Succession - Atty. Almazan Cases

7/25/2019 Succession - Atty. Almazan Cases

1/23

Case digests

RabadillaRABADILLA vs. CA (JUNE 29, 2000)

In the Codicil of testatrix, Dr. Rabadilla was instituted as a devisee of Lot No. 139 contained thefollowing !rovisions a"ong others#

1. Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, ever$ $ear to give to %elle&a 1'' !iculs ofsugar until %elle&a dies(

. )hould Rabadilla die, his heir to who" he shall give Lot No. 139 shall have the obligation tostill give $earl$, the sugar as s!eci*ed to %elle&a.

3. In the event that the lot is sold, leased, or "ortgaged, the bu$er, lessee, "ortgagee shall havealso the obligation to res!ect and deliver $earl$ sugar to %elle&a. )hould the co""and be notres!ected %elle&a shall i""ediatel$ sei&e the lot and turn it over to the testarix neardescendants.

HELD:Not a case of si"!le substitution. In si"!le substitutions, the second heir ta+es the inheritance in

default of the *rst heir b$ reason of inca!acit$, !redecease or renunciation. he Codicil fo not !rovidethat should Dr. Rebadilla default due to !redecease, inca!acit$ or renunciation, the testatrix-s neardescendants would substitute hi". hat the Codicil !rovides is that, should Dr. /orge Rabadilla or hisheirs not ful*ll the conditions i"!osed int he Codicil, the !ro!ert$ referred to shall be sei&eddddd andturned over to the testanix-s near descendants.

Neither is there a *deico""issar$ substitution. In a *deico""issar$ substitution, the *rst heir isstrictl$ "andated to !reserve the !ro!ert and to trans"it the sa"e later to the second their. 0ere, theinstituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil to alienate the !ro!ert$ !rovided the negotiation iswih the near descendants or the sister of teh testatrix. hus, a ver$ i"!ortant ele"ent of a*deico""issar$ substitution is lac+ing, the obligation clearl$ i"!osing u!on the *rst heir, the!reservation of the !ro!ert$ and its trans"ission to the second heir. lso, the near descendants- rightto inherit fro" the testatrix is not de*nite. he !ro!ert$ will onl$ !ass to the" should Dr. Rabadilla ofhis heirs not ful*ll the obligation to deliver !art of the usufruct to !rivate res!ondent. 2oreover,*deico""issar$ substitution is void if the *rst heir is not related b$ *rst degree to the second heir. In

the case under scrutin$, the near descendants are not all related to the instituted heir, Dr. Rabadilla.

Not a conditional institution. It is clear that the testatrix intended that the lot be inherited b$ Dr.Rabadilla. It is li+ewise clearl$ worded that the testatrix i"!osed an obligation on the said institutedheir and his successorsininterest to deliver sugar to %elle&a, during the lifeti"e of the latter.0owever, the testatrix did not "a+e Dr. Rabadilla-s inheritance and the e4ectivit$ of his institution as adevisee, de!endent on the !erfor"ance of the said obligation. It is clear though that should theobligation be not co"!iled wiht the !ro!ert$ shall be turned over to the testatrix near descendants.)ince testa"entar$ dis!ositions are generall$ acts of liberalit$ an obligation i"!osed u!on the heirshould not be considered a condition unless it clearl$ a!!ears fro" the ill itself that such was theintention of the testator. In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as "odal anotconditional.

he "anner of institution of Dr. Rabadilla is "odal in nature because it i"!oses a charge u!on the

instituted heir without, however, a4ecting the e5cac$ of such institution. 6"ode7 i"!oses anobligation u!on the heirrrrr or legatee but it does not a4ect the e5cac$ of his rights to the succession.8n the other hand, in a conditional testa"entar$ dis!osition, the condition "ust ha!!en or be ful*lledin order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator. he condition sus!ends but does notobligate( and the "ode obligates but does not sus!end. o so"e extent, it is si"ilar to a resolutar$condition.

Herreros


2/23

1. )tatutor$will"a+ing is "erel$ a !rivilege, not an inherent right. he law can withouttesta"entar$ !ower. 0ence, will "ust be, subordinated to law land !olic$ 0erreros vs :il ;;


3/23

that Kthe contents of ?xhibit % are couched in the language ordinaril$ used in a si"!lea5davit and as such, "a$ not have the legal e4ect and force to a testa"entar$dis!osition.K0owever, ?xhibit % does !arta+e of the nature of a will. will is de*ned in article == ofthe Civil code of )!ain as Kthe act b$ which a !erson dis!ose of all his !ro!ert$ or a

!ortion of it,K and in article ;3 of the new Civil Code as Kan act whereb$ a !erson is!er"itted, with the for"alities !rescribed b$ law, to control to a certain degree thedis!osition of his estate, to ta+e e4ect after his death. ?xhibit % co"es within thisde*nition.

Merza and Seangio

1. Dis!osition of


4/23

the will in the !resence of three witnesses who also each signed in each !resence, thewill was not actuall$ written b$ the testator.

I))?# Is it necessar$ that a will be written b$ the testator herselfF

0?LD# No. )ection =1; of the Civil Code reEuires 1> that the will be in writing and >either that the testator sign it hi"self or, if he does not sign it, that it be signed b$ so"eone in his !resence and b$ his ex!ress direction. ho does the "echanical wor+ ofwriting the will is a "atter of indi4erence. he fact, therefore, that in this case the willwas t$!ewritten in the o5ce of the law$er for the testratrix is of no conseEuence.

Dizon Rivera vs Dizon

MARINA DIZON-RIVERA, executrix-appellee,

vs.

ESTELA DIZON, TOMAS V. DIZON, BERNARDITA DIZON, JOSEFINA DIZON,

ANGELINA DIZON and LILIA DIZON, oppositors-appellants.

33 SCRA 554 (19!"

The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, ratherthan one which will render any of the expressions inoperative. Of the two projects of partition submitted by

the contending parties, that project which will give the greatest effect to the testamentary disposition should

be adopted. Thus, where the testatrix enumerated the specific properties to be given to each compulsory heirand the testatrix repeatedly used the words "I beueath" was interpreted to mean a partition of the estate by an

act mortis causa, rather than as an attempt on her part to give such properties as devises to the designated

beneficiaries. !ccordingly, the specific properties assigned to each compulsory heir were deemed to be in

full or partial payment of legitime, rather than a distribution in the nature of devises.

The tenor of the decision notwithstanding, it is important to note the provision of !rticle # which reads$

"%egitime is that part of the testator&s property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for

certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs." !rticle # is couched upon a negative prohibition

"cannot dispose of". In the will under consideration, the testatrix disposed of practically her entire estate by

designating a beneficiary for each property. 'ecessarily, the testamentary dispositions included that portion ofthe estate called "legitime." It is thus imperative to reconcile the tenor of !rticle ()) *which is the basis of

the following decision+ with !rticle #.

FACTS# In (#(, !gripina alde *widow+ died and was survived by seven compulsory heirs$ # legitimate

children and ( legitimate granddaughter. /arina is the appellee while the others were the appellants

(. alde left a w ill executed in 0ebruary (#) and written in 1ampango. The beneficiaries were the 2


5/23

compulsory heirs and six grandchildren

3. In her will, alde distributed and disposed of her properties *assessed at 1(. million+ which

included real and personal properties and shares of stoc4s at 1ampanga 5ugar 6entral 7evt 6o

8. 7uring the probate proceedings, /arina *appellee+ was name the executor of the deceased9s estate

:. In her will, alde commanded that her property be divided in accordance with her testamentarydisposition where she devised and beueathed specific real properties comprising almost her entire

estate among her heirs. ;ased on the partition, /arina and Tomas were to receive more than theother heirs

O' the last will of the deceased is to be considered controlling in this case

%ELD# ?es. !rt 2 and 2( '66 provide that "If a testamentary disposition admits of differentinterpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be

preferred" and "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 modes of interpreting

a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy." In illanueva v. Auico, the 56 held that " &'

)n&n&)*n+ and )+'+ * &' &+&a&*, 'n /0a0 2++d )n ')+ )00, /*n+&)&& &' )2d 0a *

)n&&a&)*n, and a00 +&)*n+ a)+d a& &' &)a0, 0a&)6 &* )&+ 2/&)*n and 0)007n&, 7+& 8

+&&0d )n a//*dan/ &')&', *00*)n &' 0a)n and 0)&a0 7an)n * &' &+&a&*:+ *d+, n0++

)& /0a0 aa+ &'a& ')+ )n&n&)*n a+ *&')+.;

The testator&s wishes and intention constitute the first and principal law in the matter of testaments, and to

paraphrase an early decision of the 5upreme 6ourt of 5pain, when expressed clearly and precisely in his last

will, amount to the only law whose mandate must imperatively be faithfully obeyed and complied with by his

executors, heirs and devisees and legatees, and neither these interested parties nor the courts may substitute

their own criterion for the testator&s will. Thus, the oppositors9 proposition for partition cannot be given effect.

O' 1!BTITIO'$ T' &+&a7n&a d)+*+)&)*n * &' d/dn& a+ )n &' na& * a a&)&)*n. In her

will, the decedent noted that after commanding that upon her death all her obligations as well as the expenses

of her last illness and funeral and the expenses for the probate of her last will and for the administration of her

property in accordance with law, be paid, +' 2++0 *6)dd &'a& ;)& )+ 7 )+' and I /*77and &'a&

7 *& 8 d)6)dd; )n a//*dan/ )&' &' d)+*+)&)*n+ )77d)a&0 &'a& *00*)n,

'8 +' +/))d a/' a0 *& )n ' +&a& and d+)na&d &' a&)/0a ') a7*n '

+6n /*70+* ')+ and +6n *&' and/')0dn &* '*7 +' 8a&'d &' +a7. T')+ a+ a


6/23

6a0)d a&)&)*n * ' +&a&, a+ /*n&70a&d and a&'*) a a&)&)*n * ')+ +&a& 8 an a/& inter vivos* 8 )00, +/'

a&)&)*n +'a00 8 +/&d, )n+*a a+ )& d*+ n*& ?d)/ &' 0)&)7 * &' /*70+* ')+.;

6!;$ This was properly complied with in the executor9s project of partition as the oppositors wereadjudicated the properties respectively distributed and assigned to them by the decedent in her will and the

differential to complete their legitimes were ta4en from the cash and=or properties of /arina and Tomas, who

were obviously favored by the decedent in her will.

!side from the provisions of !rt )# and )2, other codal provisions support the executrix-appellee&s project

of partition as approved by the lower court rather than the counter-project of partition proposed by

oppositors-appellants whereby they would reduce the testamentary disposition or partition made by the

testatrix to one-half and limit the same, which they would consider as mere devises and legacies, to one-half

of the estate as the disposable free portion, and apply the other half of the estate to payment of the legitimes

of the seven compulsory heirs. Oppositors& proposal would amount substantially to a distribution by intestacy

andpro tanto nullify the testatrix&s will, contrary to !rt 2( '66.

C00C6T O0 1!BTITIO'$ &! partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the

property adjudicated to him", from the death of her ancestors, subject to rights and obligations of the latter,

and, she cannot be deprived of her rights thereto except by the methods provided for by law

7CI5C5$ The adjudication and assignments in the testatrix&s will of specific properties to specific heirs

cannot be considered all devises, for it clearly appears from the whole context of the will and the dispositions

by the testatrix of her whole estate *save for some small properties of little value already noted at the

beginning of this opinion+ that her clear intention was to partition her whole estate through her will.0urthermore, the testatrix&s intent that her testamentary dispositions were by way of adjudications to the

beneficiaries as heirs and not as mere devisees, and that said dispositions were therefore on account of the

respective legitimes of the compulsory heirs is expressly borne out in the fourth paragraph of her will,

immediately following her testamentary adjudications in the third paragraph in this wise$ "0ODBTE$ I

li4ewise command that in case any of those I named as my heirs in this testament any of them shall die before

I do, his forced heirs under the law enforced at the time of my death shall inherit the properties I beueath to

said deceased."

6O%%!TIO'$ 6ollation is not applicable in this case because here, distribution and partition of the entire

estate was made by the testatrix, without her having made any previous donations during her lifetime whichwould reuire collation to determine the legitime of each heir nor having left merely some properties by will

which would call for the application of !rt ()#( to ()#8 of the 6ivil 6ode on collation.

6!' TEC O11O5ITOB5 7C/!'7 /OBC TE!' TECIB %CFITI/CG 'o. Their right was merely to

demand completion of their legitime under !rticle )# of the 6ivil 6ode and this has been complied with in


7/23

the approved project of partition, and they can no longer demand a further share from the remaining portion

of the estate, as beueathed and partitioned by the testatrix principally to the executrix-appellee.

)da* De )illanueva vs +ui,o

)DA* DE )ILLA-UE)A vs +UIC. / SCRA %%0&

In the will of the testator he beEueathed in favor of his wife Q certain !ro!erties for her 6use and!ossession while alive and she does not contract a second "arriage otherwise, the !ro!erties shall!ass to the testator-s grandniece.7 It was contended that the title to the !ro!erties beca"e absolutel$vested in the estate of the window u!on her death, on account of the fact that she never re"arried.

0eld# he grandniece is entitled to the !ro!erties for the !lain intent of the testator was to invest hiswidow onl$ with a lifeti"e usufruct subGect to the condition that if she re"arried, her rights wouldthereu!on cease even during her lifeti"e. It would have been di4erent, had he given her fullownershi! because not having re"arried, the grand niece could not inherit fro" her. his is in contrastwith the re"ainder of the estate in which she was instituted universal heir together with the testator-s

brother. If the testator had intended to i"!ose as sole condition the nonre"arriage of his widow, thewords use and !ossession while alive- would have been unnecessar$, since she could onl$ re"arr$during her own lifeti"e.

0? 8RD) 8@ ILL R? 8 R?C?IS? N IN?R


8/23

categories, i.e., inter vivosor mortis causa. If it was a waiver e4ective intervivos, then it would have a"ounted to a donation to inter vivosto the wife.hat would have been illegal under existing laws. 8n the other hand, if it was awaiver mortis causa, then the for"alities of a will should have been observed,failing which, the waiver would be void. @urther"ore, the waiver mortis causawould have reEuired the wife to survive the husband. In either case, thealleged waiver b$ the husband of his half share in the conGugal estate resultedin a trans"ission of !ro!ert$ to the wife. nd conseEuentl$, a characteri&ationof such waiver along the !ara"eters "entioned above is necessar$ andinesca!able. he funda"ental Euestion, therefore, that de"ands an answer iswhether or not a husband or wife could waive his or her share in the conGugalestate in favor of the other b$ an act inter vivos. e exclude, however, awaiver resulting fro" a successful !etition for se!aration of !ro!ert$, and theliEuidation of the conGugal !artnershi! or for that "atter, the absolute

co""unit$ of !ro!ert$> resulting fro" the issuance of a decree of annul"entor a decree of nullit$.

It "a$ be sur"ised that the validit$ of the waiver had to be assu"ed,!ro!erl$ or i"!ro!erl$, otherwise the case will fall under the !rovision ofrticle ;H which categoricall$ states that the "a+ing of a will is strictl$ a!ersonal act, and that the exercise of testa"entar$ discretion cannot bedelegated b$ a !erson to another. In an$ case, %alana$ leaves "an$ Euestions

unanswered. Let alone the fact that the decision did not discuss wh$ thehusband was not !reterited within the "eaning of rticle ;H.

9ACTS: @elix %alana$ /r. !!elaed the order of the C@I, declaring illegal andvoid the will of his "other, Leodegaria /ulian, converting the testate!roceeding into an intestate !roceeding and ordering the issuance of thecorres!onding notice to creditors

1. Leodegaria /ulian, a native of )ta 2aria, Ilocos )ur, died on @ebruar$ 1,

193 in Davao Cit$ at the age of sixt$seven. )he was survived b$ herhusband, @elix %alana$, )r., and b$ their six legiti"ate children, na"el$,@elix %alana$, /r., velina %. ntonio, %eatri& %. )ola"o, Carolina %.2anguiob, Delia %. Lanaban and ?"ilia %.


9/23

conGugal lands which she described as K"$ !ro!ertiesK> should bedivided and distributed in the "anner set forth in that !art of her will.)he devised and !artitioned the conGugal lands as if the$ were all ownedb$ her. )he dis!osed of in the will her husbands onehalf share of theconGugal assets.

H. @elix %alana$, )r. and velina %. ntonio o!!osed the !robate of the willon the grounds of lac+ of testa"entar$ ca!acit$, undue inUuence,!reterition of the husband and alleged i"!ro!er !artition of the conGugalestate.

. @elix %alana$, /r. attached an a5davit of @elix %alana$, )r. dated !ril 1;,193 wherein he withdrew his o!!osition to the !robate of the will anda5r"ed that he was interested in its !robate. 8n the sa"e date @elix%alana$, )r. signed an instru"ent ca!tioned KConfor"ation sic> ofDivision and Renunciation of 0ereditar$ RightsK wherein he "anifestedthat out of res!ect for his wifes will he Kwaived and renouncedK hishereditar$ rights in her estate in favor of their six children.

=. velina %. ntonio, an o!!ositor, in her reGoinder contended that thea5davit and Kconfor"ationK of @elix %alana$, )r. were void. he lowercourt in its order of /une 1;, 193 KdeniedK the o!!osition and reset forhearing the !robate of the will. It gave e4ect to the a5davit andconfor"it$ of @elix %alana$, )r.

. nother law$er a!!eared in the case, tt$. David 8. 2ontana, clai"ing tobe the law$er of !etitioner @elix %alana$, /r. *led a "otion dated)e!te"ber , 193 for Kleave of court to withdraw !robate of allegedwill of Leodegaria /ulian and reEuesting authorit$ to !roceed b$ intestateestate !roceeding.K velina %. ntonio and Delia %. Lanaban, thorughtt$. /ose %. :u$o, "anifested their confor"it$ with the "otion for the

issuance of a notice to the creditor.;. he lower court, acting on the "otions of tt$. 2ontana and tt$. :u$oassu"ed that the issuance of a notice to creditors was in order. Itado!ted the view of tt$s. 2ontana and :u$o that the will was void. Itdis"issed the !etition for !robate and converted the testate !roceedinginto an intestate !roceeding.

9. @elix %alana$, /r., through a new counsel, Roberto 2. )arenas, in averi*ed "otion dated !ril 1, 19H, as+ed for the reconsideration of thelower courts order of @ebruar$ ;, 19H on the ground that tt$.2ontana had no authorit$ to withdraw the !etition for the allowance ofthe will.

ISSUE: 8N the !robate court erred in !assing u!on the intrinsic validit$ ofthe will, before ruling on its allowance or for"al validit$, and in declaring thewill void.


10/23

HELD:

he trial court acted correctl$ in !assing u!on the wills intrinsic validit$ evenbefore its for"al validit$ had been established. he !robate of a will "ightbeco"e an idle cere"on$ if on its face it a!!ears to be intrinsicall$ void.

here !ractical considerations de"and that the intrinsic validit$ of the will be!assed u!on, even before it is !robated, the court should "eet the issue.

%ut the !robate court erred in declaring in its order of @ebruar$ ;, 19H thatthe will was void and in converting the testate !roceeding into an intestate!roceeding notwithstanding the fact that in its order of /une 1;, 193 it gavee4ect to the surviving husbands confor"it$ to the will and to his renunciationof his hereditar$ rights which !resu"abl$ included his onehalf share of the

conGugal estate.

he rule is that Kthe invalidit$ of one of several dis!ositions contained in a willdoes not result in the invalidit$ of the other dis!ositions, unless it is to be!resu"ed that the testator would not have "ade such other dis!ositions if the*rst invalid dis!osition had not been "adeK rt. 9, Civil Code>. Khereso"e of the !rovisions of a will are valid and others invalid, the valid !arts willbe u!held if the$ can be se!arated fro" the invalid without defeating theintention of the testator or interfering with the general testa"entar$ sche"e,or doing inGustice to the bene*ciariesK

he state"ent of the testatrix that she owned the Ksouthern halfK of theconGugal lands is contrar$ to law because, although she was a coownerthereof, her share was inchoate andpro indivisort. 1H3, Civil Code>. %ut thatillegal declaration does not nullif$ the entire will.

@elix %alana$, )r. could validl$ renounce his hereditar$ rights and his onehalfshare of the conGugal !artnershi! rt. 191> and 1'H1, Civil Code>, but insofaras said renunciation !arta+es of a donation of his hereditar$ rights and his onehalf share in the conGugal estate rt. 1''1>, Civil Code>, it should be subGectto the li"itations !rescribed in articles ' and of the Civil Code. !ortion


11/23

of the estate should be adGudicated to the widower for his su!!ort and"aintenance. 8r at least his legiti"e should be res!ected.

he will is intrinsicall$ valid and the !artition therein "a$ be given e4ect if itdoes not !reGudice the creditors and i"!air the legiti"es. he distribution and!artition would beco"e e4ective u!on the death of @elix %alana$, )r. In the"eanti"e, the net inco"e should be eEuitabl$ divided a"ong the children andthe surviving s!ouse.

It should be stressed that b$ reason of the surviving husbands confor"it$ tohis wifes will and his renunciation of his hereditar$ rights, his onehalf conGugalshare beca"e a !art of his deceased wifes estate. 0is confor"it$ had thee4ect of validating the !artition "ade in !aragra!h S of the will without!reGudice, of course, to the rights of the creditors and the legiti"es of theco"!ulsor$ heirs.

rticle 93 of the Civil Code !rovides that K!ro!ert$ acEuired after the "a+ingof the will shall onl$ !ass thereb$, as if the testator had !ossessed it at theti"e of "a+ing the will, should it ex!ressl$ a!!ear b$ the will that such was hisintention.K nder article 93' of the Civil Code, Kthe legac$ of devise of a thing

belonging to another !erson is void, if the testator erroneousl$ believed thatthe thing !ertained to hi". %ut if the thing beEueathed, though not belongingto the testator when he "ade the will, afterwards beco"es his b$ whatevertitle, the dis!osition shall ta+e e4ect.K

In the instant case there is no doubt that the testatrix and her husbandintended to !artition the conGugal estate in the "anner set forth in !aragra!hS of her will. It is true that she could dis!ose of b$ will her half of the conGugal

estate rt. 1', Civil Code> but since the husband, after the dissolution of theconGugal !artnershi!, had assented to her testa"entar$ !artition of theconGugal estate, such !artition has beco"e valid, assu"ing that the will "a$be !robated. In the instant case, the !reterited heir was the surviving s!ouse.0is !reterition did not !roduce intestac$. 2oreover, he signi*ed his confor"it$to his wifes will and renounced his hereditar$ rights.


12/23

It results that the lower court erred in not !roceeding with the !robate of thewill as conte"!lated in its uncancelled order of /une 1;, 193.

estac$ is favored. Doubts are resolved in favor of testac$ es!eciall$ where thewill evinces an intention on the !art of the testator to dis!ose of !racticall$ his

whole estate. )o co"!elling is the !rinci!le that intestac$ should be avoidedand that the wishes of the testator should !revail that so"eti"es the languageof the will can be varied for the !ur!ose of giving it e4ect.

Estate o rigor vs rigor "8 S /8# n2a

)illa;or vs +ui,o 9eb 1"5 !871 n2a

4a'bad vs Gonzales

4AM3AD vs G.-6ALES ! SCRA !!%$&

!!ellant *led an action against the a!!ellees that the latter e"!lo$ the for"er as tenant during hislifeti"e on !arcels of land beEueathed to the a!!ellees. he lower court ruled that the !rovisions ofthe will relied u!on b$ the a!!ellant "erel$ a"ount to a suggestion to a!!ellees, who, through "orall$bound, are not legall$ co"!elled to follow said suggestion because the word pahintulutan e"!lo$edwith the reference to the wor+ing of a!!ellant on the lands onl$ "eans to !er"it or to allow but not to

direct a!!ellees to a!!oint a!!ellant as tenant.

0eld# lower court is wrong. he real i"!ort of the wish of the testatrix for her will contains a cleardirective to e"!lo$ a!!ellant as "a$ be seen fro" the words !receding the word !ahintulutan whichsa$# Da!at din na"an "ala"an ng dalawa +ong taga!ag"ana ... na sila a$ "a$ da!at tung+ulin oga"!anan ga$a ng su"usunod. 6he words tung+ulin o ga"!anan "ean to do or to carr$ out as a"andate or directive and having reference to the word !ahintulutan, can conve$ no other "eaningthan to i"!ose a dut$ u!on the a!!ellees.

In re


13/23

will( that it was in the handwriting of the testator and that although at the ti"e it was executed and atthe ti"e of the testator-s death, holographic wills were not permitted by law still, because at the ti"eof the hearing and when the case was to be decided the new Civil Code was alread$ in force, whichCode !er"itted the execution of hologra!hic wills, under a liberal view, and to carr$ out the intentionof the testator which according to the trial court is the controlling factor and "a$ override an$ defectin for", said trial court b$ order dated /anuar$ H, 19, ad"itted to !robate the Last ill andesta"ent of @ather )ancho badia.

0?LD# he for"al validit$ of a will de!ends u!on the observance of the law in force at the ti"e it is"ade, not b$ the law in force at the ti"e of the testator-s death, or at the ti"e the su!!osed will is!resented in court for !robate, or when the !etition is decided b$ the court. ConseEuentl$, the validit$of a will is not a4ected b$ the subseEuent a"end"ent of the law with res!ect to for"alities after theexecution of the will, whether before or after the death of the testator. here a will was void for failureto observe certain for"alities under the law then in force, a subseEuent law lessening or dis!ensingwith said for"alities cannot be a!!lied so as to validate the void will. hus, the fact that the New CivilCode allows a hologra!hic will does not validate one "ade before its e4ectivit$ and void under the!revailing law.

Ibarle vs PoI%RL? v.


14/23

Testate estate o t>e late abada

esae Esae *+ #e Lae A$ii* Abada v. Ba-a .R. N*. /&/!, Januar1 /, 200!'

bada executed his notarial will on /une H, 193 but he died when the New Civil Code too+ e4ect. hewill was not ac+nowledged before a notar$ !ublic. Is the will validF

0?LD# J?). he laws in force at that ti"e are the Civil Code of 1;;9 or the 8ld Civil Code and ct No.19' or the Code of Civil


15/23

Intrinsic Salidit$ fro" the Siew!oint of


16/23

has s!eci*call$ chose to leave, inter alia, the a"ount of successional rights to the decedent-s nationallaw. )!eci*c !rovisions "ust !revail over general ones.

Testate estate o C>ristensen ?an #!5 !87#

esae Esae *+ C#risensen v. ar4ia Januar1 /, /9%'

If the conUicts rules under the national law of the deceased refer the "atter to the law of the do"icileand the foreigner was do"iciled in the


17/23

ith res!ect to foreign law governing !rocedure in !robate "atters in case of re!robate in the


18/23

validit$ of udre$-s will, es!eciall$ with regard as to who are her heirs is governed b$ her national law,i.e., the law of the )tate of 2ar$land, as !rovided in rticle 1= of the Civil Code. hile foreign laws donot !rove the"selves in our Gurisdiction and our courts are not authori&ed to ta+e Gudicial notice ofthe"( however, tt$. ncheta, as ancillar$ ad"inistrator of udre$-s estate, was dut$bound tointroduce in evidence the !ertinent law of the )tate of 2ar$land. tt$. ncheta ad"itted that he failedto introduce in evidence the law of the )tate of 2ar$land on ?states and rusts, and "erel$ relied onthe !resu"!tion that such law is the sa"e as the


19/23

8ld ge# >ernaez v. >ernaez (/ "#i$ %6) Deliriu"# 8rdinaril$ not. 8nl$ when beclouds the "ind so as not to understand the nature of

act, extent of !ro!ert$, obGects of bount$ Ill health# even if hand is guided in signing will, l$ing down and unable to "ove or stand u!

unassisted M Ne1ra v. Ne1ra (&% "#i$ ) ?ccentricities Siolente"!era"ent


20/23

3ugnao vs Ubag !/P!7#

Torres vs loez de 3ueno /"P$$1

San,>o vs Abella

Alsua@betts vs ,a ?ul( #05 !8$8

Avelino vs dela ,ruz 1!%1!

+o,son vs ?o,son /7$0!

Cu(ugan vs baron

Caguioa vs ,alderon 10/00

4a tua vs (a ,a Fuan 1$%$8

Sa'son v ,orrales tan =uintin //%$#

Carillo vs ?ao?o,o /78%$

Hernaez v >ernaez !7"#

-e(ra vs ne(ra $7###

Albornoz v albornoz $!/!/

Torres v loez /" $$1


21/23

Ra'irez v Ra'irez #8s!/$ n2a

+un=uera v 3orro'eo !8s7%7 n2a

Sa'son v ,orrales tan //%$#

Cu(ugan vs baron and baron 71%"8

Gonzalez v Gonzalez nov* 185 !8%!

Abada v aba?a gr !/$!/%

Testate Estate o t>e Late Aliio Abada v* Aba?a G*R* -o* !/$!/%5 +anuar( #!5 100%&

bada died so"eti"e in 2a$ 19H'. 0is widown il !8$#&

here there is want of ex!ression in the bod$ of the will itself or in the attestation clause thatthe testator +new the language in which the will was written, !roof thereof "a$ be establishedb$ evidence aliunde. lthough lac+ of such evidence "a$ be cured b$ !resu"!tion of+nowledge of the language or dialect used in the will, no such !resu"!tion can arise where, as


22/23

in the case at bar, the will was executed in )!anish, while the testtor was a Sisa$an residing in)an /uan, Ri&al at the ti"e of his death.

Loez v liboro "! /18

estator need not be !ro*cient in the language used. It is su5cient that he can "a+e +nownhis testa"entar$ act through the language used.

il /$7&

he circu"stance a!!earing in the will itself that sa"e was executed in the Cit$ of Cebu and inthe dialect of this localit$ where the testatrix was a neighbour is enough, in the absence of an$

!roof to the contrar$, to !resu"e that she +new this dialect in which her will is written.

A,o v iraso %1770

A,o v* Piraso5 %1 Pil* 770Nor can the !resu"!tion in favor of a will established b$ this court in bangan v. bangan H' , to the e4ect that the testator is !resu"ed to +now the dialect of the localit$ where he resides,unless there is !roof to the contrar$, even be invo+ed in su!!ort of the !robate of will, because in theinstant case not onl$ is it not!roven that ?nglish is the language of the Cit$ of %aguio where thedeceased


23/23

he failure of the !etitioner-s witnesses to testif$ that the testatrix +new and s!o+e )!anishdoes not in itself alone su5ce to conclude that this i"!ortant reEuire"ent of the law has notbeen co"!lied with when there is though evidence of record which su!!lies this technicalo"ission. he fact that the testatrix was a "esti&a ?s!anola, was "arried to a )!aniard, "adeseveral tri!s to )!ain and so"e of her letters sub"itted as evidence b$ the o!!ositor werewritten in )!anish b$ the testatrix in her own writing give rise to the !resu"!tion that thetestatrix +new the language in which the testa"ent has been written, which !resu"!tion

should stand unless the contrar$ is !roven.

Testate estate o ?avellana v ?avellana !07!8$#

Testate Estate o +avellana v*+avellana!07 P>il !8$#&

here there is want of ex!ression in the bod$ of the will itself or in the attestation clause thatthe testator +new the language in which the will was written, !roof thereof "a$ be establishedb$ evidence aliunde. lthough lac+ of such evidence "a$ be cured b$ !resu"!tion of+nowledge of the language or dialect used in the will, no such !resu"!tion can arise where, asin the case at bar, the will was executed in )!anish, while the testtor was a Sisa$an residing in

)an /uan, Ri&al at the ti"e of his death.

Suroza vs >onrado !!0s#1

Suroza v* Honrado !!0 S #1&

estator "ust +now or at least understand the language. his lac+ of +nowledge cannot becured b$ inter!retation or ex!lanation of the contents to the testator.

Succession - Atty. Almazan Cases

Documents

Transcript of Succession - Atty. Almazan Cases