WILLS AND SUCCESSION

LIST OF CASES

Introduction
Ganuelas v. Cawed, 401 SCRA 447 (2003)
Villanueva v. Branoco, G.R. No. 172804, January 24, 2011

Article 774 - 776

Union Bank v. Santibanez, 452 SCRA 228 [2005]
Estate of K.H. Hemady vs. Luzon Surety, 100 Phil. 389 (1956)
Alvarez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 185 SCRA 8 (1990)
Coronel v. CA, G.R. No. 103577, October 7, 1996
Balus v. Balus, G.R. No. 168970, January 15, 2010
Sicad vs. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 183

Article 777
Uson vs. Del Rosario, 92 Phil. 530 (1953)
De Borja vs. Vda. de Borja, 46 SCRA 577 (1972)
Bonilla vs. Barcena, 71 SCRA 491 (1976)
Republic v. Marcos, G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012
Ining v. Vega, G.R. No. 174727, August 12, 2013
Rioferio v. CA, G.R. No. 129008, January 13, 2004
Heirs of Calpatura v. Prado, G.R. No. 156879, January 20, 2004
Felipe v. Heirs of Aldon, February 16, 1983
Eastern v. Lucero, 124 SCRA 326
Emnace v. CA, 370 SCRA 431 (2001)
Puno v Puno Enterprises, Inc., 599 SCRA 585
Reyes v RTC Branch 142, 561 SCRA 593
Lee v RTC Branch 85, 423 SCRA 497
Heirs of Sandejas v Lina, 351 SCRA 183
Santos v Lumbao, 519 SCRA 408

Article 779-780
Rodriguez v. Borja, 17 SCRA 41
Balanay v. Martinez, 64 SCRA 452

Article 781
Balus v. Balus, G.R. No. 168970, January 15, 2010

Heirs of Leandro Natividad v. Mauricio-Natividad, G.R. No. 198434, February 29, 2016

TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION

Article 783
Vitug v. CA, 183 SCRA 755
Seangio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 149753, November 27, 2006
Rabadilla v. CA, June 29, 2000

Article 784
Castaneda v. Alemany, 3 Phil 426
Article 788
De Roma v Court of Appeals, 152 SCRA 205
Dizon Rivera v. Dizon, 33 SCRA 554
Vda de Villanueva v. Juico, 4 SCRA 550

Article 789
Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, 2 Phil 321
Estate of Rigor v. Rigor, 89 SCRA 493
Rabadilla v. CA, June 29, 2000

Article 791
Vda de Villaflor v. Juico, February 28, 1962
Yambao v. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-10763 (1961)

Article 795
Testate Estate of the Late Alipio Abada v. Abaja, G.R. No. 147145 (2005)
Enriquez v. Abadia, 95 Phil 627
In RE Will of Riosa, 39 Phil 23
Ibarle v. Po, February 27, 1953
Testate Estate of Christensen v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749, January 31, 1963

Article 798
Dorotheo v. CA, 320 SCRA 12 (1999)

Article 799
Bagtas v. Paguio, 22 Phil 227
Baltazar v. Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012
Bugnao v. Ubag, 14 Phil 163
Torres v. Lopez de Bueno, 48 Phil 772
Alsua-Betts v. CA, July 30, 1979
Albornoz v. Albornoz, 71 Phil 414
Neyra v. Neyra, 76 Phil 333
Hernaez v. Hernaez 1 Phil 683
Galvez v. Galvez, 26 Phil 243
Caguioa v. Calderon, 20 Phil 400
Jocson v. Jocson, 46 Phil 701

Article 800
Junquera v. Borromeo, 19 SCRA 656
Torres v. Lopez, 48 Phil 772
Ramirez v. Ramirez, 39 SCRA 147
Samson v. Corrales Tan, 44 Phil 573
Cuyugan v. Baron, 62 Phil 859

Article 801
Ortega v. Valmonte, G.R. No. 157451, 2005
Baltazar v. Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, 2012

Article 804
Suroza v. Honrado, 110 SCRA 32
Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil 476
Lopez v. Liboro, 81 Phil 429
Acop v. Piraso, 52 Phil 660
Reyes v. Vidal, 91 Phil 127

Articles 805-806
 Payad v. Tolentino, 62 Phil 848, (1936)
In Re Will of Tan Duico, 45 Phil 807
Matias v. Salud, G.R. No. L-10751, 1958
Garcia v. Lacuesta, 90 Phil 489, (1951)
Barut v. Cabacungan, 21 Phil 461,(1912)
Nera v. Rimando, G.R. No. L-5971, (1911)
Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422,(1964)
Gabriel v. Mateo, 51 Phil 216
Gonzales v. CA, 90 SCRA 183
Unson v. Abella, 43 Phil 494
In Re: Pilapil, 72 Phil 546
Fernandez v. de Dios, 46 Phil 922
Lopez v. Liboro, 81 Phil 429
Taboada v. Rosal, G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982
Caneda v. CA, 222 SCRA 781
Lee v.Tambago, A.C. No. 5281, February 12, 2008
Cagro
v.Cagro, 92 Phil 1032
(1953)
Azuela v. CA, G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006
Javellana v.Ledesma, 97 Phil 258
(1955)
Cruz v. Villasor, G.R. No. L-32213, November 26, 1973
Guerrero v. Bihis, G.R. No. 174144, April 17, 2007
Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil 476
Leano v. Leano, 30 Phil 612
Balonan v. Abellana, 109 Phil 359
Abaya v. Zalamero, 10 Phil 357
Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil 41
Maravilla v. Maravilla, 37 SCRA 672
Nayve v. Mojal, 47 Phil 152
In Re Estate of Saguinsin, 41 Phil 875
Avera v. Garcia, 42 Phil 145
Garcia v. Gatchalian, G.R. No. L-20357, November 25, 1967

Article 807-808
Garcia v. Vasquez, 32 SCRA 490
Alvarado v. Gaviola, 226 SCRA 317

Article 809
Caneda v. CA, 222 SCRA 781
Cagro v. Cagro, 92 Phil 1032
Taboada v. Rosal, G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982
Villaflor v. Tobias, 53 Phil 714
Azuela v. CA, G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006

Article 810
Labrador v. CA, 180 SCRA 120
Roxas v. de Jesus, Jr., January 28, 1985

Article 811
Rivera v. CA, 182 SCRA 322
Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 472
 Codoy v. Calugay, 312 SCRA 333, 1999
Azaola v. Singson, 109 Phil 102
Gan v. Yap, G.R. No. L-12190, August 30, 1958
Rodelas v. Aranza, 119 SCRA 16

Article 814
Kalaw v. Relova, 132 SCRA 237
Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 488 (1994)
Guevarra v. Guevarra, 74 Phil 479
Ventura v. Ventura, 106 Phil 1159

Article 817
Testate Estate of Suntay, G.R. Nos. L-3087 and L-3088, July 31, 1954
Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil 867

Article 818
Dela Cerna v. Potot, 12 SCRA 576

Article 821
Gonzales v. CA, G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979
Cruz v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 31

Article 824
Caluya v. Domingo, 27 Phil 330

Article 828
Testate Estate of Maloto v. CA, 158 SCRA 451, 1988

Article 832
Molo v. Molo, G.R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951
Naval v. Naval, G.R. No. L-11823, February 11, 1918

Article 830
Testate Estate of Maloto v. CA, 158 SCRA 451, 1988
Gago v. Mamuyac, 49 Phil. 902 (1927)

Article 832
Molo v. Molo, G.R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951
Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil 413, 1922

Article 838
Guevara v. Guevara, 74 Phil 479 1943
Dela Cerna v. Potot, 12 SCRA 576, 1964
Gallanosa v. Arcangel, 83 SCRA 676 (1978)
Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 SCRA 206, 1985
Baltazar v. Laxa, 2012
In Re: Pilapil, 72 Phil 546
Maninang v. CA, 114 SCRA 478
 Spouses Pascual v. CA, G.R. No. 115925, August 15, 2003
Mercado v. Santos, 66 Phil 216
Lim v. CA, 323 SCRA 102
Alsua-Betts v. CA, July 30, 1979
In Re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil 159
Leviste v. CA, 169 SCRA 580
Dorotheo v. CA, 320 SCRA 12
Maloles v. Phillips, G.R. No. 129505/133359, January 31, 2000
Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449, 1966
Pastor Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. L-56340, June 24, 1983
Cayetano v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984
Coronado v. CA, G.R. No. 78778, December 3, 1990
Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 488
Solivio v. CA, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990
Vda de Kilayko v. Tengco, G.R. No. L-45425, March 27, 1992
Balanay v. Martinez, 64 SCRA 452
Natcher v. CA, G.R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001
Camaya v. Patulandong, G.R. No. 144915, February 23, 2004
Heirs of Lasam v. Umengan, G.R. no. 168156, December 6, 2006
Morales v. Olondriz, G.R. No. 198994, February 3, 2016
Aranas v. Mercado, G.R. no. 156407, January 15, 2014
In Re: Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011
Ching v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011
Roberts v. Judge Leonidas, G.R. No. L- 55509 April 27, 1984
Caniza v.CA, G.R. No. 110427, February 24, 1997

Article 828
Testate Estate of Maloto v. CA, 158 SCRA 451, 1988

Article 832
Molo v. Molo, G.R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951
Naval v. Naval, G.R. No. L-11823, February 11, 1918

Article 830
Testate Estate of Maloto v. CA, 158 SCRA 451, 1988
Gago v. Mamuyac, 49 Phil. 902 (1927)

Article 832
Molo v. Molo, G.R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951
Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil 413, 1922

Article 838
Guevara v. Guevara, 74 Phil 479 1943
Dela Cerna v. Potot, 12 SCRA 576, 1964
Gallanosa v. Arcangel, 83 SCRA 676 (1978)
Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 SCRA 206, 1985
Baltazar v. Laxa, 2012
In Re: Pilapil, 72 Phil 546
Maninang v. CA, 114 SCRA 478
Spouses Pascual v. CA, G.R. No. 115925, August 15, 2003
Mercado v. Santos, 66 Phil 216
Lim v. CA, 323 SCRA 102
Alsua-Betts v. CA, July 30, 1979
 In Re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil 159
Leviste v. CA, 169 SCRA 580
Dorotheo v. CA, 320 SCRA 12
Maloles v. Phillips, G.R. No. 129505/133359, January 31, 2000
Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449, 1966
Pastor Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. L-56340, June 24, 1983
Cayetano v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984
Coronado v. CA, G.R. No. 78778, December 3, 1990
Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 488
Solivio v. CA, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990
Vda de Kilayko v. Tengco, G.R. No. L-45425, March 27, 1992
Balanay v. Martinez, 64 SCRA 452
Natcher v. CA, G.R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001
Camaya v. Patulandong, G.R. No. 144915, February 23, 2004
Heirs of Lasam v. Umengan, G.R. no. 168156, December 6, 2006
Morales v. Olondriz, G.R. No. 198994, February 3, 2016
Aranas v. Mercado, G.R. no. 156407, January 15, 2014
In Re: Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011
Ching v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011
Roberts v. Judge Leonidas, G.R. No. L- 55509 April 27, 1984
Caniza v.CA, G.R. No. 110427, February 24, 1997

Article 847
Nable v. Unson, 27 Phil 73

Article 850
Austria v. Reyes, 31 SCRA 754

Article 854
Acain v. IAC, G.R. No. 72706, October 27, 1987
Maloles v. Philips, 324 SCRA 172
Morales v. Olondriz, G.R. No. 198994, February 3, 2016
JLT Agro v. Balansag, G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005
Seangio v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 140371-72, November 27, 2006
Heirs of Ureta v. Heirs of Ureta, G.R. No. 165748, September 14, 2011
Reyes v. Barretto-Datu, 19 SCRA 85 (1967)
Aznar v. Duncan, 17 SCRA 590 (1966)
Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449 (1966)

Article 857
PCIB v. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266

Article 859
Rabadilla v. CA, G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000
Testate Estate of Jose Ramirez v. Vda de Ramirez, G.R. No. L-27952, February 15, 1982

Article 863
Testate Estate of Jose Ramirez v. Vda de Ramirez, G.R. No. L-27952, February 15, 1982
Rabadilla v. CA, G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000
PCIB v. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266 (1974)
Palacios v. Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704 (1982)
Article 882
Rabadilla v. CA, G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000

Article 887
Lapuz v. Eufemio, 43 SCRA 177 (1972)
Baritua v. CA, 183 SCRA 565 (1990)
Tumbokon v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 153736, August 4, 2010

Article 888
Francisco v. Francisco, 354 SCRA 112, March 8, 2001

Article 891
Chua v. CFI of Negros Occidental, G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977
Mendoza v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 176422, March 20, 2013
Gonzales v. CFI of Manila, G.R. No. L-34395, May 19, 1981
De Papa v. Camacho, G.R. No. L-28032, September 24, 1986
Sienes v. Esparcia, 1 SCRA 750
Padura v. Baldovino, G.R. No. L-11960, December 27, 1958
Solivio v. CA, 182 SCRA 119 (1990)
Florentino v. Florentino, 40 Phil. 480 (1919)
Edroso v. Sablan, 25 Phil. 295 (1913)
Cano v. Director, 105 Phil. 1 (1959)

Article 898
Del Rosario v. Conanan, G.R. no. L-37903, March 30, 1977

Article 912
Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon, 33 SCRA 554

Article 960
Testate Estate of the Late Reverend Father Rigor v. Rigor, G.R. No. L-22036, April 30,
1979

Article 962
Bagunu v. Piedad, 347 SCRA 571, December 8, 2000

Article 970
Bagunu v. Piedad, 347 SCRA 571, December 8, 2000
Intestate Estate of Petra Rosales v. Rosales, G.R. No. L-40789, February 27, 1987

Article 971
Intestate Estate of Petra Rosales v. Rosales, G.R. No. L-40789, February 27, 1987

Article 975
 Bicomong v. Almanza, G.R. No. L-37365, November 29, 1977

Article 977
Teotico v. Del Val, G.R. No. L-18753, March 26, 1965

Article 979
Sayson v. CA, G.R. Nos. 89224-25, January 23, 1992

Article 980
Heirs of Joaquin Teves v. CA, G.R. No. 109963, October 13, 1999

Article 992
In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Suntay v. Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, June 16, 2010
Diaz v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66574, June 17, 1987
Pascual v. Pascual-Bautista, G.R. No. 84240, March 25, 1992
Corpus v. Estate of Yangco, G.R. No. L-22469, October 23, 1978
Leonardo v. CA, 120 SCRA 890 (1983)

Article 994
Heirs of Sandejas v. Lina, 351 SCRA 183, February 6, 2001

Article 995
Calisterio v. Calisterio, April 6, 2000

Article 996
Santillon v. Miranda, 14 SCRA 563 (1965)

Article 1000
Del Rosario v. Conanan, G.R. No. L-37903, March 30, 1977

Article 1003
Baranda v. Baranda, G.R. No. 73275, May 20, 1987

Article 1006
Bicomong v. Almanza, G.R. No. L-37365, November 29, 1977

Article 1008
Bicomong v. Almanza, G.R. No. L-37365, November 29, 1977

Article 1025
Testate Estate of the Late Reverend Father Pascual Rigor v. Rigor, G.R. No. L-22036,
April 30, 1979

Article 1039
Cayetano v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984
Article 1043
Intestate Estate of the Late Vito Borromeo v. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-41171, July 23, 1987

Article 1051
Imperial v. CA, G.R. No. 112483, October 8, 1999

Article 1053
Imperial v. CA, G.R. No. 112483, October 8, 1999

Article 1058
Maloles v. Phillips, G.R. No. 129505/133359, January 31, 2000
Corona v. CA, G.R. No. L-59821, August 30, 1982

Article 1061
Arellano v. Pascual, G.R. No. 189776, December 15, 2010
Zaragoza v. CA, 341 SCRA 309, September 29, 2000
Vda. De Tupas v. RTC, G.R. No. L-65800, October 3, 1986

Article 1062
Buhay de Roma v. CA, G.R. No. L-46903, July 23, 1987

Article 1078
Noceda v. CA, 313 SCRA 505, September 2, 1999

Article 1079
Heirs of Joaquin Teves v. CA, 316 SCRA 632, October 13, 1999
Heirs of Quirico Seraspi v. CA, G.R. No. 135602, April 28, 2000
Casilang v. Dizon, G.R. No. 180269, February 20, 2013

Article 1080
Zaragosa v. CA, 341 SCRA 309, September 29, 2000
JLT Agro, Inc. v. Balansag, G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005
Legasto v. Verzosa, 54 Phil 766 (1930)

Article 1082
Heirs of Joaquin Teves v. CA, 316 SCRA 632, October 13, 1999
Union Bank of the Philippines v. Santibanez, G.R. No. 149926, February 23, 2005
Crucillo v. IAC, 317 SCRA 351
Non v. CA, 325 SCRA 652
Pada-Kilario v. CA, G.R. No. 134329, January 19, 2000
Tuason v. Tuason, 88 Phil 428 (1951)

Article 1083
Heirs of the Late Gerry Ecarma v. CA, G.R. No. 193374, June 8, 2016
Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 139524, October 12, 2000
In Re: Petition for Probate of Last Will and Testament of Basilio Santiago, G.R. No. 179859,
August 9, 2010

Article 1088
 Baylon v. Amador, G.R. No. 160701, February 9, 2004
Garcia v. Calaliman, G.R. No. L-26855, April 17, 1989
Alonzo v. IAC, 159 SCRA 259
Cuizon v. Remoto, G.R. No. 143027, October 11, 2005
Cabales v. CA, G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007
Union Bank of the Philippines v. Santibanez, G.R. No. 149926, February 23, 2005
Primary Structures Corp. v. Spouses Valencia, G.R. No. 150060, August 19, 2003
Cua v. Vargas, G.R. No. 156536, October 31, 2006

Article 1091
Heirs of Teves v. CA, G.R. No. 109963, October 13, 1999

Article 1104
Reillo v. Heirs of Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo, G.R. No. 166393, June
18, 2009
Non v. CA, 325 SCRA 652

Article 1105
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 363 SCRA 811 (2001)
Aznar Brothers Realty v. CA, G.R. No. 128102, March 7, 2000
Mendoza v. IAC, G.R. No. L-63132, July 30, 1987
Landayan v. Bacani, G.R. No. L-30455, September 30, 1982
 ARTICLE 783

Vitug vs. CA, 183 SCRA 755

Romarico Vitug and Nenita Alonte were co-administrators of Dolores Vitug’s (deceased) estate. Rowena
Corona was the executrix. Romarico, the deceased’s husband, filed a motion with the probate court asking
for authority to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover alleged
advances to the estate, which he claimed as personal funds. The advances were used to pay estate taxes.

Corona opposed the motion on ground that the advances came from a savings account which formed part
of the conjugal partnership properties and is part of the estate. Thus, there was no ground for
reimbursement. Romarico claims that the funds are his exclusive property, having been acquired through
a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank.

The survivorship agreement stated that after the death of either one of the spouses, the savings account
shall belong to and be the sole property of the survivor, and shall be payable to and collectible or
withdrawable by such survivor.

The lower court upheld the validity of the agreement and granted the motion to sell. CA reversed stating
that the survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which did not comply with the
formalities of a valid will. Assuming that it was a donation inter vivos, it is a prohibited donation (donation
between spouses).

ISSUE:
WON the conveyance is one of mortis causa hence should conform to the form required of wills.

HELD:

No. The conveyance is not mortis causa, which should be embodied in a will. A will is a personal,
solemn, revocable and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and
declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death. The bequest or devise must pertain to
the testator.

In this case, the savings account involved was in the nature of conjugal funds. Since it was not shown
that the funds belonged exclusively to one party, it is presumed to be conjugal.

It is also not a donation inter vivos because it was to take effect after the death of one party. It is also
not a donation between spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse’s own properties to the
other. It was an error to include the savings account in the inventory of the deceased’s assets because it
is the separate property of Romarico.

Thus, Romarico had the right to claim reimbursement.

Survivorship agreements are permitted by the NCC. However, its operation or effect must not be violative
of the law (i.e. used as a cloak to hide an inofficious donation or to transfer property in fraud of creditors
or to defeat the legitime of a forced heir).
Seangio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 149753, November 27, 2006

FACTS:

Alfredo Seangio, et al. (eldest son) filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the late
Segundo. Seangio and praying for the appointment of Elisa D. Seangio–Santos as special administrator and
guardian ad litem of Dy Yieng Seangio. However, Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia, all surnamed Seangio,
opposed the petition, wherein one of the contentions is that “Segundo left a holographic will, disinheriting
Alfredo Seangio, for cause”. Alfredo Seangio, et al. moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings
primarily on the ground that the document purporting to be the holographic will of Segundo does not
contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus does not meet the definition of a will under
Article 783 of the Civil Code. According to them, the will only shows an alleged act of disinheritance by the
decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor
instituted as heir, devisee or legatee, hence, there is preterition which would result to intestacy. Further
they maintained that the court is not barred from delving into the intrinsic validity of the will. Dy Yieng
Seangio, et al. opposed the motion contending that generally, the authority of the probate court is limited
only to a determination of the extrinsic validity of the will; Alfredo, et al. question the intrinsic and not the
extrinsic validity of the will; disinheritance constitutes a disposition of the estate of a decedent; and, the
rule on preterition does not apply because Segundo’s will does not constitute a universal heir or heirs to
the exclusion of one or more compulsory heirs.

The trial court dismissed the probate proceedings stating the document termed as “will” by Dy Yieng
Seangio, et al. is preterition because only Alfredo and Virginia were mentioned thus Article 854 of the New
Civil Code applies.

However, the said Article does not apply to the widow of Dy Yieng being not a compulsory heir in the direct
line.

ISSUE:
WON the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will.

HELD:
Yes. The Court held that a holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be entirely
written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be
made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. Segundo’s document, although it may initially
come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will
prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo 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 latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of
disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the
testator Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.

It is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed in the form and within the
limits prescribed by law, must be recognized as the supreme law in succession. All rules of construction are
designed to ascertain and give effect to that intention. It is only when the intention of the testator is
contrary to law, morals, or public policy that it cannot be given effect. Holographic wills, therefore, being
usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law, as illustrated in the present case, should be construed
more liberally than the ones drawn by an expert, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the
execution of the instrument and the intention of the testator. In this regard, the Court is convinced that
the document, even if captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was intended by Segundo to be his
last testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of a holographic will.
Unless the will is probated, the disinheritance cannot be given effect.

The document, entitled Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, unmistakably showed Segundo’s intention of
excluding his eldest son, Alfredo, as an heir to his estate for the reasons that he cited therein. In effect,
Alfredo was disinherited by Segundo. For disinheritance to be valid, Article 916 of the Civil Code requires
that the same must be effected through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. With
regard to the reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by Segundo in his document, the Court
believes that the incidents, taken as a whole, can be considered a form of maltreatment of Segundo by his
son, Alfredo, and that the matter presents a sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant
under Article 919 of the Civil Code.

Additional Note:
Considering that the questioned document is Segundo’s holographic will, and that the law favors testacy
over intestacy, the probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. Article 838 of the Civil Code provides that
no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the
Rules of Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the right of a person to dispose of his property may be
rendered nugatory. In view of the foregoing, the trial court, therefore, should have allowed the holographic
will to be probated. It is settled that testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the decedent
take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose.

Reasons stated in the Kasulatan for disinheriting Alfredo Seangio

1. Naging lapastangan sa akin at isang beses siya nagsalita ng masama harapan ko at mga kapatid niya.
2. Paggamit ng aking pangalan para makapangutang sya at ang kanyang asawa ng kuarta at hindi
pagbabayad nito na nagdulot sa akin ng malaking kahihiyan sa mga may-ari at stockholders ng China
Banking.
3. Ikinagalit ko pa rin ang pagkuha ni Alfredo at ng kanyang asawa nG mga customer ng Travel Center of
the
Philippines na pinagasiwaan ko at ng anak ko si Virginia.
Rabadilla v. CA, June 29, 2000
 Article 784

Castaneda v. Alemany, 3 Phil 426

FACTS:
Appellant constested the validity of the will of Doña Juana Moreno upon the ground that although the
attestation clause in the will states that the testator signed the will in the presence of three witnesses who
also each signed in each presence, the will was not actually written by the testator.

ISSUE:
WON it is necessary that a will be written by the testator herself.

HELD:
No. Section 618 of the Civil Code requires (1) that the will be in writing and (2) either that the testator
sign it himself or, if he does not sign it, that it be signed by someone in his presence and by his express
direction. Who does the mechanical work of writing the will is a matter of indifference. The fact,
therefore, that in this case the will was typewritten in the office of the lawyer for the testratrix is of no
consequence.
Article 788
De Roma v Court of Appeals, 152 SCRA 205
Dizon Rivera v. Dizon, 33 SCRA 554
Vda de Villanueva v. Juico, 4 SCRA 550

Article 789
Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, 2 Phil 321
Estate of Rigor v. Rigor, 89 SCRA 493
Rabadilla v. CA, June 29, 2000