-CASE DIGEST-
Maloto v.
CA
G.R. No. 76464,
February 29, 1988
FACTS: Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs the parties (Aldina,
Constantcio, Panfilo and Felino) in this case who are her niece and nephews.
Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, the
four (4) heirs commenced an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their
aunt’s estate which was instituted in the then CFI. However, while the case was
still in progress, the heirs executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement
of Adriana’s estate which provides for the division of the estate into four
equal parts among themselves. When presented before the court, said agreement
was approved.
However, three years later, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of
Adriana’s counsel, discovered a document entitled ―KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN
(Testamento) and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana.
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
that what they have received by virtue of the agreement of extrajudicial
settlement. The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties,
among them being the petitioners. Thus, Aldino and Constancio joined by other
devisees and legatees filed a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the
proceedings therein and for the allowance of the will.
The appellate court found out that the will was burned by the
househelper of Adriana and was at the possession of the lawyer in because
Adriana was seeking the services of the lawyer in order to have a new will
drawn up. The oppositors interpose that the will is already revoked by the act
of burning, hence need not be probated anymore.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will of Adriana Maloto had
been efficiently revoked.
RULING: NO, the will was not validly revoked.
In this case, while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke, may be
conceded, for that is a state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not
suffice. 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 no evidence to show compliance with these requirements in this
case. For one, the document or papers burned by Adriana’s maid 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 was not done in her presence.
Both witnesses stated that they were the only ones present at the place
where papers were burned. The act done by the witnesses could not have
constituted a valid revocation of Adriana’s Will.
No comments:
Post a Comment