Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Andres (NO)
Topic:
After the execution of the extra judicial settlement, Jose sold the lot
to Spouses Andres, Jose was suffering from partial paralysis and
could no longer sign his name.
Hence, the current petition.
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing petitioners complaint NO
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 10, 2004 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 78362 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio:
On November 5, 2003, petitioners' previous counsel was notified by
the CA to file appellants' brief within 45 days from receipt of the
notice. Before the expiration of the 45-day period, petitioners' former
counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance and petitioners
consented.
On December 19, petitioners asked for a 30-day extension, which
will expire on January 21. Then on March 3, they asked for a 45-day
fresh period to file their appellants brief.
CA issued a resolution noting the withdrawal of petitioners
previous counsel, requiring the petitioner to cause the Entry of
Appearance of its new counsel, and granting an extension of 75-days
from December 21, 2003 or until March 5, 2004.
Appellant received the CA resolution on April 6. Thereafter they
approached PAO to appear as their counsel. However the CA
dismissed petitioners appeal for failure to file the appellants brief.
Based on the later part of the ratio (Sorry gulo ng pagkasulat ng case)
Filomena Santos Vda de Alfonso and Jose Alfonso, father of herein
petitioners, executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate of
Marcelino Alfonso.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
vs.
Imee Marcos-Manotoc, Bongbong Marcos, Gregorio Araneta III, Irene
Marcos-Araneta, Yeung Chun Fan, Yeung Chun Ho, Yeung Chun Kam, and
Pantranco Employees Association (PEA) - PTGWO, respondents
G.R. No. 171701 February, 2012
Sereno, J.
Point of the case: UNDER THE RULES OF SUCCESSION, the heirs
instantaneously became CO-OWNERS of the Marcos properties upon the
death of the President. Thus, three causes of action in this case correctly
refer to the Marcos siblings, to wit: (1) to return; and (2) reconvey ill gottenwealth amassed by their father and family as a whole; and (3) to render an
accounting and inventory. As such, they are supposed to be maintained as
respondents.
Facts:
o
Note: all the other "facts" in this case relate to evidence, demurrer,
formal offer of evidence (not relevant to succession)
Formal offer of evidence of petitioner
Respondents contested it as they alleged that it violated
the "best-evidence" rule because they were
unauthenticated
The pieces of evidence were admitted, with some
reservations
Respondents filed demurrers to evidence
Initial Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
Imelda denied
All the rest accepted
Imee Marcos and Bongbong Marcos - their involvement in
the alleged illegal activities was never established
Their relationship to the Marcos spouses was not
enough reason to hold them liable
Irene Marcos and Gregorio Araneta - there was no
testimonial or documentary evidence that supported
petitioner's allegations against the couple
Yeungs - the court found the allegations against them
baseless
PEA-PTGWO - there was a need to first determine the
ownership of the disputed funds before they could be
ordered released
December 20 2005
Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration
They insisted that there was a preponderance of evidence
to show that respondents Marcos siblings and Araneta
had connived with the parents in acquiring the ill-gotten
wealth
It pointed out that the respondents were compulsory
heirs to the deposed President and were thus obliged to
render an accounting and to return the ill-gotten wealth
Motion denied
Hence, this petition
Issues:
o WON the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the demurrers to evidence
filed by Respondents
o
o
o
o
WON Gregorio Araneta and Irene Marcos connived with the former
president in unlawfully acquiring business interests
WON by virtue of them being compulsory heirs, Imee, Bongbong and
Irene are equally obliged to render an accounting and return the
alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses
WON there exists concrete evidence proving that the Yeungs acted as
dummies for the corporation as a conduit in amassing the ill-gotten
wealth
WON the demurrer filed by intervenor PEA-PTGWO should have been
granted
WON the evidence presented by the petitioner are inadmissible
Held:
o
Ratio:
o
o
o
o
Succession:*Arts.*7812783*
1.*BALUS*v.*BALUS*(NO)*
Topic:*Article(781(
(
G.R.(No.(168970(
January(15,(2010(
J.#Peralta#
#
Petitioner:*CELESTINO(BALUS(
Respondent:* SATURNINO( BALUS( and( LEONARDA( BALUS( VDA.( DE(
CALUNOD(
(
Facts:(
The(parties(of(this(case(are(the(children(of(the(spouses(Rufo(
and(Sebastiana(Balus.(
In(1979,(Rufo(mortgaged(a(parcel(of(land,(which(he(owns,(as(
security(for(a(loan(he(obtained(from(the(Rural(Bank(of(Maigo,(
Lanao(del(Norte((Bank).(
o Rufo( failed( to( pay( his( loan,( the( land( was( foreclosed(
and( was( subsequently( bought( by( the( bank( as( the(
highest(bidder.((
In( October( 1989,( the( parties( of( this( case,( executed( an(
extrajudicial( settlement( of( estate( adjudicating( to( each( of(
them(a(specific(oneWthird(portion(of(the(subject(property.(
o The(parties(also(admitted(the(fact(of(the(mortgage(by(
their(father(and(that(they(intend(to(redeem(it(as(soon(
as(possible.(
Three( years( after( the( execution( of( the( Extrajudicial(
Settlement,( herein( respondents( (Saturnino( and( Leonarda)(
bought(the(subject(property(from(the(Bank.(
(
Issue:(
WON( coWownership( of( the( parties( still( existed( up( to( the( time( it( was(
bought(by(respondents((NO(
(
Held:*
WHEREFORE,(the(instant(petition(is(DENIED.((The(assailed(Decision(of(
the(Court(of(Appeals,(dated(May(31,(2005(in(CAWG.R.(CV(No.(58041,(is(
AFFIRMED.(
*
Ratio:*
1.(Petitioners(arguments;(intention(to(continue(coWownership(
Petitioner( argues( that( the( extrajudicial( settlement( is( the( law(
between(parties(
2.*Seangio*v.*Reyes*(EM)*
(
Dy(Yieng(Seangio,(Barbara(Seangio(and(Virginia(Seangio,(petitioners(
##
vs.(
((
Hon.( Amor( Reyes( (Judge( W( RTC( NCR( Branch( 21( Manila),( Alfredo(
Seangio,( Alberto( Seangio,( Elisa( SeangioWSantos,( Victor( Seangio,(
Alfonso( Seangio,( Shirley( SeangioWLim,( Betty( Seangio( and( James(
Seangio,(respondents(
##
G.R.(Nos.(140371W72(November(27,(2006(
((
Azcuna,(J.:(
((
FACTS:(
o
September(21,(1988((
They(also(prayed(for(the(appointment(of(Elisa(
SeangioWSantos( as( special( administrator( and(
guardian(ad(litem(of(Dy(Yieng.(
Segundo*left*a*holographic*will*disinheriting*
one*of*the*respondent*Seangios*
On(the(ground(that(the(document(purported(
to( be( the( holographic( will( does* not* contain* and*
disposition* of* the* estate* of* the* deceased( WWW( thus*
does* not* meet* the* definition* of* a* will* under* Art.*
783*of*the*CC(
It*only*shows*disinheritance,(nothing(else(
No(compulsory(heir(was(named(nor(instituted(
as(heir,(devisee(or(legatee(
HENCE,(there(is(preterition(which(would(lead(
to(intestacy((
Petitioner(filed(their(opposition(
Disinheritance*constitutes*a*disposition*of*the*estate*
of*a*decedent*
RTC(dismissed(the(petition(for(probate(proceedings(
The( lower( court( cited( the( case( of( Acain( v.( IAC( which(
stated( that( tolerating( a( will( when( on( its( face,( is(
intrinsically(void,(is(an(exercise(of(futility.(
Thus,(this(petition(
((
ISSUES:(
o
WON( Respondent( Judge( erred( in( ruling( on( the( intrinsic(
validity(of(the(will(despite(the(settled(rule(that(the(authority(of(
probate(courts(is(limited(only(to(a(determination(of(its(extrinsic(
validity( (i.e.( Due( execution,( testator's( testamentary( capacity,(
Under(art.(810(of(the(CC,(a(holographic(will(must(be(
Entirely(written(
Dated(and(signed(by(the(hand(of(the(testator(
himself(
Segundo's*document,*though*may*it*come*as*a*mere*
disinheritance* instrument,* conforms* to* the* formalities*
precribed*by*law(W(written,#dated#and#signed#by(Segundo(
himself(
The( intent( or( will( of( the( testator,( so( long( as( it( is(
expressed(in(the(form(and(within(the(limits(prescribed(by(
law,(must(be(recognized(as(the(supreme(law(in(succession(
The(mere(mention(of(the(name(of(one(of(the(
petitioners,( Virginia,( did( not( operate( to( institute(
her( as( a( universal( heir( W( included( plainly( as( a(
witness(
Considering(that(the(document(is(Segundo's(will(and(that(the(
law(favors(testacy(over(intestacy,(the(probate(of(the(will(cannot(
be( dispensed( with( W( thus,( the( testate( proceedings( for( the(
settlement( of( the( estate( takes( precedence( over( intestate(
proceedings(for(the(same(purpose.(
(
*
Succession
Atty. Balane
BLOCK A 2015
o
Article 799-800
o
1. ORTEGA v. VALMONTE
G.R. No. 157451 - December 16, 2005
J. Panganiban
Petitioner: LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA
Respondent: JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE
Facts:
Placido worked in the U.S. until his retirement. In 1980, he went back
to the Philippines. At the age of 80, he married Josefina in 1982.
o Placido died on October 8, 1984
Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English
and consisting of two (2) pages, and dated June 15, 1983 but
acknowledged only on August 9, 1983.
Pertinent portions of the will:
I give, devise and bequeath unto my loving wife, JOSEFINA C.
VALMONTE, one half (1/2) portion of the follow-described properties
which belongs to me:
(a) Lot 4-A, Block 13, situated in Makati, registered jointly as co-owners with
my deceased sister (Ciriaca Valmonte)
(b) 2-storey building standing on the above-described property
All the rest, residue and remainder of my real and personal properties,
including my savings account bank book in USA which is in the possession
of my nephew, and all others whatsoever and wherever found, I give, devise
and bequeath to my said wife, Josefina C. Valmonte;
I hereby appoint my wife, Josefina C. Valmonte as sole executrix of my last
will and testament, and it is my will that said executrix be exempt from filing
a bond
Josefinas Side
Josefina testified that they live in La Union but they came to Manila
every month to get her husbands pension and stayed in the Makati
Residence.
In order to shave off expenses, Placido(Testator) would travel alone
and it was in one of his travels by his lonesome self when the notarial
will was made.
o Josefa said that she had no knowledge about it but just
serendipitously found it in his attache case after his death.
o Josefina declared too that the testator never suffered mental
infirmity because despite his old age he went alone to the
market which is two to three kilometers from their home
cooked and cleaned the kitchen.
Notary Public Floro Sarmiento testified that on June 1983, the
testator, together with the three witnesses, went to law office and
requested him to prepare his last will and testament.
o After the testator instructed him on the terms and
dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public told
them to come back on June 15, 1983 to give him time to
prepare it.
o He was out of town on the said date, so Placido(with the
witnesses) went back on August 9. On the said date, before
the signing of the will, Floro explained to them each and
every term thereof in Ilocano (which Placido spoke and
understood).
o He likewise explained that though it appears that the will
was signed by the testator and his witnesses on June 15, the
day when it should have been executed had he not gone out
of town, the formal execution was actually on August 9.
Spouses Gomez (Witness) testified, that the testator executed the will
in question in their presence while he was of sound and disposing
mind and that he was strong and in good health; that the contents of
the will was explained by the notary public in the Ilocano and
Succession
Atty. Balane
Tagalog dialect and that all of them as witnesses attested and signed
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other
Leticias Opposition
She declared that, Josefina should not inherit alone because aside
from her there are other children from the siblings of Placido who
are just as entitled to inherit from him
The testator was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound
mind.
During the time when the testator lived with her, Placidos physical
and mental condition showed deterioration, aberrations and senility.
This was corroborated by her daughter Mary Jane Ortega for whom
Placido took a fancy and wanted to marry
RTC-CA
RTC ruled in favor of Leticia
CA reversed it.
o It upheld the credibility of the notary public and the
witnesses
o It added that his sexual exhibitionism and unhygienic,
crude and impolite ways did not make him a person of
unsound mind. (So JT, by idolizing Tinky-Winky, can validly
make a Will)
Issue:
BLOCK A 2015
2. Petitioner assails the validity of Placido Valmontes will by imputing fraud in
its execution and challenging the testators state of mind at the time.
She alleges that Josefina, conspired with the notary public and the
three attesting witnesses in deceiving Placido to sign it.
Furthermore, she states that it is highly dubious for a young woman
to marry a man thrice her age, who happens to be an American
pensionado thus casting doubt on her intention on seeking to
probate the will
Lastly, she argues that it defies human reason, logic and common
experience for an old man with a severe psychological condition to
have willingly signed a last will and testament.
3. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of
fraud at the time of its execution.
Fraud is a trick, secret device, false statement, or pretense, by which
the subject of it is cheated.
The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will
only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud
Unfortunately in this case, other than the self-serving allegations of
petitioner, no evidence of fraud was ever presented.
4. It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not affect the
due execution of a will.
Petitioners contention that Placido was tricked into signing it was
not sufficiently established.
5. Conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the
document
The law does not even require that a [notarial] will x x x be executed and
acknowledged on the same occasion.
More importantly, the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by
three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of
the testator and of one another.
Held:
Ratio:
1. The law lays down the procedures and requisites that must be satisfied for
the probate of a will.
The fact that public policy favors the probate of a will does not
necessarily mean that every will presented for probate should be
allowed.
Verily, Article 8391 of the Civil Code states the instances when a will
may be disallowed
Article 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:
(1)
If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2)
If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution;
(3)
If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(4)
If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of
some other person;
(5)
If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6)
If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the
time of affixing his signature thereto.
Succession
Atty. Balane
BLOCK A 2015
memory sufficient to enable him to know what he is about
to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his property.
To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or
unshattered by disease or otherwise.
CA held that the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed
execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained
by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.
Notably, petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a grand
conspiracy in the commission of a fraud (No benefit was shown to
have received by the witnesses in the allowance of the will)
6. In determining the capacity of the testator to make a will the civil code
provides a guideline (Articles 798-800)2
Under Art. 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability
to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the
nature of the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the
testators bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act.
o SC agreed with the CA that Placido had testamentary
capacity at the time of the execution of his will.
o Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify
accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his
shares in them and even their locations.
o As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient
that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. Omission of
some relatives does not affect its formal validity.
o In Alsua-Betts v. CA, there are numberless degrees of mental
capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it has been
held that mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from
disease of body, or from age, will not render a person
incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded person
may make a valid will, provided he has understanding and
Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its
execution.
2
Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning
faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or shattered by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be
disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the
person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was
publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made
it during a lucid interval.
2. BALTAZAR v. LAXA
G.R. No. 174489 - April 11, 2012
J. Del Castillo
Petitioner: ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR,
ANTONIO L. MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A.
PACHECO, VIRGILIO REGALA, JR., and RAFAEL TITCO
Respondent: LORENZO LAXA
Facts:
Paciencia Reagala was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last
will and testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss
Paciencia Regala" (in Pampango) on September 13, 1981.
The Will, executed in the house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin
o It was read to her twice before she affixed her signature.
o The witnesses to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin
(Dra. Limpin), Francisco Garcia (Francisco) and Faustino R.
Mercado (Faustino). The three attested to the Wills due
execution by affixing their signatures below its attestation
clause
Paciencia bequeathed all her properties, since she is childless and
single, to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his wife
Corazon F. Laxa and their children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine
Ross Laxa
o The pertinent provisions are as follows:
Succession
Atty. Balane
o
BLOCK A 2015
bequeathing and giving the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa
and Corazon F. Laxa
In return she commands the spouses to hold yearly masses for the
repose of her soul
Lorenzo is Paciencias nephew whom she treated as her own son. She
took care of Lorenzo since birth.
Paciencia left for the US, 6 days after executing the will. There, she
resided with Lorenzo and his family until her death on January 4,
1996.
More than four years after the death of Paciencia, Lorenzo filed a
petition with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the
Will of Paciencia.
o An order allowing Lorenzo to present evidence was issued
o Dra. Limpin attests the authenticity of the will but when
asked by the prosecutor regarding his fathers (Judge
Limpin) mental fitness, she said that he suffered a stroke
and could no longer testify.
The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar
(Antonio) filed an opposition
o He averred that Paciencia had no right to bequeath the
properties because it belongs to Nicomeda Regala
Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest.
o Barely a month after, a supplemental opposition was filed
by the other petitioners contending that Paciencias Will was
null and void because ownership of the properties had not
been transferred and/or titled to Paciencia before her death
On September of the same year, petitioners asked the RTC to deny
the probate proceedings based on the following (Some of the
grounds):
o The Will was not executed and attested to in accordance
with the requirements of the law
o Paciencia was mentally incapable
o It was obtained through fraud or trickery
RTC denied the request of both parties to be appointed as
administrator but the Probate of the Will continued.
Respondents
o Lorenzo testified that Paciencia did not suffer from any
mental disorder and was of sound mind, was not blind, deaf
or mute; the Will was in the custody of Judge Limpin and
was only given to him after Paciencias death through
o
o
Petitioners
Rosie, a household help, claimed that she saw Faustino
bring "something" for Paciencia to sign at the latters house.
She also alleges that the testator is magulyan (forgetful) but
this is only based on her personal assessment.
Antonio identified the Will and testified that he had seen the
said document before because Paciencia brought the same
to his mothers house but it was still unsigned
He further alleged that he explained the testator the
difference between a lease and a will, after which Paciencia,
allegedly, utter these statements
Who is Lorenzo? Is he the only [son] of God? I have other
relatives [who should] benefit from my properties
Issue:
WON the authenticity and due execution of the notarial Will was sufficiently
established to warrant its allowance for probate. Yes
Held:
Ratio:
1. Courts are tasked to determine nothing more than the extrinsic validity of a
Will in probate proceedings
Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether
the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law
These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the New
Civil Code
Succession
Atty. Balane
2. The face of the Will shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid
down by law.
The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses
and the notary public, are all present and evident on the Will.
Even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the
Will may be authentic although they question her state of mind when
she signed the same as well as the voluntary nature of said act.
3. The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the
execution of the will lies on the shoulders of the petitioner.
Petitioners, trough their witness Rosie, claim that Paciencia was
"magulyan" or forgetful so much so that it effectively stripped her of
testamentary capacity.
SC agreed with the CA, and added that forgetfulness is not equivalent
to being of unsound mind.
4. Of Sound Mind
Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be
in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be
wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or
other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the
will, to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper
objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
o Paciencia was aware of the nature of the document she
executed. She specially requested that the customs of her
faith be observed upon her death
Apart from the testimony of Rosie, there is no substantial evidence,
medical or otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was of unsound
mind at the time of the execution of the Will.
The Court finds credence to Dra. Limpins testimony on the
soundness of the testators mind.
The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning
the testators mental condition is entitled to great weight
where they are truthful and intelligent.
More importantly, a testator is presumed to be of sound mind (Under
Art. 800) at the time of the execution of the Will and the burden to
prove otherwise lies on the oppositor.
5. Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear or threats, cannot be used as
basis to deny the probate of a will.
The unrebutted fact that Paciencia loved and treated Lorenzo as her
own son and that love even extended to Lorenzos wife and children.
BLOCK A 2015
The very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo and lived with
him both here and abroad highlights the special bond between them.
This unquestioned relationship between Paciencia and the devisees
tends to support the authenticity of the said document as against
petitioners allegations of duress, influence of fear or threats
6. Petitioner insists that the subscribing witnesses and the notary public should
have been presented in court
We note that the inability of Faustino and Judge Limpin to appear
and testify before the court was satisfactorily explained during the
probate proceedings
o Faustino had a heart attack and could no longer talk
o Judge Limpin is already Limpin because of a stroke and
could no longer talk as well.
Succession
Atty. Balane
BLOCK A 2015
Art. 805
Succession
Atty. Balane
o
BLOCK A 2015
In Singson v. Florentino, while there was no
mention of the number of pages in the
attestation clause, "the last part of the body of
the will contains a statement that it is composed
of eight pages, which circumstance in our
opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of
construction and places it within the realm of
similar cases where a broad and more liberal
view has been adopted to prevent the will of the
testator from being defeated by purely technical
considerations"
In Taboada v. Rosal, the notarial
acknowledgment in the will states the number of
pages used - "this Last Will and Testament
consists of two pages including this page"
Here, the number of pages used in the will was
NEVER stated in any part of the will.
Substantial Compliance argument (APPLICABLE TO
ARTICLE 809)
It is true that Art. 809 provides that in the absence of
bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue influence and
improper pressure and influence, defects and
imperfections in the form of attestation or in the
language used therein shall not render the will invalid if
it is proved that the will was in fact executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of 805
Petitioner Azuela cites the report of Civil Code
Commission
"the underlying and fundamental objective
permeating the provisions on the [law] on [wills]
in this projects consists in the [liberalization] of
the manner of their execution with the end in
view of giving the testator more [freedom] in
[expressing] his last wishes. This objective is in
accord with the [modern tendency ] in respect to
the formalities in the execution of wills"
HOWEVER, petitioner conveniently omits the
qualification offered by the Code Commission
Succession
Atty. Balane
BLOCK A 2015
The signature on the left margin of each page cannot
be "substantial compliance" - they are two entirely
distinct and separate requirements provided by 805
The signature on every page - knowledge of the
contents on each page
Signature to the attestation clause - knowledge
of the contents of the clause itself
Absent the signature in the attestation clause, the
will cannot be deemed to have been attested
ANOTHER DEFECT! (under art. 806) The requirement
that every will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses has also not
been complied with
Its importance is highlighted by the fact that it had
been segregated from all the other requirements in 805
- it merited its own provision (806)
"in lieu" of an acknowledgment, notary public,
Petronio Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko
ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng
Manila"
By no manner of contemplation can those
words be construed as an acknowledgment
Acknowledgment
Act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and
declaring it to be his act or deed
Involves an "extra step" undertaken whereby the
signor actually declares to the notary that the
executor of a document has attested to the
notary that the same is his/her own free will
The averment here may be considered to be a jurat
(part of an affividavit where the notary certifies that
before him/her, the document was subscribed and
sworn to by the executor)
Take note that here, the notary public averred
that he himself signed and notarized the
instrument while a jurat should avow that the
document was subscribed and sworn before the
notary public
Succession
Atty. Balane
2. ORTEGA v. VALMONTE
G.R. No. 157451 - December 16, 2005
J. Panganiban
Petitioner: LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA
Respondent: JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE
Facts:
Placido worked in the U.S. until his retirement. In 1980, he went back
to the Philippines. At the age of 80, he married Josefina in 1982.
o Placido died on October 8, 1984
BLOCK A 2015
Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English
and consisting of two (2) pages, and dated June 15, 1983 but
acknowledged only on August 9, 1983.
Pertinent portions of the will:
I give, devise and bequeath unto my loving wife, JOSEFINA C.
VALMONTE, one half (1/2) portion of the follow-described properties
which belongs to me:
(a) Lot 4-A, Block 13, situated in Makati, registered jointly as co-owners with
my deceased sister (Ciriaca Valmonte)
(b) 2-storey building standing on the above-described property
All the rest, residue and remainder of my real and personal properties,
including my savings account bank book in USA which is in the possession
of my nephew, and all others whatsoever and wherever found, I give, devise
and bequeath to my said wife, Josefina C. Valmonte;
I hereby appoint my wife, Josefina C. Valmonte as sole executrix of my last
will and testament, and it is my will that said executrix be exempt from filing
a bond
Succession
Atty. Balane
market which is two to three kilometers from their home
cooked and cleaned the kitchen.
Notary Public Floro Sarmiento testified that on June 1983, the
testator, together with the three witnesses, went to law office and
requested him to prepare his last will and testament.
o After the testator instructed him on the terms and
dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public told
them to come back on June 15, 1983 to give him time to
prepare it.
o He was out of town on the said date, so Placido(with the
witnesses) went back on August 9. On the said date, before
the signing of the will, Floro explained to them each and
every term thereof in Ilocano (which Placido spoke and
understood).
o He likewise explained that though it appears that the will
was signed by the testator and his witnesses on June 15, the
day when it should have been executed had he not gone out
of town, the formal execution was actually on August 9.
Spouses Gomez (Witness) testified, that the testator executed the will
in question in their presence while he was of sound and disposing
mind and that he was strong and in good health; that the contents of
the will was explained by the notary public in the Ilocano and
Tagalog dialect and that all of them as witnesses attested and signed
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other
Leticias Opposition
She declared that, Josefina should not inherit alone because aside
from her there are other children from the siblings of Placido who
are just as entitled to inherit from him
The testator was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound
mind.
During the time when the testator lived with her, Placidos physical
and mental condition showed deterioration, aberrations and senility.
This was corroborated by her daughter Mary Jane Ortega for whom
Placido took a fancy and wanted to marry
RTC-CA
RTC ruled in favor of Leticia
CA reversed it.
o It upheld the credibility of the notary public and the
witnesses
BLOCK A 2015
o
Issue:
Held:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio:
1. The law lays down the procedures and requisites that must be satisfied for
the probate of a will.
The fact that public policy favors the probate of a will does not
necessarily mean that every will presented for probate should be
allowed.
Verily, Article 8391 of the Civil Code states the instances when a will
may be disallowed
2. Petitioner assails the validity of Placido Valmontes will by imputing fraud in
its execution and challenging the testators state of mind at the time.
She alleges that Josefina, conspired with the notary public and the
three attesting witnesses in deceiving Placido to sign it.
Furthermore, she states that it is highly dubious for a young woman
to marry a man thrice her age, who happens to be an American
pensionado thus casting doubt on her intention on seeking to
probate the will
Article 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:
(1)
If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2)
If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution;
(3)
If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(4)
If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of
some other person;
(5)
If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6)
If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the
time of affixing his signature thereto.
Succession
Atty. Balane
Lastly, she argues that it defies human reason, logic and common
experience for an old man with a severe psychological condition to
have willingly signed a last will and testament.
3. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of
fraud at the time of its execution.
Fraud is a trick, secret device, false statement, or pretense, by which
the subject of it is cheated.
The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will
only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud
Unfortunately in this case, other than the self-serving allegations of
petitioner, no evidence of fraud was ever presented.
4. It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not affect the
due execution of a will.
Petitioners contention that Placido was tricked into signing it was
not sufficiently established.
5. Conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the
document
The law does not even require that a [notarial] will x x x be executed and
acknowledged on the same occasion.
More importantly, the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by
three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of
the testator and of one another.
CA held that the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed
execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained
by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.
Notably, petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a grand
conspiracy in the commission of a fraud (No benefit was shown to
have received by the witnesses in the allowance of the will)
6. In determining the capacity of the testator to make a will the civil code
provides a guideline (Articles 798-800)2
Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its
execution.
2
BLOCK A 2015
Under Art. 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability
to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the
nature of the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the
testators bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act.
o SC agreed with the CA that Placido had testamentary
capacity at the time of the execution of his will.
o Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify
accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his
shares in them and even their locations.
o As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient
that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. Omission of
some relatives does not affect its formal validity.
In Alsua-Betts v. CA, there are numberless degrees of mental capacity or
incapacity and while on one hand it has been held that mere weakness of mind,
or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from age, will not render a person
incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded person may make a valid
will, provided he has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him to
know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his
property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the
mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered by disease or otherwise
Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning
faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or shattered by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be
disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the
person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was
publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made
it during a lucid interval.
Succession
Atty. Balane
o
BLOCK A 2015
declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the
inheritance
o Court referred the case to the IBP
The investigating commissioner found respondent Tambago
guilty of violating provisions of the old Notarial Law as found
in the Revised Administrative Code [Canon 1 (obey the law)
and Rule 1.01 (no dishonest, unlawful conduct) of the CPR] recommended suspension for 3 months
IBP Board of governors
Respondent Tambago is suspended from practicing
law for a year
Respondent's notarial commission is revoked and
disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2
years
ISSUE: WON there was a valid will? NO
HELD/RATIO:
o A notarial will is required to be (1) subscribed at the end by the
testator himself; and (2) attested and subscribed to by THREE OR
MORE credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and one
another
The will in question was attested by only two witnesses
(Noynay and Grajo) - THUS VOID
Acts executed against prohibitory or mandatory laws shall be
void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity - 805
and 806 are mandatory
o The will must also be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses (806)
"involves the extra step undertaken whereby the signatory
actually declares to the notary public that the same is his or
her own free act and deed"
Two-fold purpose of this requirement
Safeguard the testator's wishes
Assure that his estate is administered in the manner he
intends it to be done
o Respondent was required to faithfully observe the formalities of a
will and those notarizations - which he FAILED to do
Other grounds for nullity and/or disciplinary action
No residence certificates from the witnesses - required
to ascertain the true and correct identity
Succession
Atty. Balane
BLOCK A 2015
RTC
Art. 806
CA
Guerrero v. Bihis
G.R. No. 174144 - April 17, 2007
J. Corona
Petitioner: Bella A. Guerrero
Respondent: Resurrection A. Bihis
Facts:
Felisa Buenaventura, mother of Bella A. Guerrero and
Resurrection A. Bihis, died in Tondo, Manila.
Petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last will and
testament of the decedent in the RTC of Manila.
o It alleges that she was named as executrix, legally
qualified as such.
Issue:
WON the acknowledgment of a notary public outside of his commissioned
jurisdiction satisfy the requirement under Article 806. It did not.
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Ratio:
1. A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for
probate.
Succession
Atty. Balane
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.
An acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a deed in
going before some competent officer and declaring it to be his act
of deed.
In case of Notarial will, that competent officer is the Notary
Public.
2. Nature of acknowledgement of a Notarial will.
It coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare
before an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed
and subscribed to the will as their own free act or will.
It is under oath and under the pains of perjury
Further provides a degree of assurance that the testator is of a
certain mindset in making the testamentary disposition.
3. Acknowledgement can only be made before a competent officer.
That a lawyer is duly commissioned as a notary public.
Under the Notarial Law, Section 240. Territorial Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be coextensive with the province.
o Under the said law they were also required to sign a form
wherein the municipality and province must be stated
and indicated that it is limited within the said province.
4. The jurisdiction of a notary public in Manila is co-extensive with the said
city.
NO notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond
the limits of his jurisdiction.
The grant of authority to perform notarial acts is issued within a
particular territorial jurisdiction. Thus, acknowledgments must be
done within that territory only.
Outside of the place commissioned, he is bereft of power to
perform any notarial act. If ever he does a notarial act, it produce
no effect.
In Tecson v. Tecson, An acknowledgement taken outside the
territorial limits of the officers jurisdiction is void as if the person
taking it were wholly without official character.
BLOCK A 2015
Since Atty. Directo was not commission for and in QC, he lacked
authority to acknowledge the will. Thus, in effect Felisa Tamios
will, in effect, not acknowledged as required by law.
Under Art. 5 of the civil code, acts executed against mandatory or
prohibitory laws are void, except when the law authorizes its
validity.
5. Effect of violation of the language of Art. 806.
The compulsory language of Art. 806 was not complied with and
the interdiction of Section 240 of the Notarial law was breached.
Thus the acts of the petitioner and Atty. Directo void.
Art. 809
1. Felix Azuela, Petitioner
v.
Court of Appeals, Geralda Castillo substituted by Ernesto
Castillo, Respondents
G.R. No 122880 April 12, 2006
Tinga, J.
Doctrine: (1) A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number
of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective; (2) A will whose
attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally
defective; (3) A will which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a
mere jurat, is fatally defective. Anyone of these defects is sufficient to deny
probate
FACTS:
Succession
Atty. Balane
o
BLOCK A 2015
10
Succession
Atty. Balane
testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence
of a statement of the total number of sheets such
removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and
changing the numbers at the top of the following
sheets or pages"
In In re Will of Andrada - this consideration alone
was sufficient for the Court to declare in unanimity
that the omission was fatal (note: Andrada was decided
with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure substantially the same requirements with the current
Art. 805 of the CC)
Against this, petitioner Azuela cites Singson v. Florentino
and Taboada v. Hon. Rosal
In these cases, the court allowed probate of the wills
concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation
clause did not state the number of pages of the will
HOWEVER, the appellate court considered the
import of these two cases, and made the following
distinction which petitioner Azuela is unable to rebut:
In Singson v. Florentino, while there was no
mention of the number of pages in the
attestation clause, "the last part of the body of
the will contains a statement that it is composed
of eight pages, which circumstance in our
opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of
construction and places it within the realm of
similar cases where a broad and more liberal
view has been adopted to prevent the will of the
testator from being defeated by purely technical
considerations"
In Taboada v. Rosal, the notarial
acknowledgment in the will states the number of
pages used - "this Last Will and Testament
consists of two pages including this page"
Here, the number of pages used in the will was
NEVER stated in any part of the will.
Substantial Compliance argument (APPLICABLE TO
ARTICLE 809)
BLOCK A 2015
It is true that Art. 809 provides that in the absence of
bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue influence and
improper pressure and influence, defects and
imperfections in the form of attestation or in the
language used therein shall not render the will invalid if
it is proved that the will was in fact executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of 805
Petitioner Azuela cites the report of Civil Code
Commission
"the underlying and fundamental objective
permeating the provisions on the [law] on [wills]
in this projects consists in the [liberalization] of
the manner of their execution with the end in
view of giving the testator more [freedom] in
[expressing] his last wishes. This objective is in
accord with the [modern tendency ] in respect to
the formalities in the execution of wills"
HOWEVER, petitioner conveniently omits the
qualification offered by the Code Commission
in the very same paragraph he cited; that such
liberalization be "but with sufficient
safeguards and restrictions to prevent the
commission of fraud and the exercise of
undue and improper pressure and influence
upon the testator."
Comment of Justice J.B.L. Reyes on how 809 should
be applied
The rule must be limited to disregarding those
defects that can be supplied by an examination
of the will itself (e.g. whether the signatures
appear in every page, whether the subscribing
witnesses are three, whether the will was
notarized)
BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES,
and whether all persons required to sign did so
in the presence of each other must
substantially appear in the attestation
11
Succession
Atty. Balane
BLOCK A 2015
ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng
Manila"
By no manner of contemplation can those
words be construed as an acknowledgment
Acknowledgment
Act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and
declaring it to be his act or deed
Involves an "extra step" undertaken whereby the
signor actually declares to the notary that the
executor of a document has attested to the
notary that the same is his/her own free will
The averment here may be considered to be a jurat
(part of an affividavit where the notary certifies that
before him/her, the document was subscribed and
sworn to by the executor)
Take note that here, the notary public averred
that he himself signed and notarized the
instrument while a jurat should avow that the
document was subscribed and sworn before the
notary public
Even if it is a jurat, the will is still invalid - 806 requires
acknowledgment and not merely that the will be
subscribed and sworn to
The acknowledgment is not an empty
meaningless act - it coerces the testator and the
instrumental witnesses to declare before an
officer of law that they had executed and
subscribed to the will as their own free act or
deed - under oath and under pain of perjury
A Notarial Will that is not acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and
the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is
subscribed and sworn to before a notary
public.
Two other defects:
The decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both
pages of the will on the left margin - her only signature
12
Succession
Atty. Balane
2. Lopez v. Lopez
G. R. No. 189984 November 12, 2012
J. Perlas-Bernabe
Petitioner: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE
OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ENRIQUE S. LOPEZ
RICHARD B. LOPEZ
Respondent: DIANA JEANNE LOPEZ, MARYBETH DE LEON and
VICTORIA L. TUAZON
Facts:
On June 21, 1999, Enrique S. Lopez died leaving his wife, Wendy B.
Lopez, and their four legitimate children, namely, petitioner Richard
B. Lopez and the respondents Diana Jeanne Lopez, Marybeth de
Leon and Victoria L. Tuazon as compulsory heirs
On August 10, 1996 Enrique executed a will and constituted Richard
as the executor and administrator.
On September 27, 1999, Richard filed a petition for the probate of
his father's Last Will and Testament before the RTC of Manila
Marybeth opposed the petition contending (which was later on
adopted by Victoria)
o It was not executed and attested as required by law;
o That it was procured by undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of Richard.
Richards side
BLOCK A 2015
Richard presented the attesting witnesses: Reynaldo Maneja; Romulo
Monteiro; Ana Maria Lourdes Manalo and the notary public who
notarized the will, Atty. Perfecto Nolasco.
o The witnesses testified that after the late Enrique read and
signed the will on each and every page, they also read and
signed the same in the latter's presence and of one another.
o Photographs of the incident were taken and presented
during trial
o Manalo further testified that she was the one who prepared
the drafts and revisions from Enrique before the final copy
of the will was made.
Atty. Nolasco claimed that Enrique had been his client for more than
20 years.
o He testified that prior to the making of the will Enrique
consulted him in the preparation of the subject will and
furnished him the list of his properties for distribution
among his children.
o He prepared the will in accordance with Enrique's
instruction and that before the latter and the attesting
witnesses signed it in the presence of one another, he
translated the will which was written in English to Filipino
and added that Enrique was in good health and of sound
mind at that time.
Oppositions side
Respondents presented Gregorio B. Paraon, Officer-in-Charge of
the Notarial Section, of the RTC of Manila.
o His testimony centered mainly on their findings that Atty.
Nolasco was not a notary public for the City of Manila in
1996, which on cross examination was clarified after Paraon
discovered that Atty. Nolasco was commissioned as such
for the years 1994 to 1997.
RTC
Denied for failure to comply with Article 805 of the Civil Code that
requires a statement in the attestation clause of the number of pages
used upon which the will is written.
13
Succession
Atty. Balane
It held that while Article 809 requires substantial compliance with
Article 805, the rule only applies if the number of pages is reflected
somewhere else in the will with no evidence aliunde or extrinsic
evidence required.
o It was mentioned in the Acknowledgement portion that it
consists of 7 pages including the ratification and
acknowledgement portion, RTC observed that it was
actually 8 pages.
CA
Dismissed the case. (Partly because the RTC erroneous granted the
appeal because it was not made through a record of appeal
[remember tranquil] which applies to appeals in special proceedings)
It also affirmed RTCs finding that the failure to state the number of
pages of the will in the attestation clause was fatal.
Issue:
WON the CA erred in denying Richards petition to probate the will of
Enrique, for failure to substantially comply with the provisions of Article 805
(as mandated by Article 809). NO
Held:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.
Ratio:
1. The provisions of the Civil Code on Forms of Wills, particularly, Articles
805 and 809 of the Civil Code
Article 805, xxx The attestation shall state the number of pages
used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator
signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person
to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the
instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the
will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of
one another. xxx
Article 809, In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue
and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in
the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not
render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact
BLOCK A 2015
executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of Article 805.
2. The law is clear that the attestation must state the number of pages used
upon which the will is written.
The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible interpolation
or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or
decrease in the
While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the
form of the attestation clause, Richard likewise failed in this respect.
o The fact that it was written in the acknowledgement portion
that the will is consist of 7 pages, it cannot be deemed as
substantial compliance.
o The will actually consists of 8 pages including its
acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by
mere examination of the will itself but through the
presentation of evidence aliund.
3. J.B.L Reyes comment on the application of Article 809,
The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by
an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutively
numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every page; whether the
subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized. All these are facts
that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions concerning them
in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded.
But the total number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign did so
in the presence of each other must substantially appear in the attestation
clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings.
14
BALTAZAR v. LAXA
G.R. No. 174489 - April 11, 2012
J. Del Castillo
Petitioner: ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO
L. MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, VIRGILIO
REGALA, JR., and RAFAEL TITCO
Respondent: LORENZO LAXA
Summary:
Pacienca regala, a spinster, executed a will bequeathing all her property to her nephew
Lorenzo Lax and his spouse Corazon. Four years after her death, Lorenzo filed a
petition for probate. This was opposed by Baltazar, arguing that the bequeathed
properties belong to a certain Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his predecessor-ininterest. On appeal, Baltazar arguing that the Will was not executed and attested
according to law and that she is mentally incapable. SC held that, a careful examination
of the Will shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by law. The
signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the notary public,
are all present and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation clause explicitly states the
critical requirement that the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses signed the Will in
the presence of one another and that the witnesses attested and subscribed to the Will in
the presence of the testator and of one another. Hence the petition was denied. (Please
see ratio for details regarding contested wills)
Facts:
Paciencia Reagala was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and
testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala" (in
Pampango) on September 13, 1981.
The Will, executed in the house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin
o It was read to her twice before she affixed her signature.
o The witnesses to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin (Dra.
Limpin), Francisco Garcia (Francisco) and Faustino R. Mercado
(Faustino). The three attested to the Wills due execution by affixing
their signatures below its attestation clause
Paciencia bequeathed all her properties, since she is childless and single, to
respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his wife Corazon F. Laxa and their
children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine Ross Laxa
o The pertinent provisions are as follows:
In consideration of their valuable services to me since then up to the
present by the spouses LORENZO LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA, I
hereby BEQUEATH, CONVEY and GIVE all my properties enumerated in
parcels 1 to 5 unto the spouses and their children
Should other properties of mine may be discovered aside from the properties
mentioned in this last will and testament, I am also bequeathing and giving
the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa
In return she commands the spouses to hold yearly masses for the repose of
her soul
Lorenzo is Paciencias nephew whom she treated as her own son. She took
care of Lorenzo since birth.
Paciencia left for the US, 6 days after executing the will. There, she resided
with Lorenzo and his family until her death on January 4, 1996.
More than four years after the death of Paciencia, Lorenzo filed a petition with
the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia.
o An order allowing Lorenzo to present evidence was issued
o Dra. Limpin attests the authenticity of the will but when asked by the
prosecutor regarding his fathers (Judge Limpin) mental fitness, she
said that he suffered a stroke and could no longer testify.
The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar (Antonio)
filed an opposition
o He averred that Paciencia had no right to bequeath the properties
because it belongs to Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his
predecessor-in-interest.
o Barely a month after, a supplemental opposition was filed by the
other petitioners contending that Paciencias Will was null and void
because ownership of the properties had not been transferred and/or
titled to Paciencia before her death
On September of the same year, petitioners asked the RTC to deny the
probate proceedings based on the following (Some of the grounds):
o The Will was not executed and attested to in accordance with the
requirements of the law
o Paciencia was mentally incapable
o It was obtained through fraud or trickery
RTC denied the request of both parties to be appointed as administrator but
the Probate of the Will continued.
Respondents
o Lorenzo testified that Paciencia did not suffer from any mental
disorder and was of sound mind, was not blind, deaf or mute; the
Will was in the custody of Judge Limpin and was only given to him
after Paciencias death through Faustino; and he was already residing
in the USA when the Will was executed
o
Petitioners
Rosie, a household help, claimed that she saw Faustino bring
"something" for Paciencia to sign at the latters house. She also
alleges that the testator is magulyan (forgetful) but this is only based
on her personal assessment.
Antonio identified the Will and testified that he had seen the said
document before because Paciencia brought the same to his mothers
house but it was still unsigned
Issue:
WON the authenticity and due execution of the notarial Will was sufficiently established
to warrant its allowance for probate. Yes
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.
Ratio:
1. Courts are tasked to determine nothing more than the extrinsic validity of a Will in
probate proceedings
Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the
testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law
These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code
2. The face of the Will shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by law.
Rule 75. Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. No will
shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be
conclusive as to its due execution.
The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the
notary public, are all present and evident on the Will.
Even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Will may be
authentic although they question her state of mind when she signed the same
as well as the voluntary nature of said act.
3. Rule regarding contested wills.
Rule 76. Section 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will
contested. If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary
in the case of wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, if present
in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the
death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the
court.
If a holographic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if at least three (3)
witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare that the
will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator; in the absence of
any competent witnesses, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony
may be resorted to.
We note that the inability of Faustino and Judge Limpin to appear and testify
before the court was satisfactorily explained during the probate proceedings
Faustino had a heart attack and could no longer talk
Judge Limpin is already Limpin because of a brain surgery and could no
longer talk as well.
4. Petitioners, despite ample opportunity, did not object to the testimonies nor challenge
the same during cross examination.
It is an established rule that "[a] testament may not be disallowed just because
the attesting witnesses declare against its due execution; neither does it have to
be necessarily allowed just because all the attesting witnesses declare in favor
of its legalization.
What is decisive is that the court is convinced by evidence before it, not
necessarily from the attesting witnesses, although they must testify, that the
will was or was not duly executed in the manner required by law.
5. The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution
of the will lies on the shoulders of the petitioner.
Petitioners, trough their witness Rosie, claim that Paciencia was "magulyan" or
forgetful so much so that it effectively stripped her of testamentary capacity.
SC agreed with the CA, and added that forgetfulness is not equivalent to being
of unsound mind.
6. Of Sound Mind
Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full
possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken,
unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will, to
know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his
bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
o Paciencia was aware of the nature of the document she executed. She
specially requested that the customs of her faith be observed upon
her death
Apart from the testimony of Rosie, there is no substantial evidence, medical or
otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of
the execution of the Will.
The Court finds credence to Dra. Limpins testimony on the soundness of the
testators mind.
! The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning the
testators mental condition is entitled to great weight where they are
truthful and intelligent.
Background Facts:
o In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta begot 14 children. Among
these 14 belong the ascendants of the parties in this case
Policronio and Liberato. Here, the descendants of Policronio
are up against the rest of Alfonsos children and their
descendants (including those of Liberato)
o When he was alive, Alfonso was well-off he owned several
fishpens, a fishpond and a sari-sari store, among others.
o On October 1969, four of Alfonsos children (Policronio,
Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco), together with their
father met in Liberatos house. Francisco, who was then a
municipal judge suggested that to reduce the inheritance
taxes, their father should make it appear that he sold some
of his lands to his children. As such, Alfonso executed 4
deeds of sale covering parcels of land in favour of
Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and his common-law wife,
Valeriana dela Cruz.
o The dispute of this case is centered on the deed of sale in
favour of Policronio which covered six parcels of land.
o Since the sale was only made to avoid taxes and that no
monetary consideration was received, Alfonso continued to
enjoy the lands.
o When Alfonso died, except for a portion of parcel 5, the rest
of the parcels transferred to Policronio were never turned
over to him. Instead, these were turned over to the
administrators of Alfonsos estate Liberato, succeeded by
Prudencia, and then by her daughter Carmencita Perlas.
vs.
Hon. Amor Reyes (Judge - RTC NCR Branch 21 Manila), Alfredo Seangio,
Alberto Seangio, Elisa Seangio-Santos, Victor Seangio, Alfonso Seangio,
Shirley Seangio-Lim, Betty Seangio and James Seangio, respondents
G.R. Nos. 140371-72 November 27, 2006
Azcuna, J.:
Facts:
Ratio:
-
The heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the
Heirs of Policronio in the partition or the lack of authority of their
representative results, at the very least, in the preterition and not
the invalidity of the entire deed of partition. They argue that
remanding the case to determine proper inheritance is no longer
necessary since the issue is purely legal. Conrado then, according to
them, should just fully account for what he received and deliver to
his co-heirs their respective shares in the inheritance.
This cannot be given credence AT ALL
Their posited theory on preterition is no longer viable. Why?
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WILL IN THIS CASE
Preterition has been defined as the total omission of a compulsory
heir from the disinheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator
with regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the testatment,
either by not mentioning him at all, or by not giving him anything in
the hereditary property buy without expressly disinheriting him,
even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case
Thus, PRETERITION IS A CONCEPT OF TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION.
In the absence of a will, there can be no preterition.
Issues:
o WON Respondent Judge erred in ruling on the intrinsic validity of the
will despite the settled rule that the authority of probate courts is
limited only to a determination of its extrinsic validity (i.e. Due
execution, testator's testamentary capacity, compliance with the
requisites/solemnities prescribed by law)YES
WON Judge erred in saying that preterition exists and that the will is
void
YES
WON Judge erred in not suspending the proceedings in the intestate
case despite the settled rule that testate proceedings take precedence
over intestate proceedings
YES
WON there was a valid disinheritance
YES
Held/Ratio:
o Can the document executed by Segundo be considered a holographic
will?
Under art. 810 of the CC, a holographic will must be
Entirely written
Dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself
Segundo's document, though may it come as a mere
disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities
precribed by law - written, dated and signed by Segundo
himself
While it does not make an affirmative disposition of Segundo's
property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless is an act
of disposition itself
The disinheritance of Alfredo results in the disposition in
favor of those who would succeed in the absence of
Alfredo
A WILL DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE AN EXPLICIT DISPOSITION
OF PROPERTY TO BE VALID
The intent or will of the testator, so long as it is expressed in the
form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be
recognized as the supreme law in succession
Holographic wills, being usually done by those not learned in
the law, should be construed more liberally than the ones
drawn by experts
o With regard to the issue on preterition
The Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line
were not preterited
Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his
compulsory heirs
Succession
Atty. Balane
BLOCK A 2015
Article 887
1. Tumbokon v. Legaspi
G.R. No. 153736 - August 4, 2010
J. Bersamin
Petitioners: SPOUSES NICANOR TUMBOKON (deceased),
substituted by: ROSARIO SESPEE and their Children
Respondents: APOLONIA G. LEGASPI, and PAULINA S. DE
MAGTANUM
Facts:
Under contention herein are the ownership and possession
of that parcel of land with an area of 12,480 square meters,
more or less, situated in Ibajay, Aklan.
o The land planted to rice, corn, and coconuts was
originally owned by the late Alejandra Sespee
(Alejandra), who had had two marriages.
o First with Gaudencio Franco, by whom she bore
Ciriaca Franco, whose husband was Victor Miralles.
o The second marriage was to Jose Garcia, by whom
she bore respondent Apolonia Garcia (Apolonia),
who married Primo Legaspi.
o Alejandra died without a will in 1935, and was
survived by Apolonia and Crisanto Miralles, son of
Victor and Ciriaca.
The controversy started when petitioners asserted that they
bought the land from Cresencia Inog, who supposedly
acquired the land from Victor Miralles.
The Spouses Nicanor Tumbokon and Rosario Sespee filed a
criminal complaint for qualified theft against respondents
Apolonia and Paulina S. Magtanum for stealing coconuts
from the land in dispute.
o CFI found that respondents are guilty
o On appeal, CA rejected Apolonias defense of
ownership.
Issue:
WON CA decision is supported by law and evidence. Yes
WON the decision in the criminal case which involves the same land
constitutes as res judicata for the present case. No
Held:
Succession
Atty. Balane
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied, and the
decision rendered on May 15, 2001 by the Court of Appeals is
affirmed.
Ratio:
CA Decision supported by Law and evidence
1. Petitioners failed to prove the Victor Miralles had any right to
transfer to Cresencia Inog.
He was not himself an heir of Alejandra, being only her sonin-law.
Thus, the statement in the deed of absolute sale entered into
between Victor Miralles and Cresenciana Inog, to the effect
that the parcel of land was inherited from the deceased
Alejandra Sespee by Victor Miralles being the sole heir of
the said Alejandra Sespee, having no other brothers or
sisters, was outrightly false.
2. A decedents compulsory heirs in whose favor the law reserves a
part of the decedents estate are exclusively the persons enumerated
in Article 8871
Only two forced heirs survived Alejandra upon her death,
namely: respondent Apolonia, her daughter, and Crisanto
Miralles, her grandson.
BLOCK A 2015
The latter succeeded Alejandra by right of representation
because his mother, Ciriaca, had predeceased Alejandra.
Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue
of which the representative is raised to the place and
the degree of the person represented, and acquires the rights
which the latter would have if she were living or if she could
have inherited.
o Crisanto Miralles was called to the succession by law
and not by the person represented (Ciriaca); he thus
succeeded Alejandra, not Ciriaca
3. Victor Miralles supposed acquisition of the land by oral sale from
Alejandra had no competent factual support in the records
Oral sale was incompatible with the petitioners anchor
claim that he had acquired the land by inheritance from
Alejandra.
The evidence for oral sale was also not credible and
insufficient
In sum, Victor had no rights, and as such he could not have
transferred anything to Inog, and in turn did not validly transfer it to
petitioners.
Res Judicata
4. Requisites of Res Judicata
(1) the former judgment must be final;
(2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be between the first and second actions (a) identity of
parties, (b) identity of the subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of
action.
5. The causes of action in the civil and the criminal actions were
different and distinct from each other.
The civil action is for the recovery of ownership of the land
filed by the petitioners, while the criminal action was to
determine whether the act of the respondents of taking the
Succession
Atty. Balane
BLOCK A 2015
Suntay v. Cojuanco-Suntay
G.R. No. 183053 - June 16, 2010
J. Nachura
Petitioner: IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF
CRISTINA AGUINALDO-SUNTAY; EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III,
Respondent: ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY
Facts:
Issue:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If no executor is named in the
will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a
person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion
of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to
have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected
by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for
thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that
administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other
person as the court may select.
CASILANG V. CASILANG-DIZON
G.R. No. 180269 February 20, 2013
Reyes, J.
FACTS:
The Family
o The late spouses Liborio Casilang and Francisca Zacarias had 8
children
Felicidad
Ireneo
Marcelina
Jacinta
Bonifacio
Leonora
Jose (petitioner)
Flora
o Liborio died intestate on October, 1982, followed by the death of
Francisca on December of the same year
o Bonifacio died in 1986, survived by his child Bernabe
o Ireneo died in 1992, survived by his four children, herein
respondents:
Mario
Angelo
Rosario (Casilang-Dizon as in the title of the case)
Rodolfo
The Property of Liborio
o Left no debts
o Consisted of 3 parcels of land located in Barangay Talibaew,
Clasiao, Pangasinan
o In 1997, Respondent Rosario filed with the MTC a complaint for
unlawful detainer to evict her uncle, Jose (petitioner)
o She claimed that such lot was owned by her father by virtue of a
Tax Declaration issued under her fathers name.
o Subsequently, the respondents executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition with Quitclaim whereby
They adjudicated one lot to themselves