ELIODORA LIPANA, represented by her guardian ad litem, ISABELO LIPANA, petitioner, vs.

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, JOAQUIN LIPANA and NATIVIDAD LIPANA, respondents. 1940 Jun 28 1st Division G.R. No. 47174 DECISION MORAN, J: A petition for certiorari. One Eliodora Lipana filed in the respondent court an application for the probate of a will supposedly executed by the deceased, Manuela Lipana, a carbon copy of which was attached to the application. Natividad Lipana filed an opposition, and in her "oposicion supletoria" she claimed that evidence was unnecessary upon the facts alleged in the application, the copy of the will attached thereto showing, in itself, that the will had not been executed in accordance with law. The respondent court, after inspecting the copy of the will, dismissed the application on the ground that such copy could not be admitted to probate, it not having been signed by the testatrix and the attesting witnesses at the end thereof and on the left margin of each page. It is against this order of dismissal that the petition for certiorari has been filed with this court. There can be no doubt that the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in rendering a judgment upon the merits of the case without a previous hearing. The pronouncement made by the respondent court that the will had not been executed in accordance with law, is founded undoubtedly on the erroneous assumption that the probate of the carbon copy of the will was being applied for. Such copy was attached to the application merely to corroborate the allegation as to the existence of its original and not to establish a full compliance with the requirements of the law as to the execution of the will. Such requirements are alleged in the application to have been complied with and may be proved at the hearing. It is apparent from the application that what is sought to be admitted to probate is the original of the will. It is alleged therein that the original was in the possession of a third person or that it was either lost or destroyed by some person other than the testatrix. Under section 623 of Act No. 190, if a will is shown to have been torn by some other person without the express direction of the testator, it may be admitted to probate, if its contents, due execution and its unauthorized destruction are established by satisfactory evidence. The applicant, therefore, was entitled to hearing to prove the due execution of the original will and its loss or destruction, and the respondent court had no statutory authority to dismiss the application without such hearing. It is alleged that, according to sections 217 and 514 of Act No. 190, a writ of certiorari may be granted only where "there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy by bill of exceptions, or appeal, or otherwise." This rule, however, recognizes an exception. There the order or judgment is a nullity by virtue of its own recitals, as, in the instant case, wherein the order complained of recites that there had been no hearing of the facts alleged in the application, it may be attacked in any way and at any time, even when no appeal has been taken. (Banco Espaol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921, 949.) This is exactly the same as a judgment in a criminal case wherein it is stated that there is no need of trial and the accused is convicted merely upon the allegations

of the information. Such judgment may be "held to be 'a dead limb on the judicial tree, which should be lopped of' or wholly disregarded as the circumstances require." (Anuran vs. Aquino, 38 Phil., 29, 36.) Indeed, we have once held that a judgment with absolutely nothing to support it, is a nullity, and may be voided at least by a proceeding in certiorari. (Yangco vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, 29 Phil., 183,191.) A motion for contempt is filed by the petitioner against attorney Fortunato Jose due to certain statements made by the latter in his written argument and which are derogatory to the good name of petitioner's attorney. We reiterate here what we have observed on several occasions, that attorneys should not abuse the privilege accorded them in their defense of cases in courts of justice, by indulging in offensive personalities which can in no way aid in the proper elucidation of the issues. We disapprove of the conduct of attorney Fortunato Jose and he is hereby warned that a similar misbehavior on his part in the future will be appropriately dealt with. The order of the respondent court of November 29, 1939, issued in its civil case No. 3626, is hereby set aside, with costs against respondents. Avancea, Pres., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-26317

January 29, 1927

Estate of Miguel Mamuyac, deceased. FRANCISCO GAGO, petitioner-appellant, vs. CORNELIO MAMUYAC, AMBROSIO LARIOSA, FELICIANA BAUZON, and CATALINA MAMUYAC, opponents-appellees. Nicanor Tavora for appellant. Jose Rivera for appellees. JOHNSON, J.: The purpose of this action was to obtain the probation of a last will and testament of Miguel Mamuyac, who died on the 2d day of January, 1922, in the municipality of Agoo of the Province of La Union. It appears from the record that on or about the 27th day of July, 1918, the said Miguel Mamuyac executed a last will and testament (Exhibit A). In the month of January, 1922, the said Francisco Gago presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union for the probation of that will. The probation of the same was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac (civil cause No. 1144, Province of La Union). After hearing all of the parties the petition for the probation of said will was denied by the Honorable C. M. Villareal on the 2d day of November, 1923, upon the ground that the deceased had on the 16th day of April, 1919, executed a new will and testament.

On the 21st day of February, 1925, the present action was commenced. Its purpose was to secure the probation of the said will of the 16th day of April, 1919 (Exhibit 1). To said petition Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac presented their oppositions, alleging (a) that the said will is a copy of the second will and testament executed by the said Miguel Mamuyac; (b) that the same had been cancelled and revoked during the lifetime of Miguel Mamuyac and (c) that the said will was not the last will and testament of the deceased Miguel Mamuyac. Upon the issue thus presented, the Honorable Anastacio R. Teodoro, judge, after hearing the respective parties, denied the probation of said will of April 16, 1919, upon the ground that the same had been cancelled and revoked in the year 1920. Judge Teodoro, after examining the evidence adduced, found that the following facts had been satisfactorily proved: That Exhibit A is a mere carbon of its original which remained in the possession of the deceased testator Miguel Mamuyac, who revoked it before his death as per testimony of witness Jose Fenoy, who typed the will of the testator on April 16, 1919, and Carlos Bejar, who saw on December 30, 1920, the original Exhibit A (will of 1919) actually cancelled by the testator Miguel Mamuyac, who assured Carlos Bejar that inasmuch as he had sold him a house and the land where the house was built, he had to cancel it (the will of 1919), executing thereby a new testament. Narcisa Gago in a way corroborates the testimony of Jose Fenoy, admitting that the will executed by the deceased (Miguel Mamuyac) in 1919 was found in the possession of father Miguel Mamuyac. The opponents have successfully established the fact that father Miguel Mamuyac had executed in 1920 another will. The same Narcisa Gago, the sister of the deceased, who was living in the house with him, when cross-examined by attorney for the opponents, testified that the original Exhibit A could not be found. For the foregoing consideration and for the reason that the original of Exhibit A has been cancelled by the deceased father Miguel Mamuyac, the court disallows the probate of Exhibit A for the applicant." From that order the petitioner appealed. The appellant contends that the lower court committed an error in not finding from the evidence that the will in question had been executed with all the formalities required by the law; that the same had been revoked and cancelled in 1920 before his death; that the said will was a mere carbon copy and that the oppositors were not estopped from alleging that fact. With reference to the said cancellation, it may be stated that there is positive proof, not denied, which was accepted by the lower court, that will in question had been cancelled in 1920. The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation of a will to be preserved. It therefore becomes difficult at times to prove the revocation or cancellation of wills. The fact that such cancellation or revocation has taken place must either remain unproved of be inferred from evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be found. Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the

testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. The force of the presumption of cancellation or revocation by the testator, while varying greatly, being weak or strong according to the circumstances, is never conclusive, but may be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it. In view of the fat that the original will of 1919 could not be found after the death of the testator Miguel Mamuyac and in view of the positive proof that the same had been cancelled, we are forced to the conclusion that the conclusions of the lower court are in accordance with the weight of the evidence. In a proceeding to probate a will the burden of proofs is upon the proponent clearly to establish not only its execution but its existence. Having proved its execution by the proponents, the burden is on the contestant to show that it has been revoked. In a great majority of instances in which wills are destroyed for the purpose of revoking them there is no witness to the act of cancellation or destruction and all evidence of its cancellation perishes with the testator. Copies of wills should be admitted by the courts with great caution. When it is proven, however, by proper testimony that a will was executed in duplicate and each copy was executed with all the formalities and requirements of the law, then the duplicate may be admitted in evidence when it is made to appear that the original has been lost and was not cancelled or destroyed by the testator. (Borromeo vs. Casquijo, G.R. No. L-26063.) 1 After a careful examination of the entire record, we are fully persuaded that the will presented for probate had been cancelled by the testator in 1920. Therefore the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed. And without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered. Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1

Promulgated December 14, 1926, not reported.

G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988 TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ALDINA MALOTO CASIANO, CONSTANCIO MALOTO, PURIFICACION MIRAFLOR, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MOLO, AND ASILO DE MOLO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PANFILO MALOTO AND FELINO MALOTO, respondents.

SARMIENTO, J.: This is not the first time that the parties to this case come to us. In fact, two other cases directly related to the present one and involving the same parties had already been decided by us in the past. In G.R. No. L-30479, 1 which was a petition for certiorari and mandamus instituted by the petitioners herein, we dismissed the petition ruling that the more appropriate remedy of the petitioners is a separate proceeding for the probate of the will in question. Pursuant to the said ruling, the petitioners commenced in the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Special Proceeding No. 2176, for the probate of the disputed will, which was opposed by the private respondents presently, Panfilo and Felino both surnamed Maloto. The trial court dismissed the petition on April 30, 1970. Complaining against the dismissal, again, the petitioners came to this Court on a petition for review by certiorari. 2 Acting on the said petition, we set aside the trial court's order and directed it to proceed to hear the case on the merits. The trial court, after hearing, found the will to have already been revoked by the testatrix. Adriana Maloto, and thus, denied the petition. The petitioners appealed the trial court's decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court which, on June 7, 1985, affirmed the order. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the adverse decision proved to be of no avail, hence, this petition. For a better understanding of the controversy, a factual account would be a great help. On October 20, 1963, Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and the private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced on November 4, 1963 an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate. The case was instituted in the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo and was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 1736. However, while the case was still in progress, or to be exact on February 1, 1964, the parties Aldina, Constancio, Panfilo, and Felino executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate. The agreement provided for the division of the estate into four equal parts among the parties. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial court for approval which the court did on March 21, 1964. That should have signalled the end of the controversy, but, unfortunately, it had not. Three years later, or sometime in March 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adriana's counsel, the late Atty. Eliseo Hervas, discovered a document entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," dated January 3,1940, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. Atty. Palma claimed to have found the testament, the original copy, while he was going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer formerly used by Atty. Hervas. The document was submitted to the office of the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on April 1, 1967. Incidentally, while Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much bigger and more valuable shares in the estate of Adriana than what they received by virtue of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed. The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties, among them being the petitioners Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor.

Thus, on May 24, 1967, Aldina and Constancio, joined by the other devisees and legatees named in the will, filed in Special Proceeding No. 1736 a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings therein and for the allowance of the will When the trial court denied their motion, the petitioner came to us by way of a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of the trial court . 3 As we stated earlier, we dismissed that petition and advised that a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will would be the appropriate vehicle to thresh out the matters raised by the petitioners. Significantly, the appellate court while finding as inconclusive the matter on whether or not the document or papers allegedly burned by the househelp of Adriana, Guadalupe Maloto Vda. de Coral, upon instructions of the testatrix, was indeed the will, contradicted itself and found that the will had been revoked. The respondent court stated that the presence of animus revocandi in the destruction of the will had, nevertheless, been sufficiently proven. The appellate court based its finding on the facts that the document was not in the two safes in Adriana's residence, by the testatrix going to the residence of Atty. Hervas to retrieve a copy of the will left in the latter's possession, and, her seeking the services of Atty. Palma in order to have a new will drawn up. For reasons shortly to be explained, we do not view such facts, even considered collectively, as sufficient bases for the conclusion that Adriana Maloto's will had been effectively revoked. There is no doubt as to the testamentary capacity of the testatrix and the due execution of the will. The heart of the case lies on the issue as to whether or not the will was revoked by Adriana. The provisions of the new Civil Code pertinent to the issue can be found in Article 830. Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases: (1) By implication of law; or (2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills: or (3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express direction of the testator, the will may still be established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court. (Emphasis Supplied.) It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physical

destruction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. Of course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself. In this case, while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke, may be conceded, for that is a state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice. "Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. For one, the document or papers burned by Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the express direction of Adriana. And then, the burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses, Guadalupe and Eladio, were one in stating that they were the only ones present at the place where the stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which the papers proffered as a will were burned. The respondent appellate court in assessing the evidence presented by the private respondents as oppositors in the trial court, concluded that the testimony of the two witnesses who testified in favor of the will's revocation appear "inconclusive." We share the same view. Nowhere in the records before us does it appear that the two witnesses, Guadalupe Vda. de Corral and Eladio Itchon, both illiterates, were unequivocably positive that the document burned was indeed Adriana's will. Guadalupe, we think, believed that the papers she destroyed was the will only because, according to her, Adriana told her so. Eladio, on the other hand, obtained his information that the burned document was the will because Guadalupe told him so, thus, his testimony on this point is double hearsay. At this juncture, we reiterate that "(it) is an important matter of public interest that a purported win is not denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its very foundations ...." 4 The private respondents in their bid for the dismissal of the present action for probate instituted by the petitioners argue that the same is already barred by res adjudicata. They claim that this bar was brought about by the petitioners' failure to appeal timely from the order dated November 16, 1968 of the trial court in the intestate proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 1736) denying their (petitioners') motion to reopen the case, and their prayer to annul the previous proceedings therein and to allow the last will and testament of the late Adriana Maloto. This is untenable. The doctrine of res adjudicata finds no application in the present controversy. For a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case, the following requisites must concur: (1) the presence of a final former judgment; (2) the former judgment was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the former judgment is a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is, between the first and the second action, Identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action. 5 We do not find here the presence of all the enumerated requisites.

For one, there is yet, strictly speaking, no final judgment rendered insofar as the probate of Adriana Maloto's will is concerned. The decision of the trial court in Special Proceeding No. 1736, although final, involved only the intestate settlement of the estate of Adriana. As such, that judgment could not in any manner be construed to be final with respect to the probate of the subsequently discovered will of the decedent. Neither is it a judgment on the merits of the action for probate. This is understandably so because the trial court, in the intestate proceeding, was without jurisdiction to rule on the probate of the contested will . 6 After all, an action for probate, as it implies, is founded on the presence of a will and with the objective of proving its due execution and validity, something which can not be properly done in an intestate settlement of estate proceeding which is predicated on the assumption that the decedent left no will. Thus, there is likewise no Identity between the cause of action in intestate proceeding and that in an action for probate. Be that as it may, it would be remembered that it was precisely because of our ruling in G.R. No. L-30479 that the petitioners instituted this separate action for the probate of the late Adriana Maloto's will. Hence, on these grounds alone, the position of the private respondents on this score can not be sustained. One last note. The private respondents point out that revocation could be inferred from the fact that "(a) major and substantial bulk of the properties mentioned in the will had been disposed of: while an insignificant portion of the properties remained at the time of death (of the testatrix); and, furthermore, more valuable properties have been acquired after the execution of the will on January 3,1940." 7 Suffice it to state here that as these additional matters raised by the private respondents are extraneous to this special proceeding, they could only be appropriately taken up after the will has been duly probated and a certificate of its allowance issued. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated June 7, 1985 and the Resolution dated October 22, 1986, of the respondent Court of Appeals, and a new one ENTERED for the allowance of Adriana Maloto's last will and testament. Costs against the private respondents. This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. SO ORDERED. Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, and Paras JJ., concur. Padilla, J., took no part.

Footnotes 1 Constancio Maloto, et al. vs. Hon. Emigdio V. Nietes, etc., et al., May 14, 1969. 2 G.R. No. L-32328.

3 G.R. No. L-30479, supra. 4 Vda. de Precilla vs. Narciso, No. L-27200, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 538, 565-566, quoted in: Maninang vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-57848, June 19, 1982, 114 SCRA 78. 5 Heirs of Matilde Cenizal Arguzon vs. Miclat, No. L-61049, April 15, 1985, 135 SCRA 678; Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, No. L41425, November 11, 1985,139 SCRA 558. 6 See Circa Nila Development Corporation, et. al. vs. Hon. Salvador J. Baylen, etc., et al., G.R. Nos. 69757-58, January 29, 1988. 7 Rollo, 75.

I Natividad K. Kalaw Filipino 63years of age, single, and a resident of Lipa City, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, do hereby declare thus to be my last will and testament. 1. It is my will that I'll be burried in the cemetery of the catholic church of Lipa City. In accordance with the rights of said Church, and that my executrix hereinafter named provide and erect at the expose of my state a suitable monument to perpetuate my memory. xxx xxx xxx The holographic Will, as first written, named ROSA K. Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her sole heir. Hence, on November 10, 1971, petitioner ROSA K. Kalaw opposed probate alleging, in substance, that the holographic Will contained alterations, corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code reading: Art. 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. ROSA's position was that the holographic Will, as first written, should be given effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder. After trial, respondent Judge denied probate in an Order, dated September 3, 197 3, reading in part: The document Exhibit "C" was submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. The NBI reported that the handwriting, the signature, the insertions and/or additions and the initial were made by one and the same person. Consequently, Exhibit "C" was the handwriting of the decedent, Natividad K. Kalaw. The only question is whether the win, Exhibit 'C', should be admitted to probate although the alterations and/or insertions or additions above-mentioned were not authenticated by the full signature of the testatrix pursuant to Art. 814 of the Civil Code. The petitioner contends that the oppositors are estopped to assert the provision of Art. 814 on the ground that they themselves agreed thru their counsel to submit the Document to the NBI FOR EXAMINATIONS. This is untenable. The parties did not agree, nor was it impliedly understood, that the oppositors would be in estoppel. The Court finds, therefore, that the provision of Article 814 of the Civil Code is applicable to Exhibit "C". Finding the insertions, alterations and/or additions in Exhibit "C" not to be authenticated by the full signature of the testatrix Natividad K. Kalaw, the Court will deny the admission to probate of Exhibit "C".

G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984 ROSA K. KALAW, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN RELOVA, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Batangas, Branch VI, Lipa City, and GREGORIO K. KALAW, respondents. Leandro H. Fernandez for petitioner. Antonio Quintos and Jose M. Yacat for respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: On September 1, 1971, private respondent GREGORIO K. KALAW, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch VI, Lipa City, for the probate of her holographic Will executed on December 24, 1968. The holographic Will reads in full as follows: My Last will and Testament In the name of God, Amen.

WHEREFORE, the petition to probate Exhibit "C" as the holographic will of Natividad K. Kalaw is hereby denied. SO ORDERED. From that Order, GREGORIO moved for reconsideration arguing that since the alterations and/or insertions were the testatrix, the denial to probate of her holographic Will would be contrary to her right of testamentary disposition. Reconsideration was denied in an Order, dated November 2, 1973, on the ground that "Article 814 of the Civil Code being , clear and explicit, (it) requires no necessity for interpretation." From that Order, dated September 3, 1973, denying probate, and the Order dated November 2, 1973 denying reconsideration, ROSA filed this Petition for Review on certiorari on the sole legal question of whether or not the original unaltered text after subsequent alterations and insertions were voided by the Trial Court for lack of authentication by the full signature of the testatrix, should be probated or not, with her as sole heir. Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will litem not been noted under his signature, ... the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined.1 Manresa gave an Identical commentary when he said "la omision de la salvedad no anula el testamento, segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1895." 2 However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature, The ruling in Velasco, supra, must be held confined to such insertions, cancellations, erasures or alterations in a holographic Will, which affect only the efficacy of the altered words themselves but not the essence and validity of the Will itself. As it is, with the erasures, cancellations and alterations made by the testatrix herein, her real intention cannot be determined with certitude. As Manresa had stated in his commentary on Article 688 of the Spanish Civil Code, whence Article 814 of the new Civil Code was derived: ... No infringe lo dispuesto en este articulo del Codigo (el 688) la sentencia que no declara la nulidad de un testamento olografo que contenga palabras tachadas, enmendadas o entre renglones no salvadas por el testador bajo su firnia segun previene el parrafo tercero del mismo, porque, en realidad, tal omision solo puede

afectar a la validez o eficacia de tales palabras, y nunca al testamento mismo, ya por estar esa disposicion en parrafo aparte de aquel que determine las condiciones necesarias para la validez del testamento olografo, ya porque, de admitir lo contrario, se Ilegaria al absurdo de que pequefias enmiendas no salvadas, que en nada afectasen a la parte esencial y respectiva del testamento, vinieran a anular este, y ya porque el precepto contenido en dicho parrafo ha de entenderse en perfecta armonia y congruencia con el art. 26 de la ley del Notariado que declara nulas las adiciones apostillas entrerrenglonados, raspaduras y tachados en las escrituras matrices, siempre que no se salven en la forma prevenida, paro no el documento que las contenga, y con mayor motivo cuando las palabras enmendadas, tachadas, o entrerrenglonadas no tengan importancia ni susciten duda alguna acerca del pensamiento del testador, o constituyan meros accidentes de ortografia o de purez escrituraria, sin trascendencia alguna(l). Mas para que sea aplicable la doctrina de excepcion contenida en este ultimo fallo, es preciso que las tachaduras, enmiendas o entrerrenglonados sin salvar saan de pala bras que no afecter4 alteren ni uarien de modo substancial la express voluntad del testador manifiesta en el documento. Asi lo advierte la sentencia de 29 de Noviembre de 1916, que declara nulo un testamento olografo por no estar salvada por el testador la enmienda del guarismo ultimo del ao en que fue extendido 3 (Emphasis ours). WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby dismissed and the Decision of respondent Judge, dated September 3, 1973, is hereby affirmed in toto. No costs. SO ORDERED. Plana, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur. Relova, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring: I concur. Rosa, having appealed to this Court on a sole question of law, is bound by the trial court's factual finding that the peculiar alterations in the holographic will

crossing out Rosa's name and instead inserting her brother Gregorio's name as sole heir and "sole executrix" were made by the testatrix in her own handwriting. (I find it peculiar that the testatrix who was obviously an educated person would unthinkingly make such crude alterations instead of consulting her lawyer and writing an entirely new holographic wig in order to avoid any doubts as to her change of heir. It should be noted that the first alteration crossing out "sister Rosa K. Kalaw" and inserting "brother Gregorio Kalaw" as sole heir is not even initialed by the testatrix. Only the second alteration crossing out "sister Rosa K. Kalaw" and inserting "brother Gregorio Kalaw" as "sole executrix" is initialed.) Probate of the radically altered will replacing Gregorio for Rosa as sole heir is properly denied, since the same was not duly authenticated by the full signature of the executrix as mandatorily required by Article 814 of the Civil Code. The original unaltered will naming Rosa as sole heir cannot, however, be given effect in view of the trial court's factual finding that the testatrix had by her own handwriting substituted Gregorio for Rosa, so that there is no longer any will naming Rosa as sole heir. The net result is that the testatrix left no valid will and both Rosa and Gregorio as her next of kill succeed to her intestate estate. Footnotes 1 Velasco vs. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720, 725 (1903), citing a Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of April 4, 1895. 2 Comentarios al Codigo Civil Espaol, Quinta edicion, Tomo 5, Lib. III Tit. III Cap. I Art. 688; pag. 483. 3 Ibid.

Mariano Molo y Legaspi died on January 24, 1941, in the municipality of Pasay, province of Rizal, without leaving any forced heir either in the descending or ascending line. He was survived, however, by his wife, the herein petitioner Juana Juan Vda. de Molo, and by his nieces and nephew, the oppositors-appellants, Luz, Gliceria and Cornelio, all surnamed Molo, who were the legitimate children of Candido Molo y Legaspi, deceased brother of the testator. Mariano Molo y Legaspi left two wills, one executed on August 17, 1918, (Exhibit A) and another executed on June 20, 1939, (Exhibit I). The latter will contains a clause which expressly revokes the will executed in 1918. On February 7, 1941, Juana Juan Vda. de Molo filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition, which was docketed as special proceeding No. 8022, seeking the probate of the will executed by the deceased on June 20, 1939. There being no opposition, the will was probated. However, upon petition filed by the herein oppositors, the order of the court admitting the will to probate was set aside and the case was reopened. After hearing, at which both parties presented their evidence, the court rendered decision denying the probate of said will on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the same was executed in accordance with law. In view of the disallowance of the will executed on June 20, 1939, the widow on February 24, 1944, filed another petition for the probate of the will executed by the deceased on August 17, 1918, which was docketed as special proceeding No. 56, in the same court. Again, the same oppositors filed an opposition to the petition based on three grounds: (1) that petitioner is now estopped from seeking the probate of the will of 1918; (2) that said will has not been executed in the manner required by law and (3) that the will has been subsequently revoked. But before the second petition could be heard, the battle for liberation came and the records of the case were destroyed. Consequently, a petition for reconstitution was filed, but the same was found to be impossible because neither petitioner nor oppositors could produce the copies required for its reconstitution. As a result, petitioner filed a new petition on September 14, 1946, similar to the one destroyed, to which the oppositors filed an opposition based on the same grounds as those contained in their former opposition. Then, the case was set for trial, and on May 28, 1948, the court issued an order admitting the will to probate as already stated in the early part of this decision. From this order the oppositors appealed assigning six errors, to wit: "I. The probate court erred in not holding that the present petitioner voluntarily and deliberately frustrated the probate of the will dated June 20, 1939, in special proceeding No. 8022, in order to enable her to obtain the probate of another alleged will of Molo dated 1918. "II. The court a quo erred in not holding that the petitioner is now estopped from seeking the probate of Molo's alleged will of 1918. "III. The lower court erred in not holding that petitioner herein has come to court with `unclean hands' and as such is not entitled to relief.

Testate Estate of the Deceased MARIANO MOLO Y LEGASPI. JUANA JUAN VDA. DE MOLO, petitioner-appellee, vs. LUZ, GLICERIA and CORNELIO MOLO, oppositor-appellants. 1951 Sep 21 En Banc G.R. No. L-2538 DECISION BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal admitting to probate the last will and testament of the deceased Mariano Molo y Legaspi executed on August 17, 1918. The oppositors- appellants brought the case on appeal to this Court for the reason that the value of the properties involved exceeds P50,000.

"IV. The probate court erred in not holding that Molo's alleged will of August 17, 1918 was not executed in the manner required by law. "V. The probate court erred in not holding that the alleged will of 1918 was deliberately revoked by Molo himself. "VI. The lower court erred in not holding that Molo's will of 1918 was subsequently revoked by the decedent's will of 1939." In their first assignment of error, counsel for oppositors contend that the probate court erred in not holding that the petitioner voluntarily and deliberately frustrated the probate of the will dated June 20, 1939, in order to enable her to obtain the probate of the will executed by the deceased on August 17, 1918, pointing out certain facts and circumstances which in their opinion indicate that petitioner connived with witness Canuto Perez in an effort to defeat and frustrate the probate of the 1939 will because of her knowledge that said will was intrinsically defective in that "the one and only testamentary disposition thereof was a `disposicin captatoria'". These circumstances, counsel for the appellants contend, constitute a series of steps deliberately taken by petitioner with a view to insuring the realization of her plan of securing the probate of the 1918 will which she believed would better safeguard her right to inherit from the deceased. These imputations of fraud and bad faith allegedly committed in connection with special proceedings No. 8022, now closed and terminated, are vigorously met by counsel for petitioner who contends that to raise them in these proceedings which are entirely new and distinct and completely independent from the other is improper and unfair as they find no support whatsoever in any evidence submitted by the parties in this case. They are merely based on presumptions and conjectures not supported by any proof. For this reason, counsel contends, the lower court was justified in disregarding them and in passing them sub silentio in its decision. A careful examination of the evidence available in this case seems to justify this contention. There is indeed no evidence which may justify the insinuation that petitioner had deliberately intended to frustrate the probate of the 1939 will of the deceased to enable her to seek the probate of another will other than a mere conjecture drawn from the apparently unexpected testimony of Canuto Perez that he went out of the room to answer an urgent call of nature when Artemio Reyes was signing the will and the failure of petitioner later to impeach the character of said witness in spite of the opportunity given her by the court to do so. Apart from this insufficiency of evidence, the record discloses that this failure has been explained by petitioner when she informed the court that she was unable to impeach the character of her witness Canuto Perez because of her inability to find witnesses who may impeach him, and this explanation stands uncontradicted. Whether this explanation is satisfactory or not, it is not now for us to determine. It is an incident that comes within the province of the former case. The failure of petitioner to present the testimony of Artemio Reyes at the rehearing has also been explained, and it appears that petitioner has failed because his whereabouts could not be found. Whether this is true or not is not also for this Court to determine. It is likewise within the province and function of the court in the former case. And the unfairness of this imputation becomes more glaring when we take stock of the developments that had taken place

in these proceedings which show in bold relief the true nature of the conduct, behavior and character of the petitioner so bitterly assailed and held in disrepute by the oppositors. It should be recalled that the first petition for the probate of the will executed on June 20, 1939, was filed on February 7, 1941, by the petitioner. There being no opposition, the will was probated. Subsequently, however, upon petition of the herein oppositors, the order of the court admitting said will to probate was set aside, over the vigorous opposition of the herein petitioner, and the case was reopened. The reopening was ordered because of the strong opposition of the oppositors who contended that the will had not been executed as required by law. After the evidence of both parties had been presented, the oppositors filed an extensive memorandum wherein they reiterated their view that the will should be denied probate. And on the strength of this opposition, the court disallowed the will. If petitioner then knew that the 1939 will was inherently defective and would make the testamentary disposition in her favor invalid and ineffective, because it is a "disposicin captatoria", which knowledge she may easily acquire through consultation with a lawyer, there was no need for her to go through the ordeal of filing the petition for the probate of the will. She could accomplish her desire by merely suppressing the will or tearing or destroying it, and then take steps leading to the probate of the will executed in 1918. But her conscience was clear and bade her to take the only proper step possible under the circumstances, which is to institute the necessary proceedings for the probate of the 1939 will. This she did and the will was admitted to probate. But then the unexpected happened. Over her vigorous opposition, the herein appellants filed a petition for reopening, and over her vigorous objection, the same was granted and the case was reopened. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. Is it her fault that the case was reopened? Is it her fault that the order admitting the will to probate was set aside? That was a contingency which petitioner never expected. Had appellants not filed their opposition to the probate of the will and had they limited their objection to the intrinsic validity of said will, their plan to defeat the will and secure the intestacy of the deceased would have perhaps been accomplished. But they failed in their strategy. If said will was denied probate it is due to their own effort. It is now unfair to impute bad faith to petitioner simply because she exerted every effort to protect her own interest and prevent the intestacy of the deceased to happen. Having reached the foregoing conclusions, it is obvious that the court did not commit the second and third errors imputed to it by the counsel for appellants. Indeed, petitioner cannot be considered guilty of estoppel which would prevent her from seeking the probate of the 1918 will simply because her effort to obtain the allowance of the 1939 will has failed considering that in both the 1918 and 1939 wills she was instituted by her husband as his universal heir. Nor can she be charged with bad faith far having done so because of her desire to prevent the intestacy of her husband. She cannot be blamed for being zealous in protecting her interest. The next contention of appellants refers to the revocatory clause contained in the 1939 will of the deceased which was denied probate. They contend that, notwithstanding the disallowance of said will, the revocatory clause is valid and still has the effect of nullifying the prior will of 1918.

Counsel for petitioner meets this argument by invoking the doctrine laid down in the case of Samson vs. Naval, (41 Phil., 838). He contends that the facts involved in that case are on all fours with the facts of this case. Hence, the doctrine in that case is here controlling. There is merit in this contention. We have carefully read the facts involved in the Samson case and we are indeed impressed by their striking similarity with the facts of this case. We do not need to recite here what those facts are; it is enough to point out that they contain many points and circumstances in common. No reason, therefore, is seen why the doctrine laid down in that case (which we quote hereunder) should not apply and control the present case. "A subsequent will, containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed, for the reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the making of wills, cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will, inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void." (41 Phil., 838.) Apropos of this question, counsel for oppositors make the remark that, while they do not disagree with the soundness of the ruling laid down in the Samson case, there is reason to abandon said ruling because it is archaic or antiquated and runs counter to the modern trend prevailing in American jurisprudence. They maintain that said ruling is no longer controlling but merely represents the point of view of the minority and should, therefore, be abandoned, more so if we consider the fact that section 623 of our Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the revocation of wills, is of American origin and as such should follow the prevailing trend of the majority view in the United States. A long line of authorities is cited in support of this contention. And these authorities hold the view, that "an express revocation is immediately effective upon the execution of the subsequent will, and does not require that it first undergo the formality of a probate proceeding". (p 63, appellants' brief). While there are many cases which uphold the view entertained by counsel for oppositors, and that view appears to be controlling in the states where the decisions had been promulgated, however, we are reluctant to fall in line with the assertion that is now the prevailing view in the United States. In the search we have made of American authorities on the subject, we found ourselves in a pool of conflicting opinions perhaps because of the peculiar provisions contained in the statutes adopted by each State on the subject of revocation of wills. But the impression we gathered from a review and study of the pertinent authorities is that the doctrine laid down in the Samson case is still a good law. On page 328 of the American Jurisprudence, Vol. 57, which is a revision published in 1948, we found the following passages which in our opinion truly reflect the present trend of American jurisprudence on this matter affecting the revocation of prior wills: "SEC. 471. Observance of Formalities in Execution of Instrument. - Ordinarily, statutes which permit the revocation of a will by another writing provide that to be effective as a revocation, the writing must be executed with the same formalities which are required to be observed in the execution of a will. Accordingly, where, under the statutes, attestation is necessary to the making of a valid will, an unattested nontestamentary writing is not effective to revoke a prior will. It has been held that a

writing fails as a revoking instrument where it is not executed with the formalities requisite for the execution of a will, even though it is inscribed on the will itself, although it may effect a revocation by cancellation or obliteration of the words of the will. A testator cannot reserve to himself the power to modify a will by a written instrument subsequently prepared but not executed in the manner required for a will. "SEC. 472. Subsequent Unexecuted, Invalid, or Ineffective Will or Codicil. - A will which is invalid because of the incapacity of the testator or of undue influence can have no effect whatever as a revoking will. Moreover, a will is not revoked by the unexecuted draft of a later one. Nor is a will revoked by a defectively executed will or codicil, even though the latter contains a clause expressly revoking the former will, in a jurisdiction where it is provided by a controlling statute that no writing other than a testamentary instrument is sufficient to revoke a will, for the simple reason that there is no revoking will. Similarly where the statute provides that a will may be revoked by a subsequent will or other writing executed with the same formalities as are required in the execution of wills, a defectively executed will does not revoke a prior will, since it cannot be said that there is a writing which complies with the statute. Moreover, a will or codicil which, on account of the manner in which it is executed, is sufficient to pass only personally does not affect dispositions of real estate made by a former will, even though it may expressly purport to do so. The intent of the testator to revoke is immaterial, if he has not complied with the statute." (57 Am. Jur., 328, 329.) We find the same opinion in the American Law Reports, Annotated, edited in 1939. On page 1400, Volume 123, there appear many authorities on the "application of rules where second will is invalid", among which a typical one is the following: "It is universally agreed that where the second will is invalid on account of not being executed in accordance with the provisions of the statute, or where the testator has not sufficient mental capacity to make a will or the will is procured through undue influence, or the such, in other words, where the second will is really no will, it does not revoke the first will or affect it in any manner." Mort vs. Baker University (1935) 229 Mo. App., 632, 78 S. W. (2d), 498." These treaties cannot be mistaken. They uphold the view on which the ruling in the Samson case is predicated. They reflect the opinion that this ruling is sound and good and for this reason we see no justification for abandoning it as now suggested by counsel for the oppositors. It is true that our law on the matter (sec. 623, Code of Civil Procedure) provides that a will may be revoked "by some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills"; but it cannot be said that the 1939 will should be regarded, not as a will within the meaning of said word, but as "other writing executed as provided in the case of wills", simply because it was denied probate. And even if it be regarded as any other writing within the meaning of said clause, there is authority for holding that unless said writing is admitted to probate, it cannot have the effect of revocation. (See 57 Am. Jur. pp. 329-330). But counsel for oppositors contend that, regardless of said revocatory clause, said will of 1918 cannot still be given effect because of the presumption that it was deliberately revoked by the testator himself. The oppositors contend that the testator, after

executing the 1939 will, and with full knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in said will, himself deliberately destroyed the original of the 1918 will, and that for this reason the will submitted by petitioner for probate in these proceedings is only a duplicate of said original. There is no evidence which may directly indicate that the testator deliberately destroyed the original of the 1918 will because of his knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in the will he executed in 1939. The only evidence we have is that when the first will was executed in 1918, Juan Salcedo, who prepared it, gave the original and copies to the testator himself and apparently they remained in his possession until he executed his second will in 1939. And when the 1939 will was denied probate on November 29, 1943, and petitioner was asked by her attorney to look for another will, she found the duplicate copy (Exhibit A) among the papers or files of the testator. She did not find the original. If it can be inferred that the testator deliberately destroyed the 1918 will because of his knowledge of the revocatory clause of the 1939 will, and it is true that he gave a duplicate copy thereof to his wife, the herein petitioner, the most logical step for the testator to take is to recall said duplicate copy in order that it may likewise be destroyed. But this was not done as shown by the fact that said duplicate copy remained in the possession of petitioner. It is possible that because of the long lapse of twenty-one (21) years since the first will was executed, the original of the will had been misplaced or lost, and forgetting that there was a copy, the testator deemed it wise to execute another will containing exactly the same testamentary dispositions. Whatever may be the conclusion we may draw from this chain of circumstances, the stubborn fact is that there is no direct evidence of voluntary or deliberate destruction of the first will by the testator. This matter cannot be left to mere inference or conjecture. Granting for the sake of argument that the earlier will was voluntarily destroyed by the testator after the execution of the second will, which revoked the first, could there be any doubt, under this theory, that said earlier will was destroyed by the testator in the honest belief that it was no longer necessary because he had expressly revoked it in his will of 1939? In other words, can we not say that the destruction of the earlier will was but the necessary consequence of the testator's belief that the revocatory clause contained in the subsequent will was valid and the latter would be given effect? If such is the case, then it is our opinion that the earlier will can still be admitted to probate under the principle of "dependent relative revocation". "This doctrine is known as that of dependent relative revocation, and is usually applied where the testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with a present intention to make a new testamentary disposition as a substitute for the old, and the new disposition is not made or, if made, fails of effect for some reason. The doctrine is not limited to the existence of some other document, however, and has been applied where a will was destroyed as a consequence of a mistake of law . . .." (68 C. J.:. 799). "The rule is established that where the act of destruction is connected with the making of another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition intended to be

substituted, the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new disposition; and if, for any reason, the new will intended to be made as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the original will remains in full force." (Gardner, pp. 232, 233.) "This is the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. The failure of the new testamentary disposition, upon whose validity the revocation depends, is equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive condition, and hence prevents the revocation of the original will. But a mere intent to make at some time a will in place of that destroyed will not render the destruction conditional. It must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will." (1 Alexander, p. 751; Gardner, p. 233.) We hold, therefore, that even in the supposition that the destruction of the original will by the testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to produce it in court, such destruction cannot have the effect of defeating the prior will of 1918 because of the fact that it is founded on the mistaken belief that the will of 1939 has been validly executed and would be given due effect. The theory on which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not intend to die intestate. And this intention is clearly manifest when he executed two wills on two different occasions and instituted his wife as his universal heir. There can therefore be no mistake as to his intention of dying testate. The remaining question to be determined refers to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the due execution of the will. The will in question was attested, as required by law, by three witnesses, Lorenzo Morales, Rufino Enriquez, and Angel Cuenca. The first two witnesses died before the commencement of the present proceedings. So the only instrumental witness available was Angel Cuenca and under our law and precedents, his testimony is sufficient to prove the due execution of the will. However, petitioner presented not only the testimony of Cuenca but placed on the witness stand Juan Salcedo, the notary public who prepared and notarized the will upon the express desire and instruction of the testator. The testimony of these witnesses shows that the will had been executed in the manner required by law. We have read their testimony and we were impressed by their readiness and sincerity. We are convinced that they told the truth. Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason and Jugo, JJ., concur. Reyes, J., concurs in the result.