compilation of succession case digest 1

8/10/2019 Compilation of Succession Case Digest 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compilation-of-succession-case-digest-1 1/46

3. RABADILLA V. CA

FACTS: In a codicil appended to the last will and testament of testatrix Alleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was instituted as a de isee of aparcel of land. !he codicil pro ides that Jorge Rabadilla shall ha e the obligation until he dies, e er" "ear to gi e #aria marlena of piculs of sugar until she dies. Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in $%&' and was sur i ed b" his wife Ru(na and children Johnn" )petitioner*, Aurora, +felia andenaida, all surnamed Rabadilla. -ri ate respondent #aria #arlena oscolluela " Belleza /illacarlos brought a complaint to enforce the

pro isions of subject codicil. !he omplaint alleged that the defendant0heirs iolated the conditions of the odicil, in that Defendant0heirsfailed to compl" with their obligation to deli er one hundred )$11* piculs of sugar )23 piculs export sugar and 43 piculs domestic sugar* toplainti5 #aria #arlena oscolluela " Belleza from sugar crop "ears $%&3 up to the (ling of the complaint as mandated b" the odicil, despiterepeated demands for compliance.

!he R! dismissed the complaint. the ourt (nds that the action is prematurel" (led as no cause of action against the defendants has as "etarose in fa or of plainti5. 6hile there ma"be the non0performance of the command as mandated exaction from them simpl" because the" arethe children of Jorge Rabadilla, the title holder7owner of the lot in 8uestion, does not warrant the (ling of the present complaint. !he remed" atbar must fall. Incidentall", being in the categor" as creditor of the left estate, it is opined that plainti5 ma" initiate the intestate proceedings, if onl" to establish the heirs of Jorge Rabadilla and in order to gi e full meaning and semblance to her claim under the odicil. +n appeal b"plainti5, the A re ersed the decision of the trial court9 ratiocinating and ordering the recon e"ance of title from the estates of Jorge Rabadilla

to the estate of Aleja Belleza.ISSUE: 6hether or not the obligations of Jorge Rabadilla under the codicil are inherited b" the heirs:

RULING: ;<=. It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of thedecedent and compulsor" heirs are called to succeed b" operation of law. !he legitimate children and descendants, in relation to theirlegitimate parents, and the widow or widower, are compulsor" heirs !hus, the petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsor" heirs of theinstituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter b" operation of law, without need of further proceedings, and the successional rightswere transmitted to them from the moment of death of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.

>nder Article 22? of the @ew i il ode, inheritance includes all the propert", rights and obligations of a person, not extinguished b" his death.onformabl", whate er rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had b" irtue of subject odicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death.And since obligations not extinguished b" death also form part of the estate of the decedent9 corollaril", the obligations imposed b" the odicilon the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were li ewise transmitted to his compulsor" heirs upon his death.

!he institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in Article &&4 is what is nown in the law of succession as an institucion sub modo or amodal institution. In a modal institution, the testator states )$* the object of the institution, )4* the purpose or application of the propert" leftb" the testator, or )'* the charge imposed b" the testator upon the heir. A mode imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it doesnot a5ect the eCcac" of his rights to the succession. +n the other hand, in a conditional testamentar" disposition, the condition must happenor be ful(lled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator. !he condition suspends but does not obligate9 and the mode obligatesbut does not suspend. !o some extent, it is similar to a resolutor" condition.



=uCce it to state that a 6ill is a personal, solemn, re ocable and free act b" which a person disposes of his propert", to ta e e5ect after hisdeath. =ince the 6ill expresses the manner in which a person intends how his properties be disposed, the wishes and desires of the testatormust be strictl" followed. !hus, a 6ill cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which would thereb" defeat the er" purpose of ma ing a 6ill.

4. Ferrer vs. Diaz

FACTS: -etitioner Att". errer represented omandante, daughter of spouses Diazes obtain loan to petitioner. !he loan was secured b" a Real<state #ortgage ontract. -etitioner further claimed that prior to said loan, omandante, for a aluable consideration of -?11,111.11, whichamount formed part of the abo ementioned secured loan, executed in his fa or an instrument entitled 6ai er of Eereditar" Rights andInterests + er a Real -ropert" )=till >ndi ided*. !he Diazes, howe er, reneged on their obligation as the chec s issued b" omandante weredishonored upon presentment. Despite repeated demands, said respondents still failed and refused to settle the loan. !hus, petitioner (led aomplaint for ollection of =um of #one" =ecured b" Real <state #ortgage ontract against the Diazes and omandante.

ISSUE: Is a wai er of hereditar" rights in fa or of another executed b" a future heir while the parents are still li ing alid:

HELD: @o. -ursuant to the second paragraph of Article $'F2 of the i il ode, no contract ma" be entered into upon a future inheritance

except in cases expressl" authorized b" law. or the inheritance to be considered GfutureH, the succession must not ha e been opened at thetime of the contract. A contract ma" be classi(ed as a contract upon future inheritance, prohibited under the second paragraph of Article$'F2, where the following re8uisites concur )$* !hat the succession has not "et been opened. )4* !hat the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance9 and, )'* !hat the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectanc" of a right which is purel" hereditar" in nature. Inthis case, there is no 8uestion that at the time of execution of omandante s 6ai er of Eereditar" Rights and Interest + er a Real -ropert")=till >ndi ided*, succession to either of her parent s properties has not "et been opened since both of them are still li ing. 6ith respect to theother two re8uisites, both are li ewise present considering that the propert" subject matter of omandante s wai er concededl" forms part of the properties that she expect to inherit from her parents upon their death and, such expectanc" of a right, as shown b" the facts, isundoubtedl" purel" hereditar" in nature. rom the foregoing, it is clear that omandante and petitioner entered into a contract in ol ing theformer s future inheritance as embodied in the 6ai er of Eereditar" Rights and Interest + er a Real -ropert" )=till >ndi ided* executed b" herin petitioner s fa or.

4. Atty. Pe r! Ferrer vs s"s. A#$re ! a% i&e# a Diaz' rei%a (!&a% a%te' s!s )ie%ve%i ! a% e#iza)et* "a%+a%

Fa(ts: $. !he diazes, as represented b" omandante, obtained a loan from -. !his load was secured b" a R<# and a -@. 4. omandante, for aaluable consideration of ?11 , which amount formed part of the abo ementioned secured loan, executed in -Ks fa or, an instrument entitledwai er of hereditar" rights and interests as a legitimate daughter of =ps. Diaz o er a real propert". '. on the basis of said wai er, p caused tobe annotated an ad erse claim in the ! !. F. or failure of the diazes to compl" with their obligations, - (led an action for collection of sum of mone".

Iss,e: 6+@ the wai er of hereditar" rights and interest o er a real propert" )still undi ided* executed b" omandante is oid.

R,#i%+: ;es. -ursuant to the 4nd paragraph of art. $'F2 of the i il ode no contract ma" be entered into upon a future inheritance except incases expressl" authorized b" law. or the future inheritance to be considered future , the succession must not ha e been opened at the time



of the contract. A contract ma" be classi(ed as a contract upon futute inheritance, prohibited under the 4nd paragraph of Article $'F2, wherethe following re8uisites concur )$* that the succession has not "et been opened. )4* that the object of the contract forms part of theinheritance9 and )'* that the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectanc" of a right which is purel" hereditar" in nature. In thiscase, there is no 8uestion that at the time of execution of omandanteKswai er of hereditar" rights and interest o er a real propert" )stillundi ided*, succession to either of her parentKs properties has not "et been opened since both of them are still li ing. 6ith respect to the othertwo re8uisites, both are li ewise present considering that the propert" subject matter of omandanteKs wai er concededl" forms part of theproperties that she expect to inherit from her parents upon their death and, such expectanc" of a right, as shown b" the facts, is undoubtedl"purel" hereditar" in nature.

rom the foregoing, it is clear that cmandante and p entered into a contract in ol ing a formerKs future inheritance as embodied in the wai erof hereditar" rights and interest o er a real propert" ) still uni ided* executed b" her in petitionerKs fa or.

-. NEP /UCEN VS CA

FACTS: #artin Jugo left a last 6ill and !estament dul" signed b" him at the end of the 6il in the presence of elestina Alejandro, #"rna .ortez, and Leandro Leano, who in turn, aCxed their signatures below the attestation clause and on the left margin of pages of the 6ill in thepresence of the testator and of each other and the @otar" -ublic. !he 6ill was ac nowledged before the @otar" -ublic Romeo <scareal b" thetestator and his three attesting witnesses. !he testator named and appointed herein petitioner =o(a J. @epomuceno as his sole and onl"

executor of his estate. It is clearl" stated in the 6ill that the testator was legall" married to a certain Ru(na Momez b" whom he had twolegitimate children and on December 3, $%34, the testator #artin Jugo and the petitioner herein, =o(a J. @epomuceno were married in /ictoria, !arlac before the Justice of the -eace. !he testator de ised to his forced heirs, namel", his legal wife Ru(na Momez and his children +scar and

armelita his entire estate and the free portion thereof to herein petitioner.

!he petitioner (led a petition for the probate of the last 6ill and !estament of the deceased #artin Jugo in the ourt of irst Instance of Rizal.the legal wife of the testator, Ru(na Momez and her children (led an opposition alleging inter alia that the execution of the 6ill was procuredb" undue and improper inNuence on the part of the petitioner9 that at the time of the execution of the 6ill, the testator was alread" er" sicand that petitioner ha ing admitted her li ing in concubinage with the testator, she is wanting in integrit" and thus, letters testamentar"should not be issued to her. !he lower court denied the probate of the 6ill on the ground that as the testator admitted in his 6ill to cohabitingwith the petitionerl . !he 6illKs admission to probate will be an idle exercise because on the face of the 6ill, the in alidit" of its intrinsicpro isions is e ident. !he respondent court declared the 6ill to be alid except that the de ise in fa or of the petitioner is null and oidpursuant to Article 2'% in relation with Article $14& of the i il ode of the -hilippines

ISSUE: 6hether or not the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last 6ill and !estament of thedeceased #artin Jugo alidl" drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic alidit" of the testamentar" pro ision in fa or of herein petitioner.

RULING: Respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when after declaring the 6ill to be alidl" drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsicalidit" of the 6ill and declared the de ise in fa or of the petitioner null and oid.

!he general rule is that in probate proceedings, the courtKs area of in8uir" is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic alidit"of the 6ill. !he rule, howe er, is not inNexible and absolute. Mi en exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do whatthe situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain pro isions of the 6ill.



Article 2'% of the i il ode pro ides that donations made between persons who were guilt" of adulter" or concubinage at the time of thedonation shall be oid. Article $14& of the i il ode pro ides that prohibitions mentioned in Article 2'%, concerning donations inter i os shallappl" to testamentar" pro isions. #oreo er, the prohibition in Article 2'% of the i il ode is against the ma ing of a donation betweenpersons who are li ing in adulter" or concubinage. It is the donation which becomes oid. !he gi er cannot gi e e en assuming that therecipient ma" recei e. !he er" wordings of the 6ill in alidate the legac" because the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to aperson with whom he had been li ing in concubinage.

0. I% re: 1i## a% Testa&e%t !$ t*e e(ease REVEREND SANCH ABADIA. SEVERINA A. VDA. DE ENRI2UE ' ET AL.' "etiti!%ersa""e##ees' vs. /IGUEL ABADIA' ET AL.' !""!sit!rs a""e##a%ts.

FACTS : +n =eptember ?, $%4', ather =ancho Abadia, parish priest of !alisa", ebu, executed a document purporting to be his Last 6ill and !estament. Resident of the it" of ebu, he died on Januar" $F, $%F', in the municipalit" of Aloguinsan, ebu, where he was an e acuee. Eeleft properties estimated at -&,111 in alue. +n +ctober 4, $%F?, one Andres <nri8uez, one of the legatees, (led a petition for its probate inthe ourt of irst Instance of ebu. =ome cousins and nephews who would inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no will , (led opposition.

!he learned trial court found and declared it to be a holographic w ill9 that it was in the handwriting of the testator and that although at thetime it was executed and at the time of the testatorKs death, holographic wills were not permitted b" law still, because at the time of thehearing and when the case was to be decided the new i il ode was alread" in force, which ode permitted the execution of holographic

wills, under a liberal iew, and to carr" out the intention of the testator which according to the trial court is the controlling factor and ma"o erride an" defect in form, said trial court b" order dated Januar" 4F, $%34, admitted to probate as the Last 6ill and !estament of ather=ancho Abadia. !he oppositors are appealing from that decision9 and because onl" 8uestions of law are in ol ed in the appeal, the case wascerti(ed to us b" the ourt of Appeals.

ISSUE : 6hat is the law to appl" to the probate: #a" we appl" the pro isions of the new i il ode which not allows holographic wills, whichpro isions were in o ed b" the appellee0petitioner and applied b" the lower court: But article 2%3 of this same new i il ode expressl"pro ides !he alidit" of a will as to its form depends upon the obser ance of the law in force at the time it is made.

RULING: !here is the iew that the intention of the testator should be the ruling and controlling factor and that all ade8uate remedies andinterpretations should be resorted to in order to carr" out said intention, and that when statutes passed after the execution of the will andafter the death of the testator lessen the formalities re8uired b" law for the execution of wills, said subse8uent statutes should be applied soas to alidate wills defecti el" executed according to the law in force at the time of execution. Eowe er, we should not forget that from theda" of the death of the testator, if he lea es a will, the title of the legatees and de isees under it becomes a ested right, protected under thedue process clause of the constitution against a subse8uent change in the statute adding new legal re8uirements of execution of wills whichwould in alidate such a will. B" parit" of reasoning, when one executes a will which is in alid for failure to obser e and follow the legalre8uirements at the time of its execution then upon his death he should be regarded and declared as ha ing died intestate, and his heirs willthen inherit b" intestate succession, and no subse8uent law with more liberal re8uirements or which dispenses with such re8uirements as toexecution should be allowed to alidate a defecti e will and thereb" di est the heirs of their ested rights in the estate b" intestatesuccession. !he general rule is that the Legislature cannot alidate oid wills. !he order appealed from is re ersed, is denied probate.

56. 7i&e%ez vs. Fer%a% ez

Fa(ts: !he case in ol ed the residential land )the <astern portion with an area of F'? s8m situated in Barrio Dulig )now #agsa"sa"*,



-angasinan under the name of =ulpicia Jimenez. ermin Jimenez own said whole parcel of land. =ulpicia is the onl" child of ortunato son of ermin. >pon death of ermin, the land was registered under =ulpicia and arlos Jimenez )also son of ermin* in e8ual pro indi iso.

>pon death of arlos, his illegitimate daughter, #elicia Jimenez possessed the eastern portion of the land and later sold the same to <dilbertoagampan and !eodora Mrado. Eowe er, =ulpicia executed an aCda it adjudicating that she is the onl" heir of his uncle arlos9 hence a ! !under her name was issued. +n April $, $%21, =ulpicia Jimenez, joined b" her husband, see s to reco er the eastern portion of the propert" occupied b" defendant !eodoraMrado and her son. R! ruled in fa or of Mrado as the absolute owner of the land. A aCrmed the same.

Iss,e: 6+@ #elecia Jimenez is not the daughter of arlos Jimenez. 6+@ #elecia has the right to sell the land.

R,#i%+: R! erred in not declaring that #elecia Jimenez a"ab"ab also nown as #elecia Jimenez, is not the daughter of arlos Jimenez andtherefore, had no right o er the propert" in 8uestion. Respondents failed to present concrete e idence to pro e that #elecia a"ab"ab wasreall" the daughter of arlos Jimenez. @onetheless, assuming for the sa e of argument that #elecia a"ab"ab was the illegitimate daughter of arlos Jimenez there can be no 8uestion that #elecia a"ab"ab had no right to succeed to the estate of arlos Jimenez and could not ha ealidl" ac8uired, nor legall" transferred to <dilberto agampan that portion of the propert" subject of this petition.

It is well0settled in this jurisdiction that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent )Art. 222,

i il ode*. #oreo er, Art. 44?' of the i il ode pro ides as follows

Rights to the inheritance of a person who died with or without a will, before the e5ecti it" of this ode, shall be go erned b" the i ilode of $&&%, b" other pre ious laws, and b" the Rules of ourt . . . )Rollo, p. $2*

!hus, since arlos Jimenez, died on Jul" %, $%'? wa" before the e5ecti it" of the i il ode of the -hilippines, the successional rightspertaining to his estate must be determined in accordance with the i il ode of $&&%.

iting the case of id . Burnaman )4F = RA F'F* wherein this ourt categoricall" held that

!o be an heir under the rules of i il ode of $&&% )which was the law in force when arlos Jimenez died and which should be the go erninglaw in so far as the right to inherit from his estate was concerned*, a child must be either a child legitimate, l egitimated, or adopted, or else anac nowledged natural child O for illegitimate not natural are dis8uali(ed to inherit. ) i il ode of $&&%, Art. &12, %'3*

< en assuming that #elecia a"ab"ab was born out of the common0law0relationship between her mother )#aria a"ab"ab* and arlos Jimenez, she could not e en be considered an ac nowledged natural child because arlos Jimenez was then legall" married to =usana Abalosand therefore not 8uali(ed to marr" #aria a"ab"ab and conse8uentl" #elecia a"ab"ab was an illegitimate spurious child and not entitled toan" successional rights in so far as the estate of arlos Jimenez was concerned.

#elecia a"ab"ab in the absence of an" oluntar" con e"ance to her b" arlos Jimenez or =ulpicia Jimenez of the litigated portion of the landcould not e en legall" transfer the parcel of land to <dilberto agampan who accordingl", could not also legall" transfer the same to hereinpri ate respondents.

-etitioner =ulpicia Jimenez is entitled to the relief pra"ed for, declaring her to be the sole and absolute owner of the land in 8uestion with rightto its possession and enjo"ment. =ince her uncle arlos Jimenez died in $%'?, his pro0indi iso share in the properties then owned in co0



ownership with his niece =ulpicia descended b" intestac" to =ulpicia Jimenez alone because arlos died without an" issue or other heirs.

-etition for Re iew is hereb" MRA@!<D.

53. LL RENTE V. C URT F APPEALS

FACTS: In $%'2, Lorenzo and petitioner -aula Llorente got married. Lorenzo left for the >nited =tates and -aula sta"ed in the conjugal home inamarines =ur. !hereafter, Lorenzo was admitted to >nited =tates citizenship and erti(cate of @aturalization was issued in his fa or. 6henLorenzo isited the -hilippines, he disco ered that his wife -aula was pregnant and was li ing in and ha ing an adulterous relationship withhis brother, eferino. -aula ga e birth to a bo" and named as risologo Llorente .

In $%3$, Lorenzo returned to the >nited =tates and (led for a di orce. -aula was represented b" counsel, and acti el" participated in theproceedings. $%34, the di orce decree was issued and became (nal.

In $%3&, Lorenzo married Alicia . Llorente in #anila. Lorenzo and Alicia li ed together as husband and wife. !heir twent"0( e )43* "ear unionproduced three children, Raul, Luz and Be erl", all surnamed Llorente.

$%&$, Lorenzo executed a Last 6ill and !estament. !he will was notarized, dul" signed b" Lorenzo with attesting witnesses. In the will, Lorenzobe8ueathed all his propert" to Alicia and their three children. $%&', Lorenzo (led with the R! amarines =ur, a petition for the probate andallowance of his last will and testament wherein Lorenzo mo ed that Alicia be appointed =pecial Administratrix of his estate. In $%&3, beforethe proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died. -aula (led with the same court a petition for letters of administration o er Lorenzo sestate in her fa or. -aula contended )$* that she was Lorenzo s sur i ing spouse, )4* that the arious propert" were ac8uired during theirmarriage, )'* that Lorenzo s will disposed of all his propert" in fa or of Alicia and her children, encroaching on her legitime and $74 share in theconjugal propert". Alicia (led in the testate proceeding, a petition for the issuance of letters testamentar".

In $%&2, the R! ruled in fa or of petitioner -aula. II#Alicia (led wi th the trial court a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied andonl" modi(ed its earlier decision, stating that Raul and Luz Llorente are not children legitimate or otherwise of Lorenzo since the" were notlegall" adopted b" him. !he trial court declared Be erl" Llorente as the onl" illegitimate child of Lorenzo, entitling her to one0third )$7'* of theestate and one0third )$7'* of the free portion of the estate.Respondent appealed to the A. !he court aCrmed with modi(cation the decision of the trial court that Alicia is declared as co0owner of whate er properties she and the deceased ma" ha e ac8uired during the twent"0( e )43* "ears of cohabitation. -etitioner (led with the ourtof Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision the ourt of Appeals, denied the motion for lac of merit. Eence, this petition.

Iss,e: 6hether or not the 6ill executed b" Lorenzo is /alid:

R,#i%+: ;<=. !he fact that the late Lorenzo @. Llorente became an American citizen long before and at the time of )$* his di orce from -aula9)4* marriage to Alicia9 )'* execution of his will9 and )F* death, is dul" established, admitted and undisputed. !hus, as a rule, issues arising fromthese incidents are necessaril" go erned b" foreign l aw.

!he i il ode clearl" pro ides

AR!I L< $3. Laws relating to famil" rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacit" of persons are binding upon citizens of the -hilippines, e en though li ing abroad.



AR!I L< $?. Real propert" as well as personal propert" is subject to the law of the countr" where it is situated.Eowe er, intestate and testamentar" succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and tothe intrinsic alidit" of testamentar" pro isions, shall be regulated b" the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,whate er ma" be the nature of the propert" and regardless of the countr" wherein said propert" ma" be found.

!rue, foreign laws do not pro e themsel es in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to ta e judicial notice of them. Li e an" other

fact, the" must be alleged and pro ed. 6hile the substance of the foreign law was pleaded, the ourt of Appeals did not admit the foreign law. !he ourt of Appeals and the trial court called to the fore the ren oi doctrine, where the case was referred bac to the law of the decedent sdomicile, in this case, -hilippine law. 6e note that while the trial court stated that the law of @ew ;or was not suCcientl" pro en, in the samebreath it made the categorical, albeit e8uall" unpro en statement that American law follows the Pdomiciliar" theor" hence, -hilippine lawapplies when determining the alidit" of Lorenzo s will.

!he trial court held that the will was intrinsicall" in alid since i t contained dispositions in fa or of Alice, who in the trial court s opinion was amere paramour. !he trial court threw the will out, lea ing Alice, and her two children, Raul and Luz, with nothing.

!he ourt of Appeals also disregarded the will. It declared Alice entitled to one half )$74* of whate er propert" she and Lorenzo ac8uired duringtheir cohabitation, appl"ing Article $FF of the i il ode of the -hilippines.

!he ourt ruled that aliens ma" obtain di orces abroad, pro ided the" are alid according to their national law. iting this landmar case, theourt held that once pro en that respondent was no longer a ilipino citizen when he obtained the di orce from petitioner, the ruling in /anDorn would become applicable and petitioner could er" well lose her right to inherit from him. or failing to appl" these doctrines, thedecision of the ourt of Appeals must be re ersed. 6e hold that the di orce obtained b" Lorenzo E. Llorente from his (rst wife -aula was alidand recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comit". @ow, the e5ects of this di orce )as to the succession to the estate of the decedent*are matters best left to the determination of the trial court.

!he i il ode pro ides AR!I L< $2. !he forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be go erned b" thelaws of the countr" in which the" are executed. 6hen the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular oCcials of theRepublic of the -hilippines in a foreign countr", the solemnities established b" -hilippine laws shall be obser ed in their execution.

!he clear intent of Lorenzo to be8ueath his propert" to his second wife and children b" her is glaringl" shown in the will he executed. 6e donot wish to frustrate his wishes, since he was a foreigner, not co ered b" our laws on famil" rights and duties, status, condition and legalcapacit".

6hether the will is intrinsicall" alid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo are issues best pro ed b" foreign law which must be pleaded andpro ed. 6hether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities re8uired is answered b" referring to -hilippine law. In fact, the willwas dul" probated.

54. L URDES L. D R THE ' vs. C URT F APPEALS' NILDA D. 2UINTANA' $!r Herse#$ a% as Att!r%ey i% Fa(t !$ VICENTED R THE a% 7 SE D R THE

Fa(ts: -ri ate respondents were the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Re"es. !he latter died in $%?% without her estatebeing settled. Alejandro died thereafter. =ometime in $%22, after Alejandro s death, petitioner, who claims to ha e ta en care of Alejandrobefore he died, (led a special proceeding for the probate of the latter s last will and testament. In $%&$, the court issued an order admittingAlejandro s will to probate. -ri ate respondents did not appeal from said order. In $%&', the" (led a G#otion !o Declare !he 6ill Intrinsicall"/oid.H



!he trial court granted the motion and issued an order, declaring Lourdes Legaspi not the wife of the late Alejandro Dorotheo, the pro isions of the last will and testament of Alejandro Dorotheo as intrinsicall" oid, and declaring the oppositors as the onl" heirs of the late spousesAlejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Re"es, whose respecti e estates shall be li8uidated and distributed according to the laws on intestac" uponpa"ment of estate and other taxes due to the go ernment.H -etitioner mo ed for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to somecompensation since she too care of Alejandro prior to his death although she admitted that the" were not married to each other, which wasdenied. +n appeal, the same was dismissed for failure to (le appellant s brief within the extended period granted. !his dismissal became (naland executor" on ebruar" ', $%&%.

An +rder was issued b" Judge ain B. Angas setting aside the (nal and executor" +rder on the ground that the order was merel"Ginterlocutor"H, hence not (nal in character. !he court added that the dispositi e portion of the said +rder e en directs the distribution of theestate of the deceased spouses. -ri ate respondents (led a motion for reconsideration which was denied pri ate respondents (led a petitionbefore the ourt of Appeals, which nulli(ed the two assailed +rders. Aggrie ed, petitioner instituted a petition for re iew arguing that the case(led b" pri ate respondents before the ourt of Appeals was a petition under Rule ?3 on the ground of gra e abuse of discretion or lac of

jurisdiction.

Iss,e: #a" a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsicall" oid in an order that has become (nal and executor" stillbe gi en e5ect:

He# : It should be noted that probate proceedings deals generall" with the extrinsic alidit" of the will sought to be probated, particularl" onthree aspects whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedent s last will and testament9 compliance with the prescribed formalities for theexecution of wills9 the testamentar" capacit" of the testator9 and the due execution of the last will and testament.

>nder the i il ode, due execution includes a determination of whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of itsexecution, that he had freel" executed the will and was not acting under duress, fraud, menace or undue inNuence and that the will is genuineand not a forger", that he was of the proper testamentar" age and that he is a person not expressl" prohibited b" law from ma ing a will.

!he intrinsic alidit" is another matter and 8uestions regarding the same ma" still be raised e en after the will has been authenticated. !hus,it does not necessaril" follow that an extrinsicall" alid last will and testament is alwa"s intrinsicall" alid. < en if the will was alidl" executed,if the testator pro ides for dispositions that depri es or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to the laws onsuccession, the unlawful pro isions7dispositions thereof cannot be gi en e5ect. !his is speciall" so when the courts had alread" determined ina (nal and executor" decision that the will is intrinsicall" oid. =uch determination ha ing attained that character of (nalit" is binding on thisourt which will no longer be disturbed. @ot that this ourt (nds the will to be intrinsicall" alid, but that a (nal and executor" decision of which the part" had the opportunit" to challenge before the higher tribunals must stand and should no longer be ree aluated. ailure to a ailof the remedies pro ided b" law constitutes wai er. And if the part" does not a ail of other remedies despite its belief that it was aggrie ed b"a decision or court action, then it is deemed to ha e full" agreed and is satis(ed with the decision or order. As earl" as $%$&, it has beendeclared that public polic" and sound practice demand that, at the ris of occasional errors, judgments of courts must at some point of time(xed b" law become (nal otherwise there will be no end to litigation. Interes rei publicae ut (nis sit litium 0 the er" object of which the courtswere constituted was to put an end to contro ersies. !o ful(ll this purpose and to do so speedil", certain time limits, more or less arbitrar",ha e to be set up to spur on the slothful. !he onl" instance where a part" interested in a probate proceeding ma" ha e a (nal li8uidation setaside is when he is left out b" reason of circumstances be"ond his control or through mista e or inad ertence not imputable to negligence,which circumstances do not concur herein.



It can be clearl" inferred from Article %?1 of the i il ode, on the law of successional rights that testac" is preferred to intestac". But beforethere could be testate distribution, the will must pass the scrutinizing test and safeguards pro ided b" law considering that the deceasedtestator is no longer a ailable to pro e the oluntariness of his actions, aside from the fact that the transfer of the estate is usuall" onerous innature and that no one is presumed to gi e 0 @emo praesumitur donare. @o intestate distribution of the estate can be done until and unlessthe will had failed to pass both its extrinsic and intrinsic alidit". If the will is extrinsicall" oid, the rules of intestac" appl" regardless of theintrinsic alidit" thereof. If it is extrinsicall" alid, the next test is to determine its intrinsic alidit" Q that is whether the pro isions of the will

are alid according to the laws of succession. In this case, the court had ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsicall" alid but the intrinsicpro isions thereof were oid. !hus, the rules of intestac" appl" as correctl" held b" the trial court.

urthermore, Alejandro s disposition in his will of the alleged share in the conjugal properties of his late spouse, whom he described as hisGonl" belo ed wifeH, is not a alid reason to re erse a (nal and executor" order. !estamentar" dispositions of properties not belongingexclusi el" to the testator or properties which are part of the conjugal regime cannot be gi en e5ect. #atters with respect to who owns theproperties that were disposed of b" Alejandro in the oid will ma" still be properl" entilated and determined in the intestate proceedings forthe settlement of his and that of his late spouse s estate. -etitioner s motion for appointment as administratrix is rendered moot consideringthat she was not married to the late Alejandro and, therefore, is not an heir.

58. ANT NI B. BALTA AR vs. L REN LA9A

FACTS: -aciencia was a 2& "ear old spinster when she made her last will and testament entitled G!auli @ang Bilin o !estamento #iss -acienciaRegalaH )6ill* in the -ampango dialect on=eptember $', $%&$. !he 6ill, executed in the house of retired Judge <rnestino M. Limpin)JudgeLimpin*, was read to -aciencia twice. After which, -aciencia expressed in the presence of theinstrumental witnesses that the documentis her last will and testament. =he thereafter aCxed her signature at the end of the said document on pages and then on the left margin of pages $, 4 and Fthereof.!he witnesses to the 6ill were Dra. #aria Lioba A. Limpin )Dra. Limpin*, rancisco Marcia) rancisco* and austino R.#ercado ) austino*.

!he three attested to the 6ill s due execution b" aCxing their signatures below its attestation clause and on the left margin of pages $, 4 andFthereof, in the presence of -aciencia and of one another and of Judge Limpin who acted as notar"public. hildless and without an" brothers orsisters, -aciencia be8ueathed all her properties torespondent Lorenzo R. Laxa )Lorenzo* and his wife orazon . Laxa and their childrenLunaLorella Laxa and Satherine Ross Laxa,!he (lial relationship of Lorenzo with -aciencia remains undisputed.Lorenzo is -aciencia s nephew whom she treated as her own son. on ersel", Lorenzo came to now and treated-aciencia as his own mother.-aciencia li ed with Lorenzo s famil" in =asmuan, -ampanga and it was she who raised and cared for Lorenzo since his birth. =ix da"s after theexecution of the 6ill or on =eptember $%, $%&$, -aciencia left for the >nited =tates of America )>=A*. !here, she residedwith Lorenzo and hisfamil" until her death on Januar" F, $%%?.In the interim, the 6ill remained in the custod" of Judge Limpin. #ore than four "ears after the deathof -aciencia or on April 42, 4111, Lorenzo (led a petition with the R! of Muagua,-ampanga for the probate of the 6ill of -aciencia and forthe issuance of Letters of Administration in his fa our.-etitioners (led an Amended +pposition as ing the R! to den" the probate of -aciencia s 6ill on the following grounds the 6ill was not executed and attested to in accordance with the re8uirements of the law9 that-aciencia was mentall" incapable to ma e a 6ill at the time of itsexecution9 that she was forced to execute the 6ill under duress or inNuenceof fear or threats9 thatthe execution of the 6ill had been procured b" undue and improper pressure and inNuence b" Lorenzo or b" some otherpersons for his bene(t9 that the signature of -aciencia on the 6ill was forged9 that assuming the signature to be genuine, it was obtainedthrough fraud or tric er"9 and,that -aciencia did not intend the document to be her 6ill. =imultaneousl", petitioners (led an +pposition and



Recommendation reiterating their opposition to the appointment of Lorenzo as administrator of the properties and re8uesting for theappointment of Antonio in his stead.

ISSUE: 6hether -aciencia was not of sound mind at the time the will was allegedl" executed.

RULING: !he state of being forgetful does not necessaril" ma e a person mentall" unsoundso as to render him un(t to execute a 6ill.

orgetfulness is not e8ui alent to being of unsound mind. Besides, Article 2%% of the @ew i il ode states G!o be of sound mind, it is notnecessar" that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholl" unbro en, unimpaired, or unshatteredb" disease, injur" or other causeH. It shall be suCcient if the testator was able at the time of ma ing the will to now the nature of the estateto be disposed of, the proper objects of his bount", and the character of thetestamentar" act. Bare allegations of duress or inNuence of fear orthreats, undue andimproper inNuence and pressure, fraud and tric er" cannot be used as basis to den" theprobate of a will.Eere, there was noshowing that -aciencia was publicl" nown to be insane one month or less before the ma ing of the 6ill. learl", thus, the burden to pro ethat -aciencia was of unsoundmind lies upon the shoulders of petitioners. Eowe er and as earlier mentioned, no substantial e idence waspresented b" them to pro e the same, thereb" warranting the A s (nding that petitioners failed to discharge such burden. urthermore, theourt is con inced that -aciencia was aware of the nature of her estate tobe disposed of, the proper objects of her bount" and the character of the testamentar" act.

5-. rte+a v. Va#&!%te

FACTS !wo "ears after the arri al of -lacido from the >nited =tates and at the age of &1 he wed Jose(na who was then 4& "ears old. But in alittle more than two "ears of wedded bliss, -lacido died. -lacido executed a notarial last will and testament written in <nglish and consisting of 4 pages, and dated $3 June $%&' Tbut ac nowledged onl" on % August $%&'. !he allowance to probate of this will was opposed b" Leticia,-lacido s sister. According to the notar" public who notarized the testator s will, after the testator instructed him on the terms and dispositionshe wanted on the will, the notar" public told them to come bac on $3 August $%&' to gi e him time to prepare. !he testator and hiswitnesses returned on the appointed date but the notar" public was out of town so the" were instructed b" Eis wife to come bac on % August$%&'. !he formal execution was actuall" on % August $%&'. Ee reasoned he no longer changed the t"pewritten date of $3 June $%&' becausehe did not li e the document to appear dirt".

-etitioner s argument

$.At the time of the execution of the notarial will -lacido was alread" &' "ears old and was no longer of sound mind.

4. Jose(na conspired with the notar" public and the ' attesting witnesses in decei ing -lacido to sign it. Deception is allegedl" reNected in thear"ing dates of the execution and the attestation of the will.

ISSUE: 67@ -lacido has testamentar" capacit" at the time he allegedl" executed the will. 67@ the signature of -lacido in the will was procuredb" fraud or tric er".

HELD: $.;<=. Despite his ad anced age, he was still able to identif" accuratel" the inds of propert" he owned, the extent of his shares inthem and e en their location. As regards the proper objects of his bount", it was suCcient that he identi(ed his wife as sole bene(ciar". !he



omission of some relati es from the will did not a5ect its formal alidit". !here being no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in itsdisposition becomes i rrele ant.

4.@+. raud is a tric , secret de ise, false statement, or pretense, b" which the subject of it is cheated. It ma" be of such character that thetestator is misled or decei ed as to the nature or contents of the document which he executes, or it ma" relate to some extrinsic fact, inconse8uence of the deception regarding which the testator is led to ma e a certain will which, but for fraud, he would not ha e made.

!he part" challenging the will bears the burden of pro ing the existence of fraud at the time of its execution. !he burden to show otherwiseshifts to the proponent of the will onl" upon a showing of credible e idence of fraud.

+mission of some relati es does not a5ect the due execution of a will. #oreo er, the conNict between the dates appearing on the will does notin alidate the document, Gbecause the law does not e en re8uire that a notarial will be executed and ac nowledged on the same occasion.

!he ariance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactoril" and persuasi el" explained b" the notar"public and instrumental witnesses.

50. 7AB NETA VS.GUSTIL

FACTS: Being in the house of Arcadio Jarandilla, in Jaro, in this pro ince, Jaboneta ordered that the document in 8uestion be written, andcalling Julio Ja ellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena as witnesses, executed the said document as his will. !he" were all together, andwere in the room where Jaboneta was, and were present when he signed the document, Isabelo Jena signing afterwards as a witness, at hisre8uest, and in his presence and in the presence of the other two witnesses. Aniceto Jalbuena then signed as a witness in the presence of thetestator, and in the presence of the other two persons who signed as witnesses. At that moment Isabelo Jena, being in a hurr" to lea e, toohis hat and left the room. As he was lea ing the house Julio Ja ellana too the pen in his hand and put himself in position to sign the will as awitness, but did not sign in the presence of Isabelo Jena9 but ne ertheless, after Jena had left the room the said Julio Ja ellana signed as awitness in the presence of the testator and of the witness Aniceto Jalbuena. -robate was denied the last will and testament of #acario

Jaboneta, deceased, because the lower court was of the opinion from the e idence adduced at the hearing that Julio Ja ellana, one of thewitnesses, did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of Isabelo Jena, another of the witnesses, as re8uired b" the pro isions of section ?$& of the ode of i il -rocedure.

ISSUE: 6hether or not the signature of Ja ellana did not compl" with the pro isions of section ?$& of the ode of i il -rocedure.

RULING: Ee, with the other witnesses and the testator, had assembled for the purpose of executing the testament, and were together in thesame room for that purpose, and at the moment when the witness Ja ellana signed the document he was actuall" and ph"sicall" present andin such position with relation to Ja ellana that he could see e er"thing which too place b" merel" casting his e"es in the proper direction, andwithout an" ph"sical obstruction to pre ent his doing so, therefore we are of opinion that the document was in fact signed before he (nall" leftthe room.

It is suCcient if the witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing the execution of the will, and in a position to actuall" see the testatorwrite, if the" choose to do so9 and there are man" cases which la" down the rule that the true test of ision is not whether the testator actuall"saw the witness sign, but whether he might ha e seen him sign, considering his mental and ph"sical condition and position at the time of thesubscription.



6. CANEDA vs. CA a% 1ILLIA/ CABRERA' as S"e(ia# A &i%istrat!r !$ t*e Estate !$ /ate! Ca)a##er!

FACTS: +n December 3, $%2&, #ateo aballero, a widower without an" children and alread" in the twilight "ears of his life, executed a lastwill and testament at his residence in !alisa", ebu before three attesting witnesses, namel", ipriano Labuca, Mregorio abando and la iano

!oregosa. !he said testator was dul" assisted b" his law"er, Att". <milio Lumontad, and a notar" public, Att". iloteo #anigos, in thepreparation of that last will. It was declared therein, among other things, that the testator was lea ing b" wa" of legacies and de ises his realand personal properties to -resentacion Ma iola, Angel Abata"o, Rogelio Abata"o, Isabelito Abata"o, Benoni M. abrera and #arcosaAlcantara, all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator.

our months later, or on April F, $%2%, #ateo aballero himself (led a petition doc eted as =pecial -roceeding @o. '&%%0R before Branch II of the then ourt of irst Instance of ebu see ing the probate of his last will and testament. +n #a" 4%, $%&1, the testator passed awa" beforehis petition could (nall" be heard b" the probate court. +n ebruar" 43, $%&$, Benoni abrera, on of the legatees named in the will, sough hisappointment as special administrator of the testatorKs estate, the estimated alue of which was -4F,111.11, and he was so appointed b" theprobate court in its order of #arch ?, $%&$.

!he petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a second petition, entitled In the #atter of the Intestate <stateof #ateo aballero and be consolidated with =pecial -roceeding @o. '&%%0R in Branch II of the ourt of irst Instance of ebu and opposed theprobate of the !estatorKs will and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate.

Benoni abrera died on ebruar" &, $%&4 hence the probate court, appointed 6illiam abrera as special administrator on June 4$, $%&'.

In the course of the hearing in =pecial -roceeding @o. '&%%0R, herein petitioners appeared as oppositors and objected to the allowance of thetestatorKs will on the ground that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator was alread" in the poor state of health such that he couldnot ha e possibl" executed the same. -etitioners li ewise reiterated the issue as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator therein.

+n the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses, ipriano Labuca, and the notar" public Att". iloteo #anigos, testi(ed that the testatorexecuted the will in 8uestion in their presence while he was of sound and disposing mind and that, contrar" to the assertions of the oppositors,#ateo aballero was in good health and was not undul" inNuenced in an" wa" in the execution of his will. Labuca also testi(ed that he and theother witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. !he other two attesting witnesses were notpresented in the probate hearing as the had died b" then.

+n April 3, $%&&, the probate court rendered a decision declaring the will in 8uestion as the last will and testament of the late #ateo aballeroto be his Last will and !estament and that it was executed in accordance with all the re8uisites of the law.

-etitioners ele ated the case in the ourt of Appeals in A0M.R. / @o. $%??%. !he" asserted therein that the will in 8uestion is null and oidfor the reason that its attestation clause is fatall" defecti e since it fails to speci(call" state that the instrumental witnesses to the willwitnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that the" also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of thetestator and of one another.

+n +ctober $3, $%%$, respondent court promulgated its decision aCrming that of the trial court, and ruling that the attestation clause in thelast will of #ateo aballero substantiall" complies with Article &13 of the i il ode,



ISSUE : 6hether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and testament of the late #ateo aballero complies with there8uirements of Article &13, in relation to Article &1%, of the i il ode.

RULING : An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinar" will whereb" the attesting witnesses certif" that the instrument has beenexecuted before them and to the manner of the execution the same.

In the case at bar where the attestation clause totall" omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and e er" page of the will in thepresence of the testator and of each other, the defect is not onl" in the form or language of the attestation clause but the total absence of aspeci(c element re8uired b" Article &13 to be speci(call" stated in the attestation clause of a will. !hat is precisel" the defect complained of inthe present case since there is no plausible wa" b" which we can read into the 8uestioned attestation clause statement, or an implicationthereof, that the attesting witness did actuall" bear witness to the signing b" the testator of the will and all of its pages and that saidinstrumental witnesses also signed the will and e er" page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

!he rule on substantial compliance in Article &1% cannot be in o ed or relied on b" respondents since it presupposes that the defects in theattestation clause can be cured or supplied b" the text of the will or a consideration of matters apparent therefrom which would pro ide thedata not expressed in the attestation clause or from which it ma" necessaril" be gleaned or clearl" inferred that the acts

not stated in the omitted textual re8uirements were actuall" complied within the execution of the will. In other words, defects must beremedied b" intrinsic e idence supplied b" the will itself.

!he court directed to forthwith DI=#I== its =pecial -roceeding @o. '&%%0R )-etition for the -robate of the Last 6ill and !estament of #ateoaballero* and to R</I/< =pecial -roceeding @o. '%?30R )In the matter of the Intestate <state of #ateo aballero* as an acti e case andthereafter dul" proceed with the settlement of the estate of the said decedent.

5. E(*avez vs. D!ze% C!%str,(ti!%

Fa(ts: /icente <cha ez was the absolute owner of se eral lots in ebu it", which includes Lot @o. $%3?0A and Lot @o. $%3% . +n =eptember2, $%&3, /icente donated the subject lots to petitioner #anuel <cha ez through a Deed of Donation #ortis ausa. #anuel accepted thedonation. In #arch $%&?, /icente executed a ontract to =ell o er the same lots in fa or of Dozen orporation. In +ctober $%&?, the" executedtwo Deeds of Absolute =ale o er the same properties co ered b" the pre ious ontract to =ell.

6hen /icente died. <miliano abanig, /icente s nephew, (led a petition for the settlement of /icente s intestate estate. +n the other hand,#anuel (led a petition to appro e /icente s donation mortis causa in his fa or and an action to annul the contracts of sale /icente executed infa or of Dozen orporation. !hese cases were jointl" heard.

!he Regional !rial ourt )R! * dismissed #anuel s petition to appro e the donation and his action for annulment of the contracts of sale. !heR! found that the execution of a ontract to =ell in fa or of Dozen orporation, after /icente had donated the lots to #anuel, was ane8ui ocal act that re o ed the donation. !he ourt of Appeals ) A* aCrmed the R! s decision. !he A held that since the donation in fa or of #anuel was a donation mortis causa, compliance with the formalities for the alidit" of wills should ha e been obser ed. !he A found that thedeed of donation did not contain an attestation clause and was therefore oid.



#anuel claims that the A should ha e applied the rule on substantial compliance in the construction of a will to /icente s donation mortiscausa. Ee insists that the strict construction of a will was not warranted in the absence of an" indication of bad faith, fraud, or substitution inthe execution of the Deed of Donation #ortis ausa. Ee argues that the A ignored the Ac nowledgment portion of the deed of donation,which contains the import and purpose of the attestation clause re8uired in the execution of wills.

Iss,e: 6+@ A applied the rule on substantial compliance in the construction of a will to /icente s donation mortis causa.

R,#i%+: !he A correctl" declared that a donation mortis causa must compl" with the formalities prescribed b" law for the alidit" of wills,otherwise, the donation is oid and would produce no e5ect. Articles &13 and &1? of the i il ode should ha e been applied.

As the A correctl" found, the purported attestation clause embodied in the Ac nowledgment portion does not contain the number of pageson which the deed was written. !he exception to this rule is when although the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages uponwhich the will was written, the number of pages was stated in one portion of the will.

< en granting that the Ac nowledgment embodies what the attestation clause re8uires, we are not prepared to hold that an attestation clauseand an ac nowledgment can be merged in one statement.

!hat the re8uirements of attestation and ac nowledgment are embodied in two separate pro isions of the i il ode )Articles &13 and &1?,respecti el"* indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that ser e di5erent purposes. An ac nowledgment is made b" one

executing a deed, declaring before a competent oCcer or court that the deed or act is his own. +n the other hand, the attestation of a willrefers to the act of the instrumental witnesses themsel es who certif" to the execution of the instrument before them and to the manner of itsexecution.

Although the witnesses in the present case ac nowledged the execution of the Deed of Donation #ortis ausa before the notar" public, this isnot the a owal the law re8uires from the instrumental witnesses to the execution of a decedent s will. An attestation must state all the detailsthe third paragraph of Article &13 re8uires. In the absence of the re8uired a owal b" the witnesses themsel es, no attestation clause can bedeemed embodied in the Ac nowledgement of the Deed of Donation #ortis ausa.

;. I% t*e &atter !$ t*e "r!)ate !$ t*e #ast <i## a% testa&e%t !$ t*e e(ease )ri+i ! a#vara !' (esar a#vara ! vs +avi!#a =r.a% )aya%i &a. ri%!

Fa(ts: $. Brigido executed a will wherein he disinherited his illegitimate son and expressl" re o ed a pre iousl" executed holographic will. 4. !he testator did not read the (nal draft of the will himself. Instead R, as the law"er who drafted the & page document, read the same aloud inthe presence of the testator, ' i nstrumental witnesses and the notar" public. '. !hereafter, a codicil was executed to change some dispositionsin the will to generate cash for the testatorKs e"e operation as he was su5ering glaucoma. As in this case, the testator did not personall" readthe (nal draft of the codicil. instead, it was R who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses )sameas those of the notarial will* and the notar" public who followed the reading using their own copies. F. !estator is not totall" blind at the timethe will and the codicil were executed. Eowe er, his ision on both e"es was onl" of counting (ngers at ' feet b" reason of the glaucomawhich he hd been su5ering from for se eral "ears and e en prior to his (rst consultation with an e"e specialist 3. A petition for probate of thewill and the codicil was (led. - opposed on the ground that at the time of the execution of the will and the codicil, the testator was blind. Issue)$* 6+@ the testator was blind for the purpose of Art. &1& )4* 6+@ the double0reading re8uirement was complied with Ruling Regardless of RKs staunch contention that the testator was still capable of reading at the time his will and codicil were prepared, the fact remains and thiswas testi(ed to b" his witnesses, that the testator did not do so becuase of his poor , defecti e or blurred ision ma ing it necessar" for



pri ate respondent to do the actual reading for him. !he rationale behind the re8uirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind orincapable of reading the will himself )as when he is illiterate*, is to ma e the pro isions thereof nown to him, so that he ma" be able to objectif the" are not in accordance with his wishes.

lear form the foregoing is that art &1& applies not onl" to blind testators but also to those who, for some reason or another, are incapable of reading the)ir* will)s* . =inc Brigido al arado was incapable of reading the (nal drafts of his will and codicil on the separate occasions of theirexecution due to his poor defecti e or blurred ision, there can be no other course but to cnclude that Brigido al arado comes within thescope of the term blind ision, there can be no oother course for us but to conculde that BRigido AL arado falls under the scope of the termblind as it is used in art &1&. >nless the contents were read to him, he had no wa" of ascertaining whether or not the law"er who drafted thewill and the codicil did so conforming with his instructions. Eence, to consider his will as alidl" executed and entitled to probate, it is essentialthat we ascertain whether art &1& had been complied with. Article &1& re8uires that in case of testators li e Brigido Al arado, the will shall beread twice9 once b" one of the instrumental witnesses and again b" the notar" public before whom the will was ac nowledged. !he purpose isto ma e nown to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signeingand to gi e him an opportunit" to object if an"thingis contrar" to his instructions. In the case at bar, art &1& was not followed strict". instead of the notar" public and an instrumental witness, itwas the law"er who drafted the & page will and 3 page codicil who read the same aloud to the testator, and read them onl" once not twice asart &1& re8uires.

4. GARCIA V. VAS2UE

FACTS: In $%?3, Mliceria A elino del Rosario died unmarried in #anila, lea ing no descendents, ascendants, brother or sister. At the time of her death, she was said to be %1 "ears old more or less, and possessed of an estate consisting mostl" of real properties. onsuelo =. Monzales/da. de -recilla, a niece of the deceased, petitioned the I #anila for probate of the alleged last will and testament of Mliceria A. del Rosario,executed on 4% December $%?1, and for her appointment as special administratrix of the latter s estate, pending the appointment of a regularadministrator thereof.

!he petition was opposed separatel" b" se eral groups of alleged heirs )$* Re. r. Lucio /. Marcia, a legatee named in an earlier will executedb" Mliceria A. del Rosario on % June $%3?9 )4* Jaime Rosario and children, relati es and legatees in both the $%3? and $%?1 wills9 Antonio Jesusde -raga and #arta @ati idad de Jesus, wards of the deceased and legatees in the $%3? and $%?1 wills9 )'* Remedios, <ncarnacion, and<duardo, all surnamed @arciso9 )F* @ati idad del Rosario0=armiento9 )3* #aria @arciso9 )?* -ascuala @arciso de #anahan9 )2* =e erina, Rosaand Josefa, surnamed @arciso, and /icente and Del(n, surnamed #auricio, O the latter ( e groups of persons all claiming to be relati es of

DoUa Mliceria within the (fth ci il degree. !he oppositions in ariabl" charged that the instrument executed in $%?1 was not intended b" thedeceased to be her true will9 that the signatures of the deceased appearing in the will was procured through undue and improper pressure andinNuence the part of the bene(ciaries and7or other persons9 that the testatrix did not now the object of her bount"9 that the instrument itself re eals irregularities in its execution, and that the formalities re8uired b" law for such execution ha e not been complied with. +ppositor Lucio/. Marcia, who also presented for probate the $%3? will of the deceased, joined the group of Dr. Jaime Rosario in registering opposition to theappointment of petitioner onsuelo =. Monzales /da. de -recilla as special administratrix, on the ground that the latter possesses interestad erse to the estate.

!he probate court, in its order, granted petitioner s pra"er and appointed her special administratrix of the estate. !he order was premised onthe fact the petitioner was managing the properties belonging to the estate e en during the lifetime of the deceased, and to appoint anotherperson as administrator or co administrator at that stage of the proceeding would onl" result in further confusion and diCculties.



$%??, the ourt issued an order admitting to probate the $%?1 will of Mliceria A. del Rosario. In declaring the due execution of the will, theprobate court too note that no e idence had been presented to establish that the testatrix was not of sound mind when the will wasexecuted9 that the fact that she had prepared an earlier will did not, pre ent her from executing another one thereafter9 that the fact that the$%3? will consisted of $4 pages whereas the $%?1 testament was contained in one page does not render the latter in alid9 that, the erasuresand alterations in the instrument were insigni(cant to warrant rejection9 that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the instrumental

witnesses which were noted b" the oppositors are e en indicati e of their truthfulness. !he probate court, also considering that petitioner hadalread" shown capacit" to administer the properties of the estate and that from the pro isions of the will she stands as the person mostconcerned and interested therein, appointed said petitioner regular administratrix with a bond. rom this order all the oppositors appealed.

!he probate court denied the oppositors motion. Eence, this appeal.

Iss,e: 6hether the 6ill executed is alid:

R,#i%+: @+. or all intents and purpose of the rules on probate, the deceased Mliceria del Rosario was, as appellant oppositors contend, notunli e a blind testator, and the due execution of her will would ha e re8uired obser ance of the pro isions of Article &1& of the i il ode.

AR!. &1&. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice9 once, b" one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, b" the notar" publicbefore whom the will is ac nowledged.

!he rationale behind the re8uirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself )as when he isilliterate*, is to ma e the pro isions thereof nown to him, so that he ma" be able to object if the" are not in accordance with his wishes. !hat

the aim of the law is to insure that the dispositions of the will are properl" communicated to and understood b" the handicapped testator, thusma ing them trul" reNecti e of his desire, is e idenced b" the re8uirement that the will should be read to the latter, not onl" once but twice,b" two di5erent persons, and that the witnesses ha e to act within the range of his )the testator s* other senses.

!he order of the court allowing to probate the alleged $%?1 will of Mliceria A. del Rosario is hereb" re ersed and set aside. !he petition, beingmeritorious, the appealed order is set aside and the court below is ordered to remo e the administratrix, onsuelo Monzales /da. de -recilla,and appoint one of the heirs intestate of the deceased DoUa Mliceria A elino del Rosario as special administrator for the purpose of institutingaction on behalf of her estate to reco er the properties allegedl" sold b" her to the late Alfonso D. -recilla.

;. IN A /ATTER F THE PR BATE F THE LAST 1ILL AND TESTA/ENT F THE DECEASED BRIGIDALVARAD ' CESARALVARAD VSRA/ N G. GAVI LA' 7R.' ET.AL

Fa(ts: Brigido Al arado executed a will, GEulingEabilinH, disinheriting esar Al arado, an illegitimateson. !his will re o ed pre iousl" executedholographic will awaiting probate. +n December 4%, $%22, a codicil entitled GSasalatan ng -agbabago sa Ilang -agpapasi"a na @asasaad saEuling EabilinH was executed changing some dispositions to generate cash for the testator sglaucoma.Both the will and the codicil was notread b" the testator but instead read to him aloud b" Ba"ani #a. Rino, who drafted the will. >pon probate, it was contested b" the hereinpetitioner on the ground that it was not executed and attested as re8uired b" law for he is not blind at the time it was executed.

Iss,e: $. 6hether or not Brigido was blind for the purpose of Art. &1&. 4. If so, was the double0reading re8uirement was complied with.

R,#i%+: Brigido was not totall" blind at the time the will and codicil were executed. Eis ision on bothe"es was onl" of counting (nger at G'feetH. Ee could no longer read either printed or handwrittenmatters as of December $F, $%22 had poor e"esight.!he =upreme ourt declaredthat the rationale behind Article &1& is the pro isions thereof nown to him, so that he ma" able to object if the" are not in accordance with



his wishes. lear that Article &1& applies not onl" to blind testators but also to those who are incapable of reading the will. !his includes theilliterate. #oreo er, since Brigido was incapable of reading the (nal draft he comes to the scope of the term GblindH. +n the second issue,Article &1& was not strictl" complied. Instead b" the notar" public and the instrumental witnesses, it was the respondent law"er who read oncenot twice followed b" the notar" public and witnesses, albeit silentl". =upreme ourt ruled that with four persons following the reading word forword with their owncopies, it can be safel" concluded that the testator was reasonabl" assured that what was read to himwere the termsactuall" appearing on the t"pe written documents.

0. R!>as v. De 7es,s

FACTS Bibiane Roxas died. Eer brother, =imeon Roxas, (led a spec. pro. for partition of the estate of the deceased and also deli ered theholographic will of the deceased. =imeon stated that he found a noteboo belonging to deceased, which contained a Gletter0willH entirel"written and signed in deceased s handwriting. !he will is dated <B.7?$ and states !his is m" will which I want to be respected although itis not written b" a law"er. Roxas relati es corroborated the fact that the same is a holographic will of deceased, identif"ing her handwritingand signature. Respondent opposed probate on the ground that i t such does not compl" with Article &$1 of the because the date containedin a holographic will must signif" the "ear, month, and da".

ISSUE: 67@ the date <B.7?$ appearing on the holographic 6ill of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a alid compliance with theArticle &$1 of the i il ode.

HELD: /alid date. !his will not be the (rst time that this ourt departs from a strict and literal application of the statutor" re8uirementsregarding the due execution of 6ills. !he underl"ing and fundamental objecti es permeating the pro isions of the law wills consists in theliberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in iew of gi ing the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes, but withsuCcient safeguards and restrictions to pre ent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and inNuence uponthe testator. If a 6ill has been executed in substantial compliance with the formalities of the law, and the possibilit" of bad faith and fraud inthe exercise thereof is ob iated, said 6ill should be admitted to probate )Re" . artagena 3? -hil. 4&4*.

If the testator, in executing his 6ill, attempts to compl" with all the re8uisites, although compliance is not literal, it is suCcient if the objecti eor purpose sought to be accomplished b" such re8uisite is actuall" attained b" the form followed b" the testator. In Abangan . Abanga F1 -hil.F2?, we ruled that !he object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to a oidsubstitution of wills and testaments and to guarant" their truth and authenticit". ...

In particular, a complete date is re8uired to pro ide against such contingencies as that of two competing 6ills executed on the same da", or of a testator becoming insane on the da" on which a 6ill was executed )/elasco . Lopez, $ -hil. 241*. !here is no such contingenc" in this case.

6e ha e carefull" re iewed the records of this case and found no e idence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there an"substitution of 6ins and !estaments. !here is no 8uestion that the holographic 6ill of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirel"written, dated, and signed b" the testatrix herself and in a language nown to her. !here is also no 8uestion as to its genuineness and dueexecution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the genuineness of the holographic 6ill of their mother and that she had the testamentar"capacit" at the time of the execution of said 6ill. !he objection interposed b" the oppositor0 respondent Luz Eenson is that the holographic6ill is fatall" defecti e because the date <B.7?$ appearing on the holographic 6ill is not suCcient compliance with Article &$1 of the i ilode. !his objection is too technical to be entertained. As a general rule, the date in a holographic 6ill should include the da", month, and"ear of its execution. Eowe er, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue inNuence and pressure and the



authenticit" of the 6ill is established and the onl" issue is whether or not the date <B.7?$ appearing on the holographic 6ill is a alidcompliance with Article &$1 of the i il ode, probate of the holographic 6ill should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.

36. U? @IA ENG VS. NI9 N LEE

FACTS: Respondent @ixon Lee (led, on #a" 4&, 411$, a petition for mandamus with damages, doc eted as i il ase @o. 1$$11%'%, beforethe Regional !rial ourt )R!* of #anila, to compel petitioner to produce the will so that probate proceedings for the allowance thereof could beinstituted. Allegedl", respondent had alread" re8uested his mother to settle and li8uidate the patriarch s estate and to deli er to the legalheirs their respecti e inheritance, but petitioner refused to do so without an" justi(able reason. -etitioner denied that she was in custod" of the original holographic will and that she new of its whereabouts. After the presentation and formal o5er of respondent s e idence, petitionerdemurred, contending that her son failed to pro e that she had in her custod" the original holographic will. !he R! granted the demurrer onpetitioner s motion for reconsideration. !he A issued the writ, and ordered the production of the will and the pa"ment of attorne" s fees. Itruled that respondent was able to show b" testimonial e idence that his mother had in her possession the holographic will.

ISSUE: 6hether or not the petition for mandamus is the proper remed" for the case.

RULING: !he ourt cannot sustain the A s issuance of the writ.

#andamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the so ereign, directed to someinferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person re8uiring the performance of a particular dut" therein speci(ed, which dut"results from the oCcial station of the part" to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. !his de(nition recognizes the publiccharacter of the remed", and clearl" excludes the idea that it ma" be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties inwhich the public has no interest. !he writ is a proper recourse for citizens who see to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public dut", most especiall" when the public right in ol ed is mandated b" the onstitution.#andamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation,board, oCcer, or person unlawfull" neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a dut" resulting from an oCce, trust or station.

#andamus will not issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or as to which a substantial doubt exists. #andamus will not lie toenforce purel" pri ate contract rights, and will not lie against an indi idual unless some obligation in the nature of a public or 8uasi0public dut"is imposed. !he writ is not appropriate to enforce a pri ate right against an indi idual. #andamus is not used for the redress of pri ate wrongs,but onl" in matters relating to the public. An important principle followed in the issuance of the writ is that there should be no plain, speed"and ade8uate remed" in the ordinar" course of law other than the remed" of mandamus being in o ed. !he remed" of mandamus cannot bea ailed of b" respondent Lee because there lies another plain, speed" and ade8uate remed" in the ordinar" course of law. Respondent has aphotocop" of the will and that he see s the production of the original for purposes of probate. !he Rules of ourt, howe er, does not pre enthim from instituting probate proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the same is in his possession or not.

35. EUGENIA RA/ NAL C D ?' a% /ANUEL RA/ NAL' "etiti!%ers' vs. EVANGELINE R. CALUGA?' 7 SEPHINE SALCED ' a%UEFE/IA PATIGAS' res"!% e%ts.

FACTS : +n April ?, $%%1, < angeline aluga", Josephine =alcedo and <ufemia -atigas, de isees and legatees of the holographic will of thedeceased #atilde =eUo /da. de Ramonal, (led with the Regional !rial ourt, #isamis +riental, Branch $&, a petition for probate of theholographic will of the deceased, who died on Januar" $?, $%%1.



+n June 4&, $%%1, <ugenia Ramonal odo" and #anuel Ramonal (led an opposition to the petition for probate, alleging that the holographicwill was a forger" and that the same is e en illegible. !his gi es an impression that a third hand of an interested part" other than the truehand of #atilde =eUo /da. de Ramonal executed the holographic will.

-etitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearing on will after e er" disposition is out of the ordinar". If the deceased wasthe one who executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and the signature should appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularl"done and not after e er" disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of the deceased, it was procured b" undueand improper pressure and inNuence on the part of the bene(ciaries, or through fraud and tric er".

+n December $4, $%%1, respondents (led a notice of appeal, and in support of their appeal, the respondents once again reiterated thetestimon" of the following witnesses, namel" )$* Augusto @eri9 )4* Menerosa =enon9 )'* #atilde Ramonal Binana"9 )F* !eresita /edad9 )3* iscalRodolfo 6aga9 and )?* < angeline aluga".

rom the testimonies of these witnesses, the ourt of Appeals allowed the will to probate and disregard the re8uirement of three witnesses incase of contested holographic will, citing the decision in Azaola s. =ingson, ruling that the re8uirement is merel" director" and not mandator".

ISSUE: !he possibilit" of a false document being adjudged as the will of the testator, which is wh" if the holographic will is contested, that lawre8uires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.

RULING: !he will was found not in the personal belongings of the deceased but with one of the respondents, who ept it e en before thedeath of the deceased. In the testimon" of #s. Binana", she re ealed that the will was in her possession as earl" as $%&3, or ( e "ears beforethe death of the deceased.

!here was no opportunit" for an expert to compare the signature and the handwriting of the deceased with other documents signed andexecuted b" her during her lifetime. !he onl" chance at comparison was during the cross0examination of #s. Binana" when the law"er of petitioners as ed #s. Binana" to compare the documents which contained the signature of the deceased with that of the holographic will andshe is not a handwriting expert. < en the former law"er of the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticit" of the signature in theholographic will.

A isual examination of the holographic will con ince us that the stro es are di5erent when compared with other documents written b" the

testator. !he signature of the testator in some of the disposition is not readable. !here were une en stro es, retracing and erasures on the will.

omparing the signature in the holographic will dated August '1, $%2&, and the signatures in se eral documents such as the application letterfor pasture permit dated December '1, $%&1, and a letter dated June $?, $%2&, the stro es are di5erent. In the letters, there are continuousNows of the stro es, e idencing that there is no hesitation in writing unli e that of the holographic will. 6e, therefore, cannot be certain thatruling holographic will was in the handwriting b" the deceased.

!he decision appealed from is =<! A=ID<. !he records are ordered remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow petitioners toadduce e idence in support of their opposition to the probate of the holographic will of the deceased #atilde =eUo da. de Ramonal.

3 . De#a Cer%a vs. P!t!t



Fa(ts: =pouses, Bernabe de la =erna and Mer asia Rebaca, executed a joint last will and testament in the local dialect whereb" the" willedthat their two parcels of land shall be gi en to #anuela Rebaca their niece, who is married to @icolas -otot. Bernabe dela =erna died onAugust '1, $%'%, and the will was submitted to probate b" said Mer asia and #anuela before I ebu. >pon the death of Mer asia Rebacaanother petition for the probate of the same will insofar as Mer asia was concerned was (led, but for failure of the petitioner, #anuela R. -ototand her attorne", #anuel -otot to appear, for the hearing of said petition, the case was dismissed.

!he ourt of irst Instance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and oid, for being executed contrar" to the prohibitionof joint wills in the i il ode. +n appeal b" the testamentar" heir, the ourt of Appeals re ersed, on the ground that the decree of probate in$%'% was issued b" a court of probate jurisdiction and conclusi e on the due execution of the testament.

urther, the ourt of Appeals declared that... . It is true the law )Art. ??%, old i il ode9 Art. &$&, new i il ode*. prohibits the ma ing of a will jointl" b" two or more persons either fortheir reciprocal bene(t or for the bene(t of a third person. Eowe er, this form of will has long been sanctioned b" use, and the same hascontinued to be used9 and when, as in the present case, one such joint last will and testament has been admitted to probate b" (nal order of aourt of competent jurisdiction, there seems to be no alternati e except to gi e e5ect to the pro isions thereof that are not contrar" to law, aswas done in the case of Macrohon vs. Saavedra , 3$ -hil. 4?2, wherein our =upreme ourt ga e e5ect to the pro isions of the joint will thereinmentioned, sa"ing, assuming that the joint will in 8uestion is alid.

Iss,e: 1 N t*e <i## is va#i .

R,#i%+: !he appealed decision correctl" held that the (nal decree of probate, entered in $%'% b" the ourt of irst Instance of ebu )when thetestator, Bernabe de la erna, died*, has conclusi e e5ect as to his last will and testament despite the fact that e en then the i il odealread" decreed the in alidit" of joint wills, whether in fa or of the joint testators, reciprocall", or in fa or of a third part" )Art. ??%, old i ilode*. !he error thus committed b" the probate court was an error of law, that should ha e been corrected b" appeal, but which did not a5ectthe jurisdiction of the probate court, nor the conclusi e e5ect of its (nal decision, howe er erroneous. A (nal judgment rendered on a petitionfor the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world9 and public polic" and sound practice demand that at the ris of occasional errors

judgment of courts should become (nal at some de(nite date (xed b" law.

-etitioners, as heirs and successors of the late Bernabe de la erna, are concluded b" the $%'% decree admitting his will to probate. !hecontention that being oid the will cannot be alidated, o erloo s that the ultimate decision on 6hether an act is alid or oid rests with thecourts, and here the" ha e spo en with (nalit" when the will was probated in $%'%. +n this court, the dismissal of their action for partition wascorrect.

But the ourt of Appeals should ha e ta en into account also, to a oid future misunderstanding, that the probate decree in $%&% could onl"a5ect the share of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la erna. It could not include the disposition of the share of the wife, Mer asia Rebaca,who was then still ali e, and o er whose interest in the conjugal properties the probate court ac8uired no jurisdiction, precisel" because herestate could not then be in issue. Be it remembered that prior to the new i il ode, a will could not be probated during the testatorKs lifetime.

It follows that the alidit" of the joint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, must be, on her death, reexamined andadjudicated de novo , since a joint wi ll is considered a separate will of each testator. !hus regarded, the holding of the court of irst Instance of ebu that the joint will is one prohibited b" law was correct as to the participation of the deceased Mer asia Rebaca in the properties in

8uestion.



!herefore, the undi ided interest of Mer asia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs intestate, and not exclusi el" to thetestamentar" heir, unless some other alid will in her fa or is shown to exist, or unless she be the onl" heir intestate of said Mer asia.

It is unnecessar" to emphasize that the fact that joint wills should be in common usage could not ma e them alid when our i il odesconsistentl" in alidated them, because laws are onl" repealed b" other subse8uent laws, and no usage to the contrar" ma" pre ail againsttheir obser ance.

33. G!%za#es v. CA

Fa(ts: -etitioner Rizalina Monzales and Lutgarda =antiago )-ri ate respondent* are the nieces of the deceased Isabel Mabriel who died awidow. A will was thereafter submitted to probate. !he said will was t"pewritten, in !agalog and appeared to ha e been executed in April $%?$or two months prior to the death of Isabel. It consisted of 3 pages including the attestation and ac nowledgment, with the signature of testatrix on page F and the left margin of all the pages.

Lutgarda was named as the uni ersal heir and executor. !he petitioner opposed the probate. !he lower court denied the probate on theground that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with law on the issue of the competenc" and credibilit" of the witnesses.

!he ourt of Appeals, upon consideration of the e idence adduced b" both parties, rendered the decision now under re iew, holding that thewill in 8uestion was signed and executed b" the deceased Isabel Mabriel on April $3, $%?$ in the presence of the three attesting witnesses,

#atilde +robia, elso Mimpa"a and #aria Mimpa"a, signing and witnessing the document in the presence of the deceased and of each otheras re8uired b" law, hence allowed probate.

!he oppositor0appellee contends that the preponderance of e idence shows that the supposed last wig and testament of Isabel Mabriel wasnot executed in accordance with law because the same was signed on se eral occasions, that the testatrix did not sign the will in the presenceof all the instrumental witnesses did not sign the will in the presence of each other.

Iss,e: 6hether or not the credibilit" of the subscribing witnesses is material to the alidit" of a will

RULING: @o. !he law re8uires onl" that witnesses posses the 8uali(cations under Art. &41 )@ * and none of the dis8uali(cations of Art. &14. !here is no re8uirement that the" are of good standing or reputation in the communit", for trustworthiness, honest" anduprightness in order that his testimon" is belie ed and accepted in court. or the testimon" to be credible, it is not mandator" that e idence

be established on record that the witnesses ha e good standing in the the communit". ompetenc" is distinguished from credibilit", theformer being determined b" Art. &41 while the latter does not re8uire e idence of such good standing. redibilit" depends on the con incingweight of his testimon" in court.

Article &41 of the i il ode pro ides the 8uali(cations of a witness to the execution of wills while Article &4$ sets forth the dis8uali(cationfrom being a witness to a win.

!he following are dis8uali(ed from being witnesses to a will)$* An" person not domiciled in the -hilippines,)4* !hose who ha e been con icted of falsi(cation of a document, perjur" or false testimon".



>nder the law, there is no mandator" re8uirement that the witness testif" initiall" or at an" time during the trial as to his good standing in thecommunit", his reputation for trustworth"thiness and reliableness, his honest" and uprightness in order that his testimon" ma" be belie edand accepted b" the trial court. It is enough that the 8uali(cations enumerated in Article &41 of the i il ode are complied with, such that thesoundness of his mind can be shown b" or deduced from his answers to the 8uestions propounded to him, that his age )$& "ears or more* isshown from his appearance, testimon" , or competentl" pro ed otherwise, as well as the fact that he is not blind, deaf or dumb and that he isable to read and write to the satisfaction of the ourt, and that he has none of the dis8uali(cations under Article &4$ of the i il ode. 6e

reject petitionerKs contention that it must (rst be established in the record the good standing of the witness in the communit", his reputationfor trustworthiness and reliableness, his honest" and uprightness, because such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the contrar" ispro ed otherwise b" the opposing part".

In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for the" merel" attest the execution of a will or testament andaCrm the formalities attendant to said execution. In the case at bar, the (nding that each and e er"one of the three instrumental witnesses,namel", #atilde +robia, elso Mimpa"a and #aria Mimpa"a, are competent and credible is satisfactoril" supported b" the e idence as foundb" the respondent ourt of Appeals, which (ndings of fact this !ribunal is bound to accept and rel" upon. #oreo er, petitioner has not pointedto an" dis8uali(cation of an" of the said witnesses, much less has it been shown that an"one of them is below $& "ears of age, of unsoundmind, deaf or dumb, or cannot read or write.

It is true that under Article &13 of the @ew i il ode, e er" will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof b" thetestator himself or b" the testatorKs name written b" some other person in his presence, and b" his express direction, and attested and

subscribed b" three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another, 6hile the petitioner submits that Article&41 and &4$ of the @ew i il ode spea of the competency of a witness due to his 8uali(cations under the (rst Article and none of thedis8uali(cations under the second Article, whereas Article &13 re8uires the attestation of three or more credible witnesses, petitionerconcludes that the term credible re8uires something more than just being competent and, therefore, a witness in addition tobeing competent under Articles &41 and &4$ must also be a credible witness under Article &13.

3;. /a#!t! v. CA

Fa(ts: -etitioners and respondents are the nieces7nephews or Adriana #aloto who died in $%?'. !he four heirs belie ed that the deceased didnot lea e a will, hence the" (led an intestate proceeding. Eowe er, the parties executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate di iding itinto four e8ual parts. In $%?2, Att". =ulpicio -alma, ex0associate of the deceasedKs counsel allegedl" disco ered her last will which waspurportedl" dated $%F1, inside a cabinet. Eence the annulment of the proceedings and a probate petition was (led b" the de isees andlegatees. !he said will was allegedl" burned b" the house help under the instruction of the deceased . !he lower court denied the probate on

the ground that the animus re ocandi in the burning of the will was suCcientl" pro en.

Iss,e: 6hether or not there was alid re ocation of the will.

R,#i%+: @o, there was no re ocation. or a alid re ocation to occur,the KcorpusKand KanimusK must concur, one without the other will notproduce a alid re ocation. !he ph"sical act of destruction of a will must come with an intention to re o e )animus re ocandi*. In this case,thereKs paucit" of e idence to compl" with the said re8uirement. !he paper burned was not established to be the will and the burning thoughdone under her express direction was not done in her presence.



>nder Art. &'1, the ph"sical act of destruction, in this case the burning of the will, does not constitute an e5ecti e re ocation, unless it iscoupled with animus re ocandi on the part of the testator. =ince animus is a state of mind, it has to be accompanied b" an o ert ph"sical actof burning, tearing, obliterating or cancelling done b" the testator himself or b" another under his express direction and presence.

38. De /!#! vs. /!#!

Fa(ts: #arcos #olo executed 4 wills, one in August $%$& and another in June $%'%. !he latter will contained a re ocation clause whichexpressl" reo ed the will in $%$&. Ee died without an" forced heirs but he was sur i ed b" his wife, herein petitioner Juana. !he oppositors tothe probate were his nephews and nieces. +nl" a carbon cop" of the second will was found. !he widow (led a petition for the probate of the$%'% will. It was admitted to probate but subse8uentl" set aside on ground that the petitioner failed to pro e its due execution. As a result, thepetitioner (led another petition for the probate of the $%$& will this time. Again the oppositors alleged that said will had alread" been re o edunder the $%'% will. !he" contended that despite the disallowance of the $%'% will, the re ocation clause is alid and thus e5ecti el" nulli(edthe $%$& will.

Iss,e: 6hether or not the $%$& will can still be alid despite the re ocation in the subse8uent disallowed $%'% will.

R,#i%+: ;es. !he court applied the doctrine laid down in =amson . @a al that a subse8uent will, containing a clause re o ing a pre ious will,ha ing been disallowed for the reason that it was not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the e5ect of annulling the pre ious will,

inasmuch as the said re ocator" clause is oid.

!here was no alid re ocation in this case. @o e idence was shown that the testator deliberatel" destro"ed the original $%$& will because of his nowledge of the re ocator" clause contained in the will executed in $%'%.!he earlier will can still be probated under the principle of dependent relati e re ocation. !he doctrine applies when a testator cancels or destro"s a will or executes an instrument intended to re o e awill with the intention to ma e a new testamentar" disposition as substitute for the old, and the new disposition fails of e5ect for some reason.

30. IN THE /ATTER F THE INTESTATE ESTATE F DECEASED IS/AEL RE?ES' THE HEIRS F SCAR R. RE?ES vs. CESAR R.RE?ES

FACTS : =pouses Ismael Re"es and elisa Re ita Re"es are the registered owners of parcels of land situated in Ara"at =treet, ubao, Vuezonit" co ered b" !ransfer erti(cates of !itle @os. F%&' and '3%& )'%'1'*. !he spouses ha e se en children, namel" +scar, Araceli, Eerminia,

Aurora, <mmanuel, esar and Rodrigo, all surnamed Re"es.

+n April $&, $%2', Ismael Re"es died intestate. -rior to his death, Ismael Re"es was noti(ed b" the Bureau of Internal Re enue )BIR* of hisincome tax de(cienc" which arose out of his sale of a parcel land located in !andang =ora, Vuezon it". or failure to settle his tax liabilit", theamount increased to about -$24,24F.F1 and since no pa"ment was made b" the heirs of deceased Ismael Re"es, the propert" co ered b" ! !@o. F%&' was le iedF sold and e entuall" forfeited b" the Bureau of Internal Re enue in fa or of the go ernment.3

=ometime in $%2?, petitioners predecessor +scar Re"es a ailed of the BIR s tax amnest" and he was able to redeem the propert" co ered b" ! ! @o. F%&'? upon pa"ment of the reduced tax liabilit" in the amount of about -$&,111.2



+n #a" $1, $%&%, pri ate respondent esar Re"es, brother of +scar Re"es, (led a petition for issuance of letters of administration with theRegional !rial ourt of Vuezon it" pra"ing for his appointment as administrator of the estate of the deceased Ismael Re"es which estateincluded 31W of the Ara"at properties co ered b" ! ! @os. F%&' and '3%&.$1 +scar Re"es (led his conditional opposition thereto on theground that the Ara"at properties do not form part of the estate of the deceased as he )+scar* had ac8uired the properties b" redemption andor purchase.$$

!he probate court subse8uentl" issued letters of administration in fa or of esar Re"es where the latter was ordered to submit a true andcomplete in entor" of properties pertaining to the estate of the deceased and the special powers of attorne" executed b" the other heirs whoreside in the >=A and that of Aurora Re"es0Da"ot conforming to his appointment as administrator.$4 esar Re"es (led an in entor" of real andpersonal properties of the deceased which included the Ara"at properties with a total area of $,11% s8. meters.$' +n the other hand, +scarRe"es (led his objection to the in entor" reiterating that the Ara"at properties had been forfeited in fa or of the go ernment and he was theone who subse8uentl" redeemed the same from the BIR using his own funds.$F

6E<R< +R<, pursuant to the foregoing (ndings, the ourt hereb" modi(es the in entor" submitted b" the administrator and declares tobelong to the estate of the late Ismael Re"es the following properties, to wit

$. +ne half )$74* of the agricultural land located in #ontalban, Rizal containing an area of '$,13F s8uare meters, co ered b" ! ! 242'1 withan approximate alue of -F13,421.119

4. +ne half )$74* of two )4* adjoining residential lots located on Ara"at =treet, ubao, Vuezon it", with total area of $,11% s8uare meters,more or less, co ered b" ! !s @o. F%&' A@D '3%& )'%'1'*, with an approximate alue of -',142,111.119 but this determination is pro isionalin character and shall be without prejudice to the outcome of an" action to be brought hereafter in the proper ourt on the issue of ownershipof the properties9 and,

'. !he building constructed b" and leased to =onn" Bernardo and all its rental income from the inception of the lease, whether such income bein the possession of oppositor, in which case he is hereb" directed to account therefor, or if such income be still unpaid b" Bernardo, in whichcase the administrator should mo e to collect the same.

onsistent with the foregoing things, either of the administrator oppositor, or heir elisa R. Re"es, in her personal capacit" as apparent co0owner of the Ara"at =treet properties, ma" commence the necessar" proper action for settling the issue of ownership of such properties in theRegional !rial ourt in Vuezon it" and to inform the ourt of the commencement thereof b" an" of them as soon as possible.

A motion for reconsideration was (led b" +scar Re"es which was denied in an +rder dated #a" '1, $%%F.$2 Ee then (led his appeal with therespondent ourt of Appeals. 6hile the appeal was pending, +scar died and he was substituted b" his heirs, herein petitioners.

+n #a" ?, $%%%, the respondent ourt issued its assailed decision which aCrmed the probate court s order. It ruled that the probate court sorder categoricall" stated that the inclusion of the subject properties in the in entor" of the estate of the deceased Ismael Re"es ispro isional in character and shall be without prejudice to the outcome of an" action to be brought hereafter in the proper court on the issue of ownership of the properties 9 that the pro isional character of the inclusion of the contested properties in the in entor" as stressed in theorder is within the jurisdiction of intestate court.



ISSUE : 6hether or not the ourt a 8uo committed a re ersible error when it included the Ara"at properties in the in entor" of the estate of Ismael Re"es .

RULING: !he respondent ourt did not err in aCrming the pro isional inclusion of the subject properties to the estate of the deceased IsmaelRe"es without prejudice to the outcome of an" action to be brought thereafter in the proper court on the issue of ownership considering thatthe subject properties are still titled under the torrens s"stem in the names of spouses Ismael and elisa Re ita Re"es which under the law isendowed with incontestabilit" until after it has been set aside in the manner indicated in the law.4$ !he declaration of the pro isionalcharacter of the inclusion of the subject properties in the in entor" as stressed in the order is within the jurisdiction of the -robate ourt.

@otabl", the -robate ourt stated, from the start of the hearing, that the hearing was for the merits of accounting and in entor", thus it had jurisdiction to hear the opposition of +scar Re"es to the in entor" as well as the respecti e e idence of the parties to determine for purposesof in entor" alone if the" should be included therein or excluded therefrom.

In fact, the probate court, aware of its limited jurisdiction declared that its determination of the ownership was merel" pro isional andsuggested that either the administrator or the widow elisa Re"es ma" commence the proper action in the Regional !rial ourt. #oreo er, thecourt admitted that it was not competent to pass upon the ownership of the subject properties.

Another obtrusi e realit" stands out to in ite notice the BIR le " was onl" made on the propert" co ered in ! ! F%&' and did not include the

propert" co ered in ! ! '3%& )'%'1'*. !his somehow detracts from the logic of the oppositor s assertion of ownership of the entire Ara"at=treet properties9 e en if his assertion is alid and true, it can encompass, at most, onl" the propert" subject of the BIR s le " and declarationof forfeiture )i.e., ! ! F%&'*, not the propert" co ered b" ! ! '3%& )'%'1'*.$X phY$

46. LETICIA VAL/ NTE RTEGA vs. 7 SEFINA C. VAL/ NTE

FACTS: -lacido toiled and li ed for a long time in the >nited =tates until he (nall" reached retirement. In $%&1, -lacido (nall" came home tosta" in the -hilippines, and he li ed in the house and lot located at Z%411 atmon =t., =an Antonio /illage, #a ati, which he owned incommon with his sister iriaca /almonte and titled in their names in ! ! $4'F?&. !wo "ears after his arri al from the >nited =tates and at theage of &1 he wed Jose(na who was then 4& "ears old, in a ceremon" solemnized b" Judge -erfecto Laguio, Jr. on ebruar" 3, $%&4. But in alittle more than two "ears of wedded bliss, -lacido died on +ctober &, $%&F of a cause written down as +R ->L#+@AL<.

-lacido executed a notarial last will and testament written in <nglish and consisting of two )4* pages, and dated June $3, $%&' butac nowledged onl" on August %, $%&'. !he (rst page contains the entire testamentar" dispositions and a part of the attestation clause, andwas signed at the end or bottom of that page b" the testator and on the left hand margin b" the three instrumental witnesses. !he secondpage contains the continuation of the attestation clause and the ac nowledgment, and was signed b" the witnesses at the end of theattestation clause and again on the left hand margin.

!he allowance to probate of this will was opposed b" Leticia on the grounds that

$. -etitioner failed to allege all assets of the testator, especiall" those found in the >=A9

4. -etitioner failed to state the names, ages, and residences of the heirs of the testator9 or to gi e them proper notice pursuant to law9



'. 6ill was not executed and attested as re8uired b" law and legal solemnities and formalities were not complied with9

F. !estator was mentall" incapable to ma e a will at the time of the alleged execution he being in an ad ance sate of senilit"9

3. 6ill was executed under duress, or the inNuence of fear or threats9

?. 6ill was procured b" undue and improper inNuence and pressure on the part of the petitioner and7or her agents and7or assistants9 and7or

2. =ignature of testator was procured b" fraud, or tric , and he did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of aCxing hissignature thereto9and she also opposed the appointment as <xecutrix of Jose(na alleging her want of understanding and integrit".

@otar" -ublic loro =armiento, the notar" public who notarized the testator s will, testi(ed that it was in the (rst wee of June $%&' when thetestator together with the three witnesses of the will went to his house cum law oCce and re8uested him to prepare his last will andtestament. After the testator instructed him on the terms and dispositions he wanted on the will, the notar" public told them to come bac on

June $3, $%&' to gi e him time to prepare it. After he had prepared the will the notar" public ept it safel" hidden and loced in his drawer. !hetestator and his witnesses returned on the appointed date but the notar" public was out of town so the" were instructed b" his wife to comebac on August %, $%&', and which the" did. Before the testator and his witnesses signed the prepared will, the notar" public explained tothem each and e er" term thereof in Ilocano, a dialect which the testator spo e and understood. Ee li ewise explained that though it appearsthat the will was signed b" the testator and his witnesses on June $3, $%&', the da" when it should ha e been executed had he not gone out of town, the formal execution was actuall" on August %, $%&'. Ee reasoned that he no longer changed the t"pewritten date of June $3, $%&'because he did not li e the document to appear dirt". !he notar" public also testi(ed that to his obser ation the testator was ph"sicall" andmentall" capable at the time he aCxed his signature on the will.

!he attesting witnesses to the will corroborated the testimon" of the notar" public.

ISSUES :

$. @on0compliance with the legal solemnities and formalities in the execution and attestation of the will9 and

4. #ental incapacit" of the testator at the time of the execution of the will as he was then in an ad anced state of senilit"

R,#i%+ !$ t*e C!,rt !$ A""ea#s

Re ersing the trial court, the appellate court admitted the will of -lacido /almonte to probate. !he A upheld the credibilit" of the notar"public and the subscribing witnesses who had ac nowledged the due execution of the will. #oreo er, it held that the testator hadtestamentar" capacit" at the time of the execution of the will. It added that his sexual exhibitionism and unh"gienic, crude and impolitewa"s ? did not ma e him a person of unsound mind.

T*is C!,rt s R,#i%+



At the outset, we stress that onl" 8uestions of law ma" be raised in a -etition for Re iew under =ection $ of Rule F3 of the Rules of ourt. As anexception, howe er, the e idence presented during the trial ma" be examined and the factual matters resol ed b" this ourt when, as in theinstant case, the (ndings of fact of the appellate court di5er from those of the trial court.%

<xistence of raud in the <xecution of a 6ill

raud is a tric , secret de ice, false statement, or pretense, b" which the subject of it is cheated. It ma" be of such character that the testatoris misled or decei ed as to the nature or contents of the document which he executes, or it ma" relate to some extrinsic fact, in conse8uenceof the deception regarding which the testator is l ed to ma e a certain will which, but for the fraud, he would not ha e made. $'

6e stress that the part" challenging the will bears the burden of pro ing the existence of fraud at the time of its execution.$F !he burden toshow otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will onl" upon a showing of credible e idence of fraud.$3 >nfortunatel" in this case, other thanthe self0ser ing allegations of petitioner, no e idence of fraud was e er presented.

#oreo er, as correctl" ruled b" the appellate court, the conNict between the dates appearing on the will does not in alidate the document,because the law does not e en re8uire that a [notarial will x x x be executed and ac nowledged on the same occasion. $& #ore important,the will must be subscribed b" the testator, as well as b" three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of thetestator and of one another.$% urthermore, the testator and the witnesses must ac nowledge the will before a notar" public.41 In an" e ent,

we agree with the A that the ariance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactoril" and persuasi el"explained b" the notar" public and the instrumental witnesses. 4$

apacit" to #a e a 6ill

In determining the capacit" of the testator to ma e a will, the i il ode gi es the following guidelines

Article 2%&. In order to ma e a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its execution.

Article 2%%. !o be of sound mind, it is not necessar" that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind bewholl" unbro en, unimpaired, or shattered b" disease, injur" or other cause.

It shall be suCcient if the testator was able at the time of ma ing the will to now the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the properobjects of his bount", and the character of the testamentar" act.

Article &11. !he law presumes that e er" person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrar".

!he burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of ma ing his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probateof the will9 but if the testator, one month, or less, before ma ing his will was publicl" nown to be insane, the person who maintains thealidit" of the will must pro e that the testator made it during a lucid inter al.



According to Article 2%%, the three things that the testator must ha e the abilit" to now to be considered of sound mind are as follows )$* thenature of the estate to be disposed of, )4* the proper objects of the testator s bount", and )'* the character of the testamentar" act. Appl"ingthis test to the present case, we (nd that the appellate court was correct in holding that -lacido had testamentar" capacit" at the time of theexecution of his will.

It must be noted that despite his ad anced age, he was still able to identif" accuratel" the inds of propert" he owned, the extent of his sharesin them and e en their locations. As regards the proper objects of his bount", it was suCcient that he identi(ed his wife as sole bene(ciar". Aswe ha e stated earlier, the omission of some relati es from the will did not a5ect its formal alidit". !here being no showing of fraud in itsexecution, intent in its disposition becomes irrele ant. Reiterating in determining soundness of mind is Alsua0Betts . A,43 which held thus

Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memor" which un8uestionabl" carries with it full testamentar" capacit", and thatdegrees of mental aberration generall" nown as insanit" or idioc", there are numberless degrees of mental capacit" or incapacit" and whileon one hand it has been held that mere wea ness of mind, or partial imbecilit" from disease of bod", or from age, will not render a personincapable of ma ing a will9 a wea or feebleminded person ma" ma e a alid will, pro ided he has understanding and memor" suCcient toenable him to now what he is about to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his propert".

43. Pe(s!% vs. C!r!%e#

acts +n @o ember 4&, $%44, the ourt of irst Instance of -ampanga probated as the last will and testament of Dolores oronel. Ea ing noforced heirs, she left all her properties to her nephew Lorenzo -ecson and li ewise executed him as the executor. =he re8uested /icente J.rancisco to write her name under her express direction in our presence, at the foot, and on the left margin of each and e er" sheet, hereof asshe does not now how to write.

!he petitioner for the probate of the will is Lorenzo -ecson, husband of Angela oronel, who is a niece of the deceased Dolores oronel. !heopponents opposed the probate on the following grounds )a* !hat the proof does not contain the last will of Dolores oronel, and )b* that theattestation clause is not in accordance with the pro isions of section ?$& of the ode of i il -rocedure, as amended b" Act @o. 4?F3.

Iss,es: 6+@ the document contains the will of Dolores oronel. 6+@ the attestation clause is in conformit" with the ode of i il -rocedure.

R,#i%+: As to preference gi en to Lorenzo -ecson, it is not purel" arbitrar", nor a caprice or a whim of the moment. !he proof adduced b" this

appelle, although contradicted, shows b" a preponderance of e idence that besides the ser ices which the opponents admit had beenrendered b" him to Dolores oronel since the "ear $%$F, he had also rendered ser ices prior to that time and was the administrator andmanager of the a5airs of said Dolores in the last "ears of her life.

Although such administration and con(dence were enjo"ed b" -ecson alwa"s jointl" with others and ne er exclusi el", this fact does not showthat the will of the testatrix was to appoint -ecson onl" as executor and distributor of her estate among the heirs, nor does it pre ent her, thetestatrix, from instituting him in $%$4 or $%$& as sole bene(ciar"9 nor does it constitute, lastl", a test for determining whether or not suchinstitution in fa or of -ecson was the true will of the testatrix.

In the absence of an" statutor" restriction e er" person possesses absolute dominion o er his propert", and ma" bestow it upon whomsoe erhe pleases without regard to natural or legal claim upon his bount". If the testator possesses the re8uisite capacit" to ma e a will, and the



disposition of his propert" is not a5ected b" fraud of undue inNuence, the will is not rendered in alid b" the fact that it is unnatural,unreasonable, or unjust. @othing can pre ent the testator from ma ing a will as eccentric, as injudicious, or as unjust as caprice, fri olit", orre enge can dictate. Eowe er, as has alread" been shown, the unreasonable or unjustice of a will ma" be considered on the 8uestion of testamentar" capacit". !he testamentar" capacit" of Dolores oronel is not disputed in this case.

As to the alleged insuCcienc" of the e idence to show that the attesting witnesses Damian risostomo and =otero Dumaual were present at

the execution of the will in contro ers". Although this point is raised in the (rst assignment of error made b" the appellants, and not in thesecond, it is discussed in this place because it refers to the er" fact of attestation. Eowe er, we do not belie e it necessar" to anal"ze indetail the e idence of both parties on this particular point. !he e idence leads us to the conclusion that the two witnesses aforementionedwere present at the execution and signing of the will. It is neither probable nor li el" that a man ersed in the law, such as Attorne" rancisco,who was present at the execution of the will in 8uestion, and to whose conscientiousness in the matter of compliance with all the extrinsicformalities of the execution of a will, and to nothing else, was due the fact that the testatrix had cancelled her former will )<xhibit B* and hadnew one )<xhibit A* prepared and executed, should ha e consented the omission of formalit" compliance with which would ha e re8uired littleor no e5ort9 namel", that of seeing to it that the testatrix and the attesting witnesses were all present when their respecti e signatures wereaCxed to the will. And the record does not furnish us suCcient ground for de iating from the line reasoning and (ndings of the trial judge.

44. Estate $ T*e Late Revere% Fat*er Pas(,a# Ri+!r vs. Be#i%a Ri+!r' Nest!ra Ri+!r' Fra%(is(a Es(!)ar De Ri+!r A% 7!vitaEs(!)ar De Fa,st!'

Fa(ts: ather Rigor, the parish priest of -ulilan, Bulacan, died on August %, $%'3, lea ing a will executed on +ctober 4%, $%'' which wasprobated b" the ourt of irst Instance of !arlac in its order of December 3, $%'3. @amed as de isees in the will were the testators nearestrelati es, namel", his three sisters lorencia Rigor0<scobar, Belina Rigor0#analoto and @estora Rigor0Vuiambao. !he testator ga e a de ise tohis cousin, ortunato Mamalinda.

In addition, the will contained the following contro ersial be8uest

3. L<MA ; + !E< E>R E

!hat it be adjudicated in fa or of the legac" purported to be gi en to the nearest male relati e who shall ta e the priesthood, and inthe interim to be administered b" the actual atholic -riest of the Roman atholic hurch of /ictoria, !arlac, -hilippines, or hissuccessors.

R! appro ed the project partition. About thirteen "ears after the appro al of the project of partition, or on ebruar" $%, $%3F, the parish priestof /ictoria (led in the pending testate proceeding a petition pra"ing for the appointment of a new administrator, who should deli er to thechurch the said ricelands, and further pra"ing that the possessors thereof be ordered to render an accounting of the fruits. !he probate courtgranted the petition. A new administrator was appointed. +n Januar" '$, $%32 the parish priest (led another petition for the deli er" of thericelands to the church as trustee. Lower ourt declared the be8uest inoperati e.

!he legal heirs appealed to the ourt of Appeals. It re ersed that order. It held that ather Rigor had created a testamentar" trust for hisnearest male relati e who would ta e the hol" orders but that such trust could exist onl" for twent" "ears because to enforce it be"ond that



period would iolate the rule against perpetuities. It ruled that since no legatee claimed the ricelands within twent" "ears after the testatorKsdeath, the same should pass to his legal heirs, citing articles &&& and %$4)4* of the old i il ode and article &21 of the new i il ode.

R,#i%+: In this case, as in cases in ol ing the law of contracts and statutor" construction, where the intention of the contracting parties or of the lawma ing bod" is to be ascertained, the primar" issue is the determination of the testatorKs intention which is the l aw of the case.

!he will of the testator is the (rst and principal law in the matter of testaments. 6hen his intention is clearl" and precisel" expressed, an"interpretation must be in accord with the plain and literal meaning of his words, except when it ma" certainl" appear that his intention wasdi5erent from that literall" expressed.

In $%'3, when the testator died, his nearest leagal heirs were his three sisters or second0degree relati es, #rs. <scobar, #rs. #analoto and#rs. Vuiambao. +b iousl", when the testator speci(ed his nearest male relati e, he must ha e had in mind his nephew or a son of his sister,who would be his third0degree relati e, or possibl" a grandnephew. But since he could not prognosticate the exact date of his death or statewith certitude what categor" of nearest male relati e would be li ing at the time of his death, he could not specif" that his nearest malerelati e would be his nephew or grandnephews )the son of his nephew or niece* and so he had to use the term nearest male relati e .

It should be understood that the parish priest of /ictoria could become a trustee onl" when the testatorKs nephew li ing at the time of hisdeath, who desired to become a priest, had not "et entered the seminar" or, ha ing been ordained a priest, he was excommunicated. !hose

two contingencies did not arise, and could not ha e arisen in this case because no nephew of the testator manifested an" intention to enterthe seminar" or e er became a priest.

!he ourt of Appeals correctl" ruled that this case is co ered b" article &&& of the old i il ode, now article %3?, which pro ides that i f thebe8uest for an" reason should be inoperati e, it shall be merged into the estate, except in cases of substitution and those in which the right of accretion exists .

!his case is also co ered b" article %$4)4* of the old i il ode, now article %?1 )4*, which pro ides that legal succession ta es place when thewill does not dispose of all that belongs to the testator. !here being no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands the same should bedistributed among the testatorKs legal heirs. !he e5ect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said ricelands.

!he i il ode recognizes that a person ma" die partl" testate and partl" intestate, or that there ma" be mixed succession. !he old rule as tothe indi isibilit" of the testatorKs win is no longer alid. !hus, if a conditional legac" does not ta e e5ect, there will be intestate succession asto the propert" reco ered b" the said legac" .

!he Appellate ourtKs decision is aCrmed.

=+ +RD<R<D

4;. A,stria v. Reyes



Fa(ts: Basilia Austria executed a will wherein the bul of her estate was gi en to the respondents, alll ha e been declared b" the former asher legall" adopted children.During her lifetime, Basilia (led a petition for the probate of her will. It was opposed b" the petitioners who arethe nephews and nieces. !he opposition was dismissed and the will was allowed.

In $%3F, the petitioners (led a petition for inter ention for partition alleging that the" were the nearest in of Basilia and that the respondenthad not been in fact adopted b" the decedent in accordance with law, hence the latter were strangers with no right to succeed as heirs.

!he lower court held that the alidit" or in alidit" is not material to the institution of heirs. It held that the testator was possessed of testamentar" capacit" and her last will was executed free from falsi(cation, fraud, tric er" or undue inNuence.

Iss,e: 6hether or not the institution of the heir is alid

RULING: ;es. !he general rule is that the falsit" of the stated cause for the testamentar" institution does not a5ect the alidit" or eCcac" of the institution. An exception to the rule is that the falsit" will set aide the institution if certain factors are present. Before the institution of theheirs will be annulled under Art. &31 the following re8uisites must concur9 $* the cause must be stated in the will, 4* the cause is shown to befalse, and '* it must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not ha e made such institution if he had nown the falsit".#oreo er, testac" is fa ored and doubts are resol ed on its side especiall" when the will shows a clear intention on the part of the testator todispose of practicall" his whole estate as in this case.

48. NUGUID' "etiti!%er a% a""e##a%t' vs. NUGUID a% Paz Sa#!%+a NUGUID

FACTS: Rosario @uguid, testator in the holographic will, died single and without descendants,legitimate or illegitimate. =ur i ing her were herlegitimate parents, elix @uguid and -az =alonga@uguid, and six brothers and sisters, namel" Alfredo, ederico, Remedios, onrado,Lourdesand Alberto, all surnamed @uguid.

+n #a" $&, $%?', Remedios @uguid, sister of Rosario, (led in the ourt of irst Instance ofRizal a holographic will allegedl" executed b"Rosario @uguid on @o ember $2, $%3$, some $$"ears before her death. Remedios pra"ed that said will be admitted to probate and that lettersof administrationwith the wil l annexed be issued to her. !his was opposed b" the parents of Rosario, elix and-az. !he parents opposed on theground of preterition. !he I of Rizal decided in fa or of theparents and declared that there was indeed preterition of compulsor" heirs.

-etitioner insists that the compulsor" heirs were simpl" ine5ecti el" disinherited and thatthe" are entitled to recei e their legitimes, but thatthe institution of heir \8uot9is not in alidated,\8uot9although the inheritance of the heir so instituted is reduced to the extent of saidlegitimes.

ISSUE: #a" a part of the will, when preterition has been declared, be considered to still be alid with respect to the free portion of the will.

RULING: @o, preterition has an e5ect of completel" nullif"ing the will. Article &3F of the i il ode states that G)!*he preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsor" heirs in the directline, whether li ing at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of thetestator,shall annul the institution of heir9 but the de ises and legacies shall be alid insofar as the" arenot inoCcious.H



!he deceased Rosario @uguid left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. But she leftforced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents. !he will completel" omits both of them. !he" thus recei ed nothing b" the testament9 tacitl", the" were depri ed of their legitime9 neitherwerethe" expressl" disinherited. !his is a clear case of preterition.

It cannot be gleaned in the will that an" speci(c legacies or be8uests are therein pro ided for.It is in this posture that the =upreme ourt heldthat the nullit" is complete. -erforce, Rosario@uguid died intestate.

Remedios claim that the will should onl" be nulli(ed as to the part of the legitime and that sheshould thus be considered a de isee or legateeis without merit. !he law re8uires that theinstitution of de isees and legatees must be expressl" stated in the will. =uch was not present.

Also, the omission of the parents in the will cannot be interpreted as a form of disinheritanceas the law also re8uires that, for disinheritance tobe proper, the disinheritance should be clearl"and expressl" stated in the will. Absent that, no inference of disinheritance ma" be had.

4 . C NSTANTIN C. ACAIN vs. H N. INTER/EDIATE APPELLATE C URT' VIRGINIA A. FERNANDE a% R SA DI NGS N

FACTS: +n #a" $%&F petitioner Acain (led with the R! of ebu it", a petition for the probate of the will of the late @emesio Acain and forthe issuance to the same petitioner of letters testamntar" on the premise that @emesio Acain died lea ing a will in which petitioner and his

siblings were instituted as heirs. !he will allegedl" executed b" @emesio Acain on ebruar" $2, $%?1 was written in Bisa"a with a translation in<nglish submitted b" petitioner without objection raised b" pri ate respondents. !he will contained pro isions on burial rites, pa"ment of debts, and the appointment of a certain Att". Ignacio M. /illagonzalo as the executor of the testament. !he will also states the will pro ided

!EIRD All m" shares that I ma" recei e from our properties. house, lands and mone" which I earned jointl" with m" wife Rosa Diongson shallall be gi en b" me to m" brother =<M>@D+ A AI@ ilipino, widower, of legal age and presentl" residing at '320 =anciang o =treet, ebu i t".In case m" brother =egundo Acain pre0deceased me, all the mone" properties, lands, houses there in Banta"an and here in ebu it" whichconstitute m" share shall be gi en to me to his children, namel" Anita, onstantino, oncepcion, Vuirina, laura, lores, Antonio and Jose, allsurnamed Acain.

=egundo pre0deceased @emesio. !hus it is the children of =egundo who are claiming to be heirs, with onstantino as the petitioner.

After the petition was set for hearing in the lower court on June $%&F the oppositors (led a motion to dismiss. =aid motion was denied b" thetrial judge.

After the denial of their subse8uent motion for reconsideration in the lower court, respondents (led with the =upreme ourt a petition forcertiorari and prohibition with preliminar" injunction which was subse8uentl" referred to the Intermediate Appellate ourt b" Resolution of theourt.Respondent Intermediate Appellate ourt granted pri ate respondentsK petition and ordered the trial court to dismiss the petition for theprobate of the will of @emesio Acain. -etitioner (led this present petition for the re iew of respondent ourtKs decision.

ISSUE: 6hether or not pri ate respondents ha e been pretirited.

HELD: ;es. Article &3F of the i il ode pro ides Art. &3F. !he preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsor" heirs in the directline, whether li ing at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir9 but the



de isees and legacies shall be alid insofar as the" are not9 inoCcious. If the omitted compulsor" heirs should die before the testator, theinstitution shall he e5ectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.

-reterition consists in the omission in the testatorKs will of the forced heirs or an"one of them either because the" are not mentioned therein,or, though mentioned, the" are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressl" disinherited. Insofar as the widow is concerned, Article &3F of thei il ode ma" not appl" as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsor" heir. =tated otherwise, e en if the

sur i ing spouse is a compulsor" heir, there is no preterition e en if she is omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line.Eowe er, the same thing cannot be said of the other respondent /irginia A. ernandez, whose legal adoption b" the testator has not been8uestioned b" petitioner. >nder Article '% of -.D. @o. ?1', nown as the hild and ;outh 6elfare ode, adoption gi es to the adopted personthe same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and ma es the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It cannotbe denied that she has totall" omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were depri ed of atleast their legitime. @either can it be denied that the" were not expressl" disinherited. Eence, this is a clear case of preterition of the legall"adopted child.

4-. A &i%istrati!% !$ t*e estate !$ A+ri"i%! Neri y C*avez. ELEUTERI NERI vs . IGNACIA A@UTIN AND HER CHILDREN

FACTS: !his is a case where the testator in his will left all his propert" b" uni ersal title to the children b" his second marriage, the hereinrespondents, with preterition of the children b" his (rst marriage, the herein petitioner. !his ourt annulled the institution of heirs and declared

a total intestac".A motion for reconsideration has been (led b" the respondents on the ground )$* that there is no preterition as to the children of the (rstmarriage who ha e recei ed their shares in the propert" left b" the testator, and )4* that, e en assuming that there has been a preterition, thee5ect would not be the annulment of the institution of heirs but simpl" the reduction of the be8uest made to them.

ISSUE: 6hether or not preterition is present in the case at bar.

HELD: ;es. According to the (ndings of fact made b" the ourt of Appeals, the testator left all his propert" b" uni ersal title to the children b"his second marriage, and that without expressl" disinheriting the children b" his (rst marriage, he left all his propert" b" uni ersal title to thechildren b" his second marriage, he left nothing to them or, at least, some of them. !his is, accordingl", a case of preterition go erned b" thei il ode, which pro ides that the institution of heirs shall be annulled and intestate succession should be declared open.

40. VIAD N N VS CA

FACTS: =pouses Julian . /iado and /irginia -. /iado owned se eral pieces of propert", among them a house and lot. /irginia -. /iado died on41 +ctober $%&4. Julian . /iado died three "ears later. =ur i ing them were their children, @ilo /iado, Leah /iado Jacobs, and hereinpetitioners Rebecca /iado, married to Jose @on, and Delia /iado. @ilo /iado and Leah /iado Jacobs both died on 44 April $%&2. @ilo /iado leftbehind as his own sole heirs herein respondents, his wife Alicia /iado and their two children herri /iado and e ides /iado.

-etitioners and respondents shared, since $%22, a common residence at the Isarog propert". Rebecca /iado had as ed that the propert" bee8uall" di ided between the two families to ma e room for the growing children. Respondents, forthwith, claimed absolute ownership o er theentire propert" and demanded that petitioners acate the portion occupied b" the latter. Respondents predicated their claim of absoluteownership o er the subject propert" on two documents, a deed of donation executed b" the late Julian /iado co ering his one0half conjugalshare of the Isarog propert" in fa or of @ilo /iado and a deed of extrajudicial settlement in which Julian /iado, Leah /iado Jacobs )through a



power of attorne" in fa or of @ilo /iado* and petitioner Rebecca /iado wai ed in fa or of @ilo /iado their rights and interests o er their shareof the propert" inherited from /irginia /iado.

-etitioners attac ed the alidit" of the foregoing instruments, contending that the late @ilo /iado emplo"ed forger" and undue inNuence tocoerce Julian /iado to execute the deed of donation. -etitioner a erred that her brother @ilo /iado emplo"ed fraud to procure her signature tothe deed of extrajudicial settlement. =he added that the exclusion of her retardate sister, Delia /iado, in the extrajudicial settlement, resulted

in the latterKs preterition that should warrant its annulment. !he trial court found for respondents and adjudged Alicia /iado and her childrenas being the true owners of the disputed propert". ourt of Appeals aCrmed the decision of the trial court with modi(cation

ISSUE: 6hether or not the properties were correctl" adjudged to respondents.

RULING: !he inheritance, which ested from the moment of death of the decedent, remained under a co0ownership regime among the heirsuntil partition. < er" act intended to put an end to indi ision among co0heirs and legatees or de isees would be a partition although it wouldpurport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, a donation or an extrajudicial settlement.

In debun ing the continued existence of a co0ownership among the parties hereto, respondents rel" on the deed of donation and deed of extrajudicial settlement which consolidated the title solel" to @ilo /iado. 6hile asserting that @ilo /iado emplo"ed fraud, forger" and undueinNuence in procuring the signatures of the parties to the deeds of donation and of extrajudicial settlement, petitioners are ague, howe er, on

how and in what manner those supposed ices occurred. @either ha e petitioners shown proof wh" Julian /iado should be held incapable of exercising suCcient judgment in ceding his rights and interest o er the propert" to @ilo /iado. !he exclusion of petitioner Delia /iado, allegedto be a retardate, from the deed of extrajudicial settlement eril" has had the e5ect of preterition. !his ind of preterition, howe er, in theabsence of proof of fraud and bad faith, does not justif" a collateral attac on ! !. !he relief, as so correctl" pointed out b" the ourt of Appeals, instead rests on Article $$1F of the i il ode to the e5ect that where the preterition is not attended b" bad faith and fraud, thepartition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the alue of the share pertaining to her. Again, the appellate court hasthus acted properl" in ordering the remand of the case for further proceedings to ma e the proper aluation of the isarog propert" andascertainment of the amount due petitioner Delia /iado.

;6. DE PERE VS. /ARIAN GARCHIT RENA

FACTS: !he amount of -4$,F4&.3& is on deposit in the plainti5Ks name with the association nown as La >rbana in #anila, as the (nalpa"ment of the li8uidated credit of Ana #aria Alcantara, deceased, whose heiress is said plainti5, against Andres Marchitorena, also deceased,represented b" his son, the defendant #ariano Marchitorena. #ariano Marchitorena held a judgment for -2,&24.4' against Joa8uin -erezAlcantara, husband of the plainti5, armen M. de -erez, the sheri5 pursuant to the writ of execution issued in said judgment, le ied anattachment on said amount deposited with La >rbana.

-lainti5, alleging that said deposit belongs to the (deicommissar" heirs of the decedent Ana #aria Alcantara, secured a preliminar" injunctionrestraining the execution of said judgment on the sum so attached. !he defendants contend that the plainti5 is the decedentKs uni ersal



heiress, and pra" for the dissolution of the injunction.!he court held that said La >rbana deposit belongs to the plainti5Ks children as(deicommissar" heirs of Ana #aria Alcantara, and granted a (nal writ of injunction.

ISSUE: 6hether or not substitution was simple:or (deicommissar" substitution.

RULING: !he substitution is ordered where the heiress instituted dies after the testatrix, this cannot be a case of simple substitution.!he(deicommissar" substitution, re8uires three things $. A (rst heir called primaril" to the enjo"ment of the estate. 4. An obligation clearl"imposed upon him to preser e and transmit to a third person the whole or a part of the estate. '. A second heir.

lause I] ests in the heiress onl" the right to enjo" but not the right to dispose of the estate. It sa"s, she ma" enjo" it, but does not sa" shema" dispose of it. !his is an indication of the usufruct inherent in (deicommissar" substitution. rom the whole context it appears that inma ing the pro isions contained in this clause ], the testatrix had in mind a (deicommissar" substitution, since she limits the transmission of her estate to the children of the heiress b" this pro ision, in such wise that m" estate shall ne er pass out of the hands of m" heiress or herchildren in so far as it is legall" possible.Another indication of (deicommissar" substitution in clause ] is the pro ision that the whole estateshall pass unimpaired to the heiressKs children, that is to sa" the heiress is re8uired to preser e the whole estate, without diminution, in orderto pass it on in due time to the (deicommissar" heirs. !his pro ision complies with another of the re8uisites of (deicommissar" substitution.lause ]I more clearl" indicates the idea of (deicommissar" substitution, when a pro ision is therein made in the e ent the heiress should dieafter the testatrix. !hat is, said clause anticipates the case where the instituted heiress should die after the testatrix and after recei ing andenjo"ing the inheritance.

All the re8uisites of a (deicommissar" substitution, are present in the case of substitution

$. At (rst heir primaril" called to the enjo"ment of the estate. In this case the plainti5 was instituted an heiress, called to the enjo"ment of theestate, according to clause I] of the will.

4. An obligation clearl" imposed upon the heir to preser e and transmit to a third person the whole or a part of the estate. =uch an obligationis imposed in clause ] which pro ides that the whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her )heiressKs* sur i ing children9 thus, instead of lea ing the heiress at libert" to dispose of the estate b" will, or of lea ing the law to ta e its course in case she dies intestate, said clause notonl" disposes of the estate in fa or of the heiress instituted, but also pro ides for the disposition thereof in case she should die after thetestatrix.

'. A second heir. =uch are the children of the heiress instituted, who are referred to as such second heirs both in clause ] and in clause ]I.

!he inheritance in 8uestion does not belong to the heiress instituted, the plainti5 herein, as her absolute propert", but to her children, fromthe moment of the death of the testatrix. !herefore, said inheritance, of which the amount referred to at the beginning, which is on depositwith the association nown as La >rbana in the plainti5Ks name, is a part, does not belong to her nor can it be subject to the execution of the

judgment against Joa8uin -erez, who is not one of the (deicommissar" heirs.

;5. Ra&irez vs. V a. Ra&irez G.R. N!. L 0; ' Fe)r,ary 5;' 50-



!he deceased )Jose <ugenio Ramirez* was sur i ed b" his spouse )#arcelle Demoron de Ramirez*, two grandnephews )Roberto and JorgeRamirez*, and his companion )6anda de 6robles i*.

!he tas is not trouble0free because the widow #arcelle is a rench who li es in -aris, while the companion 6anda is an Autralian who li es in=pain. #oreo er, the testator pro ided for substitutions.

Jose <ugenio Ramirez, a ilipino national, died in =pain on December $$, $%?F, with onl" his widow as compulsor" heir. Eis will was admitted toprobate b" the I of #anila. #aria Luisa -alacios was appointed administratix of the estate.

!he administrator submitted a partition to the court which di ided the estate into two one0half would go to the widow in the satisfaction of herlegitime9 the other half, which is the free portion, would go to the grandnephews9 howe er, one0third of the free portion is charged with thewidowKs usufruct and the remaining 47' with a usufruct in fa or of the companion.

!he grandnephews opposed the substitution on the ground that the (rst heirs are not related to the substitutes )Juan -able Jan ows i andEorace Ramirez* within the (rst degree.

RULING:

!he =upreme ourt ruled that the (deicommissar" substitution is oid. !he substitutes are not related to the companion within one degree.

In e5ect, the = ruled that Gone degreeH means Gone generationH and not Gone designation.H =o, it follows that the (deicommissar" can onl"be either a child or a parent of the (rst heir. !hese are the onl" relati es who are one generation or degree from the (duciar".

=>B=!I!>!I+@0 is the appoint0judgment of another heir so that he ma" enter into the inheritance in default of the heir ori(nall" instituted )Art.&32, i il ode*

Sinds of =ubstitutions )Art. &3&*

$. =imple or common

4. Brief or compendious

'. Reciprocal

F. ideicommissar"

!wo principal classes of substitutions

$. =imple or ulgar )Art. &3%*



4. ideicommissar" substitution )Art. &?'*

;3. NIEVA V. ALCALA

FACTS: Juliana @ie a, the alleged natural mother of the plainti5 =egunda #aria @ie a, married rancisco Deocampo. +f said marriage AlfeoDeocampo was born. Julian @ie a died intestate on April $%, $&&%, and her said son, Alfeo Deocampo, inherited from her, ab intestate, the

parcels of land. Alfeo Deocampo died intestate and without issue on Jul" 2, $&%1. !hereupon the two parcels of land passed to his father,rancisco Deocampo, b" intestate succession. !hereafter rancisco Deocampo married the herein defendant #anuela Alcala, of whichmarriage was born Jose Deocampo, the other defendant herein. rancisco Deocampo died on August $3, $%$F, whereupon his widow and son,the defendants herein, too possession of the parcels of land in 8uestion, under the claim that the said son, the defendant Jose Deocampoo )aminor* had inherited the same, ab intestate, from his deceased father. In $%$3, the plainti5 herein, claiming to be an ac nowledged naturaldaughter of the said Juliana @ie a, instituted the present action for the purposes of reco ering from the defendants the parcels of land in8uestion, in o ing the pro isions of article &$$ of the i il ode.

!he lower court held that, e en granting, without deciding, that the plainti5 was an ac nowledged natural daughter of Juliana @ie a, she wasnot entitled to the propert" here in 8uestion because, in its opinion, an illegitimate relati e has no right to the reser atroncal under thepro isions of article &$$ of the i il ode. !he (rst 8uestion presented b" this appeal is, whether or not the plainti5 is an ac nowledgednatural daughter of the deceased Juliana @ie a. It appears from the record that the said Juliana @ie a, while unmarried, ga e birth to theplainti5 on #arch 4%, $&&4, and that the plainti5 was dul" baptized as her natural daughter, of un nown father9 that the said Juliana @ie anourished and reared her said child, the plainti5 herein9 that the plainti5 li ed with her said mother until the latter was married to ranciscoDeocampo9 that the said mother treated the plainti5, and exhibited her publicl", as a legitimate daughter.

ISSUE: 6hether or not an illegitimate relati e within the third degree is entitled to the reser a troncal pro ided for b" article &$$ )@owArt.&%$* of the i il ode.

RULING: @+. Article &$$ )@ow Art.&%$* of the i il ode pro ides that An" ascendant who inherits from his descendant an" propert"ac8uired b" the latter gratuitousl" from some other ascendant, or from a brother or sister, is obliged to reser e such of the propert" as he ma"ha e ac8uired b" operation of law for the bene(t of relati es within the third degree belonging to the line from which such propert" came.

!he propert" here in 8uestion was inherited, b" operation b" law, b" rancisco Deocampo from his son Alfeo Deocampo, who, in turn, had

inherited it, in the same manner, from his mother Juliana @ie a, the natural mother of the plainti5. !he plainti5 is the natural sister of AlfeoDeocampo, and she belongs to the same line from which the propert" in 8uestion came.

!he pro ision of article &$$ )@ow.&%$* of the i il ode applies onl" to legitimate relati e. Article %F', pro ides as followsA natural or legitimated child has no right to succeed ab intestate the legitimate children and relati es of the father or mother who has

ac nowledged it9 nor shall such children or relati es so inherit from the natural or legitimated child.

!o hold that the appellant is entitled to the propert" left b" her natural brother, Alfeo Deocampo, b" operation of l aw, would be a fragrantiolate of the express pro ision of the foregoing article )%F'*.

;4. DE PAPA V. CA/ACH



FACTS: !his case, which in ol es the application of Article &%$ of the i il ode on reser a troncal, was submitted for judgment in the lowercourt b" all the parties on the following =tipulation of acts and -artial ompromise

$. !he" stipulate that the defendant !ong o0 amacho and the plainti5s are legitimate relati es, plainti5s being said defendant s grandauntand granduncles.

4. that plainti5s and defendant Dalisa" D. !ongo0 amacho ha e as a common ancestor the late Balbino !ioco )who had a sister b" the name of Romana !ioco*, father of plainti5s and great grandfather of defendant.

'. that Romana !ioco during her lifetime gratuitousl" donated four )F* parcels of land to her niece !oribia !ioco )legitimate sister of plainti5s*.

F. that !oribia !ioco died intestate in $%$3, sur i ed b" her husband, <ustacio Dizon, and their two legitimate children, austino Dizon and !rinidad Dizon )mother of defendant Dalisa" D. !ong o0 amacho* and lea ing the afore0mentioned four )F* parcels of land as the inheritance of her said two children in e8ual pro0indi iso shares.

3. that in $%4&, Balbino !ioco died intestate, sur i ed b" his legitimate children b" his wife #arciana elix )among them plainti5s* andlegitimate grandchildren austino Dizon and !rinidad Dizon. In the partition of his estate, three )'* parcels of land were adjudicated as theinheritance of the late !oribia !ioco, but as she had predeceased her father, Balbino !ioco, the said three )'* parcels of land de ol ed upon hertwo legitimate children austino Dizon and !rinidad Dizon in e8ual pro0indi iso shares.

?. that in $%'2, austino Dizon died intestate, single and without issue, lea ing his one0half )$74* pro0indi iso share in the se en )2* parcels of

land to his father, <ustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate heir, who recei ed the said propert" subject to a reser a troncal.2. that in $%'% !rinidad Dizon0!ong o died intestate, and her rights and interests in the parcels of land abo ementioned were inherited b" heronl" legitimate child, defendant Dalisa" D. !ong o0 amacho, subject to the usufructuar" right of her sur i ing husband, defendant -rimo

!ong o.

&. that on June $F, $%?3, <ustacio Dizon died intestate, sur i ed his onl" legitimate descendant, defendant Dalisa" D. !ong o0 amacho.

%. !he parties agree that defendant Dalisa" D. !ong o0 amacho now owns one0half )$74* of all the se en )2* parcels of land abo ementionedas her inheritance from her mother, !rinidad Dizon0!ong o.

$1. Defendant Dalisa" D. !ong o0 amacho also claims, upon legal ad ice, the other half of the said se en )2* parcels of land b" irtue of thereser a troncal imposed thereon upon the death of austino Dizon and under the laws on intestate succession9 but the plainti5s, also uponlegal ad ice, oppose her said claim because the" claim three0fourths )'7F* of the one0half pro0indi iso interest in said parcel of land, whichinterest was inherited b" <ustacio Dizon from austino Dizon, or three0eights )'7&* of the said parcels of land, b" irtue of their being also thirddegree relati es of austino Dizon.

$$. !he parties hereb" agree to submit for judicial determination in this case the legal issue of whether defendant Dalisa" D. !ong o0 amachois entitled to the whole of the se en )2* parcels of land in 8uestion, or whether the plainti5s, as third degree relati es of austino Dizon arereser atarios )together with said defendant* of the one0half pro0indi iso share therein which was inherited b" <ustacio Dizon from his sonaustino Dizon, and entitled to three0fourths )'7F* of said one0half pro0indi iso share, or three0eights )'7&* of said se en )2* parcels of land,and, therefore, to three eights )'7&* of the rentals collected and to be collected b" defendant Dalisa" -. !ong o amacho from the tenants of said parcels of land, minus the expenses and7or real estate taxes corresponding to plainti5s share in the rentals.

!he lower ourt ruled in faor of the -lainti5s. @ot satis(ed, the defendant appealed to this ourt.

ISSUE: 6hether or not the plainti5s )as decedentKs uncles and aunts* ma" succeed ab intestate and be entitled to the re ersionar" propert".



RULING: @+. Art. &%$ of the i il ode pro ides that Art. &%$. !he ascendant who inherits from his descendant an" propert" which thelatter ma" ha e ac8uired b" gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reser e such propert" as he ma" ha eac8uired b" operation of law for the bene(t of relati es who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said propert"came. )&$$*

!he reser a troncal merel" determines the group of relati es )reser atarios* to whom the propert" should be returned9 but within that group,

the indi idual right to the propert" should be decided b" the applicable rules of ordinar" intestate succession, since Art. &%$ does not specif"otherwise. !his conclusion is strengthened b" the circumstance that the reser a being an exceptional case, its application should be limited towhat is strictl" needed to accomplish the purpose of the law.

Re ersion of the reser able propert" being go erned b" the rules on intestate succession, the plainti5s0appellees must be held without an"right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, respecti el", of austino Dizon )the praepositus*, the" are excluded from the succession b" hisniece, the defendant0appellant, although the" are related to him within the same degree as the latter.

!he rule, under our laws of succession, a decedent s uncles and aunts ma" not succeed ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of thedecedent sur i e and are willing and 8uali(ed to succeed. !he defendant0appellant Dalisa" !ong o0 amacho is entitled to the entiret" of there ersionar" propert". !he appealed judgment of the lower ourt is re ersed and set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

;;. /ari ,ita S,&aya a% La+,%a A+r! I% ,stria# C!(!%,t C!!"erative v. IAC et.a# GR 8--43 44

FACTS: Raul Balanta bo inherited from two di5erent ascendants two sets of parcels of propert", one from his father and the other from hismaternal grandmother. Raul died intestate, single and without an" issue, lea ing onsuelo Balanta bo, his mother as sole heir. =ubse8uentl",onsuelo adjudicated to herself the propert" in aCda it stating that she is the sole and lone ascendant heir of Raul who left the propertiesinherited from his father and grandmother. onsuelo sold the properties to #ari8uita =uma"a, who sold the same to /illa EonorioDe elopment orporation which subse8uentl" transferred its right o er the propert" in fa or of Laguna Agro0Industrial oconut ooperati e.erti(cates of title were issuedin Agro s name. Eowe er, such titl e do not contain an" annotation of the propert" being reser able in character.

!wo "ears after onsuelo s death, Amadeo et al, brothers, sisters, nephew and nieces of Raul (led a ci il case for the reco er" of the parcels of land sold to Agro alleging that such is subject of reser a troncal. ourt a 8uo ruled in fa or of plainti5s, (nding Agro as not innocentpurchasers for alue. !he A aCrmed the lower court s decision and ruled that there is no need to annotate the reser able interest of reser esin propert" co ered b" the certi(cate of title.

ISSUE: 6hether there is a need to annotate the reser able character of the propert" subject of reser a troncal

RULING: ;es. In a ruling decided b" the ourt, the reser able character of a propert" ma" be lost to innocent purchasers for alue and hence,the obligation is imposed on a widowed spouse to annotate the reser able character of a propert" subject of reser e iudal. =uch obligation isalso applicable in reser a troncal. #oreo er, the purpose of notation is nothing more than to a5ord the persons entitled to reser ation, if an",due protection.

;8. /e% !za vs De#!s Sa%t!s

FACTS: !he subject properties of this case are three parcels of land. Lot $?F?0B is under the name of respondent Julia delos =antos and co0owned b" /ictoria -antaleon who bought one0half of the propert" from petitioner #aria #endoza and her siblings.



-etitioners are grandchildren of -lacido #endoza )-lacido* and Dominga #endoza )Dominga*. -lacido and Dominga had four children Antonio,<xe8uiel, married to Leonor, Apolonio and /alentin. !he petitioners are children of Antonio and /alentin. !he" alleged that -lacido andDomingaKs properties that were subject of an oral partition and subse8uentl" adjudicated to <xe8uiel. After <xe8uielKs death, it passed on tohis spouse Leonor and onl" daughter, Mregoria.

After LeonorKs death, her share went to Mregoria. In $%%4, Mregoria died intestate and without issue. !he" claimed that after MregoriaKs death,respondent, who is LeonorKs sister, adjudicated unto herself all these properties as the sole sur i ing heir of Leonor and Mregoria. Eence,petitioners claim that the properties should ha e been reser ed b" respondent in their behalf and must now re ert bac to them, appl"ingArticle &%$ of the i il ode on reser a troncal.

Respondent, howe er, denies an" obligation to reser e the properties as these did not originate from petitionersK familial line and were notoriginall" owned b" -lacido and Dominga. According to respondent, the properties were bought b" <xe8uiel and Antonio from a certain AlfonsoRamos in $%'$.

It appears, howe er, that it was onl" <xe8uiel who was in possession of the properties. !he Regional !rial ourt )R! * of #alolos, Bulacan,Branch ?, found merit in petitionersK claim and granted their action for Reco er" of -ossession b" Reser a !roncal.

+n appeal, the ourt of Appeals ) A* re ersed and set aside the R! decision and dismissed the complaint (led b" petitioners. In dismissingthe complaint, the A ruled that petitioners failed to establish that -lacido and Dominga owned the properties in dispute. !he A also ruledthat e en assuming that -lacido and Dominga pre iousl" owned the properties, it still cannot be subject to reser a troncal as neither <xe8uielpredeceased -lacido and Dominga nor did Mregoria predecease <xe8uiel.

ISSUES: whether the properties in dispute are reser able properties. whether petitioners are entitled to a reser ation of these properties.

RULING: Article &%$ of the i il ode on reser atroncal. !he principle of reser atroncal is pro ided in Article &%$ of the i il odeArt. &%$. !he ascendant who inherits from his descendant an" propert" which the latter ma" ha e ac8uired b" gratuitous title from anotherascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reser e such propert" as he ma" ha e ac8uired b" operation of law for the bene(t of relati eswho are within the third degree and belong to the line from which said propert" came. )<mphasis ours*

!here are three )'* lines of transmission in reser a troncal. !he (rst transmission is b" gratuitous title, whether b" inheritance or donation,from an ascendant7brother7sister to a descendant called the prepositus. !he second transmission is b" operation of law from the prepositus tothe other ascendant or reser or, also called the reser ista. !he third and last transmission is from thereser ista to the reser ees or reser atarios who must be relati es within the third degree from which the propert" came. !he lineal character

of the reser able propert" is rec oned from the ascendant from whom the prepositus recei ed the propert" b" gratuitous title.

Based on the circumstances of the present case, Article &%$ on reser atroncal is not applicable.

!he fallac" in the AKs resolution is that i t proceeded from the erroneous premise that -lacido is the ascendant contemplated in Article &%$ of the i il ode. rom thence, it sought to trace the origin of the subject properties bac to -lacido and Dominga, determine whether <xe8uielpredeceased -lacido and whether Mregoria predeceased <xe8uiel.

!he persons in ol ed in reser atroncal are D!cA a)$* !he ascendant or brother or sister from whom the propert" was recei ed b" the descendant b" lucrati e or gratuitous title9)4* !he descendant or prepositus )propositus* who recei ed the propert"9)'* !he reser or )reser ista*, the other ascendant who obtained the propert" from the prepositus b" operation of law9 and



)F* !he reser ee )reser atario* who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the )linea o tronco* from which thepropert" came and for whom the propert" should be reser ed b" the reser or.

It should be pointed out that the ownership of the properties should be rec oned onl" from <xe8uielKs as he is the ascendant from where the(rst transmission occurred, or from whom Mregoria inherited the properties in dispute. !he law does not go farther than suchascendant7brother7sister in determining the lineal character of the propert".

It was also immaterial for the A to determine whether <xe8uiel predeceased -lacido and Dominga or whether Mregoria predeceased <xe8uiel.6hat is pertinent is that <xe8uiel owned the properties and he is the ascendant from whom the properties in dispute originall" came. Mregoria,on the other hand, is the descendant who recei ed the properties from <xe8uiel b" gratuitous title.

#oreo er, Article &%$ simpl" re8uires that the propert" should ha e been ac8uired b" the descendant or prepositus from an ascendant b"gratuitous or lucrati e title. A transmission is gratuitous or b" gratuitous title when the recipient does not gi e an"thing in return. At ris of being repetitious, what was clearl" established in this case is that the properties in dispute were owned b" <xe8uiel )ascendant*. After hisdeath, Mregoria )descendant7prepositus* ac8uired the properties as inheritance.

Ascendants, descendants and collateral relati es under Article %?F of the i il ode Article &%$ pro ides that the person obliged to reser e thepropert" should be an ascendant )also nown as the reser or7reser ista* of the descendant7 prepositus. Julia, howe er, is not MregoriaKsascendant9 rather, she is MregoriaKs collateral relati e.

Article %?F of the i il ode pro ides for the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants, and those who are not ascendants anddescendants but come from a common ancestor

Art. %?F. A series of degrees forms a line, which ma" be either direct or collateral.

A direct line is that constituted b" the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.

A collateral line is that constituted b" the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who come from acommon ancestor.

MregoriaKs ascendants are her parents, <xe8uiel and Leonor, her grandparents, great0grandparents and so on. +n the other hand, MregoriaKsdescendants, if she had one, would be her children, grandchildren and great0grandchildren. @ot being MregoriaKs ascendants, both petitionersand Julia, therefore, are her collateral relati es. In determining the collateral line of relationship, ascent is made to the common ancestor and

then descent to the relati e from whom the computation is made. In the case of JuliaKs collateral relationship with Mregoria, ascent is to bemade from Mregoria to her mother Leonor )one line7degree*, then to the common ancestor, that is, Julia and LeonorKs parents )secondline7degree*, and then descent to Julia, her aunt )third line7degree*. !hus, Julia is MregoriaKs collateral relati e within the third degree and nother ascendant.

irst cousins of the descendant7 prepositus are fourth degree relati es and cannot be considered reser ees7reser atarios

#oreo er, petitioners cannot be considered reser ees7reser atarios as the" are not relati es within the third degree of Mregoria from whomthe properties came. !he person from whom the degree should be rec oned is the descendant7 prepositus O the one at the end of the linefrom which the propert" came and upon whom the propert" last re ol ed b" descent. It is Mregoria in this case. -etitioners are MregoriaKsfourth degree relati es, being her (rst cousins. irst cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree relati es and are not reser ees or



reser atarios.

!he" cannot e en claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and /alentin as Article &%$ grants a personal right of reser ation onl" tothe relati es up to the third degree from whom the reser able properties came. !he onl" recognized exemption is in the case of nephews andnieces of the prepositus, who ha e the right to represent their ascendants )fathers and mothers* who are the brothers7sisters of the prepositusand relati es within the third degree. In lorentino . lorentino, the ourt stated

ollowing the order prescribed b" law in legitimate succession, when there are relati es of the descendant within the third degree, the right of the nearest relati e, called reser atario, o er the propert" which the reser ista )person holding it subject to reser ation* should return to him,excludes that of the one more remote.

!he right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming same as a reser atario of the reser able propert" is not among therelati es within the third degree belong to the line from which such propert" came, inasmuch as the right granted b" the i il ode in [A rticle&$$ [now Article &%$ is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusi e bene(t of the designated persons who are the relati es, withinthe third degree, of the person from whom the reser able propert" came. !herefore, relati es of the fourth and the succeeding degrees canne er be considered as reser atarios, since the law does not recognize them as such.. . . [@ e ertheless there is right of representation on the part of reser atarios who are within the third degree mentioned b" law, as in the caseof nephews of the deceased person from whom the reser able propert" came. . . . . 4'

!he conclusion, therefore, is that while it ma" appear that the properties are reser able in character, petitioners cannot bene(t from reser atroncal. irst, because Julia, who now holds the properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant within the pur iew of Article &%$ of the i ilode and second, because petitioners are not MregoriaKs relati es within the third degree. Eence, the AKs disposition that the complaint (ledwith the R! should be dismissed, onl" on this point, is correct. If at all, what should appl" in the distribution of MregoriaKs estate are Articles$11' and $11% of the i il ode, which pro ideArt. $11'. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a sur i ing spouse, the collateral relati es shall succeed tothe entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles.Art. $11%. =hould there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral relati es shall succeed tothe estate.

!he latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them b" reason of relationship b" the whole blood.

@e ertheless, the ourt is not in the proper position to determine the proper distribution of MregoriaKs estate at this point as the cause of action relied upon b" petitioners in their complaint (led with the R! is based solel" on reser a troncal. urther, an" determination would

necessaril" entail reception of e idence on MregoriaKs entire estate and the heirs entitled thereto, which is best accomplished in an action (ledspeci(call" for that purpose.

A reser ista ac8uires ownership of the reser able propert" until the reser ation ta es place or is extinguished

Before concluding, the ourt ta es note of a palpable error in the R! Ks disposition of the case. In upholding the right of petitioners o er theproperties, the R! ordered the recon e"ance of the properties to petitioners and the transfer of the titles in their names. 6hat the R! shouldha e done, assuming for argumentKs sa e that reser a troncal is applicable, is ha e the reser able nature of the propert" registered onrespondentKs titles. In fact, respondent, as reser ista, has the dut" to reser e and to annotate the reser able character of the propert" on thetitle. 4F In reser a troncal, the reser ista who inherits from a prepositus, whether b" the latterKs wish or b" operation of law, ac8uires theinheritance b" irtue of a title perfectl" transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of ownership belong to him exclusi el".



!he reser or has the legal title and dominion to the reser able propert" but subject to the resolutor" condition that such title is extinguished if the reser or predeceased the reser ee. !he reser or is a usufructuar" of the reser able propert". Ee ma" alienate it subject to the reser ation.

!he transferee gets the re ocable and conditional ownership of the reser or. !he transfereeKs rights are re o ed upon the sur i al of thereser ees at the time of the death of the reser or but become indefeasible when the reser ees predecease the reser or.

It is when the reser ation ta es place or is extinguished, 42 that a reser atario becomes, b" operation of law, the owner of the reser ablepropert". 4& In an" e ent, the foregoing discussion does not detract from the fact that petitioners are not entitled to a reser ation of theproperties in dispute.

;8. /e% !za v De#!s Sa%t!s

FACTS !he properties subject in the instant case are three parcels of land located in =ta. #aria, Bulacan are presentl" in the name of respondent JuliaDelos =antos )respondent*. Lot @o. $?F?0B, on the other hand, is also in the name of respondent but co0 owned b" /ictoria -antaleon, whobought one0half of the propert" from petitioner #aria #endoza and her siblings.-etitioners are grandchildren of -lacido #endoza )-lacido* and Dominga #endoza )Dominga*. -etitioners alleged that the properties were partof -lacido and Dominga s properties that were subject of an oral partition and subse8uentl" adjudicated to <xe8uiel. After <xe8uiel s death, itpassed on to his spouse Leonor and onl" daughter, Mregoria. After Leonor s death, her share went to Mregoria. In $%%4, Mregoria died intestateand without issue. !he" claimed that after Mregoria s death, respondent, who is Leonor s sister, adjudicated unto herself all these properties asthe sole sur i ing heir of Leonor and Mregoria. Eence, petitioners claim that the properties should ha e been reser ed b" respondent in theirbehalf and must now re ert bac to them, appl"ing Article &%$ of the i il ode on reser a troncal.

DECISI N F L 1ER C URTS:)$* R! granted their action for Reco er" of -ossession b" Reser a !roncal, ancellation of ! ! and Recon e"ance.)4* A re ersed and set aside the R! decision and dismissed the complaint (led b" petitioners. A also denied their motion forreconsideration.

ISSUES:A. !E< E+@+RABL< [ A MRI</+>=L; <RR<D I@ E+LDI@M !EA! !E< =>BJ< ! -R+-<R!I<= AR< @+! R<=<R/ABL< -R+-<R!I<=, +#I@M A=

!E<; D+ R+# !E< A#IL; LI@< + !E< -<!I!I+@<R= #<@D+ A=.B. !E< E+@+RABL< [ A MRI</+>=L; <RR<D I@ E+LDI@M !EA! !E< -<!I!I+@<R= #<@D+ A= D+ @+! EA/< A RIME! !+ !E< =>BJ< !

-R+-<R!I<= B; /IR!>< + !E< LA6 +@ R<=<R/A !R+@ AL.

APPLICABLE LA1:

!he principle of reser a troncal is pro ided in Article &%$ of the i il odeArt. &%$. !he ascendant who inherits from his descendant an" propert" which the latter ma" ha e ac8uired b" gratuitous title from anotherascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reser e such propert" as he ma" ha e ac8uired b" operation of law for the bene(t of relati eswho are within the third degree and belong to the line from which said propert" came. )<mphasis ours*

RULING@o, A is correct.



I. Reser a troncal is not applicable. Julia, who now holds the properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant within the pur iew of Article &%$ of the i il odeReser a troncal is a special rule designed primaril" to assure the return of a reser able propert" to the third degree relati es belonging to theline from which the propert" originall" came, and a oid its being dissipated into and b" the relati es of the inheriting ascendant.=creenshot^41$F0$104%^$2.3?.1'.png _

It should be pointed out that the ownership of the properties should be rec oned onl" from <xe8uiel s as he is the ascendant from where the(rst transmission occurred, or from whom Mregoria inherited the properties in dispute. !he law does not go farther than suchascendant7brother7sister in determining the lineal character of the propert". It was also immaterial for the A to determine whether <xe8uielpredeceased -lacido and Dominga or whether Mregoria predeceased <xe8uiel. 6hat is pertinent is that <xe8uiel owned the properties and heis the ascendant from whom the properties in dispute originall" came. Mregoria, on the other hand, is the descendant who recei ed theproperties from <xe8uiel b" gratuitous title.Article &%$ simpl" re8uires that the propert" should ha e been ac8uired b" the descendant or prepositus from an ascendant b" gratuitous orlucrati e title. A transmission is gratuitous or b" gratuitous title when the recipient does not gi e an"thing in return.$& At ris of beingrepetitious, what was clearl" established in this case is that the properties in dispute were owned b" <xe8uiel )ascendant*. After his death,Mregoria )descendant7prepositus* ac8uired the properties as inheritance.Article &%$ pro ides that the person obliged to reser e the propert" should be an ascendant )also nown as the reser or7reser ista* of thedescendant7prepositus. Julia, howe er, is not Mregoria s ascendant9 rather, she is Mregoria s collateral relati e.

II. -etitioners cannot be considered reser ees7reser atarios as the" are not relati es within the third degree of Mregoria from whom theproperties came. !he person from whom the degree should be rec oned is the descendant7prepositus`the one at the end of the line fromwhich the propert" came and upon whom the propert" last re ol ed b" descent. It is Mregoria in this case. -etitioners are Mregoria s fourthdegree relati es, being her (rst cousins. irst cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree relati es and are not reser ees or reser atarios. !he"cannot e en claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and /alentin as Article &%$ grants a personal right of reser ation onl" to therelati es up to the third degree from whom the reser able properties came. !he onl" recognized exemption is in the case of nephews andnieces of the prepositus, who ha e the right to represent their ascendants )fathers and mothers* who are the brothers7sisters of the prepositusand relati es within the third degree.

; . Ra)a i##a vs CA

Fa(ts: Alleja Belleza is the testatrix. =he owns a parcel of land which is the subject of this case. =he named Dr. Rabadilla was named in the will

of Alleja Belleza to recei e the subject propert". Along with the instrument was a codicil attached. It pro ides that Dr. Rabadilla shall pro ide#aria #arlina oscolluela " Belleza $11 piculs of sugar e er" "ear until her death.

!he codicil pro ides that the propert" ma" be sold but the obligation to deli er sugar to #aria shall not ceased and such obligation shall betransferred to the owner of the propert".

>opn the death of Dr. Rabadilla, he was succeeded b" his heirs, his wife and children.

In $%&% herein complainant #aria (led suit against the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla for failing to perform their obligation to deli er the $11 piculs of sugar e er" "ear, for the past four "ears. Also, the propert" was accordingl" mortgaged to ban s.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zjT9y5pB6Zs/VFC5_nViHxI/AAAAAAAABsg/4Sqg9eLu-rs/s1600/Screenshot%2B2014-10-29%2B17.56.03.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zjT9y5pB6Zs/VFC5_nViHxI/AAAAAAAABsg/4Sqg9eLu-rs/s1600/Screenshot%2B2014-10-29%2B17.56.03.png



Initiall" being declared in default, the son of Dr. Rabadilla (led an answer that the" executed an agreement with complainant that the" would just pro ide the e8ui alent monetar" alue of $11 piculs of sugar, but this was not followed. 31 piculs of sugar was onl" recei ed b" thecomplainant. !he !rial ourt dismissed the complaint.

+n appeal before the A, it re ersed the ruling of the !rial ourt and ruled in fa or of complainant ha ing found the respondents to ha e failedin their obligation in pursuant of the codicil executed b" Alleja Belleza.

ISSUE: 6hether or not omplainant has a cause of action in this case and the right to demand her right pursuant to the codicil.

He# : !he ourt held to aCrm the ruling of the A.

!he complainant had a legall" demandable right against the petitioner pursuant to subject odicil9 on which issue the ourt of Appeals ruled inaccordance with law.

It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent andcompulsor" heirs are called to succeed b" operation of law.

!hus, the petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsor" heirs of the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter b" operation of law, without need of further proceedings, and the successional rights albeit the obligation to deli er $11 piculs of sugar were transmitted tothem from the moment of death of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.

!he ourt further held that a 6ill i s a personal, solemn, re ocable and free act b" which a person disposes of his propert", to ta e e5ect afterhis death. =ince the 6ill expresses the manner in which a person intends how his properties be disposed, the wishes and desires of thetestator must be strictl" followed. !hus, a 6ill cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which would thereb" defeat the er" purposeof ma ing a 6ill.

;-. Nativi a vs Ga)i%!

Fa(ts: !estator !iburcio =al ador named Basilia Mabino as testate to recei e a propert" as expressed in his will and ha e ownership ordominion o er the same. !he executor of the will of !iburcio is herein petitioner <milio @ati idad, grandson and also an heir of !iburcio. !he

will of !iburcio pro ided that Basilia Mabino shall ha e dominion of the propert" until her death. >pon the death of Basilia the propert" is to bedeli ered to <milio @ati idad being an heir of !iburcio. <milio @ati idad howe er is supposed to gi e compensation of F,111 pesos upon thedeli er" of the propert" to him.

During the lifetime of Basilia Mabino, <milio @ati idad proposed for the partition of the propert", as Basilia was allegedl" onl" a usufruct andgeneral legac" belongs to <milio @ati idad. =uch partition was opposed b" Mabino.

ISSUE: 6hether or not the partition ma" be made

6hat construction must be made regarding the will of !iburcio bestowing upon Basilia ownership and dominion o er the propert"



HELD: !he ourt Eeld to rule in faor of Mabino. !he ourt Eeld that the partition ma" not be made.

!he will is clear that during her lifetime, Basilia Mabino shall ha e ownership and dominion o er the propert". It is onl" upon the condition of her death that <milio @ati idad obtain a right to demand for the possession of the propert".

!he condition imposed b" the testator in the double legac" mentioned depends upon the happening of the e ent constituting the condition, towit, the death of the legatee Basilia Mabino, a perfectl" legal condition according to article $$$F of the i il code, as it is not impossible of performance and is not contrar" to law or public morals, as pro ided in article $$$? of said code.

If the Basilia Mabino should die, this propert" instead of passing to the successor, would re ert to the testatorKs grandson and heir, pro idedthat he in turn would pa" to Lorenzo =al ador, successor of Basilia Mabino, the sum of -F,111.

compilation of succession case digest 1

Documents