Wills and Succession 4th Batch1. ABANGAN v ABANGAN

46 Phil 476

FACTS:- Trial Court admitted Ana Abangans probate.

- The will is described in the following manner:

o First sheet:

Contains all the disposition of the testatrix.

Signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban (in the name and under the direction of Ana Abangan)

Signed by three witnesses o Second sheet:

Contains only the attestation clause.

Duly signed by the same three witnesses at the bottom.

Was not signed by the testatrix herself

- Anastacia Abangan (different person) et al. appealed from this decision. She says that the probate should have been denied on three grounds:

Neither of the sheets were signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses

The pages were not numbered by letters

It was written in a dialect that the testatrix did not understand

Issue: WON the probate should have been admitted.

Ruling: Yes. The trial court was correct in admitting the probate.

1. Re: signing on the left margin

- The object of Act 2645, which requires that every sheet should be signed on the left margin, is only to avoid the substitution of any sheet, thereby changing the dispositions of the testatrix.

- Act 2645 only took into consideration cases of wills written on several sheets, which did not have to be signed at the bottom by the testator and the witnesses (purpose of avoidance of substitution of any of said sheets which may change the disposition of the testator.

- But when the dispositions are duly written only on one sheet, and signed at the bottom by the testator and the witnesses, the signatures on the left would be purposeless.

- If the signatures at the bottom already guarantee its authenticity, another signature on the left margin would be unnecessary.

- This interpretation of Act 2645 also applies to the page containing the attestation clause (the second sheet). Such a signature on the margin by the witnesses would be a formality not required by the statute.

- It is also not required that the testatrix sign on the attestation clause because the attestation, as its name implies, appertains only to the witnesses and not the testator since the testator does attest, but executes the will.

2. Re: Page numbering

- Act 2645s object in requiring this was to know whether any sheet of the will has been removed.

- But when all the dispositive parts of the will are written on one sheet only, the object of the Act 2645 disappears because the removal of this single sheet although unnumbered, cannot be hidden.

3. Re: dialect

- The circumstance appearing in the will itself that the same was executed in the city of Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is enough to presume that the will was written in a dialect that the testator knew, absent any proof to the contrary.2. G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987

CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN, petitioner,

vs.

HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (Third Special Cases Division), VIRGINIA A. FERNANDEZ and ROSA DIONGSON, respondents.Topic : Preterition

Doctrine/ HELD: Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Insofar as the widow is concerned, Article 854 may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory heir. Even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line. Adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter.The same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia, whose legal adoption by the testator has not been questioned by petitioner. Adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she was totally omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime. Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child.

Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance. The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises made in the will for they should stand valid and respected, except insofar as the legitimes are concerned.

The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs - without any other testamentary disposition in the will - amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written.

In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he must have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it. Petitioner is not the appointed executor, neither a devisee or a legatee there being no mention in the testamentary disposition of any gift of an individual item of personal or real property he is called upon to receive. At the outset, he appears to have an interest in the will as an heir. However, intestacy having resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the universal institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. He has no legal standing to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased.