4 Cruz Civillaw PDF

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
WILLS AND
SUCCESSION
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
Art. 774. SUCCESSION
ART.777. TRANSMISSION OF
SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS
FERRER vs. SPS. DIAZ, G.R. 165300

0, 4/23/10
Alfredo Imelda
Diaz
(TCT No. RT-6604)
Atty. Ferrer sale to Spouses Pangan
(creditor) (TCT N-209049)
Reina
(debtor)
Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Reeal Property

I, Reinna D. Comandante, for valuable consideration of P600K, my
loan to Pedro M. Ferrer, WAIVE and/or REPUDIATE all my
hereditary rights as a legitimatee heir of Spps. Alfreedo & Imellda G. Diaz
in favorr of said Pedro M. Ferrer, his heeirs and assigns over a parccel off
land with improvements covered by TCT No. RT-66604 x x x.
Q: Is a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another

person executed by a future heir while her parents are
still alive valid? Is an adverse claim annotated on the
title of a lot based on such waiver likewise valid and
effective as to bind the subsequent owners and hold
them liable to the claimant?
A: NO. For the inheritance to be considered “future”,

the succession must not have been opened at the time
of the contract. In this case, at the time of the execution of
Reina’s waiver of hereditary rights, succession to either of her
parents’ properties has not yet been opened since both of them
are still living, hence, Reina’s waiver is NOT VALID. As no
right or interest flows from Reina’s invalid waiver,
petitioner’s adverse claim is without any basis and must
be adjudged INVALID and INEFFECTIVE and perforce be
CANCELLED.
In Re Petition For Probate of Last Will and

Testament of Basilio Santiago, GR 179859,
Aug. 9, 2010
Basilio Santiago
(+ 9/16/73)
(1)Bibiana (+) (2) Irene (+) (3) Cecilia

1. Irene (+) 5 children 2 children
2. Martha (+) + +
Ma. Pilar Clemente
6 children
“4. ALL my properties, I bequeath to my

heirs, as follows:
e). H & L in Manila x x x transferred in the
names of Ma. Pilar and Clemente NOT as
inheritance but only so they can
ADMINISTER the same; x x x said H &
L shall have NO OWNER so it can be
forever used by anyone of my descendants
who want to study in Manila or nearby
cities;
f). rice mill and machineries, I bequeath to
my wife Cecilia and to my children x x x
in equal shares; x x x shall NOT be
partitioned for 20 years from my death
and shall be administered by Ma. Pilar and
Clemente and only the proceeds to be
partitioned among my heirs;
g). ALL lands EXCEPT the H & L in Manila, I

bequeath to my wife Cecilia and d to my
children x x x in equal shares; x x x
shall NOT be partitioned for 20 years from my
death and shall be admiinistered by Ma. Pilar
and Clemente and only the procee eds to be
partitioned to my heirs.”
The SC HELD: The provision in the will which states

that a house and lot in Manila shall be transferred in the
names of testator’s 2 children, for purposes of
ADMINISTRATION ONLY, but NO ONE shall be the
OWNER thereof, is NOT VALID. It is contrary to
public policy. When a will provides for indivision of
property, it is subject to the statutory limitation that the
prohibition to partition such property in a co-
ownership can only last for 20 years.
Coja vs. CA & Heirs of Feliciano Aquillo, Sr.

GR 151153, Dec. 10, 2007
Lorenza
L Feliciano Sr. Paz Lachica
((+)) (+7/9/65) 7/7/65
DOS of 336
Quinciano Feliciano Jr. sq. m. lot to
Luz Sps. Charlito
& Annie Coja
4 children
Q: Can the 120 sq. m. lot
120 sq. m. lot w/ Tax Dec. No. covered by Tax Dec. 1151
1151 in the name of Feliciano Sr. be included in the property
sold by Paz Lachica to
Spouses Coja?
A: NO. The hereditary share of Paz Lachica

from this 120 sq.m. lot covered by Tax Dec.
No. 1151 is ONLY 26.6666 square meters.
CORONEL vs. CA, 263 SCRA 15

Constancio Coronel
(+)
H&L TCT No. 119627
Romulo Coronel
TCT No. 327043
(2/6/85)
Concepcion & Ramona Catalina Mabanag
Alcaraz (2nd sale – 2/18/1985)
(1st sale – 1/19/1985) DP – P 300,000.00
Receipt of Downpayment CP – P1,580,000.00
DP – P 50,000.00 Deed of Absolute Sale –
CP – P1,240,000.00 4/25/85
TCT # 351582 issued in
the name of Catalina on
6/5/85
SUAREZ vs. CA, 213 SCRA 397
Marcelo Teofista
Lost Civil
(+ 1955)
Case in
1977
Rizal Realty Corp
(5 valuable lots in Pasig
Leg. Children were levied and sold on
execution)
Opulencia vs. CA, GR 125835, 7/30/98

(+) Demetrio Carpena
Natalia Carpena Opulencia
Administratrix
CONTRACT TO SELL
“Whereas, the SELLER is the lawful owner of a certain parcel of
land, which is more particularly described as follows: X X X X X”;
“Whereas, the SELLER suffers difficulties in her living and was
forced to offer the sale of the above-described property, which property
was only one among the other properties given to her by her late father
to anyone who can wait for complete clearance of the court on the Last
Will and Testament of her father.”
Q: Is a contract to sell a real property involved

in testate proceedings valid and binding
without the approval of the probate court?
The Supreme Court HELD:
A: YES. Hereditary rights are vested

in the heir or heirs from the moment of the
decedent’s death. Petitioner became the owner of
her hereditary share the moment her father died.
Thus, the lack of judicial approval does not
invalidate the Contract to Sell, because the
petitioner has the substantive right to sell the
whole or a part of her share in the estate of her
late father.
Art. 783. WILLS

SUSACPERVID
S Statutory
U Unilateral
S Solemn/formal
A Animus testandi
C Capacitated
P Personal
E Effective mortis causa
R Revocable
V Vitiated consent is absent
I Individual
D Disposes of T’s estate to a certain extent

REYES et. al. vs. CA, GR 124099, 10/30/97
LWT
“II.1. I give and bequeath

to my wife Asuncion
“Oning” R. Reyes, the
ff.
a) all my shares of our
personal properties
xxx
b) all my shares of all
real properties x x x
I own in common “Unless legally flawed, a
with my brother”
testator’s intention in his
last will and testament is
its “life and soul” which
deserves reverential
observance”.
citing Santos vs. Manarang, 27 Phil 209
“A will is the testator
speaking after death.
Its provisions have the same force and

effect in the probate court as if the
testator stood before the court in full life
making the declarations by word of mouth
as they appear in the will.
That was the special

purpose of the law in the
creation of the
instrument known as the
Last Will & Testament.
Men wished to speak after

they were dead and the law, by the
creation of that instrument, permitted
them to do so. All doubts must be
resolved in favor of the testator’s
having meant just what he said.”
NEPOMUCENO vs. CA, 139 SCRA 206
Sofia Martin Jugo Rufina Gomez

Nepomuceno (+ 7/16/74)
(sole executrix)
Oscar Carmelita
LW
WT
“Art. III. That I have the ff. legal heirs, my
legal wife Rufina and children Oscar and
Carmelita x x x legally and properly entitled to
inherit from me.”
“Art. IV. That since 1952, I have been living, as
man and wife, with Sofia Nepomuceno, who is
entitled to my love and affection, x x x, in
truth and in fact, I could not bind her to me in
the holy bonds of matrimony because of the
aforementioned previous marriage.”
Martin Jugo
T
Art. 793. AFTER-ACQUIRED

PROPERTY
1. Q: In 2015, T made a will
stating, “I give ALL my cars to
X.” In 2015, T had 5 cars. In
2016 when T died, T already
had 10 cars. How many cars
will legatee X get?
2. Q: “I hereby give to X ALL

my cars and ALL other
cars I may acquire
before my death.” How
many cars will X get?
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY ART. 795 NCC

OF WILLS (As To Time):
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY ART. 17(1) NCC

OF WILLS (As To Place): ART. 17(2) NCC
Arts. 815, 816, 817 NCC ARTS. 818/819 NCC
INTRINSIC VALIDITY
OF WILLS (As To Place): ART. 16(2) NCC
INTRINSIC VALIDITY
OF WILLS (As To Time): ART. 2263 NCC
ENRIQUEZ vs. ABADIA,

95 PHIL 627
LWT
T
T
T
1 2 3
FRONT PAGES
T
AC
1__________
2__________
3__________
BACK PAGES
X, a Japanese citizen, domiciled

in China, on her way to Spain, made
a 2-day stop-over in Paris, France.
What laws my X follow as to
formalities and solemnities so her
will may be probated in the
Philippines and her estate in the
Philippines distributed in accordance
with the provisions of the said will?
LLORENTE vs. CA, GR No. 124371,

November 23, 2000
Ceferino Paula Lorenzo Alicia

Llorente Llorente
2/22/1937 (+6/11/85) 1/16/1958
Crisologo Raul Luz Beverly

1. Lorenzo became U.S. citizen on Nov. 30, 1943.
2. Divorce decree granted to Lorenzo by the Superior
Court of California on Dec. 4, 1952.
3. Lorenzo executed a will on March 13, 1981.
4. Will was admitted to probate by the RTC of Iriga,
Camarines Sur on Jan. 24, 1984.
DOROTHEO vs. CA, et. al.,

GR 108581, Dec. 8, 1999
Lourdes Alejandro Aniceta

Legaspi Dorotheo Reyes
Dorotheo (+ after 1969) (+ 1969)
Nilda Vicente Jose

Issue: May a last will and testament admitted to
probate but declared intrinsically void in an
Order that has become final and executory still
be given effect?
BULOS vs. TECSONN, 6 SCRA 567,

Octoober 31, 1962
Pedro Tecson Tomasa Bulos

(+1940) (2nd wife)
Vicente Tecson
Jose Tantoco
ART. 799.
SOUND MIND
BALTAZAR vs. LAXA, GR 174489, Apr. 7, 2012
Paciencia Regala Lorenzo Corazon

(+1/4/96)
Laxa
78-yr-old spinster
9/13/81- executed a will in 2 daughters
the Pampango dialect
The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a

person mentally unsound to render her unfit to execute a valid
will. To be of sound mind, it is enough that the testator,
at the time of making the will, knows the nature of the
estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of her
bounty, and the character of the testamentary act (Art.
799 NCC). A testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the
time of the execution of her will and the burden is on the
oppositor to prove otherwise. (Art. 800 NCC).
Dra. Ma. Limpin
Francisco Garcia dead already
Faustino Mercado brain damage
Retired Judge had a stroke &

Limpin acted as underwent brain
Notary Public surgery
ARTS. 801/822.
SUPERVENING
INCAPACITY
ARTS. 804/805/806.
FORMALITIES OF A
NOTARIAL WILL
1.Attestation Clause:
a). Attestation Clause did
not contain the statement
that “the 3 credible
witnesses signed the will
in the presence of the T
and of one another”
(CANEDA vs. CA, 222
SCRA 781, MAY 28, 1983).
b). Attestation Clause

did not contain the
statement that “the T
signed the will in the
presence of the 3
credible witnesses”
(GIL vs. MURCIANO, 88
PHIL 260).
2. AZUELA vs. CA AND CASTILLO,

GR No. 122880, April 12, 2006
LWT
I,
3
1. to be buried at North Cemetery, La Loma;
2. Devising 2 lots to my nephew Felix Azuela;

2
3. Appointing Vart Pague, executor of my will

without bond.
1
Signed June 10, 1981 in Manila.

Eugenia E. Igsolo
T
ATTESTATION CLAUSE
This document, consisting of ______ pages,
3
including this last page x x x
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
2
Signed and notarized by me this 10th day of

June 1981 in Manila.
Petronio Y. Bautista
1
Notary Public
Until Dec. 31, 1981
PTR
Doc. No. 1232 TAN
Page No. 86
Book No. 43
Series of 1981
A will whose attestation clause does

not contain the number of pages upon
which the will is written is fatally defective.
A will whose attestation clause is not signed
by the instrumental witnesses is also fatally
defective. A will which contains a mere
jurat and not an acknowledgment is,
likewise, fatally defective. Anyone of these
defects is sufficient to deny probate. A
notarial will with all these three defects is
just aching for judicial rejection.
3. Attestation Clause not

signed by T.
(ABANGAN vs. ABANGAN,
40 PHIL 476).
4. Attestation Clause not signed

by 1 witness.
(CAGRRO vs. CAGRO, 92 PHIL
1032)
5. Attestation Clause in a
language not known to T.
6. Attestation Clause in a
language not known to
attesting witnesses.
7. Attestation Clause did not
include the number of pages
of a will.
(SINGSON vs. FLORENTINO, 92 PHIL 161)
(TABOADA vs. ROSAL, 203 PHIL 572)
8. Decedent’s alleged will was

written entirely in English but
the T knew no other language
except the Igorrote dialect
with a smattering of Ilokano.
(ACOP vs. PIRASO, 52 PHIL 660)
9. 5-paged will, 1 page of which

was not signed by 1 witness at
L-hand margin.
(ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO,
11 SCRA 423)
10. 6-paged will, the first 5 pages

were signed at the L-hand
margin by the T but not by the
three(3) attesting witnesses.
(IN RE WIL
LL OF PRIETO,
46 PHIL 70
00)
11. 1-paged will not signed by T and
3 attesting witnesses at L-hand
margin.
(ABANGAN vs. ABANGAN,,
40 PHIL 47
76)
12. 2-paged will, the first page of which

was not signed by the T at the L-hand
margin.
LWT
AC
1 .
2 .
3 .
ACK
D ___
P ___
B ___
Page [1] S ___ Page [2]
(ESTATE OF TAMPOY vs. ALBE

ERASTINE,
107 PHIL 100)
13. Testator’s name was written for

the testator, in his presence and
at his express direction, by one
of the 3 credible witnesses.
14. T’s signature is located below the

signature of the Notary Public in
the acknowledgment.
LWT AC
1 _______
2 _______
3 _______
ACK
D ___
P ___
T
B ___
S ___
[1] [2]
VOID. If the will is not signed at the END

but somewhere else, the will is NOT VALID.
End of the will means the LOGICAL, not the
physical end of the will (See Stinson’’s
Estate, 228 Pa 475)..
So important is this requirement that if

after the signature, there are additional
clauses or provisions, not only should
those clauses be considered VOID, but
also the WHOLE WILL, from beginning to
end, and the will, therefore, should be
denied probate (IN RE ANDRE EWS, 16
62 NY
1).
15. What is the true test of “signing

in the presence” of the testator
and the 3 witnesses?
JABONETA vs. GUSTILO, 5 PHIL 541

16. 2 witnesses and T were in one room

signing the will; 1 witness was in
another area of the same room,
separated by a curtain.
17.
LWT
Tomasa Yap Caong
YAP TUA vs. YAP CA KUAN, 27 PHIL 579

18. CRUZ vs. VILLASOR, 54 SCRA 31

NOVEMBER 26, 1973
Notarial will was executed by T. One of

the 3 attesting witnesses was the
Notary Public before whom the will
was acknowledged and subscribed. Is
the will valid or void?
19. Notarial will was executed by T with

3 credible witnesses; opposition to
the allowance of the will on the
ground that T and the 3 instrumental
witnesses did not acknowledge and
subscribe the will before the Notary
Public “in the presence” of each
other.
(ESTATE OF LEDESMA, 97 PHIL 258)
20. Will was not read to the

witnesses, hence, they do
not know the contents of the
will.
21. Notarial will executed by

testator was not dated,
hence, the contention that it
was void.
(ESTATE OF LABITORIA, 54 PHIL 378)
ECHAVEZ vs. Dozen Construction & Dev. Corp. &

RD of Cebu City, GR 192916, Oct. 11, 2010
2 lots
Dozen Const.
CTS-Mar. ‘86 Vicente Echavez Manuel Echavez
DOS-Oct. 86 (+11/6/86) DODMC; 9/7/85
DEED OF DONATION MORTIS CAUSA

I, Vicente Echavez, of sound and disposing mind, devise
lots # 1956-A & 1959 to Manuel Echavez, to take effect upon
my death.
Sgd. ______________
Accepted: ______________ DONOR
DONEE
_______________ _______________ _______________

Witness # 1 Witness # 2 Witness # 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before Me, a NP x x x personally

appeared the DONOR, XXX, known to me
to be the same person who executed
the foregoing instrument before the NP
and in the presence of the foregoing 3
witnesses who signed this instrument
before and in the presence of each other
and of the NP and all of them
acknowledged to me that the same is
their voluntary act and deed.
Doc. No. _____ ______________

Page. No. _____ Notary Public
Book No. _____ IBP No. _____
Series of _____ PTR No. _____
The attestation clause and an acknowledgment

CANNOT be merged in one statement. An
acknowledgment is made by one executing a deed,
declaring before a competent officer that the deed or
act is his own. The attestation of a will refers to the
act of the witnesses who certify to the execution of the
instrument before them and to the manner of its
execution. An attestation must state all the details
the 3rd paragraph of Article 805 requires. In the
absence of the required avowal by the witnesses
themselves, no attestation clause can be deemed
embodied in the Acknowledgement of the Deed of
Donation Mortis Causa.
Art. 807.
DEAF/DEAF–MUTE
TESTATOR
Art. 808. BLIND TESTATOR

79 year-old T, sick of glaucoma,
executed an 8-paged notarial will and a
5- paged codicil.
ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA, 226 SCRA 347

GARCIA vs. HON. CONRADO VASQUEZ

GR No. L-26615, April 30, 1970
Gliceria Avelino del Rosario

(+ 9/2/65)
90-year-old T executed a one (1) paged
notarial will, written in Tagalog, on Dec. 29,
1960, when her vision, notwithstanding her
cataract operation and use of aphakic lenses,
remained only for viewing distant objects and
not for reading print.
Art. 810 - 814.

HOLOGRAPHIC
WILLS
LWT
tlc tlc
1/1/2018
tlc
tlc
5/9/2018 tlc
12/25/2018
AJERO vs. CA, 236 SCRA 488

SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
Probate of the HW was opposed on the

following grounds:
(1) the will and the signature were

not in decedent’s handwriting;
(2) some dispositions were signed

but were not dated by T;
(3) there were alterations and

corrections not signed by T.
The holographic will of testatrix

contained only one provision which
reads:
“I bequeath to my sole heir, Rosa Kalaw
all my properties.”
Signed: Natividad Kalaw

Date : December 24, 1968
KALA
AW vs. RELOVA, 132 SCRA
A 237
The holographic will of testatrix

contained only one provision which
reads:
Gregorio
“I bequeath to my sole heir, Rosa Kalaw
all my properties.”
Signed: Natividad Kalaw

Date : December 24, 1968
KALAW vs. RELOVA, 132 SCRA 237

SEANGIO vs. REYES, GR 140371-72, 11/27/06

Segundo Dy Yieng
(+)
1. Alfredo 4. Alberto 6.Victor 9. Betty

2. Virginia 5. Elisa 7. Alfonso 10. James
3. Barbara 8. Shirley
DOCUMENT OF DISINHERITANCE
I, xxx, am disinheriting ALFREDO xxx grossly
disrespectful to me xxx in my presence and in the
presence of his sister VIRGINIA. Xxx borrowed
millions using my name but did not pay China Banking
Corp; xxx pirated clients of Travel Center of the Phil.
which I and my daughter VIRGINIA manage/administer
xxx.
(Signed): Segundo
Sept. 20, 1995
Witness #1 Witness #1 Witness #2

The document, although it may initially come across

as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the
formalities of a holographic will as prescribed by law. It
is written, dated and signed by the hand of the
testator himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa
can be clearly deduced from the terms of the
instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative
disposition of the testator’s property, the disinheritance
of the eldest son, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in
itself. Stated otherwise, the disinheritance results
in the disposition of the testator’s property in
favor of the other heirs who would succeed in the
absence of the eldest son.
ART. 818. JOINT WILLS

1.
LWT LWT
H W
FRONT BACK
ART. 820/821.
WITNESSES TO WILL
ART. 823.
DEVISE/LEGACY GIVEN TO
WITNESS
T
Witnesses
BUT W/
A A
D B C D
A
Witnesses
E E
F
Devise/legacy
ART. 825.
CODICIL
2016 2017
ART. 830. REVOCATION

OF WILLS
A. BY IMPLICATION OF LAW
1. T gave a legacy of his 2012
Honda Civic car to X in a
will he executed in 2013. In
2014, T sold the car to A for
P1M. On T’s death in 2015,
will X get the car, the P1M or
nothing?
2. X is the debtor of T in the

amount of P1M. T gave X a
legacy of this credit of P1M
in a will he executed in 2011.
In 2012, T demanded this
credit in a suit he filed in
court. On T’s death in 2013,
is the legacy still effective?
T executed a will in 1998

instituting his wife as sole heir, there
being no other compulsory heir. On
January 2, 2001, T filed a case
against his wife for legal separation
on the ground of adultery. The
decree of legal separation was
granted by the court on February 14,
2002. On November 1, 2002, T died
without making a new will. Will his
wife inherit from the
T’s estate?
B. REVOCATION BY AN OVERT ACT
1. Will was thrown into a fire and was

burned despite the efforts of T to
retrieve and save it.
2. Will was thrown into a fire in T’s

garden by T with intention to
revoke but will was not burned
because T’s grandson retrieved it
from the fire.
3. T, with intention to revoke, threw

his will upon the fire. Only the upper
portion of the will was burned and the
entire writing on the will remained
intact.
4. With intention to revoke, T tore

his signature from his will leaving all
the other portions of the will intact
and readable.
C. REVOCATION BY ANOTHER WILL
1. T made a will in 2014. After one

year, he wanted to revoke will #1 so
he made will #2 in 2015. In the
belief that he had already executed
a valid will, he tore will #1. On his
death in 2016, it was discovered
that will #2 was attested by only 2
credible witnesses, hence, the will
was NOT validly made. Can we
consider will #1 validly revoked or
could it still be given effect?
DOCTRINE OF
DEPENDENT RELATIVE
REVOCATION
If T revokes his will with the
present intention of making a new
one and as a substitute, if the new
will is NOT MADE or even if made,it
FAILS to take effect for any reason
whatsoever, it will be presumed that
the T prefers the old will rather than
intestacy.
Where the act of destruction is

connected with the making of
another will so as fairly to raise the
inference that the T meant the
revocation of the 1st will to depend
upon the efficacy and validity of the
2nd will, the revocation shall be
CONDITIONED and DEPENDENT upon
the validity of the 2nd will and if, for
any reason, the 2nd will intended to
be a substitute is INOPERATIVE, the
revocation of the 1st will fails and it
remains in full force and effect.
ART. 831. IMPLIED REVOCATION
WILL #1 WILL #2 WILL #3
LWT LWT LWT
T T “EXPRESSLY
REVOKING
WILL #2”
A B C X Y Z
2017 2018 2019

ART. 837. EXPRESS REVOCATIION

WILL #1 WILL #2 WILL #3
LWT LWT LWT
T T
A B C X Y Z
“I am expressly
“I am expressly revoking will #2”
revoking will #1”
2016 2017 2018


WILL #1 WILL #2
LWT LWT
2 credible
T T (+2018) witnesses
A B C X Y Z
“expressly disallowed by
revoking will #1” Probate court
2015 2016

WILL #1 WILL #2
Nottarial will Holo

ographic Will
only copy
burned by T
T T (+2019) inadvertently
A B C X Y Z
“I am expressly testimonies of
revoking will #1” 10 witnesses
2017 2018
ART. 832. EXPRESS

REVOCATION BUT NEW WILL
INOPERATIVE
WILL #1 WILL #2
LWT LWT
(+ 1/1/18)
T T
A B repudiated
inheritance
“expressly
revoking Will # 1”
2016 2017
ART.. 833. FALSE CAUSE/MISTAKE

WILL #1 WILL #2
LWT LWT
T (+ 2018) T
A B
2016 2017
*A imprisoned in Muntinlupa
ART. 834. RECOGNITION OF

ILLEGITIMATE
E CHILD
LWT LWT
“I recognize X as “I am expressly
my illegitimate revoking my will
son.” executed in
2016.”
T T
2016 2017
ART. 835. REPUBLICATION

OF WILLS
LWT LWT
WILL VOID AS TO REVOKED WILL

FORM
T T
Express Implied
republication republication
ART. 838. PROBATE OF WILLS

LWT
“xxx this will shall

not be presented
before the courts.”
(TESTATE ESTATE OF PILAPIL,

72 PHIL 546)
Will of the wife was admitted to

probate upon petition of her
husband without any opposition; 3
years later, decedent’s sister filed
an opposition alleging forgery and
falsification of the will; Criminal
cases were filed against the
husband. (MERCADO vs. SANTOS
66 PHIL 215)
ORTEGA vs. VALMONTE, GR 157451,11/16/05

(+ 10/8/84) Placido Josefina
(2/5/82)
80 yrs. old 28 yrs. old
LWT
I, xxx 82 yrs. old
xxx give to my wife
(3)
(3)
Josefina C. Valmonte 1 2 3
all real and personal
properties w/c belong ACKNOWLEDGMENT
to me xxx. Before me, a Notary
(2)
Public, personally
(2)
Signed June 15, appeared xxx this
1983 in Quezon City. Aug. 9, 1983.
Placido Floro Sarmiento

(1)
ATTESTATION CLAUSE Notary Public

(1)
D
We, xxx P
B
(1) S
(2)
The conflict between the

dates appearing on the will
does not invalidate the
document, “because the law
does not even require that a
notarial will be executed and
acknowledged on the same
occasion”.
In Re: In The Matter of The Petition To

Approve The Will of Ruperta Palaganas, GR
169144, JAN. 26, 2011
Sergio (brother) as
Ruperta executor of the will
(+11/8/2001)
Ernesto (brother) Petition for
Probate of will
& appointment
single, childless; as special
naturalized US administrator
citizen; Manuel & Benjamin
executed a will (nephews of Ruperta)
in California, opposed the petition
USA contending that the
will should be probated
in the US where it was
executed.
Q: May a will executed by a foreigner abroad be

probated in the Philippines although it has not
been previously probated and allowed in the
country where it was executed?
A: YES. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills

executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not
as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their
execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in
our jurisdiction. Article 816 NCC states that the will
of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the
Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by the law of the place where he resides,
or according to the formalities observed in his
country.

4 Cruz Civillaw PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

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

4 Cruz Civillaw PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

Art. 774. SUCCESSION

FERRER vs. SPS. DIAZ, G.R. 165300

Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Reeal Property

Q: Is a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another

A: NO. For the inheritance to be considered “future”,

In Re Petition For Probate of Last Will and

(1)Bibiana (+) (2) Irene (+) (3) Cecilia

“4. ALL my properties, I bequeath to my

g). ALL lands EXCEPT the H & L in Manila, I

The SC HELD: The provision in the will which states

Coja vs. CA & Heirs of Feliciano Aquillo, Sr.

A: NO. The hereditary share of Paz Lachica

CORONEL vs. CA, 263 SCRA 15

SUAREZ vs. CA, 213 SCRA 397

Opulencia vs. CA, GR 125835, 7/30/98

Natalia Carpena Opulencia

Q: Is a contract to sell a real property involved

The Supreme Court HELD:

A: YES. Hereditary rights are vested

Art. 783. WILLS

V Vitiated consent is absent

D Disposes of T’s estate to a certain extent

REYES et. al. vs. CA, GR 124099, 10/30/97

“II.1. I give and bequeath

citing Santos vs. Manarang, 27 Phil 209

“A will is the testator

speaking after death.

Its provisions have the same force and

That was the special

Men wished to speak after

NEPOMUCENO vs. CA, 139 SCRA 206

Sofia Martin Jugo Rufina Gomez

Art. 793. AFTER-ACQUIRED

2. Q: “I hereby give to X ALL

EXTRINSIC VALIDITY ART. 795 NCC

EXTRINSIC VALIDITY ART. 17(1) NCC

ENRIQUEZ vs. ABADIA,

X, a Japanese citizen, domiciled

LLORENTE vs. CA, GR No. 124371,

Ceferino Paula Lorenzo Alicia

Crisologo Raul Luz Beverly

DOROTHEO vs. CA, et. al.,

Lourdes Alejandro Aniceta

Nilda Vicente Jose

BULOS vs. TECSONN, 6 SCRA 567,

Pedro Tecson Tomasa Bulos

BALTAZAR vs. LAXA, GR 174489, Apr. 7, 2012

Paciencia Regala Lorenzo Corazon

The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a

Dra. Ma. Limpin

Francisco Garcia dead already

Faustino Mercado brain damage

Retired Judge had a stroke &

b). Attestation Clause

2. AZUELA vs. CA AND CASTILLO,

1. to be buried at North Cemetery, La Loma;

2. Devising 2 lots to my nephew Felix Azuela;

3. Appointing Vart Pague, executor of my will

Signed June 10, 1981 in Manila.

including this last page x x x

Signed and notarized by me this 10th day of

A will whose attestation clause does

_______ _ _________

Doc. No. _ __________