Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 15566
on
FACTS:
This case is about the dismissal of a petition for
the probate of the notarial will of the late
Rogaciano Gabucan on the ground that it does
not bear a thirty-centavo documentary stamp.
The probate court refused to reconsider the
dismissal in spite of petitioners manifestation
that he had already attached the documentary
stamp to the original of the will.
ISSUE:
W/N the probate correct was correct in
dismissing the petition on the ground of failure to
affix the documentary stamp to the will
HELD:
JOSE
ANTONIO
GABUCAN,
petitionerappellant,
vs.
HON. JUDGE LUIS D. MANTA JOSEFA G. VDA.
DE YSALINA and NELDA G. ENCLONAR,
respondents-appellees.
Ignacio A. Calingin for appellant.
AQUINO, J.:
SEC. 238.
Effect of failure to stamp taxable
document. An instrument, document, or paper
which is required by law to be stamped and
which has been signed, issued, accepted, or
transferred without being duly stamped, shall not
be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or
any record of transfer of the same be admitted
or used in evidence in any court until the
requisite stamp or stamps shall have been
affixed thereto and cancelled.
No notary public or other officer authorized to
administer oaths shall add his jurat or
acknowledgment to any document subject to
documentary stamp tax unless the proper
documentary stamps are affixed thereto and
cancelled.
The probate court assumed that the notarial
acknowledgment of the said will is subject to the
thirty-centavo documentary stamp tax fixed in
section 225 of the Tax Code, now section 237 of
the 1977 Tax Code.
Respondent Judge refused to reconsider the
dismissal in spite of petitioner's manifestation
that he had already attached the documentary
stamp to the original of the will. (See Mahilum
vs. Court of Appeals, 64 O. G. 4017, 17 SCRA
482, 486.)
The case was brought to this Court by means of
a petition for mandamus to compel the lower
court to allow petitioner's appeal from its
decision. In this Court's resolution of January 21,
1980 the petition for mandamus was treated in
the interest of substantial and speedy justice as
an appeal under Republic Act No. 5440 as well
as a special civil action of certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court.
We hold that the lower court manifestly erred in
declaring that, because no documentary stamp
was affixed to the will, there was "no will and
testament to probate" and, consequently, the
alleged "action must of necessity be dismissed".
09 February 2013
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.
Petitioner-Appellee, v.
ET AL., Oppositors-
FACTS:
1. The alleged will of Victor Pulgueras was
admitted to probate.
2. The testimony of only one to the attesting
witnesses was taken.
3. The testimony was:
a) that the 6 pages of the will were signed on the
margin by the testator and two of the witnesses
on January 4, 1931;
b) the remaining three pages were signed by the
testator and the three attesting witnesses on
January 11, 1931, and that the third attesting
witness then signed the first six pages.
ISSUE:
Was the will executed properly?
HELD:
Such an execution of the will was not in
conformity with the law. Under our statute, the
execution of a will is supposed to be one act and
cannot be legally effective if the various
participants sign on various days and in various
combinations of those present.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
ESGUERRA, J.:
Petition to review on certiorari the judgment of
the Court First Instance of Cebu allowing the
probate of the last will a testament of the late
Valente Z. Cruz. Petitioner-appellant Agapita N.
Cruz, the surviving spouse of the said decease
opposed the allowance of the will (Exhibit "E"),
05 January 2013
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.
ART. 806.
Every
will
must
be
acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses. The notary public
shall not be required to retain a copy of the will
or file another with the office of the Clerk of
Court. [Emphasis supplied]
1641
A.
1641
I signed it first, and afterwards
Aniceto and the others.
Q.
1641
Who were those others to whom
you have just referred?
A.
1641
After the witness Aniceto signed
the will I left the house, because I was in a hurry,
and at the moment when I was leaving I saw
Julio Javellana with the pen in his hand in
position ready to sign (en actitud de firmar). I
believe he signed, because he was at the
table. . . .
Q.
1641
State positively whether Julio
Javellana did or did not sign as a witness to the
will.
A.
1641
I can't say certainly, because as I
was leaving the house I saw Julio Javellana with
the pen in his hand, in position ready to sign. I
believe he signed.
Q.
1641
Javellana signed?
A.
1641
Because he had the pen in his
hand, which was resting on the paper, though I
did not actually see him sign.
Q.
1641
statement.
A.
1641
After I signed I asked permission
to leave, because I was in a hurry, and while I
was leaving Julio had already taken the pen in
his hand, as it appeared, for the purpose of
signing, and when I was near the door I
happened to turn my face and I saw that he had
his hand with the pen resting on the will, moving
it as if for the purpose of signing.
Q.
1641
State positively whether Julio
moved his hand with the pen as if for the
purpose of signing, or whether he was signing
A.