JAMES Digested case

EXTRINSIC VALIDITY
G.R. No. 6845
YAP TUA, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
YAP CA KUAN and YAP CA KUAN, objectors-appellants
FACTS:
It appears from the record that one Perfecto Gabriel, representing the petitioner, Yap Tua,
presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, asking that the will of
Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong be admitted to probate, as the last will and testament of Tomasa
Elizaga Yap Caong, deceased. It appears that the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong died in the city
of Manila on the 11th day of August, 1909. Accompanying said petition and attached thereto was
the alleged will of the deceased. It appears that the will was signed by the deceased, as well as
Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez.
However, Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu appeared and presented a petition, alleging that
they were interested in the matters of the said will and desired to intervene and asked that a
guardian ad litem be appointed to represent them in the cause. They alleged that the will was
null and void because the testatrix was not mentally capacitated.

ISSUE: WON the will presented for allowance for probate is extrinsically valid?
RULE:
Upon a full consideration of the record, we find that a preponderance of the proof shows that
Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong did execute, freely and voluntarily, while she was in the right use of
all her faculties, the will dated August 11, 1909. Therefore the judgment of the lower court
admitting said will to probate is hereby affirmed with costs.

FORMS OF WILL
In the matter of the probation of the will of Jose Riosa.
MARCELINO CASAS, applicant-appellant,
FACTS:

Jose Riosa died on April 17, 1917. He left a will made in the month of January, 1908, in
which he disposed of an estate valued at more than P35,000. The will was duly executed in
accordance with the law then in force .The will was in writing, signed by the testator, and
attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each
other; but was not signed by the testator and the witnesses on the left margin of each and every
page, nor did the attestation state these facts. The new law, therefore, went into effect after the
making of the will and before the death of the testator, without the testator having left a will that
conforms to the new requirements.
ISSUE: WON the new law will control the probate of the will?
RULE:
The court said in negative. The validity of the execution of a will must be tested by the
statutes in force at the time of its execution and that statutes subsequently enacted have no
retrospective effect

NOtarial Will
Nera v. Rimando
G.R. L-5971 February 27, 1911
'Test of Presence'
Facts:
At the time the will was executed, in a large room connecting with a smaller room by a
doorway where a curtain hangs across, one of the witnesses was in the outside room when the
other witnesses were attaching their signatures to the instrument.
The trial court did not consider the determination of the issue as to the position of the
witness as of vital importance in determining the case. It agreed with the ruling in the case of
Jaboneta v. Gustillo that the alleged fact being that one of the subscribing witnesses was in the
outer room while the signing occurred in the inner room, would not be sufficient to invalidate the
execution of the will.
The CA deemed the will valid.
Issue: Whether or not the subscribing witness was able to see the testator and other
witnesses in the act of affixing their signatures.

HELD: YES
The Court is unanimous in its opinion that had the witnesses been proven to be in the
outer room when the testator and other witnesses signed the will in the inner room, it would have
invalidated the will since the attaching of the signatures under the circumstances was not done 'in
the presence' of the witnesses in the outer room. The line of vision of the witness to the testator
and other witnesses was blocked by the curtain separating the rooms.
The position of the parties must be such that with relation to each other at the moment of the
attaching the signatures, they may see each other sign if they chose to.
In the Jaboneta case, the true test of presence is not whether or not they actualy saw each other
sign but whether they might have seen each other sign if they chose to doso considering their
physical, mental condition and position in relation to each other at the moment of the inscription
of the signature.

Allowance and disallowance of wills

Nuguid vs Nuguid,
GR No. L-23445
June 23, 1966;
(Special Proceedings Difference between Preterition and Disinheritance)
Facts:
Rosario died without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her
legitimate parents Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters.
Remedios, one of the sister filed in court a holographic will allegedly executed by
Rosario instituting the former as the sole, universal heir of all her properties. She prayed that said
will be admitted to probate and that letter of administration be issued to her.
Felix and Paz opposed to the probate of the will on the ground that by the institution of
Remedios as universal heir of the deceased, oppositors who are compulsory heirs in the direct
ascending line were illegally preterited and that in consequence, the institution is void.
Article 854 provides that preterition of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the
direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the
testator, shall annul the institution of heir.
Petitioners contention is that the present is a case of ineffective disinheritance rather than
one of preterition drawing the conclusion that Article 854 does not apply in the case at bar.
Issue: WON the holographic will presented by the petitioner was valid?

Held:
The court said that the will is null and void.. Where the deceased left no descendants, legitimate
or illegitimate, but she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents, and her
holographic will does not explicitly disinherit them but simply omits their names altogether, the
case is one of preterition of the parents, not a case of ineffective disinheritance.
Preterition consists in the omission in the testators will of the forced heirs or anyone of them,
either because they are not mentioned therein, or, through mentioned, they are neither instituted
as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Disinheritance, in turn, is a testamentary disposition
depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law.
Where the one sentence will institutes the petitioner as the sole, universal heir and preterits the
parents of the testatrix, and it contains no specific legacies or bequests, such universal institution
of petitioner, by itself, is void. And intestate succession ensues.

G.R. No. L-48840 December 29, 1943

ERNESTO M. GUEVARA, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
ROSARIO GUEVARA and her husband PEDRO BUISON, respondent-appellees.

Facts:
On August 26, 1931, Victorino L. Guevara with all the formalities ,executed a will. Ernesto M.
Guevarra and Rosario Guevara, ligitimate son and natural daughter, respectively, of the deceased.
Subsequently, and on July 12, 1933, Victorino L. Guevarra executed whereby he conveyed
to him the southern half of the large parcel of land of which he had theretofore disposed by the will
above mentioned, inconsideration of the sum of P1 and other valuable considerations, among which
were the payment of all his debts and obligations amounting to not less than P16,500, his
maintenance up to his death, and the expenses of his last illness and funeral expenses
Ernesto was able to register the said property upon his name. On November 12, 1937, by
Rosario Guevara filed an action to recover from Ernesto Guevara what she claims to be her strict
ligitime as an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased
In the meantime Rosario Guevara, who appears to have had her father's last will and
testament in her custody, did nothing judicially to invoke the testamentary dispositions made therein
in her favor, whereby the testator acknowledged her as his natural daughter

Issue: WON the will has prescribed for probate?

Held:
The court said in negative, the will should be presented for probate.The right under the will
cannot be disregarded, nor may those rights be obliterated on account of the failure or refusal of the
custodian of the will to present it to the court for probate.
Even if the decedent left no debts and nobdy raises any question as to the authenticity and
due execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance with
that will without first securing its allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly
provides that "no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
proper court"; and, second, because the probate of a will, which is a proceeding in rem, cannot be
dispensed with the substituted by any other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending
against public policy designed to effectuate the testator's right to dispose of his property by will in
accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs and legatees under the will thru the means
provided by law, among which are the publication and the personal notices to each and all of said
heirs and legatees. Nor may the court approve and allow the will presented in evidence in such an
action for partition, which is one in personam, any more than it could decree the registration under
the Torrens system of the land involved in an ordinary action for reinvindicacion or partition

CONDITIONS, MODES AND TERMS

G.R. No. 113725. June 29, 2000
JOHNNY S. RABADILLA, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA
COSCOLUELLA Y BELLEZA VILLACARLOS,respondents
FACTS:
In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as
a devisee of the parcel of land. The said Codicil, which was duly probated and admitted in
Special Proceedings before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.
That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the aforementioned property and the rights
which I shall set forth herein below, shall be inherited and acknowledged by the children and
spouse of Jorge Rabadilla
a).It is also my command, in this my addition (Codicil), that should I die and Jorge Rabadilla
shall have already received the ownership of the said land, and also at the time that the lease of

Balbinito G. Guanzon of the said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until
he dies, every year to give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, certain piculs of sugars .
Should Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall give the shall have the obligation to
still give yearly, the sugar as specified in the Fourth paragraph of his testament, to Maria Marlina
Coscolluela y Belleza on the month of December of each year.
If Dr. Rabadilla or his heirs decide to sell, lease or transfer, the buyer, lessee or transferee
shall also have the same obligation to the testators sister. Failure to do so will forfeit the
property to the sister and nearest relatives.
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina and children
Johnny (petitioner), Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida, all surnamed Rabadilla.
Coscolluella filed a case against the transferee bank and the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla. They
were declared in default except Johnny Rabadilla whose default order was lifted upon filing of
an answer. He also entered into a compromise agreement which he failed to fulfill.
RTC dismissed the complaint. CA reversed.
The petitioner theorizes further that there can be no valid substitution for the reason that the
substituted heirs are not definite, as the substituted heirs are merely referred to as near
descendants without a definite identity or reference as to who are the near descendants and
therefore, under Articles 843 and 845 as not written.
RULING:
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir
or heirs first instituted. Under substitutions in general, the testator may either (1) provide for the
designation of another heir to whom the property shall pass in case the original heir should die
before him/her, renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple
substitution, or (2) leave his/her property to one person with the express charge that it be
transmitted subsequently to another or others, as in a fideicommissary substitution. The Codicil
sued upon contemplates neither of the two.
In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason
of incapacity, predecease or renunciation. In the case under consideration, the provisions of
subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease,
incapacity or renunciation, the testatrixs near descendantswould substitute him. What the
Codicil provides is that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed
in the Codicil, the property referred to shall be seized and turned over to the testatrixs near
descendants.

No fideicommissary substitution either. Dr. Rabadilla and his heirs are allowed to alienate the
property. In fideicommissary substitution, the heir is not allowed to alienate it because his duty is
to preserve and transmit it to the second heir. Also, if Dr. Rabadilla is the fiduciary and the near
descendants of the testator are the second heirs, it violates the requirement of law that the
fiduciary and the fideicommissary must be within the one degree relationship. In fact, the near
descendants are not in anyway related to Dr. Rabadilla or his heirs.

RESERVA TRONCAL
G.R. No. L-14856

November 15, 1919

ENCARNACION FLORENTINO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
MERCEDES FLORENTINO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Facts:
That on January 17 and February 13, 1890, Apolonio Isabelo Florentino executed a will
before the notary public of Ilocos Sur, instituting as his universal heirs his aforementioned ten
children, the posthumos Apolonio III and his widow Severina Faz de Leon; that he declared, in
one of the paragraphs of said will, all his property should be divided among all of his children of
both marriages.
Encarnacion Florentino was born upon the first marriage of Apolonio while Mercedes
on the subsequent one.
That Apolonio Florentino III, the posthumos son of the second marriage, died in 1891;
that his mother, Severina Faz de Leon, succeeded to all his property described in the complaint;
that the widow, Severina Faz de Leon died on November 18, 1908, leaving a will instituting as
her universal heiress her only living daughter, Mercedes Florentino; that, as such heir, said
daughter took possession of all the property left at the death of her mother, Severina Faz de
Leon; that among same is included the property, described in the complaint, which the said
Severina Faz de Leon inherited from her deceased son, the posthumos Apolonio, as reservable
property; that, as a reservist, the heir of the said Mercedes Florentino deceased had been
gathering for herself alone the fruits of lands described in the complaint; that each and every one

of the parties mentioned in said complaint is entitled to one-seventh of the fruits of the reservable
property described therein, either by direct participation or by representation
Issue: WON there is reserve troncal?
Rule:
The court said in positive. The aforementioned property, inherited by the deceased Severina Faz
de Leon from her son Apolonio Florentino III, is reservable property; that the plaintiffs, being
relatives of the deceased Apolonio III within the third degree, are entitled to six-sevenths of said
reservable property; that the defendant Mercedes is entitled to the remaining seventh part
thereof; that the latter, together with her husband Angel Encarnacion, shall deliver to the
plaintiffs, jointly, six-sevenths of the fruits or rents, claimed from said portion of the land and of
the quantity claimed, from January 17, 1918, until fully delivered; and that the indemnity for one
thousand pesos (P1,000) prayed for in the complaint is denied, without special findings as to the
costs of both instances.

DISINHERITANCE
Pecson v Mediavillo (G.R. NO. 7890)

Facts:
The last will and testament of Florencio Pecson was presented to the Court of
First Instance of the Province of Albay for probate. Mr. Tomas Lorayes, an attorney at
law, opposed the legislation of the will on the ground that it had not been authorized nor
signed by the deceased. After hearing the respective parties, the Honorable Percy M.
Moir (judge) found that the will had been signed and executed in accordance with the
provisions of law, and denied the opposition .

Lorayes, representing Basiliso Mediavillo and Rosario Mediavillo, presented a motion

averring that Rosario, was disinherited by Florencio Pecson, because she failed to show
him due respect and on a certain occasion raised her hand against him
Rosario became insane in 1895, when she went to Nueva Caceres to study in college,
and it has been proved that it was previous to this date that she disobeyed her
grandfather and raised her hand against him. But since she was 14 years old, and
shortly afterwards became insane, she was not responsible for her acts and should not
have been disinherited by her grandfather.
The court therefore decreed that the disinheriting clause of the will is contrary to
law and is set aside for being of no force or value whatever.

Issue:

Whether or not the courts, when a parent disinherits his children, may inquire into the
cause of the disinheritance and decide that there was or was not ground for such
disinheritance.

Held:

Yes. The Civil Code (Art. 848) provides that disinheritance shall only take place for one
of the causes expressly fixed by law. Article 849 of the Civil Code provides that the
disinheritance can only be effected by the testament, in which shall be mentioned the
legal grounds or causes for such disinheritance. The right of the courts to inquire into
the causes and whether there was sufficient cause for the disinheritance or not, seems
to be supported by express provisions of the Civil Code. Disinheritance made without
statement of the reason, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted, should not be
proven shall annul the designation of heirship, in so far as it prejudices the person
disinherited.

In the case, It appears from the record that when Rosario Mediavillo was about 14
years of age, she had received some attentions from a young man that she had
received a letter from him and that her grandfather, Florencio, took occasion to talk to
her about the relations between her and the said young man. It was upon that occasion
when the disobedience and disrespect were shown to her grandfather, and that was the
cause for her disinheritance by her grandfather. The record shows that after said event,
she lost the use of her mental powers and that she has never regained them, except for
very brief periods, up to the present time.
The lower court is correct in taking into consideration her tender years, that she was
probably not responsible for the disrespect and disobedience shown to her grandfather
in the year 1894 or 1895

LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION

Anselma Diaz v. IAC and Felisa Pamuti Jardin
GR No. L-66574
June 17, 1987
Facts:
Felisa is a niece of Simona who together with Felisas mother Juliana were the only legitimate
children of spouses Felipe and Petronilla;. Juliana married Simon and out of their union were born
Felisa and anotherchild who died during infancy; Simona is the widow of Pascual and mother of
Pablo;Pablo was the only legitimate son of his parents Pascual and Simona;Pascual died in 1970;
Pablo in 1973 and Simona in 1976;Pablo at the time of his death was survived by his mother
Simona and six minor natural children: four minor children with Anselma Diaz
and two minor children with Felixberta.1976 Judge Jose Raval declared Felisa as
the sole legitimate heir of Simona
Petitioners Anselma and Felixberta as guardians of their minor children file for
opposition and motion to exclude Felisa from further taking part or intervening in the settlement of the
intestate estate of Simona1980 Judge Bleza issued an order excluding Felisa from further
taking part or intervening and declared her to be not an heir of Simona. Felisas motion for
recon was denied, and she filed her appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court
declaring her as the sole heir of Simona

Issue: WON the petitioner and her siblings being illegitimate child ren of the son of the decedent
could inherent by right of representation?
Rule:
The 6 minor children cannot represent their father Pablo in the succession o f t h e l a t t e r
t o t h e i n t e s t a t e e s t a t e o f h i s l e g i t i m a t e m o t h e r S i m o n a because of the
barrier provided for under Art. 992 of the Civil Code
Art 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestatofrom the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother;nor shall
such children or relatives inherit in the same manner fromthe illegitimate child.
Pablo is a legitimate child. However, his 6 minor children are illegitimate ..Art 992 provides a barrier
or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestate between the
illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate
child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for
thepurposes of Art. 992.
G.R. No. L-21809
January 31, 1966
GIL P. POLICARPIO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
JOSE V. SALAMAT, ET AL., defendants.
VICENTE ASUNCION, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
In a duly probated last will and testament of one Damasa Crisostomo, she gave the naked
ownership of a fishpond owned by her to her sister Teodorica de la Cruz while its usufruct to the
children of her cousins Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo. The fishpond is situated
at a barrio of Hagonoy, Bulacan.
The children of Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo turned out to be fourteen. The
usufructuaries lease the fishpond to Policarpio. As the days go by, some of the usufructuaries died
and Jose Salamat became the naked owner. Salamat claims for share from the other
ussufrutuaries.

ISSUE: WON Salamat has the right to claim for profits from the fishpond?
RULE:
The court said, he possess no right. The usufructuaries are hereby declared to be entitled to
the shares of the three deceased usufructuaries and, hence, as a corollary, appellees Gil P.
Policarpio and Batas Riego de Dios are hereby ordered to pay to them the money withheld by them
respectively representing the shares of the deceased usufructuaries

There is accretion among usufructuaries who are constituted at the same time when one of
them dies before the end of the usufruct.