Nacar v Nistal GR L-3306, December 8, 1982 Facts: Nacar filed a petition for certiorari etc to ann l order of respondent

! d"e Nistal#$%e order directed attac%ment of seven carabaos & stop ! d"e from proceedin" 'it% case# (apitana filed a claim a"ainst estate of Nacar 'it% preliminar) attac%ment# *t 'as said t%at Nacar abo t to dispose t%e propert) 'it% intent to defra d# Nicar filed motion to dismiss to dissolve 'rit of t%e preliminar) in! nction & attac%ment, ( d"e denied t%e motion# $%e + preme ,o rt directed iss ance of preliminar) mandator) in! nction# Issue: -%et%er or not (apitana can file claims a"ainst estate of *sabelo Nacar# Held: No filin" of mone) claim, e.-contracts b) action a"ainst t%e admin is not allo'ed# *t s%o ld 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 p rs ed onl) in t%e same administrative proceedin" t%a t ma)be ta/en to settle t%e estate of t%e deceased#

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

Dora 0er/ins 1nderson vs# *dona% +lade 0er/ins GR L-12388 (an ar) 31, 1961

31,$+

$'o )ears later, t%e special administrator s bmitted to t%e co rt a petition see/in" a t%orit) to sell or "ive a'a) to some c%aritable instit tion7s certain personal properties# ,o rt re8 ired t%e administrator to s bmit an inventor) of t%e properties and t% s, %e li/e'ise s bmitted it# *dona% 0er/ins opposed to t%e said proposed sale#

4n 5a) 10, 1926, Dora 0er/ins 1nderson filed a petition for t%e probate of t%e s pposed last 'ill and testament of t%e late 6 "ene 1rt% r 0er/ins '%o alle"edl) possessed of personal and real properties 'it% a probate val e of 02,000#00 and Dora also filed an r"ent petition for t%e estate# 4n t%e same da), t%e co rt iss ed an order appointin" 1lfonso 0once 6nrile as special administrator#

0laintiff9s contention: $%e special administrator %as t%e a t%orit) to sell t%e properties of t%e late 6 "ene 1rt% r 0er/ins# $%at t%e special administrator claims t%at oppositor7defendant s%o ld alle"e on t%e properties '%ic% s%e did not 'ant to sell and t%at %er ref sal to do so is an indication of %er nmeritorio s claim#

*dona% +lade 0er/ins, s rvivin" spo se of t%e deceased, opposed to t%e said probate and t%e special administrator s bmitted an inventor) of

Defendant9s contention: *dora% 0er/ins contention 'as t%at t%e special administrator %as no le"al a t%orit) to

sell t%e properties beca se it 'as peris%able in nat re# # $%at s c% properties so "%t to be sold 'ere con! "al properties of %erself and %er deceased % sband and t%e na t%ori;ed removal of fine pieces of f rnit re belon"in" to t%e estate %ad been made# beca se it 'as peris%able in nat re#

No, t%e + preme ,o rt %eld t%at t%e special administrator can not sell t%e propert) of t%e late 1rt% r 0er/ins# *t is tr e t%at t%e f nction of a special administrator 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 val e s%o ld be preserved#

Lo'er co rt9s decision: $%e lo'er co rt approved t%e proposed sale and also a t%ori;ed t%e +%eriff of 5anila to cond ct t%e same# Despite of t%e defendant9s 5otion for Reconsideration, t%e lo'er co rt denies s c% 5R# <5otion for Reconsideration=

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.ec sive propert) of t%e defendant from t%e mass of t%e estate s pposedl) left b) t%e deceased or to li8 idate t%e con! "al partners%ip propert)#

*++>6 -%et%er or not t%e special administrator ma) sell t%e properties of t%e late 6 "ene 1rt% r 0er/ins ?6LD

*t does not appear t%at defendant 'as "iven a reasonable opport nit) to point o t in '%ic% items in t%e inventor) s%e did not 'ant to sold# 1lso, it did not even s%o' t%at an in8 irt) 'as made as to t%e validit) of t%e "ro nds of %er opposition#

Lo'er co rt9s 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, Marcelo Suarez died in 1955, leaving five parcels of land located in Pasig and Metro Manila. Unfortunately, the estate of Marcelo Suarez has not been li uidated or partitioned. !n 19"", petitioners# $ido$ed %other and &izal &ealty

'orporation lost in the consolidated cases for rescission of contract, and $ere ordered by the 'ourt of (irst !nstance of &izal to pay, )ointly and severally, herein respondents the aggregate principal a%ount of about P"*,*** as da%ages. Thus, the five the parcels of land in Pasig and Metro Manila, $ere levied and sold, in favor of the private respondents as the highest bidder. !n 19+,, before the e-piration of the rede%ption period, petitioners filed a an action against private respondents for the annul%ent of the auction sale and the recovery of the o$nership of the levied pieces of property. Petitioners allege that their rights $ere pre)udiced $hen the parcels of land are levied and sold. .ecause being strangers to the case decided against their %other, they cannot be held liable and that the five parcels of land, of $hich they are co/o$ners, can neither be levied nor sold on e-ecution. 0n the contrary, Private respondents clai% that the sale $as valid and that petitioners do not have the legal capacity to annul the sale because they don#t e-ercise any right over the property. The 'ourt of first instance ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate the lots sub)ect of the )udicial sale1 to desist fro% re%oving or alienating i%prove%ents thereon1 and to surrender to private respondents the o$ner2s duplicate copy of the torrens title and other pertinent docu%ents. The 'ourt of 3ppeals affir%ed the decision of the lo$er court.

I**, + 4hether or not petitioners ac uire rights over the property5

D )-*-o.+ The Supre%e 'ourt ruled that petitioners are co/o$ners of the parcels of land, and they have rights over the property. Thus, the auction sale is invalid. 3rticle """ of the 'ivil 'ode provides that 6The rights to the succession are trans%itted fro% the %o%ent of the death of the decedent.7 8ence, Petitioners beca%e co/o$ners of the property not because of their %other but through their o$n right as children of their deceased father. (urther%ore, 3rticle +++ of the civil code provides that 6The legiti%e of the legiti%ate children and descendants consists of one/half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the %other. The latter %ay freely dispose of the re%aining half, sub)ect to the rights of illegiti%ate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.7 3rticle +99 par. 9 li:e$ise provides; 6!f there are t$o or %ore legiti%ate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion e ual to the legiti%e of each of the legiti%ate children or descendants.7 Therefore, fro% the foregoing, the legiti%e of the surviving spouse is e ual to the legiti%e of each child. The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is different fro% and adverse to that of

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

Nelia ,onstantino, petitioner vs ,1, respondent# FACTS: (4+631 $4RR6+ died intestate leavin" a parcel of land located at @ala"tas, @ lacan# +ometime in 198A, t%e %eirs of (osefa $orres, as vendors, and petitioner Nelia 1# ,onstantino, as vendee, entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land 'it% a total land area of t'o % ndred and fift) <220= s8 are meters# $%e lot, o'ned in common b) t%e $orres %eirs, is bein" occ pied b) petitioners9 mot%er and sister# 1n ad!oinin" lot, also co-o'ned b) t%e %eirs, is bein" occ pied b) spo ses +everino and ,ons elo Lim# 0 rs ant to t%eir

a"reement, t%e %eirs a t%ori;ed petitioner to prepare t%e necessar) Deed of 6.tra! dicial +ettlement of 6state 'it% +ale# 1fter %avin" t%e doc ment drafted - 'it% several spaces left blan/ incl din" t%e specification as to t%e metes and bo nds of t%e land - petitioner as/ed t%e %eirs to affi. t%eir si"nat res on t%e doc ment# $%e %eirs si"ned t%e doc ment 'it% t%e nderstandin" t%at respondent 1 rora +# Ro8 e, one of t%e %eirs, 'o ld be present '%en t%e latter 'o ld see/ permission from t%e @ rea of Lands and %ave t%e land s rve)ed# ?o'ever, 'it%o t t%e participation of an) of t%e $orres %eirs, t%e propert) 'as s bse8 entl) s rve)ed, s bdivided# 0etitioner did not f rnis% t%e %eirs 'it% copies of t%e Deed of 6.tra! dicial +ettlement of 6state 'it% +ale nor of t%e s bdivision plan and t%e certificates of title# >pon sec rin" a cop) of t%e deed from t%e Re"istr) of Deeds, t%e respondents learned t%at t%e area of t%e propert) p rportedl) sold to petitioner 'as m c% bi""er t%an t%at a"reed pon b) t%e parties# *t alread) incl ded t%e portion bein" occ pied b) t%e spo ses +everino and ,ons elo Lim# 4n 2 ( ne 1986, private respondents sent a letter to petitioner demandin" t%e s rrender to t%em of t%e deed of settlement and conve)ance, t%e s bdivision plan and t%e certificates of titleB b t to no avail# $% s, t%e case for ann lment of t%e sale PLAINTIFFS CONTENTION:

0etitioner presented t%e Deed of 6.tra! dicial +ettlement of 6state 'it% +ale dated 10 4ctober 198A '%erein respondents a"reed to divide and ad! dicate amon" t%emselves t%e in%erited propert)# *n t%e same doc ment, t%e) ca sed t%e s bdivision of t%e propert) into t'o <2= lots and ac/no'led"ed t%e sale to petitioner of t%e said lot# 1s a conse8 ence, on 18 5arc% 1982, t%e Re"ister of Deeds iss ed $,$s in t%e name of t%e %eirs of (osefa $orres and of petitioner# DEFENDANTS CONTENTION: 0rivate respondents said t%at all t%e %eirs si"ned t%e doc ment before t%e land 'as s rve)ed and s bdivided, %ence, t%ere 'as as )et no definite area to be sold t%at co ld be indicated in t%e deed at t%e time of t%e si"nin"# $%e) also claimed t%at t%e) 'ere not notified abo t t%e s rve) and t%e s bdivision of t%e lot and t%erefore t%e) co ld not %ave a"reed on t%e area s pposedl) sold to petitioner# $%e respondent %eirs insist t%at t%e) co ld not %ave a"reed to t%e e.tent of t%e area act all) reflected in t%e deed beca se it incl ded t%e portion bein" occ pied b) t%e Lim spo ses, '%ic% 'as alread) t%e s b!ect of a previo s a"reement to sell bet'een t%em and t%eir predecessor# LOWER COURTS DECISION: $%e trial co rt %ad do bts 'it% respect to t%e preparation and d e e.ec tion of t%e Deed of 6.tra! dicial +ettlement of 6state 'it% +ale ta/in"

into acco nt t%at s%e 'as not able to en merate all t%e si"natories to t%e doc mentB '%ile petitioner claimed t%at t%e doc ment 'as si"ned onl) after t%e s rve) of t%e land 'as completed, or on 10 4ctober 198A, s c% fact 'as ne"ated b) %er o'n 'itness '%o testified t%at t%e s rve) 'as cond cted onl) on 16 4ctober 198AB and, '%ile petitioner alle"ed t%at t%e doc ment 'as si"ned and notari;ed in 5anila no e.planation 'as offered '%) t%e same co ld not %ave been si"ned and notari;ed in @ lacan '%ere notaries p blic abo nd '%ic% co ld %ave been less inconvenient to t%e parties concerned# 1dditionall), t%e trial co rt relied %eavil) on t%e assertions of respondents as reflected in t%eir demand letter t%at t%e) did not "ive t%eir consent to t%e sale of Lot A-@# $% s, on 2C +eptember 1990 ordered t%e ann lment and cancellation of t%e Deed of 6.tra! dicial +ettlement of 6state 'it% +ale# APPELLATE COURTS DECISION: 4n 16 5arc% 199A respondent ,o rt of 1ppeals s stained t%e decision of t%e trial co rt, and on 20 ( ne 199A denied t%e motion to reconsider its decision# ISSUE: -%et%er or not t%e sale of t%e s b!ect propert) 'as valid HELD:

$%e + preme ,o rt stated t%at it is not '%et%er t%e notar) p blic %ad t%e a t%orit) to ac/no'led"e t%e doc ment e.ec ted 'it%in %is territorial ! risdiction b t '%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 fo nd t%e alle"ation of respondents t%at t%e) si"ned t%e deed prior to t%e s rve), or before determination of t%e area to be sold, 'ort%) of credit as a"ainst t%e contention of petitioner t%at t%e) si"ned after t%e s rve) or on 10 4ctober 198A# 1s fo nd b) t%e trial co rt, s c% contention 'as contradicted b) petitioner9s o'n 'itness '%o positivel) asserted in co rt t%at t%e s rve) 'as cond cted onl) on 16 4ctober 198A or si. <6= da)s after t%e si"nin"# D ite obvio sl), '%en respondents affi.ed t%eir si"nat res on t%e deed, it 'as still incomplete since petitioner '%o ca sed it to be prepared left several spaces blan/, more partic larl) as re"ards t%e dimensions of t%e propert) to be sold# $%e %eirs 'ere pers aded to si"n t%e doc ment onl) pon t%e ass rance of petitioner t%at respondent Ro8 e, p rs ant to t%eir nderstandin", 'o ld be present '%en t%e propert) 'o ld be s rve)ed after obtainin" permission from t%e @ rea of Lands# 1s it s rfaced, t%e s pposed nderstandin" 'as merel) a r se of petitioner to ind ce respondents to si"n t%e deed 'it%o t '%ic% t%e latter 'o ld not %ave "iven t%eir conformit) t%ereto# 1pparentl), petitioner deceived respondents b) fillin" t%e blan/ spaces in t%e deed, %avin" t%e

lots s rve)ed and s bdivided, and t%en ca sin" t%e iss ance of transfer certificates of title 'it%o t t%eir /no'led"e, m c% less consent# $% s all t%e elements of fra d vitiatin" consent for p rposes of ann llin" a contract conc r: <a= *t 'as emplo)ed b) a contractin" part) pon t%e ot%erB <b= *t ind ced t%e ot%er part) to enter into t%e contractB <c= *t 'as serio sB and, <d= *t res lted in dama"es and in! r) to t%e part) see/in" ann lment# 1not%er compellin" reason for t%e ann lment of t%e doc ment of settlement and conve)ance is t%at t%e second pa"e t%ereof clearl) manifests t%at t%e n mber of t%e s bdivision plan and t%e respective areas of Lots A-1 and A-@ 'ere merel) %and'ritten '%ile all t%e rest of t%e statements t%erein 'ere t)pe'ritten, '%ic% leads s to t%e concl sion t%at %and'ritten fi" res t%ereon 'ere not available at t%e time t%e doc ment 'as formali;ed# $%e petition 'as DENIED.

)a& Realt& a$d De'elo#*e$t Co!#o!at o$ G.R. No. +,-.,/. 0a!c% ,( +111. Facts: $%e petitioners in t%e present claim alle"ed t%at t%e) are t%e le"al %eirs of t%e late G ido and *sabel Eaptinc%a), t%e o'ners-claimants of Lot No# 1131 and Lot No# 1132 'it% an located in ,armona, ,avite# $%e) e.ec ted an 6.tra-( dicial +ettlement of t%e estate of t%e deceased G ido and *sabel Eaptinc%a) on 5arc% 1C, 199A# $%e) also discovered t%at a portion, of t%e mentioned properties 'ere titled in t%e name of respondent Golden @a) Realt) and Development ,orporation or Golden @a) nder $ransfer ,ertificates of $itle, on 1 " st 26 199A# D e to t%is, t%e) filed a complaint for 1NN>L56N$ and7or D6,L1R1$*4N 43 N>LL*$E 43 Re"ional $rial ,o rt in *m s, ,avite# $%e) filed 'it% t%e FR$,G an 1mended ,omplaint to implead ne' and additional defendants and to mention t%e $,$s to be ann lled pon learnin" t%at FGolden @a)G sold portions of t%e parcels of land in 8 estion# $%e 1mended ,omplaint 'as dismissed b) t%e respondent co rt# $%e) moved for reconsideration of t%e 4rder dismissin" t%e 1mended ,omplaint# $%e motion 'as "ranted b) t%e# $%e private respondents presented a 5otion to Dismiss on

CASE DIGEST of He !s of "a#t $c%a& et al '. Cou!t of A##eals( Ho$. Del Rosa! o( Golde$

1 " st 12, 1992, H3I on t%e "ro nds t%at t%e complaint failed to state a ca se of action, t%e) %ave not establis%ed t%eir stat s 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 said 5otion to Dismiss 'as "ranted b) t%e respondent co rt dated 4ctober 22, 1992# $%e petitioners9 0etition for ,ertiorari before t%is ,o rt is an improper reco rse# 1ppeal s%o ld %ave been made# $%e trial co rt cannot ma/e a declaration of %eirs%ip in t%e civil action for t%e reason t%at s c% a declaration can onl) be made in a special proceedin"# Pla $t ff2s co$te$t o$s: $%e petitioners claimed are t%e le"al %eirs of t%e late G ido 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 <Golden @a)=# $%e) learned t%at FGolden @a)G sold portions of t%e parcels of land in 8 estion# $%e) also contended t%at t%e respondent co rt acted 'it% "rave ab se of discretion in r lin" t%at t%e iss e of %eirs%ip s%o ld first be determined before trial of t%e case co ld proceed# *t is t%eir s bmission t%at t%e

respondent co rt s%o ld %ave proceeded 'it% t%e trial and sim ltaneo sl) resolved t%e iss e of %eirs%ip in t%e same case Defe$da$t2s co$te$t o$s: $%e private respondents presented a 5otion to Dismiss on t%e "ro nds t%at t%e complaint failed to state a ca se of action, t%at plaintiffs did not %ave a ri"%t of action, t%at t%e) %ave not establis%ed t%eir stat s as %eirs, t%at t%e land bein" claimed is different from t%at of t%e defendants, and t%at plaintiffs9 claim 'as barred b) lac%es# Lo3e! Cou!t2s dec s o$: $%e Re"ional $rial ,o rt dismissed t%e 1mended ,omplaint# # $%e motion for reconsideration b) t%e plaintiffs 'as "ranted b) t%e R$, in an 4rder dated ( l) C, 1992, '%ic% f rt%er allo'ed t%e %erein petitioners to file a +econd 1mended ,omplaint# $%e petitioners interposed a 5otion for Reconsideration b t to no avail# $%e same 'as denied b) t%e R$, in its 4rder of 3ebr ar) 23, 1996# A##ellate Cou!t2s dec s o$: $%e appellate co rt %eld t%at petition is not impressed 'it% merit# $o be"in 'it%, petitioners9

0etition for ,ertiorari before t%is ,o rt is an improper reco rse# $%eir proper remed) s%o ld %ave been an appeal# 1n order of dismissal, be it ri"%t or 'ron", is a final order, '%ic% is s b!ect to appeal and not a proper s b!ect of certiorari# -%ere appeal is available as a remed), certiorari 'ill not lie# Neit%er did t%e respondent co rt commit "rave ab se of discretion in iss in" t%e 8 estioned 4rder dismissin" t%e +econd 1mended ,omplaint of petitioners# Issue: -%et%er or not petitioners are le"al %eirs of said deceased and t%at t%e) %ave a ri"%t of t%e s b!ect propert)# Held: $%e ,o rt r led t%at %old t%at t%e respondent co rt did t%e ri"%t t%in" in dismissin" t%e +econd 1mended ,omplaint, '%ic% stated no ca se of action# *n $ravel -ide 1ssociated +ales <0%ils#=, *nc# v# ,o rt of 1ppeals, it 'as r led t%at: F ... *f t%e s it is not bro "%t in t%e name of or a"ainst t%e real part) in interest, a motion to dismiss ma) be filed on t%e "ro nd t%at t%e complaint states no ca se of action#G *n t%e case at bar, t%e petitioners are not %eirs and t%at t%e) do not %ave a ri"%t over t%e s b!ect propert)# $%e

petitioners 'ere not able to present s fficient evidence to prove t%at t%e) are t%e le"al %eirs of t%e deceased and t%at t%e) 'ere entitled to in%erit said propert)# $%e trial co rt cannot ma/e a declaration of %eirs%ip in t%e civil action for t%e reason t%at s c% a declaration can onl) be made in a special proceedin"# >nder +ection 3, R le 1 of t%e 199C Revised R les of ,o rt, a civil action is defined as Fone b) '%ic% a part) s es anot%er for t%e enforcement or protection of a ri"%t, or t%e prevention or redress of a 'ron"G '%ile a special proceedin" is Fa remed) b) '%ic% a part) see/s to establis% a stat s, a ri"%t, or a partic lar fact#G *t is t%en decisivel) clear t%at t%e declaration of %eirs%ip can be made onl) in a special proceedin" inasm c% as t%e petitioners %ere are see/in" t%e establis%ment of a stat s or ri"%t#$%e 0etition nder consideration is %ereb) dismissed#

<3=>?T> &3@MU?A0, P>T!T!0?>&, <S. T>0(!ST3 !S3B0? <A3. A> 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 in herein respondents, na%ely, Aanilo,>ufrocina, Marcelo Dr., >velyn, and &eggineo, all surna%ed Suarez. Auring their %arriage, governed by the con)ugal partnership of gains regi%e, they ac uired nu%erous properties, 3fter the death of Marcelo Sr. in 1955, Teofista and herein respondents, as $ell as >lpidio Suarez, e-ecuted an >-tra)udicial Settle%ent of >state, partitioning Marcelo Sr.2s estate, 'uriously, despite the partition, title to the

foregoing properties, e-plicitly identified in the >-tra)udicial Settle%ent of >state as for%ing part of Marcelo2s and !sagon2s property regi%e, re%ained in the couple2s na%e. !n 19"5, &izal &ealty 'orporation E&izal &ealtyF and Teofista, the latter o$ning ninety percent E9*GF of the for%er2s shares of stoc:, $ere sued by petitioner <alente &ay%undo, his $ife <ioleta, <irginia .anta and Maria 'oncepcion <ito in consolidated cases for &escission of 'ontract and Aa%ages, doc:eted as 'ivil 'ase ?os. 91"HI to 91"H9. Thereafter, in 19"5, the then 'ourt of (irst !nstance E'(!F of &izal, .ranch 1, rendered )udg%ent against Teofista. 4hen the )udg%ent of the '(! beca%e final and e-ecutory, herein sub)ect properties $ere levied and sold on e-ecution on Dune 9,, 19+H to satisfy the )udg%ent against Teofista and &izal &ealty. Parenthetically, before e-piration of the rede%ption period, or on Dune 91, 19+,, herein respondents filed a revindicatory action against petitioner <alente, <ioleta, <irginia and Maria 'oncepcion, for the annul%ent of the auction sale and recovery of o$nership of the levied properties. P>T!T0?>&S '0?T>?T!0?; Petitioner <alente insists ho$ever that, follo$ing our ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, herein respondents %ust first be declared heirs of Marcelo Sr. before they can file an action to annul the )udicial sale of $hat is, undisputedly, con)ugal property of Teofista and Marcelo Sr. &>SP0?A>?TS '0?T>?T!0?; 3rticle """ of the 'ivil 'ode, the la$ applicable at the ti%e of the institution of

the case; The rights to the succession are trans%itted fro% the %o%ent of the death of the decedent.J =04>& '0U&T; issued an 0rder directing Teofista; E1F to vacate the sub)ect properties, E9F to desist fro% despoiling, dis%antling, re%oving or alienating the i%prove%ents thereon, EHF to place petitioner <alente, <ioleta, <irginia and Maria 'oncepcion in peaceful possession thereof, and E,F to surrender to the% the o$ner2s duplicate copy of the torrens title and other pertinent docu%ents. '0U&T 0( 3PP>3=S; '3 dis%issed Teofista2s and herein respondents2 petition for t$o reasons. (irst, as purported case for certiorari it fails to sho$ ho$ the respondent )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 cannot co%plain about the levy because she $as a party in the consolidated cases $here )udg%ent $as rendered against her in her personal capacity. Since she did not appeal fro% the decision, she cannot say that the )udg%ent is erroneous for an obligation that belong to the corporation. !ssue; 4hether or not respondents %ust first be declared heirs of Marcelo Sr. before they can file action to annul the )udicial sale of $hat is the con)ugal property of teofista and Marcelo, Sr.

8eld; S' reversed the decision of &T' and 'ourt of 3ppeals. !t is no longer needed. !n Heirs of Yaptinchay, the co%plaint for annul%ent andKor declaration of nullity of certain T'T2s $as dis%issed for failure of the petitioners to de%onstrate Jany proof or even a se%blance of itJ that they had been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple, the spouses @aptinchay. !n star: contrast, the records of this case reveal a docu%ent, an >-tra)udicial Settle%ent of Marcelo Sr.2s estate, $hich e-plicitly recognizes herein respondents as Marcelo Sr.2s legiti%ate children and heirs. The sa%e docu%ent settles and partitions the estate of Marcelo Sr. specifying Teofista2s paraphernal properties, and separates the properties she o$ns in co%%on $ith her children, herein respondents. Plainly, there is no need to re/declare herein respondents as heirs of Marcelo Sr., and prolong this case inter%inably. Petitioner <alente, along $ith <ioleta, <irginia and Maria 'oncepcion, beca%e o$ners of the sub)ect properties only by virtue of an e-ecution sale to recover Teofista2s )udg%ent obligation. This )udg%ent obligation is solely Teofista2s, and pay%ent therefor cannot be %ade through an e-ecution sale of properties not absolutely o$ned by her. These properties $ere evidently con)ugal properties and $ere, in fact, even titled in the na%e of Marcelo, Sr. %arried to Teofista. Thus, upon Marcelo Sr.2s death, by virtue of co%pulsory succession, Marcelo Sr.2s share in the con)ugal partnership $as trans%itted by operation of la$ to his co%pulsory heirs.

DE4ELOP0ENT )AN5 OF THE PHILIPPINES 4. ELLA GAGARANI ASO5 et.al. G.R. No. +6,,-7 8 Se#te*9e! +6( ,//7 FACTS: $%e spo ses Dionesio and 5atea +# 1so/ o'ned several parcels of land '%ic% 'ere in%erited b) t%eir eleven c%ildren pon t%eir deat%# 4ne of t%e lands in%erited 'as a lot covered b) a free patent iss ed on ( l) 19, 196C, located at 5isamis 4riental 'it% an area of 39,222 s8# m#

0 rs ant to t%e e.tra! dicial settlement of t%e estate 'it% 8 itclaim e.ec ted b) t%e spo ses9 c%ildren, t%e s b!ect propert) 'as in%erited b) Denison 1so/ <1so/=# 1s a res lt, t%e title 'as cancelled a ne' one 'as iss ed and re"istered in %is name# 4n 1 " st 31, 1989, 1so/ and %is 'ife, respondent 6lla Ga"arani 1so/, borro'ed 0100,000 from petitioner D@0 and mort"a"ed t%e s b!ect lot as collateral to " arantee pa)ment of t%e loan# 4n d e date, %o'ever, t%e) failed to pa) t%e loan and t%e mort"a"e 'as e.tra! diciall) foreclosed p rs ant to 1ct 3132# D@0 emer"ed as t%e %i"%est bidder 'it% a bid of 0163,29C# 1so/ died on in 1993 and 'as s cceeded b) %is s rvivin" spo se and c%ildren <respondents=# Respondents filed a complaint for rep rc%ase a"ainst D@0 invo/in" t%eir ri"%t to rep rc%ase t%e propert) nder +ec# 119 of ,1 1A1 '%ic% states t%at Fever) conve)ance of land ac8 ired nder t%e free patent or %omestead provisions, '%en proper, s%all be s b!ect to rep rc%ase b) t%e applicant, %is 'ido', or le"al %eirs, 'it%in a period of five )ears from date of t%e conve)ance#G *t 'as later on dismissed b) t%e R$, statin" t%at t%e one-)ear-period s%o ld be rec/oned from t%e date of sale or on 1 " st 28, 1991 t%en t%e five-)ear period s%o ld be co nted from t%e e.piration of t%e redemption period, i.e., November 28, 1992#

$%erefore, respondents %ad ntil November 28, 199C to e.ercise t%eir ri"%t to rep rc%ase# ?o'ever, t%e complaint 'as filed on 5a) 12, 1998 '%ic% 'as be)ond t%e prescribed period# 1""rieved, respondents appealed to t%e ,1 '%ic% reversed and set aside t%e R$, decision# *t %eld t%at t%e period of redemption started from t%e date of re"istration of t%e certificate of sale, i.e., December 2A, 1992, and not from t%e date of sale# $% s, respondents %ad ntil December 2A, 1998 to rep rc%ase t%e propert) and t%e complaint 'as seasonabl) filed# D@0 contends t%at 1so/9s cannot claim t%e ri"%t nder +ec# 119 '%ic% covers %omesteads and free patents beca se t%e free patent iss ed to 1so/9s parents %ad alread) been cancelled and a ne' $,$ %ad in fact been iss ed to %im# $% s, t%e propert) mort"a"ed to it 'as no lon"er covered b) a free patent b t b) a $,$# ISSUES: <1= '%et%er +ec# 119 of ,1 1A1 is applicable in t%is caseB <2= '%et%er respondents are t%e le"al %eirs of t%e patentees and <3= '%et%er t%e ri"%t to rep rc%ase %as alread) prescribed# HELD:

1# E6+# $%e plain intent of +ec# 119 is to "ive t%e %omesteader or patentee ever) c%ance to preserve and /eep in t%e famil) t%e land t%at t%e +tate %as "rat ito sl) "iven %im as a re'ard for %is labor in cleanin", developin" and c ltivatin" it# ?ence, t%e fact t%at t%e land %ad been in%erited b) t%e patentees9 son <and a ne' title in %is name iss ed= does not brin" it o tside t%e p rvie' of +ec# 119# *n fact, t%e polic) be%ind t%e la' is f lfilled beca se t%e land remains in t%e famil) of t%e patentee# Lo"ic, t%e sense of fitness and of ri"%t, as 'ell as pra"matic considerations t% s call for contin ed ad%erence to t%e polic) t%at not t%e individ al applicant alone b t t%ose so closel) related to %im as are entitled to le"al s ccession ma) ta/e f ll advanta"e of t%e benefits t%e la' confers# 2# E6+# D@0 ar" es t%at respondents are not t%e le"al %eirs of t%e patentees beca se respondents are merel) t%eir da "%ter-in-la' and "randc%ildren# $%is is not tr e# *n line 'it% t%e rationale be%ind +ec# 119, 'e re!ect a restricted definition of le"al %eirs# *t is sed in a broad sense and t%e la' ma/es no distinctions# $%e term Jle"al %eirsJ is sed in +ection 119 in a "eneric sense# *t is broad eno "% to cover an) person '%o is called to t%e s ccession eit%er b) provision of a 'ill or b) operation of la'# $% s, le"al %eirs incl de bot% testate and intestate %eirs dependin" pon '%et%er s ccession is b) t%e 'ill of t%e testator or

b) la'# Le"al %eirs are not necessaril) comp lsor) %eirs b t t%e) ma) be so if t%e la' reserves a le"itime for t%em# Respondents in%erited t%e propert) from 1so/, t%eir % sband and fat%er, '%o in t rn in%erited it from %is parents# Respondent 6lla Ga"arani 1so/, as da "%ter-in-la' of t%e patentees, can be considered as amon" t%e le"al %eirs '%o can rep rc%ase t%e land# 3# N4# $%e iss e 'as alread) resolved in Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. CA: $% s, t%e r les on redemption in t%e case of an e.tra! dicial foreclos re of land ac8 ired nder free patent or %omestead stat tes ma) be s mmari;ed as follo's: ... *f t%e land is mort"a"ed to parties ot%er t%an r ral ban/s, t%e mort"a"or ma) redeem t%e propert) 'it%in one <1= )ear from t%e !e: st!at o$ of t%e ce!t f cate of sale p rs ant to 1ct No# 3132# *f %e fails to do so, %e or %is %eirs ma) rep rc%ase t%e propert) 'it%in five <2= )ears from t%e e.piration of t%e redemption period# $%ere is no disp te t%at in e.tra! dicial foreclos res nder 1ct 3132, t%e debtor or %is or %er s ccessors-in-interest ma) redeem t%e propert) 'it%in one )ear# $%is redemption period s%o ld be rec/oned from t%e date of re"istration of t%e certificate of sale# $%e five-)ear period fi.ed in +ec# 119 be"ins to r n from t%e e.piration of t%e one-)ear redemption period# ?ere, t%e

certificate of sale 'as re"istered on December 2A, 1992 and t%e one-)ear redemption period e.pired on 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 to rep rc%ase nder +ec# 119 of ,1 1A1# ,onse8 entl), t%e ,1 'as correct in %oldin" t%at t%e complaint filed on 5a) 12, 1998 'as on time#

1l ad vs# 1l ad FACTS: Petitioners mother, Maria Aluad (Maria), and respondent Zenaido Aluad were raised by the childless spouses Crispin and Matilde Aluad. Crispin was the owner of six lots identified as ot !os. "#$, "#%, "#", "##, "&', and "&( of the Pilar Cadastre, Capi). After Crispin died, his wife Matilde ad*udicated the lots to herself. +n !o,ember -$, -.&-, Matilde executed a /0eed of 0onation of 1eal Property 2nter 3i,os/ (0eed of 0onation) in fa,or of petitioners mother Maria co,erin4 all the six lots which Matilde 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 her lifetime. +n Au4ust (", -..-, Matilde sold ot "#" to Zenaido. 5ubse6uently or on 7anuary -$, -..(, Matilde executed a last will and testament, de,isin4 ot !os. "#%, "##, "&(, and "&' to Maria, and her /remainin4 properties/ includin4 ot !o. "#$ to respondent. Matilde died on 7anuary (%, -..$, while Maria died on 5eptember ($ of the same year. +n Au4ust (-, -..%, Marias heirs8herein petitioners filed a complaint with the 19C, for declaration and reco,ery of ownership and possession of ot !os. "#$ and "#", and dama4es a4ainst respondent.

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 Matilde Aluad. 9hese two lots are in his possession as true owners thereof

LOWER COURT DECISION: Matilde could ha,e not transmitted any ri4ht o,er ot "#$ and "#" o,er to respondent, Zenaido, because she ha,e pre,iously alienated said lots o,er to Maria ,ia 0eed of 0onation. 9he donation is inter ,i,os. APPELLATE DECISION: 9he CA re,ersed 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 last will and testament had not yet been probated.

PLAINTIFFS CONTENTION: 9hat Maria Aluad is the sole dau4hter of Crispin and Matilde Aluad and that they succeeded their ri4ht by inheritance and that the six lots ha,e been donated inter ,i,os to their mother.

ISSUE/S: :+! the donation is mortis causa and should comply with the formalities of a will.

Respo !e " #s "$e r#%$"f&' o( er of 'o" )*+, HELD: 9he Court finds the donation to petitioners mother one of mortis causa, it ha,in4 the followin4 characteristics; (-) 2t con,eys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor< (() 9hat before the death of the transferor, the transfer should be re,ocable< (=) 9hat the transfer should be ,oid if the transferor should sur,i,e the transferee. 9he phrase in the earlier86uoted 0eed of 0onation /to become effecti,e upon the death of the 0+!+1/ admits of no other interpretation than to mean that Matilde did not intend to transfer the ownership of the six lots to petitioners mother durin4 her (Matildes) lifetime. Matilde also continued to exercise acts of possession o,er the property while she was still ali,e. 9he donation bein4 then mortis causa, the formalities of a will should ha,e been obser,ed but they were not, as; (a) it was witnessed by only two, not three or more witnesses followin4 Article &'% of the Ci,il Code (b) the witnesses did not e,en si4n the attestation clause the execution of which clause is a re6uirement separate from the subscription of the will and the affixin4 of si4natures on the left8hand mar4ins of the pa4es of the will< and (c) the re6uirement that all the pa4es of the will must be numbered correlati,ely in letters placed on the upper part of each pa4e was not also followed.

A:ust $ )a!!e!a( et. al. 's. ;ose Ta*#oco( et. al. G.R. No. L<=,>.( Fe9!ua!& +6( +1=-

F()"*+ 0livia <illapaLa died in Tarlac, Tarlac, on Aece%ber 1H, 19,+. 0n Aece%ber H1, 19,+, a petition $as filed by 3gustin .arrera in the 'ourt of (irst !nstance of Tarlac for the probate of the $ill e-ecuted by 0livia <illapaLa and for the appoint%ent of the petitioner as e-ecutor. 3ccording to the petition the properties left by the testatri- are $orth P9,,+59.9I, and the heirs instituted are nephe$s and nieces and grandchildren in the collateral line. O!!o*-"o%/* - A!! 00 /* Co." ."-o. ;

Dose Ta%poco and <ictoriano Ta%poco, alleged grandchildren of the testatri- in the direct line, filed an opposition, clai%ing that the $ill $as not e-ecuted and attested in accordance $ith the la$, that the testatrilac:ed testa%entary capacity, that there $as undue influence and pressure in its e-ecution, that the signature of 0livia <illapaLa $as obtained by fraud and tric:ery, and that the testa%entary provisions are illegal. A!! 0(."/* Co." ."-o.;

!t $as established through evidence that the niece of the decedent, Pilar TaLedo as:ed and re uested Modesto Puno, a la$yer and )ustice of the peace of 'oncepcion Tarlac, to have a conference $ith her aunt 0livia <illapaLa in Manila. !n their %eeting, <illapaLa sought the assistance of 3tty. Puno in the preparation of her $ill, giving hi% the na%es of the heirs and the properties to be left. She then as:ed 3tty. Puno to secure the description of the properties fro% 3gustin .arrera, herein petitioner and Pilar#s husband. 3tty. Puno noted the $ishes of <illapaLa and prepared the $ill in his office in 'oncepcion as there $as then no available type$riter. 0n Duly 1", 19,+, 3tty. Puno returned to the house of <illapaLa carrying $ith hi% one original and three copies, in type$ritten for%, of the $ill he drafted in accordance to the instructions of <illapaLa. 8e read the $ill to <illapaLa and she said that it $as all right. 3fter lunch, 3tty. Puno %anifested that t$o other $itnesses $ere necessary. 8ence, 8onorio =acson and =aureano 3ntonio, $ho $ere then living in the first floor of the house, $ere re uested to serve as $itnesses. .oth of the% agreed. 3ll four of the%, the testatri- <illapaLa, 3tty. Puno, =acson and 3ntonio, $ere seated around a s%all rectangular table in the sala. 3t this )uncture, 3tty. Puno gave a copy of the $ill to <illapaLa, =acson and 3ntonio $hile he retained one. The la$yer again read the $ill out loud, advising the rest to chec: their respective copies. 3s <illapaLa agreed to the $ill, she proceeded to sign all the four copies on the lines previously placed by 3tty. Puno, follo$ed

successively by =acson, 3tty. Puno and 3ntonio, all in the presence of each other. 3fter the signing, 3tty. Puno gave the t$o copies to the testator and retained the t$o other copies. The testator left her $ill to .arrera for safe:eeping on 0ctober 1", 19,+ $hen she $as ta:en to the UST 8ospital. Lo1 % Co,%"/* D )-*-o.+ 3fter protracted trial, and %ore than a year after sub%ission of the case, a decision $as rendered by the 'ourt of (irst !nstance of Tarlac on 3ugust 11, 1951, disallo$ing the $ill. The court found that 0livia <illapaLa had testa%entary capacity, that there $as no forgery, fraud, tric:ery or undue influence in the e-ecution of the $ill, and that petition of forced heirs is not a ground for denying probate1 but the $ill $as disallo$ed because it $as not the personal last $ill and testa%ent of the deceased and it $as not based on the finding that 0livia <illapaLa did not furnish the na%es of the persons instituted as heirs and that the $ill $as not read to her before she signed it. The second ground is pre%ised on the conclusion that attesting $itness =aureano 3ntonio $as not present $hen 0livia <illapaLa and attesting $itness 8onorio =acson signed the $ill1 that 3ntonio only partially sa$ the signing by attesting $itness Modesto Puno1 and that 0livia <illapaLa sa$ 3ntonio sign only t$o or three ti%es. I**, +

4hether or not the denial of the probate of the $ill proper5 A!! 0(" Co,%"/* D )-*-o. 2 D )-*-o.+ ?o. 3fter a thorough study of the record and %ature reflection on the conflicting evidence, $e are constrained to conclude that the trial court erred in denying probate of the $ill. 0f the three attesting $itnesses, na%ely, 3tty. Modesto Puno, 8onorio =acson, and =aureano 3ntonio, the first t$o testified positively that the $ill $as signed by the testatri- and the three $itnesses in the presence of each other, and that it $as read to the testatri- before being signed. 3ntonio testified that $hen he arrived, 3tty. Puno $as half through affi-ing his signatures, and that the testatri- left before 3ntonio finished signing all the copies. !ntrinsically, $e cannot state that 3ntonio spo:e the truth, since, in the first place, the attestation clause signed by hi% contradicts his pretense and, in the second place, there is enough evidence on the record to sho$ that 3ntonio never gave the slightest indication that he $as not present $hen the testatri- left before 3ntonio finished signing. Modesto Puno is a la$yer and at the ti%e a )ustice of the peace, and it is i%probable that he $ould unnecessarily ris: his honor and reputation. !ndeed, the trial court gave the i%pression that 3tty. Puno $as an-ious to strictly %eet the re uire%ents of the la$ and in the absence, as in the case at bar, of any reason

for a hasty co%pletion, $e do not believe that 3tty. Puno $ould have allo$ed the signing of the $ill to be proceeded $ith unless three attesting $itnesses $ere already present. !n deciding against the probate of the $ill, the trial court believed the testi%ony of 3ntonio to the effect that he arrived at the place of the signing at about 9;H* in the afternoon, and thereby found that a greater part of the proceeding $as already finished. 4e are of the opinion that the specification of the ti%e of the signing refers to an i%%aterial or uni%portant detail $hich, in vie$ of the lapse of ti%e, %ight have been a %ista:e by one or the other participant in the e-ecution of 0liva2s $ill. 4hat is i%portant and decisive M and this should be i%pressed in the %ind of an attorney preparing and ta:ing charge of the signing of $ill, M is that the testatri- and each of the three attesting $itnesses %ust affi- their signatures in the presence of one another. !n the case before us, 3tty. Puno and 8onorio. 3nother point invo:ed by the trial court against the probate of the $ill is the circu%stance that, $hile 3tty. Puno testified that he placed the lines on $hich the testatri- and the $itnesses $ere to sign before he read the docu%ent to the testatri- $ho% he gave the original $itness =acson testify that 3tty. Puno read the original after giving a copy to the testatri-, and after reading 3tty. Puno placed the lines for signatures. The discrepancy again refers to a %inor detail $hich is not sufficient to

negative the truthfulness of 3tty. Puno and 8onorio =acson on the %ain and i%portant fact that the $ill $as signed by the testatri- and the three attesting $itnesses in the presence of each other. !n the holding that the $ill $as not that of 0liva <illapaLa, the trial court found that it $as not read to her1 and this finding $as pre%ised on the alleged contradiction of 3tty. Puno and 8onorio =acson regarding the se uence of the reading of the $ill and the placing of the lines for signatures, and regarding the uestion $hether a copy or the original $as handed to the testatri-. 3s $e have already observed, the discrepancy relates to an insignificant %atter $hich cannot vitally detract fro% the credibility of 3tty. Puno to the effect that upon arrival at the house of 0liva <illapaLa at about noon, he read the $ill to her $ith a vie$ to finding $hether she $as agreeable thereto. It is not necessary that said will be read upon its signing and in the presence of the witnesses. 3s a closing observation, it is not for us to discover the %otives of 0liva <illapaLa in leaving her properties to the person na%ed in the $ill, and o%itting therefro% the oppositors/appellees. Suffice it to state that the trial court itself found the $ill to have been e-ecuted free fro% falsification, fraud, tric:ery or undue influence, $ith 0liva having testa%entary capacity1 and in such a situation it beco%es our duty to give e-pression to her $ill.

4herefore, the appealed order is reversed and the $ill e-ecuted by 0liva <illapaLa on Duly 1", 19,+, is hereby allo$ed. 5ontinola vs ,1 FACTS: $%is case arose from a petition filed b) private respondent 1tt)# 6d ardo 3# ?ernande; on 1pril 22, 1981 'it% t%e ,o rt of 3irst *nstance of 5anila <no' Re"ional $rial ,o rt= see/in" t%e probate of t%e %olo"rap%ic 'ill of t%e late ?erminia 5ontinola e.ec ted on (an ar) 28, 1980# $%e testatri., '%o died sin"le, parentless and c%ildless on 5arc% 29,1981 at t%e a"e of C0 )ears, devised in t%is 'ill several of %er real properties to specified persons# 4n 1pril 29,1981, private respondent '%o 'as named e.ec tor in t%e 'ill filed an r"ent motion for appointment of special administrator# -it% t%e conformit) of all t%e relatives and %eirs of t%e testatri. e.cept oppositor, t%e co rt in its order of 5a) 2, 1981 6 appointed private respondent as +pecial 1dministrator of t%e testate estate of deceased# PLAINTIFFS CONTENTION: 1tt)# 6d ardo 3# ?ernande; contended t%at t%e 'ill 'as e.ec ted accordin" to t%e formalities set b) la' 'it%o t nd e infl ence# ?$ot !eall& stated o$ t%e case. Assu*ed la$: 9ec. 3ala $a*a$ s &a$: co$te$t o$. %e%e@

DEFENDANTS CONTENTION: 5atilde 5ontinola +anson <petitioner= '%o passed a'a) d rin" t%e pendenc) of t%e case and 'as s bstit ted b) %er %eirs , t%e onl) s rvivin" sister of t%e deceased b t '%o 'as not named in t%e said 'ill, filed %er 4pposition to 0robate of -ill, alle"in" t%at t%e s b!ect 'ill 'as not entirel) 'ritten, dated and si"ned b) t%e testatri. %erself and t%e same 'as falsel) dated or antedatedB t%at t%e testatri. 'as not in f ll possession of %er mental fac lties to ma/e testamentar) dispositionsB t%at nd e infl ence 'as e.erted pon t%e person and mind of t%e testatri. b) t%e beneficiaries named in t%e 'inB and t%at t%e 'ill failed to instit te a resid al %eir to t%e remainder of t%e estate# LOWER COURTS DECISION: $%e probate co rt, findin" t%e evidence presented in s pport of t%e petition to be concl sive and over'%elmin", rendered its decision allo'in" t%e probate of t%e disp ted 'ill# APPELLATE COURTS DECISION: *t affirmed t%e decision of t%e probate co rt# *t also s bse8 entl) denied t%e motions for ne' trial and reconsideration b) t%e petitioner# ISSUE: -%et%er or not t%e 'ill 'as e.ec ted accordin" to t%e formalities of la' 'it%o t an) nd e infl ence#

HELD: <+ince petitionerKs motion 'as filed on +eptember 2A,1986, t%e fifteent% or last da) of t%e period to appeal, t%e decision of t%e respondent co rt became final on t%e follo'in" da), +eptember 22# 1nd '%en t%e motion for reconsideration of petitioner 'as filed on 4ctober 30,1986, it 'as obvio sl) filed o t of time#= +ince t%e 8 estioned decision %as alread) become final and e.ec tor) beca se of t%e e.piration of t%e period to appeal b) t%e petitioner, it is no lon"er 'it%in t%e province of t%is ,o rt to revie' it# $%is bein" so, t%e findin"s of t%e probate co rt as to t%e d e e.ec tion of t%e 'ill and t%e testamentar) capacit) of testatri. are no' concl sive# @ t ass min" t%at t%e case can still be revie'ed on merits, t%e + preme ,o rt r led t%at t%e petition is bo nd to fail# 0etitioner alle"es t%at %er e.cl sion from t%e alle"ed %olo"rap%ic 'ill 'as 'it%o t r%)me or reason, bein" t%e onl) s rvivin" sister of t%e testatri. 'it% '%om s%e s%ares an intimate relations%ip, t% s demonstratin" t%e lac/ of testamentar) capacit) of testatri.# I$ t%e case of Pecso$ '. Co!o$el( ,- t 3as %eld A T%e a##ella$ts e*#%as Be t%e fact t%at fa* l& t es $ t% s cou$t!& a!e 'e!& st!o$:l& C$ t a$d t%at t%e eDclus o$ of a !elat 'e f!o*

o$e2s estate s a$ eDce#t o$al case. It s t!ue t%at t%e t es of !elat o$s% # $ t%e P% l ## $es a!e 'e!& st!o$:( 9ut 3e u$de!sta$d t%at cases of #!ete! t o$ of !elat 'es f!o* t%e $%e! ta$ce a!e $ot !a!e. T%e l 9e!t& to d s#ose of o$e2s estate 9& 3 ll 3%e$ t%e!e a!e $o fo!ced %e !s s !e$de!ed sac!ed 9& t%e C ' l Code $ fo!ce $ t%e P% l ## $es s $ce +771... ?9aCa ta$o$: $ &a la$: to %e%e@ 1rticle 8A2 of t%e ,ivil ,ode provides t%at one '%o %as no comp lsor) %eirs ma) dispose b) 'ill of all %is estate or an) part of it in favor of an) person %avin" capacit) to s cceed# -it% re"ard to petitioner9s insistence t%at t%e fact t%at in %er %olo"rap%ic 'ill t%e testatri. failed to dispose of all of %er estate is an indication of t%e nso ndness of %er mind, t%e co rt r led on t%e ne"ative, citin" 1rt# 8A1 of t%e ,ivil ,ode '%ic% provides t%atL F1 'ill s%all be valid even t%o "% it s%o ld not contain an instit tion of an %eir, or s c% instit tion s%o ld not comprise t%e entire estate, and even t%o "% t%e person so instit ted s%o ld not accept t%e in%eritance or s%o ld be incapacitated to s cceed#G *n s c% cases, t%e testamentar) dispositions made in accordance 'it% la' s%all be complied 'it% and t%e remainder of t%e estate s%all pass to t%e le"al %eirs#

$% s, t%e fact t%at in %er %olo"rap%ic 'ill, testatri. disposed of onl) eleven <11= of %er real properties does not invalidate t%e 'ill, or is it an indication t%at t%e testatri. 'as of nso nd mind# $%e portion of t%e estate not disposed of s%all pass on to t%e %eirs of t%e deceased in intestate s ccession# Neit%er is nd e infl ence present ! st beca se blood relatives, ot%er t%an comp lsor) %eirs %ave been omitted, for '%ile blood ties are stron" in t%e 0%ilippines, it is t%e testatorKs ri"%t to disre"ard non-comp lsor) %eirs# $%e fact t%at some %eirs are more favored t%an ot%ers is proof of neit%er fra d or nd e infl ence# Diversit) of apportionment is t%e s al reason for ma/in" a testament, ot%er'ise, t%e decedent mi"%t as 'ell die intestate# $%e contention of t%e petitioner t%at t%e 'ill 'as obtained b) nd e infl ence or improper press re e.erted b) t%e beneficiaries of t%e 'ill cannot be s stained on mere con!ect re or s spicionB as it is not eno "% t%at t%ere 'as opport nit) to e.ercise nd e infl ence or a possibilit) t%at it ma) %ave been e.ercised# $%e e.ercise of improper press re and nd e infl ence m st be s pported b) s bstantial evidence t%at it 'as act all) e.ercised# $%e petition 'as D6N*6D#

devisees, the follo$ing; petitioners &oberto and Thel%a 3)ero, private respondent 'le%ente Sand, Meria% S. 3rong, =eah Sand, =ilia Sand, >dgar Sand, (e Sand, =isa S. Sand, and Ar. Dose 3)ero, Sr., and their children. PLAINTIFF/S CONTENTION+ 0n Danuary 9*, 19+H, petitioners instituted Sp. Proc. ?o. N/H"1"1, for allo$ance of decedent2s holographic $ill. They alleged that at the ti%e of its e-ecution, she $as of sound and disposing %ind, not acting under duress, fraud or undue influence, and $as in every respect capacitated to dispose of her estate by $ill. DEFENDANT/S CONTENTION+ Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that neither the testa%ent2s body nor the signature therein $as in decedent2s hand$riting1 it contained alterations and corrections $hich $ere not duly signed by decedent1 and, the $ill $as procured by petitioners through i%proper pressure and undue influence. The petition $as also opposed by Ar. Dose 3)ero, $ho contested the disposition in the $ill of a house and lot located in 'abadbaran, 3gusan Ael ?orte. 8e clai%ed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she $as not its sole o$ner. LO7ER COURT/S DECISION+ G.R. No. 1&45'& S !" #$ % 16, 1994 FACTS+ 0n ?ove%ber 95, 19+9 3nnie Sand died, leaving behind a holographic $ill. !n the $ill, decedent na%ed as The trial court ad%itted the decedent2s holographic $ill to probate. This probate court finds no reason at all for the disallo$ance of the $ill for its failure to co%ply $ith the for%alities prescribed by la$ nor for lac: of testa%entary capacity of the testatri-. 4hile the fact that

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO 3*. CA AND CLEMENTE SAND

it $as entirely $ritten, dated and signed in the hand$riting of the testatri- has been disputed, the petitioners, ho$ever, have satisfactorily sho$n in 'ourt that the holographic $ill in uestion $as indeed $ritten entirely, dated and signed in the hand$riting of the testatri-. Three EHF $itnesses $ho have convincingly sho$n :no$ledge of the hand$riting of the testatri- have been presented and have e-plicitly and categorically identified the hand$riting $ith $hich the holographic $ill in uestion $as $ritten to be the genuine hand$riting and signature of the testatri-. Biven then the aforesaid evidence, the re uire%ent of the la$ that the holographic $ill be entirely $ritten, dated and signed in the hand$riting of the testatri- has been co%plied $ith. =i:e$ise, no evidence $as presented to sho$ sufficient reason for the disallo$ance of herein holographic $ill. 4hile it $as alleged that the said $ill $as procured by undue and i%proper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary or of so%e other person, the evidence adduced have not sho$n any instance $here i%proper pressure or influence $as e-erted on the testatri-. APPELLATE COURT/S DECISION+ 0n appeal, said Aecision $as reversed, and the petition for probate of decedent2s $ill $as dis%issed. The 'ourt of 3ppeals found that, Jthe holographic $ill fails to %eet the re uire%ents for its validity.J !t held that the decedent did not co%ply $ith 3rticles +1H and +1, of the ?e$ 'ivil 'ode, $hich read, as follo$s; 3rt. +1H; 4hen a nu%ber of dispositions appearing in a holographic $ill are signed

$ithout being dated, and the last disposition has a signature and date, such date validates the dispositions preceding it, $hatever be the ti%e of prior dispositions. 3rt. +1,; !n case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic $ill, the testator %ust authenticate the sa%e by his full signature. ISSUE+ 4hether or not 3nnie Sand#s holographic $ill $as e-ecuted in accordance $ith the for%alities prescribed by la$5 HELD+ YES. !n the case of holographic $ills, $hat assures authenticity is the re uire%ent that they be totally autographic or hand$ritten by the testator hi%self, as provided under 3rticle +1* of the ?e$ 'ivil 'ode, thus; 3 person %ay e-ecute a holographic $ill $hich %ust be entirely $ritten, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator hi%self. !t is sub)ect to no other for%, and %ay be %ade in or out of the Philippines, and need not be $itnessed. =i:e$ise, a holographic $ill can still be ad%itted to probate, not$ithstanding non/co%pliance $ith the provisions of 3rticle +1,. !n the case of Kalaw vs. Relova, this 'ourt held;

60rdinarily, $hen a nu%ber of erasures, corrections, and interlineations %ade by the testator in a holographic 4ill have not been noted under his signature, . . . the 4ill is not thereby invalidated as a $hole, but at %ost only as respects the particular $ords erased, corrected or interlined.7 Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions $ere %ade on the date of the holographic $ill or on testator2s signature, their presence does not invalidate the $ill itself.

declared as ac@nowled4ed natural dau4hter. 2t is in accordance with the pro,isions that the executor in his final account and pro*ect partition ratified the payment of only P=,"'' to Aelen Christensen Barcia. and proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his dau4hter, Maria ucy Christensen. Appe''a "s Co "e "#o : +pposition to the appro,al of the pro*ect of partition was filed by Aelen Christensen Barcia, insofar as it depri,es her (Aelen) of her le4itime as an ac@nowled4ed natural child. 9he le4al 4rounds of opposition are (a) that the distribution should be 4o,erned by the laws of the Philippines, and (b) that said order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to Aelen Christensen Barcia, one of two ac@nowled4ed natural children, one8 half of the estate in full ownership. Cut appellant in,o@es the pro,isions of Article .$" of the Ci,il Code of California, which is as follows; /2f there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is 4o,erned by the law of his domicile./ Lo(er Co&r"s Dec#s#o : 9he court ruled that >dward Christensen was a citi)en of the Dnited 5tates and of the 5tate of California at the time of his death, the successional ri4hts and intrinsic ,alidity of the pro,isions in his will are to be 4o,erned by the law of California, in accordance with which a testator has the ri4ht to dispose of his property in the way he desires, because the ri4ht of absolute dominion o,er his property is sacred and in,iolable. Iss&e: :+! the Philippine laws will 4o,ern in the succession He'!: 9here is no 6uestion that >dward Christensen was a citi)en of the Dnited 5tates and of the 5tate of California at the time of his death. Cut there is also no 6uestion that at the time of his death he

Tes"a"e of E!(ar! C$r#s"e se Fac"s: >dward >. Christensen, thou4h born in !ew ?or@, mi4rated to California, where he resided and conse6uently was considered a California citi)en. 2n -.-=, he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until his death. 2n his will executed on March %, -.%-, he instituted an ac@nowled4ed natural dau4hter, Maria ucy Christensen as his only heir, but left a le4acy of sum of money in fa,or of Aelen Christensen Barcia who was rendered to ha,e been

was domiciled in the Philippines, as witness the followin4 facts admitted by the executor himself. 2n arri,in4 at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased is the Philippines, we are persuaded by the fact that he was born in !ew ?or@, mi4rated to California and resided there for nine years, and since he came to the Philippines in -.-= he returned to California ,ery rarely and only for short ,isits (perhaps to relati,es), and considerin4 that he appears ne,er to ha,e owned or ac6uired a home or properties in that state, which would indicate that he would ultimately abandon the Philippines and ma@e home in the 5tate of California. 9he law that 4o,erns the ,alidity of his testamentary dispositions is defined in Article -" of the Ci,il Code of the Philippines. :hat is the law in California 4o,ernin4 the disposition of personal propertyE 2t is ar4ued on executorFs behalf that as the deceased Christensen was a citi)en of the 5tate of California, the internal law thereof, which is that 4i,en in the abo,e8cited case, should 4o,ern the determination of the ,alidity of the testamentary pro,isions of in which he was a citi)en. Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article .$" should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and followin4 the doctrine of renvoi, the 6uestion of the ,alidity of the testamentary pro,ision in 6uestion should be referred bac@ to the law of the decedentFs domicile, which is the Philippines. 9he laws of California ha,e prescribed two sets of laws for its citi)ens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other *urisdictions. 1eason demands that the court should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its citi)ens residin4 therein, and enforce the conflict of law rules law for the citi)ens domiciled abroad. 2f we must enforce the law of California as in comity we are bound to do, as so declared in Article -" of our Ci,il Code, then we must enforce the law of California in accordance with the express mandate. 9he Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of law rule of the state of the decedent, if the 6uestion has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of California pro,ides no

le4itime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. &&# ($) and &.$, Ci,il Code of the Philippines, ma@es natural children le4ally ac@nowled4ed forced heirs of the parent reco4ni)in4 them. :e therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen is the Philippines, the ,alidity of the pro,isions of his will depri,in4 his ac@nowled4ed natural child, the appellant, should be 4o,erned by the Philippine law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. .$" of the Ci,il Code of California, not by the internal law of California.

Philippines, in $hich he directed that after all ta-es, obligations, and e-penses of ad%inistration are paid for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the follo$ing order and %anner aF O9,*,***.** to his first $ife M3&@ >. M3==>? bF O19*,***.** to his three illegiti%ate children3M0S .>==!S, D&., M3&!3 '&!ST!?3 .>==!S, M!&!3M P3=M3 .>==!S,or O,*,***.** each, and cF 3fter foregoing the t$o ite%s have been satisfied, the re%ainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second $ives >A43&A 3. .>==!S, 8>?&@ 3. .>==!S, 3=>P3?A>& .>==!S, and 3??3 .>==!S/ 3==SM3?, >A43&A B. .>==!S, 43 =T>& S. .>==!S, and A0&0T8@ >. .>==!S in e ual shares. M3&!3 '&!ST!?3 .>==!S and M!&!3M P3=M3 .>==!S filed their respective oppositions to the pro)ect of partition on the ground that they $ere deprived of their legiti%es as illegiti%ate children and, therefore, co%pulsory heirs of the deceased. The =04>& '0U&T issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the e-ecutor#s final account, report and ad%inistration, and pro)ect of partition. &elying upon 3rticle 1I of the 'ivil 'ode, it applied the national la$ of the decedent, $hich in this case is $hich did not

B 00-* 3*. B 00-* B.&. ?o. =/9HI"+ Dune I, 19I" (3'TS; 3M0S B. .>==!S $as a citizen and resident of Te-as at the ti%e of his death. 8e e-ecuted a $ill in the

provide for legiti%es !SSU>; 4hich la$ %ust apply in e-ecuting the $ill of the deceased Q Te-as =a$ or Philippine =a$5 8>=A; The said illegiti%ate children are not entitled to their legiti%es under the Te-as =a$E$hich is the national la$ of the deceasedF, here are no legiti%es. The renvoi doctrinecannot be applied. Said doctrine is usually pertinent $here the decedent is a national of one country ad a do%iciliary of another. !n the said case, it is not disputed that the deceased $as both a national of Te-as and a do%icile thereof at the ti%e of his death. 3rticle 1I, Paragraph 9 of 'ivil code render applicable the national la$ of the decedent, in intestate and testa%entary successions, $ith regard to four ite%s; EaF the order of succession, EbF the a%ount of successional rights, EcF the intrinsic validity of provisions of $ill, and EdF the capacity to succeed. They provide that 3&T.1I &eal property as $ell as personal property is sub)ect to the la$ of the country to $here it is

situated.8o$ever, intestate and testa%entary successions, both $ith respect to the order of successions and to the a%ount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testa%entary provisions, shall be regulated by the national la$ of the person $hose succession is under consideration, $hatever %ay be the nature of the property and regardless of the country $herein said property %ay be found.

Legaspi/Dorotheo, who claims to have taken care of Alejandro before he died, filed a special proceeding for the probate of the latter's will and testament. The probate court admitted the will to probate. Private respondents did not appeal from said order. In 1983, they filed a "Motion to Declare The Will Intrinsically Void." Lower Courts Decision: The trial court granted the motion. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. Upon denial of her motion for reconsideration. Appellate courts decision: Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but the same was dismissed for failure to file appellant's brief within the extended period granted. The dismissal become final and executory and a corresponding entry of judgment was forthwith issued by the Court of Appeals. The lower court, to implement the final and executory order, issued a writ of execution. Judge Zain B. Angas set aside the Order directing the issuance of the writ of execution, on the ground that the order was merely "interlocutory", hence, not final in character. Private respondents filed a petition before the Court of Appeals which nullified the assailed Orders of Judge Zain. Hence, the present petition. Petitioners Contention:

Lourdes Dorotheo vs. CA Facts: Private respondents, Vicente Dorotheo, Jose Dorotheo and Nilda Dorotheo Quintanawere are the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes. Aniceta died in 1969 without her estate being settled. After Alejandro's death, petitioner, Lourdes

Petitioner contended that in issuing the assailed orders, Judge Angas cannot be said to have no jurisdiction because he was particularly designated to hear the case.Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to some compensation since she took care of Alejandro prior to his death although she admitted that they were not married to each other. Defendants Contention: That a last will and testament admitted to probate court that was declared intrinsically void in an order and has become final and executory cannot be given effect

orders of a superior court, for to do so would be to negate the hierarchy of the courts and nullify the essence of review. The Court also reiterated the rule that a judgment on a probated will, albeit erroneous, is binding on the whole world. With respect to the last will and testament, the Court upheld the trial court in holding that the rules of intestacy shall apply. According to the Court, although the will is extrinsically valid, its provisions however are not in accordance with the laws of succession rendering it intrinsically void, hence, the law mandates that the rules of intestacy shall apply. In addition to this, under the law of Succession, EVEN IF A WILL WAS VALIDLY EXECUTED, IF THE TESTATOR PROVIDES FOR DISPOSITIONS THAT DEPRIVES OR IMPAIRS THE LAWFUL HEIRS OF THEIR LEGITIME OR RIGHTFUL INHERITANCE ACCORDING TO THE LAWS ON SUCCESSION, THE UNLAWFUL PROVISION/DISPOSITIONS THEREOF CANNOT BE GIVEN EFFECT. Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of its execution, that he had freely executed the will and was not acting under duress, fraud, menace or undue influence and that the will is genuine and not a forgery, that he was of the proper testamentary age and that he is a person not expressly prohibited by law from making a will. The

Issue: May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in an order that has become final and executory still be given effect? Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court ruled that a final decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. In setting aside the Order that had attained finality, the trial court in effect nullified the entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals. The Court stressed that a lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or

intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding the same may still be raised even after the will has been authenticated. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and testament is always intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to the laws on succession, the unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. This is specially so when the courts had already determined in a final and executory decision that the will is intrinsically void. Such determination having attained that character of finality is binding on this Court which will no longer be disturbed. Not that this Court finds the will to be intrinsically valid, but that a final and executory decision of which the party had the opportunity to challenge before the higher tribunals must stand and should no longer be reevaluated. Failure to avail of the remedies provided by law constitutes waiver. And if the party does not avail of other remedies despite its belief that it was aggrieved by a decision or court action, then it is deemed to have fully agreed and is satisfied with the decision or order.

FELIE AFUELA '. COURT OF APPEALS a$d GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO( su9st tuted 9& ERNESTO G. CASTILLO G.R. +,,77/( +, A#! l ,//>( T $:a( ;. ?T% !d D ' s o$@ The core of this petition is a highly defective notarial will, purportedly executed by Eugenia E. Igsolo (decedent), who died on 1 !ecember 1"#$ at the age of #%. In refusing to give legal recognition to the due execution of this document, the &ourt is provided the opportunity to assert a few important doctrinal rules in the execution of notarial wills, all self' evident in view of (rticles #%) and #% of the &ivil &ode. ( will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. ( will whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. (nd perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an ac*nowledgment, but a mere +urat, is fatally defective. (ny one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. ( notarial will with all three defects is +ust aching for +udicial re+ection. FACTS: (eli- 3zuela filed a petition $ith the trial court for the probate of a notarial $ill purportedly e-ecuted by >ugenia >. !gsolo on Dune 1*, 19+1 and notarized on the sa%e day. The $ill consisted of t$o E9F pages and $as $ritten in (ilipino. The case ste%s fro% a petition for probate filed on 1* 3pril 19+, $ith the &egional Trial 'ourt E&T'F of Manila. The petition filed by petitioner (eli- 3zuela sought to

ad%it to probate the notarial $ill of >ugenia >. !gsolo, $hich $as notarized on 1* Dune 19+1. Petitioner is the son of the cousin of the decedent. The $ill, consisting of t$o E9F pages and $ritten in the vernacular Pilipino, read in full; 8U=!?B 83.!=!? ?! >UB>?!3 >. !BS0=0 S3 ?B3=3? ?B M3@R3P3=, 3M>?; 3R0, si >UB>?!3 >. !BS0=0, na:atira sa 5** San Aiego St., Sa%paloc, Manila, pitongput siya% E"9F na gulang, nasa hustong pagi/isip, pag/una$a at %e%oria ay nag/hahayag na ito na ang a:ing huling habilin at testa%ento, at binabali $ala :o lahat ang naunang gina$ang habilin o testa%ento; Una/8inihiling :o na a:o ay %ailibing sa Se%enterio del ?orte, =a =o%a sang/ayong sa :augalian at pata:aran ng si%bahang :atoli:o at ang taga/pag/ingat E>-ecutorF ng habiling ito ay %agtatayo ng bantayog upang silbing ala/ala sa a:in ng a:ing pa%ilya at :aibigan1 Pangala$a/3:ing ipinag:a:aloob at isinasalin ang lahat ng :arapatan sa a:ing pa%ang:in na si (eli- 3zuela, na siyang nag/alaga sa a:in sa %ahabang panahon, yaong %ga bahay na na:atiri: sa lote nu%ero 9+, .loc: 9, at na:apangalan sa Pechaten Rorporasyon, ganoon din ibinibigay :o ang lahat ng :arapatan sa bahay na na:atiri: sa inoopahan :ong lote, nu%ero ,H, .loc: 9, na pag/aari ng Pechaten 'orporation. !pinag:a:aloob :ong buong buo ang lahat ng :arapatan sa bahay at lupa na nasa 5** San Aiego St., =ot ,9, .loc: 9,, Sa%paloc,

Manila :ay (eli- 3zuela at ang pag:a:aloob :ong ito ay $alang pasubali#t at :ondiciones1 Pangatlo/ ?a ninunu%brahan :o si <3&T P3BU> na siyang nagpapatupad ng huling habiling ito at :agustuhan :o rin na hindi na :ailan%an siyang %ag/ laga: ng piyansiya. 3:ing nilagdaan ang 8uling 8abilin na ito dito sa Maynila i:a 1* ng 8unyo, 19+1. ESgd.F >UB>?!3 >. !BS0=0 ETagapag%anaF P3TU?3@ ?B MB3 S3RS! 3ng :asulatang ito, na binubuo ng SSSS dahon pati ang huling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a%in ni >ugenia >. !gsolo, tagapag%ana na siya niyang 8uling 8abilin, ngayon i:a/1* ng 8unyo 19+1, ay nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapag%ana sa ilali% ng :asulatang nabanggit at sa :ali$ang panig ng lahat at ba$a#t dahon, sa harap ng lahat at ba$a#t sa a%in, at :a%i na%ang %ga sa:si ay lu%agda sa harap ng nasabing tagapag%ana at sa harap ng 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 dahon ng :asulatan ito. >UB>?!3 >. !BS0=0 address; 5** San Aiego St. Sa%paloc, Manila &es. 'ert. ?o. 3/""1"/H" !ssued at Manila on March 1*, 19+1.

NU!&!?0 3B&3<3 address; 199+/!nt. H, Rahilu% Pandacan, Manila &es. 'ert. ?o. 3/,5+HI5 !ssued at Manila on Dan. 91, 19+1 =3M.>&T0 '. =>3T0 address; 3venue 9, .lco: ", =ot I1, San Babriel, B.M3., 'avite &es. 'ert. ?o. 3/"I+9"" issued at 'ar%ona, 'avite on (eb. ", 19+1 DU3?!T0 >ST&>&3 address; 'ity 'ourt 'o%pound, 'ity of Manila &es. 'ert. ?o. 35",+99 !ssued at Manila on March 9, 19+1. ?ilagdaan :o at ninotario :o ngayong 1* ng 8unyo 1*, 19+1 dito sa =ungsod ng Maynila. ESgd.F P>T&0?!0 @. .3UT!ST3 Aoc. ?o. 19H9 1 ?0T3&!0 PU.=!R0 Page ?o. +I 1 Until Aec. H1, 19+1 .oo: ?o. ,H 1 PT&/159*,1/1K9K+1/Manila Series of 19+1 T3? U 1,H"/9""/+1 The three na%ed $itnesses to the $ill affi-ed their signatures 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 E9F heirs, legatees and devisees of the decedent, na%ely; petitioner hi%self, and one !rene =ynn !gsolo, $ho $as alleged to have resided abroad. Petitioner prayed that the

$ill be allo$ed, and that letters testa%entary be issued to the designated e-ecutor, <art Prague. PLAINTIFFS CONTENTION: The plaintiff and appellee contends that the attestation clause is Ja %e%orandu% of the facts attending the e-ecution of the $illJ re uired by la$ to be %ade by the attesting $itnesses, and it %ust necessarily bear their signatures. 3n unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the $itnesses, since the o%ission of their signatures at the botto% thereof negatives their participation. 3zuela also contends that the signatures of the three $itnesses on the left/hand %argin confor% substantially to the la$ and %ay be dee%ed as their signatures to the attestation clause. This is untenable, because said signatures are in co%pliance $ith the legal %andate that the $ill be signed on the left/hand %argin of all its pages. !f an attestation clause not signed by the three $itnesses at the botto% thereof, be ad%itted as sufficient, it $ould be easy to add such clause to a $ill on a subse uent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the $itnesses. 8e also argues that the re uire%ent under 3rticle +*5 of the 'ivil 'ode that 6the nu%ber of pages used in a notarial $ill be stated in the attestation clause7 is %erely directory, rather than %andatory, and thus susceptible to $hat he ter%ed as 6the substantial co%pliance rule.7 DEFENDANTS CONTENTION:

The attestation clause did not state the nu%ber of pages and it $as not signed by the attesting $itnesses at the botto% thereof. The said $itnesses affi-ed their signatures 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 that the $ill $as not e-ecuted and attested to in accordance $ith la$. She pointed out that the decedent#s signature did 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 $as not e-ecuted and attested to in accordance $ith la$. She pointed out that decedent#s signature did not appear on the second page of the $ill, and the $ill $as not properly ac:no$ledged. These t$in argu%ents are a%ong the central %atters to this petition. LOWER COURTS DECISION: The trial court held the $ill to be authentic and to have been e-ecuted in accordance $ith la$ and, thus, ad%itted it to probate, calling to fore 6the %odern tendency in respect to the for%alities in the e-ecution of a $illV$ith the end in vie$ of giving the testator %ore freedo% in e-pressing his last $ishes.7 3ccording to the trial court, the declaration at the end of the $ill under the sub/title, 6Patunay ?g Mga Sa:si,7 co%prised the attestation clause and the ac:no$ledge%ent, and $as a substantial co%pliance $ith the re uire%ents of the la$. !t also held that the signing by the subscribing $itnesses on the left %argin of the second page of the $ill containing the attestation clause and ac:no$ledg%ent,

instead of at the botto% thereof, substantially satisfied the purpose of identification and attestation of the $ill. APPELATE COURTS DECISION: The 'ourt of 3ppeals, ho$ever, reversed the trial court#s decision and ordered the dis%issal of the petition for probate. !t noted that the attestation clause failed to state the 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 $ith la$ Eattestation clause did not state the nu%ber of pages and it $as not signed by the attesting $itnesses at the botto% thereof, and it $as not ac:no$ledge before a notary publicF and, hence, should be ad%itted to probate HELD: The petition is A>?!>A. 3 $ill $hose attestation clause does not contain the nu%ber of pages on $hich the $ill is $ritten is fatally defective. 3 $ill $hose attestation clause is not signed by the instru%ental $itnesses is fatally defective. 3nd perhaps %ost i%portantly, a $ill $hich does not contain an ac:no$ledg%ent, but a %ere jurat, is fatally defective. 3ny one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. 3

notarial $ill $ith all three defects is )ust aching for )udicial re)ection. &>'>?T DU&!SP&UA>?'> Q '!<!= =34 Prior to the ?e$ 'ivil 'ode, the statutory provision governing the for%al re uire%ents of $ills $as Section I1+ of the 'ode of 'ivil Procedure. >-tant therefro% is the re uire%ent that the attestation state the nu%ber of pages of the $ill. The enact%ent of the ?e$ 'ivil 'ode put in force a rule of interpretation of the re uire%ents of $ills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned, that %ay vary fro% the philosophy that governed the said Section I1+. 3rticle +*9 of the 'ivil 'ode, the 'ode 'o%%ission opted to reco%%end a %ore liberal construction through the 8*,$*"(."-(0 )o#!0-(.) %,0 .9 8o$ever, Dustice D...=. &eyes cautioned that the rule 6%ust be li%ited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an e-a%ination of the $ill itself; $hether all the pages are consecutively nu%bered1 $hether the signatures appear in each and every page1 $hether the subscribing $itnesses are three or the $ill $as notarized....ut the total nu%ber of pages, and $hether all persons re uired to sign did so in the presence of each other %ust substantially appear in the attestation clause, being the only chec: against per)ury in the probate proceedings.7 The 'ourt suggested in 'aneda v. 'ourt of 3ppeals EB.&. ?o. 1*H55,, May 9+, 199H, 999 S'&3 "+1F; 6the rule, as it no$ stands, is that o%ission $hich can be supplied by an e-a%ination of the $ill itself, $ithout the need of resorting to e-trinsic evidence, $ill not be fatal

and, correspondingly, $ould not obstruct the allo$ance to probate of the $ill being assailed. 8o$ever, those o%issions $hich cannot be supplied e-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: !(< * on $hich the $ill $as $ritten re%ains a fatal fla$, despite 3rt. +*9. This re uire%ent ai%s at safeguarding the $ill against possible interpolation or o%ission of one or so%e of its pages and thus preventing any increase or decrease in the pages. (ollo$ing 'aneda case, there is substantial co%pliance $ith this re uire%ent if the $ill states else$here in it ho$ %any pages it is co%prised of, as $as the situation in Singson and Taboada. !n this case, ho$ever, there could have been no substantial co%pliance $ith the re uire%ents under 3rt. +*5 of the 'ivil 'ode since there is no state%ent in the attestation clause or any$here in the $ill itself as to the nu%ber of pages $hich co%prise the $ill. There $as an inco%plete atte%pt to co%ply $ith this re uisite, a space having been allotted for the insertion of the nu%ber of pages in the attestation clause. @et the blan: $as never filled in. The sub)ect $ill cannot be considered to have been 3(0-=0> ("" *" = "o $> "; -.*"%,# ."(0 1-". ** * . 4hile the signatures of the instru%ental $itnesses appear on the left/hand %argin of the $ill, they do not appear at the botto% of the attestation clause. 3rt. +*5 particularly segregates the re uire%ent that the instru%ental $itnesses sign each page of the $ill, fro%

the re uisite that the $ill be attested and subscribed by the%. The signatures on the left/hand corner of every page signify, a%ong others, that the $itnesses are a$are that the page they are signing for%s part of the $ill. 0n the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the $itnesses are referring to the state%ents contained in the attestation clause itself. 3n unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested $ill. >ven if the instru%ental $itnesses signed the left/hand %argin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such signatures cannot de%onstrate these $itnesses# underta:ings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on the page $ere directed to$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 of conte%plation can these $ords be construed as an ac:no$ledg%ent. 3n ()?.o10 =<# ." is the act of one $ho has e-ecuted a deed in going before so%e co%petent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. The case of Cagro v. Cagro is %aterial on this point. 3s in this case, Jthe signatures of the three $itnesses to the $ill do not appear at the botto% of the attestation clause, although the page containing the sa%e is signed by the $itnesses on the left/hand %argin.J 4hile three EHF Dustices considered the signature re uire%ent had been substantially co%plied $ith, a %a)ority of si- EIF, spea:ing through 'hief Dustice Paras, ruled that the attestation

clause had not been duly signed, rendering the $ill fatally defective. !t %ight be possible to construe the aver%ent as a jurat, even though it does not follo$ to the usual language thereof. 3 jurat is that part of an affidavit $here the notary certifies that before hi%Kher, the docu%ent $as subscribed and s$orn to by the e-ecutor. !t %ay not have been said before, but a notarial $ill that is not ac:no$ledged before a notary public by the testator and the $itnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and s$orn to before a notary public. The i%portance of the re uire%ent of ac:no$ledg%ent is highlighted by the fact that it had been segregated fro% the other re uire%ents under 3rt. +*5 and entrusted into a separate provision, 3rt. +*I. The e-press re uire%ent of 3rt. +*I is that the $ill be 8()?.o10 =< =9, and not %erely subscribed and s$orn to. The ac:no$ledg%ent coerces the testator and the instru%ental $itnesses to declare before an officer of the la$ that they had e-ecuted and subscribed to the $ill as their o$n free act or deed. Such declaration is under oath and under pain of per)ury, thus allo$ing for the cri%inal prosecution of persons $ho participate in the e-ecution of spurious $ills, or those e-ecuted $ithout the free consent of the testator. !t also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of certain %indset in %a:ing the testa%entary dispositions to those persons heKshe had designated in the $ill. The rule %ust be li%ited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an e-a%ination of the $ill itself;

$hether all the pages are consecutively nu%bered1 $hether the signatures appear in each and every page1 $hether the subscribing $itnesses are three or the $ill $as notarized. 3ll these are facts that the $ill itself can reveal, and defects or even o%issions concerning the% in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded. B," "; "o"(0 .,#$ % o: !(< *, (.= 1; "; % (00 ! %*o.* % @,-% = "o *-<. =-= *o -. "; !% * .) o: (); o"; % #,*" *,$*"(."-(00> (!! (% -. "; ("" *"("-o. )0(,* , $ -.< "; o.0> ); )? (<(-.*" ! %A,%> -. "; !%o$(" !%o) =-.<*. The provision re uires that the testator and the instru%ental $itnesses sign each and every page of the $ill on the left %argin, e-cept the last1 and that all the pages shall be nu%bered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. !n this case, the decedent, unli:e the $itnesses, failed to sign both pages of the $ill on the left %argin, her only signature appearing at the so/called Jlogical endJ of the $ill on its first page. 3lso, the $ill itself is not nu%bered correlatively in letters on each page, but instead nu%bered $ith 3rabic nu%erals. There is a line of thought that has disabused the notion that these t$o re uire%ents be construed as %andatory. Ta:en in isolation, these o%issions, by the%selves, %ay not be sufficient to deny probate to a $ill. @et even as these o%issions are not decisive to the ad)udication of this case, they need not be d$elt on, though indicative as they %ay be of a general lac: of due regard for the re uire%ents under 3rticle +*5 by $hoever e-ecuted the $ill.

3ll told, the string of %ortal defects $hich the $ill in uestion suffers fro% %a:es the probate denial ine-orable. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////// A%". 8&6. >very $ill, other than a holographic $ill, %ust be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator hi%self or by the testator2s na%e $ritten by so%e other person in his presence, and by his e-press direction, and attested and subscribed by three or %ore credible $itnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. A%"-)0 8&4. >very $ill %ust be ac:no$ledged before a notary public by the testator and the $itnesses.

+1L>D $64D4R4 MD1# D6 06R6N vs $4L6$6 G#R# No# C6C1A FACTS: Dr# (ose 3# , nanan and %is 'ife, Dr# 6vel)n 0ere;, nanan, '%o became 1merican citi;ens, establis%ed a s ccessf l medical practice in Ne' Eor/, >#+#1# $%e , nanans lived at No# 2896 ,itation Drive, 0ompe), +)rac se, Ne' Eor/, 'it% t%eir c%ildren, (ocel)n, 18B (ac8 eline, 16B and (osep%ine, 1A# 4n 1 " st 23, 19C9, Dr# , nanan e.ec ted a last 'ill and testament, be8 eat%in" to %is 'ife Jall t%e remainderJ of %is real and personal propert) at t%e time of %is deat% J'%eresoever sit atedG# *n t%e event %e 'o ld s rvive %is 'ife, %e be8 eat%ed all %is propert) to %is c%ildren and "randc%ildren 'it% Dr# Rafael G# , nanan, (r# as tr stee# ?e appointed %is 'ife as e.ec tri. of %is last 'ill and testament and Dr# Rafael G# , nanan, (r# as s bstit te e.ec tor# 3o r da)s later, on 1 " st 2C, Dr# 6vel)n 0# , nanan e.ec ted %er o'n last 'ill and testament containin" t%e same provisions as t%at of t%e 'ill of %er % sband# 4n (an ar) 9, 1982, Dr# , nanan and %is entire famil) peris%ed '%en t%e) 'ere trapped b) fire t%at " tted t%eir %ome# $%ereafter, Dr# Rafael G# , nanan, (r# as tr stee and s bstit te e.ec tor of t%e t'o 'ills, filed separate proceedin"s for t%e

probate t%ereof 'it% t%e + rro"ate ,o rt of t%e ,o nt) of 4nonda"a, Ne' Eor/# 4n 1pril C, t%ese t'o 'ills 'ere admitted to probate and letters testamentar) 'ere iss ed in %is favor# Later, 6vel)n9s mot%er, +al d 0ere;, filed a petition for reprobate in @ lacan# PLAINTIFFS CONTENTION: +al d said s%e 'as t%e sole %eir of %er da "%ter, 6vel)n, and t%at t%e t'o 'ills 'ere in accordance 'it% Ne' Eor/ la'# @ t before s%e co ld present evidence to prove t%e la' of Ne' Eor/, t%e reprobate co rt alread) iss ed an order, disallo'in" t%e 'ills# DEFENDANTS CONTENTION: Defendant Rafael opposed, ar" in" t%at +al d 'as not an %eir accordin" to Ne' Eor/ la'# ?e contended t%at since t%e 'ills 'ere e.ec ted in Ne' Eor/, Ne' Eor/ la' s%o ld "overn# ?e f rt%er ar" ed t%at, b) Ne' Eor/ la', %e and %is brot%ers and sisters 'ere (ose9s %eirs and as s c% entitled to notice of t%e reprobate proceedin"s, '%ic% +al d failed to "ive# LOWER COURTS DECISION: $%e last 'ill and testament 'as s bse8 entl) denied probate and on 1pril 30, 1982, t%e respondent ( d"e of @ranc% 18 of t%e Re"ional $rial ,o rt, 5alolos, to '%ic% t%e reprobate case 'as reassi"ned, iss ed an order statin" t%at

J<-=%en t%e last 'ill and testament # # # 'as denied probate,J t%e case 'as terminated and t%erefore all orders t%eretofore iss ed s%o ld be "iven finalit)# $%e same 4rder amended t%e 3ebr ar) 21, 198A 4rder b) re8 irin" petitioner to t rn over to t%e estate t%e inventoried propert)# *t considered t%e proceedin"s for all intents and p rposes, closed# 4n 5arc% 31, 1986, respondent ( d"e to '%ic% t%e case 'as reassi"ned denied t%e motion for reconsideration %oldin" t%at t%e doc ments s bmitted b) petitioner proved Jt%at t%e 'ills of t%e testator domiciled abroad 'ere properl) e.ec ted, "en ine and s fficient to possess real and personal propert)B t%at letters testamentar) 'ere iss edB and t%at proceedin"s 'ere %eld on a forei"n trib nal and proofs ta/en b) a competent ! d"e '%o in8 ired into all t%e facts and circ mstances and bein" satisfied 'it% %is findin"s iss ed a decree admittin" to probate t%e 'ills in 8 estion#J ?o'ever, respondent ( d"e said t%at t%e doc ments did not establis% t%e la' of Ne' Eor/ on t%e proced re and allo'ance of 'ills# APPELLATE COURTS DECISION: No$e( t 3as f led d !ectl& to t%e Su#!e*e Cou!t. ISSUE: -%et%er or not t%e reprobate of t%e 'ills s%o ld be allo'ed# HELD:

$%e + preme ,o rt r led t%at t%e respective 'ills of t%e , nanan spo ses, '%o 'ere 1merican citi;ens, 'ill onl) be effective in t%is co ntr) pon compliance 'it% t%e follo'in" provision of t%e ,ivil ,ode of t%e 0%ilippines: 1rt# 816# $%e 'ill of an alien '%o is abroad prod ces effect in t%e 0%ilippines if made 'it% t%e formalities prescribed b) t%e la' of t%e place in '%ic% %e resides, or accordin" to t%e formalities observed in %is co ntr), or in conformit) 'it% t%ose '%ic% t%is ,ode prescribes# $% s, proof t%at bot% 'ills conform 'it% t%e formalities prescribed b) Ne' Eor/ la's or b) 0%ilippine la's is imperative# $%e evidence necessar) for t%e reprobate or allo'ance of 'ills '%ic% %ave been probated o tside of t%e 0%ilippines are as follo's: <1= t%e d e e.ec tion of t%e 'ill in accordance 'it% t%e forei"n la'sB <2= t%e testator %as %is domicile in t%e forei"n co ntr) and not in t%e 0%ilippinesB <3= t%e 'ill %as been admitted to probate in s c% co ntr)B <A= t%e fact t%at t%e forei"n trib nal is a probate co rt, and <2= t%e la's of a forei"n co ntr) on proced re and allo'ance of 'ills# 6.cept for t%e first and last re8 irements, t%e petitioner s bmitted all t%e needed evidence# $%e necessit) of presentin" evidence on t%e forei"n la's pon '%ic% t%e probate in t%e forei"n co ntr) is based is impelled b) t%e fact t%at o r co rts cannot ta/e ! dicial notice of t%em#

$%ere is merit in petitioner9s insistence t%at t%e separate 'ills of t%e , nanan spo ses s%o ld be probated !ointl)# Respondent ( d"e9s vie' t%at t%e R les on allo'ance of 'ills is co c%ed in sin" lar terms and t%erefore s%o ld be interpreted to mean t%at t%ere s%o ld be separate probate proceedin"s for t%e 'ills of t%e , nanan spo ses is too literal and simplistic an approac%# -%at t%e la' e.pressl) pro%ibits is t%e ma/in" of !oint 'ills eit%er for t%e testator9s reciprocal benefit or for t%e benefit of a t%ird person <,ivil ,ode of t%e 0%ilippines, 1rticle 818=# *n t%e case at benc%, t%e , nanan spo ses e.ec ted separate 'ills# +ince t%e t'o 'ills contain essentiall) t%e same provisions and pertain to propert) '%ic% in all probabilit) are con! "al in nat re, practical considerations dictate t%eir !oint probate# $%e r le t%at t%e co rt %avin" ! risdiction over t%e reprobate of a 'ill s%all Jca se notice t%ereof to be "iven as in case of an ori"inal 'ill presented for allo'anceJ <Revised R les of ,o rt, R le 2C, +ection 2= means t%at 'it% re"ard to notices, t%e 'ill probated abroad s%o ld be treated as if it 'ere an Jori"inal 'illJ or a 'ill t%at is presented for probate for t%e first time# 1ccordin"l), compliance 'it% +ections 3 and A of R le C6, '%ic% re8 ire p blication and notice b) mail or personall) to t%e J/no'n %eirs, le"atees, and devisees of t%e testator resident in t%e 0%ilippinesJ and to t%e e.ec tor, if %e is not t%e petitioner, are re8 ired# $%e order of t%e respondent ( d"e 'as SET ASIDE.