7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

1/31

Article 783

Johnny Rabadilla vs Court of Appeals

334 SCRA 522 Civil Law Succession Transmissible Obligations

A certain Aleja Belleza died but he instituted in his will Dr Jor!e Rabadilla as adevisee to a "##$ 8"" hectare land A condition was however i%posed to the e&ect

that'

# the na(ed ownership shall transfer to Dr Rabadilla)

* he shall deliver the fruits of said land to +aria Belleza$ sister of Aleja$ durin! the

lifeti%e of said +aria Belleza)

3 that in case Dr Rabadilla shall die before +aria Belleza$ the near descendants$

shall continue deliverin! the fruits to +aria Belleza)

, that the said land %ay only be encu%bered$ %ort!a!ed$ or sold only to a relativeof Belleza

-n #.83$ Dr Rabadilla died /e was survived by Johnny Rabadilla

-n #.8.$ +aria Belleza sued Johnny Rabadilla in order to co%pel Johnny to reconvey

the said land to the estate of Aleja Belleza because it is alle!ed that Johnny failed to

co%ply with the ter%s of the will) that since #.8"$ Johnny failed to deliver the fruits)

and that the the land was %ort!a!ed to the 0hilippine 1ational Ban($ which is a

violation of the will

-n his defense$ Johnny avers that the ter% 2near descendants in the will of Alejapertains to the near descendants of Aleja and not to the near descendants of Dr

Rabadilla$ hence$ since Aleja had no near descendants at the ti%e of his death$ no

can substitute Dr Rabadilla on the obli!ation to deliver the fruits of the devised

land

ISSUE: 4hether or not Johnny Rabadilla is not obli!ed to co%ply with the ter%s of

the 4ill left by Aleja Belleza

HELD: 1o 5he contention of Johnny Rabadilla is bereft of %erit 5he 2near

descendants bein! referred to in the will are the heirs of Dr Rabadilla 6wnership

over the devised property was already transferred to Dr Rabadilla when Aleja died

/ence$ when Dr Rabadilla hi%self died$ ownership over the sa%e property was

trans%itted to Johnny Rabadilla by virtue of succession

nder Article 77 of the Civil Code$ inheritance includes all the property$ ri!hts and

obli!ations of a person$ not e9tin!uished by his death Confor%ably$ whatever ri!hts

Dr Rabadilla had by virtue of the 4ill were trans%itted to his forced heirs$ at the

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

2/31

ti%e of his death And since obli!ations not e9tin!uished by death also for% part of

the estate of the decedent) corollarily$ the obli!ations i%posed by the 4ill on the

deceased Dr Jor!e Rabadilla$ were li(ewise trans%itted to his co%pulsory heirs

upon his death -t is clear therefore$ that Johnny should have continued co%plyin!

with the ter%s of the 4ill /is failure to do so shall !ive rise to an obli!ation for hi%to reconvey the property to the estate of Aleja

Testate estate of CARLOS GIL, deceased. ISABEL HERRERO VDA. DE GIL,admnstratr!"a##e$$ee,%s.&ILAR GIL VDA. DE 'URCIA(O, o##ostor"a##e$$ant.

)ACTS:

Carlos :il e9ecuted a last will and testa%ent After his death$ it waspresented for probate in the Court of ;irst -nstance of +anila 5his was opposed byhis nephew$ Roberto 5oledo y :il and sister$ 0ilar

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

3/31

%ere clerical error for it a&ects the very essence of the clause 5hus$ the defectcannot be cured by inference to the will itself

ISSUE:

4hether or not the will is valid despite its defective attestation clause

HELD:

5he will is valid -t see%s obvious that the %issin! phrase was left out fro%the copy 5he proble% posed by the o%ission in ?uestion is !overned$ not by thelaw of wills which re?uire certain for%alities to be ful>lled in the e9ecution but bythe rules of construction applicable to statutes and docu%ents in !eneral 5hecourt %ay and should correct the error by supplyin! the o%itted word or words

-t has been said$ and e9perience has shown$ that the %echanical syste% ofconstruction has operated %ore to defeat honest wills than prevent fraudulent ones

5hat would be the e&ect in this case if the will under consideration were rejected for

the adverse party now concedes the !enuineness of the docu%ent 5he!enuineness is super obvious$ and there is not the sli!htest insinuation of unduepressure$ %ental incapacity of the testator or fraud

Co%in! to the e9ecution of wills$ the =upre%e Court saw no le!iti%ate$practical reason for objectin! to the testator instead of the witnesses certifyin! thathe si!ned the will in the presence of the latter 5he will is of the testators own%a(in!$ the intervention of attestin! witnesses bein! desi!ned %erely to protect hisinterest

+615-16A v /RB6=A

;AC5=' +ontinola >led an action a!ainst the heirs of Dr Jose Rizal for recovery ofpossession of personal property Ethe R-FA R-C=G alle!edly sold to hi% by DoHa

5rinidad Rizal 5he trial court held that neither party is entitled to the possession ofsuch property$ relyin! principally on the fact that in RizalIs +i lti%o Adios$ there isa line where Rizal be?ueathed all his property to the ;ilipino people 5he courtar!ued that the handwritten wor( of Rizal constitutes a holo!raphic will !ivin! the=tate all his property

-==' Does +i lti%o Adios constitute a last will

/D' 1o An instru%ent which %erely e9presses a last wish as a thou!ht or advicebut does not contain a disposition of property$ and e9ecuted without Ani%us =tandicannot be le!ally considered a will RizalIs +i lti%o Adios is but a literary piece ofwor($ and was so intended -t %ay be considered a will in a !ra%%atical sense butnot in a le!al or juridical sense +oreover$ it also lac(s the re?uire%ents of aholo!raphic will such as a state%ent of the year %onth and day of its e9ecution andhis si!nature

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

4/31

+RFA v 06RRA=:R 1o,888$ +ay *"$ #."3.3 0/- #,*

;AC5=' 0ilar +onteale!re died leavin! a will E9hibit AG and a socalled codicilE9hibit BG$ disinheritin! her husband 0edro 0orras and so%e of her relatives 5hetwo docu%ents were sub%itted to probate but were denied by the trial court$ uponthe !rounds such as the defect of the attestation clause on 9h A and that 9hcannot be considered a codicil for it was e9ecuted by the testator a day before9hibit A$ thus it cannot be included in the probate proceedin!s

-==' =hould a docu%ent$ e9pressly disinheritin! certain heirs$ e9ecuted by thetestator prior to a supposed last will$ be probated

/D' Kes 5he trial court and the CA is correct that 9hibit B havin! been e9ecutedone day before 9hibit A could not be considered as a codicil @because a codicil$ asthe word i%plies$ is only an addition to$ or %odi>cation of$ the will@ 5he Court of

Appeals added that @the contents of 9hibit B are couched in the lan!ua!eordinarily used in a si%ple aLdavit and as such$ %ay not have the le!al e&ect andforce to a testa%entary disposition@/owever$ 9hibit B does parta(e of the nature of a will A will is de>ned in article7 of the Civil code of =pain as @the act by which a person dispose of all hisproperty or a portion of it$@ and in article 783 of the new Civil Code as @an actwhereby a person is per%itted$ with the for%alities prescribed by law$ to control to acertain de!ree the disposition of his estate$ to ta(e e&ect after his death 9hibit Bco%es within this de>nition

Vt+ %. Co+rt of A##ea$s

;acts'

# 5he case is a chapter in an earlier suit involvin! the issue on two E*G wills of the

late Dolores

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

5/31

e9ecuted with his late wife and the ban( previously -n the said a!ree%ent$ they

a!reed that in the event of death of either$ the funds will beco%e the sole property

of the survivor

, 5he lower court upheld the validity of the survivorship a!ree%ent and !rantedRo%aricoIs %otion to sell 5he Court of Appeals however held that said a!ree%ent

constituted a conveyance %ortis causa which did not co%ply with the for%alities of

a valid will ;urther$ assu%in! that it is donation inter vivos$ it is a prohibited

donation

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

6/31

not the e9trinsic validity of the will) E3G disinheritance constitutes a disposition ofthe estate of a decedent) and E,G the rule on preterition did not apply because=e!undos will did not constitute a universal heir or heirs to the e9clusion of one or%ore co%pulsory heirs

5he R5C issued an order dis%issin! the petition for probate proceedin!s$hence$ a petition for certiorari was >led where petitioners ar!ued as follows'

;irst$ respondent jud!e did not co%ply with =ections 3 and , of the Rule 7of the Rules of Court which respectively %andate the court to' EaG >9 the ti%e andplace for provin! the will when all concerned %ay appear to contest the allowancethereof$ and cause notice of such ti%e and place to be published three wee(ssuccessively previous to the appointed ti%e in a newspaper of !eneral circulation)and EbG cause the %ailin! of said notice to the heirs$ le!atee and devisees of thetestator =e!undo)

=econd$ the holo!raphic will does not contain any institution of an heir$ butrather$ as its title clearly states$ $asulatan ng %ag&alis ng 'ana$ si%ply contains adisinheritance of a co%pulsory heir 5hus$ there is no preterition in the decedentswill and the holo!raphic will on its face is not intrinsically void)

5hird$ the testator intended all his co%pulsory heirs$ petitioners and privaterespondents ali(e$ with the sole e9ception of Alfredo$ to inherit his estate 1one ofthe co%pulsory heirs in the direct line of =e!undo were preterited in the holo!raphicwill since there was no institution of an heir)

;ourth$ as it clearly appears fro% the face of the holo!raphic will that it isboth intrinsically and e9trinsically valid$ respondent jud!e was %andated to proceed

with the hearin! of the testate case) and$

astly$ the continuation of the proceedin!s in the intestate case will wor(injustice to petitioners$ and will render nu!atory the disinheritance of Alfredo

1ow$ the critical issue to be deter%ined is whether the docu%ent e9ecutedby =e!undo can be considered as a holo!raphic will

He$d: A holo!raphic will$ as provided under Article 8#M of the Civil Code$ %ust beentirely written$ dated$ and si!ned by the hand of the testator hi%self -t is subjectto no other for%$ and %ay be %ade in or out of the 0hilippines$ and need not be

witnessed 5he docu%ent$ althou!h it %ay initially co%e across as a %eredisinheritance instru%ent$ confor%s to the for%alities of a holo!raphic willprescribed by law -t is written$ dated and si!ned by the hand of the testator hi%selfAn intent to dispose mortis causaEArticle 783G can be clearly deduced fro% theter%s of the instru%ent$ and while it does not %a(e an aLr%ative disposition of thelatters property$ the disinheritance of the son nonetheless$ is an act of disposition

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

7/31

in itself -n other words$ the disinheritance results in the disposition of the propertyof the testator in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of the eldest son

+oreover$ it is a funda%ental principle that the intent or the will of thetestator$ e9pressed in the for% and within the li%its prescribed by law$ %ust be

reco!nized as the supre%e law in succession All rules of construction are desi!nedto ascertain and !ive e&ect to that intention -t is only when the intention of thetestator is contrary to law$ %orals$ or public policy that it cannot be !iven e&ect

/olo!raphic wills$ therefore$ bein! usually prepared by one who is notlearned in the law should be construed %ore liberally than the ones drawn by ane9pert$ ta(in! into account the circu%stances surroundin! the e9ecution of theinstru%ent and the intention of the testator -n this re!ard$ the docu%ent$ even ifcaptioned as $asulatan ng %ag&alis ng 'ana$ was intended by the testator to be hislast testa%entary act and was e9ecuted by hi% in accordance with law in the for%of a holo!raphic will nless the will is probated$ the disinheritance cannot be !iven

e&ect

ARTICLE 123

CA=5AODA v A+A1K:R 1o#,3.$ +arch #.$ #.M,3 0/- ,*

;AC5=' Appellant constested the validity of the will of DoHa Juana +oreno upon the!round that althou!h the attestation clause in the will states that the testatorsi!ned the will in the presence of three witnesses who also each si!ned in eachpresence$ the will was not actually written by the testator

-==' -s it necessary that a will be written by the testator herself

/D' 1o =ection #8 of the Civil Code re?uires E#G that the will be in writin! andE*G either that the testator si!n it hi%self or$ if he does not si!n it$ that it be si!nedby so%e one in his presence and by his e9press direction 4ho does the %echanicalwor( of writin! the will is a %atter of indi&erence 5he fact$ therefore$ that in thiscase the will was typewritten in the oLce of the lawyer for the testratri9 is of noconse?uenceArticle 788

'ARI(A DI4O("RIVERA, e9ecutri9appellee$vs

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

8/31

ESTELA DI4O(, TO'AS V. DI4O(, BER(ARDITA DI4O(, 5OSE)I(A DI4O(,

A(GELI(A DI4O( and LILIA DI4O(, oppositorsappellants

66 SCRA 773 891;c properties to be !iven to each co%pulsoryheir and the testatri9 repeatedly used the words @- be?ueath@ was interpreted to %eana partition of the estate by an act mortis causa$ rather than as an atte%pt on her partto !ive such properties as devises to the desi!nated bene>ciaries Accordin!ly$ thespeci>c properties assi!ned to each co%pulsory heir were dee%ed to be in full orpartial pay%ent of le!iti%e$ rather than a distribution in the nature of devises

5he tenor of the decision notwithstandin!$ it is i%portant to note the provision ofArticle 88 which reads' @e!iti%e is that part of the testatorIs property which hecannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are$ therefore$called co%pulsory heirs@ Article 88 is couched upon a ne!ative prohibition @cannotdispose of@ -n the will under consideration$ the testatri9 disposed of practically herentire estate by desi!natin! a bene>ciary for each property 1ecessarily$ thetesta%entary dispositions included that portion of the estate called @le!iti%e@ -t isthus i%perative to reconcile the tenor of Article #M8M Ewhich is the basis of thefollowin! decisionG with Article 88

)ACTS: -n #.#$ A!ripina

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

9/31

the willb +arina and 5o%as were adjudicated the properties that they received in the

will less the cashPproperties to co%plete their respective le!iti%e 5he other heirs opposed the partition and proposed a counterpartition on the

estate where +arina and 5o%as were to receive considerably less7 5he lower court approved the e9ecutors project of partition citin! that Art .M

and .M7 1CC speci>cally provide that when the le!iti%e is i%paired orprejudiced$ the sa%e shall be co%pleted 5he court cited that if the propositionof the oppositors was upheld$ it will substantially result in a distribution ofintestacy which is a violation of Art 7.# 1CC

ISSUE: 461 the last will of the deceased is to be considered controllin! in this case

HELD: Kes Art 788 and 7.# 1CC provide that @-f a testa%entary disposition ad%itsof di&erent interpretations$ in case of doubt$ that interpretation by which the

disposition is to be operative shall be preferred@ and @5he words of a will are to receivean interpretation which will !ive to every e9pression so%e e&ect$ rather than onewhich will render any of the e9pressions inoperative) and of two %odes of interpretin!a will$ that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy@ -n e sett$ed naccordance there0th, fo$$o0n the #$an and $tera$ meann of thetestator?s 0ords, +n$ess t c$ear$ a##ears that hs ntenton 0as other0se.@

5he testatorIs wishes and intention constitute the >rst and principal law in the %atter

of testa%ents$ and to paraphrase an early decision of the =upre%e Court of =pain$when e9pressed clearly and precisely in his last will$ a%ount to the only law whose%andate %ust i%peratively be faithfully obeyed and co%plied with by his e9ecutors$heirs and devisees and le!atees$ and neither these interested parties nor the courts%ay substitute their own criterion for the testatorIs will 5hus$ the oppositorsproposition for partition cannot be !iven e&ect

61 0AR5-5-61' 5he testa%entary disposition of the decedent was in the nature of apartition -n her will$ the decedent noted that after co%%andin! that upon her deathall her obli!ations as well as the e9penses of her last illness and funeral and the

e9penses for the probate of her last will and for the ad%inistration of her property inaccordance with law$ be paid$ she e9pressly provided that @it is %y wish and -co%%and that %y property be divided@ in accordance with the dispositionsi%%ediately thereafter followin!$ whereby she speci>ed each real property in herestate and desi!nated the particular heir a%on! her seven co%pulsory heirs andseven other !randchildren to who% she be?ueathed the sa%e 5his was a validpartition of her estate$ as conte%plated and authorized in the >rst para!raph of Art#M8M 1CC$ providin! that @=hould a person %a(e a partition of his estate by an act

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

10/31

inter vivosor by will$ such partition shall be respected$ insofar as it does not prejudicethe le!iti%e of the co%pulsory heirs@

CAB' 5his was properly co%plied with in the e9ecutors project of partition as the

oppositors were adjudicated the properties respectively distributed and assi!ned tothe% by the decedent in her will and the di&erential to co%plete their le!iti%es wereta(en fro% the cash andPor properties of +arina and 5o%as$ who were obviouslyfavored by the decedent in her will

Aside fro% the provisions of Art .M and .M7$ other codal provisions support thee9ecutri9appelleeIs project of partition as approved by the lower court rather than thecounterproject of partition proposed by oppositorsappellants whereby they wouldreduce the testa%entary disposition or partition %ade by the testatri9 to onehalf andli%it the sa%e$ which they would consider as %ere devises and le!acies$ to onehalf ofthe estate as the disposable free portion$ and apply the other half of the estate topay%ent of the le!iti%es of the seven co%pulsory heirs 6ppositorsI proposal woulda%ount substantially to a distribution by intestacy and(ro tanto nullify the testatri9Iswill$ contrary to Art 7.# 1CC

;;C5 6; 0AR5-5-61' IA partition le!ally %ade confers upon each heir the e9clusiveownership of the property adjudicated to hi%@$ fro% the death of her ancestors$subject to ri!hts and obli!ations of the latter$ and$ she cannot be deprived of herri!hts thereto e9cept by the %ethods provided for by law

D

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

11/31

le!iti%e of each heir nor havin! left %erely so%e properties by will which would callfor the application of Art #M# to #M3 of the Civil Code on collation

CA1 5/ 6006=-56R= D+A1D +6R 5/A1 5/-R :-5-+ 1o 5heir ri!ht was

%erely to de%and co%pletion of their le!iti%e under Article .M of the Civil Code andthis has been co%plied with in the approved project of partition$ and they can nolon!er de%and a further share fro% the re%ainin! portion of the estate$ asbe?ueathed and partitioned by the testatri9 principally to the e9ecutri9appellee

VDA. DE VILLA(UEVA %s. 5UICO

, =CRA ""M

)ACTS:

Don 1icolas led an action a!ainst the ad%inistrator contendin! that upon the

widows death$ she beca%e vested with the ownership of the properties be?ueathed

under clause 7 pursuant to its 8thclause of the will

ISSUE:

461 the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the

death of Dona ;austina

HELD:

5he intention of the testator here was to %erely !ive usufructuary ri!ht to

his wife DoSa ;austa because in his will he provided that DoSa ;austa shall forfeit

the properties if she fails to bear a child and because she died without havin!

be!otten any children with the deceased then it %eans that DoSa ;austa never

ac?uired ownership over the property pon her death$ because she never ac?uiredownership over the property$ the said properties are not included in her estate

5hose properties actually belon! to e$on to Doa )a+sta 0tho+t mentonn an condton

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

12/31

BALA(A, 5R. %s. 'ARTI(E4

, =CRA ,"*

)ACTS:

eode!aria Julian died =he was survived by her husband$ ;eli9 Balanay$ =r$ and si9le!iti%ate children

;eli9 Balanay$ Jr >led a petition for the probate of his %others notarial

will$ which was written in n!lish -n thatwill$ eode!aria declared that it was herdesire her properties should not be divided a%on! her heirs durin! her husbandIslifeti%e and that their le!iti%es should be satis>ed out of the fruits of herproperties =he devised andpartitioned the conju!al lands as if they were all owned

by her =he disposed of in the will her husbandIs onehalf share of the conju!alassets

;eli9 Balanay$ =r and Avelina B Antonio opposed the probate of the will5here

after$ ;eli9 Balanay$ =r si!ned an instru%ent waivin! and renouncin! his ri!ht ineode!arias estate in favor

of their children

ISSUE:

4hether or not the probate court erred in passin! upon the intrinsic validity of thewill$ before rulin! on itsallowance or for%al validity$ and in declarin! it void

RULI(G:

The tra$ co+rt acted correct$ n #assn +#on the 0$$?s ntrnsc %a$dt

e%en >efore ts forma$%a$dt had >een esta>$shed. The #ro>ate of a 0$$

mht >ecome an d$e ceremon f on ts face t a##ears to>e ntrnsca$$

%od

But the probate court erred in declarin! that the will was void and in convertin! thetestate proceedin! into anintestate proceedin!5he will is intrinsically valid and thepartition therein %ay be !iven e&ect if it does not prejudice the creditors andi%pairthe le!iti%es 5he distribution and partition would beco%e e&ective upon thedeath of ;eli9 Balanay$ =r -n the%eanti%e$ the net inco%e should be e?uitablydivided a%on! the children and the survivin! spouse

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

13/31

G.R. (o. L"3719 A#r$ 2, 965ULIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL., Plaintifs-Appellants, %s. A(TO(IO DELROSARIO, ET AL., Deendants-Appellees.Galo Al. Acua or appellants.

'. #. )e *oa an) +i)el *. Silva ,or a((ellees.A

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

14/31

5=5A5 =5A5 6; ;A5/R R-:6R nite ti%e thereafter.@-n order to be capacitated to inherit$ theheir$ devisee or le!atee %ust be livin! at the %o%ent the succession opens$ e9ceptin case of representation$ when it is proper@ EArt #M*"$ Civil CodeG -nas%uch asthe testator was not survived by any nephew who beca%e a priest$ the unavoidable

conclusion is that the be?uest in ?uestion was ine&ectual or inoperative 5herefore$the ad%inistration of the ricelands by the parish priest of

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

15/31

provisions of the will relied upon by plainti& is not %andatory) that thedeter%ination of who should be the tenant of the land is vested in a special court)and that the present action is not the proper re%edy

After trial$ the court dis%issed the co%plaint for lac( of suLcient cause of action -t

held that the provisions of the will relied upon by plainti& %erely a%ount to asu!!estion to the defendants who$ thou!h %orally bound$ are not le!ally co%pelledto follow said su!!estion$ invo(in! as authority Article 7.7 of the old Civil Code0lainti& has appealed

5he pertinent provisions of the will relied upon by appellant read as follows'

Dapat din na%an %ala%an n! dalawa (on! ta!apa!%ana na sila +AR-A 0AB6 atA1:-1A :61FA= na sila ay %ay dapat 51:N-1 6 :A1:0A1A1 :AKA n!%!a su%usunod'

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

E*G 0ahihintulutan nila na si Del>n Ka%bao an! %a(apa!trabajo n! bu(id haban!panahon$ at an! nasabin! bu(id ay isasailali% n! pa%a%ahala n! Albaseasa%antalan! an! bu(id ay nasa usapin at %ay utan! pa

-t appears that on Au!ust #M$ #.,*$ +aria :onzales e9ecuted a will be?ueathin! toappellees all her properties situated in =ta Rosa$ a!una 5he will was probated in#.,8 -%%ediately$ thereafter$ appellant went to appellees to re?uest that he beplaced as tenant of the riceland which$ by an e9press provision of said will$ theywere directed to !ive to hi% for cultivation$ as tenant$ and when they refusedalle!in! that they had already !iven it to another tenant he >led the present action

-n holdin! that the provisions of the will relied upon by appellant i%poses onlya moral but not a legal obli!ation$ the trial court went on to consider the i%port ofthe word @0ahihintulutan@ e%ployed with reference to appellant -n its opinion saidword only %eans to(ermit or to allow$ but not to direct appellees to appointappellant as tenant Rather$ it opines$ it %erely contains a su!!estion to e%ploybecause the testatri9 did not use the words @ipina!uutos (o@ which she used inconnection with other provisions of the will$ so that there is no clear indication thatit was her intention to %a(e such provision co%pulsory

4e believe$ however$ that the trial court has not properly interpreted the real i%port

of the wish of the testatri9 Analyzin! it carefully we will >nd that the sa%e containsa clear directive to e%ploy appellant as %ay be seen fro% the words precedin! theword @pahihintulutan@$ which say' @Dapat din na%an %ala%an n! dalawa (on!ta!apa!%ana na sila +AR-A 0AB6 at A1:-1A :61FA= na sila ay %ay dapat

51:N-1 6 :A1:0A1A1 :AKA n! %!a su%usunod@ 5he words Idapat51:N-1 6 :A1:0A1A1@ %ean to )o or to carr out as a %andate or directive$and havin! reference to the word @pahihintulutan@$ can convey no other %eanin!

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

16/31

than to i%pose a duty upon appellees 5o follow the interpretation !iven by the trialcourt would be to devoid the wish of the testatri9 of its real and true %eanin!

Article 7.7 of the old Civil Code$ invo(ed by the trial court$ is inapplicable 5hatrefers to an institution of an heir intended to be conditional by providin! that a

state%ent to the e&ect cannot be considered as a condition unless it appearsclearly that such is the intention of the testator 4e are not faced here with anyconditional institution of heirship 4hat we have is a clearcut %andate which theheirs cannot fail to carry out

4/R;6R$ the decision appealed fro% is reversed Appellees are hereby orderedto e%ploy appellant as tenant i%%ediately after this decision has beco%e >nalCosts a!ainst appellees

Artc$e 17D-:=5D CA=' -1 R' 4- 6; R-6=A 3. 0/- *3

;AC5='

5he testator e9ecuted a will in #.M8 in accordance with the laws enforced at thatti%e wherein there was no re?uire%ent of si!nin! and attestation of the will -n#.#7 the testator died wherein the laws enforced at that ti%e already re?uired thatthe will %ust be si!ned by the testator and attested

/D'

-t does not %atter that when he died$ the laws re?uired si!nin! and attestationbecause the e9trinsic validity of his will should be %easured by the laws enforced atthe ti%e of the e9ecution of the will not at the ti%e of the death of the testator =othe le!islature by providin! certain for%alities CA1165 -1

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

17/31

-n #.,8$ Catalina sold of the said land to 0o$ which portion belon!s to thechildren

/D' 5he %o%ent of death is the deter%inin! factor when the heirs ac?uire a

de>nite ri!ht to the inheritance$ whether such ri!ht be pure or contin!ent -t isi%%aterial whether a short or lon! period of ti%e lapses between the death of thepredecessor and the entry into possession of the property of the inheritancebecause the ri!ht is always dee%ed to be retroactive fro% the %o%ent of death

4hen Catalina sold the entire parcel of land to the Canoy spouses$ of italready belon!s to the children 5hus$ the >rst sale was null and void in so far as itincluded the childrens share

6n the other hand$ the sale to the 0o havin! been %ade by authority of theco%petent court was undeniably le!al and e&ective

+-C-A16 v BR-+6:R 1o**"."$ 1ove%ber #$ #.*7"M 0/- 87

;AC5=' Joseph Bri%o$ a 5ur(ish national$ died leavin! a will which one of the clausesstates that the law of the 0hilippines shall !overn the partition and not the law of hisnationality$ and that le!atees have to respect the will$ otherwise the dispositionsaccruin! to the% shall be annulled By virtue of such condition$ his brother$ AndreBri%o$ an instituted heir was thus e9cluded because$ by his action of havin!

opposed the partition sche%e$ he did not respect the will Andre sued contendin!that the conditions are void bein! contrary to law which provides that the will shallbe probated accordin! to the laws of the nationality of the decedent

-==' -s the condition as set by the testator valid

/D' 1o A forei!nerIs will to the e&ect that his properties shall be distributed inaccordance with 0hilippine law and not with his national law$ is ille!al and void$ forhis national law cannot be i!nored in re!ard to those %atters that Article #M of theCivil Code states said national law should !overn =aid condition then$ in the li!ht ofthe le!al provisions above cited$ is considered unwritten$ and the institution ofle!atees in said will is unconditional and conse?uently valid and e&ective even as to

the herein oppositor

+aria Cristina Bellis vs dward Bellis1ove%ber "$ *M#M

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

18/31

20 SCRA 351 Civil Law A((lication o, Laws ationalit %rinci(leSuccession ationalit o, te Dece)ent LegitimesA%os Bellis was a citizen of the =tate of 5e9as$ and of the nited =tates By his >rstwife who% he divorced he had >ve le!iti%ate children Edward Bellis et alG$ by his

second wife$ who survived hi%$ he had three le!iti%ate children /e$ however$ alsohad three ille!iti%ate children in the 0hilippines E+aria Cristina Bellis et alG Beforehe died$ he %ade two wills$ one disposin! of his 5e9as properties and the otherdisposin! his 0hilippine properties -n both wills$ his ille!iti%ate children were not!iven anythin! 5he ille!iti%ate children opposed the will on the !round that theyhave been deprived of their le!iti%es to which they should be entitled$ if 0hilippinelaw were to be applied

-==' 4hether or not the national law of the deceased should deter%ine thesuccessional ri!hts of the ille!iti%ate children

/D' 1o 5he =upre%e Court held that the said children$ %aria Nristina et al$ are

not entitled to their le!iti%es under the 5e9as aw$ bein! the national law of thedeceased$ there are no le!iti%es

TESTATE ESTATE O) ED-ARD E. CHRISTE(SE( %s. HELE( CHRISTE(SE(

GARCIA, G.R. (o. L"913 5an+ar 69, 96

-1 5/ +A55R 6; 5/ 5=5A5 =5A5 6; D4ARD C/R-=51=1$ DCA=DAD6;6 C AF1AR$ 9ecutor and CK C/R-=51=1$ /eir of the deceased$9ecutor and/eirappellees$

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

19/31

property possessed by hi% in absolute do%inion and that >nally$ ille!iti%atechildren not bein! entitled to anythin! and his will re%ain undisturbed

-=='4hether or not the 0hilippine law should prevail in ad%inisterin! the estate of

Christensen

R-1:'5he court in decidin! to !rant %ore successional ri!hts to /elen said in e&ect thatthere are two rules in California on the %atter' the internal law which should applyto Californians do%iciled in California) and the conQict rule which should apply toCalifornians do%iciled outside of California 5he California conQict rule says' 2-fthere is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is situated$ isdee%ed to follow the person of its owner and is !overned by the law of hisdo%icile Christensen bein! do%iciled outside California$ the law of his do%icile$the 0hilippines$ ou!ht to be followed 4here it is referred bac( to California$ it willfor% a circular pattern referrin! to both country bac( and forth

Cayetano vs eonidasCaetano %s. Leondas

)acts:

5he decedent at the ti%e of her death was an a%erican citizen /er father$ bein!the only co%pulsory heir adjudicated the entire estate to hi%self /owever$ thesister of the decedent >led a petition for the reprobate of a will of the deceasedwhich was alle!edly e9ecuted in the nited =tates and for her appoint%ent asad%inistratri9 of the estate of the deceased testatri9 5he reprobated will wasallowed

Iss+e:

4hether or not the reprobation of the will is invalid for it divested the father of hisle!iti%e which was reserved by the law for hi% and the sa%e would wor( injusticeand injury to hi%

He$d:

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

20/31

1o$ the reprobation of the will is valid Althou!h on its face$ the will appeared tohave preterited the petitioner and thus$ the respondent jud!e should have deniedits reprobate outri!ht$ the private respondents have suLciently established that

Adoracion was$ at the ti%e of her death$ an A%erican citizen and a per%anentresident of 0hiladelphia$ 0ennsylvania$ =A

5he order of succession and to the a%ount of successional ri!hts and to the intrinsicvalidity of testa%entary provisions shall be re!ulated by the national law of theperson whose succession is under consideration -t is therefore evident thatwhatever public policy or !ood custo%s %ay be involved in our syste% of le!iti%es$Con!ress has not intended to e9tend the sa%e to the succession of forei!nnationals

&CIB V. ESCOLI(Short S+mmar:

+r and +rs /od!es both %ade in their wills provisions thatupon their deaths$ theirwhole estates should be inherited bythe survivin! spouse andthat spouse could %ana!e andalienate the said lands$ with the e9ception of the

5e9asproperty pon death of the latter spouse$ the residueof theestate inherited by the later spouse fro% the spouse whopredeceased hi%would redound to the brothers and sisters+rs /od!es died >rst then +r /od!es$but since there wasno li?uidation of +rs /od!es estate$ the brothers and sistersof+rs /od!es wanted to deter%ine the e9tent of her estatethat they could inheritEbelieve %e$ this is a short su%%aryVcase is lon!VG

)acts

Charles W innie /od!es$ both 5XA1 nationals$ provided intheir respective willsthat

be?ueath re%ainder of estate to spouseVdurin!lifeti%e

re%ainder !oes to brothers and sis of survivin!spouse+rs /od!es died >rst +r/od!es appointed as XC56R

in ;inancial =tate%ents sub%itted before the court$he %ade state%ents that the

estate of +rs /od!esis #P* of conju!al estate

that he alle!edly renounced his inheritance in a ta9declaration in =

for " years before his death$ he failed to %a(eaccountin!$ failed to ac?uire >nal adjudication of wifeIs estateCharles died +a!no$ initially ad%inistratri9 of bothspouseIsestate$ later replaced by 0C-B for CharlesI estate

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

21/31

-O( Acton s #rescr>ed

16 33 appeals were ti%ely %adeCourt did not pass upon its ti%eliness

-O( Certorar and &roh>ton s #ro#er

K= Appeal insuLcient re%edy%any appeals$ sa%e facts$ sa%e issues Y%ultiplicity of suits

-O( THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE )OR 'RS. HODGES?HEIRS

K=# 461 =0C-A 0R6CD-1: ;6R =55+15 6; +R=/6D:= =5A5=/6D ARADK B C6=D$ BA=D61 5/ DC+BR #."7 C6R5 6RDR A:DKADJD-CA5-1: +R /6D:= A==6 /-R 16Vno >nal distribution to all parties concerned of the estate* R.M#Eon R=-DG'Vafter residue assi!ned to parties entitled to it$ =0 dee%edready for;-1A C6=R'# 6rder issued for distributionPassi!n%ent of estatea%on! those

entitled

* Debts

;uneral e9penses

9penses of ad%inistration

4idow allowance

5a9es

tcVshould be paid already3 +otion of party re?uestin! the sa%e Enot %otuproprioG4ould include distribution of residue of estate/ere'a1o >nal distribution ofresidue of inneyIs estateb1o special application %ade bycharlesP0C-Bc+erely allowed advance or partialpay%entsPi%ple%entation of will before >nalli?uidationd-f charles already dee%ed sole heir$ why 0C-Bneeded to >le a%otion to declare that Charles isindeed the sole heir3 61 A:D -1515-61 6;+R /6D:=0C-B' /e intended to adjudicate whole estate to hi%self E5hus$noresidue left$ thus ulit$ tapos na specialproceedin!GB5 =C'#4hatever was intended$he canIt deprive those whohave ri!hts over the estate*6rder %otion >led %erelyfor e9ercise of ownershippendin! proceedin!3+r /od!es was aware that wifeIssiblin!s had ri!hts'

-n ;=$ stated that #P* of conju!al estatebelon!ed to state of inney

-n 0etition for willIs probate$ he listed thebros and sis as heirs

awyer of +a!no was initially lawyer of Charleswhen latter was still e9ecutor of inneyIs estate Z so %ay (now whatCharlesIintended

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

22/31

Charles ad%itted o%ittin! a bro of inney

/e even alle!edly renounced his share of the estate Ebut was not provenG

Charles had duty$ as =urvivin! spouse$ of trustee of wifeIs estate so had to act in:;, 61 0R60R5-= ;6R =-B-1:=' since thereIs still a residue$canIt close =0

yet[0C-B' 16 -U-DA5-61 6; C61J:A 0R60R5-= K5$0C-B=/6D =6K AD+-1-=5R deico%issary substitution

no obli!ation on Charles to preserve theestate35hereIssi%ultaneous institution of heirs subject toresolutory condition of CharlesI death

Charles was to enjoy the whole estate

but he canIt dispose of property %ortiscausa Ebecause itIs already subject to thewill%ade by his wife$ which he a!reed inthe provision of his willG,Charles didnIt !et

%ere usufruct' he e9ercises full ownership

&RIL: -O( R& LA- GOVER(S LEGITI'E O) CHARLES

1o answer yet Re%andedArt #$ 1CC [ applies' law of nationality-f we apply 5e9as0R- law'

0ersonal property' law of do%icile

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

23/31

L$orente %s CA

:R #*,37#1ove%ber *3$ *MMM

;AC5='

AliciaE *ndwifeG ] orenzo 1 lorente 0aula E#=5wifeG Ceferino lorente

EbrotherG

Crisolo!o lorenteEsonG

orenzo 1 lorente was an enlisted service%an of the nited =tates 1avy

fro% +arch #M$ #.*7 to =epte%ber 3M$ #."7

;ebruary **$ #.37' orenzo and 0aula lorente were %arried before a parish

priest$ Ro%an Catholic Church$ in 1abua$ Ca%arines =ur Before the outbrea( of the 0aci>c 4ar$ orenzo departed for the nited =tates

and 0aula stayed in the conju!al ho%e

1ove%ber 3M$ #.,3' orenzo was ad%itted to nited =tates citizenship and

Certi>cate of 1aturalization

#.,"' 4hen orenzo was !ranted an accrued leave to visit his wife and he

visited the 0hilippines$ /e discovered that his wife 0aula was pre!nant and

was 2livin! in and havin! an adulterous relationship with his brother$

Ceferino lorente

Dece%ber ,$ #.,"' 0aula !ave birth to a boy re!istered in the 6Lce of theRe!istrar of 1abua as Crisolo!o lorente with the certi>cate statin! that the

child was not le!iti%ate and the line for the fathers na%e was left blan(

orenzo refused to for!ive 0aula and live with her

;ebruary *$ #.,' the couple drew and si!ned a written a!ree%ent which was

witnessed by 0aulas father and step%other to the e&ect that

# all the fa%ily allowances allotted by the nited =tates 1avy as part of orenzos

salary and all other obli!ations for 0aulas daily %aintenance and support would be

suspended

* they would dissolve their %arital union in accordance with judicial proceedin!s

3 they would %a(e a separate a!ree%ent re!ardin! their conju!al property ac?uired

durin! their %arital life) and

, orenzo would not prosecute 0aula for her adulterous act since she voluntarily

ad%itted her fault and a!reed to separate fro% orenzo peacefully

http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2012/07/jurisprudence-gr-no-124371.htmlhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2012/07/jurisprudence-gr-no-124371.html

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

24/31

1ove%ber #$ #."#' orenzo returned and >led for divorce with the =uperior

Court of the =tate of California in and for the County of =an Die!o

Dece%ber ,$ #."*' the divorce decree beca%e >nal

January #$ #."8' orenzo %arried Alicia ; lorente in +anila and lived

to!ether as husband and wife and bore 3 children' Raul$ uz and Beverly$ allsurna%ed lorente

+arch #3$ #.8#' orenzo e9ecuted a ast 4ill and 5esta%ent where he

be?ueathed all his property to Alicia and their three children

Dece%ber #,$ #.83' orenzo >led with the R5C$ -ri!a$ Ca%arines =ur$ a

petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testa%ent wherein

orenzo %oved that Alicia be appointed =pecial Ad%inistratri9 of his estate

January #8$ #.8,' R5C denied the %otion for the reason that the orenzo was

still alive

January *,$ #.8,' R5C ad%itted >ndin! that the will was duly e9ecutedthe will

to probate

June ##$ #.8"' before the proceedin!s could be ter%inated$ orenzo died

R5C on the petition for letters of ad%inistration >led by 0aula over orenzos

estate contendin! that she was the survivin! spouse and 4-5/65

ter%inatin! the testate proceedin!s >led by Alicia$ !ave due course to 0aulas

petition

divorce decree !ranted to the late orenzo lorente is void and

inapplicable in the 0hilippines$ therefore the %arria!e he contracted with

Alicia ;ortunato at +anila is void

0aula 5 lorente' #P3 estate and conju!al estate ille!iti%ate children$ Raul$ uz and Beverly' #P3 estate

R5C denied Alicias %otion for reconsideration but %odi>ed that Raul and uz

lorente are not children 2le!iti%ate or otherwise of orenzo since they were

not le!ally adopted by hi% thus$ Beverly lorente as the only ille!iti%ate child

of orenzo$ entitles her to #P3 of the estate and onethird E#P3G of the free

portion of the estate

CA' ALr%ed with %odi>cation

-==' 4P1 the divorce is valid and proven

/D' K= 0etition is :RA15D R

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

25/31

County of =an Die!o$ %ade >nal on Dece%ber ,$ #."* R+A1D= the cases to the

court of ori!in for deter%ination of the intrinsic validity of orenzo 1 lorentes will

and deter%ination of the parties successional ri!hts allowin! proof of forei!n law

with instructions that the trial court shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch to

settle the estate of the deceased within the fra%ewor( of the Rules of Court

led a petition for probate of Alejandro^s will -n#.8#$ the will was ad%itted toprobate but private respondents did not appeal fro% the said order -n #.83$upon %otion of the private respondents$ the trial court ruled that the will was

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

26/31

intrinsically void and declared private respondents as the only heirs of thelate spouses

/D'

0robate proceedin!s deal !enerally with the e9trinsic validity of the willsou!ht to be probated particularly on these aspects'

4hether the will sub%itted is indeed the decedent^s last will andtesta%ent

Co%pliance with the prescribed for%alities for the e9ecution of wills 5he testa%entary capacity of the testator And the due e9ecution of the last will and testa%ent

nder the Civil Code$ due e9ecution includes a deter%ination of whether thetestator was of sound and disposin! %ind at the ti%e of its e9ecution 5heintrinsic validity is another %atter and ?uestions re!ardin! the sa%e %ay still

be raised even after the will has been authenticated -t does not necessarilyfollow that an e9trinsically valid last will and testa%ents is always intrinsicallyvalid

AR5-C 7..

BALTA4AR %s. LA*A

)ACTS::

# 0aciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she %ade her last will andtesta%ent entitled25auli 1an! Bilin o 5esta%ento +iss 0aciencia Re!alaE4illG in the0a%pan!o dialect

Antonio Baltazar is 0acencias nephew

* 5he 4ill$ e9ecuted in the house of retired Jud!e rnestino : i%pin EJud!ei%pinG$ was read to 0aciencia twice

3 0aciencia e9pressed in the presence of the instru%ental witnesses that the

docu%ent is her last will and testa%ent =he thereafter aL9ed hersi!nature at the end of the said docu%ent on pa!e s and then on the left %ar!in ofpa!es #$ * and , thereof, 5he witnesses to the 4ill were Dra +aria ioba A i%pin EDra i%pinG$ ;rancisco:arciaE;ranciscoG and ;austino R +ercado E;austinoG

5he three attested to the 4ills due e9ecution by aL9in! their si!natures below itsattestation clause and on the left %ar!in of pa!es #$ * and , thereof$ in the

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

27/31

presence of 0aciencia and of one another and of Jud!e i%pin who acted as notarypublic" Childless and without any brothers or sisters$ 0aciencia be?ueathed all herproperties to respondent orenzo R a9a EorenzoG and his wife Corazon ; a9aand their children una orella a9a and Natherine Ross a9a$

5he >lial relationship of orenzo with 0aciencia re%ains undisputedorenzo is0aciencias nephew who% she treated as her own son Conversely$ orenzo ca%e to(now and treated 0aciencia as his own %other 0aciencia lived with orenzos fa%ilyin =as%uan$ 0a%pan!a and it was she who raised and cared for orenzo since hisbirth =i9 days after the e9ecution of the 4ill or on =epte%ber #.$ #.8#$

0aciencia left for the nited =tates of A%erica E=AG 5here$ she resided withorenzo and his fa%ily until her death on January ,$ #..

7 -n the interi%$ the 4ill re%ained in the custody of Jud!e i%pin +ore than fouryears after the death of 0aciencia $ orenzo >led a petition with the R5C of :ua!ua$0a%pan!a for the probate of the 4ill of 0aciencia and for the issuance of etters of

Ad%inistration in his favour

8 0etitioners >led an A%ended 6pposition as(in! the R5C to deny the probate of0aciencias 4ill on the followin! !rounds'

a the 4ill was not e9ecuted and attested to in accordance with there?uire%ents of the law)

b b 0aciencia was %entally incapable to %a(e a 4ill at the ti%e of itse9ecution)

c c she was forced to e9ecute the 4ill under duress or inQuence of fear orthreats)

d the e9ecution of the 4ill had been procured by undue and i%proper pressure andinQuence by orenzo or by so%e other persons for his bene>t)e si!nature of 0aciencia on the 4ill was for!ed)f assu%in! the si!nature to be !enuine$ it was obtained throu!h fraud or tric(ery)and$

!that 0aciencia did not intend the docu%ent to be her 4ill

. =i%ultaneously$ petitioners >led an 6pposition and Reco%%endation reiteratin!their opposition to the appoint%ent of orenzo as ad%inistrator of the propertiesand re?uestin! for the appoint%ent of Antonio in his steadISSUE:4hether 0aciencia was not of sound %ind at the ti%e the will was alle!edlye9ecutedRULI(G:

5he state of bein! for!etful does not necessarily %a(e a person %entally unsoundso as to render hi% un>t to e9ecute a 4ill8;or!etfulness is not e?uivalent to bein!of unsound %ind Besides

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_174489_2012.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_174489_2012.html#fnt68

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

28/31

;or!etfulness is not e?uivalent to bein! of unsound %ind Besides$ Article 7.. of the1ew Civil Code states'Art 7.. 5o be of sound %ind$ it is not necessary that the testator be in fullpossession of all his reasonin! faculties$ or that his %ind be wholly unbro(en$uni%paired$ or unshattered by disease$ injury or other cause

-t shall be suLcient if the testator was able at the ti%e of %a(in! the will to (nowthe nature of the estate to be disposed of$ the proper objects of his bounty$ and thecharacter of the testa%entary act

CA= D-:=5' BA:5A= vs 0A:-6

+arch #,$ #.#*

;AC5=' 0a!uio su&ered fro% paralysis of the left side of his body until his death -nthe probation of his will$ it was contended that he was not in full enjoy%ent and use

of his %ental faculties and was without the %ental capacity necessary to e9ecute awill

/D' -n this jurisdiction$ there is a presu%ption in favor of %ental capacity of thetestator and the burden is upon the contestants of the will to prove the lac( of thetesta%entary capacity at the ti%e of the e9ecution of the will -n this case$ thetestator has never been adjud!ed insane 0aralysis is not e?uivalent to %entalincapacity -t is not necessary that a person %ust be in full possession of his %entaland reasonin! faculties to be able to be considered of sound %ind -t is not

necessary that his %ind be unbro(en$ unshattered by disease$ injury or other cause

BUG(AO %. U>a

-ssue' 9ecution of wills) while a nu%ber of a contradictions in the testi%ony ofalle!ed subscribin! witnesses to will as to the circu%stances under which it wase9ecuted$ or a sin!le contradiction as to aparticular incident to which the attentionof such witnesses %ust have been directed$ %ay in certaincases justify theconclusion that the alle!ed witnesses were not present$ to!ether$ at the ti%e when

thealle!ed will was e9ecuted$ a %ere lapse of %e%ory on the part of thesewitnesses as to the precisedetails of an uni%portant incident$to which his attentionwas not directed$ does not necessarily put indoubt the truth and veracity ofthe testi%ony in support of the e9ecution of the will5esta%entary capacity de>ned)proof of the e9istence of all the ele%entsin the followin! de>nition oftesta%entraycapacity$ which was fre?uently been adopted in the = $ held suLcient to establishthe

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

29/31

e9istence of such capacity in the absence of proof of very e9ceptionalcircu%stances' 25esta%entary

capacity is the capacity to co%prehend the nature of the transaction in which thetestator is en!a!ed atthat ti%e$ to recollect the property to be disposed of and the

persons who would naturally be supposedto have clai%s upon the testator$andtoco%prehend the %anner in which the instru%ent will distribute

his property a%on! the objects of his bounty

D-:=5D CA=' 56RR=$ 60F D B16 vs 60F ;ebruary *$ #.*

;AC5=' -t was contended that the testator lac(ed %ental capacity because at the

ti%e of the e9ecution of the will$ he had senile de%entia and was under!uardianship

/D' 5he testator %ay have been of advanced years$ %ay have been physicallydecrepit$ %ay have been wea( in intellect$ %ay have su&ered a loss of %e%ory$%ay have had a !uardian$ and %ay have been e9tre%ely eccentric$ but he stillpossessed the spar( of reason and of life$ that stren!th of %ind to for% a >9edintention and to su%%on his enfeebled thou!hts to enforce that intention$ whichthe law ter%s _testa%entary capacity` 6nly co%pete senile de%entia will result to

testa%entary incapacity

=00+15A 165='

-de%) &ect of in>r%ity or disease

1either is physical in> r%ity or disease inconsistent with testa%entary capacity$

althou!h there is no ?uestion that evidence of such fact is ad%issible on the issueof testa%entary capacity Just as in the case of old a!e$ the usual tests oftesta%entary capacity %ust still have to be applied3# 5hus$ it has been held thatthe fact that the testator$ at the ti%e of the e9ecution of the will$ was su&erin! fro%the last sta!es of tuberculosis and asth%a$3* or fro% paralysis and loss ofspeech$33 or fro% cholera$3, or fro% a co%bination of sleepin!

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

30/31

sic(ness$ inso%nia$ tuberculosis$ and diabetes$3" will not a&ect his testa%entarycapacity$ so lon! as it cannot be proved by co%petent evidence that$ at the ti%ewhen the will was e9ecuted$ he was no lon!er in a position to (now the nature ofthe estate to be disposed

of$ the proper objects of his bounty$ and the character of the testa%entary act 5hesa%e rule can be applied even if$ at the ti%e

when the will was bein! e9ecuted$ the testator was so sic( that it was necessary forso%ebody else to !uide his hand in order that he could si!n it$3 or even if a few%onths before the e9ecution of the will$ the testator$ who was 8" years old$ had astro(e of cerebral

he%orrha!e$ with he%iple!ia$ caused by hi!h blood pressure37 6n the other hand$it has also been held that the fact that the testator$ at the ti%e of the e9ecution ofthe will$ was already in a co%atose or se%ico%atose condition$ caused by cerebral

he%orrha!e$38 or byapople9y$3. or by diarrhea and !astroenteritis with co%plications of %iocarditis$,Mor by cerebral thro%bosis$,# so that nothin! around hi% could cause anyi%pression or reaction$ would certainly destroy his testa%entary capacity

9. Sancho %s. A>e$$a

6pponent alle!ed that the testators %ental faculties were not functionin!nor%ally any%ore) that she had poor eyesi!htPhearin!) that she urinated without(nowin!) that she had very poor %e%ory =C ruled that senile debility$ blindness$deafness$ or poor %e%ory is not by itself suLcient to incapacitate a person fro%

%a(in! hisPher will -n this case$ the records showed that the testators %entalfaculties were functionin! wellAlso$ the fact that the testator included in her dispositions property that she

had already donated does not indicate %ental insanity At %ost$ it is %erelyfor!etfulness

;rancisca AlsuaBetts$ Joseph 6 Betts$ Jose +adareta$ steban 0 Ra%irez$ And 5heRe!ister 6f Deeds ;or Albay 0rovince$&ettoners

%.

Court 6f Appeals$ A%paro Alsua Buenviaje$ ;ernando Buenviaje$ ;ernando Alsua$Represented By /is :uardian$ Clotilde = Alsua And 0ablo Alsua$Res#ondents

)ACTS: A notarized scritura de 0articion 9trajudicial was entered on theproperties of spouses of Don Jesus Alsua$ wife DoHa ;lorentina$ and all theirre%ainin! four E,G livin! children$ on 1ove%ber *"$ #.,. 6n January "$ #."$ bothof the spouses %ade their holo!raphic wills with the provisions confor%in! to thei%ple%entation of the e9trajudicial partition Codicils a%endin! and supple%entin!

7/25/2019 Digested Cases 06222016

31/31

the spouses respective holo!raphic wills on #." and eventually ad%itted toprobate Don Jesus beca%e e9ecutor on the death of DoHa ;lorentina andcancelled his previous holo!raphic will$ appointed dau!hter ;rancisca as e9ecutri9$and collated the properties to be donated to his four children At the death of theirfather$ ;rancisca >led a petition of probate of the #.". will and was opposed bybrother respondents

D-:=5D CA=' A