LIPANA vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE
CORNELIO
FACTS:
Eliodora Lipana filed in the respondent court an
application for the probate of a will supposedly
executed by the deceased, Manuela Lipana, a carbon
copy of which was attached to the application.
Natividad Lipana filed an opposition, and claimed that
evidence was unnecessary upon the facts alleged in the
application, the copy of the will attached thereto
showing, in itself, that the will had not been executed in
accordance with law.
CFI dismissed the application on the ground that such
copy could not be admitted to probate, it not having
been signed by the testatrix and the attesting witnesses
at the end thereof and on the left margin of each page.
ISSUE: Whether a carbon copy of the will could not be
admitted to probate
RULING:
No. It is error to dismiss a probate proceeding
on the mere ground that the copy presented is only a
carbon copy.
The pronouncement made by the CFI that the
will had not been executed in accordance with law, is an
erroneous assumption that the probate of the carbon
copy of the will was being applied for. Such copy was
attached to the application merely to corroborate the
allegation as to the existence of its original and not to
establish a full compliance with the requirements of the
law as to the execution of the will.
What is sought to be admitted to probate is the
original of the will. It is alleged that the original was in
the possession of a third person or that it was either
lost or destroyed by some person other than the
testatrix. Under section 623 of Act No. 190, if a will is
shown to have been torn by some other person without
the express direction of the testator, it may be admitted
to probate, if its contents, due execution and its
unauthorized destruction are established by satisfactory
evidence.
The applicant, therefore, was entitled to
hearing to prove the due execution of the original will
and its loss or destruction, and the respondent court
had no statutory authority to dismiss the application
without such hearing.
ESTATE OF MIGUEL MAMUYAC v.
MAMUYAC
Facts:
Testator Mamuyac died sometime on January
1922 and on or about July 1918, the former executed
his last will and testament. Thereafter, Gago presented
a petition in the Court of First Instance for the
probation of said will. The probation was opposed and
eventually denied by CFI on the ground that the
deceased had executed a new will and testament
sometime in April of 1919.
A second probate action was then filed by Gago.
Its purpose was to secure the probation of the “1919
Will”. Oppositors alleged that the same is a copy of the
second will and testament executed by testator
Mamuyac and that it had been cancelled and revoked
during the lifetime of testator Mamuyac. CFI denied the
probation on the ground that the “1919 Will” had been
cancelled and revoked by the testator in 1920.
Issues: Is there a valid revocation of the “1919 Will”?
Ruling:
Yes, the will had been cancelled in 1920.
Where a will which cannot be found is shown to
have been in the possession of the testator, when last
seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other
competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or
destroyed. The same presumption arises where it is
shown that the testator had ready access to the will and
it cannot be found after his death.
Here, the “1919 Will”, presented in the 2nd
probate proceeding, is a mere carbon copy of its
original which remained in the possession of the
deceased testator Mamuyac, who revoked it before his
death as per testimony of witnesses Jose Fenoy, who
typed the will of the testator. Witness Bejar also saw
the original of the “1919 Will” which was cancelled by
the testator Mamuyac, who assured Bejar that
inasmuch as he had sold him a house and the land
where the house was built, he had to cancel it.
MALOTO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and
nephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and
Constancio, Maloto, and the private respondents
Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the
deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament,
these four heirs commenced an intestate proceeding
for the settlement of their aunt's estate. However,
while the case was still in progress the parties - Aldina,
Constancio, Panfilo, and Felino - executed an agreement
of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate. The
agreement provided for the division of the estate into
four equal parts among the parties. The Malotos then
presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to
the trial court for approval which the court did
approved.
Three years later Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former
associate of Adriana's counseldiscovered a document
entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN
(Testamento)," and purporting to be the last will and
testament of Adriana. Atty. Palma claimed to have
found the testament, the original copy, while he was
going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer
formerly used by Atty. Hervas.
Incidentally, while Panfilo and Felino are still named as
heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio are
bequeathed much bigger and more valuable shares in
the estate of Adriana than what they received by virtue
of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement they had
earlier signed. The will likewise gives devises and
legacies to other parties.
Subsequently, Aldina and Constancio, joined by the
other devisees and legatees named in the will, fileda
motion for reconsideration and annulment of the
proceedings in the intestate proceedings of Adriana and
for the allowance of the will.
Trial court denied their motion,
The petitioner came to SC by way of a petition for
certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of the trial
court. SC dismissed that petition and advised to file a
separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will.
By that petitioner file a separate proceeding for probate
of the will.
Significantly, during the investigation the appellate
court found out that the will was allegedly burned by
the househelp of Adriana, Guadalupe Maloto Vda. de
Coral, upon instructions of the testatrix, and found that
the will had been revoked. The CA stated that the
presence of animus revocandi in the destruction of the
will had, nevertheless, been sufficiently proven.
Issue: Whether or not the will was revoked by Adriana
Ruling:
Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following
cases:
Xxx
(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the
will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator
himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by
his express direction. If burned, torn cancelled, or
obliterated by some other person, without the express
direction of the testator, the will may still be
established, and the estate distributed in accordance
therewith, if its contents, and due execution, and the
fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or
obliteration are established according to the Rules of
Court.
It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will,
like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an
effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled
with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is
not imperative that the physical destruction be done by
the testator himself. It may be performed by another
person but under the express direction and in the
presence of the testator. Of course, it goes without
saying that the document destroyed must be the will
itself.
"Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary
elements for the effective revocation of a last will and
testament. The intention to revoke must be
accompanied by the overt physical act of burning,
tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by
the testator or by another person in his presence and
under his express direction. There is paucity of evidence
to show compliance with these requirements. For one,
the document or papers burned by Adriana's maid,
Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a
will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For
another, the burning was not proven to have been done
under the express direction of Adriana. And then, the
burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses,
Guadalupe and Eladio, were one in stating that they
were the only ones present at the place where the
stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which
the papers proffered as a will were burned.
SC approved the allowance of Adriana Maloto's last will
and testament.
 Molo v Molo Issue: Whether there was valid revocation of the will

Facts: Mariano Molo died without any ascendants or Ruling:

descendants but he was survived by his wife Juana. He
left two wills. The first will was executed in 1918 but Yes.
was subsequently revoked by a second will in 1939.
The destruction of a will animo revocandi constitutes, in
Juan filed for probate of 1939 will but was denied for itself, a sufficient revocation. (Sec. 623, Code of Civil
failure to execute the same in accordance with law. Procedure.)
(Canuto Perez did not witness the signing of the will as
In this case, after the testator executed the first will, he
he went out of the room to poo). After the disallowance
immediately asked that the same be returned to him.
of 1939 will, she again filed for another probate
After which, he ordered his servant to tear the
proceeding of the 1918 will where she presented a
document, in his presence and before a nurse who
duplicate copy. Oppositors; the nieces and nephew,
testified to this effect. The intention of revoking the will
who were eager to have intestate proceedings of the
is manifest from the established fact that the testator
estate, opposed contending that 1918 will was
was anxious to withdraw or change the provisions he
previously revoked in 1939. They further argued that
had made in his first will.
revocatory clause is valid and still has the effect of
nullifying the prior will despite the previous The original/1st will presented for probate is destroyed
disallowance. with animo revocandi, thus cannot be probated as the
will and last testament of Jesus de Leon.
CFI- allowed probate

Issue: Whether revocation clause in a disallowed will

has the effect of annulling the previous will.

Ruling: No.

In Samson v Naval, 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 revocatory clause is
void.

ITC, the revocatory clause is void. Further, the 1918 will

is valid for probate under the doctrine of dependent
relative revocation.

The failure of the new testamentary disposition, upon

whose validity the revocation depends, is equivalent to
the non-fulfillment of a suspensive condition, and hence
prevents the revocation of the original will.

DIAZ VS. DE LEON

Facts:

In his lifetime, Jesus De Leon executed two wills. The

first will is the subject of this probate. The petitioner
denies such revocation, while the contestant affirms the
same by alleging that the testator revoked his will by
destroying it, and by executing another will expressly
revoking the former. The second will, as found by the
Court, did not comply with the necessary requisites to
constitute a sufficient revocation.