1st Batch

st
1 Batch [1-25] reconveyance of the subject property to the surviving heirs of
the testatrix. She also alleged that Lot No. 1392 was
1. --- mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank and the Republic
2. --- Planters Bank in disregard of the testatrix's specific instruction
3. --- to sell, lease, or mortgage only to the near descendants and
4. LEDESMA v. MCLACHLIN, GR No.L-44837, sister of the testatrix. During the pre-trial, a compromise
November 23, 1938 66 PHIL 547 agreement was concluded between the parties wherein the
lessee of the property assumed the delivery of 100 piculs of
FACTS sugar to Maria Belleza. However, only partial delivery was
1. Lorenzo Quitco, died in 1930, leaving defendant made.
Mclachlin and her children as heirs.
2. Plaintiff Ana Ledesma, spurious/illegitimate child of The Regional trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of
Lorenzo Quitco, and her mother, sued to declare her as cause of action. The Court of Appeals, on appeal, reversed
compulsory heir which the court however denied. the decision and held that the institution of Dr. Rabadilla is in
3. Two years later, Lorenzo's father Eusebio died, and the nature of a modal institution and a cause of action in favor
because he left some personal and real properties of Maria Belleza arose when Johnny Rabadilla failed to
without a will, an intestate proceeding was instituted and comply with their obligation under the codicil, and in ordering
a court order declaring his compulsory heirs did not of the reversion of Lot 1392 to the estate of testatrix.
course include Ana as one.
4. Following such court action, the plaintiff proceeded to ISSUE 1
collect the sum payable on a promissory note then WON the Regional Trial Court properly dismissed the
issued in favor of her by Lorenzo by filing a claim in the case due to lack of cause of action.
intestate proceedings of Eusebio's Estate claiming that
the sum be paid out of the properties inherited by the HELD
defendants represents that of the successional rights of NO. Successional rights are transmitted from the moment
Lorenzo as a compulsory heir of his father Eusebio. of death and compulsory heirs succeed the decedent not only
to all the property but also to his rights and obligations. Hence,
ISSUE the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla are also obliged under the codicil to
Has plaintiff the right collect the sum promised by her deliver 100 piculs of sugar to private respondent every year.
father from her grandfather's estate?
In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. 1392
HELD to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the condition that the
No. The properties inherited by the defendants from their usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private
deceased grandfather by representation are not subject to the respondent every year. Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
payment of debts and obligations of their deceased father, his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over said
who died without leaving any property. property, and they also assumed his or his decedent's
obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved to Maria
While it is true that under the provisions of Articles 924 to 927 Belleza. Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally
of the Civil Code, a child presents his father or mother who corresponds to the right of Maria Belleza over the usufruct, the
died before him in the properties of his grandfather or fulfillment or performance of which is now being demanded by
grandmother, this right of representation does not make the her through the institution of the case at bar. Therefore, Maria
said child answerable for the obligations contracted by his Belleza has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial
deceased father or mother, because, as may be seen from the court erred in dismissing the complaint below.
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure referring to partition
of inheritances, the inheritance is received with the benefit of There is no substitution of heir where no substitute was
inventory, that is to say, the heirs only answer with the provided by the testatrix in case the instituted heir
properties received from their predecessor. predeceases her or in case of the latter's incapacity or
renunciation nor was the instituted heir mandated to preserve
The herein defendants, as heirs of Eusebio Quitco, in the property and to transmit it to the second heir.
representation of their father Lorenzo M. Quitco, are not
bound to pay the indebtedness of their father from whom they ISSUE 2
did not inherit anything. WON a Will may be a subject of a Compromise
Agreement.
5.
6. JOHNNY S. RABADILLA, vs. COURT OF HELD
APPEALS AND MARIA MARLENA 2 NO. A Will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by
COSCOLLUELA Y BELLEZA VILLACARLOS, which a person disposes of his property, to take effect after
G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000 his death. Since the Will expresses the manner in which a
person intends how his properties be disposed, the wishes
FACTS and desires of the testator must be strictly followed. Thus, a
In a codicil of Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was instituted Will cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which
devisee of Lot No. 1392 with an area of 511,855 square would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a Will.
meters with the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar to
private respondent, Maria Belleza, every year during the 7. SPEED DISTRIBUTING CORP., LITA MARCELO,
latter's lifetime. The codicil provided that the obligation is IRENEO MARCELO and PEDRO AQUINO vs.
imposed not only on the instituted heir but also to his COURT OF APPEALS and RUFINA LIM,
successors-in-interest and that in case of failure to deliver, respondents
Maria Belleza shall seize the property and turn it over to the
testatrix's "near descendants." FACTS
Pastor Y. Lim married private respondent RufinaLuy Lim.3
Dr. Rabadilla died and was survived by his wife and children, During the early part of their marriage, Pastor organized some
one of whom is herein petitioner, Johnny Rabadilla. Maria family corporations using their conjugal funds. Among these
Belleza, alleging failure of the heirs to comply with their corporations was Skyline International Corporation (Skyline,
obligation, filed a complaint with the RTC praying for the for brevity) which was engaged in the importation and sale of
Hankook Brand Korean Tires and the acquisition of real she was entitled to its income, and her right accrued at the
estate. The couple were incorporators and major stockholders time of Pastor’s death on June 11, 1994
of the corporation and were also employed therein.
ISSUE 1
Pastor and the private respondent did not have a child. They WON the respondent herein or the surviving spouse is a
decided to "adopt" Leonard Lim and petitioner Lita Lim real party-in-interest in the case.
Marcelo. There was, however, no formal court adoption.
Sometime thereafter, marital problems arose, as a result of HELD
which the private respondent stopped working at Skyline. As YES. The Private Respondent is a Real Party-in-Interest as
the domestic problems remained unresolved, Pastor and the Plaintiff.
private respondent jointly filed on August 13, 1968 a Petition
before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon SEC. 2. Parties in interest.— A real party in interest is the party
City, for voluntary dissolution of conjugal properties. As their who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
differences worsened, the private respondent filed on January suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
27, 1971 a petition for legal separation against Pastor on the otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must
ground of infidelity be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest.
On February 17, 1972, the court rendered a decision,
awarding P3,000 monthly support to the private respondent The private respondent filed the complaint as one of the heirs
and the children. the private respondent filed a motion for of Pastor Lim, who died intestate on June 11, 1994. She was,
execution. The court issued an order granting the motion and in fact, the surviving spouse of the deceased, a compulsory
the sheriff levied on the properties of Skyline. The Skyline heir by operation of law. The general rule under the law on
filed, on December 19, 1975, a third-party claim, alleging that succession is that successional rights are transmitted from the
the properties levied were its personal properties and not moment of death of the decedent and compulsory heirs are
those of Pastor, who was only one of its stockholders. called upon to succeed by operation of law to the inheritance
without the need of further proceedings. Under Article 776 of
During the life time, or on August 21, 1987, the Speed the New Civil Code, inheritance includes all the properties,
Distributing Corporation (Speed, for brevity), was registered rights and obligations of a party, not extinguished by his
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, with Pastor death.35 Although the private respondent was appointed by
Lim as one of the incorporators. the probate court as a special administratrix of the estate of
Pastor Lim, she had the right, apart from her being a special
Also, Leslim Corporation (Leslim, for brevity), was registered administratrix, to file the complaint against the petitioners for
with the Securities and Exchange Commission with a capital the nullification of the deed of absolute sale
stock of P12,000,000.00, divided into 120,000 shares at par
value of P100.00 per share. Pastor Lim subscribed to 95,700 ISSUE 2
shares valued at P9,570,000.00. WON there is a need first for an order for administration
of the estate?
Leslim Corporation executed a deed of absolute sale in favor
of the Speed, represented by its Vice-President, petitioner HELD
Ireneo Marcelo, over the parcel of lot located at Diliman NO. On the second issue, petitioner asserts that the surviving
Quezon City spouse has no legal capacity to sue since she was never
appointed as administratrix or executrix of his estate.
On June 11, 1994, Pastor Lim died intestate and was survived Petitioner’s objection in this regard is misplaced. The surviving
by his wife, the private respondent. On March 17, 1995, the spouse does not need to be appointed as executrix or
private respondent, through her nephew and attorney-in-fact administratrix of the estate before she can file the action. She
George Luy, filed a petition for the administration of the estate and her children are complainants in their own right as
of her deceased husband. The private respondent filed a successors. From the very moment ofdeath, his rights insofar
motion praying for the annotation of a notice of lispendens at as the partnership was concerned were transmitted to his
the dorsal portion of all titles over the properties in the name heirs, for rights to the succession are transmitted from the
of Pastor. Included in the said properties were those moment of death of the decedent.Whatever claims and rights
registered in the name of other corporations of which Pastor against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to
was a stockholder, including that parcel of land covered by respondents by operation of law, more particularly by
TCT No. T-116717 registered under the name of Speed. succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which
the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value
the private respondent filed a complaint against Speed, and of the inheritance of a person are transmitted
the petitioners with the RTC of Quezon City, for the
nullification of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Leslim 8.
in favor of Speed over the property. The private respondent 9. GENEROSA TEVES DE JAKOSALEM, vs.
alleged, inter alia, that: NICOLASA RAFOLS, ET ALS., (G.R. No. L-
48372 July 24, 1942)
Plaintiff is the surviving spouse of the late Pastor Y. Lim who
died intestate on June 11, 1994, but leaving several FACTS
properties, real and personal

In their answer with compulsory counterclaim, the petitioners • The land in dispute originally belonged to Juan Melgar
specifically denied the material allegations of the complaint, (Juan). Juan died at the judicial administration of his
and by way of special and affirmative defenses, alleged that estate which commenced in 1915 and came to a close on
the private respondent (the plaintiff therein), was not privy to December 2, 1924, only.
the deed of sale executed by Leslim and Speed. As such, she • During the pendency of the said administration, that is, on
was not the real party-in-interest and had no cause of action July 5, 1917, Susana (Susana) Melgar, daughter of Juan
against the defendants. sold the land with the right of repurchase to Pedro Cui
In her reply, the private respondent alleged that even if she (Pedro), subject to the stipulation that during the period
was not privy to the deed of sale over the subject property, for the repurchase she would continue in possession of
the land as lessee of the purchaser.
• On December 12, 1920, the partition of the estate of Juan possession of Nicolas Rafols commenced in 1921 only,
Melgar was made, and the land in question was wherefore, it is subsequent to that of Pedro Cui.
adjudicated to Susana.
• In 1921, she conveyed, in payment of professional fees, 10. IBARLE V. PO
one-half of the land in favor of the Nicolasa Rafols
(Rafols), who, entered upon the portion thus conveyed FACTS
and has been in possession thereof up to the present. Leonard j. Winstanley and Catalina Navarro were husband
• On July 23, 1921, Pedro brought an action to recover said and wife. The husband died on June 6, 1946 leaving heir the
half of the land from Nicolas Rafols and the other half surviving spouse and some minor children.
from the other defendants, and while that case was
pending, or about August 4, 1925, Pedro Cui donated the Upon the death of L.J. Winstanley, he left a parcel of land
whole land in question to Generosa Teves (Teves). described under Transfer Certificate of title No. 2391 of the
• The lower court rendered a decision absolving Nicolas Registry of Deeds of the Province of Cebu. The property was
Rafols as to the one-half of the land conveyed to him by a conjugal property.
Susana Melgar upon the theory that Susana Melgar could
not have anything to Pedro Cui because the a land was On April 15, 1946, the surviving spouse Catalina Navarro Vda.
then in custodia legis, that is, under judicial de Winstanley sold the entire parcel of land to the spouses
administration., and declaring Teves owner of the other Maria Canoy, alleging among other things, that she needed
half but express acknowlegment of the other defendants. money for the support of her children. On May 24, 1947, the
• Teves appealed the part of the judgment which is spouses Maria Canoy and Roberto Canoy sold the same
favorable to Nicolas Rafols. parcel of land to the plaintiff in this case named Bienvenido A.
Ebarle. The two deeds of sale referred to above were not
ISSUE registered and have never been registered up to the date.

On January 17, 1948 surviving spouse Catalina Navarro Vda.
WON the sale by Susana to pedro cui was valid despite de Winstanley, after her appointment as guardian of her
the land being under judicial administration. children by this court (Special proceeding no. 212-R) sold one-
half of the land mentioned above to Esperanza M. Po,
HELD: YES defendant in the instant case, which portion belongs to the
children of the above named spouses.
• That the land could not ordinarily be levied upon while
in custodia legis, does not mean that one of the heirs may ISSUE
not sell the right, interest or participation which he has or Whether the sale to Esperanza M. Po, the last purchaser,
might have in the lands under administration. is valid

• The ordinary execution of property in custodia legis is
HELD
prohibited in order to avoid interference with the
YES. This question in turn depends upon the validity of the
possession by the court. But the sale made by an heir of
prior ale to Maria Canoy and Roberto Canoy.
his share in an inheritance, subject to the result of the

pending administration, in no wise stands in the way of
Article 657 of the old Civil Code provides: "The rights to the
such administration.
succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of
• Article 440 of the Civil Code provides that "the possession
his death." in a slightly different language, this article is
of hereditary property is deemed to be transmitted to the
incorporated in the new Civil Code as article 777.
heir without interruption from the instant of the death of

the decedent, in case the inheritance be accepted."
Manresa, commending on article 657 of the Civil Code of
• And Manresa with reason states upon the death of a
Spain, says:
person, each of his heirs "becomes the undivided owner The moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs
of the whole estate left with respect to the part or portion acquire a definite right to the inheritance, whether such right
which might be adjudicated to him, a community of be pure or contingent. It is immaterial whether a short or long
ownership being thus formed among the co-owners of the period of time lapses between the death of the predecessor
estate while it remains undivided." and the entry into possession of the property of the inheritance
• And according to article 399 of the Civil Code, every part because the right is always deemed to be retroactive from the
owner may assign or mortgage his part in the common moment of death. (5 Manresa, 317.)
property, and the effect of such assignment or mortgage
shall be limited to the portion which may be alloted him in The above provision and comment make it clear that when
the partition upon the dissolution of the community. Catalina Navarro Vda. de Winstanley sold the entire parcel to
• Therefore the sale made by Susana in favor of Pedro the Canoy spouses, one-half of it already belonged to the
was valid, but it would be effective only as to the portion seller's children. No formal or judicial declaration being
to be adjudicated to the vendor upon the partition of the needed to confirm the children's title, it follows that the first
property left by her deceased father. sale was null and void in so far as it included the children's
• And as on December 12, 1920, upon the partition of said share.
property, the land in question was adjudicated to Susana
Melgar, the sale of the whole land which the latter made The sale to the defendant having been made by authority of
in favor of Pedro Cui was entirely confirmed. the competent court was undeniably legal and effective. The
• Upon the confirmation of the sale of December 12, 1920 fact that it has not been recorded is of no consequence. If
in favor of Pedro Cui, the conveyance by Susana Melgar registration were necessary, still the non-registration would
in favor of Nicolasa Rafols in 1921 could no longer be not avail the plaintiff because it was due to no other cause
done. And even in the case of a double sale, where than his own opposition.
neither of the purchasers has registered the sale, the first
in possession namely, Pedro Cui, should be referred. The decision will be affirmed subject to the reservation, made
When the sale made in the latter's favor was confirmed in said decision, of the right of the plaintitff and/or the Canoy
on December 12, 1920, Susana Melgar was in spouses to bring such action against Catalina Navarro Vda.
possession of the land as lessee, and this possession de Winstanley as may be appropriate for such damages as
should be considered as that of Pedro Cui. The
they may have incurred by reason of the voiding of the sale in purpose. The probate court certainly exercised sound
their favor. judgment in appointmening a trustee to carry into effect the
provisions of the will
11. LORENZO vs. POSADAS JR. G.R. No. L-43082

June 18, 1937
As the existence of the trust was already proven, it results that
FACTS the estate which plaintiff represents has been delinquent in
Thomas Hanley died, leaving a will and a considerable the payment of inheritance tax and, therefore, liable for the
amount of real and personal properties. Proceedings for the payment of interest and surcharge provided by law in such
probate of his will and the settlement and distribution of his cases.
estate were begun in the CFI of Zamboanga. The will was
admitted to probate. The delinquency in payment occurred on March 10, 1924, the
date when Moore became trustee. On that date trust estate
The CFI considered it proper for the best interests of the vested in him. The interest due should be computed from that
estate to appoint a trustee to administer the real properties date.
which, under the will, were to pass to nephew Matthew ten
years after the two executors named in the will was appointed NOTES: Other issues:
trustee. Moore acted as trustee until he resigned and the
plaintiff Lorenzo herein was appointed in his stead. (a) When does the inheritance tax accrue and when must it be
satisfied?
During the incumbency of the plaintiff as trustee, the
defendant Collector of Internal Revenue (Posadas) assessed The accrual of the inheritance tax is distinct from the obligation
against the estate an inheritance tax, together with the to pay the same.
penalties for deliquency in payment. Lorenzo paid said
amount under protest, notifying Posadas at the same time that Acording to article 657 of the Civil Code, “the rights to the
unless the amount was promptly refunded suit would be succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of
brought for its recovery. Posadas overruled Lorenzo’s protest his death.” “In other words”, said Arellano, C. J., “. . . the heirs
and refused to refund the said amount. Plaintiff went to court. succeed immediately to all of the property of the deceased
The CFI dismissed Lorenzo’s complaint and Posadas’ ancestor. The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of
counterclaim. Both parties appealed to this court. the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had
executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before
ISSUE his death.”
Has there been delinquency in the payment of the
inheritance tax? Whatever may be the time when actual transmission of the
inheritance takes place, succession takes place in any event
HELD at the moment of the decedent’s death. The time when the
YES. The defendant maintains that it was the duty of the heirs legally succeed to the inheritance may differ from the
executor to pay the inheritance tax before the delivery of the time when the heirs actually receive such inheritance. ”
decedent’s property to the trustee. Stated otherwise, the Thomas Hanley having died on May 27, 1922, the inheritance
defendant contends that delivery to the trustee was delivery to tax accrued as of the date.
the cestui que trust, the beneficiary in this case, within the
meaning of the first paragraph of subsection (b) of section From the fact, however, that Thomas Hanley died on May 27,
1544 of the Revised Administrative Code. This contention is 1922, it does not follow that the obligation to pay the tax arose
well taken and is sustained. A trustee is but an instrument or as of the date. The time for the payment on inheritance tax is
agent for the cestui que trust clearly fixed by section 1544 of the Revised Administrative
Code as amended by Act No. 3031, in relation to section 1543
The appointment of Moore as trustee was made by the trial of the same Code. The two sections follow:
court in conformity with the wishes of the testator as
expressed in his will. It is true that the word “trust” is not SEC. 1543. Exemption of certain acquisitions and
mentioned or used in the will but the intention to create one is transmissions. — The following shall not be taxed:
clear. No particular or technical words are required to create
a testamentary trust. The words “trust” and “trustee”, though a) The merger of the usufruct in the owner of the naked
apt for the purpose, are not necessary. In fact, the use of these title.
two words is not conclusive on the question that a trust is b) The transmission or delivery of the inheritance or legacy
by the fiduciary heir or legatee to the trustees.
created. ” To constitute a valid testamentary trust there must c) The transmission from the first heir, legatee, or donee in
be a concurrence of three circumstances: favor of another beneficiary, in accordance with the
desire of the predecessor. xx
1) Sufficient words to raise a trust;;
2) a definite subject;; SEC. 1544. When tax to be paid. — The tax fixed in this article
3) a certain or ascertain object;; statutes in some shall be paid:
jurisdictions expressly or in effect so providing.”

(a) In the second and third cases of the next preceding
There is no doubt that the testator intended to create a trust.
section, before entrance into possession of the property.
He ordered in his will that certain of his properties be kept

together undisposed during a fixed period, for a stated
(b) In other cases, within the six months subsequent to the brother-in-law, the subject land in controversy for the sum of
death of the predecessor;; but if judicial testamentary or P10,500.00. Consequently, Narcisa executed a Deed of
intestate proceedings shall be instituted prior to the expiration Absolute Sale in favor of the latter.
of said period, the payment shall be made by the executor or Tomas’ daughter, Flordeliza, built a two-storey duplex
administrator before delivering to each beneficiary his share. with firewall on the northern half portion of the
property. Respondents, who occupied the southern half
The instant case does[not] fall under subsection (a), but under portion of the land, did not object to the
subsection (b), of section 1544 above-quoted, as there is here construction. Flordeliza declared the property for taxation
purposes and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. Likewise,
no fiduciary heirs, first heirs, legatee or donee. Under the
Maximo, the son of Tomas cousin, built a small house on the
subsection, the tax should have been paid before the delivery northern portion of the property.
of the properties in question to Moore as trustee.
Respondents filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of
(b) Should the inheritance tax be computed on the basis of the sale and delivery of possession of the northern half portion of
the subject property against petitioners. They alleged that the
value of the estate at the time of the testator’s death, or on its
transaction between Narcisa and Tomas was one of mortgage
value ten years later? and not of sale;; that Narcisas children tried to redeem the
mortgaged property but they learned that the blank document
If death is the generating source from which the power of the which their mother had signed was transformed into a Deed
estate to impose inheritance taxes takes its being and if, upon of Absolute Sale;; that Narcisa, as natural guardian of her
the death of the decedent, succession takes place and the children, had no authority to sell the northern half portion of
the property which she and her children co-owned;; and that
right of the estate to tax vests instantly, the tax should be
only P5,000.00 out of the consideration of P10,500.00 was
measured by the value of the estate as it stood at the time of paid by Tomas.
the decedent’s death, regardless of any subsequent
contingency value of any subsequent increase or decrease in The court a quo dismissed the complaint. It found that
value the sale was valid;; that the Agreement to Purchase and
Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale were duly executed;; that

the sum of P10,500.00 as selling price for the subject property
was fully paid there being no demand for the payment of the
(c) In determining the net value of the estate subject to tax, is remaining balance;; that the introduction of improvements
it proper to deduct the compensation due to trustees? thereon by the petitioners was without objection from the
respondents;; and that Roberto and Erlinda failed to contest
A trustee, no doubt, is entitled to receive a fair compensation the transaction within four years after the discovery of the
for his services. But from this it does not follow that the alleged fraud and reaching the majority age in violation of
Article 1391 of the Civil Code.
compensation due him may lawfully be deducted in arriving at
the net value of the estate subject to tax. There is no statute The Court of Appeals declared that respondents were
in the Philippines which requires trustees’ commissions to be co-owners of the subject property, thus the sale was valid only
deducted in determining the net value of the estate subject to insofar as Narcisas 1/7 undivided share thereon was
concerned.
inheritance tax
ISSUES
(d) What law governs the case at bar? Should the provisions (1) Is the subject property conjugal or paraphernal?
of Act No. 3606 favorable to the tax-payer be given retroactive (2) Is the transaction a sale or a mortgage?
effect? (3) Assuming that the transaction is a sale, what was the
area of the land subject of the sale?

A statute should be considered as prospective in its operation, HELD
whether it enacts, amends, or repeals an inheritance tax,
unless the language of the statute clearly demands or 1. THE PROPERTY IS CONJUGAL. Article 160 of the
expresses that it shall have a retroactive effect, . . . .” Act No. Civil Code, which was in effect at the time the sale was
3606 itself contains no provisions indicating legislative intent entered into, provides that all property of the marriage is
to give it retroactive effect. No such effect can be given the presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it is
statute by this court. proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the
wife. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is a
12. --- condition sine qua non in order for the presumption in favor of
conjugal ownership to operate. In the instant case, while
13. FLORDELIZA CALPATURA FLORA, Narcisa testified during cross-examination that she bought the
DOMINADOR CALPATURA and TOMAS subject property from Peoples Homesite Housing Corporation
[17]
CALPATURA, JR., Heirs of TOMAS CALPATURA, with her own funds, she, however admitted in
SR., versus ROBERTO, ERLINDA, DANIEL, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Deed of
GLORIA, PATRICIO, JR. and EDNA, all surnamed Absolute Sale that the property was her conjugal share with
[18]
PRADO and NARCISA PRADO her first husband, Patricio, Sr. A verbal assertion that she
bought the land with her own funds is inadmissible to qualify
FACTS the terms of a written agreement under the parole evidence
rule.
The property under litigation is the northern half portion of
a residential land consisting of 552.20 square meters, more or 2. SALE. The Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
less, registered in the name of the respondents Narcisa Prado Narcisa in favor of Tomas is contained in a
[21]
and her children by her first husband, Patricio Prado, Sr. notarized document. A public document executed and
attested through the intervention of a notary public is evidence
When Patricio Prado, Sr. died. Narcisa subsequently of the facts in a clear, unequivocal manner therein
married Bonifacio Calpatura. In order to support her minor expressed. Otherwise stated, public or notarial documents, or
children with her first husband, Narcisa sold to Tomas, her those instruments duly acknowledged or proved and certified
as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without 15. BLANQUITA E. DELA MERCED, et. al,
further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima petitioners, vs. JOSELITO P. DELA
facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document MERCED[G.R. No. 126707. February 25, 1999]
involved. In order to contradict the presumption of regularity of
a public document, evidence must be clear, convincing, and
more than merely preponderant. FACTS
3. 8/14 (1/2+1/7 (But the case says 9/14). The
property being conjugal, upon the death of Patricio Prado, Sr., • Evarista M. dela Merced died intestate, without issue.
one-half of the subject property was automatically reserved to • She left five (5) parcels of land situated in Orambo, Pasig
the surviving spouse, Narcisa, as her share in the conjugal City.
partnership. Particios rights to the other half, in turn, were • At the time of her death, Evarista was survived by three
transmitted upon his death to his heirs, which includes his sets of heirs, viz: (1) Francisco M. dela Merced, her
widow Narcisa, who is entitled to the same share as that of legitimate brother ;; (2) Teresita P. Rupisan, her niece who
each of the legitimate children. Thus, as a result of the death is the only daughter of Rosa de la Merced-Platon (a sister
of Patricio, a regime of co-ownership arose between Narcisa who died in 1943) ;; and (3) the legitimate children of
and the other heirs in relation to the property. The remaining Eugenia dela Merced-Adriano (another sister of Evarista
one-half was transmitted to his heirs by intestate who died in 1965), namely: Herminio, Ruben, Joselito,
succession. By the law on intestate succession, his six Rogelio, Wilfredo, Victor and Constantino, all surnamed
children and Narcisa Prado inherited the same at one-seventh Adriano, Corazon Adriano-Ongoco and Jasmin Adriano-
(1/7) each pro Mendoza.
indiviso.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/200 • Almost a year later or on March 19, 1988, to be precise,
4/jan2004/156879.htm - _ftn26 Inasmuch as Narcisa Francisco (Evaristas brother) died. He was survived by
inherited one-seventh (1/7) of her husband's conjugal share in his wife Blanquita Errea dela Merced and their three
the said property and is the owner of one-half (1/2) thereof as legitimate children, namely, Luisito E. dela Merced,
her conjugal share, she owns a total of 9/14 of the subject Blanquita M. Macatangay and Ma. Olivia M. Paredes.
property. Hence, Narcisa could validly convey her total • The three sets of heirs of the decedent, Evarista M. dela
undivided share in the entire property to Tomas. Merced, referring to (1) the abovenamed heirs of
Francisco;; (2) Teresita P. Rupisan and (3) the nine [9]
Finally, no particular portion of the property could be identified legitimate children of Eugenia, executed an extrajudicial
as yet and delineated as the object of the sale considering that settlement.
the property had not yet been partitioned in accordance with • Respondent Joselito P. Dela Merced , illegitimate son of
the Rules of Court. While Narcisa could validly sell one half the late Francisco de la Merced, filed a Petition for
of the subject property, her share being 9/14 of the same, she Annulment of the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of
could not have particularly conveyed the northern portion the Deceased Evarista M. Dela Merced.
thereof before the partition, the terms of which was still to be • Petitioners insist that being an illegitimate child, private
determined by the parties before the trial court. respondent Joselito is barred from inheriting from
Evarista because of the provision of Article 992 of the
14. SUAREZ vs. CA
New Civil Code, which lays down an impassable barrier

between the legitimate and illegitimate families.
FACTS
Petitioners are brothers and sisters. Their father died and ISSUE
since then his estate has not been partitioned. Petitioners’
widowed mother and Rizal Realty lost in a case, and were Whether or not the respondent Joselito may participate in
ordered to pay, jointly and severally, herein respondents. The the intestate estate of the late Evarista M. Dela Merced in
judgment having become final and executory, five parcels of his capacity as representative of his alleged father,
land were levied and sold on execution. Before the expiration Francisdo Dela Merced, brother of the deceased, whose
of the redemption period, petitioners filed an action to annul succession is under consideration
the auction sale and recover the property, alleging that being
strangers to the case decided against their mother, they HELD: YES.
cannot be held liable and that parcels of land, of which they
are co-owners, can neither be levied nor sold on execution. • Article 992 of the New Civil Code is not applicable
because involved here is not a situation where an
ISSUE illegitimate child would inherit ab intestato from a
Whether or not petitioners have proprietary rights over legitimate sister of his father, which is prohibited by the
levied and auctioned property. aforesaid provision of law.
• Rather, it is a scenario where an illegitimate child inherits
HELD from his father, the latter’s share in or portion of, what the
latter already inherited from the deceased sister,
Only 1/2 of the 5 parcels of land should have been the subject
Evarista.
of the auction sale. The legitime of the surviving spouse is • As opined by the Court of Appeals, the law in point in the
equal to the legitime of each child. The proprietary interest of present case is Article 777 of the New Civil Code, which
petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is different provides that the rights to succession are transmitted
from and adverse to that of their mother. Petitioners became from the moment of death of the decedent.
co-owners of the property not because of their mother but • Since Evarista died ahead of her brother Francisco, the
through their own right as children of their deceased father. latter inherited a portion of the estate of the former as one
of her heirs.
Therefore, petitioners are not barred from instituting the action
• Subsequently, when Francisco died, his heirs, namely:
to annul the auction sale to protect their own interest.
his spouse, legitimate children, and the private
respondent, Joselito, an illegitimate child, inherited his
(Franciscos) share in the estate of Evarista.
• It bears stressing that Joselito does not claim to be an of the decedent under administration pending
heir of Evarista by right of representation but participates appointment of an administrator.
in his own right, as an heir of the late Francisco, in the
latter’s share (or portion thereof) in the estate of Evarista. EXCEPTIONS:
• The relates to the rightful and undisputed right of an heir

to the share of his late father in the estate of the decedent
Evarista, ownership of which had been transmitted to his However even if there is an appointed administrator, juris
father upon the death of Evarista. prudence recognizes (2) two EXCEPTIONS:
• There is no legal obstacle for private respondent Joselito,
admittedly the son of the late Francisco, to inherit in his • If the executor/administrator is unwilling or refuses to
own right as an heir to his father’s estate, which estate bring suit;; and
includes a 1/3 undivided share in the estate of Evarista. • When the administrator is alleged to have participated in
the act complained of and he is made party defendant.
16. RIOFERIO VS CA GR NO 129008 Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief
to recover property of the estate is compelling when there
FACTS is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where there
• Alfonso Orfinada Jr. died intestate leaving several is an appointed administrator but he is either disciplined
properties in various places to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties himself.
• He left a widow respondent Esperanza Orfinada with
Therefore, the rule that “THE HEIRS HAVE NO LEGAL
whom he had children ( the herein Respondents) and a
STANDING TO SUE FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE
paramour, Teodora Rioferio, with whom he also had
PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE DURING THE
children (the Petitioners)
PENDENCY OF ADMINISTRATION PROCEEDINGS”
• Respondents discovered that the Petitioners Teodora
has (3) three exceptions
and her children executed an EXTRA JUDICIAL

SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON
• When there is no appointed administrator such as in this
WITH QUIT CLAIM involving the properties of Alfonso’s
case.
estate in Dagupan City

• They also found out that petitioners where able to obtain
17. ---
a loan (700k) from Rural Bank of Mangaldan by executing
18. MONICA BONA versus HOSPICIO BRIONES, ET
a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties subject of the
AL.
Extra Judicial Settlement

• The petitioners as the legal heirs of Alfonso, filed an
NOTE: The law that governs this case is Section 618 of Act
action to annul/rescind the said settlement as well as a
No. 190. Hence, the requirement under Act No. 2645
petition for Letters of Administration upon learning of the
amending said section which was promulgated on February
Extra Judicial Settlement
24, 1916 requiring 3 witnesses apart from the lawyer cannot
• petitioner file a motion to set affirmative defense, and apply here.
raised that respondents are anot the real parties-in-
interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso Orfinada Jr., in Gist of the case: there were only 3 witnesses of the will
view of the pendency of the Administrative proceedings including the notary public, contrary to the provision of the
• The lower court denied the motion on the ground that latter law, under Act No. 2645, which took effect way after
respondents are the real parties-in-interest, especially in the death of the testator.
the absence of an administrator who is not yet appointed.

FACTS
ISSUE
WON the heirs may bring a suit to recover the property of
Monica Bona, the widow by the second marriage of
the estate pending the appointment of an administrator
the deceased Francisco Briones who died on 1913, applied
for the probate of the will which the said deceased executed
HELD during his lifetime;; for the fixing of a day for the hearing and
• YES presentation of evidence after all the interested parties had
• Pending the filing of the administration proceedings, the been cited;; and then for the approval of the partition had been
heirs without doubt have legal personality to bring suit in cited;; and then for the approval of the partition property made
behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance with by the testator in the said will. Consequently, Monica Bona's
ART. 777,NCC petition was granted and a date set for the trial and other
``THAT THE RIGHTS TO SUCCESION ARE necessary proceedings for the probate of said will.
TRANSMITTED FROM THE MOMENT OF THE
DEATH OF THE DECEDENT`` Respondents, the legitimate children by the first
• The provision is the foundation of the principle that the marriage of the testator, opposed the probate of the will
property right and obligations to the extent and value of presented by the widow of the deceased Briones, alleging that
the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his the said will was executed before two witnesses only and
death to another or others by his will or by operation of under unlawful and undue pressure or influence exercised
law. upon the person of the testator who thus signed through fraud
• Even if administration proceedings have already and deceit;; and he prayed that for that reason the said will be
commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an declared null and of no value.
administrator has not yet been appointed.

Gregorio Bustilla, one of the witnesses of the said
This is proper modality despite the total lack of advertence will, was examined and he stated under oath: That he as well
to the heirs in the rules on party representation, namely as Sixto Barrameda and Domingo de la Fuente, was actually
section3, rule 3 and section 2, rule 87 of the Rules of Court. present as attesting witness when Francisco Briones
executed his will in his (Bustilla's) house;; that Francisco
In the case of Gochan vs. Youngthe SC recognize the legal Briones knowing of the presence of notary Domingo de la
standing of the heirs to represent the rights and properties Fuente in the house, he went upstairs and announced himself;;
that on being asked what he wanted, Briones stated that he true that he did it as a witness to the execution of the said will
wanted to execute his will;; that after Briones and the notary with positive and concrete acts, while the two other witnesses
had talked with each other, the former left and after a while Gregorio Bustilla and Sixto Barrameda merely attested all that
returned bringing with him some paper;; that then Domingo de appeared in the second of the four paragraphs mentioned.
la Fuente, under the direction of Francisco Briones, began to
draft the will, which when finished was signed by the latter in The name of Domingo de la Fuente appears as that of a notary
the presence of the notary, of the declarant, and of another who certifies as to the certainty of the will made by Francisco
witness, Sixto Barrameda;; that then the three witnesses — the Briones and of the signatures of the testator as well as of the
declarant, de la Fuente, and Barrameda — signed in the witnesses at its end;; and as the law does not require that one
presence of each other. The declarant identified the signature of the witnesses must necessarily be a notary, and it cannot
placed on the will by the testator Briones and those of the be denied that Domingo de la Fuente attested the execution
other witnesses Sixto Barrameda and Domingo dela Fuente, and the signing of the will not only by the testator but also by
who all signed in the presence of the testator himself. He the attesting witnesses, it cannot but be admitted that
stated further that the testator at that moment was in his sound Domingo de la Fuente intervened, attested, and signed the
judgment and not forced to execute the will. He identified the testament as a witness.
document Exhibit A as the will executed by Francisco Briones
and the signature of the latter as the one placed by the
testator. By agreement of both parties it was made to appear This is a case in which the judicial criterion should be inspired
in the record that, if the witnesses Sixto Barrameda and in the sense that it is not defeated, and if the wish of the
Domingo de la Fuente were called, they would have testified testator is so manifest and express as in the instant case, it is
in the same terms as witness Gregorio Bustilla. not proper nor just to invalidate the will of Francisco Briones
merely because of some small defect in form which is not
essential nor of great importance, such as the failure to state
In view of the above, the judge rendered judgment therein that Domingo de la Fuente was also a witness to the
denying probate to the will Exhibit A as executed by Francisco said will when he signed it twice. As a matter of act, he
Briones. understood the contents of the will better than the two other
attesting witnesses, for he really was a witness and he
ISSUE attested the execution of the will during its making until it was
terminated and signed by the testator, by the witnesses, and
by himself, even though he did it in the capacity of a notary.
Whether or not the execution of the will in question is in
accord with the solemnities prescribed law.
The last paragraph of section 618 of Act No. 190 supplies a
legal basis to support the validity of the will in question with
HELD
the conditions for its probate because, notwithstanding the
existence of such defect merely in the form and not in the
Before proceeding further, it is indispensable to note that the substance, the certification of authenticity and the very text of
will in question was executed by Francisco Briones on the will show in a clear and indubitable manner that the will
September 16, 1911, and the order denying probate was Exhibit A contains the last will of the testator, and that it was
rendered on March 27, 1915, both dated being prior to that of signed by the latter and attested as being true and legitimate
Act No. 2645 amending said section 618 and promulgated on not only the two witnesses Bustilla and Barrameda but also by
February 24, 1916, which took effect only from July first of the the one who wrote it, Domingo de la Fuente, who was also a
last named year: so that, in order to explain whether or not the truthful and reliable witness, even though he be called a notary
above-mentioned will was executed in accordance with the public.
law then in force, the last named law cannot be applied and
the will in question should be examined in accordance with, The requisites established by Act No. 2645, which amended
and under the rules of, the law in force at the time of its the oft-repeated section 618 cannot be required in the probate
execution. of the will here, inasmuch as this document was executed in
September, 1911, five years before said amendatory law
Section 618 of Act No. 190 says: began to take effect (July 1, 1916), while the testator died on
August 14, 1913, two years and some months before the
No will, except as provided in the preceding section, enforcement of the said law;; and so, the only law applicable
shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor to the present case is the provision contained in section 618
charge or affect the same, unless it be in writing and of Act No. 190, and in accordance with the provisions of this
signed by the testator, or by some other person in his section, the said will should be probated;; for it has been
presence, and by his express direction, and attested presented to the court many months before the amendatory
and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses act went into effect.
in the presence of the testator and of each other. But
the absence of such form of attestation shall not It is well-known that the principle that a new law shall not have
render the will invalid if it is proven that the will was retroactive effect only governs the rights arising from acts
in fact signed and attested as in this section done under the rule of the former law;; but if the right be
provided. declared for the first time by a subsequent law it shall take
effect from that time even though it has arisen from acts
A mere reading of the last four paragraphs or parts of the will subject to the former laws, provided that it does not prejudice
Exhibit A shows in a clear manner that the said will in its form another acquired right of the same origin.
and contents expresses without shadow of doubt the will of
the testator;; and that in its execution the solemnities It is well-known that hereditary rights are not born nor does
prescribed by the above-mentioned section 618 of Act No. 190 the will produce any effect until the moment of the death of the
have been observed. person whose inheritance is concerned.
Even though Domingo de la Fuente drafted the will and In view of these facts, it follows that the judgment appealed
intervened in its preparation as a notary, by the order and from should be reversed and it should be declared as we
under the express direction of the testator, it is nevertheless hereby declare that the will Exhibit A has been executed in
due form by Francisco Briones on September 16, 1911, and WON it was duly proven in the proceedings that the
that the said will contains and expresses the last will and testator on account of his serious sickness, was rendered
testamentary wishes of the deceased testator. incapable to execute a will.

19. HELD
20. ---
21. Juliana Bagtas (widow of the decedent/executrix) NO. In order to hold that Victor Galvez, on account of serious
vs. Isidro paguio, et. Al., sickness, was not then of sound mind and did not have full
knowledge of his acts and, therefore, was incapable to
FACTS execute a will, it is necessary that the proceedings disclose
The defendants in this case opposed the probation of the will CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF HIS MENTAL INCAPACITY and
of the late PioquintoPaguio y Pizarro on the ground that the of his EVIDENT LACK OF REASON AND JUDGMENT AT
THE TIME HE EXECUTED HIS WILL in the presence of the
testator was not in the full enjoyment and use of his mental
witnesses whose signatures appear at the foot thereof.
faculties because the latter, for 15 years prior to the time of his
death suffered from a paralysis of the left side of his body.
[Supporting Facts] The subscribing witnesses
Thus,he is without the mental capacity necessary to execute affirmed under oath that they were present when
a valid will. The record shows, however, that through the Victor Galvez, then sick in his house, stated to them
medium of signs he was able to indicate his wishes to his wife that the document read before them by Lorenzo
and to other members of his family. Galvez contained his last will and testament, and
that, as the testator was no longer able to sign, he
ISSUE charged his nephew Lorenzo to do so in his stead;;
he talked intelligently and with perfect knowledge of
Whether or not the testator was of sound mind when the
what was taking place. The physician Dr. Vicente de
will was executed. Jesus, in his testimony, referred to the effects and
results of cholera on a patient in ordinary cases and
HELD in the regular course of this disease;; but his
YES. In this jurisdiction, there is a presumption in favor of statements, taken in general, cannot, serve as a
mental capacity of the testator. Since the testator in this case ground upon which to predicate incapacity, for the
was never adjudged as insane by the court of competent reason that he did not examine Victor Galvez, nor did
he even see him during the execution of the will.
jurisdiction, the presumption that he has mental capacity
Besides the attestation of the aforesaid subscribing
continues. It is therefore incumbent upon the opponents to witnesses, the contents of the will and the testator's
overcome this legal presumption by proper evidence. The positive determination to rectify the error he incurred
opponents in the case at bar failed to do this. The courts have in the execution of his first will, show that Victor
repeatedly held that mere weakness of mind and body, Galvez was in his sound mind and was perfectly
induced by age and disease does not render a person aware of his duties in respect to the legal, inviolable
rights of his daughter and sole heir, Canuta Galvez.
incapable of making a will. Pursuant to Article 799 of the New
Civil Code, it is not necessary that the testator be in full
possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be Inasmuch as, in the drafting and execution of the second will,
the formalities prescribed by section 618 of the Code of Civil
wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered bydisease, injury
Procedure were observed, for the testator's name appears
or other cause to be able to be considered of sound mind.It written at the foot of the will and under this name Lorenzo
shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making Galvez signed by direction of the testator himself, and the
the will to know the natureof the estate to be disposed of, the instrument was also signed by the attesting witnesses before
proper objects of his bounty, and the character of mentioned who affirmed that they heard and attested the
thetestamentary act. dispositions made by the testator and witnessed the reading
of the will, that they were present when the said Lorenzo
Galvez signed the will in the name of the testator and that they
22. SANTIAGO GALVEZ vs. CANUTA GALVEZ G.R. signed it in the presence of all the persons assembled in the
No. L-6650 December 5, 1913 latter's house, the conclusion is inevitable that Victor Galvez,
in executing his will, did so with a sound mind and the full use
On August 12, 1910, two wills were executed by the testator, of his mental faculties;; therefore, the will must be admitted to
Victor Galvez. The purpose of the execution of the second will probate.
was to correct an error contained in the first one. This second
will is the one exhibited for probate. 23. TORRES VS. LOPEZ

Santiago Galvez petitioned for the probate of the will (second) FACTS
alleging that Victor Galvez executed in the dialect of the The case involves a controversy over the estate of Tomas
province, on August 12, 1910, in presence of witnesses. And, Rodriguez who died on January 1924. Prior to his demise he
as the testator was no longer able to sign on account of his
executed his last will and testament leaving all of his
sickness, Lorenzo Galvez (nephew), at his (testator) request,
affixed his own signature to the instrument, for him and below properties to his cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter Luz
his written name. Lopez Bueno as his universal and only heirs. However,
Vicente Lopez had not presented his final accounts as
However, Canuta Galvez, the testator's daughter, opposed guardian and no such accounts had been presented by him at
the petition, alleging that her father, owing to his very serious the time of his death. On the other hand, appellant, Margarita
sickness with cholera, lacked the intellectual capacity and Lopez was the nearest relative of the decedent who also
clear judgment requisite for making a will. claims to be an heir of Rodriguez.

ISSUE ISSUE
Whether or not Luz Lopez Bueno will inherit the deceased was such as to make rational participation on her
remaining estate of Tomas Rodriguez. part in the act of making a will impossible.

HELD 25. Estate of the deceased VictorinaVillaranda
YES, when one of the two joint heirs called by will to an EUSEBIA LIM, vs. JULIANA CHINCO G.R. No. L-
inheritance without special designation of shares dies before 33592 March 31, 1931
the testator, the part pertaining to such heir will, upon the
subsequent death of the testator, go by accretion to the coheir;; FACTS
and the additional circumstance that the predeceasing heir
was, at the time of the making of the will, disqualified to take, This is a contest over the probate of a paper writing purporting
to be the will of VictorinaVillaranda y Diaz, a resident of the
by reason of his being then the legal guardian of the testator
municipality of Meycauayan,Bulacan, who died in the Hospital
with accounts unsettled, does not make a case for intestate of San Juan de Dios, on June 9, 1929. The instrument was
succession as to his part of the estate. offered for probate by Eusebia Lim, named in the instrument
as executrix Opposition was made by Juliana Chinco, a full
24. Estate of the deceased Isidra Abquilan. sister of the deceased. The trial court sustained the opposition
ATANASIO ABQUILAN, and disallowed the will on the ground that the testatrix did not
vs. FELICIANA ABQUILAN G.R. No. L-24665 have testamentary capacity at the time the instrument
October 13, 1926 purports to have been executed
FACTS On the morning of June 2, 1929, she was stricken with

Court of First Instance of the Province of Occidental Negros, apoplexy, incident to cerebral hemorrhage, and was taken in
an unconscious condition, seated in a chair, to her room.
refusing to legalize an instrument purporting to be the last will
Doctor Geronimo Z. Gaanan, a local physician of
and testament of Isidra Abquilan, deceased. Meycauayan, visited the old lady. Upon examining the patient,
he found her insensible and incapable of talking or controlling
It appears that the deceased left no forced heirs, and her only her movements. Doctor Isidoro Lim, of Manila, was also called
heirs, in case of intestacy, are her brother, Atanasio Abquilan, upon to visit the patient and he came to see her two or three
the proponent of the will, and Feliciana Abquilan, a sister, who times. With his approval, it was decided to take the woman to
is the opponent. the hospital of San Juan de Dios in Manila, and on the morning
of June 5, 1929, the ambulance arrived, in charge was Doctor
Guillermo Lopez del Castillo, a resident physician of the
The trial court found that the document propounded as the will
hospital. At about 11 c'clock a.m. on that day she was taken
of the deceased is apocryphal, that the purported signatures
to the hospital, where she died four days later.
of the deceased to the supposed will are forgeries, and that
the instrument in question was not executed by the deceased.
He therefore denied probate, and the proponent appealed. The purported will, which is the subject of this proceeding, was
prepared by Perfecto Gabriel, a practicing attorney of Manila.
This gentleman arrived upon the scene at 9 o'clock on the
ISSUE
forenoon of June 5, 1929. After knowing the condition of the
testatrix, he took a sheet from an exercise book and wrote the
WON the last will be accepted for probate instrument in question. He then took it into the sick room for
execution. Gabriel suggested to Doctor Lopez del Castillo that
HELD he would be pleased to have Doctor Castillo sign as a witness,
but the latter excused himself for the reason that he
considered the old lady to be lacking in testamentary capacity.
NO. A clear preponderance of the evidence shows that on Another person present was Marcos Ira, attorney Gabriel then
November 6, 1924, the date when the will purports to have asked him whether or not he was willing to sign as one of the
been executed, the supposed testatrix was not in a condition witnesses. Ira replied in a discouraging tone. In the end three
such as to enable her to have participated in the act, she being persons served as witnesses. The intended testatrix was not
in fact at that time suffering from paralysis to celebral able to affix her signature to the document, and it was signed
hemorrhage in such degree as completely to discapacitate her for her by the attorney.
for intelligent participation in the act of making a will.
ISSUE
A careful comparison of the name of the testatrix as signed in
two places to the last will presented, with many of her
authentic signatures leads to the conclusion that the WON deceased had testamentary capacity at the time so
signatures to the supposed will were made by some other as to execute a valid will.
person.
HELD
Furthermore, the combined testimony of Juan Serato and
Alejandro Genito completely demonstrate in our opinion that NO! We are of the opinion, that the deceased, on the morning
no will at all was made on November 6, the date attributed to of June 5, 1929, was in a comatose condition and incapable
the questioned document, and that, instead an attempt was of performing any conscious and valid act. The testimony of
made on the night of that day to fabricate another will, which Doctor Gaanan and Doctor Lopez del Castillo is sufficient
failed of completion because of the refusal of Alejandro Genito upon this point, and this testimony is well corroborated by
to be party to the making of a will in which the testatrix took no Paciana Diaz and Irene Ahorro. The first of these witnesses
part. was the one who chiefly cared for the deceased during her
last illness in Meycauayan until she was carried away to the
The instrument before us was undoubtedly fabricated later, hospital in Manila;; and the second was a neighbor, who was
probably on November 7, at a time when the condition of the called in when the stroke of apoplexy first occurred and who
visited the patient daily until she was removed from
Meycauayan.
The testimony of these witnesses is convincing to the effect
that the patient was in a continuous state of coma during the
entire period of her stay in Meycauayan, subsequent to the
attack, and that on the afternoon of June 5, 1929, she did not
have sufficient command of her faculties to enable her to do
any valid act. The attorney testified that he was able to
communicate with the deceased when the will was made and
that he read the instrument over to her clause by clause and
asked her whether it expressed her wishes. He says that she
made signs that enabled him to understand that she
concurred in what was written. But it is clear, even upon the
statement of this witness, that the patient was unable to utter
intelligent speech. Upon the authority of Perry vs. Elio (29
Phil., 134), the paper offered for probate was properly
disallowed.

1st Batch

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1st Batch

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

st

FACTS On the morning of June 2, 1929, she was stricken with

Potrebbero piacerti anche