Nenita Suroza vs.

Judge Reynaldo Honrado

(A.M. No. 2026; Dec. 19, 1981)
Facts: Petitioner is the wife of the preterited sole heir of the decedent, meanwhile respondent
Judge is the judge assigned to probate the alleged fraudulent will of Marcelina Suroza
bequeathing all her estate to a complete stranger, Marilyn Sy.
Mauro Suroza married Marcelina Salvador in 1923. The former was a corporal in the
U.S. Army. The couple was childless but they reared a boy named Agapito whom they
considered as their child. Mauro died in 1942. Agapito then married Nenita (petitioner) whom
they begot a child named Lilia. Agapito was also a soldier and later on became incapacitated and
declared incompetent enabling his wife to be declared as his guardian. On the other hand,
Arsenia Dela Cruz, an alleged girl friend of Agapito, was entrusted with a child named as
Marilyn Sy (beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent will), later delivered Marilyn to Marcelina
(mother of Agapito) and the latter brought her up as her granddaughter. Sometime in 1973,
Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will and such will was written in English, thumb
marked by her and supposedly bequeathing all her estate to Marilyn.
Marcelina died in 1974. Marina Paje, the appointed executrix in the will, filed with the
CFI a petition to probate alleged will. As there was no opposition, respondent judge
commissioned his deputy Clerk to receive evidence. Thereafter, in 1975 an order was laid down
by respondent judge allowing Paje (executrix) to withdraw amounts from the passbook of
Marcelina and to deliver to them said passbooks. Moreover, upon motion by Marina, respondent
judge ordered the sheriff to eject occupants of the testatrixs house, including petitioner.
Petitioner then filed a motion to set aside the order ejecting them raising that Nenita was
Agapitos guardian and Marilyn was not Agapitos daughter nor decedents
granddaughter. In his subsequent orders, despite having knowledge of the anomalies, denied all
claims of Nenita. Nenita filed a petition to set aside the probate proceeding but was also
subsequently denied by respondent and closed the proceedings.
Ten months later, a verified complaint was filed by Nenita against respondent Judge for
having probated the fraudulent will. Nenita contended again that the testatrix (Marcelina) was
illiterate as shown by her thumb mark and had no knowledge of the English language, in which
the will was written. Sometime in 1978, Nenita filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to
declared the decree of probate and the probate proceeding be declared void. In support of such
was an affidavit of Domingo Aquino, who notarized the will, stating that the testatrix and the
witnesses did not appear before him and merely notarized the will to accommodate a brother
lawyer on the condition that the lawyer would bring the testatrix and his witnesses but never
complied with such.
Held: The Supreme Court found respondent Judge liable for disciplinary action for improper
disposition of the testate case which might have resulted in the miscarriage of justice because the

legal heirs and not Marilyn should have inherited the decedents estate. The SC added, In this
case, respondent judge, on perusing the will and noting that it was written in English and was
thumb marked by an obviously illiterate testatrix, could have readily perceived that the will is
void. The Court added that in the opening paragraph it was stated that English was understood
and known to the Testatrix but upon the end, it stated that it was translated to Filipino to her.
That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the testatrix
and therefore, void under the mandatory requirement of Art. 804 of the Civil Code.