Austria v. Reyes Digest

Austria v. Reyes 

Facts:

1. Basilia Austria executed a will wherein the bulk of her estate was given to the respondents, alll have been declared by the former as her legally adopted children.

2. During her lifetime, Basilia filed a petition for the probate of her will. It was opposed by the petitioners who are the nephews and nieces. The opposition was dismissed and the will was allowed.

3. In 1954, the petitioners filed a petition for intervention for partition alleging that they were the nearest kin of Basilia and that the respondent had not been in fact adopted by the decedent in accordance with law, hence the latter were strangers with no right to succeed as heirs.

4. The lower court held that the validity or invalidity is not material to the institution of heirs. It held that the testator was possessed of testamentary capacity and her last will was executed free from falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence.

Issue: Whether or not the institution of the heir is valid

RULING: Yes. The general rule is that the falsity of the stated cause for the testamentary institution does not affect the validity or efficacy of the institution. An exception to the rule is that the falsity will set aide the institution if certain factors are present. Before the institution of the heirs will be annulled under Art. 850 the following requisites must concur; 1) the cause must be stated in the will, 2) the cause is shown to be false, and 3) it must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity. Moreover, testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side especially when the will shows a clear intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate as in this case.

Nepomuceno v. CA Digests

Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals

Facts:

1. Martin Hugo died on 1974 and he left a will wherein he instituted Sofia Nepomuceno as the sole and only executor. It was also provided therein that he was married to Rufina Gomez with whom he had 3 children.

2. Petitioner (Sofia) filed for the probate of the will but the legal wife and her children opposed alleging that the will was procured through improper and undue influence and that there was an admission of concubinage with the petitioner.

3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground of the testator's admission of cohabitation, hence making the will invalid on its face. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the will is valid except the devise in favor of the petitioner which is null and void in violation of Art. 739 and 1028.

Issue: Whether or not the court can pass on the intrinsic validity of a will

RULING: Yes, as an exception. But the general rule is that the court's area of inquiry is limited to the an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the will. This general rule is however not inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and may pass upon certain provisions of the will. The will itself admitted on its face the relationship between the testator and the petitioner.

The will was validly executed in accordance with law but the court didn't find it to serve a practical purpose to remand the nullified provision in a separate action for that purpose only since in the probate of a will, the court does not ordinarily look into the intrinsic validity of its provisions.

The devisee is invalid by virtue of Art. 739 which voids a donation made between persons guilty of adultery/concubinage at the time of the donations. Under Art, 1028 it is also prohibited.

Dela Cerna v. Potot Digest

Dela Cerna v. Potot Digest

Facts:

1. The spouses Bernabe Dela Serna and Gerasisa Rebabca executed a joint will where they gave two (2) parcels of land to manuela Rebaca, a niece, as they didn't have their own child. When Bernabe died, the said will was probated in 1939.

2. Another petition for probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed in 1952 but due to the failure of the petitioner (Manuela) to appears, the same was dismissed in 1954. 

3. The CFI held the petition (Bernabe probate) to be null and void as it is contrary to law. While the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the decree of probate in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction and conclusive as to the due execution of the will. Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid

RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision and held that Once a decree of probate becomes final in accordance with the rules of procedure, it is res judicata. THe final decree of probate entered in 1939 in the CFI of Cebu is conclusive as to the last will of Bernabe despite the fact that even then the Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of joint wills. (There was an error on the court but the decree has now become final.)

The probate court committed an error of law which should have been corrected on appeals but which did not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, nor the conclusive effect of its final decision. A decision which is binding upon the whole world.

Nevertheless, the probate in 1939 only affected the share of Bernabe and could not include the disposition of the share of his wife which was still alive then, her properties were still not within the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, the validity of the will with respect to her, must be on her death, be re-examined and adjudicated de novo -- since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator.

Guevara v Guevara Digest

Guevara v. Guevara Digest

Facts:

1. Victorino Guevara executed a will in 1931 wherein he made various bequests t his wife, stepchildren, wife in the 2nd marriage. He has a legitimate son Ernesto and a natural daughter Rosario. Therein, he acknowledged Rosario as his natural daughter.

2. In 1933, Victorino died but his last will was never presented for probate nor was there any settlement proceeding initiated. It appeared that only his son Ernest possessed the land which he adjudicated to himself. While Rosario who had the will in her custody, did nothing to invoke the acknowledgment, as well as the devise given to her.

3. Subsequently, Rosario filed an action for the recovery of her legitime from Ernesto, a portion of a large parcel of land invoking the acknowledgment contained in the will and based on the assumption that the decedent died intestate because his will was not probated. She alleged that the disposition in favor of Ernesto should be disregarded.

4. The lower court and the Court of Appeals sustained Rosario's theory.

Issue: Whether or not the probate of a will can be dispensed with

RULING: No. Rosario's contention violates procedural law and considered an attempt to circumvent the last will and testament of the decedent. The presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and its allowance is essential and indispensable to its efficacy.

Suppression of the wil is contrary to law and public policy for without probate, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory.

Diaz v. De Leon Digest

Diaz v. De Leon 
G.R. No. 17714 May 31, 1922

Facts:
1. Jesus de Leon executed 2 wills, the second will was not deemed in conformance to the requirements under the law. After executing his first will, he asked it to be immediately returned to him. As it was returned, he instructed his servant to tear it. This was done in the testator's presence and his nurse. After sometime, he was asked by his physician about the incident wherein he replied that the will has already been destroyed.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation of the will

RULING: Yes. His intention to revoke is manifest from the facts that he was anxious to withdraw or change the provisions he made in the first will. This fact was shown from his own statements to the witnesses and the mother superior of the hospital where he was subsequently confined. The original will which was presented for probate is deemed destroyed hence, it cannot be probated as the last will and testament of testator.

Molo v. Molo Digest

Molo vs. Molo

G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951

Bautista Angelo, J. (Ponente)

Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation

Facts:

1. Marcos Molo executed 2 wills, one in August 1918 and another in June 1939. The latter will contained a revocation clause which expressly revoked the will in 1918. He died without any forced heirs but he was survived by his wife, herein petitioner Juana. The oppositors to the probate were his nephews and nieces.

2. Only a carbon copy of the second will was found. The widow filed a petition for the probate of the 1939 will. It was admitted to probate but subsequently set aside on ground that the petitioner failed to prove its due execution. 

3. As a result, the petitioner filed another petition for the probate of the 1918 will this time. Again the oppositors alleged that said will had already been revoked under the 1939 will. They contended that despite the disallowance of the 1939 will, the revocation clause is valid and thus effectively nullified the 1918 will.

Issue: Whether or not the 1918 will can still be valid despite the revocation in the subsequent disallowed 1939 will

RULING: Yes.The court applied the doctrine laid down in Samson v. Naval that a subsequent will,containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the reason that it was not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will, inasmuch as the said revocatory clause is void.

There was no valid revocation in this case. No evidence was shown that the testator deliberately destroyed the original 1918 will because of his knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in the will executed in 1939.The earlier will can still be probated under the principle of dependent relative revocation.The doctrine applies when a testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with the intention to make a new testamentary disposition as substitute for the old, and the new disposition fails of effect for some reason.

Gago v. Mamuyac Digest

Gago vs. Mamuyac 

G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927

Johnson, J. (Ponente)

Facts: 

1. Previously, Francisco Gago filed a petition for the probate of a will of Miguel Mamuyac executed on July 27, 1918. The oppositors alleged that the said will was already annulled and revoked. It appeared that on April 16, 1919, the deceased executed another will. The lower court denied the probate of the first will on the ground of the existence of the second will.

2. Another petition was filed to seek the probate of the second will. The oppositors alleged that the second  will presented was merely a copy. According to the  witnesses, the said will was allegedly revoked as per the testimony of Jose Tenoy, one of the witnesses who typed the document. Another witness testified that on December 1920 the original will was actually cancelled by the testator.  

3. The lower court denied the probate and held that the same has been annulled and revoked.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation of the will

RULING: Yes. The will was already cancelled in 1920. This was inferred when after due search, the original will cannot be found. When the will which cannot be found in shown to be in the possession of the testator when last seen, the presumption is that in the absence of other competent evidence, the same was deemed cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption applies when it is shown that the testator has ready access to the will and it can no longer be found after his death.

Gonzales v. Court of Appeals (CA) Digest

Gonzales v. CA

G.R. No. L-37453 May 25, 1979
Guerrero, J. (Ponente)

Facts: 

1. Petitioner Rizalina Gonzales and Lutgarda Santiago (Private respondent) are the nieces of the deceased Isabel Gabriel who died a widow. A will was thereafter submitted to probate. The said will was typewritten, in Tagalog and appeared to have been executed in April 1961 or two months prior to the death of Isabel. It consisted of 5 pages including the attestation and acknowledgment, with the signature of testatrix on page 4 and the left margin of all the pages.

2. Lutgarda was named as the universal heir and executor. The petitioner opposed the probate. 

3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with law on the issue of the competency and credibility of the witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the credibility of the subscribing witnesses is material to the validity of a will

RULING: No. The law requires only that witnesses posses the qualifications under Art. 820 (NCC) and none of the disqualifications of Art. 802. There is no requirement that they are of good standing or reputation in the community, for trustworthiness, honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony is believed and accepted in court. For the testimony to be credible, it is not mandatory that evidence be established on record that the witnesses have good standing in the the community. Competency is distinguished from credibility, the former being determined by Art. 820 while the latter does not require evidence of such good standing. Credibility depends on the convincing weight of his testimony in court.

Kalaw v. Relova Digest

Kalaw v. Relova

G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984

Melencio-Herrera, J. (Ponente)

Facts:

1. Gregorio Kalaw, the private respondent, claiming to be the sole heir of sister Natividad, filed a peition for probate of the latter's holographic will in 1968. The will contained 2 alterations: a) Rosa's name, designated as the sole heir was crossed out and instead "Rosario" was written above it. Such was not initialed, b) Rosa's name was crossed out as sole executrix and Gregorio's ma,e was written above it. This alteration was initialed by the testator.

2. Rosa contended that the will as first written should be given effect so that she would be the sole heir. The lower court denied the probate due to the unauthenticated alterations and additions.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid

RULING: No, the will is voided or revoked since nothing remains in the will which could remain valid as there was only one disposition in it. Such was altered by the substitution of the original heir with another. To rule that the first will should be given effect is to disregard the testatrix' change of mind. However, this change of mind cannot be given effect either as she failed to authenticate it in accordance with Art. 814, or by affixing her full signature.

Garcia v. Vasquez Digest

Garcia v. Vasquez 

G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969

Fernando, J (Ponente)

Facts:

1. Gliceria del Rosario executed 2 wills, one in June 1956, written in Spanish, a language she knew an spoke. The other will was executed in December 1960 consisting of only one page, and written in Tagalog. The witnesses to the 1960 will declared that the will was first read 'silently' by the testatrix before signing it. The probate court admitted the will.

2. The oppositors alleged that the as of December 1960, the eyesight of the deceased was so poor and defective that she could not have read the provisions contrary to the testimony of the witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid

RULING: The will is not valid. If the testator is blind, Art. 808 of the New Civil Code (NCC) should apply.If the testator is blind or incapable of reading, he must be apprised of the contents of the will for him to be able to have the opportunityto object if the provisions therein are not in accordance with his wishes.

The testimony of her opthalmologist established that notwithstanding an operation to remove her cataract and being fitted with the lenses, this did not improve her vision. Her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading. There was no evidence that her vision improved at the time of the execution of the 2nd will. Hence, she was incapable of reading her own will. The admission of the will to probate is therefor erroneous.

Javellana v. Ledesma Digest

Javellana vs. Ledesma

G.R. No. L-7179

Facts:

1. The CFI of Iloilo admitted to probate a will and codicil executed by the deceased Apolinaria Ledesma in July 1953. This testament was deemed executed on May 1950 and May 1952. The contestant was the sister and nearest surviving relative of the deceased.  She appealed from this decision alleging that the will were not executed in accordance with law. 

2. The testament was executed at the house of the testatrix. One the other hand, the codicil was executed after the enactment of the New Civil Code (NCC), and therefore had to be acknowledged before a notary public. Now, the contestant, who happens to be one of the instrumental witnesses asserted that after the codicil was signed and attested at the San Pablo hospital, that Gimotea (the notary) signed and sealed it on the same occasion. Gimotea, however, said that he did not do so, and that the act of signing and sealing was done afterwards.

2. One of the allegations was that the certificate of acknowledgement to the codicil was signed somewhere else or in the office of the notary. The ix and the witnesses at the hospital, was signed and sealed by the notary only when he brought it in his office.

Issue: Whether or not the signing and sealing of the will or codicil in the absence of the testator and witnesses affects the validity of the will

RULING: NO. Unlike in the Old Civil Code of 1899, the NCC does not require that the signing of the testator, the witnesses and the notary be accomplished in one single act. All that is required is that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and witnesses. The subsequent signing and sealing is not part of the acknowledgement itself nor of the testamentary act. Their separate execution out of the presence of the testator and the witnesses cannot be a violation of the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption.

Icasiano v. Icasiano Digest

Icasiano vs. Icasiano
G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964


Facts:
1. Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa Villacorte and for his appointment as executor thereof. It appears from the evidence that the testatrix died on September 12, 1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer, it was prepared in duplicates, an original and a carbon copy.

2. On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original copy of the will while the carbon duplicate (unsigned) was left in Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed to sign one of the pages in the original copy but admitted he may have lifted 2 pages simultaneously instead when he signed the will. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will was signed by the testator and other witnesses in his presence.

Issue: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient to deny probate of the will

RULING: No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere inadvertence. Since the duplicated bore the required signatures, this proves that the omission was not intentional. Even if the original is in existence, a duplicate may still be admitted to probate since the original is deemed to be defective, then in law, there is no other will bu the duly signed carbon duplicate and the same can be probated.

The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she has no control of. Where the purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages, and there is no intentional or deliberate deviation existed.

Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules that the will should be signed by the witnesses on every page. The carbon copy duplicate was regular in all respects.

Barut v. Cabacungan Digest

Barut vs. Cabacungan
G.R. L-6825 Febriary 15, 1912
Ponente: SC Justice Moreland

Facts:
1.Pedro Barut applied for the probate of the will of Maria Salomon. It is alleged in the petition that testatrix died on Nov. 1908 in Sinait, Ilocos Sur leaving the will dated March 3, 1907. The said will was witnessed by  3 persons. From the terms it appears that the petitioner received a larger part of decedent's property. After this disposition, the testatrix revoked all other wills and stated that since she is unable to read nor write, the will was read to her and that she has instructed Severino Agapan, one of the witnesses to sign her name in her behalf.

2. The lower court ruled that the will is not entitled to probate on the sole ground that the handwriting of the person who signed the name of the testatrix does not appear to be that of Agapan but that of another witness.

Issue: Whether or not a will's validity is affected when the person instructed by a testator to write his name did not sign his name

HELD: No, it is immaterial who wrote the name of the testator provided it is written at her request and in her present, and in the presence of the witnesses. This is the only requirement under Sec. 618 of the Civil Code of procedure at that time.

Cruz v. Villasor Digest

Cruz v. Villasor 

G.R. L-32213 November 26, 1973

Ponente: Esguerra, J.:

Facts:

1. The CFI of Cebu allowed the probate of the last will and testament of the late Valenti Cruz. However, the petitioner opposed the allowance of the will alleging that it was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and undue influence. He further alleged that the instrument was executed without the testator having been informed of its contents and finally, that it was not executed in accordance with law.

2. One of the witnesses, Angel Tevel Jr. was also the notary before whom the will was acknowledged. Despite the objection, the lower court admitted the will to probate on the ground that there is substantial compliance with the legal requirements of having at least 3 witnesses even if the notary public was one of them.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid in accordance with Art. 805 and 806 of the NCC

HELD: NO.

The will is not valid. The notary public cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the said will. An acknowledging officer cannot serve as witness at the same time.

To acknowledge before means to avow, or to own as genuine, to assent, admit, and 'before' means in front of or preceding in space or ahead of. The notary cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his participation int he making of the will. To permit such situation would be absurd.

Finally, the function of a notary among others is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements, a function defeated if he were to be one of the attesting or instrumental witnesses. He would be interested in sustaining the validity of the will as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. he would be in an inconsistent position, thwarting the very purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud.

Garcia v. Lacuesta Digest

Garcia v. Lacuesta 

G.R. L-4067 November 29, 1951

Ponente: Paras, C.J.

Facts:

1. The CA disallowed the probate of the will of Antero Mercado dated Jan 1943. The said will was written in Ilocano dialect.

2. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of the testator followed below by 'A ruego del testador' and the name of Florentino Javier. In effect, it was signed by another although under the express direction of the testator. This fact however was not recited in the attestation clause. Mercado also affixed a cross on the will.

3. The lower court admitted the will to probate but this order was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the attestation failed to recite the facts surrounding the signing of the testator and the witnesses. 

Issue: Whether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid

HELD: NO the attestation is fatally defective for its failure to state that Antero or the testator caused Atty. Javier to write the former's name under his express direction as required by Sec. 618 of the Civil Procedure. Finally, on the cross affixed on the will by the testator, the Court held that it is not prepared to liken the mere sign of a cross to a thumbmark for obvious reasons- the cross does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark so it is not considered as a valid signature.