Comparison of Cases (1)

5/20/2018 Comparison of Cases (1)

1/6

Grethel V. VillarubiaExecutive Class

Mondonido vs De RodaFacts:

Ricardo de Roda awarded two public writings, forcing Lazaro Mondoido to sell a portion of land,which he was to inherit from their grandparents, receiving P200 as advance payment !t the timeof the granting of such deeds there were already legal settlement in the "ourt of #irst $nstance of"ebu property of his grandfather %duardo de Roda &ith minor differences, the first document iswritten as the second'hereafter, the plaintiff presented fulfilling demand as(ing the two contracts 'he defendant, asadministrator of the goods relict of Richard de Roda, presented two defenses) *a+ that such deedsare void as it concerned future inheritance, and *b+ that the action is barred&hen %dward died, he left his children and grandchildren as heirs Ricardo, in representation ofhis father, inherited the -2. parts of the goods of his abuelo &hen Ricardo died, subse/uentlyhis relict goods were distributed to %duardo Ricardo her late grandfather and his sister Robertareceived in that to or their participation in the legacy of %dward, which was administered by thewidow of Richard, Roberta giving this to their participation in the products of that heritageIssue:

&hether or not, the agreement of the two scripts concerned future inheritanceHeld:1o doubt they are written in a way that one can not be sure if Ricardo was selling his participationin the estate of his late grandfather %dward alone or in those of his grandparents %dward and

!ntonina, but even if he had promised to sell its participation in the estate of his grandfather andgrandmother, the promise of sale in terms of the latter property is null and gun denin valuebecause it refers to selling future inheritance 3n future inheritance 4 says the 5panish "ivil "ode4 you may, however, enter into other contracts than those whose purpose is to practice thedivision between living a flow according to art 6078 *!rt 6296, par 2 : !rroyo against;erona,7< Phil, 2.7= 'ordilla against'ordilla, 80 Phil, 692+ !ntonina Ricardo 5epulveda lived even ifawarded the scriptures, but there are zero in for goods that Ricardo recibria the intestate of hisgrandfather %dward, because such goods were already in process relict of court settlement whenthe otorgo Los Ricardo rights to succession are transmitted by operation of law from the time of

death *art 879, "ode "iv 5panish+ Ricardo was already owner of the -2. parts of suchproperty, by way of royal heritage, present and future

Tordilla vs TordillaFacts:#rancisco 'ordilla, who died intestate in 1aga, "amarines 5ur, leaving as his only heirs hiswidow, a legitimate son, the defendant and appellant, and a recognized natural daughter,petitioner and appellee

! contract was entered into between the appellee and the appellant in another case and signedshortly before the death of their father 'he contract is in the nature of a compromise and coveredtwo items, namely, first, the support of the natural daughter which the brother agreed to assumefor one year and, second, a proposed division of their future inheritance upon the death of theirfather $t is assumed that appellant has complied with his terms of the contract, and the father

died before the obligation of the brother terminated

Issue: &hether or not, the contract, which involves future inheritance is valid

Held: 'he second portion of the contract clearly relates to the anticipated future inheritance and,therefore, is null and void under the provisions of article 6296 of the "ivil "ode which reads)

!R' 6296 !ll things, even future ones, which are not out of the commerce of man, may bethe sub>ect4matter of contracts1evertheless, no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritances, e?cept thosethe ob>ect of which is to ma(e a division intervivos of the estate, in accordance with article 6078!ny services not contrary to law or to good morals may also be the sub>ect4matter of a contract

'he action of the trial court in holding the said contract to be uncontroverted and predicating itsfinal action on the terms of that document was erroneous and contrary to law

Comarison bet!een the cases Mondonido and Tordilla

$n the Mondonido case, the sub>ect of the contract was a future inheritance= hence, the "ourtdeclared it as void $n the case of 'ordilla, the sub>ect matter of the contact involves an obligationto support and division of future inheritance 'he court in this case declared the the firstobligation as valid while the second portion of the contract was declared as null and void 'hedeclaration of its nullity is the same with the Mondonido case as it involves future inheritance


2/6

"aboneta vs GustilloFacts: 3n the 28th day of @ecember, 6A06, Macario Baboneta e?ecuted under the followingcircumstances the document in /uestion, which has been presented for probate as his will) Ceingin the house of !rcadio Barandilla, in Baro, in this province, he ordered that the document in/uestion be written, and calling Bulio Bavellana, !niceto Balbuena, and $sabelo Bena as witnesses,e?ecuted the said document as his will 'hey were all together, and were in the room where

Baboneta was, and were present when he signed the document, $sabelo Bena signing afterwardsas a witness, at his re/uest, and in his presence and in the presence of the other two witnesses!niceto Balbuena then signed as a witness in the presence of the testator, and in the presence ofthe other two persons who signed as witnesses !t that moment $sabelo Bena, being in a hurry toleave, too( his hat and left the room !s he was leaving the house Bulio Bavellana too( the pen inhis hand and put himself in position to sign the will as a witness, but did not sign in the presenceof $sabelo Bena= but nevertheless, after Bena had left the room the said Bulio Bavellana signed asa witness in the presence of the testator and of the witness !niceto Balbuena

'he proceedings probate was denied the last will and testament of Macario Baboneta, deceased,because the lower court was of the opinion from the evidence adduced at the hearing that BulioBavellana, one of the witnesses, did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of $sabeloBena, another of the witnesses, as re/uired

Issue: &hether or not the denial of the last will and testament was proper on the ground that oneof the witnesses did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of another of the witnesses

Rulin#: 1o, the purpose of a statutory re/uirement that the witness sign in the presence of thetestator is said to be that the testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the instrumentsubscribed by the witness and himself, and the generally accepted tests of presence are visionand mental apprehension$t is sufficient if the witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessingthe e?ecution of the will, and in a position to actually see the testator write, if they choose to doso= and there are many cases which lay down the rule that the true test of vision is not whetherthe testator actually saw the witness sign, but whether he might have seen him sign, consideringhis mental and physical condition and position at the time of the subscription

'he principles on which these cases rest and the tests of presence as between the testator and

the witnesses are e/ually applicable in determining whether the witnesses signed the instrumentin the presence of each other, as re/uired by the statute, and applying them to the facts proven inthese proceedings we are of opinion that the statutory re/uisites as to the e?ecution of theinstrument were complied with, and that the lower court erred in denying probate to the will on theground stated in the ruling appealed from 'hus, the 5upreme "ourt admitted the instrumentpropounded therein to probate as the last will and testament of Macario Baboneta

$era v. Rimando

Facts:!t the time the will was e?ecuted, in a large room connecting with a smaller room by a

doorway where a curtain hangs across, one of the witnesses was in the outside room when the

other witnesses were attaching their signatures to the instrument'he trial court did not consider the determination of the issue as to the position of the witness as

of vital importance in determining the case $t agreed with the ruling in the case of Baboneta v

;ustillo that the alleged fact being that one of the subscribing witnesses was in the outer room

while the signing occurred in the inner room, would not be sufficient to invalidate the e?ecution of

the will

Issue: &hether or not the subscribing witness was able to see the testator and other witnesses in

the act of affi?ing their signatures

Held:Des, the "ourt is unanimous in its opinion that had the witnesses been proven to be in the

outer room when the testator and other witnesses signed the will in the inner room, it would have

invalidated the will since the attaching of the signatures under the circumstances was not done in

the presenceE of the witnesses in the outer room 'he line of vision of the witness to the testator

and other witnesses was bloc(ed by the curtain separating the rooms

'he position of the parties must be such that with relation to each other at the moment of the

attaching the signatures, they may see each other sign if they chose to

$n the Baboneta case, the true test of presence is not whether or not they actuallmy saw each

other sign but whether they might have seen each other sign if they chose to do so considering

their physical, mental condition and position in relation to each other at the moment of the

inscription of the signature

Comarison bet!een the case o% "aboneta and the case o% $era


3/6

$n both cases, the due e?ecution of the last will and testament of the testator were beingchallenged because one of the subscribing witnesses did not attach his signature in the presenceof another witnesses, as re/uired by law

'he 5upreme "ourt resolve the issue by declaring that, the purpose of a statutory re/uirementthat the witness sign in the presence of the testator is said to be that the testator may have ocular

evidence of the identity of the instrument subscribed by the witness and himself, and thegenerally accepted tests of presence are vision and mental apprehension

$t is sufficient if the witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing the e?ecution of the will,and in a position to actually see the testator write, if they choose to do so= and there are manycases which lay down the rule that the true test of vision is not whether the testator actually sawthe witness sign, but whether he might have seen him sign, considering his mental and physicalcondition and position at the time of the subscription

De Gala vs Gon&ales and 'naFacts: 3n 1ovember 2, 6A20, 5everina ;onzales e?ecuted a will in which 5erapia de ;ala, aniece of 5everina, was designated e?ecutri? 'he testatri? died in 1ovember, 6A28, leaving noheirs by force of law, and on @ecember 2, 6A28, 5erapia, through her counsel, presented the willfor probate'he appellants 5inforoso 3na and !polinario ;onzales argue that the will in /uestion was note?ecuted in the form prescribed by section 86< of the "ode of "ivil Procedure as amended by !ct1o 28.7 which re/uires that in cases where the testator is unabele to sign, the testator or theperson re/uested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall alsosign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, on the left margin, and said pages shall benumbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet'he attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will is written,and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other personto write his name, under his e?press direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latterwitnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of eachother'he principal points raised by the appeal are *6+ that the person re/uested to sign the name of

the testatri? signed only the latterEs name and not her own= *2+ that the attestation clause does notmention the placing of the thumb4mar( of the testatri? in the will= and *+ that the fact that the willhad been signed in the presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause butonly in the last paragraph of the body of the will

Issue: &hether or not the will be considered invalid because *6+ the person re/uested to sign thename of the testatri? signed only the latterEs name and not her own= *2+ the attestation clausedoes not mention the placing of the thumb4mar( of the testatri? in the will= and *+ the fact that thewill had been signed in the presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause butonly in the last paragraph of the body of the will

Rulin#: 1o, the will is still considered valid !s to the first point, it had been held by this court thatwhere a testator is unable to write and his name is signed by another at his re/uest, in his

presence and in that of the subscribing witnesses thereto, it is unimportant, so far as the validityof the will is concerned, whether the person who writes the name of the testator signs his own ornot 'here is, however, an entirely different view which can be ta(en of the situation 'his is thatthe testatri? placed her thumb4mar( on the will in the proper places &hen, therefore, the lawsays that the will shall be EsignedE by the testator or testatri?, the law is fulfilled not only by thecustomary written signature but by the testator or testatri?E thumb4mar( 'he construction putupon the word EsignedE by most courts is the original meaning of a signum or sign, rather than thederivative meaning of a sign manual or handwriting ! statute re/uiring a will to be EsignedE issatisfied if the signature is made by the testatorEs mar( 'he testatri? thumb4mar( appears in thecenter of her name as written by 5erapia de ;ala on all of the pages of the will'he second and third points raised are sufficiently refuted by /uoting the last clause of the bodyof the will together with the attestation clause 'hough, it was not mentioned in the attestationclause that the testatri? signed by thumb4mar(, but it does there appear that the signature was

affi?ed in the presence of the witnesses, and the form of the signature is sufficiently describedand e?plained in the last clause of the body of the will $t maybe conceded that the attestationclause is not artistically drawn and that, standing alone, it does not /uite meet the re/uirements ofthe statute, but ta(en in connection with the last clause of the body of the will, it is fairly clear andsufficiently carries out the legislative intent= it leaves no possible doubt as to the authenticity ofthe document

Garcia v. (acuesta


4/6

Facts:'he "! disallowed the probate of the will of !ntero Mercado dated Ban 6A. 'he said will

was written in $locano dialect

'he will appears to have been signed by !tty #lorentino Bavier who wrote the name of the

testator followed below by E! ruego del testadorE and the name of #lorentino Bavier $n effect, itwas signed by another although under the e?press direction of the testator 'his fact however

was not recited in the attestation clause Mercado also affi?ed a cross on the will

'he lower court admitted the will to probate but this order was reversed by the "ourt of !ppeals

on the ground that the attestation failed to recite the facts surrounding the signing of the testator

and the witnesses

Issue: &hether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid

Held: 1o, the attestation is fatally defective for its failure to state that !ntero or the testator

caused !tty Bavier to write the formerEs name under his e?press direction as re/uired by 5ec 86

Documents

Comparison of Cases (1)