compiled digest.doc

8/13/2019 compiled digest.doc

1/44

Nacar v NistalGR L-3306, December 8, 1982Facts:

Nacar filed a petition for certiorari etc to annlorder of respondent !d"e Nistal#$%e orderdirected attac%ment of seven carabaos & stop

!d"e from proceedin" 'it% case# (apitana filed aclaim a"ainst estate of Nacar 'it% preliminar)attac%ment# *t 'as said t%at Nacar abot todispose t%e propert) 'it% intent to defrad# Nicarfiled motion to dismiss to dissolve 'rit of t%epreliminar) in!nction & attac%ment, (d"e deniedt%e motion# $%e +preme ort directed issance

of preliminar) mandator) in!nction#Issue:%et%er or not (apitana can file claims a"ainstestate of *sabelo Nacar#Held:No filin" of mone) claim, e.-contracts b) action

a"ainst t%e admin is not allo'ed# *t s%old be filed

in t%e administration proceedin" of t%e estate of

t%e deceased in t%e case at bar, t%e claim of t%e

respondent arisin" from a contract ma) be

prsed onl) in t%e same administrative

proceedin" t%a t ma)be ta/en to settle t%e estate

of t%e deceased#


2/44

Dora er/ins nderson vs# *dona% +lade er/ins

GR L-1388 (anar) 31, 1961

$+

4n 5a) 10, 196, Dora er/ins nderson filed

a petition for t%e probate of t%e spposed last 'ill

and testament of t%e late "ene rt%r er/ins

'%o alle"edl) possessed of personal and real

properties 'it% a probate vale of ,000#00 and

Dora also filed an r"ent petition for t%e estate#

4n t%e same da), t%e cort issed an orderappointin" lfonso once nrile as special

administrator#

*dona% +lade er/ins, srvivin" spose of t%e

deceased, opposed to t%e said probate and t%e

special administrator sbmitted an inventor) of

t%e assets of t%e deceased at t%e time of %is

deat%#

$'o )ears later, t%e special administrator

sbmitted to t%e cort a petition see/in" at%orit)

to sell or "ive a'a) to some c%aritable

instittion7s certain personal properties# ort

reired t%e administrator to sbmit an inventor)

of t%e properties and t%s, %e li/e'ise sbmitted

it# *dona% er/ins opposed to t%e said proposed

sale#

laintiffs contention:

$%e special administrator %as t%e at%orit)

to sell t%e properties of t%e late "ene rt%r

er/ins# $%at t%e special administrator claims

t%at oppositor7defendant s%old alle"e on t%e

properties '%ic% s%e did not 'ant to sell and

t%at %er refsal to do so is an indication of %ernmeritorios claim#

Defendants contention:

*dora% er/ins contention 'as t%at t%e

special administrator %as no le"al at%orit) to


3/44

sell t%e properties becase it 'as peris%able in

natre#

# $%at sc% properties so"%t to be sold

'ere con!"al properties of %erself and %erdeceased %sband and t%e nat%ori;ed

removal of fine pieces of frnitre belon"in" to

t%e estate %ad been made# becase it 'as

peris%able in natre#

Lo'er corts decision:

$%e lo'er cort approved t%e proposed saleand also at%ori;ed t%e +%eriff of 5anila to

condct t%e same# Despite of t%e defendants

5otion for Reconsideration, t%e lo'er cort denies

sc% 5R#

%et%er or not t%e special administrator ma)

sell t%e properties of t%e late "ene rt%r

er/ins

?LD

No, t%e +preme ort %eld t%at t%e special

administrator can not sell t%e propert) of t%e late

rt%r er/ins#

*t is tre t%at t%e fnction of a specialadministrator is onl) to collect and preserve t%e

propert) of t%e deceased ntil a re"lar

administrator is appointed# @ot% t%e estate and

and its vale s%old be preserved#

Records s%o' t%at p to t%e time t%e proposed

sale 'as as/ed for and !diciall) approved, no

proceedin" %as )et been ta/en or even started, to

se"re"ate t%e alle"ed e.ecsive propert) of t%e

defendant from t%e mass of t%e estate spposedl)

left b) t%e deceased or to liidate t%e con!"al

partners%ip propert)#

*t does not appear t%at defendant 'as "iven a

reasonable opportnit) to point ot in '%ic% itemsin t%e inventor) s%e did not 'ant to sold# lso, it

did not even s%o' t%at an inirt) 'as made as to

t%e validit) of t%e "ronds of %er opposition#


4/44

Lo'er corts decision 'as set aside and 'it%

costs a"ainst t%e special administrator#

Wills and Succession

Rights to Succession transmitted from the moment

of death

DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ-ANDRES,

MARCELO I. SUAREZ, JR.,EVELYN SUAREZ-DE

LEON AND REGINIO I. SUAREZ, PETITIONERS,

VS.

THECOURT OF APPEALS, VALENTE RAYMUNDO,

VIOLETA RAYMUNDO, MA.CONCEPCION VITO AND

VIRGINIA BANTA RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 94918, S!"#$% &', 199'

F()"*+

Petitioners are brothers and sisters. Their father, MarceloSuarez died in 1955, leaving five parcels of land locatedin Pasig and Metro Manila. Unfortunately, the estate ofMarcelo Suarez has not been liuidated or partitioned. !n19"", petitioners# $ido$ed %other and &izal &ealty


5/44

'orporation lost in the consolidated cases for rescissionof contract, and $ere ordered by the 'ourt of (irst!nstance of &izal to pay, )ointly and severally, hereinrespondents the aggregate principal a%ount of about

P"*,*** as da%ages. Thus, the five the parcels of landin Pasig and Metro Manila, $ere levied and sold, in favorof the private respondents as the highest bidder. !n 19+,before the e-piration of the rede%ption period, petitionersfiled a an action against private respondents for theannul%ent of the auction sale and the recovery of theo$nership of the levied pieces of property. Petitionersallege that their rights $ere pre)udiced $hen the parcelsof land are levied and sold. ecause being strangers tothe case decided against their %other, they cannot beheld liable and that the five parcels of land, of $hich theyare co/o$ners, can neither be levied nor sold one-ecution. 0n the contrary, Private respondents clai%that the sale $as valid and that petitioners do not havethe legal capacity to annul the sale because they don#te-ercise any right over the property. The 'ourt of firstinstance ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering

petitioners to vacate the lots sub)ect of the )udicial saleto desist fro% re%oving or alienating i%prove%entsthereon and to surrender to private respondents theo$ner2s duplicate copy of the torrens title and otherpertinent docu%ents. The 'ourt of 3ppeals affir%ed thedecision of the lo$er court.

I**+

4hether or not petitioners acuire rights over theproperty

D)*o+

The Supre%e 'ourt ruled that petitioners are co/o$nersof the parcels of land, and they have rights over theproperty. Thus, the auction sale is invalid. 3rticle """ ofthe 'ivil 'ode provides that 6The rights to the successionare trans%itted fro% the %o%ent of the death of the

decedent.7 8ence, Petitioners beca%e co/o$ners of theproperty not because of their %other but through theiro$n right as children of their deceased father.(urther%ore, 3rticle +++ of the civil code provides that6The legiti%e of the legiti%ate children and descendantsconsists of one/half of the hereditary estate of the fatherand of the %other. The latter %ay freely dispose of there%aining half, sub)ect to the rights of illegiti%ate childrenand of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.7

3rticle +9 par. li:e$ise provides; 6!f there are t$o or%ore legiti%ate children or descendants, the survivingspouse shall be entitled to a portion eual to the legiti%eof each of the legiti%ate children or descendants.7Therefore, fro% the foregoing, the legiti%e of thesurviving spouse is eual to the legiti%e of each child.The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied andauctioned property is different fro% and adverse to that of


6/44

their %other. Petitioners are not barred in any $ay fro%instituting the action to annul the auction sale to protecttheir o$n interest.

Nelia onstantino, petitioner vs , respondent#

FACTS:

(4+ $4RR+ died intestate leavin" a parcel ofland located at @ala"tas, @lacan# +ometime in

198A, t%e %eirs of (osefa $orres, as vendors, andpetitioner Nelia # onstantino, as vendee,entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land 'it%a total land area of t'o %ndred and fift)


7/44

a"reement, t%e %eirs at%ori;ed petitioner toprepare t%e necessar) Deed of .tra!dicial+ettlement of state 'it% +ale#

fter %avin" t%e docment drafted - 'it% severalspaces left blan/ incldin" t%e specification as tot%e metes and bonds of t%e land - petitioneras/ed t%e %eirs to affi. t%eir si"natres on t%edocment# $%e %eirs si"ned t%e docment 'it%t%e nderstandin" t%at respondent rora +#Roe, one of t%e %eirs, 'old be present '%ent%e latter 'old see/ permission from t%e @reaof Lands and %ave t%e land srve)ed#

?o'ever, 'it%ot t%e participation of an) of t%e

$orres %eirs, t%e propert) 'as sbseentl)srve)ed, sbdivided# etitioner did not frnis%t%e %eirs 'it% copies of t%e Deed of .tra!dicial+ettlement of state 'it% +ale nor of t%esbdivision plan and t%e certificates of title# >ponsecrin" a cop) of t%e deed from t%e Re"istr) ofDeeds, t%e respondents learned t%at t%e area oft%e propert) prportedl) sold to petitioner 'asmc% bi""er t%an t%at a"reed pon b) t%eparties# *t alread) inclded t%e portion bein"

occpied b) t%e sposes +everino and onseloLim# 4n 2 (ne 1986, private respondents sent aletter to petitioner demandin" t%e srrender tot%em of t%e deed of settlement and conve)ance,t%e sbdivision plan and t%e certificates of titleBbt to no avail# $%s, t%e case for annlment oft%e sale

PLAINTIFFS CONTENTION:

etitioner presented t%e Deed of .tra!dicial+ettlement of state 'it% +ale dated 10 4ctober198A '%erein respondents a"reed to divide andad!dicate amon" t%emselves t%e in%erited

propert)# *n t%e same docment, t%e) cased t%esbdivision of t%e propert) into t'o


8/44

into accont t%at s%e 'as not able to enmerateall t%e si"natories to t%e docmentB '%ilepetitioner claimed t%at t%e docment 'as si"nedonl) after t%e srve) of t%e land 'as completed,

or on 10 4ctober 198A, sc% fact 'as ne"ated b)%er o'n 'itness '%o testified t%at t%e srve) 'ascondcted onl) on 16 4ctober 198AB and, '%ilepetitioner alle"ed t%at t%e docment 'as si"nedand notari;ed in 5anila no e.planation 'asoffered '%) t%e same cold not %ave been si"nedand notari;ed in @lacan '%ere notaries pblicabond '%ic% cold %ave been less inconvenientto t%e parties concerned# dditionall), t%e trialcort relied %eavil) on t%e assertions of

respondents as reflected in t%eir demand lettert%at t%e) did not "ive t%eir consent to t%e sale ofLot A-@# $%s, on 2C +eptember 1990 ordered t%eannlment and cancellation of t%e Deed of.tra!dicial +ettlement of state 'it% +ale#

APPELLATE COURTS DECISION:

4n 16 5arc% 199A respondent ort of ppealssstained t%e decision of t%e trial cort, and on 20

(ne 199A denied t%e motion to reconsider its

decision#

ISSUE:

%et%er or not t%e sale of t%e sb!ect propert)'as valid

HELD:

$%e +preme ort stated t%at it is not '%et%ert%e notar) pblic %ad t%e at%orit) toac/no'led"e t%e docment e.ected 'it%in %isterritorial !risdiction bt '%et%er respondents

indeed appeared before %im and si"ned t%e deed#?o'ever, evidence s%o's t%at t%e) did not#

$%e) also fond t%e alle"ation of respondents t%att%e) si"ned t%e deed prior to t%e srve), or beforedetermination of t%e area to be sold, 'ort%) ofcredit as a"ainst t%e contention of petitioner t%att%e) si"ned after t%e srve) or on 10 4ctober198A# s fond b) t%e trial cort, sc% contention'as contradicted b) petitioners o'n 'itness '%opositivel) asserted in cort t%at t%e srve) 'ascondcted onl) on 16 4ctober 198A or si.


9/44

lots srve)ed and sbdivided, and t%en casin"t%e issance of transfer certificates of title 'it%ott%eir /no'led"e, mc% less consent# $%s all t%eelements of frad vitiatin" consent for prposes of

annllin" a contract concr: L5N$ and7or DLR$*4N

4 N>LL*$E 4 Re"ional $rial ort in *ms,

avite# $%e) filed 'it% t%e FR$ an mended

omplaint to implead ne' and additional

defendants and to mention t%e $$s to beannlled pon learnin" t%at FGolden @a) sold

portions of t%e parcels of land in estion# $%e

mended omplaint 'as dismissed b) t%e

respondent cort# $%e) moved for reconsideration

of t%e 4rder dismissin" t%e mended omplaint#

$%e motion 'as "ranted b) t%e# $%e private

respondents presented a 5otion to Dismiss on


10/44

"st 12, 199, H3I on t%e "ronds t%at t%e

complaint failed to state a case of action, t%e)

%ave not establis%ed t%eir stats as %eirs, t%at t%e

land is different from t%at of t%e defendants and

t%at t%e claim 'as barred b) lac%es# $%e said5otion to Dismiss 'as "ranted b) t%e respondent

cort dated 4ctober 2, 199# $%e petitioners

etition for ertiorari before t%is ort is an

improper recorse# ppeal s%old %ave been

made# $%e trial cort cannot ma/e a declaration

of %eirs%ip in t%e civil action for t%e reason t%at

sc% a declaration can onl) be made in a special

proceedin"#

Pla$tff2s co$te$to$s:

$%e petitioners claimed are t%e le"al %eirs

of t%e late Gido and *sabel Eaptinc%a), t%e

o'ners-claimants of Lot No# 1131 and Lot No#

1132 in armona, avite# $%e) discovered t%at a

portion, of t%e aforesaid properties 'ere titled in

t%e name of respondent Golden @a) Realt) and

Development orporation


11/44

etition for ertiorari before t%is ort is an

improper recorse# $%eir proper remed) s%old

%ave been an appeal# n order of dismissal, be it

ri"%t or 'ron", is a final order, '%ic% is sb!ect to

appeal and not a proper sb!ect of certiorari#%ere appeal is available as a remed), certiorari

'ill not lie# Neit%er did t%e respondent cort

commit "rave abse of discretion in issin" t%e

estioned 4rder dismissin" t%e +econd mended

omplaint of petitioners#

Issue:

%et%er or not petitioners are le"al %eirs ofsaid deceased and t%at t%e) %ave a ri"%t of t%e

sb!ect propert)#

Held:

$%e ort rled t%at %old t%at t%e

respondent cort did t%e ri"%t t%in" in dismissin"

t%e +econd mended omplaint, '%ic% stated no

case of action# *n $ravel ide ssociated +ales

nder +ection 3, Rle 1

of t%e 199C Revised Rles of ort, a civil action

is defined as Fone b) '%ic% a part) ses anot%er

for t%e enforcement or protection of a ri"%t, or t%e

prevention or redress of a 'ron" '%ile a special

proceedin" is Fa remed) b) '%ic% a part) see/s

to establis% a stats, a ri"%t, or a particlar fact#

*t is t%en decisivel) clear t%at t%e declaration of

%eirs%ip can be made onl) in a special proceedin"

inasmc% as t%e petitioners %ere are see/in" t%e

establis%ment of a stats or ri"%t#$%e etition

nder consideration is %ereb) dismissed#


12/44

?T> &3@MU?A0, P>T!T!0?>&, 0(!ST3!S3B0? SU3&>C, A3?!=0 !. SU3&>C,>U(&0'!?3 SU3&>C, M3&'>=0 !. SU3&>C, D&,>=@? SU3&>C, >T 3=., &>SP0?A>?TS.(3'TS; Marcelo and Teofista !sagon Suarez2 %arriage$as blessed $ith both %aterial $ealth and progeny inherein respondents, na%ely, Aanilo,>ufrocina, MarceloDr., >velyn, and &eggineo, all surna%ed Suarez. Auringtheir %arriage, governed by the con)ugal partnership ofgains regi%e, they acuired nu%erous properties, 3fterthe death of Marcelo Sr. in 1955, Teofista and hereinrespondents, as $ell as >lpidio Suarez, e-ecuted an>-tra)udicial Settle%ent of >state,partitioning MarceloSr.2s estate, 'uriously, despite the partition, title to the


13/44

foregoing properties, e-plicitly identified in the>-tra)udicial Settle%ent of >state as for%ing part ofMarcelo2s and !sagon2s property regi%e, re%ained in thecouple2s na%e. !n 19"5, &izal &ealty 'orporation E&izal

&ealtyF and Teofista, the latter o$ning ninety percentE9*GF of the for%er2s shares of stoc:, $ere sued bypetitioner & '0U&T; issued an 0rder directing Teofista; E1F

to vacate the sub)ect properties, EF to desist fro%despoiling, dis%antling, re%oving or alienating thei%prove%ents thereon, EHF to place petitioner 3=S; '3 dis%issed Teofista2s andherein respondents2 petition for t$o reasons. (irst, aspurported case for certiorariit fails to sho$ ho$ therespondent )udge had acted $ithout or in e-cess of)urisdiction or $ith grave abuse of discretion. Secondly,as far as Teofista Suarez is concerned, she cannotco%plain about the levy because she $as a party in theconsolidated cases $here )udg%ent $as renderedagainst her in her personal capacity. Since she did notappeal fro% the decision, she cannot say that the)udg%ent is erroneous for an obligation that belong to thecorporation.

!ssue; 4hether or not respondents %ust first be declaredheirs of Marcelo Sr. before they can file action to annulthe )udicial sale of $hat is the con)ugal property ofteofista and Marcelo, Sr.


14/44

8eld; S' reversed the decision of &T' and 'ourt of3ppeals.

!t is no longer needed. !n Heirs of Yaptinchay, theco%plaint for annul%ent andKor declaration of nullity of

certain T'T2s $as dis%issed for failure of the petitionersto de%onstrate Jany proof or even a se%blance of itJ thatthey had been declared the legal heirs of the deceasedcouple, the spouses @aptinchay. !n star: contrast, therecords of this case reveal a docu%ent, an >-tra)udicialSettle%ent of Marcelo Sr.2s estate, $hich e-plicitlyrecognizes herein respondents as Marcelo Sr.2slegiti%ate children and heirs. The sa%e docu%ent settlesand partitions the estate of Marcelo Sr. specifyingTeofista2s paraphernal properties, and separates the

properties she o$ns in co%%on $ith her children, hereinrespondents. Plainly, there is no need to re/declareherein respondents as heirs of Marcelo Sr., and prolongthis case inter%inably. Petitioner


15/44

rsant to t%e e.tra!dicial settlement of t%eestate 'it% itclaim e.ected b) t%e sposesc%ildren, t%e sb!ect propert) 'as in%erited b)

Denison so/


16/44

1# E+# $%e plain intent of +ec# 119 is to "ive t%e%omesteader or patentee ever) c%ance topreserve and /eep in t%e famil) t%e land t%at t%e+tate %as "ratitosl) "iven %im as a re'ard for

%is labor in cleanin", developin" and cltivatin"it# ?ence, t%e fact t%at t%e land %ad beenin%erited b) t%e patentees son


17/44

certificate of sale 'as re"istered on December 2A,1992 and t%e one-)ear redemption period e.piredon December 2A, 1993# Rec/oned from t%at da),respondents %ad a five-)ear period, or ntil

December 2A, 1998, to e.ercise t%eir ri"%t toreprc%ase nder +ec# 119 of 1A1#onseentl), t%e 'as correct in %oldin" t%att%e complaint filed on 5a) 1, 1998 'as on time#


18/44

lad vs# lad FACTS:

Petitioners mother, Maria Aluad (Maria), and respondent

Zenaido Aluad were raised by the childless spouses Crispinand Matilde Aluad.

Crispin was the owner of six lots identified as ot !os. "#$,"#%, "#", "##, "&', and "& of the Pilar Cadastre, Capi. After

Crispin died, his wife Matilde ad*udicated the lots to herself.+n !oember -$, -&-, Matilde executed a /0eed of 0onation

of 1eal Property 2nter 3ios/ (0eed of 0onation) in faor of

petitioners mother Maria coerin4 all the six lots whichMatilde inherited from her husband Crispin on the condition

that it will be effect upon Matildes death and that she will

retain the ri4ht to use and dispose of such properties durin4 herlifetime. +n Au4ust ", --, Matilde sold ot "#" to Zenaido.5ubse6uently or on 7anuary -$, -, Matilde executed a last

will and testament,deisin4 ot !os. "#%, "##, "&, and "&' to

Maria, and her /remainin4 properties/ includin4 ot !o. "#$ torespondent.

Matilde died on 7anuary %, -$, while Maria died on

5eptember $ of the same year.

+n Au4ust -, -%, Marias heirs8herein petitioners filed acomplaint with the 19C, for declaration and recoery of

ownership and possession of ot !os. "#$ and "#", anddama4es a4ainst respondent.


9hat Maria Aluad is the sole dau4hter of Crispin and MatildeAluad and that they succeeded their ri4ht by inheritance and

that the six lots hae been donated inter ios to their mother.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

9hat ot "#$ is owned by the respondent as this lot was

ad*udicated to him in the ast :ill and 9estament of Matilde

Aluad while ot "#" was purchased by him from MatildeAluad. 9hese two lots are in his possession as true owners

thereof

LOWER COURT DECISION:

Matilde could hae not transmitted any ri4ht oer ot "#$ and

"#" oer to respondent, Zenaido, because she hae preiously

alienated said lots oer to Maria ia 0eed of 0onation. 9he

donation is inter ios.

APPELLATE DECISION:

9he CA reersed the trial courts decision, it holdin4 that the

0eed of 0onation was actually a donation mortis causa,

not inter vivos, and as such it had to, but did not, comply with

the formalities of a will (Art. &'%). :hile the appellate court

declared respondent as the ri4htful owner of ot !o. "#", it did

not so declare with respect to ot !o. "#$, as Matildes lastwill and testament had not yet been probated.

ISSUE/S:

:+! the donation is mortis causa and should comply with the

formalities of a will.


19/44

HELD:

9he Court finds the donation to petitioners mother one of

mortis causa, it hain4 the followin4 characteristics;

(-) 2t coneys no title or ownership to the transferee beforethedeath of the transferorUB>?!3 >. !BS0=0ETagapag%anaF

P3TU?3@ ?B MB3 S3RS!

3ng :asulatang ito, na binubuo ng dahon pati anghuling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a%in ni >ugenia >.!gsolo, tagapag%ana na siya niyang 8uling 8abilin,ngayon i:a/1* ng 8unyo 19+1, ay nilagdaan ng nasabingtagapag%ana sa ilali% ng :asulatang nabanggit at sa:ali$ang panig ng lahat at ba$a#t dahon, sa harap nglahat at ba$a#t sa a%in, at :a%i na%ang %ga sa:si aylu%agda sa harap ng nasabing tagapag%ana at sa harapng lahat at ba$a#t isa sa a%in, sa ilali% ng nasabing

:asulatan at sa :ali$ang panig ng lahat at ba$a#t dahonng :asulatan ito.

>UB>?!3 >. !BS0=0address; 5** San Aiego St.Sa%paloc, Manila &es. 'ert. ?o. 3/""1"/H"!ssued at Manila on March 1*, 19+1.


36/44

NU!&!?0 3B&330address; 3venue , lco: ",=ot I1, San Babriel, B.M3., 'avite &es.'ert. ?o. 3/"I+"" issued at 'ar%ona, 'avite on (eb. ",19+1

DU3?!T0 >ST&>&3address; 'ity 'ourt 'o%pound,'ity of Manila &es. 'ert. ?o. 35"+9!ssued at Manila on March , 19+1.

?ilagdaan :o at ninotario :o ngayong 1* ng 8unyo 1*,19+1 dito sa =ungsod ng Maynila.

ESgd.FP>T&0?!0 @. 3UT!ST3

Aoc. ?o. 1H ?0T3&!0 PU=!R0Page ?o. +I Until Aec. H1, 19+1oo: ?o. H PT&/15*1/1KK+1/ManilaSeries of 19+1 T3? 1H"/9""/+1

The three na%ed $itnesses to the $ill affi-ed theirsignatures on the left/hand %argin of both pages of the$ill, but not at the botto% of the attestation clause.

The probate petition adverted to only t$o EF heirs,legatees and devisees of the decedent, na%ely;petitioner hi%self, and one !rene =ynn !gsolo, $ho $asalleged to have resided abroad. Petitioner prayed that the

$ill be allo$ed, and that letters testa%entary be issued tothe designated e-ecutor,


37/44

The attestation clause did not state the nu%ber of pagesand it $as not signed by the attesting $itnesses at thebotto% thereof. The said $itnesses affi-ed theirsignatures on the left/hand %argin of both pages of the$ill though. Beralda 'astillo opposed the petition,

clai%ing that the $ill $as a forgery. She also argued thatthe $ill $as not e-ecuted and attested to in accordance$ith la$. She pointed out that the decedent#s signaturedid not appear on the second page of the $ill, and the $ill$as not properly ac:no$ledged.

0ppositor Beralda 'astillo also argued that the $ill $asnot e-ecuted and attested to in accordance $ith la$. Shepointed out that decedent#s signature did not appear onthe second page of the $ill, and the $ill $as not properly

ac:no$ledged. These t$in argu%ents are a%ong thecentral %atters to this petition.

LOWER COURTS DECISION:

The trial court held the $ill to be authentic and to havebeen e-ecuted in accordance $ith la$ and, thus,ad%itted it to probate, calling to fore 6the %oderntendency in respect to the for%alities in the e-ecution ofa $illV$ith the end in vie$ of giving the testator %ore

freedo% in e-pressing his last $ishes.7 3ccording to thetrial court, the declaration at the end of the $ill under thesub/title, 6Patunay ?g Mga Sa:si,7 co%prised theattestation clause and the ac:no$ledge%ent, and $as asubstantial co%pliance $ith the reuire%ents of the la$.!t also held that the signing by the subscribing $itnesseson the left %argin of the second page of the $illcontaining the attestation clause and ac:no$ledg%ent,

instead of at the botto% thereof, substantially satisfiedthe purpose ofidentification and attestation of the $ill.

APPELATE COURTS DECISION:The 'ourt of 3ppeals, ho$ever, reversed the trial court#sdecision and ordered the dis%issal of the petition forprobate. !t noted that the attestation clause failed to statethe nu%ber of pages used in the $ill, thus rendering the$ill void and undeserving of probate.

ISSUE:

1. 4hether or not the $ill $as not e-ecuted and

attested to in accordance $ith la$ Eattestationclause did not state the nu%ber of pages and it$as not signed by the attesting $itnesses at thebotto% thereof, and it $as not ac:no$ledge beforea notary publicF and, hence, should be ad%itted toprobate

HELD:

The petition is A>?!>A.

3 $ill $hose attestation clause does not contain thenu%ber of pages on $hich the $ill is $ritten is fatallydefective. 3 $ill $hose attestation clause is not signed bythe instru%ental $itnesses is fatally defective. 3ndperhaps %ost i%portantly, a $ill $hich does not containan ac:no$ledg%ent, but a %erejurat, is fatally defective.3ny one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. 3


38/44

notarial $ill $ith all three defects is )ust aching for )udicialre)ection. &>'>?T DU&!SP&UA>?'> Q '!

Prior to the ?e$ 'ivil 'ode, the statutory provisiongoverning the for%al reuire%ents of $ills $as Section

I1+ of the 'ode of 'ivil Procedure. >-tant therefro% isthe reuire%ent that the attestation state the nu%ber ofpages of the $ill. The enact%ent of the ?e$ 'ivil 'odeput in force a rule of interpretation of the reuire%ents of$ills, at least insofar as the attestation clause isconcerned, that %ay vary fro% the philosophy thatgoverned the said Section I1+.

3rticle +*9 of the 'ivil 'ode, the 'ode 'o%%issionopted to reco%%end a %ore liberal construction through

the *$*"("(0 )o#!0() %0. 8o$ever, DusticeD..=. &eyes cautioned that the rule 6%ust be li%ited todisregarding those defects that can be supplied by ane-a%ination of the $ill itself; $hether all the pages areconsecutively nu%bered $hether the signatures appearin each and every page $hether the subscribing$itnesses are three or the $ill $as notarized...ut thetotal nu%ber of pages, and $hether all persons reuiredto sign did so in the presence of each other %ustsubstantially appear in the attestation clause, being the

only chec: against per)ury in the probate proceedings.7

The 'ourt suggested in 'aneda v. 'ourt of 3ppealsEB.&. ?o. 1*H55, May +, 199H, S'&3 "+1F; 6therule, as it no$ stands, is that o%ission $hich can besupplied by an e-a%ination of the $ill itself, $ithout theneed of resorting to e-trinsic evidence, $ill not be fatal

and, correspondingly, $ould not obstruct the allo$ance toprobate of the $ill being assailed.

8o$ever, those o%issions $hich cannot be suppliede-cept by evidence aliunde $ould result in the

invalidation of the attestation clause and ulti%ately, of the$ill itself.7 The :(0% o: "; (""*"("o )0(* "o *"(""; #$% o: !(


39/44

the reuisite that the $ill be attested and subscribed bythe%. The signatures on the left/hand corner of everypage signify, a%ong others, that the $itnesses are a$arethat the page they are signing for%s part of the $ill. 0nthe other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause

establish that the $itnesses are referring to thestate%ents contained in the attestation clause itself. 3nunsigned attestation clause results in an unattested $ill.>ven if the instru%ental $itnesses signed the left/hand%argin of the page containing the unsigned attestationclause, such signatures cannot de%onstrate these$itnesses# underta:ings in the clause, since thesignatures that do appear on the page $ere directedto$ards a $holly different avo$al.

The notary public $ho notarized the sub)ect $ill $rote,6?ilagdaan :o at ninotario :o ngayong 1* ng 8unyo 1*EsicF, 19+1 dito sa =ungsod ng Maynila.7 y no %anner ofconte%plation can these $ords be construed as anac:no$ledg%ent. 3n ()?o0=


40/44

$hether all the pages are consecutively nu%bered$hether the signatures appear in each and every page$hether the subscribing $itnesses are three or the $ill$as notarized. 3ll these are facts that the $ill itself canreveal, and defects or even o%issions concerning the%

in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded. B""; "o"(0 #$% o: !( "; !%o$("!%o)=very $ill %ust be ac:no$ledged before anotary public by the testator and the $itnesses.


41/44

+L>D $4D4R4 MD# D R vs $4L$ G#R#No# C6C1A

FACTS:

Dr# (ose # nanan and %is 'ife, Dr# vel)n ere;-nanan, '%o became merican citi;ens,establis%ed a sccessfl medical practice in Ne'

Eor/, >#+## $%e nanans lived at No# 2896itation Drive, ompe), +)racse, Ne' Eor/, 'it%t%eir c%ildren, (ocel)n, 18B (aceline, 16B and

(osep%ine, 1A#

4n "st 23, 19C9, Dr# nanan e.ected a last'ill and testament, beeat%in" to %is 'ife Jallt%e remainderJ of %is real and personal propert)at t%e time of %is deat% J'%eresoever sitated#*n t%e event %e 'old srvive %is 'ife, %ebeeat%ed all %is propert) to %is c%ildren and"randc%ildren 'it% Dr# Rafael G# nanan, (r# astrstee# ?e appointed %is 'ife as e.ectri. of %islast 'ill and testament and Dr# Rafael G# nanan,

(r# as sbstitte e.ector#

or da)s later, on "st 2C, Dr# vel)n #nanan e.ected %er o'n last 'ill and

testament containin" t%e same provisions as t%atof t%e 'ill of %er %sband#

4n (anar) 9, 1982, Dr# nanan and %is entirefamil) peris%ed '%en t%e) 'ere trapped b) firet%at "tted t%eir %ome# $%ereafter, Dr# Rafael G#nanan, (r# as trstee and sbstitte e.ector oft%e t'o 'ills, filed separate proceedin"s for t%e


42/44

probate t%ereof 'it% t%e +rro"ate ort of t%eont) of 4nonda"a, Ne' Eor/# 4n pril C, t%eset'o 'ills 'ere admitted to probate and letterstestamentar) 'ere issed in %is favor#

Later, vel)ns mot%er, +ald ere;, filed apetition for reprobate in @lacan#


+ald said s%e 'as t%e sole %eir of %er da"%ter,vel)n, and t%at t%e t'o 'ills 'ere in accordance'it% Ne' Eor/ la'# @t before s%e cold presentevidence to prove t%e la' of Ne' Eor/, t%ereprobate cort alread) issed an order,disallo'in" t%e 'ills#

DEFENDANTS CONTENTION:

Defendant Rafael opposed, ar"in" t%at +ald'as not an %eir accordin" to Ne' Eor/ la'# ?econtended t%at since t%e 'ills 'ere e.ected inNe' Eor/, Ne' Eor/ la' s%old "overn# ?e frt%erar"ed t%at, b) Ne' Eor/ la', %e and %is brot%ersand sisters 'ere (oses %eirs and as sc% entitledto notice of t%e reprobate proceedin"s, '%ic%

+ald failed to "ive#

LOWER COURTS DECISION:

$%e last 'ill and testament 'as sbseentl)denied probate and on pril 30, 198, t%erespondent (d"e of @ranc% 18 of t%e Re"ional

$rial ort, 5alolos, to '%ic% t%e reprobate case'as reassi"ned, issed an order statin" t%at

J


43/44

$%e +preme ort rled t%at t%e respective 'illsof t%e nanan sposes, '%o 'ere mericanciti;ens, 'ill onl) be effective in t%is contr) poncompliance 'it% t%e follo'in" provision of t%eivil ode of t%e %ilippines:

rt# 816# $%e 'ill of an alien '%o is abroadprodces effect in t%e %ilippines if made 'it% t%eformalities prescribed b) t%e la' of t%e place in'%ic% %e resides, or accordin" to t%e formalitiesobserved in %is contr), or in conformit) 'it%t%ose '%ic% t%is ode prescribes#

$%s, proof t%at bot% 'ills conform 'it% t%eformalities prescribed b) Ne' Eor/ la's or b)

%ilippine la's is imperative# $%e evidencenecessar) for t%e reprobate or allo'ance of 'ills'%ic% %ave been probated otside of t%e%ilippines are as follo's:


44/44

compiled digest.doc

Documents

Transcript of compiled digest.doc