8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

1/26

Vitug v. Court of Appeals

Facts:

1. The case is a chapter in an earlier suit involving the issue on two (2) wills of the late Dolores Vitug who died in New

Yor! "#$ in Nov 1%&'. #he naed therein private respondent owena *orona (+,ecutri,) while Nenita $lonte was co-

special adinistrator together with petitioner oarico pending proate.

2. /n 0anuar 1%&! oarico filed a otion asing for authori3ation of the proate court to sell shares of stocs and reapropert of the estate as reiurseents for advances he ade to the estate. The said aount was spent for paent of

estate ta, fro a savings account in the 4an of $erica.

5. owena *orona opposed the otion to sell contending that fro the said account are con6ugal funds! hence part of the

estate. Vitug insisted saing that the said funds are his e,clusive propert ac7uired virtue of a survivorship agreeent

e,ecuted with his late wife and the an previousl. /n the said agreeent! the agreed that in the event of death of either!

the funds will ecoe the sole propert of the survivor.

8. The lower court upheld the validit of the survivorship agreeent and granted oarico9s otion to sell. The *ourt of

$ppeals however held that said agreeent constituted a conveance ortis causa which did not copl with the

foralities of a valid will. Further! assuing that it is donationinter vivos

! it is a prohiited donation. Vitug petitioned to the*ourt contending that the said agreeent is an aleator contract.

Issue: Whether or not the conveyance is one of mortis causa hence should conform to the form required of wills

NO. The survivorship agreeent is a contract which iposed a ere oligation with a ter--eing death. #uch contracts

are peritted under $rticle 2'12 on aleator contracts. hen Dolores predeceased her husand the latter ac7uired

upon her death a vested right over the funds in the account. The conveance is therefore notmortis causa.

[G.R. No. 82027. March 29, 1990.]

ROMARICO G. VITUG, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABE COURT O! A""EA# a$% RO&ENA !AU#TINO'

CORONA, Respondents.

This case is a chapter in an earlier suit decided by this Court 1 involving the probate of the two wills of the late

Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in New York, !"!#!, on Nove$ber 1%, 1&'%, na$ing private respondent (owena

)austino*Corona e+ecutri+! n our said decision, we upheld the appoint$ent of Nenita #lonte as co*special

ad$inistrator of -rs! Vitug.s estate with her /-rs! Vitug.s0 widower, petitioner (o$arico ! Vitug, pending probate!

2n 3anuary 14, 1&'5, (o$arico ! Vitug filed a $otion asking for authority fro$ the probate court to sell certain

shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his advances to the estate in the su$ of

6778,841!77, plus interests, which he clai$ed were personal funds! #s found by the Court of #ppeals, 9 the alleged

advances consisted of 65',1:8!:% spent for the pay$ent of estate ta+, 651','4:!98 as deficiency estate ta+, and6&%,8:&!&& as ;incre$ent thereto!; 4 #ccording to -r! Vitug, he withdrew the su$s of 651','4:!98 and 6&%,8:&!&&

fro$ savings account No! 454:9*%4' of the

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

2/26

agree$ent e+ecuted with his late wife and the bank on 3une 1&, 1&8%! The agree$ent provides? chanrob1esvirtual 1awlibrary

@e hereby agree with each other and with the

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

3/26

! ! ! "uch conclusion is evidently predicated on the assu$ption that "tephenson was the e+clusive owner of the funds

deposited in the bank, which assu$ption was in turn based on the facts /10 that the account was originally opened in

the na$e of "tephenson alone and /90 that #na (ivera ;served only as house$aid of the deceased!; uently happens that a person deposits $oney in the bank in the na$e of another and in the instant case it also

appears that #na (ivera served her $aster for about nineteen years without actually receiving her salary fro$ hi$!

The fact that subse>uently "tephenson transferred the account to the na$e of hi$self andEor #na (ivera and

e+ecuted with the latter the survivorship agree$ent in >uestion although there was no relation of kinship betweenthe$ but only that of $aster and servant, nullifies the assu$ption that "tephenson was the e+clusive owner of the

bank account! n the absence, then, of clear proof to the contrary, we $ust give full faith and credit to the certificate

of deposit which recites in effect that the funds in >uestion belonged to Bdgar "tephenson and #na (ivera that they

were =oint /and several0 owners thereof and that either of the$ could withdraw any part or the whole of said account

during the lifeti$e of both, and the balance, if any, upon the death of either, belonged to the survivor! 18

n -aca$ v! at$aitan, 1' it was held? chanrob1esvirtual 1awlibrary

This Court is of the opinion that B+hibit C is an aleatory contract whereby, according to article 18&% of the Civil Code,

one of the parties or both reciprocally bind the$selves to give or do so$ething as an e>uivalent for that which the

other party is to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which is uncertain or will happen at an indeter$inateti$e! #s already stated, Leonarda was the owner of the house and 3uana of the uired the ownership of the house, in the sa$e $anner as Leonarda would have

ac>uired the ownership of the auto$obile and of the furniture if 3uana had died first!

There is no showing that the funds e+clusively belonged to one party, and hence it $ust be presu$ed to be con=ugal,having been ac>uired during the e+istence of the $arital relations! 9%

Neither is the survivorship agree$ent a donation inter vivos, for obvious reasons, because it was to take effect after

the death of one party! "econdly, it is not a donation between the spouses because it involved no conveyance of a

spouse.s own properties to the other! chanrobleslawlibrary

t is also our opinion that the agree$ent involves no $odification of the con=ugal partnership, as held by the Court of

#ppeals, 91 by ;$ere stipulation,; 99 and that it is no ;cloak; 94 to circu$vent the law on con=ugal property relations!

Certainly, the spouses are not prohibited by law to invest con=ugal property, say, by way of a =oint and several bank

account, $ore co$$only deno$inated in banking parlance as an ;andEor; account! n the case at bar, when thespouses Vitug opened savings account No! 454:9*%4', they $erely put what rightfully belonged to the$ in a $oney*

$aking venture! They did not dispose of it in favor of the other, which would have arguably been sanctionable as a

prohibited donation! #nd since the funds were con=ugal, it can not be said that one spouse could have pressured the

other in placing his or her deposits in the $oney pool!

The validity of the contract see$s debatable by reason of its ;survivor*take*all; feature, but in reality, that contract

i$posed a $ere obligation with a ter$, the ter$ being death! "uch agree$ents are per$itted by the Civil Code!

nder #rticle 9%1% of the Code? chanrob1esvirtual 1awlibrary

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

4/26

#(T! 9%1%! uoted provision, the fulfill$ent of an aleatory contract depends on either the happening of an event

which is /10 ;uncertain,; /90 ;which is to occur at an indeter$inate ti$e!; # survivorship agree$ent, the sale of asweepstake ticket, a transaction stipulating on the value of currency, and insurance have been held to fall under the

first category, while a contract for life annuity or pension under #rticle 9%91, et se>uentia, has been categoriFed under

the second! 95 n either case, the ele$ent of risk is present! n the case at bar, the risk was the death of one party

and survivorship of the other! chanrobles!co$ ? virtuallawlibrary

owever, as we have warned? chanrob1esvirtual 1awlibrary

uired

upon her death a vested right over the a$ounts under savings account No! 454:9*%4' of the

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

5/26

[G.R. No. 7270(. Oc)o*+r 27, 1987.]

CON#TANTINO C. ACAIN, Petitioner, v. HON. INTERMEIATE A""EATE COURT -Thr% #/+ca Ca+

vo$, VIRGINIA A. !ERNANE3 a$% RO#A IONG#ON,Respondents.

This is a petition for review on certiorariof the decision G of respondent Court of #ppeals in #C*!(! "6 No! %58::pro$ulgated on #ugust 4%, 1&'5 /(ollo, p! 1%'0 ordering the dis$issal of the petition in "pecial 6roceedings No! 5&1*#*CB< and its (esolution issued on 2ctober 94, 1&'5 /(ollo, p! 890 denying respondents. /petitioners herein0 $otionfor reconsideration!

The dispositive portion of the >uestioned decision reads as follows?=gc?chanrobles!co$!ph

;@B(B)2(B, the petition is hereby granted and respondent (egional Trial Court of the "eventh 3udicial (egion,

;T(D? #ll $y shares that $ay receive fro$ our properties, house, lands and $oney which earned =ointly with $ywife (osa Diongson shall all be given by $e to $y brother "BND2 #C#N, )ilipino, widower, of legal age andpresently residing at 458*C "anciangko "treet, Cebu City! n case $y brother "egundo #cain predeceases $e, all the$oney properties, lands, houses there in

#fter the denial of their subse>uent $otion for reconsideration in the lower court, respondents filed with the "upre$eCourt a petition for certiorariand prohibition with preli$inary in=unction which was subse>uently referred to thenter$ediate #ppellate Court by (esolution of the Court dated -arch 11, 1&'5 /-e$orandu$ for 6etitioner, p! 4(ollo, p! 15&0!

(espondent nter$ediate #ppellate Court granted private respondents. petition and ordered the trial court to dis$issthe petition for the probate of the will of Ne$esio #cain in "pecial 6roceedings No! 5&1*#*CB

is $otion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this present petition for the review of respondentCourt.s decision on Dece$ber 1', 1&'5 /(ollo, p! 70! (espondents. Co$$ent was filed on 3une 7, 1&'7 /(ollo, p!1:70!

2n #ugust 11, 1&'7 the Court resolved to give due course to the petition /(ollo, p! 1540! (espondents. -e$orandu$was filed on "epte$ber 99, 1&'7 /(ollo, p! 1580 the -e$orandu$ for petitioner was filed on "epte$ber 9&, 1&'7/(ollo, p! 1880!

6etitioner raises the following issues /-e$orandu$ for 6etitioner, p! :0? chanrob1esvirtual 1awlibrary

/#0 The petition filed in #C*!(! No! %58:: for certiorariand prohibition with preli$inary in=unction is not the properre$edy under the pre$ises

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

6/26

/uiring into the e+trinsic validity of the will sought to beprobated and it cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity thereof before it is ad$itted to probate

/C0 The will of Ne$esio #cain is valid and $ust therefore, be ad$itted to probate! The preterition $entioned in #rticle'5: of the New Civil Code refers to preterition of ;co$pulsory heirs in the direct line,; and does not apply to privaterespondents who are not co$pulsory heirs in the direct line their o$ission shall not annul the institution of heirs

/D0 DC#T TB"T#T2( BT B(T LBH! @hat the testator says will be the law

/B0 There $ay be nothing in #rticle '5: of the New Civil Code that suggests that $ere institution of a universal heir inthe will would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance but there is a definite distinct intention of thetestator in the case at bar, e+plicitly e+pressed in his will! This is what $atters and should be inviolable!

/)0 #s an instituted heir, petitioner has the legal interest and standing to file the petition in "p! 6roc! No! 5&1*#*CBuestioned decision of respondentCourt of #ppeals pro$ulgated on #ugust 4%, 1&'5 and its (esolution dated 2ctober 94, 1&'5 are hereby #))(-BD!

[G.R. NO. 122880 ? A/r 12, 200(]

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

9/26

!EI@ A3UEA, Petitioner, v.COURT O! A""EA#, GERAA AIA CA#TIO *)))+% *5 ERNE#TO G.

CA#TIO, Respondents!

The core of this petition is a highly defective notarial will, purportedly e+ecuted by Bugenia B! gsolo /decedent0, who

died on 17 Dece$ber 1&'9 at the age of '%! n refusing to give legal recognition to the due e+ecution of this

docu$ent, the Court is provided the opportunity to assert a few i$portant doctrinal rules in the e+ecution of notarial

wills, all self*evident in view of #rticles '%5 and '%7 of the Civil Code!

A 6 6ho+ a))+)a)o$ ca+ %o+ $o) co$)a$ )h+ $4*+r o /a+ o$ 6hch )h+ 6 6r))+$ a)a5

%++c)v+. A 6 6ho+ a))+)a)o$ ca+ $o) $+% *5 )h+ $)r4+$)a 6)$++ a)a5 %++c)v+.

A$% /+rha/ 4o) 4/or)a$)5, a 6 6hch %o+ $o) co$)a$ a$ ac;$o6+%4+$), *) a 4+r+ jurat,

a)a5 %++c)v+. A$5 o$+ o )h++ %++c) c+$) )o %+$5 /ro*a)+. A $o)ara 6 6)h a )hr++

%++c) ) ach$ or %ca r++c)o$.

There is a distinct and conse>uential reason the Civil Code provides a co$prehensive catalog of i$peratives for the

proper e+ecution of a notarial will! )ull and faithful co$pliance with all the detailed re>uisites under #rticle '%5 of the

Code leave little roo$ for doubt as to the validity in the due e+ecution of the notarial will! #rticle '%7 likewise i$poses

another safeguard to the validity of notarial wills * that they be acknowledged before a notary public by the testatorand the witnesses! # notarial will e+ecuted with indifference to these two codal provisions opens itself to nagging

>uestions as to its legiti$acy!

The case ste$s fro$ a petition for probate filed on 1% #pril 1&': with the (egional Trial Court /(TC0 of -anila! The

petition filed by petitioner )eli+ #Fuela sought to ad$it to probate the notarial will of Bugenia B! gsolo, which was

notariFed on 1% 3une 1&'1! 6etitioner is the son of the cousin of the decedent!

The will, consisting of two /90 pages and written in the vernacular 6ilipino, read in full?

LN #

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

10/26

/"gd!0

BBN# B! "2L2

/Tagapag$ana0

6#TN#Y N -# "#A"

#ng kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng MMMM dahon pati ang huling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a$in ni Bugenia B!gsolo, tagapag$ana na siya niyang uling abilin, ngayon ika*1% ng unyo 1&'1, ay nilagdaan ng nasabingtagapag$ana sa ilali$ ng kasulatang nabanggit at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawat dahon, sa harap ng lahat atbawat sa a$in, at ka$i na$ang $ga saksi ay lu$agda sa harap ng nasabing tagapag$ana at sa harap ng lahat atbawat isa sa a$in, sa ilali$ ng nasabing kasulatan at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawat dahon ng kasulatan ito!

BBN# B! "2L2address? 5%% "an Diego "t!"a$paloc, -anila (es! Cert! No! #*8818*48ssued at -anila on -arch 1%, 1&'1!

I(N2 #(#V#

address? 199'*nt! 4, Aahilu$6andacan, -anila (es! Cert! No! #*:5'475

ssued at -anila on 3an! 91, 1&'1

L#-

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

11/26

petitioner, particularly for forcible entry and usurpation of real property, all centering on petitioners right to occupy

the properties of the decedent!4t also asserted that contrary to the representations of petitioner, the decedent was

actually survived by 19 legiti$ate heirs, na$ely her grandchildren, who were then residing abroad! 6er records, it was

subse>uently alleged that decedent was the widow of

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

12/26

#s regards the oppositors assertion that the signature of the testatri+ on the will is a forgery, the testi$onies of the

three subscribing witnesses to the will are convincing enough to establish the genuineness of the signature of the

testatri+ and the due e+ecution of the will! '

The 2rder was appealed to the Court of #ppeals by Brnesto Castillo, who had substituted his since deceased $other*

in*law, eralda Castillo! n a Decision dated 18 #ugust 1&&5, the Court of #ppeals reversed the trial court and ordered

the dis$issal of the petition for probate!&The Court of #ppeals noted that the attestation clause failed to state the

nu$ber of pages used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate!1%

ence, the present petition!

6etitioner argues that the re>uire$ent under #rticle '%5 of the Civil Code that ;the nu$ber of pages used in a notarial

will be stated in the attestation clause; is $erely directory, rather than $andatory, and thus susceptible to what he

ter$ed as ;the substantial co$pliance rule!;11

The solution to this case calls for the application of #rticles '%5 and '%7 of the Civil Code, which we replicate in full!

#rt! '%5! Bvery will, other than a holographic will, $ust be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator hi$self or by

the testators na$e written by so$e other person in his presence, and by his e+press direction, and attested and

subscribed by three or $ore credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another!

The testator or the person re>uested by hi$ to write his na$e and the instru$ental witnesses of the will, shall also

sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, e+cept the last, on the left $argin, and all the pages shall be

nu$bered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page!

The attestation shall state the nu$ber of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator

signed the will and every page thereof, or caused so$e other person to write his na$e, under his e+press direction, in

the presence of the instru$ental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof

in the presence of the testator and of one another!

f the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to the$!

#rt! '%7! Bvery will $ust be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses! The notary public

shall not be re>uired to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court!

The appellate court, in its Decision, considered only one defect, the failure of the attestation clause to state the

nu$ber of pages of the will! uisite, a space having been allotted for the insertion of the nu$ber ofpages in the attestation clause! Yet the blank was never filled in hence, the re>uisite was left unco$plied with!

The Court of #ppeals pounced on this defect in reversing the trial court, citing in the process Uy Coque v. Navas L.

Sioca14and In re: Will of Andrada.1:n Uy Coque, the Court noted that a$ong the defects of the will in >uestion was

the failure of the attestation clause to state the nu$ber of pages contained in the will!15n ruling that the will could

not be ad$itted to probate, the Court $ade the following consideration which re$ains highly relevant to this day?

;The purpose of re>uiring the nu$ber of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause is obvious )h+ %oc4+$)

4h) +a5 *+ o /r+/ar+% )ha) )h+ r+4ova o a h++) 6o% co4/+)+5 cha$+ )h+ )+)a4+$)ar5

%/o)o$ o )h+ 6 a$% $ )h+ a*+$c+ o a )a)+4+$) o )h+ )o)a $4*+r o h++) ch r+4ova

http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt8http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt9http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt10http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt11http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt12http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt13http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt14http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt15http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt8http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt9http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt10http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt11http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt12http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt13http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt14http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt15

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

13/26

4h) *+ ++c)+% *5 )a;$ o) )h+ h++) a$% cha$$ )h+ $4*+r a) )h+ )o/ o )h+ oo6$ h++) or

/a+! f, on the other hand, the total nu$ber of sheets is stated in the attestation clause the falsification of the

docu$ent will involve the inserting of new pages and the forging of the signatures of the testator and witnesses in the

$argin, a $atter attended with $uch greater difficulty!;17

The case of In re Will of Andradaconcerned a will the attestation clause of which failed to state the nu$ber of sheets

or pages used! This consideration alone was sufficient for the Court to declare ;unani$JityK upon the point that the

defect pointed out in the attesting clause is fatal!;18t was further observed that ;it cannot be denied that the + + +

re>uire$ent affords additional security against the danger that the will $ay be ta$pered with and as the Legislature

has seen fit to prescribe this re>uire$ent, it $ust be considered $aterial!;1'

#gainst these cited cases, petitioner cites Singson v. lorentino1&and !a"oada v. #on. Rosal,9%wherein the Court

allowed probate to the wills concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation clause did not state the nu$ber of

pages of the will! Yet the appellate court itself considered the i$port of these two cases, and $ade the following

distinction which petitioner is unable to rebut, and which we adopt with approval?

Bven a cursory e+a$ination of the @ill /B+hibit ;D;0, will readily show that the attestation does not state the nu$ber

of pages used upon which the will is written! ence, the @ill is void and undeserving of probate!

@e are not i$pervious of the Decisions of the "upre$e Court in ;-anuel "ingson v! B$ilia )lorentino, et al!, &9 6hil!

171 and #polonio JTaboadaK v! on! #velino (osal, et al!, 11' "C(# 1&5,; to the effect that a will $ay still be valid

even if the attestation does not contain the nu$ber of pages used upon which the @ill is written! owever, the

Decisions of the "upre$e Court are not applicable in the afore$entioned appeal at bench! This is so because, in the

case of ;-anuel "ingson v! B$ilia )lorentino, et al!, supra,; although the attestation in the sub=ect @ill did not state

the nu$ber of pages used in the will, however, the sa$e was found in the last part of the body of the @ill?

The law referred to is article 71' of the Code of Civil 6rocedure, as a$ended by #ct No! 97:5, which re>uires that the

attestation clause shall state the nu$ber of pages or sheets upon which the will is written, which re>uire$ent has

been held to be $andatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or o$ission of so$e of the

pages of the will to the pre=udice of the heirs to who$ the property is intended to be be>ueathed /n re @ill of

#ndrada, :9 6hil! 1'% y Co>ue v! Navas L! "ioca, :4 6hil!, :%5 u$ban v! orcho, 5% 6hil! 4% Iuinto v! -orata,

5: 6hil! :'1 Bchevarria v! "ar$iento, 77 6hil! 7110! The ratio decidendi of these cases see$s to be that the

attestation clause $ust contain a state$ent of the nu$ber of sheets or pages co$posing the will and that if this is

$issing or is o$itted, it will have the effect of invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot be supplied, not by

evidence aliunde, but by a consideration or e+a$ination of the will itself! uestion and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the nu$ber of pages

used in writing the will! This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible

fro$ the entire will that it is really and actually co$posed of only two pages duly signed by the testatri+ and her

instru$ental witnesses! #s earlier stated, the first page which contains the entirety of the testa$entary dispositions is

http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt16http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt17http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt18http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt19http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt20http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt16http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt17http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt18http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt19http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt20

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

14/26

signed by the testatri+ at the end or at the botto$ while the instru$ental witnesses signed at the left $argin! The

other page which is $arked as ;6agina dos; co$prises the attestation clause and the acknowledg$ent! The

acknowledg$ent itself states that ;this Last @ill and Testa$ent consists of two pages including this page; /pages 9%%*

9%1, supra0 /nderscoring supplied0!

owever, in the appeal at bench, the nu$ber of pages used in the will is not stated in any part of the @ill! The will

does not even contain any notarial acknowledg$ent wherein the nu$ber of pages of the will should be stated!91

uire$ent of wills was "ection

71' of the Code of Civil 6rocedure!99(eliance on these cases re$ains apropos, considering that the re>uire$ent that

the attestation state the nu$ber of pages of the will is e+tant fro$ "ection 71'!94owever, the enact$ent of the Civil

Code in 1&5% did put in force a rule of interpretation of the re>uire$ents of wills, at least insofar as the attestation

clause is concerned, that $ay vary fro$ the philosophy that governed these two cases! #rticle '%& of the Civil Code

states? ;n the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and i$proper pressure and influence, defects and

i$perfections in the for$ of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved

that the will was in fact e+ecuted and attested in substantial co$pliance with all the re>uire$ents of article '%5!;

n the sa$e vein, petitioner cites the report of the Civil Code Co$$ission, which stated that ;the underlying and

funda$ental ob=ective per$eating the provisions on the JlawK on JwillsK in this pro=ect consists in the JliberaliFationK

of the $anner of their e+ecution with the end in view of giving the testator $ore Jfreedo$K in Je+pressingK his last

wishes! This ob=ective is in accord with the J$odern tendencyK in respect to the for$alities in the e+ecution of

wills!;9:owever, petitioner conveniently o$its the >ualification offered by the Code Co$$ission in the very sa$e

paragraph he cites fro$ their report, that such liberaliFation be ;but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to

prevent the co$$ission of fraud and the e+ercise of undue and i$proper pressure and influence upon the testator!; 95

Caneda v. Court of Appeals97features an e+tensive discussion $ade by 3ustice (egalado, speaking for the Court on the

conflicting views on the $anner of interpretation of the legal for$alities re>uired in the e+ecution of the attestation

clause in wills!98Uy Coque and #ndrada are cited therein, along with several other cases, as e+a$ples of the

application of the rule of strict construction!9'owever, the Code Co$$ission opted to reco$$end a $ore liberal

construction through the ;substantial co$pliance rule; under #rticle '%&! # cautionary note was struck though by

3ustice 3!

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

15/26

Canedasuggested? ;JKt $ay thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that o$ission which can be supplied by

an e+a$ination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to e+trinsic evidence, will not be fatal and,

correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed! owever, those o$issions

which cannot be supplied e+cept by evidence aliundewould result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and

ulti$ately, of the will itself!;41Thus, a failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can

be liberally construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual e+a$ination while a failure by the attestation clause

to state that the witnesses signed in one anothers presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the attestation isthe only te+tual guarantee of co$pliance!49

The failure of the attestation clause to state the nu$ber of pages on which the will was written re$ains a fatal flaw,

despite #rticle '%&! The purpose of the law in re>uiring the clause to state the nu$ber of pages on which the will is

written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or o$ission of one or so$e of its pages and to prevent any

increase or decrease in the pages!44The failure to state the nu$ber of pages e>uates with the absence of an aver$ent

on the part of the instru$ental witnesses as to how $any pages consisted the will, the e+ecution of which they had

ostensibly =ust witnessed and subscribed to! )ollowing Caneda, there is substantial co$pliance with this re>uire$ent if

the will states elsewhere in it how $any pages it is co$prised of, as was the situation in Singson and Taboada!

owever, in this case, there could have been no substantial co$pliance with the re>uire$ents under #rticle '%5 since

there is no state$ent in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the nu$ber of pages which co$prise

the will!

#t the sa$e ti$e, #rticle '%& should not deviate fro$ the need to co$ply with the for$al re>uire$ents as

enu$erated under #rticle '%5! @hatever the inclinations of the $e$bers of the Code Co$$ission in incorporating

#rticle '%5, the fact re$ains that they saw fit to prescribe substantially the sa$e for$al re>uisites as enu$erated in

"ection 71' of the Code of Civil 6rocedure, convinced that these re$ained effective safeguards against the forgery or

intercalation of notarial wills!4:Co$pliance with these re>uire$ents, however picayune in i$pression, affords the

public a high degree of co$fort that the testator hi$self or herself had decided to convey propertypost %orte%in the

$anner established in the will!45Th+ )ra$c+$%+$) +a)v+ $)+$), +v+$ a +:/r++% $ )h+ c)+% co44+$)

o )h+ Co%+ Co44o$, or )h+ r)o$ o )h+ )+)a)or $co$)+)a*+ %+r+, a$% $o) or )h+

$%+$) a%4o$ o 6 )o /ro*a)+!

The Court could thus end here and affir$ the Court of #ppeals! owever, an e+a$ination of the will itself reveals a

couple of even $ore critical defects that should necessarily lead to its re=ection!

!or o$+, )h+ a))+)a)o$ ca+ 6a $o) $+% *5 )h+ $)r4+$)a 6)$++.@hile the signatures of the

instru$ental witnesses appear on the left*hand $argin of the will, they do not appear at the botto$ of the attestation

clause which after all consists of their aver$ents before the notary public!

Cagro v. Cagro47is $aterial on this point! #s in this case, ;the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not

appear at the botto$ of the attestation clause, although the page containing the sa$e is signed by the witnesses on

the left*hand $argin!;48@hile three /40 3ustices4'considered the signature re>uire$ent had been substantially

co$plied with, a $a=ority of si+ /70, speaking through Chief 3ustice 6aras, ruled that the attestation clause had not

been duly signed, rendering the will fatally defective!

There is no >uestion that the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the botto$ of the

attestation clause, although the page containing the sa$e is signed by the witnesses on the left*hand $argin!

@e are of the opinion that the position taken by the appellant is correct! The attestation clause is ;a $e$orandu$ of

the facts attending the e+ecution of the will; re>uired by law to be $ade by the attesting witnesses, and it $ust

http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt31http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt32http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt33http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt34http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt34http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt35http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt35http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt36http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt36http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt37http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt37http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt38http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt31http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt32http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt33http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt34http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt35http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt36http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt37http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt38

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

16/26

necessarily bear their signatures! #n unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses,

since the o$ission of their signatures at the botto$ thereof negatives their participation!

The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on the left*hand $argin confor$

substantially to the law and $ay be dee$ed as their signatures to the attestation clause! This is untenable, because

said signatures are in co$pliance with the legal $andate that the will be signed on the left*hand $argin of all its

pages! f an attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the botto$ thereof, be ad$itted as sufficient, it

would be easy to add such clause to a will on a subse>uent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all

of the witnesses!4&

The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro! #rticle '%5 particularly segregates the re>uire$ent that

the instru$ental witnesses sign each page of the will, fro$ the re>uisite that the will be ;attested and subscribed by

Jthe instru$ental witnessesK!; The respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct fro$ each

other! The signatures on the left*hand corner of every page signify, a$ong others, that the witnesses are aware that

the page they are signing for$s part of the will! 2n the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish

that the witnesses are referring to the state$ents contained in the attestation clause itself! ndeed, the attestation

clause is separate and apart fro$ the disposition of the will! #n unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested

will! Bven if the instru$ental witnesses signed the left*hand $argin of the page containing the unsigned attestationclause, such signatures cannot de$onstrate these witnesses undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do

appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal!

The Court $ay be $ore charitably disposed had the witnesses in this case signed the attestation clause itself, but not

the left*hand $argin of the page containing such clause! @ithout di$inishing the value of the instru$ental witnesses

signatures on each and every page, the fact $ust be noted that it is the attestation clause which contains the

utterances reduced into writing of the testa$entary witnesses the$selves! t is the witnesses, and not the testator,

who are re>uired under #rticle '%5 to state the nu$ber of pages used upon which the will is written the fact that the

testator had signed the will and every page thereof and that they witnessed and signed the will and all the pages

thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another! The only proof in the will that the witnesses have statedthese ele$ental facts would be their signatures on the attestation clause!

Thus, the sub=ect will cannot be considered to have been validly attested to by the instru$ental witnesses, as they

failed to sign the attestation clause!

Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition should also hinge! The re>uire$ent

under #rticle '%7 that ;every will $ust be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses; has

also not been co$plied with! The i$portance of this re>uire$ent is highlighted by the fact that it had been segregated

fro$ the other re>uire$ents under #rticle '%5 and entrusted into a separate provision, #rticle '%7! The non*

observance of #rticle '%7 in this case is e>ually as critical as the other cited flaws in co$pliance with #rticle '%5, and

should be treated as of e>uivalent i$port!

n lieu of an acknowledg$ent, the notary public, 6etronio Y!

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

17/26

t $ight be possible to construe the aver$ent as a0urat, even though it does not hew to the usual language thereof!

#0uratis that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before hi$Eher, the docu$ent was subscribed and

sworn to by the e+ecutor!:92rdinarily, the language of the0uratshould avow that the docu$ent was subscribed and

sworn before the notary public, while in this case, the notary public averred that he hi$self ;signed and notariFed; the

docu$ent! 6ossibly though, the word ;ninotario; or ;notariFed; enco$passes the signing of and swearing in of the

e+ecutors of the docu$ent, which in this case would involve the decedent and the instru$ental witnesses!

Yet even if we consider what was affi+ed by the notary public as a0urat, the will would nonetheless re$ain invalid, as

the e+press re>uire$ent of #rticle '%7 is that the will be ;acknowledged;, and not $erely subscribed and sworn to!

The will does not present any te+tual proof, $uch less one under oath, that the decedent and the instru$ental

witnesses e+ecuted or signed the will as their own free act or deed! The acknowledg$ent $ade in a will provides for

another all*i$portant legal safeguard against spurious wills or those $ade beyond the free consent of the testator! #n

acknowledge$ent is not an e$pty $eaningless act!:4The acknowledg$ent coerces the testator and the instru$ental

witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had e+ecuted and subscribed to the will as their own free

act or deed! "uch declaration is under oath and under pain of per=ury, thus allowing for the cri$inal prosecution of

persons who participate in the e+ecution of spurious wills, or those e+ecuted without the free consent of the testator!

t also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of certain $indset in $aking the testa$entary

dispositions to those persons heEshe had designated in the will!

t $ay not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, self*evident as it is under #rticle '%7! A $o)ara 6

)ha) $o) ac;$o6+%+% *+or+ a $o)ar5 /*c *5 )h+ )+)a)or a$% )h+ 6)$++ a)a5 %++c)v+,

+v+$ ) *cr*+% a$% 6or$ )o *+or+ a $o)ar5 /*c!

There are two other re>uire$ents under #rticle '%5 which were not fully satisfied by the will in >uestion! @e need not

discuss the$ at length, as they are no longer $aterial to the

disposition of this case! The provision re>uires that the testator and the instru$ental witnesses sign each and every

page of the will on the left $argin, e+cept the last and that all the pages shall be nu$bered correlatively in letters

placed on the upper part of each page! n this case, the decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both pages of

the will on the left $argin, her only signature appearing at the so*called ;logical end;::of the will on its first page!

#lso, the will itself is not nu$bered correlatively in letters on each page, but instead nu$bered with #rabic nu$erals!

There is a line of thought that has disabused the notion that these two re>uire$ents be construed as

$andatory!:5Taken in isolation, these o$issions, by the$selves, $ay not be sufficient to deny probate to a will! Yet

even as these o$issions are not decisive to the ad=udication of this case, they need not be dwelt on, though indicative

as they $ay be of a general lack of due regard for the re>uire$ents under #rticle '%5 by whoever e+ecuted the will!

#ll told, the string of $ortal defects which the will in >uestion suffers fro$ $akes the probate denial ine+orable!

@B(B)2(B, the petition is DBNBD! Costs against petitioner!

http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt42http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt43http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt44http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt45http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt42http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt43http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt44http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47960:gr-122880-2006&catid=1478&Itemid=566#fnt45

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

18/26

[G.R. No. 7(D(D. !+*rar5 29, 1988.]

TE#TATE E#TATE O! THE ATE ARIANA MAOTO, AINA MAOTO CA#IANO, CON#TANCIO MAOTO,

"URI!ICACION MIRA!OR, ROMAN CATHOIC CHURCH O! MOO, AN A#IO E MOO, Petitioners, v.

COURT O! A""EA#, "AN!IO MAOTO AN !EINO MAOTO, Respondents.

#ABU#

1! CVL L#@ "CCB""2N @LL" (BV2C#T2N TB(B2) 6Y"C#L #CT 2) DB"T(CT2N #N-"

(BV2C#ND, # NBCB""#(Y BLB-BNT! Q 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 ani$us revocandi on the part of the

testator! t is not i$perative that the physical destruction be done by the testator hi$self! t $ay be perfor$ed byanother person but under the e+press direction and in the presence of the testator! 2f course, it goes without saying

that the docu$ent destroyed $ust be the will itself! n this case, while ani$us revocandi, or the intention to revoke,

$ay be conceded, for that is a state of $ind, yet that re>uisite alone would not suffice! ;#ni$us revocandi is only one

of the necessary ele$ents for the effective revocation of a last will and testa$ent! The intention to revoke $ust be

acco$panied 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 e+press direction!

9! (B-BD#L L#@ CVL #CT2N" (B" 3DC#T# BLB-BNT"! Q )or a =udg$ent to be a bar to a subse>uent case,

the following re>uisites $ust concur? /10 the presence of a final for$er =udg$ent /90 the for$er =udg$ent was

rendered by a court having =urisdiction over the sub=ect $atter and the parties /40 the for$er =udg$ent is a=udg$ent on the $erits and /:0 there is, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of sub=ect

$atter, and of cause of action! @e do not find here the presence of all the enu$erated re>uisites!

4! D! D! D! D2CT(NB N2T #66LC#uently discovered

will of the decedent! Neither is it a =udg$ent on the $erits of the action for probate! This is understandably so

because the trial court, in the intestate proceeding, was without =urisdiction to rule on the probate of the contested

will! #fter all, an action for probate, as it i$plies, is founded on the presence of a will and with the ob=ective of provingits due e+ecution and validity, so$ething which can not be properly done in an intestate settle$ent of estate

proceeding which is predicated on the assu$ption 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!

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

19/26

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

20/26

other person, without the e+press direction of the testator, the will $ay still be established, and the estate distributedin accordance therewith, if its contents, and due e+ecution, and the fact of its unauthoriFed destruction, cancellation,or obliteration are established according to the (ules of Court! /B$phasis "upplied!0

t is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effectiverevocation, unless the destruction is coupled with ani$us revocandi on the part of the testator! t is not i$perativethat the physical destruction be done by the testator hi$self! t $ay be perfor$ed by another person but under thee+press direction and in the presence of the testator! 2f course, it goes without saying that the docu$ent destroyed$ust be the will itself!

n this case, while ani$us revocandi, or the intention to revoke, $ay be conceded, for that is a state of $ind, yet thatre>uisite alone would not suffice! ;#ni$us revocandi is only one of the necessary ele$ents for the effective revocationof a last will and testa$ent! The intention to revoke $ust be acco$panied 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 underhis e+press direction! There is paucity of evidence to show co$pliance with these re>uire$ents! )or one, thedocu$ent or papers burned by #driana.s $aid, uadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, $uchless the will of #driana -aloto! )or another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the e+pressdirection of #driana! #nd then, the burning was not in her presence! uivocably positive that the docu$ent burnedwas indeed #driana.s will! uadalupe, we think, believed that the papers she destroyed was the will only because,according to her, #driana told her so! Bladio, on the other hand, obtained his infor$ation that the burned docu$entwas the will because uadalupe told hi$ so, thus, his testi$ony on this point is double hearsay!

#t this =uncture, we reiterate that; /it0 is an i$portant $atter of public interest that a purported will is not deniedlegaliFation on dubious grounds! 2therwise, the very institution of testa$entary succession will be shaken to its veryfoundations ! ! !; :

The private respondents in their bid for the dis$issal of the present action for probate instituted by the petitionersargue that the sa$e is already barred by res ad=udicata! They clai$ that this bar was brought about by thepetitioners. failure to appeal ti$ely fro$ the order dated Nove$ber 17, 1&7' of the trial court in the intestateproceeding /"pecial 6roceeding No! 18470 denying their /petitioners.0 $otion to reopen the case, and their prayer to

annul the previous proceedings therein and to allow the last will and testa$ent of the late #driana -aloto! This isuntenable!

The doctrine of res ad=udicata finds no application in the present controversy! )or a =udg$ent to be a bar to asubse>uent case, the following re>uisites $ust concur? /10 the presence of a final for$er =udg$ent /90 the for$er

=udg$ent was rendered by a court having =urisdiction over the sub=ect $atter and the parties /40 the for$er=udg$ent is a =udg$ent on the $erits and /:0 there is, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, ofsub=ect $atter, and of cause of action! 5 @e do not find here the presence of all the enu$erated re>uisites!

)or one, there is yet, strictly speaking, no final =udg$ent rendered insofar as the probate of #driana -aloto.s will isconcerned! The decision of the trial court in "pecial 6roceeding No! 1847, although final, involved only the intestatesettle$ent of the estate of #driana! #s such, that =udg$ent could not in any $anner be construed to be final withrespect to the probate of the subse>uently discovered will of the decedent! Neither is it a =udg$ent on the $erits ofthe action for probate! This is understandably so because the trial court, in the intestate proceeding, was without

=urisdiction to rule on the probate of the contested will! 7 #fter all, an action for probate, as it i$plies, is founded onthe presence of a will and with the ob=ective of proving its due e+ecution and validity, so$ething which can not beproperly done in an intestate settle$ent of estate proceeding which is predicated on the assu$ption that the decedentleft no will! Thus, there is likewise no identity between the cause of action in intestate proceeding and that in anaction for probate! uired after the e+ecution of the will on 3anuary 4, 1&:%!; 8 "uffice it to state here that as these additional $attersraised by the private respondents are e+traneous to this special proceeding, they could only be appropriately taken up

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

21/26

after the will has been duly probated and a certificate of its allowance issued!

@B(B)2(B, =udg$ent is hereby rendered (BVB("N and "BTTN #"DB the Decision dated 3une 8, 1&'5 and the(esolution dated 2ctober 99, 1&'7, of the respondent Court of #ppeals, and a new one BNTB(BD for the allowance of#driana -aloto.s last will and testa$ent! Costs against the private respondents!

This Decision is --BD#TBLY BHBCT2(Y!

[G.R. NO. 1>(021. #+/)+4*+r 2]

CNTHIA C. AABANv.COURT O! A""EA# a$% !RANCI#CO H. "ROVIO,Respondent!

This is a 6etition for (eview of the Resolutions1of the Court of #ppeals /C#0 in C#*!(! "6 No! 7&991,9dis$issing

petitioners petition for annul$ent of =udg$ent!

2n ' Nove$ber 9%%%, respondent )rancisco 6rovido /respondent0 filed a petition, docketed as "6 6roc! No! %%*145,

for the probate of the Last Will and !esta%ent4of the late "oledad 6rovido Blevencionado /;decedent;0, who died on

97 2ctober 9%%% in 3aniuay, loilo!:

(espondent alleged that he was the heir of the decedent and the e+ecutor of herwill! 2n 4% -ay 9%%1, the (egional Trial Court /(TC0, uire =urisdiction over the petition due to non*pay$ent of the correct docket fees,

defective publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs! -oreover, they alleged that the will could not have been

probated because? /10 the signature of the decedent was forged /90 the will was not e+ecuted in accordance with

law, that is, the witnesses failed to sign below the attestation clause /40 the decedent lacked testa$entary capacity

to e+ecute and publish a will /:0 the will was e+ecuted by force and under duress and i$proper pressure /50 the

decedent had no intention to $ake a will at the ti$e of affi+ing of her signature and /70 she did not know the

properties to be disposed of, having included in the will properties which no longer belonged to her! 6etitioners prayed

that the letters testa$entary issued to respondent be withdrawn and the estate of the decedent disposed of under

intestate succession!&

2n 11 3anuary 9%%9, the (TC issued an 2rder1%denying petitioners $otion for being un$eritorious! (esolving the

issue of =urisdiction, the (TC held that petitioners were dee$ed notified of the hearing by publication and that the

deficiency in the pay$ent of docket fees is not a ground for the outright dis$issal of the petition! t $erely re>uired

respondent to pay the deficiency!11-oreover, the (TCs 1ecisionwas already final and e+ecutory even beforepetitioners filing of the $otion to reopen!19

6etitioners thereafter filed a petition14with an application for preli$inary in=unction with the C#, seeking the

annul$ent of the (TCs 1ecisiondated 4% -ay 9%%1 and 2rderdated 11 3anuary 9%%9! They clai$ed that after the

death of the decedent, petitioners, together with respondent, held several conferences to discuss the $atter of

dividing the estate of the decedent, with respondent agreeing to a one*si+th /1E70 portion as his share! 6etitioners

allegedly drafted a co$pro$ise agree$ent to i$ple$ent the division of the estate! Despite receipt of the agree$ent,

respondent refused to sign and return the sa$e! 6etitioners opined that respondent feigned interest in participating in

the co$pro$ise agree$ent so that they would not suspect his intention to secure the probate of the will! 1:They

http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt1http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt2http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt3http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt4http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt4http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt5http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt6http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt7http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt7http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt8http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt8http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt9http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt10http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt11http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt12http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt13http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt14http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt1http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt2http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt3http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt4http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt5http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt6http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt7http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt8http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt9http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt10http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt11http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt12http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt13http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt14

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

22/26

clai$ed that they learnt of the probate proceedings only in 3uly of 9%%1, as a result of which they filed their $otion to

reopen the proceedings and ad$it their opposition to the probate of the will only on : 2ctober 9%%1! They argued that

the (TC 1ecisionshould be annulled and set aside on the ground of e+trinsic fraud and lack of =urisdiction on the part

of the (TC!15

n its Resolution17pro$ulgated on 9' )ebruary 9%%9, the C# dis$issed the petition! t found that there was no

showing that petitioners failed to avail of or resort to the ordinary re$edies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief

fro$ =udg$ent, or other appropriate re$edies through no fault of their own!18-oreover, the C# declared as baseless

petitioners clai$ that the proceedings in the (TC was attended by e+trinsic fraud! Neither was there any showing that

they availed of this ground in a $otion for new trial or petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent in the (TC, the C#

added!1'6etitioners sought reconsideration of the Resolution, but the sa$e was denied by the C# for lack of $erit!1&

6etitioners now co$e to this Court, asserting that the C# co$$itted grave abuse of discretion a$ounting to lack of

=urisdiction when it dis$issed their petition for the alleged failure to show that they have not availed of or resorted to

the re$edies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief fro$ =udg$ent or other re$edies through no fault of their own,

and held that petitioners were not denied their day in court during the proceedings before the (TC!9%n addition, they

assert that this Court has yet to decide a case involving (ule :8 of the (ules of Court and, therefore, the instant

petition should be given due course for the guidance of the bench and bar!91

)or his part, respondent clai$s that petitioners were in a position to avail of the re$edies provided in (ules 48 and

4', as they in fact did when they filed a $otion for new trial!99-oreover, they could have resorted to a petition for

relief fro$ =udg$ent since they learned of the (TCs =udg$ent only three and a half $onths after its

pro$ulgation!94(espondent likewise $aintains that no e+trinsic fraud e+ists to warrant the annul$ent of the

(TCs 1ecision, since there was no showing that they were denied their day in court! 6etitioners were not $ade

parties to the probate proceedings because the decedent did not institute the$ as her heirs!9:uisite!95)inally,

respondent charges petitioners of foru$shopping, since the latter have a pending suit involving the sa$e issues asthose in "6 No! %%*145, that is "6 No! 11'197filed before

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

23/26

"ection 48 of the (ules of Court allows an aggrieved party to file a $otion for new trial on the ground of fraud,

accident, $istake, or e+cusable negligence! The sa$e

(ule per$its the filing of a $otion for reconsideration on the grounds of e+cessive award of da$ages, insufficiency of

evidence to =ustify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law!49

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

24/26

Bven casting aside the procedural re>uisite, the petition for annul$ent of =udg$ent $ust still fail for failure to co$ply

with the substantive re>uisites, as the appellate court ruled!

#n action for annul$ent of =udg$ent is a re$edy in law independent of the case where the =udg$ent sought to be

annulled was rendered!:9The purpose of such action is to have the final and e+ecutory =udg$ent set aside so that

there will be a renewal of litigation! t is resorted to in cases where the ordinary re$edies of new trial, appeal, petition

for relief fro$ =udg$ent, or other appropriate re$edies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner,:4and

is based on only two grounds? e+trinsic fraud, and lack of =urisdiction or denial of due process!::# person need not be

a party to the =udg$ent sought to be annulled, and it is only essential that he can prove his allegation that the

=udg$ent was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he would be adversely affected thereby!:5

#n action to annul a final =udg$ent on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is e+trinsic or collateral in

character!:7)raud is regarded as e+trinsic where it prevents a party fro$ having a trial or fro$ presenting his entire

case to the court, or where it operates upon $atters pertaining not to the =udg$ent itself but to the $anner in which

it is procured! The overriding consideration when e+trinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent sche$e of the

prevailing litigant prevented a party fro$ having his day in court!:8

To sustain their allegation of e+trinsic fraud, petitioners assert that as a result of respondents deliberate o$ission orconceal$ent of their na$es, ages and residences as the other heirs of the decedent in his petition for allowance of the

will, they were not notified of the proceedings, and thus they were denied their day in court! n addition, they clai$

that respondents offer of a false co$pro$ise even before the filing of the petition prevented the$ fro$ appearing

and opposing the petition for probate!

The Court is not convinced!

#ccording to the (ules, notice is re>uired to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the

testator!:'# perusal of the will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent! 6etitioners, as

nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither co$pulsory nor testate heirs:&who are entitled to be notified of the

probate proceedings under the (ules! (espondent had no legal obligation to $ention petitioners in the petition for

probate, or to personally notify the$ of the sa$e!

uisite!5%

The non*inclusion of petitioners na$es in the petition and the alleged failure to personally notify the$ of the

proceedings do not constitute e+trinsic fraud! 6etitioners were not denied their day in court, as they were not

prevented fro$ participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court!

2ne other vital point is the issue of foru$*shopping against petitioners! )oru$*shopping consists of filing $ultiple

suits in different courts, either si$ultaneously or successively, involving the sa$e parties, to ask the courts to rule on

the sa$e or related causes andEor to grant the sa$e or substantially sa$e reliefs,51on the supposition that one or the

other court would $ake a favorable disposition!592bviously, the parties in the instant case, as well as in the appealed

case before the C#, are the sa$e! uisites of a valid will!

ndeed, that position is the bedrock of their present petition! 2f course, respondent $aintains the contrary stance! 2n

http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt42http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt42http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt43http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt44http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt45http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt46http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt47http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt48http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt49http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt50http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt51http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt52http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt42http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt43http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt44http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt45http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt46http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt47http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt48http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt49http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt50http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt51http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47205:gr-156021-2005&catid=1470&Itemid=566#fnt52

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

25/26

the other hand, in the petition for letters of ad$inistration, petitioner )lores prayed for her appoint$ent as

ad$inistratri+ of the

estate on the theory that the decedent died intestate! The petition was dis$issed on the ground of lack of =urisdiction,

and it is this order of dis$issal which is the sub=ect of review in C#*!(! No! 8:&9:! Clearly, therefore, there is foru$*

shopping!

-oreover, petitioners failed to infor$ the Court of the said pending case in their certification against foru$ *

shopping! Neither have they done so at any ti$e thereafter! The Court notes that even in the petition for annul$ent

of =udg$ent, petitioners failed to infor$ the C# of the pendency of their appeal in C#*!(! No! 8:&9:, even though

the notice of appeal was filed way before the petition for annul$ent of =udg$ent was instituted!

@B(B)2(B, the petition is DBNBD! Costs against petitioners!

8/12/2019 Cases in Rule 75-76

26/26