CASE N0.

ENRIQUEZ V. ABADIA
G.R. No. L-7188 - AUGUST 9, 1954

FACTS:
Father Sancho Abadia, a parish priest executed his will, left properties to one Andres
Enriquez who proposed to probated it. One of the attesting witnesses, said that Sancho wrote out
in longhand Exhibit "A" to be a holographic will. During the time of execution, holographic
wills were not permitted by law but when the case was to be decided the new Civil Code was
already in force. The relatives of the testator, opposed the probate.
ISSUE:
Should the new civil code apply in the case at bar and allow the probate?
HELD:
No. Art. 795 of this same new Civil Code expressly provides: "The validity of a will as
to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made." The above
provision is but an expression or statement of the weight of authority to the affect that the
validity of a will is to be judged not by the law enforce at the time of the testator's death or at the
time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the petition is decided by the
court but at the time the instrument was executed.

CASE N0. 33

GONZALES VS COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-37453 May 25, 1979
FACTS:
Gabriel died a widow. Santos, a niece of the deceased who lived with her prior and up to
the time of her death, fi led for a petition for a probate of her will. The three instrumental
witnesses of the will included a family driver, a housekeeper, and a piano teacher. The petition
was opposed by Rizalina Gonzales, one of the nieces named in the will, who contends that the
will was not executed and attested as required by law as there was absolutely no proof that the
three instrumental witnesses were credible witnesses. She argues that to be a credible witness,
there must be evidence on record that the witness has a good standing in his community, or that
he is honest and upright, and reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. She added that credible is
AMBAYANAN SHIRO B. MANDING

not synonymous with competent and that credible should receive the same meaning it has
under the Naturalization Law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the witnesses are credible witnesses as required in Article 805.
HELD:
Yes. Article 820 provides the qualification of the witness to the execution of will while
Article 821 sets forth the disqualification. Under the law, there is no mandatory requirement that
the witness testify initially or at any time during the trial as to his good standing in the
community, his reputation for trustworthiness and reliability, his honesty and uprightness in order
that his testimony may be believed and accepted by the trail court. It is enough that the
qualifications in Article 820 are complied with, such that soundness of his mind can be shown or
deduced from his answers to the questions propounded to him that his age is shown from his
appearance, testimony, as well as that he is not blind, deaf or dumb, that he is able to read or
write, and that he has none of the disqualification in Article 821. The term credible as used in
Article 805 should not be given the same meaning it has under the Naturalization Law in that the
witnesses must prove their good standing and reputation. In probate proceedings, unlike in
petitions for naturalization, the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for they
merely attest to the execution of a will and affirm the formalities attendant to said execution. The
relation of the beneficiary of the will to the testator does not disqualify one to be a witness. The
main qualification of a witness in the attestation of wills, if other qualifications as to age, mental
capacity and literacy are present, is that the said witnesses must be credible, that is to say, his
testimony may be entitled to credence. In a strict sense, the competency of a person to be an
instrumental witness to a will is determined by Articles 820 and 821, whereas his credibility
depends on the appreciation of his testimony and arises from the belief and conclusion of the
Court that said witness is telling the truth.

CASE N0. 81

VERDAD V. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 109972. April 29, 1996
FACTS:
Sometime on 1987 Socorro Cordero Vda. de Rosales, sought to exercise right of legal
redemption over a residential lot which she inherited from Macaria Atega, her mother-in-law.
After knowing that the said land was purchased by Verdad in June 14, 1982 from Manuela
Burdoes, the daughter-in-law of her mother-in-law in her first marriage. Socorro tendered the
sum of P23,000.00 to Zosima, being the amount paid in the contract of sale of the land. The latter
refused to accept the amount for being much less than the lots current value of P80,000.00. The
court denied the petition on the ground that the right to redeem the property had already lapsed.
ISSUE: Does Soccoro Rosales has the right to redeem the property in dispute?
AMBAYANAN SHIRO B. MANDING

HELD:
Yes. She being the spouse of David Rosales, son of Macaria. When Macaria died her estate
passed on to her surviving children, among them David Rosales, who thereupon became coowners of the property. When David Rosales himself later died, his own estate, which included
his undivided interest over the property inherited from Macaria, passed on to his widow Socorro
and her co-heirs pursuant to the law on succession. ART. 995. In the absence of legitimate
descendants and ascendants, and illegitimate children and their descendants, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, the surviving spouse shall inherit the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights
of brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, should there be any, under Article 1001. Socorro and
herein private respondents, along with the co-heirs of David Rosales, thereupon became coowners of the property that originally descended from Macaria.
When their interest in the property was sold by the Burdeos heirs to petitioner, a right of
redemption arose in favor of private respondents. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of
redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third
person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a
reasonable one. Further, the right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised
except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor,
as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless
accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible
redemptioners. Hence, the thirty-day period of redemption had yet to commence when private
respondent Rosales sought to exercise the right of redemption on 31 March 1987, a day after she
discovered the sale

AMBAYANAN SHIRO B. MANDING