Maloto v. CA [G.R. No. 76464, February 29, 1988]

 -CASE DIGEST-

Maloto v. CA

G.R. No. 76464, February 29, 1988

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Topic: Revocation of Will

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.

 

 CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unson v. Abella [G.R. No. 17857 June 12, 1922]

 - CASE DIGEST - 

Unson v. Abella

G.R. No. 17857 June 12, 1922

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Topic: Formalities of Wills; Paging Requirement; Attestation Clause; Testimony of Witness

FACTS: Pedro Unson, executor of Dona Josefa Zalamea’s last will, filed a petition the probate of the will of the latter. Attached on the said will is an inventory of all the properties of Dona Josefa.

 

Opposition was made was made thereto to by Antonio, Ignacia and Santiago Vito on the following grounds:

• ·    The will is not paged correlatively in letters rather it is in Arabic numerals
• ·    There is no attestation clause in the inventory attached to the will
• ·     Will was not signed by the testatrix and the witnesses in the presence of each other.

Only the two witnesses namely Gonzalo Avaya and Eugenio Zalamea testified as to the authenticity of the will.  The third witness, Pedro de Jesus, was not presented because he was hostile with Unson and has been meeting with the oppositors since the filing of the petition for the probate of the will of Josefa.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not the will is validly executed?

 

HELD: YES.

 

1. As to the paging of the will, the SC cited the the case of Aldaba v. Roque. It was held that this way of numbering the pages of a will is in compliance with the spirit of the law, inasmuch as either one of these methods indicates the correlation of the pages and serves to prevent the abstraction of any of them. The object of the law in requiring that the paging law be made in letters is to make falsification more difficult, but it should be noted that since all the pages of the testament are signed at the margin by the testatrix and the witnesses, the difficulty of forging the signatures in either case remains the same. In other words the more or less or degree of facility to imitate the writing of the letters A, B, C, etc., does not make for the easiness to forge the signatures. And even the emission of paging does not necessarily render the testament invalid (Abangan vs. Abangan 40 Phil., 476)

 

2. Attestation clause. The inventory is referred to in the will as an “integral part” of it so the inventory need not have an additional attestation clause at the end. Attestation clause is unnecessary at the end of inventory.

 

3. As to the Witness. The actuation of the proponents in NOT bringing to court Pedro de Jesus does not render the will invalid. The will may even be admitted without the testimony of said witness, if, upon the other proofs adduced in the case, the court is satisfied that the will has been duly executed.

 

But supposing that de Jesus, when cited, had testified adversely to the application, this would not by itself have change the result reached by the court for section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a will can be admitted notwithstanding one or one or more witnesses do not remember having attested it, provided the court is satisfied upon the evidence adduced that the will, upon the evidence adduced, has been executed and signed in the has been executed and signed in the manner prescribed by the law.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE

Vda. De Roxas v. Roxas [G.R. L-2396, December 11, 1950]

 - CASE DIGEST - 

Vda. De Roxas v. Roxas

G.R. L-2396, December 11, 1950

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Topic: Expert testimony vs testimony of attesting witness; due execution of a will

FACTS: Pablo M. Roxas died leaving properties in Bulacan. On August 10 1946, Natividad Vda. de Roxas, widow of Pablo M. Roxas, filed a petition for the probate of an alleged will of her deceased husband, and for her appointment as executrix of his estate. An opposition was filed by Pablo’s siblings on the ground that the alleged will was not executed and attested as required by law, and that, in any event, it was intended as a mere formal request which was, however, subsequently revoked as shown by the fact that it was crumpled with intent to destroy. The oppositors (Maria and Pedro Roxas) also alleged that the will is vitiated by the following formal defects: "(a) The alleged last will and testament was not attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other; (b) The testator and the instrumental witnesses did not sign the only page of the will on the left margin, nor was the page numbered in letters on the upper part of the sheet; (c) The attestation clause does not state that the alleged witnesses thereto witnessed and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other."

 

The respondent judge rendered a decision denying the probate of the will. The lower court concluded that the body of the will was typewritten and signed by the testator on a date or occasion different from and anterior to the date or occasion when the attestation clause was typewritten and signed by the attesting witnesses, with the result that the will was not signed by the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and by the latter in the presence of the testator and of each other. That had the testator and the attesting witnesses signed on the same occasion, the probability was that one or two fountain pens only should have been used instead of three as testified to unanimously by the expert witnesses both for the proponent and the oppositors.

 

The petitioner has appealed. Her counsel insist that the testimony, unanimous in all essential points, of the three attesting witnesses should be given controlling weight. Counsel for oppositors, upon the other hand, argue that the testimony of Maria Roxas, in conjunction with the opinions of experts, should prevail.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not, experts testimony on handwritings shall be favored in the presence of small infirmities of witness testimony on the account of due execution of the will.

  

RULING: No. Testimonies of attesting witness shall prevail. This case is one in which the will is couched in a language known and spoken by the testator and the signatures of the three attesting witnesses are admittedly genuine. Such being the situation, the question that arises, far from requiring the intervention of experts, is one merely of credibility of witnesses.

 

In our opinion, the testimony of the three attesting witnesses — confirmatory of the due execution of the will — deserves full credit, not only because of their qualifications (hereinbefore pointed out) but because their reputation for probity has not been impeached. The fact that they may have some relationship with the petitioner is not sufficient to warrant the belief that they did not tell the truth. The law, in the first place, does not bar relatives either of the testator of the heirs or legatees from acting as witnesses.

 

Ordinarily, the findings of fact of a trial court, because of the benefit of having seen and heard the witnesses, are entitled to great weight. But, in this case, the lower court relied on the conclusions of experts.

 

The Court do not venture to impute bias to the experts introduced during the trial, but we hasten to state that the positive testimony of the three attesting witnesses ought to prevail over the expert opinions which cannot be mathematically precise but which, on the contrary, are "subject to inherent infirmities." Speculations on these matters should give way to the positive declarations of the attesting witnesses. The law impliedly recognizes the almost conclusive weight of the testimony of attesting witnesses when it provides that if the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses present in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the court.

click here to view full text of the case

Gonzales v. CA [G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979]

 - CASE DIGEST -

Gonzales v. CA

G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Topic: Credible Witness;  Qualifications of a witness to the execution of wills

FACTS: Lutgarda Santiago and Rizalina Gonzales are nieces of the late Isabel Andres Gabriel. Lutgarda filed a petition for the probate of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased and designated Lutgarda as the principal beneficiary and executrix. There is no dispute that Isabel died as a widow and without issue. The will submitted consists of five (5) pages and includes the pages whereon the attestation clause and the acknowledgment of the notary public were written. The signatures of the deceased Isabel Gabriel appear at the end of the will on page four and at the left margin of all the pages.

 

The petition was opposed by Rizalina assailing that the will is not genuine and was not executed and attested as required by law; and that the witnesses to the will were not credible. She contended that to be a credible witness, there must be evidence on record that the witness has a good standing in his community, or that he is honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. She further argued that the term “credible” should have the same meaning under the Naturalization Law.

  

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a need to introduce independent proof of the credibility of the witnesses.

 

HELD:  No. Article 820 of the Civil Code provides for the qualifications of a witness to the execution of wills, while Article 821 sets forth the disqualifications from being a witness.

 

Art. 820. Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution of a will mentioned in article 806 of this Code.

 

Art. 821. The following are disqualified from being witnesses to a will:

(1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines;

(2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony.

 

Under the law, there is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify as to his good standing in the community, or that he is honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable in order that his testimony may be believed and accepted by the trial court. It is enough that the qualifications enumerated in Article 820 are complied with and that he has none of the disqualifications under Article 821. Such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the contrary is proved otherwise.

 

“Credible Witness” under Naturalization Law not applicable. Under the Naturalization Law, it is mandatory that the petition for naturalization must be supported by two character witnesses who must prove their good standing in the community, reputation for trustworthiness and reliableness, their honesty and uprightness. The two witnesses in a petition for naturalization are character witnesses.

 

In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the formalities attendant to said execution.

 

In the case at bar, the finding that each and everyone of the three instrumental witnesses, namely, Matilde Orobia, Celso Gimpaya and Maria Gimpaya, are competent and credible is satisfactorily supported by the evidence. For the testimony to be credible, it is not mandatory that evidence be established on record that the witnesses have good standing in the the community. Moreover, petitioner has not pointed to any disqualification of any of the said witnesses, much less has it been shown that anyone of them is below 18 years of age, of unsound mind, deaf or dumb, or cannot read or write.

 

CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE

 

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete [G.R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994]

 - CASE DIGEST -

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete

G.R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Topic: Reprobate of Wills; Wills of Alien Testator

FACTS: Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became American citizens, established a successful medical practice in New York, USA.

 

On August 23, 1979, Dr. Jose executed a last will and testament, bequeathing to his wife “all the remainder” of his real and personal property at the time of his death “wheresoever situated.” In the event he would survive his wife, he bequeathed all his property to his children and grandchildren with Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee. He appointed his wife as executrix of his last will and testament and Dr. Rafael Jr. as substitute executor.

 

In his will, Dr. Jose provided that should he and his wife die under such circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of their deaths, the presumption is that he died first.

 

Four days later, Dr. Evelyn executed her own last will and testament, containing the same provisions as that of her husband. Likewise, she provided that should she and her husband died under such circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of their deaths, it should be presumed that he died first.

 

On January 9, 1982, Dr. Jose and his entire family perished when they were trapped by fire that gutted their home. Thereafter, Dr. Rafael Jr. as trustee and substitute executor of the two wills, filed separate proceedings for the probate thereof in the Surrogate Court of the County of Onondaga, New York. The wills were admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued in his favor.

 

On February 21, 1983, Salud Teodoro Perez, the mother of Dr. Evelyn, filed with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan a petition for the reprobate of the two wills ancillary to the probate proceedings in New York. She also asked that she be appointed as special administratrix of the estate of the deceased couple consisting primarily of a farm land in San Miguel, Bulacan.

 

The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose opposed. But their status as heirs were disputed by Salud, who said that they were only collaterals and not heirs as “heirship is only by institution” under a will or by operation of the law of New York. Since the will of Dr. Jose provided a presumption that he predeceased his wife, his estate passed on to his wife, Dr. Evelyn. Salud, being the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn, thus inherited the estate of the Cunanan spouses.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not the two wills probated outside the Philippines may be reprobated in the Philippines.

 

RULING: Yes. The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, will only be effective in this country upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines:

 

Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.

 

Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New York laws or by Philippine laws is imperative. The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills. Except for the first and law requirements, the petitioner submitted all the needed evidence. The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them.

  

The separate wills of the Cunanan spouses should be probated jointly. What the law expressly prohibits is the making of joint wills either for the testator’s reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. In the case at bench, the Cunanan spouses executed separate wills. Since the two will contains essentially the same provisions and pertain to property which in all probability are conjugal in nature, practical considerations dictate their joint probate.

 

However, a prior notice to Cunanan Heirs is required before the wills are reprobated. The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with regard to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will that is presented for probate for the first time. Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, which require publication and notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines" and to the executor, if he is not the petitioner, are required. The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioner's claim, are entitled to notices of the time and place for proving the wills.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE

Labrador v. CA [G.R. No. L-83843-44, April 5, 1990]

 - CASE DIGEST - 

Labrador v. CA

G.R. No. L-83843-44, April 5, 1990

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Topic: Holographic Will; Date

FACTS: Melecio Labrador died in the Municipality of Iba, province of Zambales, where he was residing, leaving behind a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 1916 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652, and the following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and a holographic will.

 

However, during probate proceedings, Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the ground that the will has been extinguished by implication of law alleging that before Melecio’s death, the land was sold to them evidenced by TCT No. 21178. Jesus eventually sold it to Navat. Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the TCT null and void.

  

On appeal, oppositors principally alleges that the holographic will is undated, since the date is not in its usual place found in normal writing. Date was only mentioned in one of the dipositive provisions in the will. The CA on appeal denied probate on the ground that it was undated.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged holographic will is dated, in compliance with Article 810 for its validity.

 

RULING: YES. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.

 

It is worthy of note to quote the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz:

And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father. (emphasis supplied)

  

The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. This clearly shows that the will was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning as the testator's instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means to control the disposition of his estate.

  

The holographic will of Melecio Labrador is APPROVED and ALLOWED probate.

Click to View Full Text of the Case

Rodelas v. Aranza [G.R. No. L-58509, December 7, 1982]

 - CASE DIGEST - 

Rodelas v. Aranza

G.R. No. L-58509, December 7, 1982

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCESSION

Topic: Lost or Destroyed Holographic Will

FACTS: Rodelas filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla. The original will cannot be located.

 

Aranza, et al opposed the probate on the following grounds:

1.Rodelas was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will by failing to produce the will within twenty days of the death of the testator as required by Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court;

 

2.the copy of the alleged holographic will did not contain a disposition of property after death and was not intended to take effect after death, and therefore it was not a will, it was merely an instruction as to the management and improvement of the schools and colleges founded by the decedent;

 

3. the holographic will itself, and not an alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would produce no effect because lost or destroyed holographic wills cannot be proved by secondary evidence unlike ordinary wills.

 

4. the deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise, executed and attested as required by law.

 

Oppositors also alleged that the holographic will was executed on January 25, 1962 while Ricardo B. Bonilla died on May 13, 1976. The lapse of more than 14 years from the time of the execution of the will to the death of the decedent and the fact that the original of the will could not be located shows to that the decedent had discarded the alleged holographic will before his death.

 

The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the original will was lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the original.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy.

 

RULING: Yes. As a rule, if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will.

 

But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made by the probate court with the standard writings of the testator. The probate court would be able to determine the authenticity of the handwriting of the testator. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court (Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509).

 

Since the probate court can evaluate the authenticity of the decedent's handwriting using the testator's standard writings, a photocopy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be permitted.

 

CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE