74. MOLO VS MOLO
1
Molo vs. Molo G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951 Bautista Angelo, J. (Ponente) Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation Facts: 1. Marcos Molo executed 2 wills, one in August 1918 and another in June 1939. The latter will contained a revocation clause which expressly revoked the will in 1918. He died without any forced heirs but he was survived by his wife, herein petitioner Juana. The oppositors to the probate were his nephews and nieces. 2. Only a carbon copy of the second will was found. The widow filed a petition for the probate of the 1939 will. It was admitted to probate but subsequently set aside on ground that the petitioner failed to prove its due execution. 3. As a result, the petitioner filed another petition for the probate of the 1918 will this time. Again the oppositors alleged that said will had already been revoked under the 1939 will. They contended that despite the disallowance of the 1939 will, the revocation clause is valid and thus effectively nullified the 1918 will. Issue: Whether or not the 1918 will can still be valid despite the revocation in the subsequent disallowed 1939 will RULING: Yes.The court applied the doctrine laid down in Samson v. Naval that a subsequent will,containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the reason that it was not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will, inasmuch as the said revocatory clause is void. There was no valid revocation in this case. No evidence was shown that the testator deliberately destroyed the original 1918 will because of his knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in the will executed in 1939.The earlier will can still be probated under the principle of dependent relative revocation.The doctrine applies when a testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with the intention to make a new testamentary disposition as substitute for the old, and the new disposition fails of effect for some reason. - See more at: http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/02/molo-v-molo- digest.html#sthash.8U3waKhw.dpuf
description
SUCCESSION
Transcript of 74. MOLO VS MOLO
Molo vs. MoloG.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951Bautista Angelo, J. (Ponente)Doctrine of Dependent Relative RevocationFacts:1. Marcos Molo executed 2 wills, one in August 1918and another in June 1939. The latter willcontained a revocation clause which expresslyrevoked the will in 11!. "e died without any forced heirs #ut he was survived #y his wife, herein petitioner $uana. The oppositors to the pro#atewere his nephews and nieces.2. %nly a car#on copy of the second willwas found. The widow filed a petition for the pro#ate of the 1& will. 't was ad(itted to pro#ate #utsu#se)uently set aside on *round that the petitioner failed to prove its due execution. &. +s a result, the petitioner filed another petition for the pro#ate of the 11! will this ti(e. +*ain the oppositors alle*ed that said will had already#een revoked under the 1& will. They contended that despite the disallowance of the 1& will, the revocation clause is valid and thus effectivelynullified the 11! will.ssue! "#et#er or not t#e 1918 $%ll &'n st%ll be v'l%( (esp%te t#e revo&'t%on %n t#e subse)uent (%s'llo$e( 1939 $%llR*LNG! +es.The court applied the doctrine laid down in Samson v. Naval that a su#se)uent will,containin* a clause revokin* a previous will, havin*#een disallowed for the reason that it was not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of annullin* the previous will, inas(uch asthe said revocatory clause is void.There was no valid revocation in this case. ,o evidence was shown that the testator deli#erately destroyed the ori*inal 11! will #ecause of hisknowled*e of the revocatory clause contained in the will executed in 1&. ,#e e'rl%er $%ll &'n st%ll be prob'te( un(er t#e pr%n&%ple o- (epen(entrel't%ve revo&'t%on.,#e (o&tr%ne 'ppl%es $#en ' test'tor &'n&els or (estro.s ' $%ll or e/e&utes 'n %nstrument %nten(e( to revo0e ' $%ll $%t#t#e %ntent%on to m'0e ' ne$ test'ment'r. (%spos%t%on 's subst%tute -or t#e ol(, 'n( t#e ne$ (%spos%t%on -'%ls o- e--e&t -or some re'son.- .ee (ore at: http://lawsandfound.#lo*spot.co(/201&/02/(olo-v-(olo-di*est.ht(l1sthash.!2&wa3hw.dpuf
