ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL 76

RULE 76
ALLOWANCE/
DISALLOWANCE
OF WILL

ANG~CABRERA~CALDINO~CHUPUNGCO~JOSOL~MARAVILLA~SAGUINSIN~SAN JOSE~SUVA~TOLENTINO~TOLENTINO~UY
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (SBCA, Monday Class) S.Y 2012-2013

Page

416

ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL 76

ACCAIN vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURT

G.R. No. 72706, October 27, 1987
PARAS, J.:
Digested by: Rogelio Saguinsin III
FACTS:
In 1960, Nemesio Acain wrote a will giving all his properties to is brother Segundo, or, in
case Segundo predeceased Nemesio to Segundos children. Segundodied before Nemesio.
Petitioner Constantino is one of Segundos children.
In 1984, after the death of Nemesio, Constantino petitioned the court to have the will
probated. This was opposed by Rosa Diongson, Nemesios wife, and Virginia Fernandez, a legally
adopted child of Nemesio and Rosa. The opposition was denied by the trial court, hence Diongson
and Fernandez went to the Supreme Court on certiorari, contending that the Court of Appeals
could not rule on the intrinsic validity of the will before it is admitted for probate. Diongson and
Fernandez opposed, contending that certiorari is not a proper remedy.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the probate court could rule on the intrinsic validity of a will before the will is
probated.
2. Whether or not the petitioner may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding.
RULING:
1. YES. The Court of Appeals should be allowed to rule on the intrinsic validity of the will
before the same was probated. If the probate of the will is allowed when on its face the will
appears to be intrinsically void would have been an exercise in futility. It would have meant
a waste of time, effort, expense, plus added futility.
2. NO. In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he must
have an interest iii the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it either as
executor or as a claimant of the estate and an interested party is one who would be
benefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim against the estate like a
creditor. Petitioner is not the appointed executor, neither a devisee or a legatee there being
no mention in the testamentary disposition of any gift of an individual item of personal or
real property he is called upon to receive (Article 782, Civil Code). At the outset, he
appears to have an interest in the will as an heir, defined under Article 782 of the Civil
Code as a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation
of law. However, intestacy having resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child
and the universal institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. He has
no legal standing to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased and Special
Proceedings No. 591 A-CEB must be dismissed.

ANG~CABRERA~CALDINO~CHUPUNGCO~JOSOL~MARAVILLA~SAGUINSIN~SAN JOSE~SUVA~TOLENTINO~TOLENTINO~UY
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (SBCA, Monday Class) S.Y 2012-2013

Page

417

ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL 76

CODOY vs. CALUGAY

G.R. No. 123486, August 12, 1999
PARDO, J.:
Digested by: Rogelio S. Saguinsin III
FACTS:
On April 6, 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees
and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal, filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, a petition for probate of the holographic will of
the deceased, who died on January 16, 1990.
In the petition, respondents claimed that the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal,
was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will on August 30, 1978, that there was
no fraud, undue influence, and duress employed in the person of the testator, and will was written
voluntarily.
The assessed value of the decedent's property, including all real and personal property
was about P400,000.00, at the time of her death.
On June 28, 1990, Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an opposition to
the petition for probate, alleging that the holographic will was a forgery and that the same is even
illegible. This gives an impression that a "third hand" of an interested party other than the "true
hand" of Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal executed the holographic will.
Petitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearing on will after every
disposition is out of the ordinary. If the deceased was the one who executed the will, and was not
forced, the dates and the signature should appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly
done and not after every disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of
the deceased, it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiaries, or through fraud and trickery.
Respondents presented six (6) witnesses and various documentary evidence. Petitioners
instead of presenting their evidence, filed a demurrer to evidence, claiming that respondents failed
to establish sufficient factual and legal basis for the probate of the holographic will of the deceased
Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the holographic will is executed by the deceased.
RULING:
NO. A visual examination of the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different
when compared with other documents written by the testator. The signature of the testator in some
of the disposition is not readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on the will.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated August 30, 1978,and the signatures
in several documents such as the application letter for pasture permit dated December 30, 1980,
and a letter dated June 16, 1978, the strokes are different. In the letters, there are continuous flows
of the strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation in writing unlike that of the holographic will.
We, therefore, cannot be certain that ruling holographic will was in the handwriting by the
deceased.
The decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. The records are ordered remanded to the court
of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their opposition to
the probate of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo vda. de Ramona.

ANG~CABRERA~CALDINO~CHUPUNGCO~JOSOL~MARAVILLA~SAGUINSIN~SAN JOSE~SUVA~TOLENTINO~TOLENTINO~UY
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (SBCA, Monday Class) S.Y 2012-2013

Page

418

ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL 76

DE ARANZ vs. GALING
G.R. No. 77047, May 28, 1988
PADILLA, J p:
Digested by: Rogelio S. Saguinsin III
FACTS:
On 3 March 1986, private respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch
166, a petition for the probate and allowance of the last will and testament of the late Montserrat RInfante y G-Pola.
On 3 March 1986, private respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch
166, a petition for the probate and allowance of the last will and testament of the late Montserrat RInfante y G-Pola.
On 14 May 1986, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of 12 May 1986
alleging that, as named legatees, no notices were sent to them as required by Sec. 4, Rule 6 of the
Rules of Court and they prayed that they be given a period of ten (10) days within which to file their
opposition to the probate of the will.
On 30 May 1986, the probate court, acting on the opposition of private respondent and the
reply thereto of petitioners, issued an order denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Thereafter, petitioners filed with this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition which
was, however, referred to the Court of Appeals. On 13 January 1987, the Court of Appeals
promulgated a decision dismissing the petition. Hence, the instant petition.
It is the view of petitioners that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that personal notice of
probate proceedings to the known legatees and devisees is not a jurisdictional requirement in the
probate of a will. Contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals that the requirement of notice on
individual heirs, legatees and devisees is merely a matter of procedural convenience to better
satisfy in some instances the requirements of due process, petitioners allege that under Sec. 4 of
Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, said requirement of the law is mandatory and its omission
constitutes a reversible error for being constitutive of grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not notice to the known legatees and devices is not a jurisdictional requirement
in the probate of a will.
RULING:
Sec. 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court reads:
"SEC. 4.Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or personally.
The court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to be
addressed to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident
in the Philippines at their places of residence, and deposited in the post office with the postage
thereon prepaid at least twenty (20) days before the hearing, if such places of residence be known.
A copy of the notice must in like manner be mailed to the person named as executor, if he be not
the petitioner; also, to any person named as co-executor not petitioning, if their places of residence
be known. Personal service of copies of the notice at least ten (10) days before the day of hearing
shall be equivalent to mailing."
It is clear from the aforecited rule that notice of the time and place of the hearing for the
allowance of a will shall be forwarded to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and
devisees residing in the Philippines at their places of residence, if such places of residence be
known. There is no question that the residences of herein petitioners legatees and devisees were
known to the probate court. The petition for the allowance of the will itself indicated the names and
addresses of the legatees and devisees of the testator. 7 But despite such knowledge, the probate
court did not cause copies of the notice to be sent to petitioners. The requirement of the law for the
allowance of the will was not satisfied by mere publication of the notice of hearing for three (3)
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

ANG~CABRERA~CALDINO~CHUPUNGCO~JOSOL~MARAVILLA~SAGUINSIN~SAN JOSE~SUVA~TOLENTINO~TOLENTINO~UY
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (SBCA, Monday Class) S.Y 2012-2013

Page

419

ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL 76

SUMILANG vs.RAMAGOSA
G.R. No. L-23135, December 26, 1967
MAKALINTAL, J p:
Digestedby: Rogelio S. Saguinsin III
FACTS:
OnJuly 5, 1960, Mariano Sumilang files a petition for the probate of a document in the
Court of First Instance of Quezon. The document, was alleged to be the last will and testament of
Hilarion Ramagosa who died on December 1, 1959. The said document institutes petitioner
Sumilang as the soleheir of the testator. The petition for probate was there after opposed by two
oppositors, here inappellants who questioned the due execution of the document. According tothe
oppositors, the alleged last will and testament was made under duress and
wasnotreallyintendedbythedeceaedto
be
hislastwill
and
testament.
Thetwooppositorsalsostatedthatinstead of thepetitioner, theywereentitledtoinheritthe estate of
thedeceased. As such, theoppositorsprayedforthedisallowance of thewill.
Ontheprobatehearing,
theoppositorslikewisefiled
a
motiontodismissthepetitiononhtegroundthatthesame has beenrevokedbyimplication of law.
Oppositorsalsoallegedthatthedecedentsoldtheparcels of landdescribedthereintopetitioner Mariano
Sumilang and hisbrother.
ISSUE:
Whetherornotthepetitionforprobatemust be dismissed.
RULING:
No, thepetitionforprobatemustnot be dismissed. In theprobate of a will, thecourts rea of
inquir
islimitedtotheextrinsicvaliditythereof.
Thetestatorstestamentarycapacity
and
thecompliancewiththe
formal
requisitesorsolemnitiesprescribedbylaw
are
theonlyquestionspresentedfortheresolution of thecourt. Anyinquiryintotheintrinsicvalidityorefficacy of
theprovisions of thewillorthelegaltiy of anydeviseorlegacyispremature. Undeniably, thealleged sale
is no groundforthedismissal of thepetitionforprobate. As such, thedisallowance of
thewillbasedonthegroundpresentedbyhereinoppositorsisuntenable.

ANG~CABRERA~CALDINO~CHUPUNGCO~JOSOL~MARAVILLA~SAGUINSIN~SAN JOSE~SUVA~TOLENTINO~TOLENTINO~UY
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (SBCA, Monday Class) S.Y 2012-2013

Page

420

ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL 76

FERNANDEZ vs. TANTOCO
G.R. No. 25489, September 8, 1926
STREET, J p:
Digested by: Rogelio S. Saguinsin III
FACTS:
It appears that on September 9, 1925, BasiliaTantoco, aged 62 years, executed an
instrument purporting to be her will, she being at the time a patient in the San Juan de Dios
Hospital in the City of Manila. Her death occurred a few days after the will was executed, and
application for probate was made by father Vicente Fernandez, parish priest of Malolos. Opposition
to probate was made by three brothers and a nephew of the deceased. At the time set for the
submission of proof with respect to the execution of the will, the proponent introduced the three
attesting witnesses to the instrument, namely, Vicente Platon, Fidel Macapugay, and Placido
Suarez, as well as Aurea Gaspar, sister-in-law of the deceased who had been in attendance upon
her at the hospital. The instrument shows every external requisite of proper execution, but the trial
judge refused to allow it to be probated, for the reason that the three attesting witnesses are not in
harmony upon the point whether all three of said witnesses were present together at the time and
place when the testatrix and the witnesses affixed their signatures to the document. No testimony
was submitted by the opposition, and the criticisms made by the trial judge with respect sufficiency
of the proof of execution arise exclusively upon the testimony of the witnesses for the proponent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court committed error in refusing probate.
RULING:
Yes. A will may be admitted to probate notwithstanding the fact that one or more of the
subscribing witnesses do not remember that all of the witnesses were present together with the
testator at the time of the execution of the will, provided the court is satisfied from all the evidence
that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law.
With respect to the will now in question a prima facie for the establishment of the
document was made out when it appeared that the instrument itself was properly drawn and
attested and that all of the signatures thereto are authentic These facts raise a presumption of
regularity; and upon those facts alone the will should be admitted to probate in the absence of
proof showing that some fatal irregularity occurred. And such irregularity must be proved by a
preponderance of the evidence before probate can be denied.

ANG~CABRERA~CALDINO~CHUPUNGCO~JOSOL~MARAVILLA~SAGUINSIN~SAN JOSE~SUVA~TOLENTINO~TOLENTINO~UY
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (SBCA, Monday Class) S.Y 2012-2013

Page

421