GENIE JUNE BIRAO LLB III

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

Jesus de Leon executed 2 wills.

The second will was not deemed in conformance to the requirements under the law.
After executing his first will, he asked it to be immediately returned to him.
As it was returned, he instructed his servant to tear it.
This was done in the testator's presence and his nurse.
After sometime, he was asked by his physician about the incident wherein he replied
that the will has already been destroyed.
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation of the will.

RULING: Yes.

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

Molo vs. Molo

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

Facts:

Marcos Molo executed 2 wills, one in August 1918 and another in June 1939.
The latter will contained a revocation clause which expressly revoked the will in
1918.
He died without any forced heirs but he was survived by his wife, herein petitioner
Juana.
The oppositors to the probate were his nephews and nieces.
Only a carbon copy of the second will was found.
The widow filed a petition for the probate of the 1939 will.
It was admitted to probate but subsequently set aside on ground that the petitioner
failed to prove its due execution.
As a result, the petitioner filed another petition for the probate of the 1918 will this
time.
Again the oppositors alleged that said will had already been revoked under the 1939
will.
They contended that despite the disallowance of the 1939 will, the revocation clause
is valid and thus effectively nullified the 1918 will.

Issue: Whether or not the 1918 will is valid despite the revocation in the subsequent
disallowed 1939 will
RULING: Yes.

The court applied the doctrine laid down in Samson v. Naval that a subsequent will,
containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the reason
that it was not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of
annulling the previous will, inasmuch as the said revocation clause is void.
There was no valid revocation in this case.
No evidence was shown that the testator deliberately destroyed the original 1918 will
because of his knowledge of the revocation clause contained in the will executed in
1939.
The earlier will can still be probated under the principle of dependent relative
revocation.
The doctrine applies when a testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an
instrument intended to revoke a will with the intention to make a new testamentary
disposition as substitute for the old, and the new disposition fails of effect for some
reason.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:
The two cases have for its subject two wills which essentially involves
revocation. In the earlier case of Dias vs De Leon, there exists a valid revocation of
wills as since it is apparent in the same case that there was a clear intention by the
testator to revoke a previous will made. The first therefore, cannot be subjected to
probate. In the second case however, no evidence was shown that the testator

deliberately destroyed the original will. Hence, the earlier will can still be probated
under the principle of dependent relative revocation. The doctrine applies when a
testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will
with the intention to make a new testamentary disposition as substitute for the old,
and the new disposition fails of effect for some reason.