Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
further proceedings,
defendant-appellee.
with
costs
against
Balonan vs Abellana
Anacleta Abellana left a will. In said will, she let
a certain Juan Bello sign the will for her. The
will consists of two pages. The first page is
signed by Juan Abello and under his name
appears typewritten Por la testadora Anacleta
Abellana. On the second page, appears the
signature of Juan Bello under whose name
appears the phrase, Por la Testadora Anacleta
Abellana this time, the phrase is
handwritten.
ISSUE: Whether or not the signature of Bello
appearing above the typewritten phrase Por la
testadora Anacleta Abellana comply with the
requirements of the law prescribing the
manner in which a will shall be executed.
HELD: No. Article 805 of the Civil Code provides
that:
Every will, other than a holographic will, must
be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself or by the testators name
written by some other person in his presence,
and by his express direction, and attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses
in the presence of the testator and of one
another.
In the case at bar the name of the testatrix,
Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written
under the will by said Abellana herself, or by
Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to
comply with the express requirement in the law
that the testator must himself sign the will, or
that his name be affixed thereto by some other
person in his presence and by his express
direction.
Note that the phrase Por la testadora Anacleta
Abellana was typewritten and above it was
the signature of Abello so in effect, when
Abello only signed his name without writing
that he is doing so for Anacleta, he actually
omitted the name of the testatrix. This is a
substantial violation of the law and would
render the will invalid.
Nera vs. Remando
When a certain will was being signed, it was
alleged that the testator and some subscribing
witnesses were in the inner room while the
other subscribing witnesses were in the outer
room. What separates the inner room from the
outer room was a curtain. The trial court
Abellana vs Ledesma
Garcia vs. Vasquez
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.
Acain vs. LAC
FACTS:
Constantitno filed for probate of the will of his
decased brother Nemesio. The spouse and
adopted child of the decedentopposed the
probate of will because of preterition. RTC
dismissed the petition of the wife. CA reversed
and the probatethus was dismissed
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was preterition of
compulsory heirs in the direct line thus their
omission shall not annul the
institution of heirs
.RULING:
Preterition consists in the omission of the
forced heirs because they are not mentioned
there in, or trough mentioned theyare neither
instituted
as
heirs
nor
are
expressly
disinherited. As for the widow there is no
Labrador vs. CA
Maloto vs. CA
Facts:
1. Petitioners and respondents are the
neices/nephews or Adriana Maloto who died in
1963. The four heirs believed that the
deceased did not leave a will, hesnce they
filed an intestate proceeding. However, the
parties executed an extrajudicial settlement of
the estate dividing it into four equal parts.
2. In 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, ex-associate of
the deceased's counsel allegedly discovered
her last will which was purportedly dated 1940,
inside a cabinet. Hence the annulment of the
proceedings and a probate petition was filed by
not
there
was
valid