Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

CIVIL CODE RULES FOR FILIATION

Legitimate Child
Illegitimate Child
Period
Lasts during the whole lifetime of the
GR: Lasts ONLY during the lifetime of
when it child (NCC 118)
the presumed parent
can be
E: Within 5 years should the child die
E:
filed
(NCC 118)
Presumed parent died during the minority
Minor
of the child [within 4 years]
Insane
An instrument where the parent
expressly acknowledged the child [six
months after discover] (NCC 137)
Who
GR: Child himself
Code is silent
may
E: Transmitted to its heirs should the
bring
child die:
the
Minor
action Insane
Child dies after instituting the action
2. Pamplona
Co-owner sila
The community property of the marriage, at the dissolution of this bond by the death of one of the spouses, ceases to belong to the legal partnership and becomes the property of a
community, by operation of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse, or the exclusive property of the widower or the widow, it he or she be the heir of
the deceased spouse. Every co-owner shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits derived therefrom, and he therefore may alienate, assign or mortgage it, and
even substitute another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question. (Marigsa vs. Macabuntoc, 17 Phil. 107)
Ung portion nia binenta
The records show that the conjugal estate had not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided by the heirs thereto in accordance with law. The necessary proceedings for the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership were not instituted by the heirs either in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse pursuant to Act 3176 amending Section 685
of Act 190. Neither was there an extra-judicial partition between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse nor was an ordinary action for partition brought for the
purpose. Accordingly, the estate became the property of a community between the surviving husband, Flaviano Moreto, and his children with the deceased Monica Maniega in the
concept of a co-ownership.
3 de guzman
Grabe dahil lng ditto
Rule 130, Section 20 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that:
Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.
The phrase "conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law" takes into account Article 821 of the Civil Code which states that persons 91 convicted of falsification of a
document, perjury or false testimony" are disqualified from being witnesses to a will." (Paras, RULES OF COURT ANNOTATED, Vol. IV First Ed., p. 44)

Since the witness Francisco Manalo is not convicted of any of the above-mentioned crimes to disqualify him as a witness and this case does not involve the probate of a will, We rule
that the fact that said witness is facing several criminal charges when he testified did not in any way disqualify him as a witness.
4. dolor
The requirement of the statute that the will shall be "signed" is satisfied not only the customary written signature but also by the testator's or testatrix' thumbmark .Expert testimony as
to the identity of thumbmarks or fingerprints is of course admissible. The method of identification of fingerprints is a science requiring close study .Where thumb impressions are
blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from clear, thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated by experts as showing the identity or lack of identity of the
impressions, the court is justified in refusing to accept the opinions of alleged experts and in substituting its own opinion that a distinct similarity in some respects between the
admittedly genuine thumbmark and the questioned thumbmarks, is evident .This we do here. (Emperor vs. Abdul Hamid [1905], 32 Indian L. Rep., 759, cited in 3 Chamberlayne on the
Modern Law of Evidence, sec. 2561, notes 3.)
There is another means of approach to the question and an obvious one. The three instrumental witnesses united in testifying concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution
of the will. It was stated that in addition to the testator and themselves, on other person, Diosdado Dominado, was present. This latter individual was called as a witness by the
oppositors to the will to identify Exhibit 8. He was later placed on the witness stand by the proponent on rebuttal, and thereupon declared positively that he was the one who prepared
the will for the signature of Paulino Diancin; that the thumbmarks appearing on the will were those of Paulino Diancin, and that he saw Paulino Diancin make these impressions. The
testimony of a witness called by both parties is worthy of credit.
5. yap tua
Walang undue influence
With reference to the first assignment of error, to wit, that undue influence was brought to bear upon Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong in the execution of her will of August 11th, 1909
(Exhibit A), the lower court found that no undue influence had been exercised over the mind of the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong. While it is true that some of the witnesses testified
that the brother of Tomasa, one Lorenzo, had attempted to unduly influence her mind in the execution of he will, upon the other hand, there were several witnesses who testified that
Lorenzo did not attempt, at the time of the execution of the will, to influence her mind in any way. The lower court having had an opportunity to see, to hear, and to note the witnesses
during their examination reached the conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence showed that no undue influence had been used. we find no good reason in the record for
reversing his conclusions upon that question.
Of sond mind
that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong was not of sound mind and memory at the time of the execution of the will, we find the same conflict in the declarations of the witnesses which we
found with reference to the undue influence. While the testimony of Dr. Papa is very strong relating to the mental condition of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong, yet, nevertheless, his
testimony related to a time perhaps twenty-four hours before the execution of the will in question (Exhibit A). Several witnesses testified that at the time the will was presented to her
for her signature, she was of sound mind and memory and asked for a pen and ink and kept the will in her possession for ten or fifteen minutes and finally signed it. The lower court
found that there was a preponderance of evidence sustaining the conclusion that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong was of sound mind and memory and in the possession of her faculties at
the time she signed this will. In view of the conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and the finding of the lower court, we do not feel justified in reversing his conclusions upon that
question.
Tama signature
One of the witnesses testified that she had written her full name. We are of the opinion, and we think the law sustains our conclusion, that if Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong signed any
portion of her name tot he will, with the intention to sign the same, that the will amount to a signature. It has been held time and time again that one who makes a will may sign the
same by using a mark, the name having been written by others. If writing a mark simply upon a will is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make and execute a will, then
certainly the writing of a portion or all of her name ought to be accepted as a clear indication of her intention to execute the will.
6. avera

In the present case no explanation was made at the trial as to why all three of the attesting witnesses were not produced, but the probable reason is found in the fact that, although the
petition for the probate of this will had been pending from December 21, 1917, until the date set for the hearing, which was April 5, 1919, no formal contest was entered until the very
day set for the hearing; and it is probable that the attorney for the proponent, believing in good faith the probate would not be contested, repaired to the court with only one of the three
attesting witnesses at hand, and upon finding that the will was contested, incautiously permitted the case to go to proof without asking for a postponement of the trial in order that he
might produce all the attesting witnesses.
Although this circumstance may explain why the three witnesses were not produced, it does not in itself supply any basis for changing the rule expounded in the case above referred
to; and were it not for a fact now to be mentioned, this court would probably be compelled to reverse this case on the ground that the execution of the will had not been proved by a
sufficient number of attesting witnesses.
It appears, however, that this point was not raised by the appellant in the lower court either upon the submission of the cause for determination in that court or upon the occasion of the
filing of the motion for a new trial. Accordingly it is insisted for the appellee that this question cannot now be raised for the first time in this court. We believe this point is well taken, and
the first assignment of error must be declared not be well taken. This exact question has been decided by the Supreme Court of California adversely to the contention of the appellant,
and we see no reason why the same rule of practice should not be observed by us.
Signature
Still some details at times creep into legislative enactments which are so trivial it would be absurd to suppose that the Legislature could have attached any decisive importance to
them. The provision to the effect that the signatures of the testator and witnesses shall be written on the left margin of each page rather than on the right margin seems to be this
character. So far as concerns the authentication of the will, and of every part thereof, it can make no possible difference whether the names appear on the left or no the right margin,
provided they are on one or the other. In Caraig vs. Tatlonghari (R. G. No. 12558, decided March 23, 1918, not reported), this court declared a will void which was totally lacking in the
signatures required to be written on its several pages; and in the case of Re estate of Saguinsin (41 Phil., 875), a will was likewise declared void which contained the necessary
signatures on the margin of each leaf ( folio), but not in the margin of each page containing written matter.
The instrument now before us contains the necessary signatures on every page, and the only point of deviation from the requirement of the statute is that these signatures appear in
the right margin instead of the left. By the mode of signing adopted every page and provision of the will is authenticated and guarded from possible alteration in exactly the same
degree that it would have been protected by being signed in the left margin; and the resources of casuistry could be exhausted without discovering the slightest difference between the
consequences of affixing the signatures in one margin or the other.
7 nayve
Kahit nasa middle
As to the signatures on the margin, it is true, as above stated, that the third page actually used was signed by the testator, not on the left margin, as it was by the witnesses, but about
the middle of the page and the end of the will; and that the fourth page was signed by the witnesses, not on the left margin, as it was by the testator, but about the middle of the page
and at the end of the attestation clause.
In this respect the holding of this court in the case of Avera vs. Garcia and Rodriguez (42 Phil., 145), is applicable, wherein the will in question was signed by the testator and the
witnesses, not on the left, but right, margin. The rule laid down in that case is that the document contained the necessary signatures on each page, whereby each page of the will was
authenticated and safeguarded against any possible alteration. In that case, the validity of the will was sustained, and consequently it was allowed to probate.
Applying that doctrine to the instant case, we hold that, as each and every page used of the will bears the signatures of the testator and the witnesses, the fact that said signatures do
not all appear on the left margin of each page does not detract from the validity of the will.lawphi1.net

Khit wala s attestation


As may be seen, the number of sheets is stated in said last paragraph of the will. It is true that in the case of Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca (43 Phil., 405), it was held that the
attestation clause must state the number of sheets or pages composing the will; but when, as in the case before us, such fact, while it is not stated in the attestation clause, appears at
the end of the will proper, so that no proof aliunde is necessary of the number of the sheets of the will, then there can be no doubt that it complies with the intention of the law that the
number of sheets of which the will is composed be shown by the document itself, to prevent the number of the sheets of the will from being unduly increased or decreased.
With regard to the last defect pointed out, namely, that the testator does not appear to have signed on all the sheets of the will in the presence of the three witnesses, and the latter to
have attested and signed on all the sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other, it must be noted that in the attestation clause above set out it is said that the testator
signed the will "in the presence of each of the witnesses" and the latter signed "in the presence of each other and of the testator." So that, as to whether the testator and the attesting
witnesses saw each other sign the will, such a requirement was clearly and sufficiently complied with. What is not stated in this clause is whether the testator and the witnesses signed
all the sheets of the will.
8 mendoza
( A ) They contain erasures and alterations that explain the respondent stopped;
( B ) That has not been proven that the decedent - prescindimiento of what is stated in those documents exhibits A and C - age was competent to test;
( C ) That has not proved that the deceased possessed the Spanish is the language in which these documents are written;
( D ) That one of the clauses of these documents is no prohibition that aired in slab Courts;
( E ) That neither has been prepared, signed and witnessed in accordance with the provisions of Article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
There is the presumption that the evidencerai sed at the tr ial cour t had alread y been appreciated.

The testators knowledge of the language inw h i c h t h e w i l l i s w r i t t e n i s p r e s u m e d because he was a priest and wh ile at these minar y, he
mu st have learned no t onl ySpanish but English as well
The disposition of the testator that his"las t will and testa ment no t be heard b y t h e c o u r t " c a n n o t s t r i p c o u r t s o f their autho r it y to
d etermine w hethe r the will is valid or not
T he law re qu ires, unde r pena lt y,
that w i l l s m a d e b y a t e s t a t o r s h o u l d b e d e l i v e r e d t o t h e C O u r t , a f t e r t h e p e r s o n d i e s , b y t h e p e r s o n t o
whomcustody has been entrusted, so thatthe court can determine whether thew i l l i s v a l i d a n d a t t h e s a m e
t i m e d e t e r m i n e t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e testator to dispose of their property asinstructed on the same

i f t h e c o n t r a c t b e d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r d i e d i n t e s t a t e , t h e w i l l n o t being capable of legalization.

In the proba tion of a wil l, some defects in t h e w i l l a n d t e s t a m e n t s h o u l d n o t b e allowed to obstruct the legal formalities x xx in consideration
of wi ll s and to frustra te the wishes of the dead solemnly expressedi n t h e i r w i l l s , a s t o t h e g r a n t i n g o f w h i c h there is no t even a shado w of bad fai th or frau
e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e h e r e i s t h a t whatever defects there are in the last willand testame nt of the testat or, as lo ng as t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l
c o m p l i a n c e o f t h e bas ic r equir ements of the law, the same s h o u l d b e g i v e n e f f e c t i n t h e a b s e n c e
o f f r a u d . I t c a n b e g l e a n e d i n t h e p o o r l y t ranslated o rigina l text , that the

testat or h a s g i v e n i n s t r u c t i o n s a s t o h o w h i s property should be disposed of. This couldn o t b e g i v e n e f f e c t u n l e s s t h e c o u r t


h a s p a s s e d u p o n i t s v a l i d i t y i n p r o b a t e p roceed in gs because of the p ro vis io ns of ARTicle 838.
9. abada
What law applies
Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932. The laws in force at that time are the Civil Code of 1889 or the Old Civil Code, and Act No. 190 or the Code of Civil Procedure [14] which
governed the execution of wills before the enactment of the New Civil Code.
The matter in dispute in the present case is the attestation clause in the will of Abada. Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, [15] governs the
form of the attestation clause of Abadas will.[16] Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
SEC. 618. Requisites of will. No will, except as provided in the preceding section,[17] shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be
written in the language or dialect known by the testator and signed by him, or by the testators name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and
attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the
instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, on the left margin, and said pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the
upper part of each sheet. The attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page
thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages
thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.
However, the Code of Civil Procedure[22] repealed Article 685 of the Old Civil Code. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not necessary in the execution
ofany will.[23] Therefore, Abadas will does not require acknowledgment before a notary public.
Nevertheless, Caponong-Nobles contention must still fail. There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the will.
[25]
This is a matter that a party may establish by proof aliunde.[26] Caponong-Noble further argues that Alipio, in his testimony, has failed, among others, to show that Abada knew or
understood the contents of the will and the Spanish language used in the will. However, Alipio testified that Abada used to gather Spanish-speaking people in their place. In these
gatherings, Abada and his companions would talk in the Spanish language.[27] This sufficiently proves that Abada speaks the Spanish language.
Caponong-Noble further alleges that the attestation clause fails to state expressly that the testator signed the will and its every page in the presence of three witnesses. She then
faults the Court of Appeals for applying to the present case the rule on substantial compliance found in Article 809 of the New Civil Code. [29]
The first sentence of the attestation clause reads: Suscrito y declarado por el testador Alipio Abada como su ultima voluntad y testamento en presencia de nosotros, habiendo
tambien el testador firmado en nuestra presencia en el margen izquierdo de todas y cada una de las hojas del mismo. The English translation is: Subscribed and professed by the
testator Alipio Abada as his last will and testament in our presence, the testator having also signed it in our presence on the left margin of each and every one of the pages of the
same. The attestationclause clearly states that Abada signed the will and its every page in the presence of the witnesses.
However, Caponong-Noble is correct in saying that the attestation clause does not indicate the number of witnesses. On this point, the Court agrees with the appellate court in
applying the rule on substantial compliance in determining the number of witnesses. While the attestation clause does not state the number of witnesses, a close inspection of the will
shows that three witnesses signed it.
10 caneda

An examination of the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero shows that it is comprised of three sheets all of which have been numbered correlatively, with the left margin of each
page thereof bearing the respective signatures of the testator and the three attesting witnesses. The part of the will containing the testamentary dispositions is expressed in the
Cebuano-Visayan dialect and is signed at the foot thereof by the testator. The attestation clause in question, on the other hand, is recited in the English language and is likewise signed
at the end thereof by the three attesting witnesses hereto.
It is contended by petitioners that the aforequoted attestation clause, in contravention of the express requirements of the third paragraph of Article 805 of the Civil Code for attestation
clauses, fails to specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses, likewise signed the will
and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. We agree.
What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the
presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses
subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.
-->It is our considered view that the absence of that statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here
sought to be admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the aforestated defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the
form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the application of the substantial compliance rule. READ ART. 809.
While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed at the end thereof and at the left margin of each page by the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be
conclusively inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed their respective signatures in the presence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly observed, the
presence of said signatures only establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does not prove that the attesting witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator
and of each other.