!ht of the alle!ed testatri , the appearance of the (ill ac.uires stri2in! si!nificance$ The (ords (ere crammed into a sin!le sheet of paper$ *lainly, the testament (as not prepared (ith any re!ard for the defecti)e )ision of Aona Dliceria$ 1 Thus, for all intents and purposes of the rules on probate, the deceased (as not unli2e a blind testator, and the due e ecution of her (ill (ould ha)e re.uired obser)ance of the pro)isions of Art$ +,+ of the Ci)il Code$ 1 The rationale behind the re.uirement of readin! the (ill to the testator if he is blind or incapable of readin! the (ill himself is to ma2e the pro)isions thereof 2no(n to him, so that he may be able to ob>ect if they are not in accordance (ith his (ishes$ That the aim of the la( is to insure that the dispositions of the (ill are properly communicated to and understood by the handicapped testator, thus ma2in! them truly reflecti)e of his desire, is e)idenced by the re.uirement that the (ill should be read to the latter, not only once but t(ice, by t(o different persons, and that the (itnesses ha)e to act (ithin the ran!e of the testator8s other senses$ 1 0n connection (ith the (ill here in .uestion, there is nothin! in the records to sho( that the abo)e re.uisites ha)e been complied (ith$ Clearly, as already stated, the 196, (ill sou!ht to be probated suffers from infirmity that affects its due e ecution$

;1.) F3l38 ,s. Relo,3

FA'%(: On September 1, 19:1,Dre!orio Iala(, claimin! to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, 7ati)idad Iala(, filed a petition for the probate of her holo!raphic #ill e ecuted on Aecember 2', 196+$ The holo!raphic #ill, as first (ritten, named ?osa Iala(, a sister of the testatri as her sole heir$ She opposed probate alle!in! that the holo!raphic #ill contained alterations, corrections, and insertions (ithout the proper authentication by the full si!nature of the testatri as re.uired by Article +1' of the Ci)il Code readin!< Art$ +1'$ 0n case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holo!raphic (ill the testator must authenticate the same by his full si!nature$ ?OSA6s position (as that the holo!raphic #ill, as first (ritten, should be !i)en effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder$ Trial Court denied petition to probate the holo!raphic (ill$ ?econsideration denied$

I(()E: #L7 the original unaltered te t after subse.uent alterations and insertions (ere )oided by the Trial Court for lac2 of authentication by the full si!nature of the testatri , should be probated or not, (ith ?osa as sole heir$ -ELD: Ordinarily, (hen a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holo!raphic #ill litem not been noted under his si!nature, $$$ the #ill is not thereby in)alidated as a (hole, but at most only as respects the particular (ords erased, corrected or interlined$ %o(e)er, (hen as in this case, the holo!raphic #ill in dispute had only one substantial pro)ision, (hich (as altered by substitutin! the ori!inal heir (ith another, but (hich alteration did not carry the re.uisite of full authentication by the full si!nature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire #ill is )oided or re)o2ed for the simple reason that nothin! remains in the #ill after that (hich could remain )alid$ To state that the #ill as first (ritten should be !i)en efficacy is to disre!ard the seemin! chan!e of mind of the testatri $ Eut that chan!e of mind can neither be !i)en effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner re.uired by la( by affi in! her full si!nature, The rulin! in 0elas o& supra& must be held confined to such insertions, cancellations, erasures or alterations in a holo!raphic #ill, (hich affect only the efficacy of the altered (ords themsel)es but not the essence and )alidity of the #ill itself$ As it is, (ith the erasures, cancellations and alterations made by the testatri herein, her real intention cannot be determined (ith certitude$ ;*.) G3go ,s. $3+u=34

FA'%( 1 @i!uel @amuyac e ecuted a last (ill and testament on &uly 2:, 191+ 4first (ill5$ On &an, 1922, Francisco Da!o presented a petition in the CF0 of "a Cnion for the probation of that (ill$ This (as opposed by Cornelio @amuyac, Ambrosio "ariosa, Feliciana Eau/on, and Catalina @amuyac$ The petition for probation (as denied on the !round that the deceased had e ecuted a ne( (ill and testament on April 16, 1919 4second (ill5$ @i!uel @amuyac died on &an 2, 1922$ 1 The present petition, filed on Feb 21, 192;, is intended to secure the probation of the second (ill$ Cornelio @amuyac, Ambrosio "ariosa, Feliciana Eau/on, and Catalina @amuyac presented their oppositions, alle!in! 4a5 that the said (ill is a copy of the second (ill and testament e ecuted by the said @i!uel @amuyac3 4b5 that the same had been cancelled and re)o2ed durin! the lifetime of @i!uel @amuyac and 4 5 that the said (ill (as not the last (ill and testament of the deceased @i!uel @amuyac$ 1 The CF0 denied the probation of the second (ill, upon the !round that the same had been cancelled and re)o2ed in the year 192,$ 1 Da!o contends that the lo(er court committed an error in not findin! from the e)idence that the (ill in .uestion had been e ecuted (ith all the formalities re.uired by the la(3 that the same had been re)o2ed and cancelled in 192, before his death3 that the said (ill (as a mere carbon copy and that the oppositors (ere not estopped from alle!in! that fact$ I(()E: #L7 the April 16 (ill (as cancelled$ -ELD: B-S$ #ith reference to the said cancellation, it may be stated that there is positi)e proof, not denied, (hich (as accepted by the lo(er court, that (ill in .uestion had been cancelled in 192,$ The la( does not re.uire any e)idence of the re)ocation or cancellation of a (ill to be preser)ed$ 0t therefore becomes difficult at times to pro)e the re)ocation or cancellation of (ills$ The fact that such cancellation or re)ocation has ta2en place must either remain unpro)ed of be inferred from e)idence sho(in! that after due search the ori!inal (ill cannot be found$ #here a (ill (hich cannot be found is sho(n to ha)e been in the possession of the testator, (hen last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent e)idence, that the same (as cancelled or destroyed$ The same presumption arises (here it is sho(n that the testator had ready access to the (ill and it cannot be found after his death$ 0t (ill not be presumed that such (ill has been destroyed by any other person (ithout the 2no(led!e or authority of the testator$ The force of the presumption of cancellation or re)ocation by the testator, (hile )aryin!

!reatly, bein! (ea2 or stron! accordin! to the circumstances, is ne)er conclusi)e, but may be o)ercome by proof that the (ill (as not destroyed by the testator (ith intent to re)o2e it$ 0n )ie( of the fact that the ori!inal (ill of 1919 could not be found after the death of the testator @i!uel @amuyac and in )ie( of the positi)e proof that the same had been cancelled, (e are forced to the conclusion that the conclusions of the lo(er court are in accordance (ith the (ei!ht of the e)idence$ 0n a proceedin! to probate a (ill the burden of proofs is upon the proponent clearly to establish not only its e ecution but its e istence$ %a)in! pro)ed its e ecution by the proponents, the burden is on the contestant to sho( that it has been re)o2ed$ 0n a !reat ma>ority of instances in (hich (ills are destroyed for the purpose of re)o2in! them there is no (itness to the act of cancellation or destruction and all e)idence of its cancellation perishes (ith the testator$ Copies of (ills should be admitted by the courts (ith !reat caution$ #hen it is pro)en, ho(e)er, by proper testimony that a (ill (as e ecuted in duplicate and each copy (as e ecuted (ith all the formalities and re.uirements of the la(, then the duplicate may be admitted in e)idence (hen it is made to appear that the ori!inal has been lost and (as not cancelled or destroyed by the testator$ ;;.) '3si3no ,s. 'A

FA'%(: On October 2,, 1963, Adriana @aloto died lea)in! as heirs her niece and nephe(s, the petitioners Aldina @aloto1Casiano and Constancio, @aloto, and the pri)ate respondents *anfilo @aloto and Felino @aloto$ Eelie)in! that the deceased did not lea)e behind a last (ill and testament, these four heirs commenced on 7o)ember ', 1963 an intestate proceedin! for the settlement of their aunt6s estate in the CF0 of 0loilo$ #hile the case (as still pendin! the parties K Aldina, Constancio, *anfilo, and Felino K e ecuted an a!reement of e tra>udicial settlement of Adriana6s estate$ The a!reement pro)ided for the di)ision of the estate into four e.ual parts amon! the parties$ The @alotos then presented the e tra>udicial settlement a!reement to the trial court for appro)al (hich the court did on @arch 21, 196'$ 3 years later, Atty$ Sulpicio *alma, a former associate of Adriana6s counsel, the late Atty$ -liseo %er)as, disco)ered a document entitled =IATA*CSA7 7DA *ADECEC"AT1A7 4Testamento5,= dated &anuary 3,19',, and purportin! to be the last (ill and testament of Adriana$ Atty$ *alma claimed to ha)e found the testament, the ori!inal copy, (hile he (as !oin! throu!h some materials inside the cabinet dra(er formerly used by Atty$ %er)as$ The document (as submitted to the cler2 of court of the 0loilo CF0$ 0ncidentally, (hile *anfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said (ill, Aldina and Constancio are be.ueathed much bi!!er and more )aluable shares in the estate of Adriana than (hat they recei)ed by )irtue of the a!reement of e tra>udicial settlement they had earlier si!ned$ The (ill li2e(ise !i)es de)ises and le!acies to other parties, amon! them bein! the petitioners Asilo de @olo, the ?oman Catholic Church of @olo, and *urificacion @iraflor$ Aldina and Constancio, >oined by the other de)isees and le!atees named in the (ill, filed in the same court (hich appro)ed the -& settelement a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedin!s therein and for the allo(ance of the (ill (hich (as denied by the CF0$ Cpon petition to the SC for certiorari and mandamus, the SC dismissed that petition and ad)ised that a separate proceedin! for the probate of the alle!ed (ill (ould be the appropriate )ehicle to thresh out the matters raised by the petitioners$ The CF0 and CA found that the (ill to be probated had been re)o2ed by the burnin! thereof by the housemaid upon instruction of the testatri $ I(()E: #L7 the (ill (as re)o2ed by Adriana$ -ELD: 7o$ The pro)isions of the ne( Ci)il Code pertinent to the issue can be found in Article +3,$ The physical act of destruction of a (ill, li2e burnin! in this case, does not per se constitute an effecti)e re)ocation, unless the destruction is coupled (ith animus revo andi on the part of the testator$ 0t is not imperati)e that the physical destruction be done by the testator himself$ 0t may be performed by

another person but under the express dire tion and in the presen e of the testator$ Of course, it !oes (ithout sayin! that the document destroyed must be the (ill itself$ =Animus revo andi: is only one of the necessary elements for the effecti)e re)ocation of a last (ill and testament$ The intention to re)o2e must be accompanied by the o)ert physical act of burnin!, tearin!, obliteratin!, or cancellin! the (ill carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his e press direction$ There is paucity of e)idence to sho( compliance (ith these re.uirements$ For one, the document or papers burned by Adriana6s maid, Duadalupe, (as not satisfactorily established to be a (ill at all, much less the (ill of Adriana @aloto$ For another, the burnin! (as not pro)en to ha)e been done under the e press direction of Adriana$ And then, the burnin! (as not in her presen e$ Eoth (itnesses, Duadalupe and -ladio, (ere one in statin! that they (ere the only ones present at the place (here the sto)e 4presumably in the 2itchen5 (as located in (hich the papers proffered as a (ill (ere burned$ The t(o (itnesses (ere illiterate and does not appear to be une.ui)ocably positi)e that the document burned (as indeed Adriana6s (ill$ Duadalupe belie)ed that the papers she destroyed (as the (ill only because, accordin! to her, Adriana told her so$ -ladio, on the other hand, obtained his information that the burned document (as the (ill because Duadalupe told him so, thus, his testimony on this point is double hearsay$ 0t is an important matter of public interest that a purported (in is not denied le!ali/ation on dubious !rounds$ Other(ise, the )ery institution of testamentary succession (ill be sha2en to its )ery foundations$ ;#.) $olo ,s. $olo

FA'%( @ariano @olo y "e!aspi died on &anuary 2', 19'1, in the municipality of *asay, pro)ince of ?i/al, (ithout lea)in! any forced heir either in the descendin! or ascendin! line$ %e (as sur)i)ed, ho(e)er, by his (ife, the herein petitioner &uana &uan 9da$ de @olo, and by his nieces and nephe(, the oppositors1appellants, "u/, Dliceria and Cornelio, all surnamed @olo, (ho (ere the le!itimate children of Candido @olo y "e!aspi, deceased brother of the testator$ @ariano @olo y "e!aspi lef t t8o 8ills, one e ecuted on Au!ust 1:, 191+, and another e ecuted on &une 2,, 1939$ T%- "ATT-? #0"" CO7TA07S A C"ACS#%0C% -O*?-SS"B ?-9OI-S T%- #0"" -O-CCT-A 07 191+$ On February :, 19'1, &uana &uan 9da$ de @olo filed in the Court of First 0nstance of ?i/al a petition, see2in! the probate of the (ill e ecuted by the deceased on &une 2,, 1939$ There bein! no opposition, the (ill (as probated$ %o(e)er, upon petition filed by the herein oppositors, the order of the court admittin! the (ill to probate (as set aside and the case (as reopened$ After hearin!, at (hich both parties presented their e)idence, the court rendered decision 6en=ing t0e 9ro:3te o7 s3i6 8ill on t0e groun6 t03t t0e 9etitioner 73ile6 to 9ro,e t03t t0e s3+e 83s e.e4ute6 in 344or63n4e 8it0 l38. 0n )ie( of the disallo(ance of the (ill e ecuted on &une 2,, 1939, the (ido( on February 2', 19'', 7ile6 3not0er 9etition 7or t0e 9ro:3te o7 t0e 8ill e.e4ute6 := t0e 6e4e3se6 on August 17! 1 18 , in the same court$ A!ain, the same oppositors filed an opposition to the petition based on three !rounds< 415 that petitioner is no( estopped from see2in! the probate of the (ill of 191+3 425 that said (ill has not been e ecuted in the manner re.uired by la( and 435 that the (ill has been subse.uently re)o2ed$

I(()E #O7 the declaration of nullity of a subse.uent (ill by the probate court 4the 1939 (ill in this case, (hich purports to re)o2e the 191+ (ill5 (ould ha)e the effect of resurrectin! the prior (ill$

-ELD B-S This is the AOCT?07- OF A-*-7A-7T ?-"AT09- ?-9OCAT0O7$ The failure of the ne( testamentary disposition, upon (hose )alidity the re)ocation depends, is e.ui)alent to the non1fulfillment of a suspensi)e condition, and %-7C- *?-9-7TS T%- ?-9OCAT0O7 OF T%- O?0D07A" #0""$ Eut a mere intent to ma2e at some time a (ill in place of that destroyed (ill not render the destruction conditional$ 0t must appear that the re)ocation is dependent upon the )alid e ecution of a ne( (ill$= A subse.uent (ill, containin! a clause re)o2in! a pre)ious (ill, ha)in! been disallo(ed, for the reason that it (as not e ecuted in conformity (ith the pro)isions of section 61+ of the Code of Ci)il *rocedure as to the ma2in! of (ills, cannot produce the effect of annullin! the pre)ious (ill, inasmuch as said re)ocatory clause is )oid 4Samson )s$ 7a)al, '1 *hil$, +3+5$$ T%- T%-O?B O7 #%0C% T%0S *?07C0*"- 0S *?-A0CAT-A 0S T%AT T%- T-STATO? A0A 7OT 07T-7A TO A0- 07T-STAT-$ A7A T%0S 07T-7T0O7 0S C"-A?"B @A70F-ST #%-7 %- -O-CCT-A T#O #0""S O7 T#O A0FF-?-7T OCCAS0O7S A7A 07ST0TCT-A %0S #0F- AS %0S C709-?SA" %-0?$ T%-?- CA7 T%-?-FO?- E- 7O @0STAI- AS TO %0S 07T-7T0O7 OF AB07D T-STAT-$ #e find the same opinion in the American "a( ?eports, Annotated, edited in 1939$ On pa!e 1',,, 9olume 123, there appear many authorities on the =application of rules (here second (ill is in)alid=, amon! (hich a typical one is the follo(in!< =0t is uni)ersally a!reed that (here the second (ill is in)alid on account of not bein! e ecuted in accordance (ith the pro)isions of the statute, or (here the testator has not sufficient mental capacity to ma2e a (ill or the (ill is procured throu!h undue influence, or the such, in other (ords, (here the second (ill is really no (ill, it does not re)o2e the first (ill or affect it in any manner$= @ort )s$ Ea2er Cni)ersity 4193;5 229 @o$ App$, 632, :+ S$ #$ 42d5, '9+$= These treatise cannot be mista2en$ They uphold the )ie( on (hich the rulin! in the Samson case is predicated$ They reflect the opinion that this rulin! is sound and !ood and for this reason (e see no >ustification for abandonin! it as no( su!!ested by counsel for the oppositors$ Drantin! for the sa2e of ar!ument that the earlier (ill (as )oluntarily destroyed by the testator after the e ecution of the second (ill, (hich re)o2ed the first, could there be any doubt, under this theory, that said earlier (ill (as destroyed by the testator in the honest belief that it (as no lon!er necessary because he had e pressly re)o2ed it in his (ill of 1939F 0n other (ords, can (e not say that the destruction of the earlier (ill (as but the necessary conse.uence of the testator6s belief that the re)ocatory clause contained in the subse.uent (ill (as )alid and the latter (ould be !i)en effectF 0f such is the case, then it is our opinion that the earlier (ill can still be admitted to probate under the principle of =dependent relati)e re)ocation=$ =T%0S AOCT?07- 0S I7O#7 AS T%AT OF A-*-7A-7T ?-"AT09- ?-9OCAT0O7, A7A 0S CSCA""B A**"0-A #%-?- T%- T-STATO? CA7C-"S O? A-ST?OBS A #0"" O? -O-CCT-S A7 07ST?C@-7T 07T-7A-A TO ?-9OI- A #0"" #0T% A *?-S-7T 07T-7T0O7 TO @AI- A 7-# T-STA@-7TA?B A0S*OS0T0O7 AS A SCEST0TCT- FO? T%- O"A, A7A T%- 7-# A0S*OS0T0O7 0S 7OT @AA- O?, 0F @AA-, FA0"S OF -FF-CT FO? SO@- ?-ASO7$ T%- AOCT?07- 0S 7OT "0@0T-A TO T%- -O0ST-7C- OF SO@- OT%-? AOCC@-7T, %O#-9-?, A7A %AS E--7 A**"0-A

#%-?- A #0"" #AS A-ST?OB-A AS A CO7S-MC-7C- OF A @0STAI- OF "A# $ $ $$= 46+ C$ &$<$ :995$ =The rule is established that (here the act of destruction is connected (ith the ma2in! of another (ill so as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant the re)ocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of the ne( disposition intended to be substituted, the re)ocation (ill be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the ne( disposition3 and if, for any reason, the ne( (ill intended to be made as a substitute is inoperati)e, the re)ocation fails and the ori!inal (ill remains in full force$= 4Dardner, pp$ 232, 233$5 =This is the doctrine of dependent relati)e re)ocation$ The failure of the ne( testamentary disposition, upon (hose )alidity the re)ocation depends, is e.ui)alent to the non1fulfillment of a suspensi)e condition, and hence pre)ents the re)ocation of the ori!inal (ill$ Eut a mere intent to ma2e at some time a (ill in place of that destroyed (ill not render the destruction conditional$ 0t must appear that the re)ocation is dependent upon the )alid e ecution of a ne( (ill$= 41 Ale ander, p$ :;13 Dardner, p$ 233$5 #e hold, therefore, that e)en in the supposition that the destruction of the ori!inal (ill by the testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to produce it in court, such destruction cannot ha)e the effect of defeatin! the prior (ill of 191+ because of the fact that it is founded on the mista2en belief that the (ill of 1939 has been )alidly e ecuted and (ould be !i)en due effect$

;".) De Bor@3 ,s. De Bor@3 > 9le3se re7er to 43se no. 1# t0en 399l= ruling ? 1

)6.* +an ,. -a. FA'%(: Felicidad Bap died of a heart failure, lea)in! properties in *ulilan, Eulacan, and in @anila$ Fausto -$ Dan, her nephe(, initiated the proceedin!s in the @anila CF0 (ith a petition for the probate of a holo!raphic (ill alle!edly e ecuted by the deceased$ The (ill (as not presented because Felicidad8s husband, 0ldefonso, supposedly too2 it$ #hat (as presented (ere (itness accounts of relati)es (ho 2ne( of her intention to ma2e a (ill and alle!edly sa( it as (ell$ Accordin! to the (itnesses, Felicidad did not (ant her husband to 2no( about it, but she had made 2no(n to her other relati)es that she made a (ill$ Opposin! the petition, her sur)i)in! husband 0ldefonso Bap asserted that the deceased had not left any (ill, nor e ecuted any testament durin! her lifetime$ After hearin! the parties and considerin! their e)idence, the &ud!e refused to probate the alle!ed (ill on account of the discrepancies arisin! from the facts$ For one thin!, it is stran!e that Felicidad made her (ill 2no(n to so many of her relati)es (hen she (anted to 2eep it a secret and she (ould not ha)e carried it in her purse in the hospital, 2no(in! that her husband may ha)e access to it$ There (as also no e)idence presented that her niece (as her confidant$ 0n the face of these improbabilities, the trial >ud!e had to accept the oppositor8s e)idence that Felicidad did not and could not ha)e e ecuted such holo!raphic (ill$ I(()E: 1$ @ay a holo!raphic (ill be probated upon the testimony of (itnesses (ho ha)e alle!edly seen it and (ho declare that it (as in the hand(ritin! of the testatorF 2$ #L7 Felicidad could ha)e e ecuted the holo!raphic (ill$ -ELD:

1$ 7o$ The (ill must be presented$ The 7e( Ci)il Code effecti)e in 19;, re)i)ed holo!raphic (ills in its arts$ +1,1+1'$ =A person may e ecute a holo!raphic (ill (hich must be entirely (ritten, dated, and si!ned by the hand of the testator himself$ 0t is sub>ect to no other form and may be made in or out of the *hilippines, and need not be (itnessed$= This is a radical departure from the form and solemnities pro)ided for (ills under Act 19,, (hich for fifty years 4from 19,1 to 19;,5 re.uired (ills to be subscribed by the testator and three credible (itnesses in each and e)ery pa!e3 such (itnesses to attest to the number of sheets used and to the fact that the testator si!ned in their presence and that they si!ned in the presence of the testator and of each other$ Authenticity and due e ecution is the dominant re.uirements to be fulfilled (hen such (ill is submitted to the courts for allo(ance$ For that purpose the testimony of one of the subscribin! (itnesses (ould be sufficient if there is no opposition 4Sec$ ;, ?ule ::5$ 0f there is, the three must testify, if a)ailable$ From the testimony of such (itnesses 4and of other additional (itnesses5 the court may form its opinion as to the !enuineness and authenticity of the testament, and the circumstances its due e ecution$ #ith re!ard to holo!raphic (ills, no such !uaranties of truth and )eracity are demanded, since as stated, they need no (itnesses3 pro)ided ho(e)er, that they are =entirely (ritten, dated, and si!ned by the hand of the testator himself$= G0n the probate of a holo!raphic (ill= says the 7e( Ci)il Code, =it shall be necessary that at least one (itness (ho 2no(s the hand(ritin! and si!nature of the testator e plicitly declare that the (ill and the si!nature are in the hand(ritin! of the testator$ 0f the (ill is contested, at least three such (itnesses shall be re.uired$ 0n the absence of any such (itnesses, 4familiar (ith decedent6s hand(ritin!5 and if the court deem it necessary, e pert testimony may be resorted to$= The (itnesses need not ha)e seen the e ecution of the holo!raphic (ill, but they must be familiar (ith the decedent8s hand(ritin!$ Ob)iously, (hen the (ill itself is not submitted, these means of opposition, and of assessin! the e)idence are not a)ailable$ And then the only !uaranty of authenticity K the testator6s hand(ritin! K has disappeared$ The ?ules of Court, 4?ule ::5 appro)ed in 19', allo( proof 4and probate5 of a lost or destroyed (ill by secondary K e)idence the testimony of (itnesses, in lieu of the ori!inal document$ Bet such ?ules could not ha)e contemplated holo!raphic (ills (hich could not then be )alidly made here$ Could ?ule :: be e tended, by analo!y, to holo!raphic (illsF 47O5 Spanish commentators a!ree that one of the !reatest ob>ections to the holo!raphic (ill is that it may be lost or stolen K an implied admission that such loss or theft renders it useless$ As it is uni)ersally admitted that the holo!raphic (ill is usually done by the testator and by himself alone, to pre)ent others from 2no(in! either its e ecution or its contents, the abo)e article 692 could not ha)e the idea of simply permittin! such relati)es to state (hether they 2no( of the (ill, but (hether in the face of the document itself they thin2 the testator (rote it$ Ob)iously, this they can6t do unless the (ill itself is presented to the Court and to them$ This holdin! ali!ns (ith the ideas on holo!raphic (ills in the Fuero &u/!o, admittedly the basis of the Spanish Ci)il Code pro)isions on the matter$4Accordin! to the Fuero, the (ill itself must be compared (ith specimens of the testators hand(ritin!$5 All of (hich can only mean< the courts (ill not distribute the property of the deceased in accordance (ith his holo!raphic (ill, unless they are sho(n his hand(ritin! and si!nature$ Ta2in! all the abo)e circumstances to!ether, (e reach the conclusion that the e ecution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holo!raphic (ill may not be pro)ed by the bare testimony of (itnesses (ho ha)e seen andLor read such (ill$ At this point, before proceedin! further, it mi!ht be con)enient to e plain (hy, unli2e holo!raphic (ills, ordinary (ills may be pro)ed by testimonial e)idence (hen lost or destroyed$ The difference lies in the nature of the (ills$ 0n the first, the only !uarantee of authenticity is the hand(ritin! itself3 in the second, the testimony of the subscribin! or instrumental (itnesses 4and of the notary, no(5$ The loss of the holo!raphic (ill entails the loss of the only medium of proof3 if the ordinary (ill is lost, the subscribin! (itnesses are a)ailable to authenticate$ 0n the case of ordinary (ills, it is .uite hard to con)ince three (itnesses 4four (ith the notary5 deliberately to lie$ And then their lies could be chec2ed and e posed, their (hereabouts and acts on the particular day, the li2elihood that they (ould be called by the testator, their intimacy (ith the testator, etc$ And if they (ere intimates or trusted friends of the testator they are not li2ely to end

themsel)es to any fraudulent scheme to distort his (ishes$ "ast but not least, they can not recei)e anythin! on account of the (ill$ #hereas in the case of holo!raphic (ills, if oral testimony (ere admissible only one man could en!ineer the fraud this (ay< after ma2in! a cle)er or passable imitation of the hand(ritin! and si!nature of the deceased, he may contri)e to let three honest and credible (itnesses see and read the for!ery3 and the latter, ha)in! no interest, could easily fall for it, and in court they (ould in all !ood faith affirm its !enuineness and authenticity$ The (ill ha)in! been lost K the for!er may ha)e purposely destroyed it in an =accident= K the oppositors ha)e no (ay to e pose the tric2 and the error, because the document itself is not at hand$ And considerin! that the holo!raphic (ill may consist of t(o or three pa!es, and only one of them need be si!ned, the substitution of the unsi!ned pa!es, (hich may be the most important ones, may !o undetected$ 0f testimonial e)idence of holo!raphic (ills be permitted, one more ob>ectionable feature K feasibility of for!ery K (ould be added to the se)eral ob>ections to this 2ind of (ills listed by Castan, Sanche/ ?oman and 9al)erde and other (ell12no(n Spanish Commentators and teachers of Ci)il "a($ One more fundamental difference< in the case of a lost (ill, the three subscribin! (itnesses (ould be testifyin! to a fact (hich they sa(, namely the act of the testator of subscribin! the (ill3 (hereas in the case of a lost holo!raphic (ill, the (itnesses (ould testify as to their opinion of the hand(ritin! (hich they alle!edly sa(, an opinion (hich can not be tested in court, nor directly contradicted by the oppositors, because the hand(ritin! itself is not at hand$ 0n fine, e)en if oral testimony (ere admissible to establish and probate a lost holo!raphic (ill, (e thin2 the e)idence submitted by herein petitioner is so tainted (ith improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that =clear and distinct= proof re.uired by ?ule ::, sec$ 6$ 2$ 7o$ -)en if oral testimony (ere admissible to establish and probate a lost holo!raphic (ill, (e thin2 the e)idence submitted by herein petitioner is so tainted (ith improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that =clear and distinct= proof re.uired by ?ule ::, sec$ 6$ )7.* Rodelas ,. Aran/a FA'%(: ?odelas filed a petition (ith the CF0 of ?i/al for the probate of the holo!raphic (ill of ?icardo E$ Eonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her fa)or$ Aran/a, et al$ filed a @TA on the !rounds of< 1$ ?odelas (as estopped from claimin! that the deceased left a (ill by failin! to produce the (ill (ithin t(enty days of the death of the testator as re.uired by ?ule :;, section 2 of the ?ules of Court3 2$ the copy of the alle!ed holo!raphic (ill did not contain a disposition of property after death and (as not intended to ta2e effect after death, and therefore it (as not a (ill, it (as merely an instruction as to the mana!ement and impro)ement of the schools and colle!es founded by the decedent3 3$ the hollo!raphic (ill itself, and not an alle!ed copy thereof, must be produced, other(ise it (ould produce no effect because lost or destroyed holo!raphic (ills cannot be pro)ed by secondary e)idence unli2e ordinary (ills '$ the deceased did not lea)e any (ill, holo!raphic or other(ise, e ecuted and attested as re.uired by la($ @TA (as denied$ Aran/a et al$ filed an @?, ?odelas filed an opposition$ The CF0 set aside its order and dismissed the petition for the probate of the (ill statin! that Gin the case of Dam )s$ Bap, 1,' *hil$ ;,9, ;22, the Supreme Court held that 6in the matter of holo!raphic (ills the la(, it is reasonable to suppose, re!ards the document itself as the material proof of authenticity of said (ills$H And that the alle!ed holo!raphic (ill (as e ecuted on &anuary 2;, 1962 (hile ?icardo E$ Eonilla died on @ay 13, 19:6$ The lapse of more than 1' years from the time of the e ecution of the (ill to the death of the decedent and the fact that the ori!inal of the (ill could not be located sho(s to that the decedent had discarded the alle!ed holo!raphic (ill before his death$ ?odelas filed an @? (hich (as denied$ ?odelas appealed to the CA$ Aran/a et al$ mo)ed to for(ard the case to the SC as it in)ol)es a .uestion of la( not of fact$

I(()E: #L7 a holo!raphic (ill (hich (as lost or cannot be found can be pro)ed by means of a photostatic copy$ -ELD: 0f the holo!raphic (ill has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is a)ailable, the (ill cannot be probated because the best and only e)idence is the hand(ritin! of the testator in said (ill$ 0t is necessary that there be a comparison bet(een sample hand(ritten statements of the testator and the hand(ritten (ill$ Eut, a photostatic copy or ero copy of the holo!raphic (ill may be allo(ed because comparison can be made by the probate court (ith the standard (ritin!s of the testator$ The probate court (ould be able to determine the authenticity of the hand(ritin! of the testator$ 0n the case of Dam )s$ Bap, 1,' *%0"$ ;,9, the Court ruled that =the e ecution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holo!raphic (ill may not be pro)ed by the bare testimony of (itnesses (ho ha)e seen andLor read such (ill$ The (ill itself must be presented3 other(ise, it shall produce no effect$ The la( re!ards the document itself as material proof of authenticity$= Eut, in Footnote + of said decision, it says that =*erhaps it may be pro)ed by a photo!raphic or photostatic copy$ -)en a mimeo!raphed or carbon copy3 or by other similar means, if any, (hereby the authenticity of the hand(ritin! of the deceased may be e hibited and tested before the probate court,= ;8.) A<AOLA , (ING(ON FA'%( 1 This case in)ol)es the determination of the .uantity of e)idence re.uired for the probate of a holo!raphic (ill$ 1 September 9, 19;:< Fortunata S$ 9da$ de Bance died3 Francisco A/aola, petitioner herein for probate, submitted the said holo!raphic (ill (hereby @aria Alila!ros A/aola (as made the sole heir as a!ainst the nephe( of the deceased Cesario Sin!son 4respondent5$ 1 Francisco A/aola testified that he sa( the holo!raphic (ill a month, more or less, before the death of the testatri , as the same (as handed to him and his (ife3 0e 3lso testi7ie6 t03t 0e re4ogniAe6 3ll t0e sign3tures 399e3ring in t0e 0ologr390i4 8ill 3s t0e 03n68riting o7 t0e test3tri. $ 1 Additional e)idence< residence certificates to sho( the si!natures of the testatri for comparison purposes$ A/aola testified that the penmanship appearin! in the said documentary e)idence is in the hand(ritin! of the testatri as (ell as the si!natures appearin! therein are the si!natures of the testatri 4as contained in the steno!raphic notes5$ 1 The probate (as denied on the !round that under Article +11 of the Ci)il Code, the proponent must present three (itnesses (ho could declare that the (ill and the si!nature are in the (ritin! of the testatri , the probate bein! contested$ The lone (itness presented by the proponent =did not pro)e sufficiently that the body of the (ill (as (ritten in the hand(ritin! of the testatri $H 0SSC-< #L7 Article +11 of the Ci)il Code is mandatory or permissi)e$ %-"A<

Article +111 is merely permissi)e and not mandatory$ Since the authenticity of the (ill (as not contested, petitioner (as not re.uired to produce more than one (itness3 but e)en if the !enuineness of the holo!raphic (ill (ere contested, Article +11 can not be interpreted to re.uire the compulsory presentation of three (itnesses to identify the hand(ritin! of the testator, under penalty of ha)in! the probate denied$ Since no (itness may ha)e been present at the e ecution of a holo!raphic (ill, none bein! re.uired by la( 4Art$ +1,, ne( Ci)il Code5, it becomes ob)ious that the e istence of (itness possessin! the re.uisite .ualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent$ For it is not merely a .uestion of findin! and producin! any three (itnesses3 they must be (itnesses =(ho 2no( the hand(ritin! and si!nature of the testator= and (ho can declare 4truthfully, of course, e)en if the la( does not so e press5 =that the (ill and the si!nature are in the hand(ritin! of the testator=$ There may be no a)ailable (itness of the testator6s hand3 or e)en if so familiari/ed, the (itnesses may be un(illin! to !i)e a positi)e opinion$ Compliance (ith the rule of para!raph 1 of Article +11 may thus become an impossibility$ This is the reason (hy the 2nd para!raph of Article +11 allo(s the court to resort to e pert e)idence$ The la( foresees the possibility that no .ualified (itness may be found 4or (hat amounts to the same thin!, that no competent (itness may be (illin! to testify to the authenticity of the (ill5, and pro)ides for resort to e pert e)idence to supply the deficiency$ #hat the la( deems essential is that the court should be con)inced of the (ill6s authenticity$ #here the prescribed number of (itnesses is produced and the court is con)inced by their testimony that the (ill is !enuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call for e pert e)idence$ On the other hand, if no competent (itness is a)ailable, or none of those produced is con)incin!, the Court may still, and in fact it should, resort to hand(ritin! e perts$ The duty of the Court, in fine, is to e haust all a)ailable lines of in.uiry, for the state is as much interested as the proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect$ ) .* Codoy ,. Calugay

FA'%(: On 6 April 199,, -)an!eline Calu!ay, &osephine Salcedo and -ufemia *ati!as, de)isees and le!atees of the holo!raphic (ill of the deceased @atilde SeNo 9da$ de ?amonal, filed a petition for probate of the said (ill$ They attested to the !enuineness and due e ecution of the (ill on 3, Au!ust 19:+$ -u!enio ?amonal Codoy and @anuel ?amonal filed their opposition claimin! that the (ill (as a for!ery and that the same is e)en ille!ible$ They raised doubts as re!ards the repeated appearin! on the (ill after e)ery disposition, callin! the same out of the ordinary$ 0f the (ill (as in the hand(ritin! of the deceased, it (as improperly procured$ -)an!eline Calu!ay, etc$ presented 6 (itnesses and )arious documentary e)idence$ The first (itness (as the 4lerG o7 4ourt of the probate court (ho produced and identified the records of the case bearin! the si!nature of the deceased$ The second (itness (as ele4tion registr3r (ho (as made to produce and identify the )oter8s affida)it, but failed to as the same (as already destroyed and no lon!er a)ailable$ The third, the 6e4e3se6Hs nie4e, claimed that she had ac.uired familiarity (ith the deceased8s si!nature and hand(ritin! as she used to accompany her in collectin! rentals from her )arious tenants of commercial buildin!s and the deceased al(ays issued receipts$ The niece also testified that the deceased left a holo!raphic (ill entirely (ritten, dated and si!ned by said deceased$

A?T$ +11$ 0n the probate of a holo!raphic (ill, it shall be necessary that at least one (itness (ho 2no(s the hand(ritin! and si!nature of the testator e plicitly declare that the (ill and the si!nature are in the hand(ritin! of the testator$ 0f the (ill is contested, at least three of such (itnesses shall be re.uired$ 0n the absence of any competent (itnesses referred to in the precedin! para!raph, and if the court deems it necessary, e pert testimony may be resorted to$ 4691a5

The fourth (itness (as a 7or+er l38=er for the deceased in the intestate proceedin!s of her late husband, (ho said that the si!nature on the (ill (as similar to that of the deceased but that he can not be sure$ The fifth (as an e+9lo=ee o7 t0e DENR (ho testified that she (as familiar (ith the si!nature of the deceased (hich appeared in the latter8s application for pasture permit$ The fifth, res9on6ent E,3ngeline '3lug3=, claimed that she had li)ed (ith the deceased since birth (here she had become familiar (ith her si!nature and that the one appearin! on the (ill (as !enuine$ Codoy and ?amonal8s demurrer to e)idence (as !ranted by the lo(er court$ 0t (as re)ersed on appeal (ith the Court of Appeals (hich !ranted the probate$ I(()E(: 1$ #L7 Article +11 of the Ci)il Code, pro)idin! that at least three (itnesses e plicitly declare the si!nature in a contested (ill as the !enuine si!nature of the testator, is mandatory or directory$ 2$ #hether or not the (itnesses sufficiently establish the authenticity and due e ecution of the deceased8s holo!raphic (ill$ -ELD: 1$ B-S$ The (ord GshallH connotes a mandatory order, an imperati)e obli!ation and is inconsistent (ith the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the (ord GshallH, (hen used in a statute, is mandatory$ 0n the case at bar, the !oal to be achie)ed by the la(, is to !i)e effect to the (ishes of the deceased and the e)il to be pre)ented is the possibility that unscrupulous indi)iduals (ho for their benefit (ill employ means to defeat the (ishes of the testator$ The paramount consideration in the present petition is to determine the true intent of the deceased$ 2$ 7O$ #e cannot be certain that the holo!raphic (ill (as in the hand(ritin! of the deceased$ The cler2 of court (as not presented to declare e plicitly that the si!nature appearin! in the holo!raphic (ill (as that of the deceased$ The election re!istrar (as not able to produce the )oter8s affida)it for )erification as it (as no lon!er a)ailable$ The deceased8s niece sa( pre1prepared receipts and letters of the deceased and did not declare that she sa( the deceased si!n a document or (rite a note$ The (ill (as not found in the personal belon!in!s of the deceased but (as in the possession of the said niece, (ho 2ept the fact about the (ill from the children of the deceased, puttin! in issue her moti)e$ -)an!eline Calu!ay ne)er declared that she sa( the decreased (rite a note or si!n a document$ The former la(yer of the deceased e pressed doubts as to the authenticity of the si!nature in the holo!raphic (ill$ 4As it appears in the fore!oin!, the three1(itness re.uirement (as not complied (ith$5 A )isual e amination of the holo!raphic (ill con)inces that the stro2es are different (hen compared (ith other documents (ritten by the testator$ The records are re+3n6e6 to allo( the oppositors to adduce e)idence in support of their opposition$ The ob>ect of solemnities surroundin! the e ecution of (ills is to close the door a!ainst bad faith and fraud, to a)oid substitution of (ills and testaments and to !uaranty their truth and authenticity$ Therefore, the la(s on this sub>ect should be interpreted in such a (ay as to attain these primordial ends$ Eut, on the other hand, also one must not lose si!ht of the fact that it is not the ob>ect of the la( to restrain and curtail the e ercise the ri!ht to ma2e a (ill$ %o(e)er, (e cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document bein! ad>ud!ed as the (ill of the testator, (hich is (hy if the holo!raphic (ill is contested, the la( re.uires three (itnesses to declare that the (ill (as in the hand(ritin! of the deceased$ Article +11, para!raph 1$ pro)ides< G0n the probate of a holo!raphic (ill, it shall be necessary that at least one (itness (ho 2no(s the hand(ritin! and si!nature of the testator e plicitly declare that

the (ill and the si!nature are in the hand(ritin! of the testator$ 0f the (ill is contested, at least three of such (itnesses s03ll be re.uired$H The (ord GshallH connotes a mandatory order, an imperati)e obli!ation and is inconsistent (ith the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the (ord GshallH, (hen used in a statute, is mandatory$ 0".* +allanosa ,. Arcangel FA'%(: Florentino %itosis (as a childless (ido(er and (as sur)i)ed by his brother "ito$ 0n his (ill, Florentino be.ueathed his S share in the con>u!al estate to his second (ife, Tecla, and, should Tecla predecease him, as (as the case, his S share (ould be assi!ned to spouses Dallanosa$ *edro Dallanosa (as Tecla8s son by her first marria!e (ho !re( up under the care of Florentino$ %is other properties (ere be.ueathed to his protT!T Adolfo Forta>ada$ Cpon his death, a petition for the probate of his (ill (as (ile$ Opposition (as re!istered by Florentino8s brother, nephe(s and nieces$ After a hearin!, (here the oppositors did not present any e)idence, the &ud!e admitted the (ill to probate$ The testator8s le!al heirs did not appeal from the decree of probate and from the order of partition and distribution$ "ater, the le!al heirs filed a case for reco)ery of 61 parcels of land a!ainst *edro alle!in! that they had been in continuous possession of those lands and prayin! that they be declared o(ners thereof$ *edro mo)ed for a dismissal (hich (as later !ranted by the &ud!e on the !round of res >udicata$ The le!al heirs did not appeal from the order of dismissal$ 1; years after the dismissal of the first ci)il case and 2+ years after the probate of the (ill, the le!al heirs filed a case for Gannulment of the (illH alle!in! fraud and deceit$ The court dismissed said action$ %o(e)er, the court set aside the dismissal after the heirs filed a motion for reconsideration$ %ence, this appeal$ I(()E: #hether the le!al heirs ha)e a cause of action for the GannulmentH of the (ill of Florentino and for the reco)ery of the 61 parcels of land ad>udicated under that (ill to the petitioners$ -ELD: 7O$ The SC held that the lo(er court committed a !ra)e abuse of discretion in settin! aside its order of dismissal and i!norin! the testamentary case and the first ci)il case (hich is the same as the instant case$ 0t is e)ident that second ci)il case is barred by res >udicata and by prescription$ The decree of probate is conclusi)e as to the due e ecution or formal )alidity of the (ill$ That means that the testator (as of sound and disposin! mind at the time he e ecuted the (ill and (as not actin! under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence3 that the (ill (as si!ned by him in the presence of the re.uired number of (itnesses, and that the (ill is !enuine$ Accordin!ly, these facts cannot a!ain be .uestioned in a subse.uent proceedin!, not e)en in a criminal action for the for!ery of the (ill$ After the finality of the allo(ance of a (ill, the issue as to the )oluntariness of its e ecution cannot be raised anymore$ The SC also held that the decree of ad>udication, ha)in! rendered in a proceedin! in rem, is bindin! upon the (hole (orld$ @oreo)er, the dismissal of the first ci)il case, (hich is a >ud!ment in personam, (as an ad>udication on the merits$ Thus$ 0t constitutes a bar by former >ud!ment under the ?ules of Court$ The SC also held that the lo(er court erred in sayin! that the action for the reco)ery of the lands had not prescribed$ The SC ruled that the Art$ 1'1, of 7CC 4the action or defense for the declaration of the ine istence of a contract does not prescribe5 cannot apply to last (ills and testaments$ The ?ules of Court does not sanction an action for GannulmentH of a (ill$ A final decree of probate is conclusi)e as to the due e ecution of the (ill$

A decree of ad>udication in a testate proceedin! is bindin! on the (hole (orld$After the period for see2in! relief from a final order or >ud!ment under ?ule 3+ of the ?ules of court has e pired, a final >ud!ment or order can be set aside only on the !rounds of< 4a5 lac2 of >urisdiction or lac2 of due process of la( or 4b5 that the >ud!ment (as obtained by means of e trinsic or collateral fraud$ 0n the latter case, the period for annullin! the >ud!ment is four 4'5 years from the disco)ery of fraud$ The Ci)il "a( rule that an action for declaration of ine istence of a contract does not prescribe cannot be applied to last (ills and testaments$ 01.* Roberts ,. 1eonidas FA'%(: Drimm, an American resident of @anila, died in 19::$ %e (as sur)i)ed by his second (ife 4@a ine5, their t(o children 4*ete and "inda5, and by his t(o children by a first marria!e 4&uanita and -thel5 (hich ended by di)orce$ Drimm e ecuted t(o (ills in San Francisco, California on &anuary 23, 19;9$ One (ill disposed of his *hilippine estate described as con>u!al property of himself and his second (ife$ The second (ill disposed of his estate outside the *hilippines$ The t(o (ills and a codicil (ere presented for probate in Ctah by @a ine on @arch 19:+$ @a ine admitted that she recei)ed notice of the intestate petition filed in @anila by -thel in &anuary 19:+$ The Ctah Court admitted the t(o (ills and codicil to probate on April 19:+ and (as issued upon consideration of the stipulation bet(een the attorneys for @a ine and -thel$ Also in April 19:+, @a ine and -thel, (ith 2no(led!e of the intestate proceedin! in @anila, entered into a compromise a!reement in Ctah re!ardin! the estate$ As mentioned, in &anuary 19:+, an intestate proceedin! (as instituted by -thel$ On @arch 19:+, @a ine filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate proceedin! on the !round of pendency of the Ctah probate proceedin!s$ She submitted to the court a copy of Drimm8s (ill$ %o(e)er, pursuant to the compromise a!reement, @a ine (ithdre( the opposition and the motion to dismiss$ The court i!nored the (ill found in the record$The estate (as partitioned$ 0n 19+,, @a ine filed a petition prayin! for the probate of the t(o (ills 4already probated in Ctah5, that the partition appro)ed by the intestate court be set aside and the letters of administration re)o2ed, that @a ine be appointed e ecutri and -thel be ordered to account for the properties recei)ed by them and return the same to @a ine$ @a ine alle!ed that they (ere defrauded due to the machinations of -thel, that the compromise a!reement (as ille!al and the intestate proceedin! (as )oid because Drimm died testate so partition (as contrary to the decedent8s (ills$ -thel filed a motion to dismiss the petition (hich (as denied by &ud!e "eonidas for lac2 of merit$ I(()E: #hether the >ud!e committed !ra)e abuse of discretion amountin! to lac2 of >urisdiction in denyin! -thel8s motion to dismiss$ -ELD: #e hold that respondent >ud!e did not commit any !ra)e abuse of discretion, amountin! to lac2 of >urisdiction, in denyin! -thel6s motion to dismiss$ A testate proceedin! is proper in this case because Drimm died (ith t(o (ills and =no (ill shall pass either real or personal property unless it is pro)ed and allo(ed= 4Art$ +3+, Ci)il Code3 sec$ 1, ?ule :;, ?ules of Court5$ The probate of the (ill is mandatory$ 0t is anomalous that the estate of a person (ho died testate should be settled in an intestate proceedin!$ Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated (ith the testate proceedin! and the >ud!e assi!ned to the testate proceedin! should continue hearin! the t(o cases$ 02.* 2e.o%uceno ,. CA FA'%(:

@artin &u!o left a duly e ecuted and notari/ed "ast #ill and Testament before he died$ *etitioner (as named as sole e ecutor$ 0t is clearly stated in the #ill that he (as le!ally married to a certain ?ufina Dome/ by (hom he had t(o le!itimate children, but he had been estran!ed from his la(ful (ife$ 0n fact, the testator @artin &u!o and the petitioner (ere married despite the subsistin! first marria!e$ The testator de)ised the free portion of his estate to petitioner$ On Au!ust 21, 19:', the petitioner filed a petition for probate$ On @ay 13, 19:;, ?ufina Dome/ and her children filed an opposition alle!in! undue and improper influence on the part of the petitioner3 that at the time of the e ecution of the #ill, the testator (as already )ery sic2 and that petitioner ha)in! admitted her li)in! in concubina!e (ith the testator$ The lo(er court denied the probate of the #ill on the !round that as the testator admitted in his #ill to cohabitin! (ith the petitioner$ *etitioner appealed to CA$ On &une 2, 19+2, the respondent court set aside the decision of the Court of First 0nstance of ?i/al denyin! the probate of the (ill$ The respondent court declared the #ill to be )alid e cept that the de)ise in fa)or of the petitioner is null and )oid$ I(()E: #L7 the CA acted in e cess of its >urisdiction (hen after declarin! the last #ill and Testament of the deceased @artin &u!o )alidly dra(n, it (ent on to pass upon the intrinsic )alidity of the testamentary pro)ision$ -ELD: 7o$ The respondent court acted (ithin its >urisdiction (hen after declarin! the #ill to be )alidly dra(n, it (ent on to pass upon the intrinsic )alidity of the #ill and declared the de)ise in fa)or of the petitioner null and )oid$ The !eneral rule is that in probate proceedin!s, the court6s area of in.uiry is limited to an e amination and resolution of the e trinsic )alidity of the #ill$ The rule, ho(e)er, is not infle ible and absolute$ Di)en e ceptional circumstances, the probate court is not po(erless to do (hat the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain pro)isions of the #ill$ The probate of a (ill mi!ht become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically )oid$ #here practical considerations demand that the intrinsic )alidity of the (ill be passed upon, e)en before it is probated, the court should meet the issue 47u!uid )$ 7u!uid5 The #ill is )oid under Article :39$ The follo(in! donations shall be )oid< 415 Those made bet(een persons (ho (ere !uilty of adultery or concubina!e at the time of the donation3 and Article 1,2+$ The prohibitions mentioned in Article :39, concernin! donations inter )i)os shall apply to testamentary pro)isions$ There is no .uestion from the records about the fact of a prior e istin! marria!e (hen @artin &u!o e ecuted his #ill$ The )ery (ordin!s of the #ill in)alidate the le!acy because the testator admitted he (as disposin! the properties to a person (ith (hom he had been li)in! in concubina!e$ #;.) /A(')AL V DELA 'R)< *8 ('RA #*1 RE&E(I $3= ;2! 1 1 FA'%( 1Catalina de la Cru/, sin!le and (ithout any sur)i)in! descendant or ascendant, died$ A petition for the probate of her alle!ed (ill (as filed by Andres *ascual, (ho (as named in the said (ill as e ecutor and sole heir of the decedent$ 1*edro dela Cru/ and 26 other nephe(s and nieces of the late Catalina de la Cru/ contested the )alidity of the (ill on the !rounds that the formalities re.uired by la( (ere not complied (ith3 that the testatri (as mentally incapable of disposin! of her properties by (ill at the time of its e ecution3 that the (ill (as procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner3 and that the si!nature of the testatri (as obtained throu!h fraud$

1probate court upheld the due e ecution of the (ill and appointed Andres *ascual as e ecutor and administrator of the estate, as pro)ided in the (ill, (ithout bond$ Oppositors appealed to SC directly 4)alue of properties in)ol)ed more than *3,,25 -3ela Cru/ et al. clai%4 lo(er court erred in !i)in! credence to the testimonies of the subscribin! (itnesses and the notary that the (ill (as duly e ecuted, not(ithstandin! the e istence of inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies, and in disre!ardin! their e)idence that the (ill (as not si!ned by all the (itnesses in the presence of one another 1CF08s response< alle!ed contradictions and inconsistencies (ere not substantial in nature sufficient to discredit the entire testimony on the due e ecution of the (ill$ *lus lapse of + years from e ecution of the (ill to the testimony in court$ There is unanimity and certainty in their testimony re!ardin! the identity of the si!natures of the testatri , the attestin! (itnesses, and the 7otary *ublic, and the fact that they (ere all present at the time those si!natures (ere affi ed on the document

I(()E( 1$ #O7 the contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by Aela Cru/ (ere substantial as to discredit the entire testimony of the subscribin! (itnesses 2$ #O7 the e ecution of the (ill (as tainted by fraud and undue influence

-ELD 1$ 7O$ Ratio. For the purpose of determinin! the due e ecution of a (ill, it is not necessary that the instrumental (itnesses should !i)e an accurate and detailed account of the proceedin!, such as recallin! the order of the si!nin! of the document by the said (itnesses$ 0t is sufficient that they ha)e seen or at least (ere so situated at the moment that they could ha)e seen each other si!n, had they (anted to do so$ U-state of ,avellana vs. ,avellana; Reasoning. The contradictions and inconsistencies appearin! in the testimonies of the (itnesses and the notary, pointed out by the oppositors1appellants 4such as the (eather condition at the time the (ill (as e ecuted3 the se.uence of the si!nin! by the (itnesses3 and the len!th of time it too2 to complete the act5, relate to unimportant details of the impressions of the (itnesses about certain details (hich could ha)e been affected by the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory, and (hich inconsistencies, by themsel)es, (ould not alter the probati)e )alue of their testimonies on the due e ecution of the (ill -on 3rgu+ent t03t /3s4u3l 83s 7rien6s 8it0 t0e 8itnesses: the (ill (as e ecuted (hen the testatri (as already +3 years old sufferin! from rheumatism, it (as li2ely that she has entrusted the tas2 of re.uestin! the subscribin! (itnesses to (itness in the e ecution of the (ill to Andres *ascual himself$ Althou!h the (itnesses had failed to testify that Catalina as2ed them to (itness her testament 4after + years5, the error of recall is consonant (ith the (ell 2no(n )a!aries of human memory and recollection, particularly since the main detail that must ha)e stuc2 in his minds is that they did (itness the si!nin! of the (ill, upon (hich their attention must ha)e principally concentrated$ That they did so is attested by their si!natures and those of the deceased testatri , (hich are no(here impu!ned3 nor is there any claim by appellants that the latter (as incapable of readin! and understandin! the (ill that she si!ned$ 0n fact, the

e)idence is that she did read it before si!nin!$ The authorities are to the effect that friendly relations of the (itnesses (ith the testator or the beneficiaries do not affect the credibility of the former, so that the pro)en friendship bet(een the proponent and the instrumental (itnesses (ould ha)e no bearin! on the latter6s .ualification to testify on the circumstances surroundin! the si!nin! of the (ill$ 1on t0e 3llege6 t39e-re4or6e6 testi+on= o7 8itness $3nuel 5iong4o Ere4or6e6 8it0out t0e l3tterHs Gno8le6ge) 80erein t0e l3tter 83s su99ose6 to 03,e st3te6 t03t 80en 0e signe6 t0e 8ill t0e ot0er 8itnessesJ sign3tures 8ere 3lre36= 377i.e6! 3n6 8ere not t0en 9resent! 3n6 t03t 0e E5iong4o) signe6 t0e 6o4u+ent in 1 "8 or 1 " : 415 no ade.uate proof that the declarations tape recorded (ere in fact made by &ion!co as he denied that fact under oath, that the tape recordin! (as not supported by truly impartial e)idence, and it (as done (ithout the 2no(led!e of the (itness3 425 0n the 7otarial ?e!istry of the notary, the ratification of the testament appears amon! the entries for 19;', as (ell as in correspondin! copies produced by the 7otarial Section of the Cler2 of Court8s office 4so, assumin! re!ularity in the performance of duty, the document (as indeed e ecuted in 19;', not in 19;+ or 19;95$

2$ 7O$ Ratio. To be sufficient to a)oid a (ill, the influence e erted must be of a 2ind that so o)erpo(ers and sub>u!ates the mind of the testator as to destroy his free a!ency and ma2e him e press the (ill of another rather than his o(n3 that the contention that a (ill (as obtained by undue influence or improper pressure cannot be sustained on mere con>ecture or suspicion, as it is enou!h that there (as opportunity to e ercise undue influence, or a possibility that it may ha)e been e ercised3 that the e ercise of improper pressure and undue influence must be supported by substantial e)idence that it (as actually e ercised3 that the burden is on the person challen!in! the (ill to sho( that such influence (as e erted at the time of its e ecution3 that mere !eneral or reasonable influence is not sufficient to in)alidate a (ill3 nor is moderate and reasonable solicitation and entreaty addressed to the testator3 or omission of relati)es, not forced heirs, e)idence of undue influence Reasoning. Considerin! that testari considered proponent as her o(n son, to the e tent that she e pressed no ob>ection to his bein! made the sole heir of her sister, Florentina Cru/, in dero!ation of her o(n ri!hts, (e find nothin! abnormalin her institutin! proponent also as her o(n beneficiary$ -on 3lleg3tion t03t /3s4u3l :oug0t 3 :uil6ing su99ose6l= 7or t0e test3tri. :ut 9l34e6 t0e title in 0is n3+e! 3n6 +erel= 93inte6 t0ereon t0e n3+e o7 t0e test3tri. to +isle36 t0e 6e4e3se6: if Catalina8s mind (as really sub>u!ated by *ascual, then he had no need to recourse to the deception a)erred$ -on t0e 40oi4e o7 8itnesses: the rheumetism of the testari made it difficult for her to loo2 for all the (itnesses$ That she did not resort to relati)es or friends is, li2e(ise e plainable< it (ould ha)e meant the disclosure of the terms of her (ill to those interested in her succession but (ho (ere not fa)ored by her, thereby e posin! her to unpleasant importunity and recriminations that an a!ed person (ould naturally see2 to a)oid$ The natural desire to 2eep the ma2in! of a (ill secret can, li2e(ise, account for the failure to probate the testament durin! her lifetime$ -on 3lleg3tion t03t /3s4u3l 93rti4i93te6 in t0e e.e4ution o7 t0e 8ill! t0ere7ore! t0ere is 3 9resu+9tion o7 un6ue in7luen4e: althou!h the (ill (as prepared by the nephe( of *ascual, the presumption does not arise for in the normal course of e)ents, said attorney (ould follo( the instructions of the testatri 3 and a member of the bar in !ood standin! may not be con)icted of unprofessional conduct, or of ha)in! conspired to falsify a statement, e cept upon clear proof$

##.) RO(ALE( ,. RO(ALE( 1'+ SC?A 69 DA7CABCO3 February 2:, 19+:

FA'%( 1 *etra ?osales died intestate$ She (as sur)i)ed by her husband Fortunato and their 2 children @a!na and Antonio$ Another child, Carterio, predeceased her, lea)in! behind a child, @aci2e.uero , and his (ido( 0renea, the petitioner$ The estate of the deceased has an estimated !ross )alue of about *3,,,,,$ 1 0n the intestate proceedin!s, the trial court issued an Order declarin! the follo(in! indi)iduals the le!al heirs of the deceased and prescribin! their respecti)e share of the estate< Fortunato 4husband5, 1L'3 @a!na 4dau!hter5, 1L'3 @aci2e.uero 4!randson5, 1L'3 and Antonio 4son5, 1L'$ 1 0renea insisted in !ettin! a share of the estate in her capacity as the sur)i)in! spouse of the late Carterio, son of the deceased, claimin! that she is a compulsory heir of her mother1in1la( to!ether (ith her son, @aci2e.uero $ The trial court denied her plea$ %ence, this petition$

I(()E 1$ #O7 the (ido( (hose husband predeceased his mother can inherit from the latter, her mother1in1la($

-ELD 1$ 7O$ Ratio A sur)i)in! spouse is not an intestate heir of hisLher parent1in1la($ Reasoning 0ntestate or le!al heirs are classified into 2 !roups, namely, those (ho inherit by their o(n ri!ht, and those (ho inherit by the ri!ht of representation$ ?estated, an intestate heir can only inherit either by his o(n ri!ht, as in the order of intestate succession pro)ided for in the CC or by the ri!ht of representation pro)ided for in Art 9+1 of the same la($ 1 The rele)ant pro)isions of the CC are Arts$ 9+,, 9+1, 9+2 and 999$ There is no pro)ision (hich states that a (ido( 4sur)i)in! spouse5 is an intestate heir of her mother1in1la($ The entire Code is de)oid of any pro)ision (hich entitles her to inherit from her mother1in1la( either by her o(n ri!ht or by the ri!ht of representation$ The pro)isions of the Code (hich relate to the order of intestate succession 4Articles 9:+ to 1,1'5 enumerate (ith meticulous e actitude the intestate heirs of a decedent, (ith the State as the final intestate heir$ 0f the le!islature intended to ma2e the sur)i)in! spouse an intestate heir of the parent1 in1la(, it (ould ha)e so pro)ided in the Code$

1 0renea ar!ues that she is a compulsory heir in accordance (ith the pro)isions of Art ++:$ The pro)ision refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in (hich case the sur)i)in! spouse 4(ido( or (ido(er5 is a compulsory heir$ 0t does not apply to the estate of a parent1in1la($ 1 Ey the same to2en, the pro)ision of Art 999 does not support 0renea6s claim$ The estate contemplated in the article is the estate of the deceased spouse$ The sub>ect matter of the intestate estate proceedin!s in this case is that of the deceased *etra ?osales, the mother1in1la( of 0renea$ 0t is from the estate of *etra that @aci2e.uero dra(s a share of the inheritance by the ri!ht of representation as pro)ided by Art 9+1$ 1 Art 9:1 e plicitly declares that @aci2e.uero is called to succession by la( because of his blood relationship$ %e does not succeed his father, Carterio 4the person represented5 (ho predeceased his !randmother, *etra, but the latter (hom his father (ould ha)e succeeded$ 0renea cannot assert the same ri!ht of representation as she has no filiation by blood (ith her mother1in1la($ 1 0renea also contends that at the time of the death of her husband, he had an inchoate or contin!ent ri!ht to the properties of *etra ?osales as compulsory heir$ Ee that as it may, said ri!ht of her husband (as e tin!uished by his death that is (hy it is their son @aci2e.uero (ho succeeded from *etra by ri!ht of representation$ %e did not succeed from his deceased father Carterio$

#".) E$ARINA) DI<ON-RIVERA , DI<ON 33 SC?A ;;' T--%A7I--3 &une 3,, 19:, FA'%( 1 The testatri , A!ripina 9alde/, a (ido(, died and (as sur)i)ed by : compulsory heirs< 6 le!itimate children and a le!itimate !randdau!hter 1 6 of the : compulsory heirs are the oppositors1appellants$ The remainin! 1L: is @arina, the e ecutri 1 appelle 1 0n her (ill, 9alde/ Gcommanded that her property be di)idedH in accordance (ith her testamentary disposition, (hereby she de)ised and be.ueathed specific real properties comprisin! practically the entire bul2 of her estate amon! her si children and ei!ht !randchildren$ 1 the e ecutri filed her pro>ect of partition< The e ecutri filed her pro>ect of partition dated February ;, 196', in substance ad>udicatin! the estate as follo(s< 415 (ith the fi!ure of *129,2;'$96 as le!itime for a basis @arina 4e acultri 1appellee5 and Tomas 4appellant5 are admittedly considered to ha)e recei)ed in the (ill more than their respecti)e le!itime, (hile the rest of the appellants, namely, -stela, Eernardita, An!elina, &osefina and "ilia recei)ed less than their respecti)e le!itime3 425 thus, to each of the latter are ad>udicated the properties respecti)ely !i)en them in the (ill, plus cash andLor properties, to complete their respecti)e le!itimes to *129,2;'$963 435 on the other hand, @arina and Tomas are ad>udicated the properties that they recei)ed in the (ill less the cash andLor properties necessary to complete the pre>udiced le!itime mentioned in number 2 abo)e3 4'5 the ad>udications made in the (ill in fa)or of the !randchildren remain untouched On the other hand oppositors submitted their o(n counter1pro>ect of partition dated February 1', 196', (herein they proposed the distribution of the estate on the follo(in! basis<

4a5 all the testamentary dispositions (ere proportionally reduced to the )alue of one1half of the entire estate, the )alue of the said one1half amountin! to *9,;,;3'$:+3 4b5 the shares of the Oppositors1 Appellants should consist of their le!itime, plus the de)ises in their fa)or proportionally reduced3 4c5 in payment of the total shares of the appellants in the entire estate, the properties de)ised to them plus other properties left by the Testatri andLor cash are ad>udicated to them3 and 4d5 to the !randchildren (ho are not compulsory heirs are ad>udicated the properties respecti)ely de)ised to them sub>ect to reimbursement by Dilbert A$ Darcia, et al$, of the sums by (hich the de)ise in their fa)or should be proportionally reduced$ Cnder the oppositors6 counter1pro>ect of partition, the testamentary disposition made by the testatri of practically her (hole estate of *1,+,1,96,$,1, as abo)e stated, (ere proposed to be reduced to the amounts set forth after the names of the respecti)e heirs and de)isees totallin! one1half thereof as follo(s< 1$ -stela Ai/on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ * '9,'+;$;6 2$ An!elina Ai/on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ;3,'21$'2 3$ Eernardita Ai/on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 26,11;$,' '$ &osefina Ai/on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 26,1;9$3+ ;$ Tomas 9$ Ai/on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 6;,+:'$,' 6$ "ilia Ai/on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 36,2:3$13 :$ @arina Ai/on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ;:6,93+$+2 +$ *ablo ?i)era, &r$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 3',+1'$;, 9$ Drandchildren Dilbert Darcia et al $$$$$$$$$$ 36,';2$+, T o t a l $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ *9,;,;3'$:+ (hile the other half of the estate 4*9,;,;3'$:+5 (ould be deemed as constitutin! the le!itime of the e ecutri 1appellee and oppositors1appellants, to be di)ided amon! them in se)en e.ual parts of *129,362$11 as their respecti)e le!itimes$ 1 The lo(er court sustained and appro)ed the e ecutri 6 pro>ect of partition, rulin! that =4A5rticles 9,6 and 9,: of the 7e( Ci)il Code specifically pro)ide that (hen the le!itime is impaired or pre>udiced, the same shall be completed and satisfied$ #hile it is true that this process has been follo(ed and adhered to in the t(o pro>ects of partition, it is obser)ed that the exe utrix and the oppositors differ in respe t to the sour e from "hi h the portion or portions shall be ta<en in order to fully restore the impaired legitime $ The proposition of the oppositors& if upheld& "ill substantially result in a distribution of intesta y , (hich is in contro)ersion of Article :91 of the 7e( Ci)il Code= addin! that =the testatrix has hosen to favor ertain heirs in her "ill for reasons of her o"n& annot be doubted. 2his is legally permissible "ithin the limitation of the la", as aforecited$= #ith reference to the payment in cash of some *23,,;;2$3+, principally by the e ecutri as the lar!est beneficiary of the (ill to be paid to her fi)e co1heirs, the oppositors 4e cludin! Tomas Ai/on5, to complete their impaired le!itimes, the lo(er court ruled that =4T5he payment in cash so as to ma2e the proper ad>ustment to meet (ith the re.uirements of the la( in respect to le!itimes (hich ha)e been impaired is, in our opinion, a practical and )alid solution in order to !i)e effect to the last (ishes of the testatri $= 1 CO""AT0O7< oppositors in)o2e A1,63 =4*5roperty left by (ill is not deemed sub>ect to collation, if the testator has not other(ise pro)ided, but the le!itime shall in any case remain unimpaired= I(()EK( #O7 A16,3 applies

-ELD 1$ 7O Ratio #hen the testatri has not made any pre)ious donations durin! her lifetime, nor left merely some properties by (ill, collation isn8t necessary to determine the le!itime of each heir$

Reasoning Oppositors6 in)o2in! of Article 1,63 of the Ci)il Code that =4*5roperty left by (ill is not deemed sub>ect to collation, if the testator has not other(ise pro)ided, but the le!itime shall in any case remain unimpaired= and in)o2in! of the construction thereof !i)en by some authorities that =6not deemed sub>ect to collation6 in this article really means not imputable to or char!eable a!ainst the le!itime=, (hile it may ha)e some plausibility 1 in an appropriate case, has no application in the present case$ %ere, (e ha)e a case of a distribution and partition of the entire estate by the testatri , (ithout her ha)in! made any pre)ious donations durin! her lifetime (hich (ould re.uire collation to determine the le!itime of each heir nor ha)in! left merely some properties by (ill (hich (ould call for the application of Articles 1,61 to 1,63 of the Ci)il Code on collation$ The amount of the le!itime of the heirs is here determined and undisputed$ #1.) DE RO$A , 'A E'ARINGAL) 1;2 SC?A 2,; C?CP3 &uly 23, 19+:

FA'%( 1 Candelaria de ?oma had 2 le!ally adopted dau!hters QEuhay and ?osalinda$ She died intestate$ 1 Euhay (as appointed administratri and in due time filed an in)entory of the estate$ This (as opposed by Carin!al 4as !uardian of ?osalinda5 on the !round that certain properties 4: parcels of coconut land (orth 1,25 earlier donated by Candelaria to Euhay, and the fruits thereof, had not been included$ 1 Carin!al claims that these must be collated$ Euhay claims that the decedent prohibited such collation 1 TC ruled in fa)or of petitioner$ CA re)ersed$ 1 Articles relied upon< GA?T$ 1,61$ -)ery compulsory heir, (ho succeeds (ith other compulsory heirs, must brin! into the mass of the estate any property or ri!ht (hich he may ha)e recei)ed from the decedent durin! the lifetime of the latter, by (ay of donation, or any other !ratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the le!itime of each heir, and in the account of the partition$H GA?T$ 1,62$ Collation shall not ta2e place amon! compulsory heirs if the donor should ha)e e pressly so pro)ided, or if the done should repudiate the inheritance, unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious$H 1 *ertinent portions of the deed of donation< G0IA"A#A$ 7a alan!1alan! sa a2in! pa!mamahal, pa!tin!in at pa!sisilbi sa a2in n! a2in! ana2 na si EC%AB A- ?O@A, 2asal 2ay Arabella Castaneda, may 2arampatan! !ulan!, mamamayan! *ilipino at naninirahan at may pahatiran!1sulat din dito sa "unsod n! San *ablo sa pamama!itan n! 2asulatan! ito ay 2usan!1loob 2on! ibinibi!ay, ipina!2a2aloob at inililipat sa naban!!it na EC%AB A- ?O@A, sa 2anyan! m!a 2ahalili at ta!apa!mana, sa pamama!itan n! pa!bibi!ay na di na mababa(in! muli, an! lahat n! m!a la!ay n! lupa na sinasabi sa itaas, sa ilalim n! 2asunduan na n!ayon pa ay siya na an! na!mamay1arin! tunay n! m!a lupan! ito at 2anya nan! maarin! ipalipat an! m!a ho>a declatoria n!

m!a lupan! ito sa 2anyan! pan!alan, datap(a8t samantalan! a2o ay nabubuhay, ay a2o rin an! ma2i2inaban! sa m!a mapuputi at mamomosesion sa m!a nasabin! lupa3 G0IAT"O$ 7a pina!tibay 2o na a2o ay marami pan! iban! m!a pa!1aari sapat pan! a2in! i2abuhay at sa pa!bibi!ay 2on! ito ay hindi masisira an! le!itima n! m!a tao na dapat ma!mana sa a2in, sapa!2at an! m!a lupan! sinasabi sa itaas ay baha!ui n! a2in! 2abuhayan na a2o ay may layan! ipami!ay 2ahit na 2aninon! tao na 2un! ta(a!in ay "0bre Aispocision$H

I(()E #O7 the donated properties are to be collated

-ELD B-S$ Ratio Anythin! less than e press prohibition (ill not suffice under the clear lan!ua!e of Art$ 1,62$ The intention to e empt from collation should be e pressed plainly and une.ui)ocally$ Reasoning CA (as correct in sayin! that there (as no pro)ision prohibitin! collation$ The phrase Gsa pamama!itan n! pa!bibi!ay na din a mababa(in! muliH merely described the donation as irre)ocable$ From the use of the terms Gle!itimeH and Gfree portionH in the deed of donation, it may be concluded that it (as prepared by a la(yer, and that he understood the le!al conse.uences of the donation bein! made$ 0t is reasonable to suppose, !i)en the precise lan!ua!e of the document, that he (ould ha)e included therein an e press prohibition to collate if that (as the donor8s intention$

#7.) LO'(IN , 'A *21 ('RA ;8; NARVA(AI Fe:ru3r= 1 ! 1 *

FA'%( 1@ariano "ocsin and Catalina &aucian 4"ocsin5 (ere a childless married couple$ @ariano e ecuted a (ill$ @ariano "ocsin e ecuted a "ast #ill and Testament institutin! his (ife, Catalina, as the sole and uni)ersal heir of all his properties$

1They had a!reed that their properties,after both of them shall ha)e died should re)ert to their respecti)e sides of the family, i$e$, @ariano6s properties (ould !o to his ="ocsin relati)es= 4i$e$, brothers and sisters or nephe(s and nieces5, and those of Catalina to her =&aucian relati)es

19 years after @ariano8s death, and 2+ years before hers, she started transferrin! by sale or donation, @ariano8s as (ell as her properties$ 1her relati)es (ho already recei)ed their hereditary shares, filed a case for reco)ery of property a!ainst the "ocsins 4(ho recei)ed property durin! Catalina8s lifetime5 alle!in! that the con)eyance (as inofficious, (ithout consideration and intended to circum)ent the la( 1TC ordered the recon)eyance of property$ CA Affirmed

I(()E #O7 the recon)eyance (as proper$

-ELD 7o 1The ri!hts to a person6s successionare transmitted from the moment of his death, and do not )est in his heirs until such time$ *roperty (hich AoNa Catalina had transferred or con)eyed to other persons durin! her lifetime no lon!er formed part of her estate at the time of her death to (hich her heirs may layclaim$ %ad she died intestate, only the property that remained in herestate at the time of her death de)ol)ed to her le!al heirs 1e)en if those transfers (ere, one and all, treated as donations, the ri!ht arisin! under certain circumstances to impu!n and compel the reduction or re)ocation of a decedent6s !ifts inter )i)os does not inure to the respondents since neither they nor the donees are compulsory 4or forced5 heirs 1in addition to this, both the TC and CA put much (ei!ht on the fact that AoNa Catalina (as already 9, years old (hen she died on &uly 6, 19::$ 0t insinuated that because of her ad)anced years she may ha)e been imposed upon, or unduly influenced and morally pressured by her husband6s nephe(s and nieces4the petitioners5 to transfer to them the properties (hich she had inherited from Aon @ariano6s estate$ 1this is not supported for as early as 2+ yrs before her death, she started such dispositions not only to @ariano8s side but also to hers$