Sofia Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals and Rufina Gomez G.R.

bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may
No. L-62952, October 9, 1985 have received from the decedent during the lifetime of the latter, by
FACTS: way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be
Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. He left a last computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the
and testament in the said will, the testator named petitioner Sofia account of the partition. Article 1062. Collation shall not take place
Nepumuceno as his sole and only executor of his estate though it is among compulsory heirs if the donor should have so expressly
clearly stated in the will that the testator in the will that the testator provided, or if the donor should repudiate the inheritance, unless the
was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez and he had two donation should be reduced as inofficious. (b) Collation, Imputation,
legitimate children Oscar and Carmela, but he had been estranged Reduction (c) Collation of Value vs. Return of Property (d) What
from his lawfully wedded wife and been living since with petitioner. constitutes a gratuitous conveyance (e) Dispensing with Collation (f)
The testator devised to his forced heirs Rufina Gomez and his Collation by grandchildren succeeding by representation (g) Collation
children his entire estate and the free portion to th e petitioner. by grandchildren succeeding in their own right (h) Collation of
However, the Trial Court denied the probate of the will on the ground wedding gifts.
that the testator admitted in his will to cohabitating with the petitioner, Seangio v. ReyesG.R. Nos. 140371-72, 27 November 2006, 508
hence the invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident. The Court of SCRA 172
Appeals respondent court set aside the decision of the Trial Court FACTS:
and declared the will to be valid except that the devise in favor of the On September 1988, private respondents filed a petition for the
petitioner is null and void pursuant to Article 739 and 1028. settlement of the intestate estate of the late Segundo. Petitioners
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent court acted in excess of its opposed assailing among others that Segundo left a holographic will
jurisdiction when after declaring the last will and testament of the which is entirely a declaration of disinheritance affecting Alfredo, one
testator validity drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of of the private respondents. Private respondents opposed the probate
the testamentary provision. on the ground that the holographic will did not contain any disposition
RULING: NO, the respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when of the estate of the deceased. RTC dismissed the petition for probate
after declaring the will to be validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the reasoning that the holographic will clearly show preterition.
intrinsic validity of the will and declared the devise in favor of the ISSUE: Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be
petitioner null and void. The general rule is that in probate considered as a holographic will andshould be probated.
proceedings, the court area of inquiry is limited to an examination HELD: YES. A holographic will must be written, dated and signed
and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the will. The rule, however is by the testator himself. Intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly
not absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is deducted from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not
not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass make an affirmative deposition of the latter’s property, the
upon certain provisions of the will. The probate of the will might disinheritance of Alfredo, is an act of disposition in itself. The
become an idle ceremony on its face of appears to be instrinsically disinheritance results in the disposition of the property in favor of
void. There is no question from the records about the fact of a poor those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.With regard to
substitute marriage when the testator executed the will. The very the issue on preterition, the court believes that the compulsory heirs
wordings of the will invalidate the legacy because the testator in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was Segundo’s
admitted he was disposing the properties to a person whom he had last expression bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs,
been living in concubinage. with the sole exception of Alfredo. Thus, the Supreme court ordered
BUHAY DE ROMA v. CA 152 SCRA 205 for the allowance of the holographic will.
DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLE: The intention to exempt from collation Marina Dizon Rivera v. Dizon, et al., G.R. No. L24561, 33 SCRA
should be expressed plainly and unequivocally as an exception 554
to thegeneral rule announced in Article 1062. Absent such a FACTS:
clear indication of that intention, we apply not theexception but In 1961, Agripina J. Valdez died and was survived by seven
the rule, which is categorical enough compulsory heirs. The testatrix left a will written in pampango dialect.
FACTS: In her will, she divided and distributed all her properties which was
Candelaria de Roma had 2 legally adopted daughters, Buhay and appraised at 1.8million among her heirs. The will was admitted to
Rosalinda She died intestate. Buhay was appointed administrator probate and Marina was appointed as executrix. The legitime of each
and in due time, filed an inventory of the estate. This was opposed by heirs amount to P129, 362.11. In her testamentary disposition she
Rosalinda because 7 parcels of coconut land earlier donated by devised and bequeathed specific real properties. Executrix filed her
Candelaria to Buhay had not been included. Rosalinda argues that project partition in accordance with the will of the testatrix, however,
the lands are subject to collation. Buhay claims she has no obligation the heirs also submitted their own counter project of partition where
to collate because the decedent prohibited such collation and the they reduced the value of one-half of the estate to P900million and
donation was not officious. contend that their share should consists of the legitime and the
ISSUE: Whether these lands are subject to collation. RULING: Yes. devises.
There is nothing in the deed of donation that expressly prohibited ISSUE: Whether the testamentary dispositions made in the testatrix’
collation of the donated properties. The phrase “sa pamamagitan ng will are in the nature of devises imputable to the free portion of her
pagbibigay na di na mababawing muli” merely described the donation estate and is subject to reduction.
as “irrevocable” and should not be construed as an express RULING: No, “The payment in cash so as to make the proper
prohibition against collation. Candelaria would have included therein adjustment to meet with the requirements of the law in respect to the
an express prohibition to collate if that had been her intention. There legitimes which have been impaired is in our opinion a practical and
can be no implied prohibition even if the properties donated were valid solution in order to give effect to the last wishes of the testatrix”.
imputable to the free portion of the estate. The intention to exempt Testacy is always preferred over intestacy, what is controlling is the
from collation should be expressed plainly and unequivocally. wishes of the testatrix.
Note relevant articles of the Civil Code: Article 1061. Every Vda. De Villaflor vs Juico 4 SCRA 550
compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must
FACTS: Don Nicolas Villaflor, a will in Spanish in his own Beatriz B. Solamo, Carolina B. Manguiob, Delia B. Lanaban and
handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor of his wife, Dona Emilia B. Pabaonon. Felix J. Balanay, Jr. filed in the lower court a
Fausta Nepomuceno, one-half of all his real and personal properties, petition dated February 27, 1973 for the probate of his mother's
giving the other half to his brother. The will stated that all the legacies notarial will dated September 5, 1970 which is written in English. In
will be used and enjoyed by his wife while she lives and does not that will Leodegaria Julian declared (a) that she was the owner of the
remarry, otherwise, the legacies will become the property of her "southern half of nine conjugal lots; (b) that she was the absolute
grandniece, Leonor Villaflor. The 12th clause of the will provided, owner of two parcels of land which she inherited from her father, and
however, that Clauses 6th and 7th thereof would be deemed annulled (c) that it was her desire that her properties should not be divided
from the moment he bore any child with Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. among her heirs during her husband's lifetime and that their legitimes
Don Nicoloas died without begetting any child with his wife. The latter should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties. Then, in
instituted a Special Proceeding for the settlement of her husband’s paragraph V of the will she stated that after her husband's death (he
estate. She received the use and possession of all the real and was eighty-two years old in 1973) her paraphernal lands and all the
personal properties mentioned and referred to in Clause 7th of the conjugal lands (which she described as "my properties") should be
will. The order approving the project of partition, however, expressly divided and distributed in the manner set forth in that part of her will.
provided that approval thereof was without prejudice to the provisions She devised and partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all
of clause 8 of the will of Nicolas Villaflor. Dona Fausta died in 1956 owned by her. She disposed of in the will her husband's one half
and defendant Juico was appointed as the judicial administrator. The share of the conjugal assets. Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B.
plaintiff Leonor was admitted to be the same person mentioned in Antonio opposed the probate of the will on the grounds of lack of
Don Nicolas’ will. Leonor instituted the action against Juico testamentary capacity, undue influence, preterition of the husband
contending that upon the widow’s death, she became vested with the and alleged improper partition of the conjugal estate. April 18, 1973 ,
ownership of the real and personal properties bequeathed by the late Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument captioned "Conformation of
Nicolas Villaflor to clause 7 of his will, pursuant to its eight (8th) Division and Renunciation of Hereditary Rights" wherein he
clause. ISSUE: Whether or not Leonor is entitled to the properties. manifested that out of respect for his wife's will he "waived and
RULING: Yes. The plain desire and intent of the testator, as renounced' his hereditary rights in her estate in favor of their six
manifested in clause 8 of his testament, was to invest his widow with children. In that same instrument he confirmed the agreement, which
only a usufruct or life tenure in the properties described in the he and his wife had perfected before her death, that their conjugal
seventh clause, subject to the further condition (admitted by the properties would be partitioned in the manner indicated in her will.
appellee) that if the widow remarried, her rights would thereupon ISSUE: Whether the preterition of the husband produce intestacy?
cease, even during her own lifetime. That the widow was meant to RULING: NO. In the instant case, the preterited heir was the
have no more than a life interest in those properties, even if she did surviving spouse. His preterition did not produce intestacy. Moreover,
not remarry at all, is evident from the expressions used by the he signified his conformity to his wife's will and renounced his
deceased "uso y posesion mientras viva" (use and possession while hereditary rights. It results that the lower court erred in not
alive) in which the first half of the phrase "uso y posesion" instead of proceeding with the probate of the will. Save in an extreme case
"dominio" or "propiedad") reinforces the second ("mientras viva"). where the will on its face is intrinsically void, it is the probate court's
The testator plainly did not give his widow the full ownership of these duty to pass first upon the formal validity of the will, because
particular properties, but only the right to their possession and use (or generally, the probate of the will is mandatory. As decided by the SC
enjoyment) during her lifetime. The Civil Code, in Article 790, p. 1 in previous cases; to give effect to the intention and wishes of the
(Article 675 of the Code of 1889), expressly enjoins the following: testatrix is the first and principal law in the matter of testaments.
“ART. 790. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary and Testacy is preferable to intestacy. It should be stressed that by
grammatical sense, unless a clear intention to use them in another reason of the surviving husband's conformity to his wife's will and his
sense can be gathered, and that other can be ascertained." Technical renunciation of his hereditary rights, his one-half conjugal share
words in a will are to be taken in their technical sense, unless the became a part of his deceased wife's estate. His conformity had the
context clearly indicates a contrary intention, or unless it satisfactorily effect of validating the partition made in paragraph V of the will
appears that the will was drawn solely by the testator, and that he without prejudice, of course, to the rights of the creditors and the
was unacquainted with such technical sense. The testament of Don legitimes of the compulsory heirs. The distribution and partition
Nicolas Villaflor clearly and unmistakably provided that his widow therefore, would become effective upon the death of Felix Balanay,
should have the possession and use of the legacies while alive and Sr. In the meantime, the net income should be equitably divided
did not remarry. It necessarily follows that by the express provisions among the children and the surviving spouse.
of the 8th clause of his will, the legacies should pass to the testator's De Guzman vs. Intestate Estate of Francisco Benitez, G. R. No.
"sobrinanieta", appellant herein, upon the widow's death, even if the 61167-68, January 20, 1989
widow never remarried in her lifetime. Consequently, the widow had FACTS: Francisco Benitez was the only surviving child. He died
no right to retain or dispose of the aforesaid properties, and her single at the age of 61 years on November 6, 1970, without
estate is accountable to the reversionary legatee for their return, descendants, nor ascendants, nor brothers and sisters. He left an
unless they had been lost due to fortuitous event, or for their value estate consisting of fourteen (14) parcels of coconut land in Laguna,
should rights of innocent third parties have intervened. with a total area of 34 hectares, a residential lot in the Poblacion of
(e) Partial invalidity of testamentary dispositions (f) after acquired Pagsanjan, Laguna, and a small savings account (P3,843.08) in the
properties (i) Properties acquired after making of a will (art. 793) (ii) Philippine National Bank. On December 10, 1970, Dionisia and
Accruals to the estate since the opening of the succession (Art 781) Melquiades are first-cousins of the deceased Francisco Benitez, filed
G.R. No. L-39247 June 27, 1975 BALANAY, vs. MARTINEZ, a petition for administration of his intestate and for the issuance of
FACTS: letters of administration to Dionisia who, during the lifetime of the
Leodegaria Julian, a native of Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur, died on deceased, had been administering the said estate as judicial
February 12, 1973 in Davao City at the age of sixty-seven. She was guardian of his person and property duly appointed on January 22,
survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and by their six 1957. The petition for administration was opposed by Emiterio de
legitimate children named Felix Balanay, Jr., Avelina B. Antonio, Guzman on the ground that the deceased left a will leaving his entire
estate to him and that a petition for its probate. Emiterio de Guzman was a resident and a domicile of Texas, USA. The executor of the will
died on April 20, 1973 and was substituted by his heirs, Fidel, then caused the admission of the will to probate. The illegitimate
Cresencia and Rosalie. In support of the petition for probate, the children opposed the will on the ground that they have been deprived
petitioner Fidel de Guzman and two attesting witnesses of the will of their legitimes to which they should be entitled, if Philippine law
who prepared the will, gave evidence. The oppositors presented six were to be applied. Maria Cristina et al invoked Par. 3, Art. 17 of the
(6) witnesses who identified the transcript of the testimony given on New Civil Code which provides that Philippines Laws on property
January 22, 1957 by Dr. Jose A. Fernandez in the proceedings for relations should not be rendered ineffective by foreign laws and/or
the guardianship of Francisco Benitez for incompetence on account agreements.
of insanity. On April 4, 1975, Judge Maximo Maceren rendered ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of the deceased should
judgment disallowing the will and appointing Dionisia administratrix of determine the successional rights of the illegitimate children.
the intestate estate of the deceased. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the said children, Maria
ISSUE: Whether the testator, Francisco Benitez was of sound mind Kristina et al, are not entitled to any legitime. Under the Texas Law,
on August 18, 1945 when he allegedly executed his last will and being the national law of the deceased and which is the law
testament. applicable, there are no legitimes. The SC did not give credence to
RULING: The lower court hold that the evidence shows that from the argument of Maria Cristina et al. Par. 3, Art. 17 of the New Civil
January 18, 1929 up to March 12, 1941 Francisco Benitez was Code is not an exception to the Nationality Principle (par. 2, Article 16
confined at the National Mental Hospital for varying periods of time. of the Civil Code). Rather, it is the other way around. This is
The foregoing premises leads this Court to the conclusion that at the highlighted by the fact that Art. 1039 of the same law clearly states
time Francisco Benitez executed his supposed will on August 18, that capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
1945 he was not possessed of a sound and disposing mind. decedent. Thus, the intent of the lawmakers is clear.
Wherefore the same is not allowed probate. The CA affirmed the The SC also took time to discuss the renvoi Doctrine though not
decision of the lower court disallowing the will and appointing invoked by Maria Cristina et al: It is not disputed that the decedent
Dionisia administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased. was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his
Baltazar v. Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012. death. So that even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule
FACTS: providing that the domiciliary system (law of the domicile) should
Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster at the time she executed her govern, the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to
will. The same was executed in the house of a certain retired Judge Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law. Nonetheless, if Texas
Limpin, was read to Paciencia twice, was signed by her, and was has a conflicts rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for
attested to by three credible witness. Petitioner Rosie Mateo, the application of the law of the place where the properties are
daughter of the first cousin of testatrix, testified that the latter was situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are
“magulyan” or “forgetful” because she would sometimes leave her found in the Philippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the
wallet in the kitchen then start looking for it moments later. conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from
ISSUE ours.
Whether or not forgetfulness is equivalent to being unsound mind, De Guzman vs. Intestate Estate of Francisco Benitez, G. R. No.
hence lack of testamentary capacity. 61167-68, January 20, 1989
RULING FACTS: Francisco Benitez was the only surviving child. He died
NO. The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person single at the age of 61 years on November 6, 1970, without
mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a will. descendants, nor ascendants, nor brothers and sisters. He left an
Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. Article 799 estate consisting of fourteen (14) parcels of coconut land in Laguna,
of the Civil Code provides for the criteria for soundness of mind. In with a total area of 34 hectares, a residential lot in the Poblacion of
this case, apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining to Paciencia’s Pagsanjan, Laguna, and a small savings account (P3,843.08) in the
forgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, Philippine National Bank. On December 10, 1970, Dionisia and
that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of Melquiades are first-cousins of the deceased Francisco Benitez, filed
the execution of the will. The law presumes that every person is of a petition for administration of his intestate and for the issuance of
sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. letters of administration to Dionisia who, during the lifetime of the
A scrutiny of the Will discloses that [Paciencia] was aware of the deceased, had been administering the said estate as judicial
nature of the document she executed. She specially requested that guardian of his person and property duly appointed on January 22,
the customs of her faith be observed upon her death. 1957. The petition for administration was opposed by Emiterio de
Guzman on the ground that the deceased left a will leaving his entire
Bellis et al vs Edward Bellis et al G.R. No. L-23678 – 20 SCRA estate to him and that a petition for its probate. Emiterio de Guzman
358 – Civil Law – Application of Laws – Nationality Principle – died on April 20, 1973 and was substituted by his heirs, Fidel,
Renvoi Doctrine – Conflict of Laws-Succession – Nationality of Cresencia and Rosalie. In support of the petition for probate, the
the Decedent – Legitime petitioner Fidel de Guzman and two attesting witnesses of the will
Facts: who prepared the will, gave evidence. The oppositors presented six
Amos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas, and of the United (6) witnesses who identified the transcript of the testimony given on
States. By his first wife whom he divorced he had five legitimate January 22, 1957 by Dr. Jose A. Fernandez in the proceedings for
children (Edward Bellis et al), by his second wife, who survived him, the guardianship of Francisco Benitez for incompetence on account
he had three legitimate children. He, however, also had three of insanity. On April 4, 1975, Judge Maximo Maceren rendered
illegitimate children in the Philippines (Maria Cristina Bellis et al). judgment disallowing the will and appointing Dionisia administratrix of
Before he died, he executed a will here in the Philippines which the intestate estate of the deceased.
disposed of his Philippine properties (Bellis actually executed another ISSUE: Whether the testator, Francisco Benitez was of sound mind
will disposing his US properties. In said will, he still gave nothing to on August 18, 1945 when he allegedly executed his last will and
his illegitimate children). His illegitimate children were not given testament.
anything. Amos Bellis died in 1958 and at the time of his death, he
 RULING: The lower court hold that the evidence shows that from Article 875. Any disposition made upon the condition that the
January 18, 1929 up to March 12, 1941 Francisco Benitez was heir shall make some provision in his will in favor of the testator
confined at the National Mental Hospital for varying periods of time. or of any other person shall be void.
The foregoing premises leads this Court to the conclusion that at the Article 1031. A testamentary provision in favor of a disqualified
time Francisco Benitez executed his supposed will on August 18, person, even though made under the guise of an onerous
1945 he was not possessed of a sound and disposing mind. contract, or made through an intermediary, shall be void.
Wherefore the same is not allowed probate. The CA affirmed the Article 838. No will shall pass either real or personal property
decision of the lower court disallowing the will and appointing unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of
Dionisia administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased. Court.
The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court
MEMORIZE!! having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. In such case,
Article 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the allowance
language or dialect known to the testator. (n) of wills after the testator's a death shall govern.
Article 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules of
subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the Court as may be necessary for the allowance of wills on petition
testator's name written by some other person in his presence, of the testator.
and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, either
three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator during the lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be
and of one another. conclusive as to its due execution.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name Article 783. A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with
and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree
aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the the disposition of this estate, to take effect after his death.
left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in (667a)
letters placed on the upper part of each page. Article 784. The making of a will is a strictly personal act; it
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon cannot be left in whole or in part to the discretion of a third
which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the person, or accomplished through the instrumentality of an agent
will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to or attorney. (670a)
write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of Article 785. The duration or efficacy of the designation of heirs,
the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and devisees or legatees, or the determination of the portions which
signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the they are to take, when referred to by name, cannot be left to the
testator and of one another. discretion of a third person. (670a)
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the Article 786. The testator may entrust to a third person the
witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. distribution of specific property or sums of money that he may
leave in general to specified classes or causes, and also the
Article 886. Legitime is that part of the testator's property which designation of the persons, institutions or establishments to
he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain which such property or sums are to be given or applied. (671a)
heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs. Article 787. The testator may not make a testamentary
Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant disposition in such manner that another person has to
any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous determine whether or not it is to be operative. (n)
title Article 788. If a testamentary disposition admits of different
from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by which the
reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of disposition is to be operative shall be preferred. (n)
law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree Article 789. When there is an imperfect description, or when no
and who belong to the line from which said property came. person or property exactly answers the description, mistakes
and omissions must be corrected, if the error appears from the
Article 863. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which context of the will or from extrinsic evidence, excluding the oral
the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the declarations of the testator as to his intention; and when an
obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the uncertainty arises upon the face of the will, as to the application
whole or part of the inheritance, shall be valid and shall take of any of its provisions, the testator's intention is to be
effect, provided such substitution does not go beyond one ascertained from the words of the will, taking into consideration
degree from the heir originally instituted, and provided further, the circumstances under which it was made, excluding such
that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at oral declarations. (n)
the time of the death of the testator. Article 790. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary
and grammatical sense, unless a clear intention to use them in
Article 874. An absolute condition not to contract a first or another sense can be gathered, and that other can be
subsequent marriage shall be considered as not written unless ascertained.
such condition has been imposed on the widow or widower by Technical words in a will are to be taken in their technical sense,
the deceased spouse, or by the latter's ascendants or unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention, or
descendants. unless it satisfactorily appears that the will was drawn solely by
Nevertheless, the right of usufruct, or an allowance or some the testator, and that he was unacquainted with such technical
personal prestation may be devised or bequeathed to any sense.
person for the time during which he or she should remain (675a)
unmarried or in widowhood. (793a) Article 791. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation
which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one
which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and of two In 2008, Amanda’s will was subjected to probate. The will was
modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will allowed by the probate court in 2009.
prevent intestacy. (n) In 2010, the administrator of the estate of Amanda demanded
Article 792. The invalidity of one of several dispositions Spouses Salitico to vacate the subject property. The administrator
contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other contended that the sale made by Felix was not valid because under
dispositions, unless it is to be presumed that the testator would the Rules, no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is
not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid proved and allowed in the proper court. Here, the devised property
disposition had not been made. (n) bequeathed to Felix has not yet passed to her because the will was
Article 793. Property acquired after the making of a will shall not yet probated when she made the sale.
only pass thereby, as if the testator had possessed it at the time In 2011, Spouses Salitico filed a specific performance case against
of making the will, should it expressly appear by the will that the heirs of Felix and the estate of Amanda.
such was his intention. (n) ISSUE: Whether or not the sale is valid.
Article 794. Every devise or legacy shall cover all the interest HELD: Yes. Felix was already the owner of the bequeathed property
which the testator could device or bequeath in the property when Amanda died. Article 777 of the Civil Code, which is
disposed of, unless it clearly appears from the will that he substantive law, states that the rights of the inheritance are
intended to convey a less interest. (n) transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. Article 777
Article 795. The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the operates at the very moment of the decedent’s death meaning that
observance of the law in force at the time it is made. (n) the transmission by succession occurs at the precise moment of
SUBSECTION 2. Testamentary Capacity and Intent death and, therefore, at that precise time, the heir is already legally
Article 796. All persons who are not expressly prohibited by law deemed to have acquired ownership of his/her share in the
may make a will. (662) inheritance, “and not at the time of declaration of heirs, or partition, or
Article 797. Persons of either sex under eighteen years of age distribution.” Thus, there is no legal bar to an heir disposing of his/her
cannot make a will. (n) hereditary share immediately after such death.
Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator
be of sound mind at the time of its execution. (n) Upon the death of Amanda, Felix became the absolute owner of the
Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the devised subject property, subject to a resolutory condition that upon
testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or settlement of Amanda’s Estate, the devise is not declared inofficious
that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered or excessive. Hence, there was no legal bar preventing Felix from
by disease, injury or other cause. entering into a contract of sale with the petitioners Sps. Salitico with
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making respect to the former’s share or interest over the subject property.
the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the SIDE ISSUE: But may the Spouses Salitico already register the
proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the property in their name?
testamentary act. (n) HELD: No. Rule 90, Section 1of the Rules of Court must be read in
Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound conjunction with Section 91 of P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration
mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. Act. It is only upon the issuance by the testate or intestate court of
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the final order of distribution of the estate or the order in anticipation
the time of making his dispositions is on the person who of the final distribution that the certificate of title covering the subject
opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or property may be issued in the name of the distributees.
less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, Lee vs. RTC, G.R. No. 146006, February 23, 2004
the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that FACTS:
the testator made it during a lucid interval. (n) Dr. Juvencio P. Ortaez owned ninety percent (90%) of the subscribed
Article 801. Supervening incapacity does not invalidate an capital stock of Philinterlife. When Dr. Ortaez died, he left behind a
effective will, nor is the will of an incapable validated by the sup wife(Juliana), three legitimate children (Rafael, Jose and Antonio
Article 802. A married woman may make a will without the Ortaez) and five illegitimate children (herein private respondent Ma.
consent of her husband, and without the authority of the court. Divina Ortaez-Enderes and her siblings).Rafael Ortaez filed before
(n) the CFI Quezon City Branch a petition for letters of administration of
Article 803. A married woman may dispose by will of all her the intestate estate of Dr. Ortaez. Judge Cruz Pao, then presiding
separate property as well as her share of the conjugal judge of Branch 85, appointed Rafael and Jose Ortaez joint special
partnership or absolute community property.ervening of administrators of their father’s estate.
capacity. It appears that several years before (but already during the pendency
of the intestate proceedings), Juliana and her two children, Special
LAST MEETINGS’ CASES: Administrators Rafael and Jose Ortaez, entered into a memorandum
Spouses Salitico vs. Heirs of Felix, G.R. No. 240199, April 10, of agreement dated March 4, 1982 for the extrajudicial settlement of
2019 the estate of Dr. Ortaez, partitioning the estate (including the
G.R. No. 240199 – 851 Phil. 1143 – Remedial Law – Special Philinterlife shares of stock) among themselves.
Proceedings – Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons – General Thereafter, Juliana and Jose Ortaez separately sold 1,014 shares
Principles – When does successional rights commence?Civil Law – and 1,011 shares respectively, in favor of petitioner Filipino Loan
Succession – Start of Successional Rights Assistance Group (FLAG), represented by its president, herein
Facts: petitioner Jose C. Lee.
In 1986, Amanda Burgos executed a will whereby she devised a On July 12, 1995, herein private respondents Enderes et al. filed a
property in favor of Resurreccion Felix. Amanda died in 1986. In motion for appointment of special administrator of Philinterlife shares
1998, Felix sold the land bequeathed to her by Amanda to Spouses of stock. This move was opposed by Special Administrator Jose
Isidro and Conrada Salitico. Ortaez.
The intestate court granted the motion of private respondents Teodoro was survived by children: Gregorio, Enrique, Simplicio, and
Enderes et al. and appointed private respondent Enderes special Severino.10 Petitioners in this case are Simplicio substituted by his
administratrix of the Philinterlife shares of stock. daughter Eliza Lopez, and the heirs of Gregorio and Severino.11
Enrique is deceased. Petitioners discovered that on 1990, Enrique
Thereafter, Special Administratrix Enderes filed an urgent motion to executed an affidavit of self-adjudication declaring himself to be
declare void ab initio the memorandum of agreement dated March 4, Gregoria Lopez’s only surviving heir, thereby adjudicating upon
1982. She likewise filed an urgent motion to declare void ab initio the himself the land in Bulacan.13 He sold the property to Marietta Yabut.
deeds of sale of Philinterlife shares of stock, which was again Marietta obtained a loan from DBP and mortgaged the property to
opposed by Jose Ortaez. DBP as security.18 At the time of the loan, the property was only
The intestate court issued an order granting the motion of Special covered by a Tax Declaration. Thereafter, an original certificate of title
Administratrix Enderes for the annulment of the March 4, 1982 was issued in Marietta’s name. Petitioners filed a complaint with the
memorandum of agreement or extrajudicial partition of estate. RTC praying that judgment be rendered, ordering the annulment of
The intestate court declared that the ownership of FLAG over the Enrique’s affidavit of self-adjudication, the deed of sale executed by
Philinterlife shares of stock was null and void and ordered the Enrique and Marietta, and the deed of real estate mortgage executed
execution of its order declaring such nullity. by Marietta in favor of DBP, and for the reconveyance of their three-
Petitioners Jose Lee and Alma Aggabao, representing Philinterlife fourth share in the property, and their exercise of their right of
and FLAG, assail before us not only the validity of the writ of redemption of Enrique’s one-fourth share. Marietta failed to pay her
execution issued by the intestate court nullifying the sale of the 2,029 loan to DBP.29 "DBP instituted foreclosure proceedings and was
Philinterlife shares of stock made by Juliana and Jose Ortaez, in their "awarded the sale of the [property] as the highest bidder."31 "The
personal capacities and without court approval, in favor of petitioner Certificate of Sale was registered with the Register of Deeds.
FLAG. Marietta failed to redeem the property.33 The title to the property was
ISSUE:Whether or not Court approval was necessary for the validity "consolidated in favor of DBP."34 The RTC ruled in favor of
of any disposition of the decedent’s estate. petitioners. However, the CA reversed the decision. ISSUE: Whether
RULING: The petition has no merit. It is clear that Juliana Ortaez, or not the property was validly transferred to Marietta and, eventually,
and her sons invalidly entered into a memorandum of agreement to DBP.
extrajudicially partitioning the intestate estate among themselves, RULING: (NO) We have consistently upheld the principle that "no
despite their knowledge that there were other heirs or claimants to one can give what one does not have."61 A seller can only sell what
the estate and before final settlement of the estate by the intestate he or she owns, or that which he or she does not own but has
court. Since the appropriation of the estate properties by Juliana and authority to transfer, and a buyer can only acquire what the seller can
her children was invalid, the subsequent sale thereof by Juliana and legally transfer.62 Title or rights to a deceased person’s property are
Jose to a third party (FLAG), without court approval, was likewise immediately passed to his or her heirs upon death.63 Before the
void. property is partitioned, the heirs are co-owners of the property. In this
An heir can sell his right, interest, or participation in the property case, the rights to Gregoria Lopez’s property were automatically
under administration under Art. 533 of the Civil Code which provides passed to her sons when she died and ultimately to petitioners
that possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the herein. They became co-owners of the property, with each of them
heir without interruption from the moment of death of the decedent. entitled to an undivided portion of only a quarter of the property. The
However, an heir can only alienate such portion of the estate that heirs cannot alienate the shares that do not belong to them. Since
may be allotted to him in the division of the estate by the probate or Enrique’s right to the property was limited to his one-fourth share, he
intestate court after final adjudication, that is, after all debtors shall had no right to sell the undivided portions that belonged to his
have been paid or the devisees or legatees shall have been given siblings or their respective heirs. Any sale by one heir of the rest of
their shares. This means that an heir may only sell his ideal or the property will not affect the rights of the other heirs who did not
undivided share in the estate, not any specific property therein. consent to the sale. Such sale is void with respect to the shares of
Juliana Ortaez and Jose Ortaez sold specific properties of the estate the other heirs. Marietta could acquire valid title over the whole
(1,014 and 1,011 shares of stock in Philinterlife) in favor of petitioner property if she were an innocent purchaser for value. An innocent
FLAG. This they could not lawfully do pending the final adjudication purchaser for value purchases a property without any notice of defect
of the estate by the intestate court because of the undue prejudice it or irregularity as to the right or interest of the seller.72 He or she is
would cause the other claimants to the estate, as what happened in without notice that another person holds claim to the property being
the present case. purchased. As a rule, an ordinary buyer may rely on the certificate of
Juliana Ortaez and Jose Ortaez sold specific properties of the estate, title issued in the name of the seller.74 He or she need not look
without court approval. It is well-settled that court approval is "beyond what appears on the face [of the certificate of title]."75
necessary for the validity of any disposition of the decedent’s estate. However, the ordinary buyer will not be considered an innocent
It being settled that property under administration needs the approval purchaser for value if there is anything on the certificate of title that
of the probate court before it can be disposed of, any unauthorized arouses suspicion, and the buyer failed to inquire or take steps to
disposition does not bind the estate and is null and void. ensure that there is no cloud on the title, right, or ownership of the
As early as 1921 in the case of Godoy v. Orellano (42 Phil 347), We property being sold. Marietta cannot claim the protection accorded by
laid down the rule that a sale by an administrator of property of the law to innocent purchasers for value because the circumstances do
deceased, which is not authorized by the probate court is null and not make this available to her. In this case, there was no certificate of
void and title does not pass to the purchaser. title to rely on when she purchased the property from Enrique. "The
defense of having purchased the property in good faith may be
Heirs of Lopez vs. DBP, G.R. No. 193551, November 19, 2014 availed of only where registered land is involved and the buyer had
FACTS: Gregoria Lopez owned a property Bulacan.5 When she died relied in good faith on the clear title of the registered owner."76 It
1922, she was survived by her three sons: Teodoro Lopez, Francisco does not apply when the land is not yet registered with the Registry
Lopez, and Carlos Lopez.7 Tax Declaration No. 613 was issued of Deeds. At the very least, the unregistered status of the property
under their names. Teodoro, Francisco, and Carlos died.9 Only should have prompted Marietta to inquire further as to Enrique’s right
over the property. On the validity of the mortgage to DBP, the Court executed between Alex A. Lina and Elidioro and to compel the heirs
held that one of the requisites of a valid mortgage contract is to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of Alex. The lower court
ownership of the property being mortgaged. Having established that granted Alex's motion. Overturning the RTC ruling, the CA held that
Marietta acquired no valid title or ownership from Enrique over the the contract between Eliodoro Sandejas Sr. and respondent was
undivided portions of the property, this court finds that no valid merely a contract to sell, not a perfected contract of sale. It ruled that
mortgage was executed over the same property in favor of DBP. As the ownership of the four lots was to remain in the intestate estate of
in sales, an exception to this rule is if the mortgagee is a "mortgagee Remedios until the approval of the sale was obtained from the
in good faith." The prevailing jurisprudence is that a mortgagee has a settlement court.
right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor to Issue: What is the settlement court's jurisdiction?
the property given as security and in the absence of any sign that Held: Court approval is required in any disposition of the decedent's
might arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further estate per Rule 89 of the Rules of Court. One can sell their rights,
investigation. The exception applies when, at the time of the interests or participation in the property under administration. A
mortgage, the mortgagor has already obtained a certificate of title stipulation requiring court approval does not affect the validity and the
under his or her name.80 It does not apply when, as in this case, the effectivity of the sale as regards the selling heirs. It merely implies
mortgagor had yet to register the property under her name. The facts that the property may be taken out of custodia legis, but only with the
show that DBP disregarded circumstances that should have aroused court's permission. Section 8 of Rule 89 allows this action to proceed.
suspicion. For instance, DBP agreed to accept the property as The factual differences have no bearing on the intestate court's
security even though Marietta’s claim was supported only by the tax jurisdiction over the approval of the subject conditional sale. Probate
declaration, and a certificate of title was yet to be issued under her jurisdiction covers all matters relating to the settlement of estates
name. Granting that Marietta was in possession of the property, DBP (Rules 74 & 86-91) and the probate of wills (Rules 75-77) of
should have inquired further as to Marietta’s rights over the property deceased persons, including the appointment and the removal of
since no certificate of title was issued to her. The rule on "innocent administrators and executors (Rules 78-85). It also extends to
purchasers or [mortgagees] for value" is applied more strictly when matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of a probate court's
the purchaser or the mortgagee is a bank. Banks are expected to recognized powers such as selling, mortgaging or otherwise
exercise higher degree of diligence in their dealings, including those encumbering realty belonging to the estate. Indeed, the rules on this
involving lands. Banks may not rely simply on the face of the point are intended to settle the estate in a speedy manner, so that the
certificate of title. Therefore, the order of the nullification of the benefits that may flow from such settlement may be immediately
documents of sale and mortgage is proper. Contracts involving the enjoyed by the heirs and the beneficiaries. In the present case, the
sale or mortgage of unregistered property by a person who was not Motion was meant to settle the decedent's obligation to Alex; hence,
the owner or by an unauthorized person are void. that obligation clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the settlement
Heirs of Spouses Sandejas vs. Lina, G.R. No. 141634, February court. To require respondent to file a separate action -- on whether
5, 2001 petitioners should convey the title to Eliodoro Sr.'s share of the
Doctrine: . In settling the estate of the deceased, a probate court disputed realty -- will unnecessarily prolong the settlement of the
has jurisdiction over matters incidental and collateral to the intestate estates of the deceased spouses. * Re: Intervenor's
exercise of its recognized powers. Such matters include selling, Standing Petitioners contend that under said Rule 89, only the
mortgaging or otherwise encumbering realty belonging to the executor or administrator is authorized to apply for the approval of a
estate. sale of realty under administration. Hence, the settlement court
Facts: On February 17, 1981, Eliodoro Sandejas, Sr. filed a petition in allegedly erred in entertaining and granting respondent's Motion for
the lower court praying that letters of administration be issued in his Approval. There is no such limitation. Section 8, Rule 89 of the Rules
favor for the settlement of the estate of his wife, REMEDIOS R. of Court, provides: "SEC. 8. When court may authorize conveyance
SANDEJAS. Letters of Administration were issued by the lower court of realty which deceased contracted to convey. Notice. Effect of
appointing Eliodoro as administrator. On November 19, 1981, the 4th deed. -- Where the deceased was in his lifetime under contract,
floor of Manila City Hall was burned and among the records burned binding in law, to deed real property, or an interest therein, the court
were the records of the Court where Sandejas filed his petition. On having jurisdiction of the estate may, on application for that purpose,
April 19, 1983, an Omnibus Pleading for motion to intervene and authorize the executor or administrator to convey such property
petition-in intervention was filed by Alex A. Lina alleging that according to such contract, or with such modifications as are agreed
Sandejas, in his capacity as seller, obligated to sell to Lina 4 parcels upon by the parties and approved by the court; and if the contract is
of land. Eliodoro died sometime in November 1984 in Canada His to convey real property to the executor or administrator, the clerk of
counsel is still waiting for official word on the fact of the death of the the court shall execute the deed. " This provision should be
administrator. He also alleged that the matter of the claim of Alex differentiated from Sections 2 and 4 of the same Rule, specifically
becomes a money claim to be filed in Eliodoro's estate. the lower requiring only the executor or administrator to file the application for
court issued an order directing the other heirs of Sandejas to move authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber real estate for the
for the appointment of a new administrator within 15 days from purpose of paying debts, expenses and legacies (Section 2);or for
receipt of the order. On January 1986, Alex filed a Motion for his authority to sell real or personal estate beneficial to the heirs,
appointment as a new administrator of the Intestate Estate of devisees or legatees and other interested persons, although such
Remedios R. Sandejas on the following reasons: that Alex has not authority is not necessary to pay debts, legacies or expenses of
received any motion for the appointment of an administrator in place administration (Section 4). Section 8 mentions only an application to
of Eliodoro; that his appointment would be beneficial to the heirs; that authorize the conveyance of realty under a contract that the
he is willing to give away his being an administrator as long as the deceased entered into while still alive. While this Rule does not
heirs has found one. The heirs chose Sixto Sandejas as new specify who should file the application, it stands to reason that the
administrator. They were reasoning out that it was only at a later date proper party must be one who is to be benefited or injured by the
that Sixto accepted the appointment. The lower court substituted Alex judgment, or one who is to be entitled to the avails of the suit.
Lina with Sixto Sandejas as administrator. On November 1993, Alex
filed an Omnibus Motion to approve the deed of conditional sale
Angela Rodriguez, Maria Rodriguez, et al. vs. Hon. Juan De Borja, et litis pendentia. Likewise under Rule 15, Section 8, it provides that a
al. G.R. No. L-21993, June 21, 1966 motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment shall include all
FACTS: Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan delivered to the objections available, else such objection not raised shall be deemed
Clerk of Court of Bulacan a purported last will and testament of Fr. waived (exception: the 4 grounds of motion to dismiss). In this case,
Rodriguez, meanwhile the petitioners filed a petition before the court in the first motion to dismiss, Treyes only raised lack of jurisdiction
to examine the purported will but which was later withdrawn, and a over the petitioner. The defense for improper venue was very much
petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Fr. Rodriguez was available at the time of filing. Thus, raising the defense of improper
subsequently field in another court in Rizal. The petitioners now venue although would not have been prejudicial to the petitioner,
sought the dismissal of the special proceeding on the settlement of there is no valid justification for the failure to invoke such defense. 2)
the decedent's estate based on the purported will, questioning Whether the action has prescribed No, the defense of prescription of
therefore the jurisdiction of CFI Bulacan. the complaint has no merit. Treyes invoked prescription on the basis
ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Bulacan have jurisdiction to of Rule 74 is inconsistent with his main theory that the complaint is
proceed with the testate proceedings? an ordinary civil action and not a special proceeding. The provisions
RULING: YES. The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of of Rule 74, Section 4 barring distributees or heirs from objecting to an
Bulacan became vested upon the delivery thereto of the will of the extrajudicial partition after the expiration of two years from such
late Father Rodriguez, even if no petition for its allowance was filed extrajudicial partition is applicable only: to persons who have
until later, because upon the will being deposited the court could, participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition,
motu proprio, have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving and when the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly
the will, and issued the corresponding notices conformably to what is complied with, i.e., that all the persons or heirs of the decedent have
prescribed by section 3, Rule 76, of the Revised Rules of Court. taken part in the extrajudicial settlement or are represented by
Moreover, aside from the rule that the Court first taking cognizance of themselves or through guardians. The court held that both
the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction requirements are absent in this case; thus, the prescriptive period on
to the exclusion of all other courts, intestate succession is only constructive trust under the Civil Code, particularly under implied
subsidiary or subordinate to the testate, since intestacy only takes constructive trust, applies, and not the prescription on Special
place in the absence of a valid operative will. Proceedings. The Civil Code identifies 2 kinds of Trusts: Implied – by
Treyes vs. Larlar, G.R. No. 232579, September 8, 2020 operation of law Express – by intention of the parties Under Implied
FACTS: Trust, there are two more categories: Resulting Trust – disposition of
Rosie Larlar Treyes died intestate and without a child. Rosie’s property which raises an inference that he does not intent the person
siblings sent a letter to Dr. Nixon Treyes, the husband of Rosie, holding the property to have any beneficial interest Constructive Trust
inviting him for a conference for the settlement of estate of Rosie. – subject to equitable duty to convey to another, on ground that he
Treyes ignored the letter and executed two affidavits of self- would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it – The duty
adjudication which he registered with the Registry of Deeds of to acquire property arises because of fraud, duress, undue influence,
Marikina, Rizal, and San Carlos, Negros Occidental, transferring unto mistake, wrongful disposition, breach of fiduciary duty. In an action
himself 14 properties, as sole heir of his decedent-spouse. After for reconveyance based on implied constructive trust, the law
sending a second letter, it was found out by the siblings that the provides a prescription of 10 years from issuance of the torrens title
properties of Rosie were already transferred to Treyes. The siblings over the property, which is based in article 1144 of the civil code. This
Larlar filed an action for annulment of the Affidavits, cancellation of issuance of title operates as a contructive notice to the whole world,
TCTs, reconveyance of ownership and possession, partition, and which the discovery of fraud is deemed to have taken place at the
damages, before the RTC of Negros Occidental. A first service of time of such issuance. 3) Whether there is a need for prior
summons was served on Treyes, which he filed a motion to dismiss determination of heirship in a special proceeding prior to filing an
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner. A re- action for recovery of ownership and possession of property No.
service of summons was served to Treyes which then he filed Treyes contends that the petitioners have not established their right
another Motion to Dismiss arguing that the private respondents’ as legal heirs and is a prerequisite to an ordinary suit; hence, their
Complaint should be dismissed on the following grounds: (1) action for reconveyance should be dismissed. The court held that the
improper venue; (2) prescription; and (3) lack of jurisdiction over the establishment of right of the heirs is conferred by law and there is no
subject matter. Treyes filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground, need for judicial confirmation to establish petitioners as heirs. It was
among others, of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and, already established by the petitioners that they are heirs ipso facto
corollarily, lack of real parties in interest, arguing that the petitioners jure, thus there is no need for any judicial confirmation. The
have not established their right to succession and thus lacking the complaint alleges that their rights over the properties is by virtue of
personality to file the complaint; prescription on the ground that the their being siblings of the decedent. In Article 777 of the Civil Code, it
action for recovery of properties of the heirs has prescribed, and substantially provides that rights of succession is transmitted upon
improper venue for the complaint was filed before the RTC of San the moment of death of the decedent. This much to say that the title
Carlos, Negros Occidental. The RTC denied the Omnibus Motion, or rights is immediately passed to the heirs upon death. Thus, the
prompting Treyes to file before the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition heirs have legally been deemed to have acquired ownership over the
for Certiorari under Rule 65. The CA, however, denied the same. estate of the decedent, without need of any declaration. In partition,
ISSUE and HOLDING: even before a property is judicially partitioned, heirs are already
1) Whether the action should be dismissed for improper venue No, deemed owners and without need for prior separate judicial
the action cannot be dismissed for improper venue. Invoking rule 73 declaration of their heirship.
to allege improper venue is entirely inconsistent with Treyes’
assertion that the complaint filed is not a special proceeding but an Santos vs. Lumbao, G.R. No. 169129, March 28, 2007
ordinary civil action. Rule 9, Section 1 of the rules provides that all Facts:
defenses and objections not pleaded in the motion to dismiss or in an The dispute involves a 107-square meter lot in Pasig City,
answer shall be deemed as a waiver with exception to the grounds of Philippines. Petitioners are the heirs of Rita Catoc Santos, who died
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, prescription, res judicata, on October 20, 1985. Respondents claim ownership, asserting
purchase from Rita through "Bilihan ng Lupa" documents dated will, (d) the notary public who notarized will admitted that Marcelina
August 17, 1979, and January 9, 1981. Respondents took never appeared before him and that he notarized the said will merely
possession and built a house on the property, acting as exclusive to accommodate the request of a lawyer friend but with the
owners. understanding that Marcelina should later appear before him but that
After Rita's death, petitioners executed a Deed of Extrajudicial never happened. Honrado still continued with the probate despite the
Settlement on May 2, 1986, including the disputed lot. opposition until testamentary proceeding closed and the property
Respondents demanded transfer documents, which petitioners transferred to Marilyn Sy. Nenita then filed this administrative case
refused. against Honrado on the ground of misconduct.
Respondents filed a Complaint for Reconveyance with Damages; ISSUE: Whether or not there was sufficient evidence on record to
RTC dismissed it for lack of merit. show that the will on its face was void?
Court of Appeals reversed RTC's decision, ordering reconveyance RULING: Upon perusing the will and noting that it was written in
and payment of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. English and was thumb marked by an obviously illiterate testatrix,
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court. respondent Judge could have readily perceived that the will is void .In
Issue: the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a
Is the Complaint for Reconveyance with Damages dismissible for language “understood and known” to the testatrix. But in its
non-compliance with barangay conciliation proceedings mandated by concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will was read to the
the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Republic Act No. testatrix “and translated into Filipino language.” That could only mean
7160)? that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate
Are the "Bilihan ng Lupa" documents valid and enforceable, testatrix and, therefore, it is void because of the mandatory provision
supporting the respondents' action for reconveyance with damages? of Article 804 of the Civil Code that every will must be executed in a
Are petitioners legally bound to comply with the "Bilihan ng Lupa" language or dialect known to the testator. Thus, a will written in
documents and reconvey the property to the respondents? English, which was not known to the Igorot testator, is void.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. Reyes vs. Vda. de Vidal, G.R. No. L-2862, April 21, 1952
Affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution dated June 8, FACTS:
2005, and July 29, 2005. On November 6, 1945, a petition for the probate of said will of Maria
Ordered petitioners to reconvey the property to respondents and pay Zuñiga Vda. de Pando was filed in the Court of First Instance of
attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Manila. On December 21, 1945, Dolores Zuñiga Vda. de Vidal, sister
Ratio: of the deceased, filed an opposition based on several grounds. And,
The Complaint for Reconveyance with Damages was not dismissible after several days of trial, at which both parties presented their
despite non-compliance with barangay conciliation proceedings respective evidence, the court rendered its decision disallowing the
because petitioners waived this defense by not filing a Motion to will on the ground that the signatures of the deceased appearing
Dismiss and participating in the trial. therein are not genuine, that it was not proven that the deceased
The "Bilihan ng Lupa" documents were deemed valid and knew the Spanish language in which it was written, and that even if
enforceable; notarization created a presumption of regularity, and the signatures are genuine, the same reveal that the deceased was
petitioners failed to rebut this presumption with clear evidence. not of sound mind when she signed the will. From this decision
Respondents' action for reconveyance was not barred by prescription petitioner appealed to this Court. ISSUE/S: 1) Whether or not the
or laches due to continuous possession of the property. signatures of the deceased appearing in the will are genuine; 2)
Petitioners, as heirs, were bound by the contracts entered into by Whether or not there is evidence to show that the testatrix knew the
Rita Catoc Santos. language in which the will was written; and, 3) Whether or not the
The Court upheld the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses testatrix was of sound and disposing mind when she signed the will.
to the respondents. RULING: To prove that the will was signed by the testatrix in
accordance with law, petitioner presented as witnesses the three
persons who attested to the execution of the will. These witnesses
are: Cornelia Gonzales de Romero, Quintin Ulpindo and Consuelo B.
Read the following cases: de Catindig. The substance of what they have testified and from an
Suroza vs Honrado, A.M. No. 2026-CFI, December 19, 1981 examination of their testimony to the court entertains no doubt that
FACTS: In 1973, Marcelina Suroza supposedly executed a notarial they had told the truth. There is nothing in their testimony which may
will bequeathing her house and lot to a certain Marilyn Suroza. In in any way reflect against their credibility nor has the oppositor
1974, Marcelina died. Marina Paje was named as the executrix in the proven fact or circumstance which may give rise to the suspicion that
said will and she petitioned before CFI Rizal that the will be admitted they testified out of personal interest or pecuniary consideration. The
to probate. The presiding judge, Honrado admitted the will to probate oppositor presented only one expert to contradict the testimony of
and assigned Paje as the administratrix. Honrado also issued an these instrumental witnesses. Jose G. Villanueva made a
ejectment order against the occupants of the house and lotsubject of comparative analysis of the signatures appearing in the will in relation
the will. Nenita Suroza, daughter in law of Marcelina (her husband, to some genuine signatures of the deceased. In his testimony as well
son of Marcelina was confined in the Veteran’s Hospital), learned of as in his memorandum, this witness has reached the conclusion that
the probate proceeding when she received the ejectment order (as the hand that wrote the signatures of the deceased appearing in the
she was residing in said house and lot). Nenita opposed the probate will is not the same hand that wrote the genuine signatures he had
proceeding. She alleged that the said notarial will is void because (a) examined and which he used as basis of his analytical study, thereby
the instituted heir there in Marilyn Suroza is actually Marilyn Sy and concluding that said signatures are not genuine. The lower court
she is a stranger to Marcelina, (b) the only son of Marcelina, Agapito gave full faith and credit to the opinion of this expert witness, and
Suroza, is still alive and is the compulsory heir, (c)the notarial will is decreed as a result that the will cannot be admitted to probate. The
written in English a language not known to Marcelina because the opinion of this expert witness has been rebutted by another expert
latter was illiterate so much so that she merely thumb marked the witness Jose C. Espinosa, whose opinion, to our mind, deserves
more weight and credence. And our reason for reaching this Taboada vs. Rosal G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982 FACTS:
conclusion is the fact that the standards of the comparison used by Petitioner Taboada filed a petition for the probate of the will of late
Espinosa are more reliable than those used by Villanueva in the Dorotea Perez. He attached the will written in the Cebuano-Visayan
comparison are two signatures appearing in two documents. The dialect consisting of two pages. The first page contains the entire
standards used by Espinosa in making his comparative study bear testamentary disposition and was signed at the bottom of the page by
dates much closer to that of the disputed signatures. 1. The the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three
closeness or proximity of the time in which the standards used had instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the
been writtento that of the suspected signature or document is very attestation clause and the acknowledgement is signed at the end of
important to bring about an accurate analysis and conclusion. The the attestation clause by the three attesting witnesses and at the left
selection of the proper standards of comparison is of paramount hand margin by the testatrix. Judge Pamatian of the trial court denied
importance especially if we consider the age and the state of the the petition for a want of formality in the execution of the will and also
health of the author of the questioned signatures. A signature affixed required the petitioner to submit the names of the intestate heirs so
in 1941 may involved characteristics different from those borne by a that they can be properly notified and they could properly intervene in
signature affixed in 1945. And this is because the passing of time and the summary settlement of the estate. However, the petitioner instead
the increase in age may have a decisive influence in the writing of complying, filed an MR and a motion for a 30 day period extension
characteristics of a person. It for this reasons that the authorities of to deliberate. The motions were still pending when judge Pamatian
the opinion that in order to bring about an accurate comparison and was transferred to his new station and judge Rosal was appointed as
analysis, the standard of comparison must be as close as possible in the new presiding judge of the respondent court. Subsequently,
point of time to the suspected signature. Such was not followed in the Judge Rosal denied the motions. ISSUE: Whether or not Article 805
study made by Villanueva. But such was observed in the study made of the Civil Code requires that the testatrix and all the three
by Espinosa. He followed the standard practice in handwriting instrumental and attesting witnesses sign at the end of the will.
analysis. It is for this reason that we hold that Espinosa's opinion RULING: NO. Under article 805 of the Civil Code, a will must be
deserves more weight and consideration. 2. The law requires that the signed at its end by the testator himself or by the testator’s name
will should be written in the dialect or language known tothe testator written by another in his presence, and by his express direction and
and this fact having been proven, the probate of the will must fail. In attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the
the first place, we have the undisputed fact that the deceased was a presence of the testator and of one another. In the case at bar, the
mestiza española, was married to a Spaniard, Recaredo Pando, and objects of attestation and subscription were fully met and satisfied
made several trips to Spain. In the second place, we have the very when the witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which
letters submitted as evidence by the oppositor written in Spanish by contains the testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will
the deceased possessed the Spanish language, oppositor cannot was properly identified by the subscribing witnesses to be the same
now be allowed to allege the contrary. These facts give rise to the will executed by the testatrix. There is no question of fraud behind the
presumption that the testatrix knew the language in which the questioned order.
testament has been written, which presumption should stand unless
the contrary is proven. . And finally, we have the very attestation Balonan vs. Abellana, G.R. No. L-15153, August 31, 1960
clause of the will which states that the testatrix knew and possessed FACTS:
the Spanish language. It is true that this matter is not required to be Anacleta Abellana left a will. In said will, she let a certain Juan Bello
stated in the attestation clause, but its inclusion can only mean that sign the will for her. The will consists of two pages. The first page is
the instrumental witnesses wanted to make it of record that the signed by Juan Abello and under his name appears typewritten “Por
deceased knew the language in which the will was written. 3. The la testadora Anacleta Abellana”. On the second page, appears the
testimony of the instrumental witnesses give an idea of mental signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears the phrase, “Por
condition of thedeceased in the will differ from each other in certain la Testadora Anacleta Abellana” – this time, the phrase is
aspects, this is only due to her age and state of health rather than to handwritten. ISSUE: Whether or not the signature of Bello appearing
a defective mental condition. They do not reveal a condition of above the typewritten phrase “Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana”
forgery or lack of genuineness. These differences or irregularities are comply with the requirements of the law prescribing the manner in
common in the writings of old people and, far from showing lack of which a will shall be executed.
genuineness, are indicative of the age, sickness, or weak condition of RULING: No. Article 805 of the Civil Code provides that: “Every will,
the writer. A comparison of the three disputed signatures in the will other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof
readily give this impression. Abbreviated, distorted and illegible, by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some
forms, which are sufficiently free and rapid, often actually indicate other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and
genuineness rather than forgery even though they are very unusual attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the
and not exactly like those in the standard writing. Those who write of presence of the testator and of one another.” This Court said In the
difficulty or hesitation through some physical infirmity may sometimes case of Ex Parte Pedro Arcenas, et al., Phil., 700: Where a testator
produced broken and unfinished signatures and these results, which does not know how, or is unable for any reason, to sign the will
in themselves are distinctly divergent as compared with signatures himself, it shall be signed in the following manner: John Doe by the
produced under conditions of strength and health, may forcefully testator, Richard Doe; or in this form: "By the testator, John Doe,
indicate genuineness . Under conditions of weakness due to Richard Doe." All this must be written by the witness signing at the
diseased or age, parts of a genuine signature may be clumsily written request of the testator. In the case at bar the name of the testatrix,
over a second time not at just the same place and in a way when Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written under the will by said
clearly shows that the writer either could not see or was so week and Abellana herself, or by Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to
inattentive as not to care what the result might be. This careless, comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must
perfectly evident repetition (figure 184), unlike the painstaking and himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto by some
delicate retouching of the forger, often indicates genuineness. other person in his presence and by his express direction.

Taboada vs. Rosal, G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982 Icasiano vs. Icasiano, G.R. No. L-18979, June 30, 1964
FACTS: she had no control where the purpose of the law to guarantee the
A petition for the allowance and admission to probate of the original identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently
(Exhibit "A") as the alleged will of the deceased Josefa Villacorte and attained.
for the appointment of Icasiano as executor was filed by the latter.
Natividad Icasiano, daughter of the testatrix, filed her opposition and Nera vs. Rimando, G.R. No. L-5971, February 27, 1911
petitioned to have herself appointed as a special administrator to
which proponent objected. The petitioner proponent filed a motion for FACTS: At the time the will was executed, in a large room connecting
the admission of an amended and supplemental petition alleging that with a smaller room by a doorway where a curtain hangs across, one
the decedent left a will executed in duplicate with all the legal of the witnesses was in the outside room when the other witnesses
requirements and that he was submitting on that day such signed were attaching their signatures to the instrument. The trial court did
duplicate (Exhibit "A-1"). Oppositors Natividad Icasiano de Gomez not consider the determination of the issue as to the position of the
and Enrique Icasiano filed their joint opposition but the court admitted witness as of vital importance in determining the case. It agreed with
said petition. The court issued the order admitting the will and its the ruling in the case of Jaboneta v. Gustillo that the alleged fact
duplicate to probate. Oppositors-appellants introduced expert being that one of the subscribing witnesses was in the outer room
testimony that the signatures of the testatrix in the duplicate are not while the signing occurred in the inner room, would not be sufficient
genuine nor affixed on the same occasion as the original and to invalidate the execution of the will. The CA deemed the will valid.
granting that the documents were genuine, they were executed ISSUE: Whether or not the subscribing witness was able to see the
through mistake and with undue influence and pressure because the testator and other witnesses in the act of affixing their signatures.
testatrix was deceived into adopting as her last will the wishes of RULING: YES. The Court is unanimous in its opinion that had the
those benefit from the provisions whereby proponents-appellees witnesses been proven to be in the outer room when the testator and
stand to profit from properties held by them therein while oppositors- other witnesses signed the will in the inner room, it would have
appellants are enjoined not to look for other properties not mentioned invalidated the will since the attaching of the signatures under the
in the will, and not to oppose the probate of it on penalty of forfeiting circumstances was not done 'in the presence' of the witnesses in the
their share in the portion of free disposal. outer room. The line of vision of the witness to the testator and other
ISSUES: 1. Is the trial court correct in admitting the will and its witnesses was blocked by the curtain separating the rooms. The
duplicate to probate given theallegations of forgery, fraud, undue position of the parties must be such that with relation to each other at
influence and pressure? 2. Is the failure of one of the witnesses to the moment of the attaching the signatures, they may see each other
sign a page of the will fatal to its validity? sign if they chose to. In the Jaboneta case, the true test of presence
RULING: 1. YES. SC holds that both the will and its duplicate are is not whether or not they actualy saw each other sign but whether
valid in all respects. The decision appealed from is affirmed. SC is they might have seen each other sign if they chose to doso
satisfied that all the requisites for the validity of a will have been considering their physical, mental condition and position in relation to
complied with; that the testatrix signed both original and duplicate each other at the moment of the inscription of the signature.
spontaneously in the presence of the three attesting witnesses, the
notary public who acknowledged, and Atty. Samson, who actually Lopez vs. Liboro, G.R. No. L-1787, August 27, 1948
prepared the documents; that the will and its duplicate were executed FACTS: On March 3, 1947, six months before his death, Don Sixto
in a language known to and spoken by both the testator and the Lopez executed a will wherein he named Jose Lopez as one of his
witnesses, and read to and by the testatrix and Atty. Fermin Samson, heirs. Agustin Liboro questioned the validity of the said will based on
together before they were actually signed; that the attestation clause the following ground, among others: The first sheet, which is also the
is also in a language known to and spoken by the testatrix and the first page is not paged either in letters or in Arabic numerals. 1. 2. 3.
witnesses. On the allegations of forgery, the testimony of the That the witnesses to the will provided contradictory statements. That
oppositor’s expert is insufficient to overcome that of the notary and Don Sixto used his thumb mark to sign the will. There was no
the two instrumental witnesses as to the will’s execution. The opinion indication in the will that the language used therein is known by Don
of a handwriting expert trying to prove forgery of the testatrix’s Sixto Lopez. ISSUE: Whether or not the will is valid.
signature failed to convince the Court principally because of the RULING: YES, the will is valid. The omission to put a page number
paucity of the standards used (only three other signatures), on the first sheet, if that be necessary, is supplied by other forms of
considering the advanced age of the testatrix, the evident variability identification more trustworthy than the conventional numeral words
of her signature, and the effect of writing fatigue. The alleged slight or characters. The unnumbered page is clearly identified as the first
variance in blueness of the ink does not appear reliable considering page by the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the
that the writings were affixed to different kinds of paper with different contents of the second page. By their meaning and coherence, the
surfaces and reflecting power. On the allegations fraud and undue first and second lines on the second page are undeniably a
influence, SC doesn’t find adequate evidence. That some heirs are continuation of the last sentence of the testament, before the
more favored than others is proof of neither. Diversity of attestation clause, which starts at the bottom of the preceding page.
apportionment is the usual reason for making a testament. That the Further, the first pages is captioned “Testamento”. The contradictions
heirs should not inquire into other properties and that they should in the testimony of the instrumental witnesses as are set out in
respect the distribution made in the will under the penalty of forfeiture Liboro’s appelant’s brief are incidents not all of which every one of
of their shares in the free part do not suffice to prove fraud or undue the witnesses can be supposed to have perceived, or to recall in the
influence. Also, fraud and undue influence are mutually repugnant same order in which they occurred. Don Sixto affixed his thumb mark
and exclude each other. Their joining as grounds for opposing to the instrument instead of signing his name. The reason for this
probate shows absence of definite evidence against the validity of the was that he was suffering from “partial paralysis.” There is nothing
will. 2. NO. Inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to curious or suspicious in the fact that the testator chose the use of
one page of atestament due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages mark as the means of authenticating his will. It was a matter of taste
is not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate. The law should not or preference. Both ways are good. There is no statutory requirement
be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on which prescribes that it must be expressly placed in the will that the
account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct
testator knows the language being used therein. It is a matter that pages only because the attestation is not a part of the notarial will,
may be established by proof aliunde. the same is not accurate. While it is true that the attestation clause is
not a part of the will, the court, after examining the totality of the will,
Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena, G.R. No. 145545, June 30, 2008 is of the considered opinion that error in the number of pages of the
Facts: will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the
Respondent Lucia D. Abena was the Margarita S. Mayores's lifelong subject will. It must be noted that the subject instrument is
companion since 1929. 🌈 In 1987, Margarita died single and without consecutively lettered with pages A, B, and C which is a sufficient
any surviving immediate family member. She was survived by her safeguard from the possibility of an omission of some of the pages.
first cousins Catalina Samaniego-Bombay, Manuelita Samaniego The error must have been brought about by the honest belief that the
Sajonia, Feliza Samaniego, and petitioner Paz Samaniego-Celada. will is the whole instrument consisting of three (3) pages inclusive of
Margarita executed a Last Will and Testament she bequeathed: One- the attestation clause and the acknowledgement. The position of the
half of her undivided share of a real property to Lucia D. Abena, court is in consonance with the "doctrine of liberal interpretation"
Norma A. Pahingalo, and Florentino M. Abena in equal shares or enunciated in Article 809 of the Civil Code which reads:
one-third portion each; One-half of her undivided share of a real
property located to Lucia D. Abena, Isabelo M. Abena, and Amanda "In the absence of bad faith, forgery or fraud, or undue [and]
M. Abena in equal shares or one-third portion each. All her personal improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the
properties to Lucia D. Abena whom she likewise designated as sole form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render
executor of her will. the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and
Paz Samaniego-Celada filed a petition for administration of the estate attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article
of Margarita.Lucia D. Abena also filed a petition for probate of the will 805."
of Margarita.
RTC-Makati: Declared the will as probated and Lucia Abena as the The court also rejects the contention of the oppositors that the
executor of the will. signatures of the testator were affixed on different occasions based
CA: Affirmed the ruling. on their observation that the signature on the first page is allegedly
different in size, texture and appearance as compared with the
Issues: signatures in the succeeding pages. After examination of the
(1) WoN the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the will invalid for signatures, the court does not share the same observation as the
failure to comply with the formalities required by under Article 805. oppositors. The picture (Exhibit "H-3") shows that the testator was
NO affixing her signature in the presence of the instrumental witnesses
(2) WoN said court erred in not declaring the will invalid because it and the notary. There is no evidence to show that the first signature
was procured through undue influence and pressure. NO was procured earlier than February 2, 1987.
(3) WoN it erred in not declaring petitioner and her siblings as the
legal heirs of Margarita, and in not issuing letters of administration to 2. On Alleged Undue Influence and Pressure
petitioner. NO The court finds that no pressure nor undue influence was exerted on
the testator to execute the subject will. In fact, the picture reveals that
Argument: the testator was in a good mood and smiling with the other witnesses
Paz Samaniego-Celada claims that Margarita’s total dependence on while executing the subject will (See Exhibit "H").
respondent and her nephews compelled her to sign the will. She
likewise argues that the Court should have declared her and her In fine, the court finds that the testator was mentally capable of
siblings as the legal heirs of Margarita since they are her only living making the will at the time of its execution, that the notarial will
collateral relatives in accordance with Articles 1009 and 1010 of the presented to the court is the same notarial will that was executed and
Civil Code. that all the formal requirements in the execution of a will have been
substantially complied with in the subject notarial will.
Held:
1. On Failure to Comply with the Formalities 3. On Declaration of Heirship
With regard to the contention of the oppositors that the testator was Since, petitioner and her siblings are not compulsory heirs of the
not mentally capable of making a will at the time of the execution decedent under Article 887 of the Civil Code and as the decedent
thereof, the same is without merit. The oppositors failed to establish, validly disposed of her properties in a will duly executed and
by preponderance of evidence, said allegation and contradict the probated, petitioner has no legal right to claim any part of the
presumption that the testator was of sound mind . In fact, witness for decedent’s estate.
the oppositors, Dr. Ramon Lamberte, who, in some occasions,
attended to the testator months before her death, testified that Lopez vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 189984, November 12, 2012
Margarita Mayores could engage in a normal conversation and he Facts: On June 21, 1999, Enrique S. Lopez (Enrique) died leaving his
even stated that the illness of the testator does not warrant wife, Wendy B. Lopez, and their four legitimate children, namely,
hospitalization…. Not one of the oppositor’s witnesses has petitioner Richard B. Lopez (Richard) and the respondents Diana
mentioned any instance that they observed act/s of the testator Jeanne Lopez (Diana), Marybeth de Leon (Marybeth) and Victoria L.
during her lifetime that could be construed as a manifestation of Tuazon (Victoria) as compulsory heirs. Before Enrique’s death, he
mental incapacity. The testator may be admitted to be physically executed a Last Will and Testament constituted Richard as his
weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound executor and administrator. Richard filed a petition for the probate of
mind. The testimonies of contestant witnesses are pure aforethought. his father's Last Will and Testament before the RTC of Manila with
prayer for the issuance of letters testamentary in his favor. Marybeth
Anent the contestants’ submission that the will is fatally defective for opposed the petition contending that the purported last will and
the reason that its attestation clause states that the will is composed testament was not executed and attested as required by law, and that
of three (3) pages while in truth and in fact, the will consists of two (2) it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on
the part of Richard. The said opposition was also adopted by Victoria.
RTC disallowed the probate of the will for failure to comply with Issues of the Case:
Article 805 of the Civil Code which requires a statement in the Whether the will should be disallowed for not complying
attestation clause of the number of pages used upon which the will is with the formalities required by law.
written. It held that while Article 809 of the same Code requires mere
substantial compliance of the form laid down in Article 805 thereof, Ruling of the Court:
the rule only applies if the number of pages is reflected somewhere The will should be allowed for having complied with the
else in the will with no evidence aliunde or extrinsic evidence formalities required by law. Oppositor asserts that the will of Abada
required. While the acknowledgment portion stated that the will does not indicate that it is written in a language or dialect known to
consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification and the testator. Further, she maintains that the will is not acknowledged
acknowledgment are written, the RTC observed that it has 8 pages before a notary public. She points out that nowhere in the will can
including the acknowledgment portion. As such, it disallowed the will one discern that Abada knew the Spanish language. She alleges that
for not having been executed and attested in accordance with law. such defect is fatal and must result in the disallowance of the will. On
CA affirmed the decision of RTC. this issue, the Court of Appeals held that the matter was not raised in
Issue: Whether or not the will was in compliance with Art. 805 in the motion to dismiss, and that it is now too late to raise the issue on
relation with Art. 809 of Civil Code; when although it does not appeal. We agree that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply in
mentioned the number of pages used in the will in the attestation probate proceedings. In addition, the language used in the will is part
clause but on the acknowledgement of the will there was a statement of the requisites under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure
that the will was composed of 7 pages yet the total number of pages and the Court deems it proper to pass upon this issue. Nevertheless,
of the will was 8. the contention must still fail. There is no statutory requirement to
Held: NO; the law is clear that the attestation must state the number state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect
of pages used upon which the will is written. The purpose of the law used in the will. This is a matter that a party may establish by proof
is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or aliunde. Oppositor further argues that Alipio, in his testimony, has
some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in the failed, among others, to show that Abada knew or understood the
pages. While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in contents of the will and the Spanish language used in the will.
the form of the attestation clause, Richard likewise failed in this However, Alipio testified that Abada used to gather Spanish-speaking
respect. The statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the subject people in their place. In these gatherings, Abada and his companions
last will and testament that it "consists of 7 pages including the page would talk in the Spanish language. This sufficiently proves that
on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written" cannot be Abada speaks the Spanish language.
deemed substantial compliance. The will actually consists of 8 pages
including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained
by mere examination of the will itself but through the presentation of
evidence aliunde. On this score is the comment of Justice J.B.L.
Reyes regarding the application of Article 809, to wit: The rule must
be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an
examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutively
numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every page;
whether the subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized.
All these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even
omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely
disregarded. But the total number of pages, and whether all persons
required to sign did so in the presence of each other must
substantially appear in the attestation clause, being the only check
against perjury in the probate proceedings.

Testate Estate of Alipio Adaba vs. Abaja, G.R. No. 147145,

January 32, 2005

Facts of the Case:

Abada died sometime in May 1940. Abada allegedly named
as his testamentary heirs his natural children Eulogio Abaja and
Rosario Cordova. Alipio is the son of Eulogio. The oppositors are the
nephews, nieces and grandchildren of Abada and Toray. They
opposed the petition on the ground that Abada left no will when he
died in 1940. They further alleged that the will, if Abada really
executed it, should be disallowed for the following reasons: (1) it was
not executed and attested as required by law; (2) it was not intended
as the last will of the testator; and (3) it was procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries. In
an Order dated 14 August 1981, the RTC-Kabankalan admitted to
probate the will of Toray. Since the oppositors did not file any motion
for reconsideration, the order allowing the probate of Toray's will
became final and executory. Not satisfied with the Resolution,
Caponong-Noble filed a notice of appeal.