MERZA v.

PORRAS
GR No.L-4888, May 25, 1953
93 PHIL 142

FACTS: Pilar Montealegre died leaving a will and a so-called codicil, disinheriting her husband
Pedro Porras and some of her relatives. The two documents were submitted to probate but
were denied by the trial court, upon the grounds such as the defect of the attestation clause
and cannot be considered a codicil for it was executed by the testator a day before the will,
thus it cannot be included in the probate proceedings.

ISSUE: Should a document, expressly disinheriting certain heirs, executed by the testator prior
to a supposed last will, be probated?

HELD: Yes. The trial court and the CA is correct that the codicil having been executed one day
before will could not be considered as a codicil "because a codicil, as the word implies, is only
an addition to, or modification of, the will." The Court of Appeals added that "the contents of
the will (Exhibit B) are couched in the language ordinarily used in a simple affidavit and as such,
may not have the legal effect and force to a testamentary disposition. However, the will,
(Exhibit B) does partake of the nature of a will. A will is defined in article 667 of the Civil code of
Spain as "the act by which a person dispose of all his property or a portion of it," and in article
783 of the new Civil Code as "an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities
prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect
after his death. Exhibit B comes within this definition.

VITUG vs CA
188 SCRA 755

FACTS: This case is a chapter in an earlier suit decided by this Court involving the probate of the
two wills of the late Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in New York, U. S.A. naming private
respondent Rowena Faustino-Corona executrix. In said decision, the court upheld the
appointment of Nenita Alonte as co-special administrator of Mrs. Vitug’s estate with her (Mrs.
Vitug’s) widower, petitioner Romarico G. Vitug, pending probate.
Romarico G. Vitug filed a motion asking for authority from the probate court to sell
certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his
advances to the estate, plus interests, which he claimed were personal funds. As found by the
CA the alleged advances were spent for the payment of estate tax, deficiency estate tax, and
“increment thereto.” Rowena Corona opposed the motion to sell on the ground that the same
funds withdrawn were conjugal partnership properties and part of the estate, and hence, there
was allegedly no ground for reimbursement. She also sought his ouster for failure to include the
sums in question for inventory and for “concealment of funds belonging to the estate.”
Vitug insists that the said funds are his exclusive property having acquired the same
through a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank.

The trial courts upheld the validity of such agreement.

On the other hand, the CA held that the survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance
mortis causa which “did not comply with the formalities of a valid will as prescribed by Article
805 of the Civil Code,” and secondly, assuming that it is a mere donation inter vivos, it is a
prohibited donation under the provisions of Article 133 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE: W/N the survivorship agreement between the spouses Vitug constitutes a will.
HELD: NO. The conveyance in question is not, first of all, one of mortis causa, which should be
embodied in a will. A will has been defined as “a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by
which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or complies with
duties to take effect after his death.” In other words, the bequest or device must pertain to the
testator. In this case, the monies subject of savings account No. 35342-038 were in the nature
of conjugal funds In the case relied on, Rivera v. People’s Bank and Trust Co., we rejected claims
that a survivorship agreement purports to deliver one party’s separate properties in favor of
the other, but simply, their joint holdings.

There is no showing that the funds exclusively belonged to one party, and hence it must be
presumed to be conjugal, having been acquired during the existence of the marital relations.

Neither is the survivorship agreement a donation inter vivos, for obvious reasons, because it
was to take effect after the death of one party. Secondly, it is not a donation between the
spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse’s own properties to the other.

It is also our opinion that the agreement involves no modification petition of the conjugal
partnership, as held by the Court of Appeals, by “mere stipulation” and that it is no “cloak” to
circumvent the law on conjugal property relations. Certainly, the spouses are not prohibited by
law to invest conjugal property, say, by way of a joint and several bank account, more
commonly denominated in banking parlance as an “and/or” account. In the case at bar, when
the spouses Vitug opened savings account No. 35342-038, they merely put what rightfully
belonged to them in a money-making venture. They did not dispose of it in favor of the other,
which would have arguably been sanctionable as a prohibited donation.

The conclusion is accordingly unavoidable that Mrs. Vitug having predeceased her husband, the
latter has acquired upon her death a vested right over the amounts under savings account No.
35342-038 of the Bank of America. Insofar as the respondent court ordered their inclusion in
the inventory of assets left by Mrs. Vitug, we hold that the court was in error. Being the
separate property of petitioner, it forms no more part of the estate of the deceased.