3rd specpro rule 7677

8/17/2019 3rd Specpro Rule 7677

1/77

G.R. No. L-23135 December 26, 1967

TESTATE ESTATE OF HILARION RAMAGOSA. MARIANO SMILANG,!e"#"#o$er-%!!e&&ee,'(.SATRNINA RAMAGOSA, SANTIAGO RAMAGOSA, ENRI)E*A+ELLA, LIERIA *A+ELLA %$ ANDREA RAALO, o!!o(#"or(-%!!e&&%$"(.

G%"c/%%$ %$ S#(o$ %$ 0. A. +%re&o(%, 0r. or !e"#"#o$er-%!!e&&ee.0o(e L. De('%rro 0r. or o!!o(#"or(-%!!e&&%$"(

Remedial law; Probate of wills.—In petitions for probate, the Court’s area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic alidity of the will, as the testamentarycapacity and the compliance with the formal requisites or solemnitiesprescribed by law are the only questions presented for the resolution of thecourt. !ny inquiry into the intrinsic alidity or efficacy of the proisions thereof or the le"ality of any deise or le"acy is premature.#ame; Implied reocation does not warrant dismissal of petition for probate.—!n alle"ed disposal by testator prior tohis death of the properties inoledin his will is no "round for the dismissal of the petition for probate. Probate isone thin"; the alidity of the testamentary proisions is another. $he firstdecides the execution of the document and the testamentary capacity of thetestator; the second relates to descent and distribution.#ame; %ac& of interest bars opposition to probate.—In order that a personmay be allowed to interene in a probate proceedin", he must hae aninterest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate '("o $he )ua s. Chun" *iat )ua,%+-/, #ept. 0, /102 and an interested party is on who would bebenefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim a"ainst theestate li&e a creditor '$eotico s. 3el 4al, %+5-60, 7arch 81, /162. 9hereoppositors do not ta&e issue with the probate court’s findin" that they aretotally stran"ers to the deceased, or do not attempt to show that they haesome interest in the estate which must be protected, the order stri&in" outtheir opposition and all other pleadin"s pertinent thereto must be affirmed.#ame; !ppeals; :rder stri&in" out opposition to probate not interlocutory.—

!n order stri&in" out an opposition to the probate of the will on the "roundthat the oppositors hae no personality to interene in the case is final, andtherefore appealable insofar as they are concerned.

!PP!% from an order of the Court of on. ?#umilan"s. Rama"osa, 8 #CR! 01/'/1-2@

7!*!%I($!%, A.B

:n Auly 6, /1 7ariano #umilan" filed in the Court of on a petition for the probate of a document alle"ed to be the last willand testament of )ilarion Rama"osa, who died on 3ecember , /6/. #aiddocument, written in $a"alo" and dated


2/77

appears that oppositors hae no relationship whatsoeer within the fifthde"ree as proided by law and therefore the oppositors are totally stran"ersto the deceased whose will is under probate. $his bein" so, the motion tostri&e out opposition and all other pleadin"s pertinent thereto is herebyordered stric&en out of the record.

$he petition below bein" for the probate of a will, the courtDs area of inquiry islimited to the extrinsic alidity thereof. $he testatorDs testamentary capacity

and the compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed bylaw are the only questions presented for the resolution of the court. !nyinquiry into the intrinsic alidity or efficacy of the proisions of the will or thele"ality of any deise or le"acy is premature. '(u"uid s. (u"uid, G.R. (o. %+806, Aune 80, /112.

$o establish conclusiely as a"ainst eeryone and once for all, the facts thata will was executed with the formalities required by law and that the testator was in a condition to ma&e a will, is the only purpose of the proceedin"s . . .for the probate of a will. $he Fud"ment in such proceedin"s determines andcan determine nothin" more. '!lemany, et al. s. Con, A.P., aldiar,#anche>, Castro, !n"eles and


3/77

G.R. No. 7276 Oc"ober 27, 197

ONSTANTINO . AAIN, !e"#"#o$er,'(.HON. INTERMEDIATE A**ELLATE ORT 4T/#r S!ec#%& %(e(D#'#(#o$, IRGINIA A. FERNANDE %$ ROSA DIONGSON,re(!o$e$"(.

Ciil %aw; #uccession; Preterition, meanin" of; !rticle 56 of the Ciil Codenot applicable to the suriin" spouse; !doption ma&es the adopted the le"alheir of the adopter.—Preterition consists in the omission in the testator’s willof the forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not mentionedtherein, or, thou"h mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor areexpressly disinherited '(u"uid . (u"uid, - #CR! 6 ?/11@; 7aninan" .Court of !ppeals, #CR! ?/58@. Insofar as the widow is concerned,

!rticle 56 of the Ciil Code may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, althou"h she is a compulsory heir. #tatedotherwise, een if the suriin" spouse is a compulsory heir, there is nopreterition een if she is omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in thedirect line. '!rt. 56, Ciil Code2 )oweer, the same thin" cannot be said of the other respondent 4ir"inia !. , whose le"al adoption by thetestator has not been questioned by petitioner '7emorandum for thePetitioner, pp. 5+/2. Jnder !rticle 0/ of P.3. (o. 10, &nown as the Child andKouth 9elfare Code, adoption "ies to the adopted person the same ri"htsand duties as if he were a le"itimate child of the adopter and ma&es theadopted person a le"al heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she wastotally omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adoptedchild and the widow were depried of at least their le"itime. (either can it bedenied that they were not expressly disinherited. )ence, this is a clear caseof preterition of the le"ally adopted child.#ame; #ame; #ame; Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and createsintestate succession but le"acies and deises are alid and respected insofar as they are not inofficious.—Preterition annuls the institution of an heir andannulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritanceincludin" Lla portion libre 'que2 no hubiese dispuesto en irtual de le"ado,meFora o donationM '7anresa, as cited in (u"uid . (u"uid, supra; 7aninan". Court of !ppeals, #CR! ?/58@2. $he only proisions which do notresult in intestacy are the le"acies and deises made in the will for theyshould stand alid and respected, except in so far as the le"itimes areconcerned.#ame; #ame; #ame; #ame; Institution of petitioner and his brothers andsisters to the entire inheritance totally abro"ates the will.—$he uniersalinstitution of petitioner to"ether with his brothers and sisters to the entireinheritance of the testator results in totally abro"atin" the will because thenullification of such institution of uniersal heirs—without any other

testamentary disposition in the will—amounts to a declaration that nothin" at

all was written. Carefully worded and in clear terms, !rticle 56 of the CiilCode offers no leeway for inferential interpretation '(u"uid . (u"uid2, supra.(o le"acies nor deises hain" been proided in the will the whole propertyof the deceased has been left by uniersal title to petitioner and his brothersand sisters. $he effect of annullin" theinstitution of heirs will be, necessarily,the openin" of a total intestacy '(eri . !&utin, - Phil. 56 ?/0@2 exceptthat proper le"acies and deises must, as already stated aboe, berespected.

#ame; #ame; Probate of a will; Petitioner has no le"al standin" to petition for the probate of the will of the deceased, hence #pecial Proceedin" (o. 6/+!+CH must be dismissed.—In order that a person may be allowed to interenein a probate proceedin" he must hae an interest in the estate, or in the will,or in the property to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate and an interested party is one who would be benefited by theestate such as an heir or one who has a claim a"ainst the estate li&e acreditor '#umilan" . Rama"osa, 8 #CR! 01/N/1-2. Petitioner is not theappointed executor, neither a deisee or a le"atee there bein" no mention inthe testamentary disposition of any "ift of an indiidual item of personal or real property he is called upon to receie '!rticle -58, Ciil Code2. !t theoutset, he appears to hae an interest in the will as an heir, defined under

!rticle -58 of the Ciil Code as a person called to the succession either bythe proision of a will or by operation of law. )oweer, intestacy hain"resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the uniersalinstitution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. )e has nole"al standin" to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased and#pecial Proceedin"s (o. 6/+!+CH must be dismissed.#ame; #ame; #ame; Rule that probate Court’s authority is limited only to theextrinsic alidity of the will, not inflexible and absolute; Court may pass uponthe intrinsic alidity of the will under exceptional circumstances.—#pecialProceedin"s (o. 6/+CH is for the probate of a will. !s stated byrespondent Court, the "eneral rule is that the probate court’s authority islimited only to the extrinsic alidity of the will, the due execution thereof, thetestator’s testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. $he intrinsic alidity of the will normally comeonly after the Court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated.#aid court at this sta"e of the proceedin"s is not called upon to rule on theintrinsic alidity or efficacy of the proisions of the will '(u"uid . (u"uid, -#CR! / ?/11@; #umilan" . Rama"osa, supra; 7aninan" . Court of

!ppeals, #CR! -5 ?/58@; Cayetano . %eonidas, 8/ #CR! 688?/5@2; and (epomuceno . Court of !ppeals, 0/ #CR! 81 ?/56@2. $herule, howeer, is not inflexible and absolute. Jnder exceptionalcircumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situationconstrains it to do and pass upon certain proisions of the will '(epomuceno. Court of !ppeals, supra2. In (u"uid . (u"uid the oppositors to the probatemoed to dismiss on the "round of absolute preterition. $he probate court

actin" on the motion held that the will in question was a complete nullity and


4/77

dismissed the petition without costs. :n appeal the #upreme Court upheldthe decision of the probate court, induced by practical considerations.#ame; #ame; #ame; #ame; $rial Court could hae denied outri"ht theprobate of the will or hae passed upon its intrinsic alidity where on its faceit appears to be intrinsically oid.—


5/77

dau"hter of tile deceased and the latterDs widow Rosa 3ion"son 4da. de !cain filed a motion to dismiss on the followin" "rounds for the petitioner hasno le"al capacity to institute these proceedin"s; '82 he is merely a uniersalheir and '02 the widow and the adopted dau"hter hae been pretirited. 'Rollo,p. 652. #aid motion was denied by the trial Fud"e.

!fter the denial of their subsequent motion for reconsideration in the lower court, respondents filed with the #upreme Court a petition for certiorari andprohibition with preliminary inFunction which was subsequently referred to theIntermediate !ppellate Court by Resolution of the Court dated 7arch ,/56 '7emorandum for Petitioner, p. 0; Rollo, p. 6/2.

Respondent Intermediate !ppellate Court "ranted priate respondentsDpetition and ordered the trial court to dismiss the petition for the probate of the will of (emesio !cain in #pecial Proceedin"s (o. 6/ !CH

)is motion for reconsideration hain" been denied, petitioner filed thispresent petition for the reiew of respondent CourtDs decision on 3ecember 5, /56 'Rollo, p. 12. RespondentsD Comment was filed on Aune 1, /51'Rollo, p. 12.

:n !u"ust , /51 the Court resoled to "ie due course to the petition'Rollo, p. 602. RespondentsD 7emorandum was filed on #eptember 88,/51 'Rollo, p. 6-2; the 7emorandum for petitioner was filed on #eptember 8/, /51 'Rollo, p. --2.

Petitioner raises the followin" issues '7emorandum for petitioner, p. 2B

'!2 $he petition filed in !C+G.R. (o. 6- for certiorari and prohibitionwith preliminary inFunction is not the proper remedy under the premises;

'H2 $he authority of the probate courts is limited only to inquirin" into theextrinsic alidity of the will sou"ht to be probated and it cannot pass upon theintrinsic alidity thereof before it is admitted to probate;

'C2 $he will of (emesio !cain is alid and must therefore, be admitted toprobate. $he preterition mentioned in !rticle 56 of the (ew Ciil Code refersto preterition of Ecompulsory heirs in the direct line,E and does not apply topriate respondents who are not compulsory heirs in the direct line; their omission shall not annul the institution of heirs;

'32 3IC!$ $#$!$:R $ 7RI$ %. 9hat the testator says will bethe law;

'2 $here may be nothin" in !rticle 56 of the (ew Ciil Code, that

su""ests that mere institution of a uniersal heir in the will would "ie the heir

so instituted a share in the inheritance but there is a definite distinct intentionof the testator in the case at bar, explicitly expressed in his will. $his is whatmatters and should be in iolable.

'


6/77

Pretention annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open tointestate succession the entire inheritance includin" Ela porcion libre 'que2 nohubiese dispuesto en irtual de le"ado meFora o donacionE 7aniesa as citedin (u"uid . (u"uid, supra; 7aninan" . Court of !ppeals, #CR! ?/58@2.$he only proisions which do not result in intestacy are the le"acies anddeises made in the will for they should stand alid and respected, exceptinsofar as the le"itimes are concerned.

$he uniersal institution of petitioner to"ether with his brothers and sisters tothe entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abro"atin" the willbecause the nullification of such institution of uniersal heirs+without anyother testamentary disposition in the will+amounts to a declaration thatnothin" at all was written. Carefully worded and in clear terms, !rticle 56 of the Ciil Code offers no leeway for inferential interpretation '(u"uid .(u"uid2, supra. (o le"acies nor deises hain" been proided in the will thewhole property of the deceased has been left by uniersal title to petitioner and his brothers and sisters. $he effect of annullin" the EInstitution of heirswill be, necessarily, the openin" of a total intestacy '(eri . !&utin, - Phil.56 ?/0@2 except that proper le"acies and deises must, as already statedaboe, be respected.

9e now deal with another matter. In order that a person may be allowed tointerene in a probate proceedin" he must hae an interest iii the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it either as executor or as aclaimant of the estate and an interested party is one who would be benefitedby the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim a"ainst the estate li&e acreditor '#umilan" . Rama"osa, 8 #CR! 01/N/1-2. Petitioner is not theappointed executor, neither a deisee or a le"atee there bein" no mention inthe testamentary disposition of any "ift of an indiidual item of personal or real property he is called upon to receie '!rticle -58, Ciil Code2. !t theoutset, he appears to hae an interest in the will as an heir, defined under

!rticle -58 of the Ciil Code as a person called to the succession either bythe proision of a will or by operation of law. )oweer, intestacy hain"resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the uniersalinstitution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. )e has nole"al standin" to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased and#pecial Proceedin"s (o. 6/ !+CH must be dismissed.

!s a "eneral rule certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, except whenthe questioned order is an oppressie exercise of F Fudicial authority 'People. 4illanuea, #CR! 16 ?/5@; 4da. de Caldito . #e"undo, - #CR!6-0 ?/58@; Co Chuan #en" . Court of !ppeals, 85 #CR! 05 ?/5@; andHautista . #armiento, 05 #CR! 65- ?/56@2. It is axiomatic that theremedies of certiorari and prohibition are not aailable where the petitioner has the remedy of appeal or some other plain, speedy and adequate remedy

in the course of law '33 Comendador Construction Corporation . #ayo '5

#CR! 6/ ?/58@2. $hey are, howeer, proper remedies to correct a "raeabuse of discretion of the trial court in not dismissin" a case where thedismissal is founded on alid "rounds '4da. de Hacan" . Court of !ppeals,86 #CR! 0- ?/50@2.

#pecial Proceedin"s (o. 6/ !CH is for the probate of a will. !s stated byrespondent Court, the "eneral rule is that the probate courtDs authority islimited only to the extrinsic alidity of the will, the due execution thereof, thetestatorDs testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. $he intrinsic alidity of the will normally comesonly after the Court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated.#aid court at this sta"e of the proceedin"s is not called upon to rule on theintrinsic alidity or efficacy of the proisions of the will '(u"uid . (u"uid, -#CR! / ?/11@; #umilan" . Rama"osa, supra; 7aninan" . Court of

!ppeals, #CR! -5 ?/58@; Cayetano . %eonides, 8/ #CR! 688?/5@; and (epomuceno . Court of !ppeals, 0/ #CR! 81 ?/56@2.

$he rule, howeer, is not inflexible and absolute. Jnder exceptionalcircumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situationconstrains it to do and pass upon certain proisions of the will '(epomuceno. Court of !ppeals, supra2. In (u"uid . (u"uid the oppositors to the probatemoed to dismiss on the "round of absolute preteriton $he probate courtactin" on the motion held that the will in question was a complete nullity anddismissed the petition without costs. :n appeal the #upreme Court upheldthe decision of the probate court, induced by practical considerations. $heCourt saidB

9e pause to reflect. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will,nothin" will be "ained. :n the contrary, this liti"ation will be protracted. !ndfor au"ht that appears in the record, in the eent of probate or if the courtreFects the will, probability exists that the case will come up once a"ainbefore us on the same issue of the intrinsic alidity or nullity of the will.ResultB waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety. $hese are thepractical considerations that induce us to a belief that we mi"ht as well meethead+on the issue of the alidity of the proisions of the will in question. !fter all there exists a Fusticiable controersy cryin" for solution.

In #a"uimsim . %indaya" '1 #CR! 5- ?/18@2 the motion to dismiss thepetition by the suriin" spouse was "rounded on petitionerDs lac& of le"alcapacity to institute the proceedin"s which was fully substantiated by theeidence durin" the hearin" held in connection with said motion. $he Courtupheld the probate courtDs order of dismissal.

In Cayetano . %eonides, supra one of the issues raised in the motion todismiss the petition deals with the alidity of the proisions of the will.

Respondent Aud"e allowed the probate of the will. $he Court held that as on


7/77

its face the will appeared to hae preterited the petitioner the respondent Fud"e should hae denied its probate outri"ht. 9here circumstances demandthat intrinsic alidity of testamentary proisions be passed upon een beforethe extrinsic alidity of the will is resoled, the probate court should meet theissue. '(epomuceno . Court of !ppeals, supra; (u"uid . (u"uid, supra2.

In the instant case priate respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petitionin #p. Proceedin"s (o. 6/ !CH of the Re"ional $rial Court of Cebu on thefollowin" "roundsB '2 petitioner has no le"al capacity to institute theproceedin"s; '82 he is merely a uniersal heir; and '02 the widow and theadopted dau"hter hae been preterited 'Rollo, p. 652. It was denied by thetrial court in an order dated Aanuary 8, /56 for the reason that Ethe"rounds for the motion to dismiss are matters properly to be resoled after ahearin" on the issues in the course of the trial on the merits of the case'Rollo, p. 082. ! subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by thetrial court on


8/77

G.R. No. L-5356 08$e 25, 1992

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE 0ESS FRAN %$ ARMEN ME0IARODRIGE, !e"#"#o$er(,'(.HON. +ERNARDO LL. SALAS, ONE*ION ME0IA ES*INA %$ MARIAME0IA GANDIONGO, re(!o$e$"(.

9ills and $estaments; 3ue Process; in" the Cler& of Court to receie the eidence for the rule issettled that Lwhen a doctrine of this Court is oerruled and a different iew isadopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectiely, and should notapply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faiththereof.M It may also be emphasi>ed in this connection that %im $anhu did notlie lon"; it was subsequently oerruled in Gochan"co s. Court of


9/77

(oember /-8, lon" final and undisturbed by any attempt to unsettle it, hadineitably passed beyond the reach of the court below to annul or set thesame aside, by mere motion, on the "round that the will is a for"ery. #ettledis the rule that the decree of probate is conclusie with respect to the dueexecution of the will and it cannot be impu"ned on any of the "roundsauthori>ed by law, except that of fraud, in any separate or independent actionor proceedin". 9e wish also to adert to the related doctrine which holds thatfinal Fud"ments are entitled to respect and should not be disturbed;otherwise, there would be a waerin" of trust in the courts.#ame; #ame; 9here part of estate not distributed, recourse is not to re+openprobate proceedin"s, but motion for execution or action for reconeyance.—$he non+distribution of the estate, which is i"orously denied by thepetitioners, is not a "round for the re+openin" of the testate proceedin"s. !seasonable motion for execution should hae been filed. In 3e Aesus s.3a>a, this Court ruled that if the executor or administrator has possession of the share to be deliered, the probate court would hae Furisdiction within thesame estate proceedin" to order him to transfer that possession to theperson entitled thereto. $his is authori>ed under #ection , Rule / of theRules of Court. )oweer, if no motion for execution is filed within there"lementary period, a separate action for the recoery of the shares wouldbe in order.

P$I$I:( for certiorari and prohibition to reiew the orders of the then Courtof


10/77

and consent that . . . they hae no obFection of 'sic2 the allowance of the . . .will of the late Remedios 7eFia 4da. de $ioseFo,E and that they hae EnoobFection to the issuance of letters testamentary in faor of petitioner, 3r.Aesus


11/77

they were not notified thereof; 'f2 the petitioner si"ned the proFect of partitionas administrator and not as executor, thereby proin" that the decedent diedintestate; '"2 the petitioner did not submit any accountin" as required by law;and 'h2 the petitioner neer distributed the estate to the deisees andle"atees.

In a detailed opposition 1 to the aboe :mnibus 7otion for Reconsideration, petitioner


12/77

)oweer, on the same date, before the restrainin" order was sered on him;respondent Aud"e issued the impu"ned order declarin" the testamentarydispositions of the will oid, findin" the si"nature of the late Remedios 7.4da. de $ioseFo to be a for"ery, decreein" the reopenin" of #p. Proc. (o.00/+R and conertin" the same into an intestate proceedin". 80

)ence, on 1 Aune /5, petitioners filed their #econd #upplemental Petition8 as&in" this Court to declare as null and oid the :rder of 8 Aune /5and, pendin" such declaration, to restrain respondent Aud"e from enforcin"the same. Priate respondents filed their Comment and :pposition to the#econd #upplemental Petition on / Auly /5.

$hereafter, as mandated in the resolution of 0 Aune /5, 86 this Court"ae due course to this case and required the parties to file their respectie7emoranda, which priate respondents complied with on 1 !u"ust /5; 81petitioners filed theirs on 8- !u"ust /5. 8- Consequently, the partiescontinued to file seeral pleadin"s reiteratin" substantially the samealle"ations and ar"uments earlier submitted to this Court.

:n 88 7arch /5, counsel for petitioners filed a manifestation informin" thisCourt of the death of petitioner o or other lawyers to present a motion tothis Court after 86 o withdrew as counsel for priate respondents. #he then as&s this Court to consider as withdrawn her :pposition to the !llowance of the 9ill, her participation in the :mnibus7otion for Reconsideration and her :pposition to this petition.

3ue to this deelopment, 9e required priate respondent Concepcion 7.spina to comment on the affidait of priate respondent 7aria 7. 4da. deGandion"co.

:n - !u"ust /56, priate respondents filed a Foint manifestation 8/wherein they claim that 7aria 7. 4da. de Gandion"co does not remember,executin" the affidait. ! few wee&s before the affidait was filed, particularlyon - Aune /56, 7aria 7. 4da. de Gandion"co was confined in the hospital;she could not recall hain" si"ned, durin" this period, any affidait or reco"ni>ed her sisters and other relaties.

:n / #eptember /56, respondent 7aria 7. 4da.de Gandion"co, throu"hspecial counsel, filed a 7anifestationN7otion with a second !ffidait attachedthereto 0 confessin" that she si"ned the Aoint 7anifestation dated 1

!u"ust /56 Ewithout &nowin" or bein" informed of its contents, and onlyupon 7rs. Concepcion spinaDs request.E #he reiterated her desire towithdraw from the :mnibus 7otion for Reconsideration filed in #p. Proc. (o,00/+R as well as from the instant petition.

3espite the aliant attempt of priate respondent Concepcion 7. spina toinfluence and control the action of 7aria Gandion"co, there is nothin" in therecords that would cast any doubt on the irreocability of the latterDs decisionto withdraw her participation in the :mnibus 7otion for Reconsideration and:pposition to this case. $hat decision, howeer, is not a "round for droppin"her as a priate respondent as the respondent Aud"e had already issued theaboementioned :rder of 8 Aune /5.

$he petition and the supplemental petitions are impressed with merit.

9e do not hesitate to rule that the respondent Aud"e committed "rae abuseof discretion amountin" to lac& of Furisdiction when he "ranted the :mnibus7otion for Reconsideration and thereafter set aside the probate Fud"ment of 0 (oember /-8 in #p. Proc. (o. 00/+R, declared the subFect will of the

testatrix a for"ery, nullified the testamentary dispositions therein and orderedthe conersion of the testate proceedin"s into one of intestacy.

It is not disputed that priate respondents filed on the day of the initialhearin" of the petition their E9ithdrawal of :pposition $o !llowance of Probate 'sic2 9illE wherein they unequiocally state that they hae noobFection to the allowance of the will.


13/77

priate respondent spina expressed her conformity throu"h a certificationfiled with the probate court. !ssumin" for the sa&e of ar"ument that priaterespondents did not receie a formal notice of the decision as they claim intheir :mnibus 7otion for Reconsideration, these acts neertheless constituteindubitable proof of their prior actual &nowled"e of the same. ! formal noticewould hae been an idle ceremony. In testate proceedin"s, a decisionlo"ically precedes the proFect of partition, which is normally animplementation of the will and is amon" the last operatie acts to terminatethe proceedin"s. If priate respondents did not hae actual &nowled"e of thedecision, they should hae desisted from performin" the aboe acts andinstead demanded from petitioner ed and upheld the practice of dele"atin" the reception of eidence toCler&s of Court. $husB

(o proision of law or principle of public policy prohibits a court fromauthori>in" its cler& of court to receie the eidence of a party liti"ant. !fter all, the reception of eidence by the cler& of court constitutes but a ministerialtas& — the ta&in" down of the testimony of the witnesses and the mar&in" of the pieces of documentary eidence, if any, adduced by the party present.$his tas& of receiin" eidence precludes, on the part of the cler& of court theexercise of Fudicial discretion usually called for when the other party who is

present obFects to questions propounded and to the admission of thedocumentary eidence proffered. 00 7ore importantly, the duty to render

Fud"ment on the merits of the case still rests with the Fud"e who is obli"ed topersonally and directly prepare the decision based upon the eidencereported. 0

Hut where the proceedin"s before the cler& of court and the concomitantresult thereof, i.e., the Fud"ment rendered by the court based on the eidencepresented in such limited proceedin"s, preFudice the substantial ri"hts of thea""rieed party, then there exists, sufficient Fustification to "rant the latter complete opportunity to thresh out his case in court. 06

7onserrate s. Court of !ppeals, 01 decided on 8/ #eptember /5/,reiterated this rule. %im $anhu then cannot be used as authority to nullify theorder of the probate court authori>in" the Cler& of Court to receie theeidence for the rule is settled that Ewhen a doctrine of this Court is oerruledand a different iew is adopted, the new doctrine should be appliedprospectiely, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the olddoctrine and acted on the faith thereof.E 0- It may also be emphasi>ed in thisconnection that %im $anhu did not lie lon"; it was subsequently oerruled inGochan"co s. Court of


14/77

respondents are obiously of the impression that by the dele"ation of thereception of eidence to the Cler& of Court, the latter became acommissioner as defined under Rule 00 of the Rules of Court entitled $rial byCommissioner. $his is not correct; as this Court said in %aluanB

$he proisions of Rule 00 of the Rules of Court ino&ed by both partiesproperly relate to the reference by a court of any or all of the issues in a caseto a person so commissioned to act or report thereon. $hese proisionsexplicitly spell out the rules "oernin" the conduct of the court, thecommissioner, and the parties before, durin", and after the referenceproceedin"s. Compliance with these rules of conduct becomes imperatieonly when the court formally orders a reference of the case to acommissioner. #trictly spea&in" then, the proisions of Rule 00 find noapplication to the case at bar where the court a quo merely directed the cler&of court to ta&e down the testimony of the witnesses presented and to mar&the documentary eidence proferred on a date preiously set for hearin".

Helatedly reali>in" the absence of substance of the aboe "rounds, priaterespondents now claim in their Comments to the Petition and the#upplemental Petition that the trial court neer acquired Furisdiction oer thepetition because only the n"lish translation of the will — and not a copy of the same — was attached to the petition; the will was not een submitted tothe court for their examination within twenty '82 days after the death of thetestatrix; and that there was fraud in the procurement of the probate

Fud"ment principally because they were not "ien any chance to examine thesi"nature of the testatrix and were misled into si"nin" the withdrawal of their opposition on the assurance of petitioner ar s. Court of


15/77

the petition, pa"es 6, 1, - and 5 while the translation thereof, mar&ed as !nnex E!+E, became pa"es /, , and 8 of the records. $he mar&in"swere done in lon" hand. $he records of the case were thereafter sent to theCler& of Court, th Audicial 3istrict, Cebu City on /


16/77

$he non+distribution of the estate, which is i"orously denied by thepetitioners, is not a "round for the re+openin" of the testate proceedin"s. !seasonable motion for execution should hae been filed. In 3e Aesus s.3a>a, 6- this Court ruled that if the executor or administrator has possessionof the share to be deliered, the probate court would hae Furisdiction withinthe same estate proceedin" to order him to transfer that possession to theperson entitled thereto. $his is authori>ed under #ection , Rule / of theRules of Court. )oweer, if no motion for execution is filed within there"lementary period, a separate action for the recoery of the shares wouldbe in order. !s 9e see it, the attac& of #eptember /-0 on the :rder was

Fust a cleer ploy to "ie asemblance of stren"th and substance to the:mnibus 7otion for Reconsideration by depictin" therein a probate courtcommittin" a series of fatal, substantie and procedural blunders, which 9efind to be ima"inary, if not deliberately fabricated.

9)R, Ar., Hidin and Romero, AA., concur.


17/77

G.R. No. 759 08$e 2, 19

*EDRO DE GMAN, !e"#"#o$er,'(.THE HONORA+LE 0DGE OSIMO . ANGELES, RT +RANH 5,MAATI, METRO, MANILA: DE*T; SHERIFFS 0OSE +. FLORA %$HONORIO SANTOS %$ ELAINE G. DE GMAN, re(!o$e$"(.

+%8"#("%, *#c%


18/77

administrator is appointed.M 'Aones . 7innesota $ransfer R. Co. /16 ed., at1 cited in man. )ence, the necessity of notice as mandated by the Rules of Court. It is not clear from the records exactly what emer"ency would haeensued if the appointment of an administrator was deferred at least until themost interested parties were "ien notice of the proposed action. (ounaoidable delay in the appointment of a re"ular administrator is apparentfrom the records.

P$I$I:( to reiew the orders of the Re"ional $rial Court of 7a&ati, Hr. 65. !n"eles, A. ?3e Gu>man s. !n"eles, 18 #CR! 0-'/552@

GJ$IRR, AR., A.B

7ay a probate court act on andNor "rant motions for the appointment of aspecial administrator, for the issuance of a writ of possession of alle"edproperties of the deceased person, and for assistance to presere the estatein a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate een before the courthas caused notice to be sered upon all interested parties pursuant to

section 0, Rule -/ of the Reised Rules of CourtQ

:n 7ay 6, /5-, priate respondent laine G. de Gu>man filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of 7anolito de Gu>man, before theRe"ional $rial Court of 7a&ati, 7etro 7anila. $he case was doc&eted as#pecial Proceedin"s .(o. 7+01.

$he petition alle"es thatB '2 on 7arch 88,/5-, 7anolito de Gu>man died in7a&ati, 7etro 7anila; '82 at the time of his death, the decedent was aresident of 7a&ati, 7etro 7anila; '02 decedent left personal and realproperties as part of his estate, listed in !nnexes E!,E EH,E ECE and E3;E '2 theproperties were acquired after the marria"e of the petitioner to the decedent

and therefore are included in their conFu"al partnership; '62 the estate of +thedecedent has a probable net alue which may be proisionally assessed atP,,. more or less; '12 the possible creditors of the estate, whohae accounts payable. and existin" claims a"ainst the firm — C. #!($:#Construction are listed in !nnex E;E '-2 the compulsory heirs of the decedentare the as the suriin" spouse and their two '82 minor children namelyBCharmane Rose de Gu>man years and Peter Hrian de Gu>man, / yearsold; '52 after dili"ent search and inquiry to ascertain whether the decedentleft a last will and testament, none has been found and accordin" to the best&nowled"e information and belief of the petitioner, 7anolito de Gu>man diedintestate; and '/2 the petitioner as the surey suriin" spouse of thedecedent, is most qualified and entitled to the "rant of letters of

administration.

:n 7ay 88, /5-, the priate respondent filed a motion for writ of possessionoer fie '62 — ehicles re"istered under the name of 7anolito de Gu>man,alle"ed to be conFu"al properties of the de Gu>manDs but which are atpresent in the possession of the priate respondentDs father+in+ law, hereinpetitioner Pedro de Gu>man. $he motion stated that as co+owner and heir,the priate respondent must hae the possession of said ehicles in order topresere the assets of her late husband. :n the same day, the lower courtissued an order settin" for hearin" the motion on 7ay 8-, /5- directin" thedeputy sheriff to notify petitioner Pedro de Gu>man at the expense of thepriate respondent.

$he scheduled 7ay 8-, /5- hearin" was postponed on motion of petitionerDs counsel, !tty. Ricardo


19/77

pendin" appointment of a re"ular administrator. $he bond for the said specialadministratrix is hereby fixed in the amount of P8,.. 'Rollo, p. 2

:n Aune 5, /5-, the lower court issued another order, to witB

!ctin" on the Jr"ent x+Parte 7otion for !ssistanceE filed by Petitioner+#pecial !dministratrix laine de Gu>man for appointment of 3eputy #heriffs)onorio #antos and Aose H. man, themotion is "ranted and the 3eputy #heriffs )onorio #antos and Aose H. manE and that Ethe timely arrial of 7ayor

AeFomar Hinay of 7a&ati defused the ery olatile situation which resulted inan a"reement between the parties that the bulldo>er, sou"ht to be ta&en, betemporarily placed in the custody of 7ayor Hinay, while the parties see&clarification of the order from respondent Aud"e osimo !n"eles the nextday, Aune /, /5 at B0 a.m.E

In the conference held before the respondent court attended by the counselsfor both parties, the Aune 5, /5- order was clarified to the effect that theorder Emust be merely to ta&e and presere assets admittedly belon"in" tothe estate, but not properties, the ownership of which is claimed by thirdpersons.E

$he petitioner then filed a manifestation listin" properties which he claimed tobe his own.

$hereafter, the instant petition was filed to annul the lower courtDs ordersdated Aune 6, /5- and Aune 5, /5-.

In a resolution dated Aune , /5-, we issued a temporary restrainin" order enFoinin" the respondent court from enforcin" the two questioned orders. Inanother resolution dated :ctober 85, /5-, we "ae due course to thepetition.

$he petitioner contends that the Aune 6, /5- order is a patent nullity, the

respondent court not hain" acquired Furisdiction to appoint a special

administratrix because the petition for the settlement of the estate of 7anolitode Gu>man was not yet set for hearin" and published for three consecutiewee&s, as mandated by the Rules of Court. $he petitioner also stresses thatthe appointment of a special administratrix constitutes an abuse of discretionfor hain" been made without "iin" petitioner and other parties anopportunity to oppose said appointment.

!nent the Aune 5, /5- order, the petitioner alle"es that the immediate "rantof the motion prayin" for the courtDs assistance in the preseration of theestate of the deceased, Ewithout notice to the petitioner Pedro de Gu>man,and its immediate implementation on the ery same day by respondentlaine G. de Gu>man with the assistance of respondents deputy sheriffs, atno other place but at the home of the petitioner Pedro de Gu>man, areeloquent proofs that all the antecedent eents were intended solely todeprie petitioner de Gu>man of his property without due process of law.E )ealso prays that the respondent Aud"e be disqualified from further continuin"the case.

!s stated earlier, the piotal issue in the instant petition hin"es on whether or not a probate court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a writ of possession of alle"ed properties of a decedent for the preseration of the

estate in a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the saiddeceased person een before the probate court causes notice to be seredupon all interested parties pursuant to section 0, Rule -/ of the ReisedRules of Court.

!s early as 7arch 5, /0-, in the case of #antos . Castillo '1 Phil. 82we ruled that before a court may acquire Furisdiction oer the case for theprobate of a will and the administration of the properties left by a deceasedperson, the application must alle"e the residence of the deceased and other indispensable facts or circumstances and that the applicant is the executor named in the will or is the person who had custody of the will to be probated.

In the instant case, there is no doubt that the respondent court acquired Furisdiction oer the proceedin"s upon the filin" of a petition for thesettlement of an intestate estate by the priate respondent since the petitionhad alle"ed all the Furisdictional facts, the residence of the deceased person,the possible heirs and creditors and the probable alue of the estate of thedeceased 7anolito de Gu>man pursuant to #ection 8, Rule -/ of theReised Rules of Court.

9e must, howeer, differentiate between the Furisdiction of the probate courtoer the proceedin"s for the administration of an estate and its Furisdictionoer the persons who are interested in the settlement of the estate of thedeceased person. $he court may also hae Furisdiction oer the EestateE of


20/77

the deceased person but the determination of the properties comprisin" thatestate must follow established rules.

#ection 0, Rule -/ of the Reised Rules of Court proidesB

Court to set time for hearin". — (otice thereof. — 9hen a petition for lettersof administration is filed in the court hain" Furisdiction, such court shall fix atime and place for hearin" the petition, and shall cause notice thereof to be"ien to the &nown heirs and creditors of the decedent, and to any other persons belieed to hae an interest in the estate, in the manner proided insections 0 and of Rule -1.

It is ery clear from this proision that the probate court must cause noticethrou"h publication of the petition after it receies the same. $he purpose of this notice is to brin" all the interested persons within the courtDs Furisdictionso that the Fud"ment therein becomes bindin" on all the world. '7analo .Paredes, - Phil. /05; 7oran, Comment on the Rules of Court 4olume0,/5 dition2 9here no notice as required by #ection 0, Rule -/ of theRules of Court has been "ien to persons belieed to hae an interest in theestate of the deceased person; the proceedin" for the settlement of theestate is oid and should be annulled. $he requirement as to notice is

essential to the alidity of the proceedin" in that no person may be depriedof his ri"ht to property without due process of law. 'usebio . 4almores, /1Phil. 102.

4erily, notice throu"h publication of the petition for the settlement of theestate of a deceased person is Furisdictional, the absence of which ma&escourt orders affectin" other persons, subsequent to the petition oid andsubFect to annulment. '#ee usebio . 4almores, supra2

In the instant case, no notice as mandated by section 0, Rule -/ of theReised Rules of Court was caused to be "ien by the probate court before itacted on the motions of the priate respondent to be appointed as special

administratrix, to issue a writ of possession of alle"ed properties of thedeceased person in the widowDs faor, and to "rant her motion for assistanceto presere the estate of 7anolito de Gu>man.

$he EexplanationE which we required of the respondent Aud"e for hisapparent haste in issuin" the questioned orders, statesB

xxx xxx xxx

. In issuin" the subFect :rders, undersi"ned acted in the honestconiction that it would be to the best interest of the estate without undulypreFudicin" any interested party or third person. !ny delay in issuin" the said

:rders mi"ht hae preFudiced the estate for the properties may be lost,wasted or dissipated in the meantime. 'Rollo, p. 512

xxx xxx xxx

$his explanation while seemin"ly plausible does not sufficiently explain thedisre"ard of the Rule. If indeed, the respondent court had the welfare of boththe estate and the person who hae interest in the estate, then it could haecaused notice to be "ien immediately as mandated by the Reised Rules of Court. !ll interested persons includin" herein petitioner who is the bi""estcreditor of the estate listed in the Petition 'P56,8.52 could haeparticipated in the proceedin"s especially so, because the respondentimmediately filed a motion to hae herself appointed as administratrix. !special administrator has been defined as the Erepresentatie of decedentappointed by the probate court to care for and presere his estate until anexecutor or "eneral administrator is appointed.E 'Aones . 7innesota $ransfer R. Co. /16 ed., at 1 cited in man. )ence, the necessity of notice as mandatedby the Rules of Court. It is not clear from the records exactly what emer"ency

would hae ensued if the appointment of an administrator was deferred atleast until the most interested parties were "ien notice of the proposedaction. (o unaoidable delay in the appointment of a re"ular administrator isapparent from the records.

!s ar"ued by the petitionerB

$he position of special administrator, by the ery nature of the powers"ranted thereby, is one of trust and confidence. It is a fiduciary position and,therefore, requires a comprehensie determination of the suitability of theapplicant to such position. )ence, under Philippine Furisprudence, it has beensettled that the same fundamental and le"al principles "oernin" the choice

of a re"ular administrator should be ta&en in choosin" the specialadministrator 'aeta .Pecson, Ibid. and Roxas . Pecson, Ibid.2

In order to fully and correctly ascertain the suitability of the applicant to thetrust, a hearin" is obiously necessary wherein the applicant can proe hisqualifications and at the same time affordin" oppositors, "ien notice of suchhearin" and application, the opportunity to oppose or contest suchapplication.

$he requirement of a hearin" and the notification to all the &nown heirs andother interested parties as to the date thereof is essential to the alidity of the

proceedin" for the appointment of an administrator Ein order that no person


21/77

may be depried of his ri"ht or property without due process of lawE 'usebio. 4almores, /- Phil. 102. 7oreoer, a hearin" is necessary in order to fullydetermine the suitability of the applicant to the trust, by "iin" him theopportunity to proe his qualifications and affordin" oppositors, if any, tocontest the said application. '7atute . Court of !ppeals, 81 #CR! --;emphasis supplied2.

#ince the position of special administrator is a ery sensitie one whichrequires trust and confidence, it is essential that the suitability of the

applicant be ascertained in a hearin" with due notice to all oppositors whomay obFect precisely to the applicantDs suitability to the trust. 'Rollo, pp. 0+2

If emer"ency situations threatenin" the dissipation of the assets of an estate Fustify a courtDs immediately ta&in" some &ind of temporary action eenwithout the required notice, no such emer"ency is shown in this case. $heneed for the proper notice een for the appointment of a special administrator is apparent from the circumstances of this case.

$he respondent Aud"e himself explains that the order for the preseration of the estate was limited to properties not claimed by third parties. If certain

properties are already in the possession of the applicant for specialadministratrix and are not claimed by other persons, we see no need to hurryup and ta&e special action to presere those properties. !s it is, the sheriffstoo& adanta"e of the questioned order to sei>e by force, properties found inthe residence of the petitioner which he ehemently claims are owned by himand not by the estate of the deceased person.

$he petitioner also as&s that the respondent Aud"e be disqualified fromcontinuin" with the proceedin"s of the case on the "round that he is partial tothe priate respondent.

In iew of the fact that the respondent Aud"e in his ExplanationE requests

that he be inhibited from further actie on the case, this issue has nowbecome academic. 9e accept Aud"e !n"elesE oluntary inhibition in line withour rulin" in Pimentel . #alan"a '8 #CR! 12. !s we stated in =uery of xecutie Aud"e strella $. strada, Re"ional $rial Court of 7alolos, Hulacanon the conflictin" iews of Re"ional $rial Court—Aud"es 7analo and lisa"aReB Criminal Case (o. /6 — 7 !dministratie 7atter (o. 5-+/+0/5+R$C,:ctober 81, /5-B

xxx xxx xxx

... ! Fud"e may not be le"ally prohibited from sittin" in a liti"ation. Hut whensu""estion is made of record that he mi"ht be induced to act in faor of one

party or with bias or preFudice a"ainst a liti"ant arisin" out of circumstances

reasonably capable of incitin" such a state of mind, he should conduct acareful self+examination. )e should exercise his discretion in a way that thepeopleDs faith in the courts of Fustice is not impaired. ! salutary norm is thathe reflect on the probability that a losin" party mi"ht nurture at the bac& of hismind the thou"ht that the Fud"e had unmeritoriously tilted the scales of Fusticea"ainst him. $hat passion on the part of a Fud"e may be "enerated becauseof serious char"es of misconduct a"ainst him by a suitor or his counsel, isnot alto"ether remote. )e is a man, subFect to the frailties of other men. )eshould, therefore, exercise "reat care and caution before ma&in" up his mind

to act or withdraw from a suit 9here that party or counsel is inoled. )ecould in "ood "race inhibit himself where that case could be heard byanother Fud"e and where no appreciable preFudice would be occasioned toothers inoled thereon. :n the result of his decisions to sit or not sit maydepend to a "reat extent that all+important confidence in the impartiality of the Fudiciary. If after reflection he should resole to oluntarily desist fromsittin" in a case where his moties or fairness mi"ht be seriously impu"ned,his action is to be interpreted as "iin" meanin" and substance to the secondpara"raph of #ection , Rule 0-. )e seres the cause of the law whoforestalls miscarria"e of Fustice.

Considerin" the fore"oin", we find no need to discuss the other issues raised

in the petition.

9)R


22/77

?G.R. No.L-23225. Febr8%r= 27, 1971.@

IN THE MATTER OF THE *ETITION TO *RO+ATE OF THE ILL OFDIGNA MARAILLA, HERMINIO MARAILLA, !e"#"#o$er-%!!e&&%$", %$ADELINA SA0O, &e>%"ee-%!!e&&%$", '. *EDRO MARAILLA, ASNIONMARAILLA %$ REGINA MARAILLA, o!!o(#"or(-%!!e&&ee(,ONE*ION OHLHAAS %$ ROSE MAR; OHLHAAS, #$"er'e$or(.

Fe$o A. G%rc#% or &e>%"ee-%!!e&&%$".

S%&o$>%, OroBe


23/77

Ea2 $hat the deceased, 3i"na 7arailla, the alle"ed testatrix and theinstrumental witnesses did not si"n the alle"ed will, each and eery pa"ethereof, in the presence of each other;

Eb2 $hat the deceased, 3i"na 7arailla, the alle"ed testatrix, affixed her si"nature to her alle"ed will under undue and improper pressure andinfluence andNor duress brou"ht to bear upon her by the petitioner, for hisown personal benefit and adanta"e and that of his nieces, !delina #aFo andRose 7arie *ohlhaas and his half+sister Conchita 7arailla *ohlhaas;

Ec2 $hat the deceased, 3i"na 7arailla, at the time she affixed her si"nature to her alle"ed will was not of sound and disposin" mind;

Ed2 $hat the alle"ed will, now bein" offered for probate had already beenreo&ed by the deceased, 3i"na 7arailla.E 1

!fter trial, the court below rendered Fud"ment, holdin" as unsubstantiated thelast three '02 "rounds aboe+enumerated, but sustainin" the first, that is, thatthe will was not executed in accordance with #ection 15 of !ct /, and,therefore, denied the probate of the will.

$he petitioner and one !delina #aFro, who was named a deisee under thequestioned will, appealed the Fud"ment, as aforesaid, assi"nin" errors of factand law. $he oppositors+appellees did not appeal but counter+assi"nederrors their brief.

$here is no controersy that the late 3i"na 7arailla died in 7anapla,(e"ros :ccidental, on 8 !u"ust /65, leain" an extensie estate. Prior toher death, she was a resident of #araia, same proince. It is, li&ewise,undisputed that, at the time of the probate proceedin"s, only one '2'!quilino 7ansueto2 of the three '02 attestin" witnesses to the will hadsuried, the two '82 others '$imoteo )ernae> and 7ariano Huenaflor2hain" died preiously.

$he will submitted for probate, xhibit E!,E which is typewritten in the #panishlan"ua"e, purports to hae been executed in 7anila on the -th day of :ctober, /; it consists of fie '62 pa"es, includin" the pa"e on which theattestation clause was completed. $he purported si"natures of the testatrixappear at the lo"ical end of the will on pa"e four and at the left mar"in of allthe other pa"es. $he attestation clause reads asfollowsBF"cBchanrobles.com.ph

EC%!J#J%! 3 !$#$IGJ!7I($:

E(osotros, $I7:$: )R(!, !=JI%I(: 7!(#J$: y 7!RI!(:

HJ(!quierdo de cada una de lascinco pa"inas de que se compone en presencia de todos y cada uno de

nosotros que tambien firmamos en el mar"en i>quierdo de cada pa"ina y alpie de este atesti"uamiento los unos en presencia de los otros y todos enpresencia de lo testadora, quien en el acto del otor"amiento y firma de estedocumento se halla en plena capacidad intelectual, amena>ada ni en"anadapar otor"ar y firmar este testamento.

E!si lo atesti"uamos y firmamos por triplicado de nuestro puo y letra en7anila hoy a siete de :ctubre de mil noecientos cuarenta y cuatro.Ecralawirtuaaw library

!t the bottom thereof appear the purported si"natures of $imoteo )ernae>, !quilino 7ansueto and 7ariano Huenaflor, attestin" witnesses. $heir

si"natures appear also on the left mar"in of all the fie '62 pa"es. $he pa"in"of the will is by handwritten words, such as EPa"ina Primera,E EPa"ina#e"unda,E etc., written at the top of each pa"e. :n the lower half of the thirdpa"e, before the name EC:(CPCI:( P. 7!R!4I%%!,E is the typewrittenword Ehermana,E which was crossed out, and oer it was handwritten theword Ecuada,E bearin", at the left hereof, the initials E3. 7.Ecralaw irtuaawlibrary

!fter the le"acies in faor of herein appellant !delina #aFo, a niece of 3i"na7arailla, the latter’s sister+in+law, Concepcion P. 7arailla de *ohlhaas, andConcepcion’s dau"hter, Rose 7ary *ohlhaas, the will named appellant)erminio 7arailla as uniersal heir and executor. In case of the heir’s death,

or if he should not become heir for any reason, he is to be substituted by thele"atee !delina #aFo in one+half of the properties bequeathed, the other half to pass collectiely to le"atees Concepcion P. 7arailla and the dau"hter of the latter, Rose 7ary *ohlhaas. !ll preious wills are declared reo&ed.

In iew of the trial court’s decision of 5


24/77

of 3i"na 7arailla’s testament was biased and not deserin" of credit; and'e2 in refusin" probate to the alle"ed will for not hain" been executed withthe requisites prescribed by #ection 15 of !ct /.

!t the hearin" before the court a quo, only one of the three instrumentalwitnesses, Col. 'ret.2 !quilino 7ansueto, appeared and testified, inasmuch asthe other two witnesses '$imoteo )ernae> and 7ariano Huenaflor2concededly died prior to the trial of the case. Col. 7ansueto identified hisown si"nature and those of 3r. $imoteo )ernae> and of 3i"na 7arailla, and

asserted that the latter did si"n in the presence of all three witnesses andattorney 4illanuea; - that )ernae> si"ned in his presence and in thepresence of the other witnesses and of 3i"na 7arailla and that present atthe si"nin" were E3r. $imoteo )ernae>, 7r. 7ariano Huenaflor, attorney7anuel 4illanuea and both )erminio 7arailla and 7rs. 3i"na 7arailla,'the testatrix2 and identified his si"nature and those of 3i"na and )ernae> 5althou"h, subsequently, the witness admitted that he could not remember ery well whether 7r. 7arailla was there at the time he si"ned the will. $hewitness explained that he could not remember some details becausefourteen years had elapsed, and when he si"ned as a witness, he did not"ie it any importance and because of the time he 'Col. 7ansueto2 was eryworried because of rumours that the Aapanese *empeitai would arrest

officers of the J#!

and Huenaflor were in his house in the mornin" of - :ctober / and satwith his wife around the table in the dinin" room, with 4illanuea at one end,3i"na beside him and the witnesses facin" each other; 6 and after thesi"nin" they had lunch, at his initation, and when they were eatin",petitioner 7arailla saw the three '02 copies of the will on the dinin" table. 1)oweer, he did not see there si"n. -

!ttorney 7anuel 4illanuea, as third witness for the proponent asserted thathe had been the lawyer of the 7araillas; that 6 or 1 days before - :ctober / he had been summoned throu"h 7ariano Huenaflor to the house of the7araillas at 888 7abini, rmita, 7anila, and there met 3i"na who requestedhim to draft a new will, reo&in" her old one, to include as additional

beneficiaries !delina #aFo, Concepcion 7arailla, and the latter’s youn"est

dau"hter, Rose 7ary *ohlhaas, who lied with her '3i"na2 and whom sheconsidered as her real children, hain" cared for them since childhood.3i"na "ae 4illanuea instructions concernin" the will, and handed him her old will and a handwritten list of the certificates of title of her properties, whichlist she as&ed and obtained from her husband. Hefore leain", 4illanueaas&ed 3i"na to loo& for three witnesses; their names were furnished him twoor three days later and he sent word that the will could be executed on -:ctober / 'as it actually was2; on that day he brou"ht one ori"inal and 8copies with him, and handed them to 3i"na; she read the document and

while doin" so the witnesses 7ansueto, )ernae> and Huenaflor came.4illanuea tal&ed with them and satisfied himself that they were competent,whereupon all proceeded to the dinin" room table. !ttorney 4illanuea sat atthe head thereof, 3i"na at his ri"ht, and )ernae> at the ri"ht of 3i"na; at hisleft was first 7ansueto and then Huenaflor. !t the lawyer’s behest 3i"na7arailla read the will in the presence of the witnesses; after readin" shecalled his attention to a clerical error on pa"e 0, at the second to the last lineof para"raph /, where Concepcion 7arailla was desi"nated as EhermanaE ;the word was cancelled by the testatrix who wrote EcuadaE aboe thecancelled word, and placed her initials E3. 7.E beside it. #he also wrote ontop of each pa"e the words EPa"ina primera,E EPa"ina #e"undaE and so on,upon 4illanuea’s instructions, and then 3i"na and the witnesses si"ned in

the presence of one another and of attorney 4illanuea. 5 $he latter did notas& the husband ')erminio2 to Foin the "roup when the will was executed,and )erminio remained near the window in the sala. / 3i"na appeared tothe witness ery healthy and spo&e in #panish intelli"ently. $he si"nin"ended around 8B0 p.m., and after it all ate lunch. 8

Jpon the eidence, the trial Fud"e concluded that 7ansueto did not actuallysee 3i"na 7arailla si"n the will in question, basin" such conclusion uponthe fact that while 7ansueto positiely identified his own si"nature 'EI identifythis as my si"natureE2 but not that of the testatrix, his fie answers to thequestions of counsel, in reference thereto, bein" Ethis must be the si"natureof 7rs. 3i"na 7arailla.Ecralaw irtuaaw library

In our opinion, the trial court’s conclusion is far fetched, fanciful andunwarranted. It was but natural that witness 7ansueto should be positieabout his own si"nature, since he was familiar with it. )e had to be lesspositie about 3i"na 7arailla’s si"nature since he could not be closelyacquainted with the sameB for au"ht the record shows, the si"nin" of the willwas the only occasion he saw her si"n; he had no opportunity to study her si"nature before or after the execution of xhibit E!.E


25/77

by the witness is the best eidence that he was bein" candid and careful,and it is a clear bad"e of truthfulness rather than the reerse.

$he trial court’s error "ains no support from 7ansueto’s statement on cross+examination that EI remember and 'I2 si"ned the will in the presence of all thewitnesses and in the presence of attorney 4illanueaE 'pa"e 8/, 4olume ,$.s.n., !ma"o2. In the absence of an assurance that no one else waspresent, this assertion does not really contradict 7ansueto’s testimony inchief that EI hae read the entire document before I si"ned it in the presence

of the other witnesses, 3i"na 7arailla and !ttorney 4illanueaE 't.s.n., !ma"o, 4olume , pa"es 5+/2. It is well to note that the cross examiner didnot as& 7ansueto if no one else besides those mentioned by him had seenhim si"n. !ny contradiction inferred from both statements is purelyconFectural; it did not come from the witness and is insufficient to impeach hiseracity, the difference in the answers bein" due to no more than anaccidental lapse of memory. ! will may be allowed een if some witnessesnot remember hain" attested it, if other eidence satisfactorily show dueexecution '4. !ct /, #ection 1082, and that failure of witness to identify hissi"nature does not bar probate. 8

$hat 7ansueto, )ernae> and Huenaflor, to"ether with the testatrix and the

lawyer, sat next to one another around one table when the will was si"ned isclearly established by the uncontradicted testimony of both attorney4illanuea and )erminio 7arailla; and that detail proes beyond doubt thateach one of the parties concerned did si"n in the presence of all the others. Itshould be remembered, in this connection, that the test is not whether awitness did see the si"nin" of the will but whether he was in a position to seeif he chose to do so. 88

$he trial court reFected the eidence of both )erminio 7arailla and 7anuel4illanuea, "iin" as a reason that they were biased and interested in hain"the probate succeed. $he reasonin" is not warrantedB for )erminio 7araillacertainly stood to "ain more under the preious will of his wife 'xhibit EGE2

where he was made the sole beneficiary, !s to attorney 4illanuea, while hehad been a friend of )erminio from boyhood, he also had been the familylawyer, and his interention in the execution of the will of one of his clientsbecame ineitable, for it is not to be expected that the testatrix should callupon a stran"er for the purpose. If 4illanuea wished to perFure in faor of )erminio, all he needed was to color his testimony a"ainst the due executionof the will 'xhibit E!E2 and not in faor thereof, since, as preiouslyobsered, 3i"na’s first will 'xhibit EGE2 was more adanta"eous to thewidower.

9e find it difficult to understand the trial court’s distrust of a lawyer who didno more than dischar"e his professional duty, or its readiness to attribute

improper moties to proponent’s witnesses. $his Court, in #otelo . %u>an, 6/Phil. /5, has remar&ed that —

EIt is hardly conceiable that any attorney of any standin" would ris& hisprofessional reputation by falsifyin" a will and then "o before a court and "iefalse testimony.Ecralaw irtuaaw library

!nd in the . $antoco, / Phil. 05, 056, 9eruledBF"cBchanrobles.com.ph

ESIn wei"hin" the testimony of the attestin" witnesses to a will, the statementsof a competent attorney, who has been char"ed with the responsibility of seein" to the proper execution of the instrument, is entitled to "reater wei"htthan the testimony of a person casually called to participate in the act,supposin" of course that no motie is reealed that should induce theattorney to prearicate. $he reason is that the mind of the attorney, bein"conersant with the requisites of proper execution of the instrument, is moreli&ely to become fixed on details, and he is more li&ely than other persons toretain those incidents in his memory.’E 'Italics supplied2

!ppellees endeaoured to sustain the court’s refusal to probate the will by

referrin" to the eidence of their witness 7arino $upas, a man of Enopermanent FobE, 80 who narrated that on the last wee& of #eptember, /one 7ariano Huenaflor had been introduced to him by one %t. Garaton at his"uerrilla outpost in 7ontalban and described as a man wanted by theAapanese. $upas’ patently exa""erated testimony is that this Huenaflor stayed with him at his outpost camp until Aanuary, /6, liin" and sleepin"with him, and was neer for a sin"le moment out of his si"ht. 8 9hy aciilian refu"ee should remain at a "uerrilla outpost for four months; withouten"a"in" in any particular helpful actiity on his part, was not explained.#hown photo"raphs and as&ed to identify Huenaflor, $upas hed"ed bypleadin" that the Huenaflor who stayed with him had a lon" beard. $hus,oppositor+appellees’ reerse alibi for the instrumental witness, 7ariano

Huenaflor, was not only patently mendacious but did not establish anyreliable connection between the instrumental witness of 3i"na’s will and theHuenaflor who, accordin" to $upas, stuc& to him as a burr in /. (owonder the trial court "ae no credit to such eidence.

:ppositors’ attempts to establish that the testatrix 3i"na 7arailla wasmentally incompetent to alidly execute the will in question met no better fatein the court below. $hey introduced one ufrocina HerFa who qualified 3i"na7arailla as insane because she saw 3i"na 7arailla actin" stran"ely onemornin" in /8 '80 years before the will was executed2. In HerFa’s ownwords —


26/77

E9ould you not call a person insane who is wain" a bunch of flowers andsin"in" alon" a road, especially ta&in" into consideration their reputation inthe CommunityQE 't.s.n., 8 7ay /6/, pa"e /2

en if to this ridiculous appraisal were to be added the fact that 'accordin"to this witness2 3i"na saw her in /1, but would not answer her questionsand Ewas in a deep thou"ht 'sic2 and her ton"ue was comin" out of her mouthE '3o., pa"es +62, her eidence would certainly not Fustify a findin"that 3i"na 7arailla was not competent to execute the testament in /. Hy

HerFa’s standards, any one could be held insane.

(or is the case for the oppositors improed by the eidence of their witnesslea>ar %ope>, who asserted hain" isited his aunt, 3i"na 7arailla 'whomhe had not seen since he was four years old2, two days after the firstbombin" of 7anila by the !merican planes in #eptember, /. %ope>claimed to hae seen 3i"na on that occasion lau"hin" and cryin" and thenstarin" blan&ly at the ceilin", without reco"ni>in" the witness; and that heisited her a"ain toward mid+:ctober of the same year and she hadworsened. 86 Comin" from a nephew who expected to succeed if the will inquestion O were denied probate, and who sou"ht to become administrator of the estate, een offerin" to resi"n from his position in the "oernment if

appointed, 81 this testimony of %ope> was eidently colored by his monetaryinterest, thus leadin" to its correct discreditin" by the trial court. )isrecollection after 6 years of the alle"ed symptoms of his aunt is erysuspicious, as it does not een appear that %ope> at the time bothered toinquire from other persons what caused his aunt’s alle"ed abnormalcondition. 7oreoer, the court’s duty to reconcile conflicts of eidence shouldlead it to hold that the symptoms described by %ope> were due to atemporary disturbance of the neres caused by the unsettlin" effect of abombardment not preiously experienced, compatible with the due executionof the will on - :ctober /. !s between the testimony of %ope> and that of attorney 4illanuea, who repeatedly isited and tal&ed to the testatrix aroundthe time her will was executed, 9e hae no hesitation in acceptin" the

latter’s iew that 3i"na 7arailla was competent to ma&e the will when it wassi"ned. $he law itself declares that —

E$o be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in fullpossession of all his reasonin" faculties or that his mind be wholly unbro&en,unimpaired or unshattered by disease, inFury or other cause.E 'Ciil Code,

!rticle -//; Hu"nao . Jba", Phil. 10.2

9e are satisfied that the preponderance of eidence is to the effect that thetestament, xhibit E!,E was duly executed by a qualified testatrix andcompetent witnesses, in conformity with the statutory requirements.

I( 4I9 :< $)


27/77

G.R. No. L-291 0%$8%r= 3, 199

+ENEDITO LEISTE, !e"#"#o$er,'(.THE ORT OF A**EALS, HON. 0DGE LIS +. RE;ES, ORT OFFIRST INSTANE OF MANILA, ROSA DEL ROSARIO, RITA +AN,ARMEN DE GMAN-MAR)E, 0ESS R. DE GMAN, RAMON R.DE GMAN, 0AINTO R. DE GMAN %$ ANTONIO R. DE GMAN,re(!o$e$"(.

+e$e#c"o Le'#("e or %$ #$ /#( o$ be/%&.

G%"c/%%$, I>$%c#o C A((oc#%"e( or re(!o$e$"( e G8


28/77

b2 %ucita de Aesus

c2 Purita %. %lanes

d2 Rita Hanu

e2 Aesus %ulod.

:n !u"ust 8, /16, %eiste receied a letter from 7s. 3el Rosario,informin" him that she was terminatin" his serices as her counsel due toEconflictin" interest.E $his consisted, accordin" to the letter, in petitionerDsmoral obli"ation to protect the interest of his brother+in+law, Gaudencio 7.%lanes, whom 3el Rosario and the other parties in the probate proceedin"intended to eFect as lessee of the property which was bequeathed to 3elRosario under the will '!nnex EHE, p. 1, Rollo2.

:n #eptember 8, /16, petitioner filed a E7otion to Interene to Protect )isRi"hts to man brothers and sisters who opposed her petitionfor probate, shall inherit all the properties left by the decedent. '!nnex Ee them to accept it in the

name of the heir.


29/77

$he acceptance shall benefit the creditors only to an extent sufficient to coer the amount of their credits. $he excess, should there be any, shall in no casepertain to the renouncer, but shall be adFudicated to the persons to whom, inaccordance with the rules established in this Code, it may belon".

he has a ri"ht to accept for his client 3el Rosario to the extent of 06U thereof the deise in her faor 'which she in effect repudiated2 to protect hisconti"ent attorneyDs fees.

$he ar"ument is deoid of merit. !rticle 68 of the Ciil Code does notapply to this case. $hat le"al proision protects the creditor of a repudiatin"heir. Petitioner is not a creditor of Rosa del Rosario. $he payment of his feesis contin"ent and dependent upon the successful probate of the holo"raphicwill. #ince the petition for probate was dismissed by the lower court, thecontin"ency did not occur. !ttorney %eiste is not entitled to his fee.


30/77

G.R. No(. 33- A!r#& 5, 199

IN THE MATTER OF THE *ETITION TO A**ROE THE ILL OFMELEIO LA+RADOR. SAGRADO LA+RADOR 4Dece%(e, (8b("#"8"eb= ROSITA LA+RADOR, ENRIA LA+RADOR, %$ RISTO+ALLA+RADOR, !e"#"#o$er(-%!!e&&%$"(,'(.ORT OF A**EALS, 1 GADENIO LA+RADOR, %$ 0ESSLA+RADOR, re(!o$e$"(-%!!e&&ee(.

+e$%m#$ . S%$"o( L% O#ce( or !e"#"#o$er(.Ror#>o . Fo$"e&er% or !r#'%"e re(!o$e$"(.

9ills; 3ate of holo"raphic will can be placed in the main body thereof.—$hewill has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliancewith !rticle 5. It is worthy of note to quote the first para"raph of the secondpa"e of the holo"raphic will, i>B L!nd this is the day in which we a"reed thatwe are ma&in" the partitionin" and assi"nin" the respectie assi"nment of the said fishpond, and this bein" in the month of 7arch, -th day, in the year /15, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to befollowed. !nd the one who made this writin" is no other than 7%CI:

%!HR!3:R, their father.M 'italics supplied2 'p. 1, Rollo2 $he law does notspecify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. $heonly requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in thehand of the testator. $hese requirements are present in the subFect will.#ame; 9ords V Phrases; Intention to execute a will, not a partitiona"reement plain from the words of the holo"raphic will at bar.—Respondentsare in error. $he intention to show - 7arch /15 as the date of theexecution of the will is plain from the tenor of the succeedin" words of thepara"raph. !s aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an a"reement but aunilateral act of 7elecio %abrador who plainly &new that what he wasexecutin" was a will. $he act of partitionin" and the declaration that suchpartitionin" was the testator’s instruction or decision to be followed reeal

that 7elecio %abrador was fully aware of the nature of the estate property tobe disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means tocontrol the disposition of his estate.

P$I$I:( to reiew the decision of the Court of !ppeals. Imperial, A.?%abrador s. Court of !ppeals, 5 #CR! -'//2@

P!R!#, A.B

$he sole issue in this case is whether or not the alle"ed holo"raphic will of one 7elecio %abrador is dated, as proided for in !rticle 58 of the (ew

Ciil Code.

$he antecedent and releant facts are as followsB :n Aune , /-8, 7elecio%abrador died in the 7unicipality of Iba, proince of ambales, where he wasresidin", leain" behind a parcel of land desi"nated as %ot (o. /1 under :ri"inal Certificate of $itle (o. P+168, and the followin" heirs, namelyB#a"rado, nrica, Cristobal, Aesus, Gaudencio, Aosefina, Auliana, )ilaria andAoita, all surnamed %abrador, and a holo"raphic will.

:n Auly 85, /-6, #a"rado %abrador 'now deceased but substituted by his

heirs2, nrica %abrador and Cristobal %abrador, filed in the court a quo apetition for the probate doc&eted as #pecial Proceedin" (o. /88+I of thealle"ed holo"raphic will of the late 7elecio %abrador.

#ubsequently, on #eptember 0, /-6, Aesus %abrador 'now deceased butsubstituted by his heirs2, and Gaudencio %abrador filed an opposition to thepetition on the "round that the will has been extin"uished or reo&ed byimplication of law, alle"in" therein that on #eptember 0, /-, that is, before7elecioDs death, for the consideration of #ix $housand 'P1,2 Pesos,testator 7elecio executed a 3eed of !bsolute #ale, sellin", transferrin" andconeyin" in faor of oppositors Aesus and Gaudencio %ot (o. /1 and thatas a matter of fact, :.C.$. (o. P+168 had been cancelled by $.C.$. (o. $+

8-5. arlier howeer, in /-0, Aesus %abrador sold said parcel of land to(aat for only


31/77

decision was denied by the Court of !ppeals, in the resolution of Aune 0,/55. )ence, this petition.

Petitioners now assi"n the followin" errors committed by respondent court, towitB

I

$) C:JR$ :< !PP!%# RR3 I( (:$ !%%:9I(G !(3 !PPR:4I(G

$) PR:H!$ :< $) ):%:GR!P)IC 9I%% :< $) $#$!$:R7%CI: %!HR!3:R; and

II

$) C:JR$ :< !PP!%# RR3 I(


32/77

instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. !nd the one who made thiswritin" is no other than 7%CI: %!HR!3:R, their father. 'emphasissupplied2 'p. 1, Rollo2

$he law does not specify a particular location where the date should beplaced in the will. $he only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. $hese requirements are present inthe subFect will.

Respondents claim that the date - 7arch /15 in the will was when thetestator and his beneficiaries entered into an a"reement amon" themselesabout Ethe partitionin" and assi"nin" the respectie assi"nments of the saidfishpond,E and was not the date of execution of the holo"raphic will; hence,the will is more of an Ea"reementE between the testator and the beneficiariesthereof to the preFudice of other compulsory heirs li&e the respondents. $hiswas thus a failure to comply with !rticle -50 which defines a will as Ean actwhereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, tocontrol to a certain de"ree the disposition of his estate, to ta&e effect after hisdeath.E

Respondents are in error. $he intention to show - 7arch /15 as the date

of the execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the succeedin" words of the para"raph. !s aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an a"reement but aunilateral act of 7elecio %abrador who plainly &new that what he wasexecutin" was a will. $he act of partitionin" and the declaration that suchpartitionin" as the testatorDs instruction or decision to be followed reeal that7elecio %abrador was fully aware of the nature of the estate property to bedisposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means tocontrol the disposition of his estate.

!nent the second issue of findin" the reimbursement of the P6,representin" the redemption price as erroneous, respondent courtDsconclusion is incorrect. 9hen priate respondents sold the property

'fishpond2 with ri"ht to repurchase to (aat for P6,, they were actuallysellin" property belon"in" to another and which they had no authority to sell,renderin" such sale null and oid. Petitioners, thus EredeemedE the propertyfrom (aat for P6,, to immediately re"ain possession of the property for its disposition in accordance with the will. Petitioners therefore desere to bereimbursed the P6,.

PR7I## C:(#I3R3, the decision of the Court of !ppeals dated7arch , /55 is hereby R4R#3. $he holo"raphic will of 7elecio%abrador is !PPR:43 and !%%:93 probate. $he priate respondentsare directed to RI7HJR# the petitioners the sum of


33/77

G.R. No. L-333 0%$8%r= 2, 195

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANDRES G. DE 0ESSAND +I+IANA ROAS DE 0ESS, SIMEON R. ROAS C *EDRO ROASDE 0ESS, !e"#"#o$er(,'(.ANDRES R. DE 0ESS, 0R., re(!o$e$".

R%8& S. S#(o$ L% O#ce or !e"#"#o$er(.

R%%e& D#$>&%(%$, 0r. or /e#r M. Ro%(.

Lee(m%, G8="#$>co e&%(co %$ A((oc#%"e( or Lee(% %$ A. R. e0e(8(.

Ciil %aw; 9ills; xecution of 9ills; Purpose of liberal trend of the Ciil Codein the manner of execution of wills in case of doubt is to preent intestacy.—$his will not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literalapplication of the statutory requirements re"ardin" the due execution of 9ills. 9e should not oerloo& the liberal trend of the Ciil Code in themanner of execution of 9ills, the purpose of which, in case of doubt is to

preent intestacy.#ame; #ame; #ame; !dmission to probate of the will which has beenexecuted in substantial compliance with the formalities of the law, and thepossibility of bad faith and fraud is obiated.—$hus, the preailin" policy is torequire satisfaction of the le"al requirements in order to "uard a"ainst fraudand bad faith but without undue or unnecessary curtailment of testamentarypriile"e 'Icasiano . Icasiano, #CR! 882. If a 9ill has been executed insubstantial compliance with the formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith and fraud in the exercise thereof is obiated, said 9ill should beadmitted to probate 'Rey . Carta"ena, 61 Phil. 8582.#ame; #ame; #ame; Purpose of the solemnities surroundin" the execution of wills.—$he purpose of the solemnities surroundin" the execution of 9ills has

been expounded by this Court in !ban"an . !ban"an, Phil. -12 wherewe ruled thatB L$he obFect of the solemnities surroundin" the execution of wills is to close the door a"ainst bad faith and fraud, to aoid substitution of wills and testaments and to "uaranty their truth and authenticity. x x xM#ame; #ame; #ame; )olo"raphic 9ill; !bsence of eidence of bad faith andfraud in the execution of a holo"raphic will and absence of any substitution of wills and testaments;


34/77

statesB E$his is my win which I want to be respected althou"h it is not writtenby a lawyer. ...

$he testimony of #imeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Aesus and 7anuel Roxas de Aesus who li&ewise testifiedthat the letter dated Eed the handwritin" of their mother and positiely Identified her si"nature. $hey further testified that their deceased mother understood n"lish, the lan"ua"e in which the holo"raphic

9ill is written, and that the date E R. )enson, another compulsory heir filed an Eopposition toprobateE assailin" the purported holo"raphic 9ill of Hibiana R. de Aesusbecause a it was not executed in accordance with law, 'b2 it was executedthrou"h force, intimidation andNor under duress, undue influence andimproper pressure, and 'c2 the alle"ed testatrix acted by mista&e andNor didnot intend, nor could hae intended the said 9ill to be her last 9ill andtestament at the time of its execution.

:n !u"ust 8, /-0, respondent Aud"e Aose C. Colayco issued an order

allowin" the probate of the holo"raphic 9ill which he found to hae beenduly executed in accordance with law.

Respondent %u> Roxas de Aesus filed a motion for reconsideration alle"in"inter alia that the alle"ed holo"raphic 9ill of the deceased Hibiana R. deAesus was not dated as required by !rticle 5 of the Ciil Code. #hecontends that the law requires that the 9ill should contain the day, monthand year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied with.

:n 3ecember , /-0, respondent Aud"e Colayco reconsidered his earlier order and disallowed the probate of the holo"raphic 9ill on the "round thatthe word EdatedE has "enerally been held to include the month, day, and

year. $he dispositie portion of the order readsB

9)Ration of the manner of their execution with the end in iew of "iin" the testator more freedom in

expressin" his last wishes, but with sufficien safe"uards and restrictions topreent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator.

$his obFectie is in accord with the modem tendency with respect to theformalities in the execution of wills. 'Report of the Code Commission, p. 02

In Austice CapistranoDs concurrin" opinion in )eirs of Raymundo Castro .Hustos '8- #CR! 08-2 he emphasi>ed thatB

xxx xxx xxx


35/77

... $he law has a tender re"ard for the will of the testator expressed in his lastwill and testament on the "round that any disposition made by the testator isbetter than that which the law can ma&e. . %eyne> 15 Phil. -62.

If the testator, in executin" his 9ill, attempts to comply with all the requisites,althou"h compliance is not literal, it is sufficient if the obFectie or purposesou"ht to be accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the formfollowed by the testator.

$he purpose of the solemnities surroundin" the execution of 9ills has beenexpounded by this Court in !ban"an . !ban"a Phil. -1, where we ruledthatB

$he obFect of the solemnities surroundin" the execution of wills is to close thedoor a"ainst bad faith and fraud, to aoid substitution of wills and testamentsand to "uaranty their truth and authenticity. ...

In particular, a complete date is required to proide a"ainst suchcontin"encies as that of two competin" 9ills executed on the same day, or of a testator becomin" insane on the day on which a 9ill was executed'4elasco . %ope>, Phil. -82. $here is no such contin"ency in this case.

9e hae carefully reiewed the records of this case and found no eidenceof bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there any substitution of 9ins

and $estaments. $here is no question that the holo"raphic 9ill of the

deceased Hibiana Roxas de Aesus was entirely written, dated, and si"ned bythe testatrix herself and in a lan"ua"e &nown to her. $here is also noquestion as to its "enuineness and due execution. !ll the children of thetestatrix a"ree on the "enuineness of the holo"raphic 9ill of their mother andthat she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of said9ill. $he obFection interposed by the oppositor+respondent %u> )enson isthat the holo"raphic 9ill is fatally defectie because the date E


36/77

G.R. No. L-27 Se!"ember 2, 19

ROSA . ALA, !e"#"#o$er,'(.HON. 0DGE +EN0AMIN RELOA, *re(##$> 08>e o "/e FI o +%"%$>%(, +r%$c/ I, L#!% #"=, %$ GREGORIO . ALA,re(!o$e$"(.

Le%$ro H. Fer$%$e< or !e"#"#o$er.

A$"o$#o )8#$"o( %$ 0o(e M. ;%c%" or re(!o$e$"(.

#ettlement of state; :rdinarily erasures or alterations in a holo"raphic willdoes not inalidate the will itself—:rdinarily, when a number of erasures,corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holo"raphic 9illhae not been noted under his si"nature, x x x the 9ill is not therebyinalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular wordserased, corrected or interlined. 7anresa "ae an identical commentary whenhe said Lla omision de la saledad no anula el testamento, se"un la re"la de

Furisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de de !bril de 5/6.M#ame; 9here a holo"raphic will has desi"nate only one heir to the entire

estate and the desi"nation was cancelled and another sole heir desi"nated,without the cancellation bein" authenticated by full si"nature of testator,entire will is oid.—)oweer, when as in this case, the holo"raphic 9ill indispute had only one substantial proision, which was altered by substitutin"the ori"inal heir withanother, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full si"nature of the testator, the effect must be thatthe entire 9ill is oided or reo&ed for the simple reason that nothin"remains in the 9ill after that which could remain alid. $o state that the 9illas first written should be "ien efficacy is to disre"ard the seemin" chan"e of mind of the testatrix. Hut that chan"e of mind can neither be "ien effectbecause she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixin"her full si"nature.

#ame; #ame.—$he rulin" in 4elasco, supra, must be held confined to suchinsertions, cancellations, erasures or alterations in a holo"raphic 9ill, whichaffect only the efficacy of the altered words themseles but not the essenceand alidity of the 9ill itself. !s it is, with the erasures, cancellations andalterations made by the testatrix herein, her real intention cannot bedetermined with certitude.$)!(*, A., concurrin"B

#ettlement of state; Certiorari; Petitioner Rosa is bound by the factualfindin" of the trial court that testator herself crossed+out Rosa’s name as soleheir. )ence, the substitution of Gre"orio as sole heir een if oid for not bein"authenticated as prescribed by law will not result in Rosa bein" declared heir.

—I concur. Rosa, hain" appealed to this Court on a sole question of law, is

bound by the trial court’s factual findin" that the peculiar alterations in theholo"raphic will crossin" out Rosa’s name and instead insertin" her brother Gre"orio’s name as sole heir and Lsole executrixM were made by the testatrixin her own handwritin". 'I find it peculiar that the testatrix who was obiouslyan educated person would unthin&in"ly ma&e such crude alterations insteadof consultin" her lawyer and writin" an entirely new holo"raphic will in order to aoid any doubts as to her chan"e of heir. It should be noted that the firstalteration crossin" out Lsister Rosa *. *alawM and insertin" Lbrother Gre"orio*alawM a

3rd specpro rule 7677

Documents