LOPEZ V GONZAGA

Soledad Gonzaga Vda. de Ferrer died intestate w/o any issue. She was survived
by the plaintiffs, her brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces. During her lifetime,
she expressed that as long as Luis Gonzaga (brother) was engaged in his
coconut oil experimentation he could use the products and rentals of her
properties in furtherance of his experiments. However, that the said scientific
venture by the said defendant was discontinued when be became totally blind.
Thus, plaintiffs now ask a partition of the estate and the cancellation of titles of
lands allegedly fraudulently transferred by, and in the name of, the defendant.
Gonzaga filed MTD but was denied. Defendants repleaded a denial as to the
intestacy of the deceased, and alleging, among others, that a will of Soledad
Gonzaga Vda. de Ferrer instituted Luis Gonzaga as the sole heir to her entire
estate, and that the will was duly allowed and probated. TC allowed the will to
be probated. Atty. Del Rosario, testified that the records of the probate court of
Iloilo were discovered by her among the records of the cadastral court in
Negros Occidental. Due to the destruction of the court and property records of
Iloilo as a result of the last war, no will or probate order was produced, and
neither were attested copies registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds
other than those previously copied in this opinion.
HELD:
The order of adjudication is the judicial recognition that in appointing a person
as her only heir the testatrix did not contravene the law, and that the heir was in
no way disqualified to inherit; just as a final order admitting a will to probate
concludes all and sundry from thereafter contending that statutory formal
requirements have not been observed in executing the testament. In the case at
bar, instead of contradicting the testamentary institution of heir, the order of
adjudication confirms it.
The failure of the defendant heir, in the case at bar, to file with the Register of
Deeds a certified copy of his letters of administration and the will, as provided
in Sec. 90 of Act 496, and to record the attested copies of the will and of the
allowance thereof by the court under Section 624 of Act 190, does not negate
the validity of the judgment or decree of probate nor the rights of the devises
under the will, because said Section 90 refers to the dealings with registered
lands by an administrator, and defendant heir in the case at bar sought and
obtained the change in the certificates of title in his own behalf and capacity,
and the recording of the judicial orders sufficed as notice to interested parties,
and was a substantial compliance with the required recording of the will itself.
caniza vs CA
Carmen Caiza, a spinster, a retired pharmacist, and former professor, was declared
incompetent in a guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo A.
Evangelista based on her advanced age and physical infirmities which included

cataracts in both eyes and senile dementia. Amparo A. Evangelista was appointed
legal guardian of her person and estate.
Evangelista commenced an Ejectment suit in (MetroTC) of QC against spouses Pedro
and Leonora Estrada from the house and lot she owned. Caniza allowed the spouses
and their family to temporarily reside in her house, rent-free. However, she already
had urgent need of the house on account of her advanced age and failing health, "so
funds could be raised to meet her expenses for support, maintenance and medical
treatment.
In their Answer with Counterclaim, Canzia executed a holographic will on September
4, 1988 by which she "bequeathed" to the Estradas the house and lot in question.
MetroTC decided in Caiza's favor, the Estradas being ordered to vacate the
premises. RTC reversed thedecision.
CA ruled that (a) the proper remedy for Caiza was indeed an accion publiciana in the
RTC, not an accion interdictal in the MetroTC, since the "defendants have not been in
the subject premises as mere tenants or occupants by tolerance, they have been there
as a sort of adopted family of Carmen Caiza," as evidenced by what purports to be
the holographic will of the plaintiff; and (b) while "said will, unless and until it has
passed probate by the proper court, could not be the basis of defendants' claim to the
property, . . . it is indicative of intent and desire on the part of Carmen Caiza that
defendants are to remain and are to continue in their occupancy and possession, so
much so that Caiza's supervening incompetency can not be said to have vested in her
guardian the right or authority to drive the defendants out."
Sps Pascual vs CA
Pastor v CA
Re-Testate of Suntay
Ngo The Hua v Kiat Kung
Heirs of Lasam v Umengan
Seangio v Reyes
Guevara v Guevara
Maloles v Philips
Ajero v CA