#1 PAMPLONA V MORETO private respondents; therefore, they must comply

with said obligation. The petition is affirmed with

FACTS: modification with respect to the fact that the sale
Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega, a husband executed in favor of Spouses Pamplona is legal
and wife, who acquired adjacent lots nos. 1495, and valid in its entirety.
4545, and 1496 containing 781, 544, and 1,021 sq.
m respectively, covered by certificates of title
issued in the name of Flaviano Moreto married to
Monica Maniega. They had 6 children who left
heirs after their death as well as became co-heirs #2 LEDESMA VS MCLACHLIN
with respect to the property owned by Flaviano
and Monica. More than 6 yrs after Monica FACTS:
Maniega’s death, Flaviano sold lot 1495 for P900 In 1916, Socorro Ledesma and Lorennzo Quitco
to spouses Pamplona without the consent of his lived martially, while the latter was still single, of
heirs and without any liquidation of the conjugal which relation, lasting until year 1921, Socorro
partnership. The spouses Pamplona constructed born their daughter Ana Quitco Ledesma. Same
their house on the eastern part of lot 1496 as it was year, it seems the relation between Socorro and
pointed out by Flaviano which was a mistake on Lorenzo came to an end, but he executed a deed
the part of both seller and buyer. acknowledging Ana Quitco Ledesma as her
natural daughter. On January 21, 1922, he issued
Flaviano died intestate on August 12, 1956 and in promissory notes in favor of Socorro.
1961, the plaintiffs demanded on the defendants to
vacate the premises where they had their house In 1930 Lorenzo Quitco died, leaving defendant
and piggery on the ground that Flaviano had no Mclachlin and her children as heirs. Plaintiff Ana
right to sell the lot which he sold to Pamplona as Ledesma, spurious/illegitimate child of Lorenzo
the same belongs to the conjugal partnership. The Quitco, and her mother, sued to declare her as
spouses Pamplona refused to vacate the premises compulsory heir which the court however denied.
and this suit was instituted by the heirs of Monica Two years later, Lorenzo's father Eusebio died,
Maniega seeking for the declaration of nullity of and because he left some personal and real
the deed of sale executed in the former’s favor. properties without a will, an intestate proceeding
was instituted and a court order declaring his
The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff declaring compulsory heirs, which did not include Ana as
null and void the sale with respect to 390.5 sq.m. one. Following such court action, the plaintiff
of the total 781 sq.m. of which is rightfully owned proceeded to collect the sum payable on a
by the plaintiffs. The RTC decision was affirmed promissory note then issued in favor of her by
by the CA; hence, this petition was instituted Lorenzo by filing a claim in the intestate
appealing the decision of the CA. proceedings of Eusebio's Estate claiming that the
sum be paid out of the properties inherited by the
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are entitled defendants represents that of the successional
to the full ownership of the property in litigation, rights of Lorenzo as a compulsory heir of his
or only ½ of the same? father Eusebio.

HELD: ISSUE: Has plaintiff the right collect the sum

Yes, they are entitled to the full ownership of the promised by her father from her grandfather's
property in litigation because at the time of the estate?
sale, the co-owner (Flaviano) as vendor pointed
out its location and even indicated the boundaries HELD:
over which the fences were to be erected without No. The properties inherited by the defendants
objection. Despite the fact that at the time of sale, from their deceased grandfather by representation
there was no partition of the subject property are not subject to the payment of debts and
between the co-owners and Flaviano, as vendor, obligations of their deceased father, who died
had ownership of an undetermined portion of the without leaving any property. While it is true that
hereditary estate which he had a perfect and legal under the provisions of Articles 924 to 927 of the
right to dispose of to the Spouse Pamplona. Civil Code, a child presents his father or mother
According to Art. 776, the inheritance which who died before him in the properties of his
private respondents may receive from their grandfather or grandmother, this right of
deceased parents includes all the property, rights representation does not make the said child
and obligations of a person which are not answerable for the obligations contracted by his
extinguished by their parent’s death. In addition, deceased father or mother, because, as may be
under Art. 1311 of the NCC, the contract of sale seen from the provisions of the Code of Civil
executed by Flaviano took effect between the Procedure referring to partition of inheritances, the
parties, their assigns and heirs which includes the inheritance is received with the benefit of
inventory, that is to say, the heirs only answer with ownership over the same property was transmitted
the properties received from their predecessor. The to Johnny Rabadilla by virtue of succession.
herein defendants, as heirs of Eusebio Quitco, in Under Article 776 of the Civil Code, inheritance
representation of their father Lorenzo M. Quitco,
includes all the property, rights and obligations of
are not bound to pay the indebtedness of their a person, not extinguished by his death.
father from whom they did not inherit anything. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Rabadilla had
by virtue of the Will were transmitted to his forced
heirs, at the time of his death. And since
obligations not extinguished by death also form
#3 RABADILLA VS CA part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the
obligations imposed by the Will on the deceased
FACTS: Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to
his compulsory heirs upon his death. It is clear
In the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja therefore, that Johnny should have continued
Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in- complying with the terms of the Will. His failure
interest of the petitioner, Johnny Rabadilla was to do so shall give rise to an obligation for him to
instituted as a devisee to a 511,855 sq. m of land. reconvey the property to the estate of Aleja.
A condition was however imposed to the effect
that:
1. The ownership shall transfer to Dr. Rabadilla; #4 MARIA VDA DE REYES VS CA
2. He shall deliver the fruits of said land to Maria
Belleza, sister of Aleja, during the lifetime of said FACTS:
Maria Belleza; During his lifetime one Gavino Reyes owned a
parcel of land of approximately 70 hectares. He
3. That in case Dr. Rabadilla shall die before sought to bring said land under the operation of the
Maria Belleza, the near descendants, shall Torrens System of registration of property.
continue delivering the fruits to Maria Belleza; Unfortunately, he died in 1921 without the title
4. That the said land may only be encumbered, having been issued to him. The application was
mortgaged, or sold only to a relative of Belleza. prosecuted by his son, Marcelo Reyes, who was
the administrator of his property.
In 1983, Dr. Rabadilla died. He was survived by
Johnny Rabadilla. In 1936 the above property was surveyed and
In 1989, Maria Belleza sued Johnny Rabadilla in subdivided by Gavino's heirs. In the subdivision
order to compel Johnny to reconvey the said land plan, each resultant lot was earmarked, indicated
to the estate of Aleja Belleza because it is alleged for and assigned to a specific heir. It appears
that Johnny failed to comply with the terms of the therein that two lots, one of which is Lot No. 1A-
will; that since 1985, Johnny failed to deliver the 14 ,were allotted to Rafael Reyes, Sr., one of
fruits; and that the the land was mortgaged to the Gavino's children. Per testimony of Juan Poblete,
Philippine National Bank, which is a violation of the children thereafter secured tax declarations for
the will. their respective shares.
In his defense, Johnny avers that the term “near In 1941, or about twenty (20) years after the death
descendants” in the will of Aleja pertains to the of Gavino, the original certificate of title for the
near descendants of Aleja and not to the near whole property-OCT No. 255-was issued. It was,
descendants of Dr. Rabadilla, hence, since Aleja however, kept by Juan Poblete, (son-in-law of
had no near descendants at the time of his death, Marcelo Reyes), who was by then already
no can substitute Dr. Rabadilla on the obligation to deceased. The heirs of Gavino were not aware of
deliver the fruits of the devised land. this fact.

On 3 December 1943, Rafael Reyes, Sr. sold a

ISSUE: Whether or not Johnny Rabadilla is not
parcel of land with an area of 23,431 square
obliged to comply with the terms of the Will left
meters, to private respondent Dalmacio Gardiola.
by Aleja Belleza.
According to the vendee, this parcel corresponds
to Lot No.1-A-14 of the subdivision plan
HELD: aforestated. The deed of sale, however, did not
specifically mention Lot No. I-A-14. The vendee
No. The contention of Johnny Rabadilla is bereft immediately took possession of the property and
of merit. The “near descendants” being referred to started paying the land taxes therein.
in the will are the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla.
Ownership over the devised property was already In 1967, the surviving heirs gave effect to the
transferred to Dr. Rabadilla when Aleja died. subdivision plan created on 1936. They formally
Hence, when Dr. Rabadilla himself died, partitioned the property. Therefore, the heirs
received their share of this land. Including Rafael the other, but rather a confirmation or ratification
Reyes, Jr. Son of Rafael Sr. TCTs were issued to of title or right of property by the heir renouncing
him representing the land which should have been in favor of another heir accepting and receiving
received by his father. the inheritance. Additionally, the validity of such
oral partition in 1936 has been expressly sustained
The heirs of Rafael Jr. sued Gardiola, saying that by this Court.
they are the true owners of the land, as shown by
the torrens title over the land. But even if We are to assume arguendo
that the oral partitio executed in 1936 was not
Gardiola’s defense was that he bought the land valid for some reason or another, we would still
from Rafael Sr. and that Rafael Jr. could not have arrive at the same conclusion for upon the death of
inherited this land for it was disposed of by his Gavino Reyes in 1921, his heirs automatically
father way before he inherited it. became co-own, era of his 70-hectare parcel of
land. The rights to the succession. are transmitted
The trial court ruled in favor of Rafael Jr.’s heirs. frorn the moment of death of the decedent, The
Stating that there was no evidence that the estate of the decedent would then be held in co-
Gavino’s children had a written partition ownership by the heirs. The co-heir or co-owner
agreement. CA reversed. may validly dispose of his share or interest in the
property subject to the condition that the portion
disposed of is eventually allotted to him in the
division upon termination of the co-ownership.

ISSUE:
Whether or not written partition is #5 NUFABLE VS NUFABLE
necessary in order to Gavino’s children to be
FACTS:
entitled for its inheritance?
Edras Nufable owned an untitled parcel of land
Held: located consisting of 948 square meters. He died
on August 9, 1965 and was survived by his
NO. The Court of Appeals correctly held children, namely: Angel Custodio, Generosa,
that the partition made by the children of Gavino Vilfor and Marcelo, all surnamed Nufable. Upon
Reyes in 1936, although oral, was valid and petition for probate filed by said heirs and after
binding. There is no law that requires partition due publication and hearing, the then Court of
among heirs to be in writing to be valid. First Instance of Negros Oriental issued an Order
dated March 30, 1966 admitting to probate the last
In Hernandez vs. Andal, supra, this Court, will and testament executed by the deceased Edras
interpreting Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Nufable.
Court, held that the requirement that a partition be
put in a public document and registered has for its On June 6, 1966, the same court issued an Order
purpose the protection of creditors and at the same approving the Settlement of Estate submitted by
time the protection of the heirs themselves against the heirs of the late Esdras Nufable.
tardy claims. The object of registration is to serve
as constructive notice to others. It follows then that Two months earlier, or on March 15, 1966,
the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with spouses Angel Custodio and Aquilina Nufable
the prescribed formalities does not come into play mortgaged the entire property located at Manjuyod
when there are no creditors or the rights of to the Development Bank of the Philippines
creditors are not affected. Where no such rights are DBP. Said mortgagors became delinquent for
involved, it is competent for the heirs of an estate which reason the mortgaged property was
to enter into an agreement for distribution in a foreclosed by DBP on February 26, 1973.
manner and upon a plan different from those
provided by law. There is nothing in said section On January 11, 1980, Nelson Nufable, the son of
from which it can be inferred that a writing or Angel Custodio Nufable purchased said property
other formality is an essential requisite to the from DBP.
validity of the partition. Accordingly, an oral
partition is valid. Generosa, Vilfor and Marcelo, all surnamed
Barcelona, et al. vs. Barcelona, et al., supra, Nufable filed with the lower court a complaint
provides the reason why oral partition is valid and dated July 25, 1985 To Annul Fraudulent
why it is not covered by the Statute of Frauds: Transactions, to Quiet Title and To Recover
partition among heirs or renunciation of an Damages against Nelson Nufable, and wife, Silnor
inheritance by some of them is not exactly a Nufable and his mother Aquilina Nufable.
conveyance of real property for the reason that it
does not involve transfer of property from one to
RTC ruled in their favor, however, defendants
appealed before the Court of Appeals, which later FACTS:
reversed the decision and declared the plaintiffs as During the marriage of Maximo Aldon and
the rightful owner of the property in question. Gemina Almorasa, they bought several pieces of
land. The lands were divided into three lots.
Defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration Subsequently, Gemina sold the lots to the spouses
whicjh was denied by Court of Appeals for lack of Eduardo Felipe and Hermogena Felipe without the
merit. Hence, this petition. consent of her husband. Maximo died. Afterwhich,
his heirs, namely Gemina and their children Sofia
ISSUE: and Salvador filed a complaint against the Felipes
whether or not the Last Will and Testament of alleging that they are the owners of the lots. The
Esdras Nufable and its subsequent probate are Felipes asserted that they had acquired the lots
pertinent and material to the question of the right from the plaintiffs by purchase and subsequent
of ownership of petitioner Nelson Nufable who delivery to them. The trial court sustained the
purchased the land in question from, and as claim of the defendants. The CA reversed the
acquired property of, the DBP? decision of the trial court.

HELD: ISSUE: WON the sale of the lots by Gemina

without the consent of the husband is defective?
It should likewise be noted that the late Esdras
Nufable died on August 9, 1965. When the entire
HELD: The sale made by Gemina is certainly a
property located at Manjuyod was mortgaged on
defective conract, that is, a voidable contract.
March 15, 1966 by his son Angel Custodio with
DBP, the other heirs of Esdras had already
According to Article 1390 of the NCC, among the
acquired successional rights over the said
voidable contracts are “Those where one of the
property. This is so because of the principle
parties is incapable of giving consent to the
contained in Article 777 of the Civil Code to the
contract.” In the instant case Gemina had no
effect that the rights to the succession are
capacity to give consent to the contract of sale.
transmitted from the moment of death of the
The capacity to give consent belonged not even to
decedent. Accordingly, for the purpose of
the husband alone but to both spouses.
transmission of rights, it does not matter whether
the Last Will and Testament of the late Esdras
The voidable contract of Gimena was subject to
Nufable was admitted on March 30, 1966 or
annulment by her husband only during the
thereafter or that the Settlement of Estate was
marriage because he was the victim who had an
approved on June 6, 1966 or months later. It is to
interest in the contract. Gimena, who was the party
be noted that the probated will of the late Esdras
responsible for the defect, could not ask for its
Nufable specifically referred to the subject
annulment. Their children could not likewise seek
property in stating that the land situated in the
the annulment of the contract while the marriage
Poblacion, Manjuyod, Negros Oriental, should not
subsisted because they merely had an inchoate
be divided because this must remain in common
right to the lands sold. The heirs can only question
for them, but it is necessary to allow anyone of
the transaction only after the death of Aldon for it
them brothers and sisters to construct a house
is only that time when their right to the property
therein. It was therefore the will of the decedent
becomes choate. Thus, it is only of course, the
that the subject property should remain undivided,
heirs may question only insofar as their inherited
although the restriction should not exceed twenty
share of land is concerned.
(20) years pursuant to Article 870 of the Civil
Code.
Thus, when Angel Nufable and his spouse
mortgaged the subject property to DBP on March #7 SILVERIO SR VS CA
15, 1966, they had no right to mortgage the entire
property. Angels right over the subject property FACTS:
was limited only to pro indiviso share. As co- The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a
owner of the subject property, Angels right to sell, will, survived by her legal heirs, namely:
assign or mortgage is limited to that portion that Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (husband),
may be allotted to him upon termination of the co- Edmundo S. Silverio (son),
ownership. Well-entrenched is the rule that a co- Edgardo S. Silverio (son),
owner can only alienate his pro indiviso share in Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr. (son),
the co-owned property. Nelia S.Silverio-Dee (daughter),
Ligaya S. Silverio (daughter).

Subsequently, an intestate proceeding for the

settlement of her estate was filed by Silverio, Sr.
#6 FELIPE VS HEIRS OF MAXIMO ALDON
The administrator first appointed by the Court was ISSUE:
Edgardo Silverio, but by virtue of a Joint Whether or not the sale of the Intestate Estate by
Manifestation dated 3 November 1999 filed by the the administrator valid.
heirs of Beatriz Silverio,, the motion to withdraw
as administrator filed by Edgardo was approved by RULING:
the intestate court and in his stead, Silverio, Sr.
was appointed as the new administrator. An administrator can validly sell the intestate
Thereafter, an active exchange of pleadings to estate under his administration only by leave of
remove and appoint a new administrator ensued court. While it is true that Silverio Sr. was
between Silverio, Sr. and Silverio, Jr. eventually reinstated as Administrator pursuant to
the 2008 decision, the permanent injunction issued
The intestate court flip-flopped in appointing as by the CA, as explicitly stated in its fallo,
administrator of the estate petitioner and pertained only to the portions of the 2006
respondent Silverio, Jr. In an Order in 2005, Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of
Silverio, Sr. was removed as administrator and in administration to and taking of an oath of
his stead, SILVERIO, JR. was designated as the administration by Silverio, Jr., as otherwise the
new administrator. By virtue of the aforesaid CA would have expressly set aside as well the
Order, Silverio, Jr. on 16 October 2007 executed a directive in the same Omnibus Order allowing the
Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of CITRINE sale of the subject properties.
HOLDINGS, Inc. over the property located
Makati City. CITRINE became the registered The CA therefore did not err in reversing the
owner thereof. A Deed of Absolute Sale was August 18, 2011 Order of the intestate court
likewise executed in favor of Monica P. Ocampo, annulling the sale of the subject properties
subsequently sold to ZEE2 Resources, Inc. grounded solely on the injunction issued in CA-
Silverio, Sr.filed an Urgent Application for the G.R. SP No. 97196. Respondents Ocampo, Citrine
Issuance of TRO restraining and/or preventing and ZEE2 should not be prejudiced by the flip-
Silverio, Jr., Monica, CITRINE, and their flopping appointment of Administrator by the
successors-in-interest from committing any act intestate court, having relied in good faith that the
that would affect the titles to the three properties. sale was authorized and with prior approval of the
intestate court under its Omnibus Order dated
An Omnibus Order was issued by the intestate October 31, 2006 which remained valid and
court acting upon pending motions filed by subsisting insofar as it allowed the aforesaid sale.
petitioner and respondent Silverio, Jr., father and
son, respectively, who are the central figures in the
now decade-old controversy over the Intestate 8. PURA CARREON VS RUFO AGCAOILI
Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio.
FACTS:
On February 2011, SILVERIO SR. filed an Urgent
Omnibus Motion (a) To Declare as Null and Void Sps. Bonifacio and Celerina Carreon purchased the
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 16 September land subject of this case. When Bonifacio died,
2010; (b) To cancel the Transfer Certificate of Celerina adjudicated to herself the land declaring
Title No. 006-2011000050; and (c) To reinstate herself as the sole heiress of her husband for which
the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2236121 in a transfer certificate was issued in her name on
the name of Ricardo C. SilverioSr. and the
Sept 28, 1946 with an annotation that it was
Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio. The
intestate court rendered the now assailed Orders subject to Sec. 4 Rule 74 of the RoC. She then
granting the preliminary injunction against borrowed money from the PNB secured by a REM
Silverio, Jr., and declaring the Deed of Absolute on ½ of the land. To pay for the loan, ½ was sold
Sale, TCT and all derivative titles over the to Rufo Agcaoili hence a new TCT was issued in
Cambridge and Intsia properties as null and void. his name. In Feb 1955, the children of Celerina
sought to have a deed of sale executed by their
The Court of Appeals rendered decision declaring
mother be declared as one of mortgage and to
the Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of
Title and all derivative titles over the Cambridge recover the ½ tract of land. The court ruled in
and Intsia Property valid. Silverio, Sr. contends favor of Agcaoli hence this appeal. It was alleged
that CA committed a reversible error in upholding that Agcaoili was a buyer in bad faith and that a
the validity of the Intsia and Cambridge properties trust relationship existed.
on the ground that the intestate court cannot annul
the sales as it has a limited jurisdiction only and ISSUE: Whether Agcaoli was a buyer in good
which does not include resolving issues of faith
ownership.
HELD: YES!
There is no clear proof the Agcaoli knew of any compulsory recognition and enforcement of
flaw in the title of Celerina. The mere fact of being successional rights which was filed prior to
a townmate is not a sufficient basis to conclude the advent of the Family Code, must be governed
that he knew she had children. It was shown that by Article 285 of the Civil Code and not by
he rarely came home since he was an enlisted man Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The
in the Phil. Constabulary hence he cannot be present law cannot be given retroactive
expected to know the relatives and children of this effect insofar as the instant case is concerned, as
vendor. Fraud cannot be presumed. It must be its application will prejudice the vested right of
established by clear and sufficient evidence. If private respondent to have her case decided under
fraud was committed, such was perpetrated by Article 285 of the Civil Code. The right was
Celerina. Agcaoli is only charged with notice of vested to her by the fact that she filed her action
the burdens which are noted on the face of the title under the regime of the Civil Code. Prescinding
and nothing more. from this, the conclusion then ought to be that the
action was not yet barred, notwithstanding the fact
that it was brought when the putative father was
The lien, established in Sec.4 of Rule 74 of the already deceased, since private respondent was
Old and Revised Rules of Court, in case of then still a minor when it was filed,
summary settlement of a decedent’s estate, is an exception to the general rule provided under
effective only for a period of 2 yrs. After the 2 yr Article 285 of the Civil Code. Hence, the trial
period, such becomes “functus oficio” and it may court, which acquired jurisdiction over the case by
be cancelled at the instance of the transferee of the the filing of the complaint, never lost jurisdiction
land involved. over the same despite the passage of E.O. No. 209,
also known as the Family Code of the Philippines.
In this case, more than 2 yrs had elapsed, from
Sept. 28, 1946 to Sept. 8, 1949 when the deed of
sale in favor of Agcaoili was issued and registered.
10. ACAP VS CA, EDY DE LOS REYES

FACTS:
9. ARUEGO VS CA Felixberto Oruma sold his inherited land to Cosme
Pido, which land is rented by petitioner Teodoro
FACTS:
Acap. When Cosme died intestate, his heirs
On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory executed a “Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of
recognition and enforcement of successional rights Rights” in favor of private respondent Edy delos
was filed before RTC Manila by the minors Reyes. Respondent informed petitioner of his
Antonia Aruego and alleged the sister Evelyn claim over the land, and petitioner paid the rental
Aruego represented by their mother Luz Fabian. to him in 1982. However in subsequent years,
The complaint was opposed by the legitimate petitioner refused to pay the rental, which
children of Jose Aruego Jr. prompted respondent to file a complaint for the
recovery of possession and damages. Petitioner
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Antonia averred that he continues to recognize Pido as the
Aruego. A petition for certiorari was then filed owner of the land, and that he will pay the
alleging that the Family Code of the Philippines accumulated rentals to Pido’s widow upon her
which took effect on August 3, 1988 shall have a return from abroad. The lower court ruled in favor
retroactive effect thereby the trial court lost of private respondent.
jurisdiction over the complaint on the ground of
prescription. ISSUES:

ISSUE: Whether or not the Family Code may be (1) Whether the “Declaration of Heirship and
given a retroactive effect so as to deprive private Waiver of Rights” is a recognized mode of
respondent of her right to institute the case for acquiring ownership by private respondent
compulsory recognition
(2) Whether the said document can be considered
RULING: a deed of sale in favor of private respondent

No. The action brought by private HELD:

respondent Antonia Aruego for
An asserted right or claim to ownership or a real private respondent's ownership without the
right over a thing arising from a juridical act, corresponding proof thereof.
however justified, is not per sesufficient to give
rise to ownership over the res. That right or title
must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions
imposed by law. Hence, ownership and real rights
are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or
process. While title is the juridical justification,
mode is the actual process of acquisition or
transfer of ownership over a thing in question.
11. ROXAS VS DE JESUS, JR
In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties
obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and
to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party FACTS:
to pay a price certain in money or its
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order of
equivalent. Upon the other hand, a declaration of
heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public respondent Hon. Jose C. Colayco, Presiding Judge Court of
instrument when filed with the Registry of Deeds First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI disallowing the
whereby the intestate heirs adjudicate and divide probate of the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana
the estate left by the decedent among themselves Roxas de Jesus. After the death of spouses Andres G.
as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicial de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Special
settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of the Proceeding No. 81503 case was filed by petitioner Simeon
Rules of Court. Hence, there is a marked
R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de
difference between a sale of hereditary rights and
a waiver of hereditary rights. The first presumes Jesus.On March 26, 1973, petitioner Simeon R. Roxas was
the existence of a contract or deed of sale between appointed administrator. He then delivered to the lower
the parties. The second is, technically speaking, a court a document purporting to be the holographic Will of
mode of extinction of ownership where there is an the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. Judge Jose Colayco
abdication or intentional relinquishment of a set the hearing of the probate of the holographic Win on
known right with knowledge of its existence and
July 21, 1973.Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that after
intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons
who are co-heirs in the succession. Private his appointment as administrator, he found a notebook
respondent, being then a stranger to the succession belonging to the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus and that on
of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claim pages 21, 22, 23 and24 thereof, a letter-will addressed to her
ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of children and entirely written and signed in the handwriting
the waiver document which neither recites the of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found. The will is
elements of either a sale, or a donation, or any dated "FEB./61 "and states: "This is my will which I want to
other derivative mode of acquiring ownership.
be respected although it is not written by a lawyer.
A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice
of a claim adverse to the registered owner, the Testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the
validity of which is yet to be established in court at testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Jesus and Manuel Roxas de
some future date, and is no better than a notice Jesus who likewise testified that the letter dated "FEB./61 "
of lis pendens which is a notice of a case already is the holographic Will of their deceased mother They
pending in court. It is to be noted that while the further testified that their deceased mother understood
existence of said adverse claim was duly proven, English, the language in which the holographic Will is
there is no evidence whatsoever that a deed of sale written, and that the date "FEB./61 " was the date when said
was executed between Cosme Pido's heirs and Will was executed by their mother Respondent Luz R.
private respondent transferring the rights of Pido's Henson, another compulsory heir filed an "opposition to
heirs to the land in favor of private respondent. probate" assailing the purported holographic Will of
Private respondent's right or interest therefore in Bibiana R. de Jesus because (a) it was not executed in
the tenanted lot remains an adverse claim which accordance with law, (b) it was executed through force,
cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the OCT to intimidation and/or under duress, undue influence and
the land and title the same in private respondent's improper pressure, and (c) the alleged testatrix acted by
name. Consequently, while the transaction mistake and/or did not intend, nor could have intended the
between Pido's heirs and private respondent may said Will to be her last Will and testament at the time of its
be binding on both parties, the right of petitioner execution. August 24, 1973 - Judge Jose C. Colayco
as a registered tenant to the land cannot be issued an order allowing the probate of the
perfunctorily forfeited on a mere allegation of holographic w/c he found to have been duly executed in
accordance with law Respondent Luz Roxas de Jesus filed FACTS:
a MR stating that the will was not dated as required by
Article 810 of the Civil Code. She contends that the law On 6 April 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine
requires that the Will should contain the day, month and Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees and
year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied legatees of the holographic will of the deceased
with.December 10, 1973 – Judge disallowed the probate of Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed a petition for
the holographic Will on the ground that the word "dated" probate of the said will. They attested to the
has generally been held to include the month, day, and year genuineness and due execution of the will on 30
August 1978.

Eugenio Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal

ISSUE: WON the date "FEB./61” on the will is a valid
filed their opposition claiming that the will was a
compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code
forgery and that the same is even illegible. They
HELD: raised doubts as regards the repeated appearing on
the will after every disposition, calling the same
We agree with the petitioner. out of the ordinary. If the will was in the
handwriting of the deceased, it was improperly
The petitioners contend that while Article 685 of the
procured.
Spanish Civil Code and Article 688 of the Old Civil Code
require the testator to state in his holographic Win the "year,
Evangeline Calugay, etc. presented 6 witnesses
month, and day of its execution," the present Civil Code
and various documentary evidence.
omitted the phrase Año mes y dia and simply requires that
The first witness was the clerk of court of the
the holographic Will should be dated. The petitioners
probate court who produced and identified the
submit that the liberal construction of the holographic Will
records of the case bearing the signature of the
should prevail. Respondent Luz Henson says the will is
deceased.
void for non-compliance with Article 810 of the New Civil
The second witness was election registrar who was
Code in that the date must contain the year, month, and day
made to produce and identify the voter’s affidavit,
of its execution. The respondent further contends that the
but failed to as the same was already destroyed
petitioner cannot plead liberal construction of Article810 of
and no longer available.
the Civil Code because statutes prescribing the formalities to
be observed in the execution of holographic Wills are The third, the deceased’s niece, claimed that she
strictly construed. RULING OF SC:the prevailing policy is had acquired familiarity with the deceased’s
to require satisfaction of the legal requirements in order to signature and handwriting as she used to
guard against fraud and bad faith but without undue or accompany her in collecting rentals from her
unnecessary curtailment of testamentary privilege. If a Will various tenants of commercial buildings and the
has been executed in substantial compliance with the deceased always issued receipts. The niece also
formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith and testified that the deceased left a holographic will
fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said Win should be entirely written, dated and signed by said
admitted to probate Court found no evidence of bad faith deceased.
and fraud in its execution nor was there any substitution of
Wills and Testaments As a general rule, the "date" The fourth witness was a former lawyer for the
in a holographic Will should include the day, deceased in the intestate proceedings of her late
month, and year of its execution. However, when as in husband, who said that the signature on the will
the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, was similar to that of the deceased but that he can
undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the not be sure.
Will is established the Will should be allowed under the
principle of substantial compliance WHEREFORE, the The fifth was an employee of the DENR who
instant petition is GRANTED. The order appealed from is testified that she was familiar with the signature of
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the order allowing the the deceased which appeared in the
probate of the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana latter’s application for pasture permit. The fifth,
Roxas de Jesus is reinstated. respondent Evangeline Calugay, claimed that she
had lived with the deceased since birth where she
had become familiar with her signature and that
12. CODOY VS CALUGAY the one appearing on the will was genuine.
Codoy and Ramonal’s demurrer to evidence was the children of the deceased, putting in issue her
granted by the lower court. It was reversed on motive.
appeal with the Court of Appeals which granted
the probate. Evangeline Calugay never declared that she saw
the decreased write a note or sign a document.
ISSUE:
The former lawyer of the deceased expressed
1. W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code, providing doubts as to the authenticity of the signature in the
that at least three witnesses explicitly declare the holographic will.
signature in a contested will as the genuine
signature of the testator, is mandatory or directory. (As it appears in the foregoing, the three-witness
requirement was not complied with.)
2. Whether or not the witnesses sufficiently
establish the authenticity and due execution of the A visual examination of the holographic will
deceased’s holographic will. convinces that the strokes are different when
compared with other documents written by the
HELD: testator.

1. YES. The word “shall” connotes a The records are remanded to allow the oppositors
mandatory order, an imperative obligation and to adduce evidence in support of their opposition.
is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and
that the presumption is that the word “shall”, The object of solemnities surrounding the
when used in a statute, is mandatory. execution of wills is to close the door against bad
faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
In the case at bar, the goal to be achieved by the testaments and to guaranty their truth
law, is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this
and the evil to be prevented is the possibility that subject should be interpreted in such a way as to
unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will attain these primordial ends. But, on the other
employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator. hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it
is not the object of the law to restrain
The paramount consideration in the present and curtail the exercise the right to make a will.
petition is to determine the true intent of the
deceased. However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a
false document being adjudged as the will of the
2. NO. We cannot be certain that the testator, which is why if the holographic will
holographic will was in the handwriting of the is contested, the law requires three witnesses to
deceased. declare that the will was in the handwriting of the
deceased.
The clerk of court was not presented to declare
explicitly that the signature appearing in the Article 811, paragraph 1. provides: “In the probate
holographic will was that of the deceased. of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at
least one witness who knows the handwriting and
The election registrar was not able to produce the signature of the testator explicitly declare that the
voter’s affidavit for verification as it was no longer will and the signature are in the handwriting of the
available. testator. If the will is contested, at least three of
such witnesses shall be required.”
The deceased’s niece saw pre-prepared receipts
and letters of the deceased and did not declare that The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order, an
she saw the deceased sign a document or write a imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the
note. idea of discretion and that the presumption is that
the word “shall”, when used in a statute, is
The will was not found in the personal belongings mandatory.
of the deceased but was in the possession of the
said niece, who kept the fact about the will from
13. GABUCAN VS MANTA FACTS:

Facts: Aniceta Reyes died in 1969 without

her estate being settled. Thereafter, her husband
A petition for the probate of a notarial will was
Alejandro also died. In 1977, Lourdes Dorotheo
dismissed on the ground that it does not bear a 30-
filed a special proceeding for the probate of
centavo documentary stamp. According to the R
Alejandro’s last will and testament. The children
Judge, the notarial will was not admissible in
of spouses filed their opposition. The RTC ruled
evidence. Despite P’s manifestation that he had
that Lourdes being not the wife of Alejandro the
already attached the documentary stamp, the R
will is intrinsically void; the oppositors are the
Judge refused to reconsider the dismissal.
only heir entitled to the estate. Lourdes filed a
Issue: Whether the lower court erred I holding Motion for Consideration arguing that she is
that because no documentary stamp was affixed entitled to some compensation since she took care
to the will, there was “no will and testament to of Alejandro prior to his death although they were
probate”? not legally married to each other. This was denied
by the trial court. The CA dismissed her appeal for
HELD: her failure to wile the same within the extended
We hold that the lower court manifestly erred in period.
declaring that, because no documentary stamp was
ISSUE:
affixed to the will, there was “no will and
testament to probate” and, consequently, the
May a last will and testament admitted to probate
alleged “action must of necessity be dismissed”.
but declared intrinsically void in an order that has
What the probate court should have done was to become final and executor still be given effect?
require the petitioner or proponent to affix the
requisite thirty-centavo documentary stamp to the RULING:
notarial acknowledgment of the will which is the
taxable portion of that document. No. A final and executor decision or order can no
longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how
That procedure may be implied from the provision
erroneous it may be.
of section 238 that the non-admissibility of the
document, which does not bear the requisite
The Supreme Court ruled that the will of
documentary stamp, subsists only “until the
Alejandro was extrinsically valid but
requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed
the intrinsic provisions thereof are void.
thereto and cancelled.”
Alejandro gave all the property to the concubine.
Thus, it was held that the documentary stamp may Such is invalid because one cannot dispose what
be affixed at the time the taxable document is he does not own. In this case, the whole property
presented in evidence (Del Castillo vs. is the conjugal property of Alejandro and Aniceta.
Madrilena, 49 Phil. 749). If the promissory note Such has become final and executor. The only
does not bear a documentary stamp, the court instance where a party interested in probate
should have allowed plaintiff’s tender of a stamp proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside
to supply the deficiency. (Rodriguez vs. Martinez, is when he is left out by reason of circumstances
5 Phil. 67, 71. Note the holding in Azarraga vs. beyond his control or through mistake or
Rodriguez, 9 Phil. 637, that the lack of the inadvertence not imputable to negligence with
documentary stamp on a document does not circumstances do not concur herein.
invalidate such document. See Cia. General de
Tabacos vs. Jeanjaquet, 12 Phil. 195, 201-2
and Delgado and Figueroa vs. Amenabar, 16 Phil.
15. CAÑIZA VS CA
403, 405-6.)
FACTS:
Being then ninety-four (94) years of age, Carmen
Caniza was declared incompetent by judgment in a
guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece,
14. DOROTHEO VS CA
Amparo A. Evangelista. Caniza was the owner of
a house and lot. Her guardian Amparo Evangelista
commenced a suit to eject the spouses Pedro and
Leonora Estrada from said premises.

The complaint was later amended to identify the

incompetent Caniza as plaintiff, suing through her
legal guardian, Amparo Evangelista. The amended
Complaint pertinently alleged that plaintiff Caniza
was the absolute owner of the property in
question; that out of kindness, she had allowed the
Estrada Spouses, their children, grandchildren, and
sons-in-law to temporarily reside in her house,
rent-free; that Caniza already had urgent need of
the house on account of her advanced age and
failing health, “so funds could be raised to meet
her expenses for support, maintenance and medical
treatment;” among others.

The defendants declared that they had been living

in Caniza’s house since the 1960’s; that in
consideration of their faithful service they had
been considered by Caniza as her own family, and
the latter had in fact executed a holographic will
by which she “bequeathed” to the Estradas the
house and lot in question. The Estradas insist that
the devise of the house to them by Caiza clearly
denotes her intention that they remain in
possession thereof, and legally incapacitated her
judicial guardian, Amparo Evangelista, from
evicting them therefrom, since their ouster would
be inconsistent with the ward’s will. Such will has
not been submitted for probate.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alleged will may be given
effect

HELD:
No. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time
prior to the testator’s death, it may be changed or
revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no
effect whatever and no right can be claimed
thereunder, the law being quite explicit: “No will
shall pass either real or personal property unless it
is proved and allowed in accordance with the
Rules of Court” An owner’s intention to confer
title in the future to persons possessing property by
his tolerance, is not inconsistent with the former’s
taking back possession in the meantime for any
reason deemed sufficient. And that, in this case,
there was sufficient cause for the owner’s
resumption of possession is apparent: she needed
to generate income from the house on account of
the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from
her extreme age.