Succession Digests

5/24/2018 Succession Digests

1/18

CASEDIGESTS

on

SUCCESSION

Submitted By:

Nicdao, Hezekiah D.

Submitted To:

Atty. Mercy Diane D. Akia


2/18

92 SCRA 332 July 30, 1979

Francisca Alsua-Betts, Joseph O. Betts, Jose Madareta, Esteban P. Ramirez, And TheRegister Of Deeds For Albay Province,Petitioners

v.

Court Of Appeals, Amparo Alsua Buenviaje, Fernando Buenviaje, Fernando Alsua,Represented By His Guardian, Clotilde S. Alsua And Pablo Alsua,Respondents

FACTS:A notarized Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial was entered on the propertiesof spouses of Don Jesus Alsua, wife Doa Florentina, and all their remaining four (4)living children, on November 25, 1949. On January 5, 1956, both of the spouses madetheir holographic wills with the provisions conforming to the implementation of theextrajudicial partition. Codicils amending and supplementing the spouses respectiveholographic wills on 1956 and eventually admitted to probate. Don Jesus became

executor on the death of Doa Florentina and cancelled his previous holographic will,appointed daughter Francisca as executrix, and collated the properties to be donated tohis four children. At the death of their father, Francisca filed a petition of probate of the1959 will and was opposed by brother respondents.

ISSUE: Is the probate of the will acceptable?

HELD:Yes. The 1959 will amended the 1949 settlement and rendered latter as void. "A

will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death. (Art. 828, Civil Code)When it will not prejudice any heirs, he is not forced to follow any only one will.


3/18

G.R. No. L-8437 November 28, 1956

Estate Of K. H. Hemady,Petitioner

v.

Luzon Surety Co., Inc.,Respondent

FACTS: The estate of the deceased K. H. Hemady, a surety solidary guarantor, had aclaim filed by The Luzon Surety Co. on 20 different indemnity agreements or counter-bonds with different principals. A contingent claim, in the form of an allowance on theall the bonds values and attached unpaid premiums and documentary stamps with 12%interest. The claims of Luzon Surety were dismissed by the lower court before an answerwas given.

ISSUE:Are the obligations transmittable to Hemadys heirsupon his death?

HELD: Successors acquire a decedentscontractual rights and obligations, and that thedecedents liability, as a solidary guarantor, is not extinguishable by death. The contractthat the latter entered gives rise to claims by Luzon Surety Co. against his estate forreimbursement.


4/18

G.R. No. L-41715 June 18, 1976

Rosalio Bonilla (A Minor) Salvacion Bonilla (A Minor) And Ponciano Bonilla (TheirFather) Who Represents The Minors,Petitioners

v.

Leon Barcena, Maxima Arias Ballena, Esperanza Barcena, Manuel Barcena, AgustinaNeri, Widow Of Julian Tamayo And Hon. Leopoldo Gironella Of The Court Of First

Instance Of Abra, Respondents

FACTS: A civil action in the Court of First Instance of Abra to quiet title over certainparcels of land located in Abra was filed by Fortunata Barcena, wife of Ponciano Bonillaand mother of minors Rosalio and Salvacion Bonilla in 1975. Defendants, the same year

filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, due to Fortunatas death(a dead person has nolegal capacity to sue and cannot be a real party in interest). The motion to dismiss wasaccepted, despite a request for substitution by her minor children and her husband dueto Fortunatas death.

ISSUE: Are the heirs able to substitute a person who died during the pendency oflitigation?

HELD: Yes. Heirs can substitute decedent in pursuing the case up to its completion.The court acquired jurisdiction over Fortunata when she filed the case, primarily aboutproperty rights (which survives beyond death) and was still alive. "After a party dies andthe claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legalrepresentative of the deceased to appear and be substituted for the deceased, withinsuch time as may be granted ... " (Rule 3, Section 17, Rules of Court). The lower Courtshould force the appearance of substitute legal representative.


5/18

A.M. No. 2026-CFI December 19, 1981

Nenita De Vera Suroza,Petitioner

v.

Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado Of The Court Of First Instance Of Rizal, Pasig Branch 25And Evangeline S. Yuipco, Deputy Clerk Of Court,Respondents

FACTS: Childless couple Mauro Suroza married Marcelina Salvador adopted Agapito,who used the surname Suroza and who considered them as his parents. Lilia became thechild of Agapito and wife Nenita. Nenita was appointed as Agapitos guardian whenlatter became disabled. Trying to be his guardian, girlfriendArsenia de la Cruz, allegedthat Nenita was unfaithful and was living separately from Agapito, but was dismissed.Then, spouses Antonio Sy and Hermogena Talan begot a child named Marilyn Sy, who,when a few days old, was entrusted to Arsenia, and later delivered to Marcelina who

brought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapito, used the surname Suroza, and as herAn alleged notarial will was executed in English by Marcelina, though she was illiterate.Marina Paje, executrix in Marcelinas will, filed a petition for the probate. ThoughNenita alleged that Marina is a stranger to the will, Judge Honrado still issued thatNenita and other occupants of the testators house be ejected and place Marina inpossession thereof.

ISSUE

1. Is judge responsible for its negligence in handling a case?2. Is a will valid when the language used to prepare it is just translated?

HELD

1. Yes.A miscarriage of justice resulted because the decedent's legal heirs shouldhave inherited the decedent's estate and not the instituted heiress in the void will.The judge is criminally liable. (Art. 204-206, Revised Penal Code)

No. Every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. (Article

804, Civil Code). The language is not known to the testatrix.


6/18

G.R. No. L-1787 August 27, 1948

Testacy Of Sixto Lopez. Jose S. Lopez,Petitioner

V.

Agustin Liboro,Oppositor

FACTS: Don Sixto Lopezs last will and testament was allegedly not executed in allparticulars as required by law (the two-page will is not numbered and only affixed histhumbmark, and not signed it. Lopez should have directed another person to sign ifLopez suffered from partial paralysis), according to Liboro.

ISSUE

1. Is the will in correct form though the pages are unnumbered?2. Is the will in correct form though he only affixed his thumbmark?

HELD

1. Yes. Omission of the number in the firstpage is still identified in the context ofthe second page. To guard against fraud and substitution is the purpose of thelaw in prescribing the paging of wills.

2. Yes. No form is specified in signing as long as the requirement of putting asignature is satisfied in order to authenticate his will. The testator can freelychoose what mark he would use.


7/18

G.R. No. L-13431 November 12, 1919

In Re Will Of Ana Abangan. Gertrudis Abangan,Appellee

Anastacia Abangan, Et Al.,Appelants

FACTS: Court admitted to probate Ana Abangan's two page will. Appellants allegeseveral omissions are defects in will: No page numbers were included. The first pagecontained, the signature of Martin Montalban and three witnesses appear, while thesecond page contains only the attestation clause duly signed at the bottom by thewitnesses and no signature by the testatrix or the witnesses was placed on the leftmargin of the will; neither were there.

ISSUE: Is the will invalid due to the lack of signature and page numbers?

HELD: No. When all the dispositive parts of a will signed at the bottom by the testatorand three witnesses are written on one sheet only, the object of the statute cannot behidden and would be completely purposeless. (Act No. 2045)


8/18

G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993

Teodoro Caneda, Lorenza Caneda, Teresa Caneda, Juan Caballero, Aurea Caballero,Oscar Larosa, Helen Caballero, Santos Caballero, Pablo Caballero, Victor Raga, Mauricia

Raga, Quirica Raga, Ruperto Abapo, Represented Herein By His Attorney-In-Fact,Armsticia * Abapo Velano, And Conseso Caneda, Represented Herein By His Heirs,

Jesus Caneda, Natividad Caneda And Arturo Caneda,Petitioners

v.

Hon. Court Of Appeals And William Cabrera, As Special Administrator Of The Estate OfMateo Caballero,Respondents

FACTS: Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children executed a last will andtestament was leaving real and personal properties by way of legacies and devises.Before his petition seeking the probate could be heard, he already passed away. Benoni

Cabrera, one of the legatees, and eventually replaced by William Cabrera, then soughthis appointment as special administrator of the testators estate and petitionersinstituted a second petition opposed the probate of the Testator's will and theappointment of a special administrator for his estate. Petitioners allege that Mateo isalready in a poor state of health and is not able to execute will and also they contest thegenuineness of the testators signature.Will in question was declared the last will due tothe testimony of the attesting witnesses, Labuca, and the notary public.

ISSUE: Is the will invalidated by the omission of the attestation clause?

HELD:Yes. It is a fatal defect or imperfection and leads to its disallowance. Because itwould lack the evidence that witnesses signed document in presence of testator. Onlyintrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself will only cure the defect.


9/18

G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984

Rosa K. Kalaw,Petitioner

v.

Hon. Judge Benjamin Relova, Presiding Judge Of The Cfi Of Batangas, Branch Vi, LipaCity, And Gregorio K. Kalaw,Respondents

FACTS

Natividad K. Kalaw executed a holographic will and contains alterations andinsertions which are not authenticated with her signature. Rosas name, the decedentssister, was changed to her brother, Gregorio as Natividads sole heir and administrator,was crossed out and. Hence, the will was denied to probate by the trial court.

ISSUE

1. Is the will valid?

HELD

1. No. The Court cannot probate for the alteration is not authenticated, whichrequires the full signature of the testator. The holographic will contains only thesubstitution of original heir with another one. This is an exemption to a general

rule.


10/18

GAN V. YAP

PETITIONER: TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YAP deceased.FAUSTO E. GAN

OPPOSITOR: ILDEFONSO YAP

G.R. No. L-12190 August 30, 1958

FACTS

On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure in theUniversity of Santo Tomas Hospital. On March 17, 1952, Fausto E. Gan initiated theproceedings in the Manila court of first instance with a petition for the probate of aholographic will allegedly executed by the deceased. But the surviving husband,Ildefonso Yap, opposed the petition saying that his wife never left nor executed any will.

The court dismissed the probate for the petitioners cannot show the holographic willwhich they claim executed by Felicidad Esguerra. Sometime in 1950 after her last tripabroad, Felicidad Esguerra mentioned to her first cousin, Vicente Esguerra, her desire tomake a will. She also stated that she wanted to keep the will a secret from his husbandfor, if her husband knew it, it would be useless. Vicente then consulted Fausto E. Gan,Felicidads nephew, and the latter affirmed that such will would be possible if it wasmade entirely in her handwriting, signed and dated by her. When she was confined atthe U.S.T. Hospital, she entrusted her purse to Felina Esguerra. It contains her dulyexecuted holographic will. The purse, when she died at the hospital, was asked a coupleof times by her husband. If she really intended it to be a secret, she would not carry it tothe hospital, nor put it in her purse for safe-keeping. In the face of these improbabilities,

the trial judge had to accept the oppositor's evidence that Felicidad did not and couldnot have executed such holographic will.

ISSUE

1. Can a lost holographic will be validly accepted for probate?

HELD

1. No because the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic willmay not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/ or readsuch will. Since the will is not presented at Court, there are no means of assessingits authenticity. At the same time, the only guaranty of authenticity thetestators handwriting has already disappeared. Therefore, the rejection ofalleged will must be sustained.


11/18

RODELAS V. ARANZA

PETITIONER: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OFRICARDO B. BONILLA deceased, MARCELA RODELAS

OPPOSITORS:AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL.

INTERVENOR:ATTY. LORENZO SUMULONG

119 SCRA 16/ G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982

FACTS

On January 11, 1997 Marcela Rodelas filed a petition for probate on theholographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in herfavor. The appellees opposed the petition because the said holographic will is just a

photostatic copy, and not the original, authentic document personally written by thedeceased, which was already lost. Such copy will not take the place of the originaldocument, and should not be admitted as the material proof of authenticity.

ISSUE

1. Can a photostatic copy of the holographic will be probated in case the originaldocument was lost or is not found?

HELD

1. Yes, if there are other written documents showing, or witnesses attesting that thehandwriting indeed belongs to the testator. A photostatic copy or xerox copy ofthe holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with thestandard writings of the testator. Evidently, the ph copy of the lost or destroyedholographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of thehandwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.


12/18

CODOY V. CALUGAY

PETITIONERS: EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL

RESPONDENTS: EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, andEUFEMIA PATIGAS

312 SCRA 333/ G.R. No. 123486. August 12, 1999

FACTS

On January 16, 1990 Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal died, and the devisees andlegitees of his holographic will, namely Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo andEufemia Patigas, executed a petition for probate. In the petition, respondents claimedthat the deceased was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will onAugust 30, 1978, and that there was no fraud, undue influence, or duress employed in

the person of the testator, and the will was written voluntarily. But on June 28, 1990,petitioners filed an opposition to the petition for probate contesting the wills genuity.They alleged that the holographic will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible.Petitioners argued that the repeated dates appearing on the will after every dispositionare out of the ordinary. If the deceased was the one who executed the will, and was notforced, the dates and the signature should appear at the bottom after the dispositions, asregularly done and not after every disposition. And assuming that the holographic will isin the handwriting of the deceased, it was procured by undue and improper pressureand influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or through fraud and trickery.Respondents then brought 6 witnesses before the Court to ascertain that the signatureindicated in the will is indeed the handwriting of the deceased. In the end, - Codoy

and Ramonals demurrer to evidence was granted by the lower court, but the Court ofAppeals reversed the decision and granted the probate.

ISSUE

1. Is the three witnesses in the provision of Article 811 mandatory?2. Did the witnesses testimony satisfy the question of authenticity of the deceaseds

holographic will?

HELD

1. Yes.According to paragraph 1 of Article 811, If the will is contested, at least threeof such witnesses shall be required.The word shall is imperative obligation andis inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that theword shall, when used in a statute, is mandatory.


13/18

2. No. None of them were present during the actual signing of the deceased. So, notone of them can validly declare that the signature belongs to Matilde Seo Vda.de Ramonal. Whats more suspicious is the fact that the deceaseds signaturecontains different strokes when they were compared with the other documents.The idea that undue influence arises, which the witnesses themselves are

incompetent to answer.


14/18

GAGO V. MAMUYAC

PETITIONER: Estate of Miguel Mamuyac, deceased. FRANCISCO GAGO

OPPOSITORS: CORNELIO MAMUYAC, AMBROSIO LARIOSA, FELICIANABAUZON, and CATALINA MAMUYAC

G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927

FACTS

July 27, 1918 Miguel Mamuyac executed a last will and testament, and onJanuary 2, 1922, he already passed away. On the same month and year, Francisco Gagoexecuted a probation for that will. Said probation was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac,Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac. The petitions weredismissed by Honorable C. M. Villareal on the ground that there was a new will and

testament executed by the deceased on April 16, 1919. The 1919 will was again opposedon the ground that it was just a mere copy, it was cancelled and revoked by Mamuyachimself, and it was not his last will and testament. The 1919 will was again denied forprobation for the same had been cancelled and revoked in the year 1920. - According tothe witnesses, the original of the said will was in the possession of Mamuyac before hisdeath who revoked the same.

ISSUE

1. Was the will presented for probate cancelled by the testator himself?

HELD

1. Yes. it may be stated that there is positive proof, not denied, which was acceptedby the lower court, that will in question had been cancelled in 1920. The fact thatsuch cancellation or revocation has taken place must either remain unproved ofbe inferred from evidence s showing that after due search the original will cannotbe found. Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in thepossession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence ofother competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed.


15/18

MALOTO V. CA

PETITIONERS: TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ALDINAMALOTO CASIANO, CONSTANCIO MALOTO, PURIFICACION MIRAFLOR, ROMANCATHOLIC CHURCH OF MOLO, AND ASILO DE MOLO

RESPONDENTS: COURT OF APPEALS, PANFILO MALOTO AND FELINO MALOTO

G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988

FACTS

On October 20, 1963, Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece andnephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and theprivate respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Since the petitioners know thatthe deceased executed no will, theyve applied for an inestate proceeding for their aunts

estate. On February 1, 1964, the petitioners agreed that they execute an agreement ofextrajudicial settlement of Adrianas estate; each of which will get four (4) equal parts.Three years later Atty. Palma, discovers a document which appears to be Adrianas lastwill and testament. In that will, the shares of Aldina and Constancio are bequeathedmuch bigger and more valuable shares than those of Panfilo and Felino. The deviseesand legatees named in the will filed a motion for reconsideration and annulment of theproceedings therein and for the allowance of the will. But the Court denied theirpetition.

ISSUE

1. Was the will revoked by Adriana?

HELD

1. No. The physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not perse constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled withanimus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physicaldestruction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by anotherperson but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. Of

course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself.In this case, Guadalupe and Eladios testimonies appear "inconclusive because itis a double hearsay.


16/18

MOLO V. MOLO

PETITIONER:Testate Estate of the Deceased MARIANO MOLO Y LEGASPI. JUANAJUAN VDA. DE MOLO

OPPOSITORS: LUZ, GLICERIA and CORNELIO MOLO

G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951

FACTS

On January 24, 1941, Mariano Molo y Legaspi died without designating anyforced heir either in the ascending or descending line. He was survived by his wife, theherein petitioner Juana Juan Vda. de Molo, and by his nieces and nephew, theoppositors-appellants, Luz Gliceria and Cornelio, all surnamed Molo, who were thelegitimate children of Candido Molo y Legaspi, deceased brother of the testator. He left

two wills. One was executed on August 17, 1918, and the other on June 20, 1939, whichcontains a revocation clause. On February 7, 1941, Juana Juan Vda. de Molo filed apetition for probation of the will executed by the deceased on June 20, 1939. Therebeing no opposition, the will was probated. When the oppositors filed the order of thecourt, admitting the will to probate was set aside and the case was reopened. Afterhearing, at which both parties presented their evidence, the court rendered decisiondenying the probate of said will on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that thesame was executed in accordance with law. The widow just filed a petition for probationon the 1918 will due to the disallowance in the 1939 will. Again, the same oppositorsfiled an opposition to the petition based on three grounds: (1) that petitioner is nowestopped from seeking the probate of the will of 1918; (2) that said will has not been

executed in the manner required by law and (3) that the will has been subsequentlyrevoked.

ISSUE

1. Will a will be revoked if the latter will did not comply with the conformitiesrequired by the law?

HELD

1. No. In this case, we should take into consideration the Doctrine of DependentRelative Revocation, that is, the failure of a new testamentary disposition uponwhose validity the revocation depends, is equivalent to the non-fulfilment of thesuspensive conditions, and hence prevents the revocation of the original will. Wehold therefore, that even in the supposition that the destruction of the originalwill by the testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner toproduce it in court, such destruction cannot have the effect of defeating the prior


17/18

will of 1918 because of the fact that it is founded on the mistaken belief that thewill of 1939 has been validly executed and would be given due effect.


18/18

DIAZ V. DE LEON

PETITIONER: In the mater of the estate of Jesus de Leon. IGNACIA DIAZ

OPPONENT:ANA DE LEON

G.R. No. 17714 May 31, 1922

FACTS

Jesus de Leon, after executing the first will, asked that the said will be returned tohim. For some reasons, he was anxious to withdraw or change the provisions he hadmade in his first will. Such fact was disclosed by the testator's own statements to thewitnesses Canto and the Mother Superior of the Hospital where he was confined. Whenthe original will was returned to the testator, he ordered his servant to tear thedocument. This act was done in the presence of his servant and a nurse.

ISSUE

1. Was the will executed by Jesus De Leon revoked by him?

HELD

1. Yes. The original will was already destroyed with animo revocandi. The act oftearing the document was expressly ordered by the testator. The decedents

intention of revoking the will was even disclosed to third persons. Hence, it canbe proven that he, himself revoked the first will.

Succession Digests

Documents

Transcript of Succession Digests