Arts.

805 to 823
CASE TITLE DECEDENT NATURE OF KIND OF WILL PETITIONER (relationship RESPONDENT(relationship Ruling
PROCEEDING with decedent) with decedent) Trial Court Court of Appeals Supreme Court
Paula Conde v. Casiano Abaya Petition for settlement Intestate Paula Conde (appellee, Roman Abaya (appellant, Ruled in favor of n/a The action to claim legitimacy
Roman Abaya of the intestate estate alleged mother of brother of decedent) Paula Conde and (Appeal from RTC may be brought by the child
(Ambisyosyang and the distribution of decedents children) declared her to be judgment) during his/her lifetime and
Nanay) the property; and the only heir to the shall be transmitted to the
appointment of property of the heirs should the child die or in
administrator intestate estate of a state of insanity.
Casiano Abaya
Cornelio Pamplona Flaviano Moreto and Declaration of nullity Intestate Spouses Geminiano Heirs of Monica Maniega Ruled in favor of Affirmed the RTC Ruled in favor of petitioners.
v. Vivencio Moreto Monica Maniega of deed of sale Pamplona and Apolonia and Flaviano Moreto (owner plaintiffs ruling. To the private respondents is
(Lot 1496) Onte (purchasers) of the property) (respondents) and transmitted the obligation to
declared the sale as deliver in full ownership the
null and void as whole area of 781 sq. meters
regards the 390.5 to the petitioners.
sq. m. which should
pertain to plaintiffs.
Guerrero v. Bihis Felisa Tamio de Probate proceeding Notarial Will Bella Guerrero (daughter) Resurreccion Bihis Probate denied RTC affirmed Will is in effect not
(notarial juris) Buenaventura (daughter) acknowledged.
Teopista Dolar v. Paulino Diancin Probate proceeding Notarial Will Not mentioned BUT Not mentioned BUT Probate was denied n/a (Direct appeal SC can ignore the expert
Fidel Diancin Jose Villanueva (expert Carlos Jaena (expert on the ground that from judgment of testimonies and substitute its
(thumbmarks, 2 witness) said the witness) said thumbmarks the thumbmarks CFI) own opinion.
expert thumbmarks were were not made by the same appearing thereon SC found the thumbmarks to
testimonies authentic person were not the be that of decedent. Will is

Wills
thumbmarks of the admitted for probate
testator.
Yap Tua v. Yap Ca Tomasa Elizaga Yap Probate Proceeding Notarial Will Yap Tua thru Perfecto Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu Will admitted for n/a (Direct appeal Will is signed in the
Kuan Caong Gabriel thru Gabriel Lao probate from judgment of presence
CFI) Actual seeing is not
mandatory. It is sufficient that
it is possible for them to see
each other.
Eutiquia Avera v. Esteban Garcia Probate Proceeding Notarial Will Eustiquia Avera Marino Garcia Will admitted for n/a (Direct appeal Affirmed; signature can be in
Marino Garcia Jose and Cesar Garcia thru probate from judgment of left or right
(right margin) Juan Rodriguez CFI)
Nayve v. Mojal Antonio Mojal Probate Proceeding Notarial Will Filomena Nayve (wife) Leona Mojal (sister) and Will valid n/a Will is Valid; apply Avera
(Arabic numerals; Luciana Aguilar (niece) doctrine; signature of testator
signature in middle) in the middle- valid
Mendoza v. Pilapil Father Eleuterio 1. Case for Intestacy 1. No will 1. Calixto Pilapil (brother) 1. n/a Will is valid for complying with
Pilapil 2. Probate Proceeding 2. Notarial 2. Adriano Mendoza 2. Calixto Pilapil requirements of the law;
Will (nephew) Spanish is a language known
by a Priest;

1
 CASE TITLE DECEDENT NATURE OF KIND OF WILL PETITIONER (relationship RESPONDENT (relationship RULING
PROCEEDING with decedent) with decedent) Trial Court Court of Appeals Supreme Court
Testate Estate of 1. Alipio Abada 1. Probate Proceeding 1. Notarial Alipio Abaja (alleged Nicanor Caponong; 1.Probate Allowed 1. Allowed CA is affirmed; each and every
Alipio Abada v. 2. Paula Toray 2. Probate Proceeding will grandson) Alleged Intestate heirs 2. Probate Allowed 2. No MR, RTC one of the TWO pages
Abaja 2. Notarial (nephews and nieces) judgment is final
(# pages not stated) Will
Teodoro Caneda v. Mateo Caballero (a Probate Proceeding Notarial Will Mateo Caballero (testator Benoni Cabrera, a legatee in Probate granted, Affirmed RTC, ruled Probate denied; attestation
CA widower) himself) will and appntd declaring the will as that the attestation clause totally omits the fact
(no statement that administrator, then William the LWT of clause in the will that the attesting witnesses
will is singed in the Cabrera (now PR) Caballero substantially signed each & every page of
presence of the TTR complies with Art. the will in the presence of the
and one another) 805 testator and of one another.
Marcela Rodelas vs Ricardo Bonilla Probate Proceeding Holographic Marcela Rodelas Amparo Aranza Bonilla Probate denied CA certified the Photostatic or Xerox copy of
Amparo Aranza Will case to the SC the holographic will is
(Photocopy) sufficient
Eugenia Codoy v. Matilde Vda. de Probate proceeding Holographic Calugay, Salcedo and Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Probate Disallowed Probate allowed; Remanded to RTC to allow pets
Evangeline Calugay Ramonal Will Patigas (adopted children) Manuel Ramonal reversed RTCs to adduce evidence
decision
Spouses Ajero v. Annie Sand Probate proceeding Holographic Spouses Roberto and Clemente Sand Will admitted for Probate denied; Probate Allowed; with the XPN
Court of Appeals Will Thelma Ajero Dr. Jose Ajero Probate reversed RTCs of a house (in the name of
(alterations not decision decedents father; Altera-
authenticated) tions not authenticated will
not invalidate the whole will

Wills
Federico Azaola v. Fortunata Vda. de Probate proceeding Holographic Federico Azaola (his wife Cesario Singson (nephew) Probate Denied (I think RTC Ordered RTC to conduct new
Cesario Singson Yance Will Maria Azaola is the sole affirmed) trial in conformity with SCs
(811 is directory not heir) opinion that 811 is merely
mandatory) directory
Natividad Nazareno Maximino Sr. Annulment of sale Intestate Natividad and Maximino Romeo Nazareno (son) DOAS executed in Modified RTC; title Petition is without merit.
v. Court of Appeals with damages Nazareno Jr. (children) favor of PR is void to Lots 3,3-B, 10 However, though Romeo
and 11 were represented at one time the
cancelled and estate of Maximino, Sr., the
ordered restored to latter has a separate and
the estate of distinct personality from the
Maximino Nazareno former. Hence, the judgment
Jr. regarding the ownership of
Maximino jr. over lot 3-B binds
Romeo and Eliza only, not the
estate.
Jose Rivera v. IAC Venancio Rivera 1. Pet to issue letters 1. Intestate 1. Jose Rivera 1. Adelaido Rivera Cases were RTC affirmed Ruling affirmed (in favor of PR);
and Adelaido J. of administration consolidated; pet. Rivera as a mere stranger
Rivera 2. Probate Proceedings 2. 2. Adelaido Rivera 2. Jose Rivera Holographic Wills does not have personality to
Holographic admitted to probate contest the wills and his
Will opposition did not have the
effect of requiring 3 witnesses.

2
 CASE TITLE DECEDENT NATURE OF KIND OF WILL PETITIONER (relationship RESPONDENT (relationship RULING
PROCEEDING with decedent) with decedent) Trial Court Court of Appeals Supreme Court
Labrador v. Court Melecio Labrador Probate Proceeding Holographic Sagrado, Enrica and Jesus and Gaudencio Probate allowed Will was disallowed Wills was approved and
of Appeals Will in Cristobal Labrador (sons Labrador (sons) for being undated allowed; law does not specify
(fishpond, deed of Ilocano and daughter) particular location of date
sale)
Dy Yieng Seangio, Segundo Seangio 1. Settlement of 1. No will 1. Alfredo Seangio, et. al 1. Dy Sieng, Virginia, Barbara Probate dismissed; n/a (Petition for It is a will. Intent to dispose is
et al. v. Hon. Amor Intestate estate of Seangio (son and daughters) Will not considered certiorari, direct clearly deduced. Disinheritance
Reyes, et al Segundo as will because only certiorari from RTC is a disposition
(Kasulatan ng Pag- 2. Probate Proceeding 2. 2. Dy Sieng, Virginia, 2. Alfredo Seangio contains to SC)
aalis ng Mana) Holographic Barbara Seangio (daughter disinheritance +
Will in law (?) and daughters) preterition

Spouses Iluminada Cristobal Olar No will Fortunata Olar (estranged

and Cirilo CAPITLE wife) and Rosalinda Olar
v. Fortunata (Kasunduan (daughter ibn law)
ELMAMBUENA relinguished of a
and Rosalinda Olar lot to rosalinda)
etal.
Paz Samaniego- Margarita Mayores Probate Proceeding Notarial will Paz Samaniego-Celada Lucia Abena (life-long Probate granted. Probate granted. Probate granted. SC opined
Celada v. Lucia (cousin) companion) that error in the number of
Abena (will paged pages of the will as stated in
A, B, C) the attestation clause is not

Wills
material to invalidate the
subject will. Will paged A, B
and C is sufficient safeguard
from the possibility of omission
of some of the pages. Doctrine
of liberal interpretation
applied.

3
Arts. 825 to 839

Wills
4
 CASE TITLE DECEDENT NATURE OF KIND OF WILL PROPONENT/PETITIONER OPPOSITOR/RESPONDENT RULING
PROCEEDING (relationship with (relationship with Trial Court Court of Appeals Supreme Court
decedent) decedent)
1. Marcela Rodelas Ricardo Bonilla Probate Proceeding Holographic Will Marcela Rodelas Amparo Aranza Bonilla Probate denied (upon CA certified the case to Photostatic or Xerox copy of
vs Amparo appellees MR) the SC the holographic will is
Aranza sufficient;
(Photocopy of will
re: management
and improvement
of schools)
2. Ajero vs. CA Annie Sand Probate proceeding Holographic Will Spouses Roberto and Clemente Sand Will admitted for Probate denied for non- Probate Allowed, but
(Cabadbaran Thelma Ajero (devisees Dr. Jose Ajero (co-owner of Probate; held that compliance to Arts. 813 excepted the Cabadbaran
property) and legatees) Cabadbaran property) there is no reason for & 814 (reversed RTCs property to the will. As a
disallowance decision) general rule, courts in
probate proceedings are
limited to pass upon only the
extrinsic validity of the will
sought to be probated.
Annie Sand cannot dispose of

Wills
the Cabadbaran property
which she shares with her co-
heir (exception)
3. Nepomuceno vs. Martin Jugo Probate proceeding Notarial will Sofia J. Nepomuceno PRs Rufina Gomez (legal Probate denied Probate of will approved, SC affirmed the ruling of CA.
CA (concubine) (Concubine in bad faith) wife) and Oscar and devise in favor of CA acted within its
Carmelita Jugo (siblings) petitioner null and void jurisdiction when after
declaring the will to be validly
drawn, it went on to pass
upon the intrinsic validity of
the Will and declared the
devise in favor of the
petitioner null and void. The
court is not powerless to do
what it needs to do and to
pass upon certain provisions
of the will.

CASE TITLE DECEDENT NATURE OF KIND OF WILL PROPONENT/PETITIONER OPPOSITOR/RESPONDENT

PROCEEDING (relationship with (relationship with decedent) RULING
decedent)
5
Trial Court Court of Appeals Supreme Court
4. Cayetano vs. Adoracion C. Probate/reprobate Will executed in Nenita Campos Caguia Hermogenes Campos Probate granted n/a (Petition for Review Probate granted. PRs have
Leonidas Campos proceeding accordance with (sister) (father), substituted by Polly on Certiorari) sufficiently established that
(Pennsylvanian the laws of Cayetano Adoracion was, at the time of
will) Pennsylvania death, an American citizen
(Pennsylvania) and thus, the
law which governs Adoracion
Campos will is the law of
Pennsylvania which is the
national law of the decedent
(legitime is not compulsory).
As a general rule, courts in
probate proceedings are
limited to pass upon only the
extrinsic validity of the will
sought to be probated.
5. Vda. De Molo vs. Mariano Molo Y Probate Proceeding Notarial will Juana Juan Vda. De Molo Luz, Gliceria and Cornelio Probate granted n/a Probate granted. Testator did
Molo 2 wills Legaspi (wife) Molo (nieces and nephew) not intend to die intestate.
1918, 1939 Issues: WON Molos will The 1918 can still be admitted
of 1918 was to probate under the
subsequently revoked by principle of dependent
the decedents will of relative revocation.
1939.
WON the 1918 will can

Wills
still be admitted to
probate even if testator
destroyed the same in
the belief that it is no
longer necessary
6. Heirs of Late Jesu Remedios M. Vda Probate converted notarial will Heirs of the late Jesus Concepcion Mejia Espina, Granted probate (13 n/a Probate granted. SC ruled
Fran vs. Salas di de Tiosejo into intestate Fran (executor) Maria Mejia Gandiongco Nov 1972 ruling) that the decree of probate is
ko man nakita proceeding (sisters of decedent) Denied probate upon conclusive with respect to the
ang will ba; Omnibus MR (2 June due execution of the will and
English yung 1980) it cannot be set aside except
nasa petition eh on extrinsic fraud, in any
separate or independent
action or proceeding. Thus,
the 1972 ruling is final and
executory.
CASE TITLE DECEDENT NATURE OF KIND OF WILL PROPONENT/PETITIONER OPPOSITOR/RESPONDENT
PROCEEDING (relationship with (relationship with decedent) RULING
decedent)
Trial Court Court of Appeals Supreme Court

6
 7. Caneda vs. CA Mateo Caballero Probate proceeding Notarial will Teodoro Caeda, et. al William Cabrera (successor- Granted probate Granted probate Probate denied.
in-interest of Benoni (Affirmed RTC)
Cabrera, legatee named in
will)

8. Agapay vs. Miguel Palang Action for recovery n/a Erlinda Agapay (second Carlina (Cornelia) Palang Dismissed complaint; Reversed RTC. Declared Affirmed CA. Also, as regards
Palang of ownership and wife) and Herminia P. Dela Cruz little evidence to PRs as owners of the Kristophers heirship and
possession with (legal wife and daughter) prove that properties properties. filitation, it held that
damages pertained to the questions as to who are the
conjugal property of heirs of decedent, proof of
Cornelia and Miguel filiation of illegitimate cjidren
and determination of estate
and claims thereto should be
ventilated in probate court of
SPProc. Instituted for the
purpose and not in the
ordinary action.
9. Reyes vs. CA Torcuato Reyes Probate proceeding Notarial will Manuel, Mina and Danilo Julio Vivares (executor Probate granted, Affirmed RTC, modified Granted probate. Affirmed CA
Reyes (natural children named in will) except for Par. II (a) and ruled that par. II (a) ruling. The propriety of the
incl. pet. Estebana and (b) which is null and (b) are valid, since institution of Oning Reyes as
Galolo), Lyn and Marites and void for being oppositors never showed one of the devisees/legatees
(children with Celsa contrary to law and any evidence during the already involved inquiry on the
Agape). morals. trial to show that Oning wills intrinsic validity and
Reyes marriage to which need not be inquired

Wills
testator was void. upon by the probate court.
10. Sanchez vs. CA Juan Sanchez Intestate proceeding n/a Rolando, Florida, Alfredo, Rosalia S. Lugod (only Ruled in favor of Initially ruled in favor of Affirmed CA ruling. The RTC
(ako legal Myrna (illegitimate legitimate child of Juan petitioners. Declared petitioners. But upon overstepped its jurisdiction as
daughter) children of decedent) Sanchez and Maria as simulated the DOAS PRs MR, granted the a probate court. Compromise
Villafranca), and Rosalias in favor of Rosalia. petition, set aside the agreement is valid and
children-Arturo, Evelyn and Directed Rosalinda to trial courts decision and binding.
Roberto submit a new declaring the modified
inventory and render compromise agreement
acctg. on the previously executed as
properties not valid and binding.
included in the
compromise
agreement.

CASE TITLE DECEDENT NATURE OF KIND OF WILL PETITIONER (relationship RESPONDENT(relationship Ruling
PROCEEDING with decedent) with decedent)
Trial Court Court of Appeals Supreme Court

7
11. Ursulina Celestina Ganuelas Action for Notarial will (but Ursulina Ganuelas (niece) Leocadia, Felicitacion, Ruled for private n/a (petition for review Affirmed RTCs ruling. The
Ganuelas vs. Vda. De Valin declaration of nullity not denominated Corazon (nieces) respondent (it is a under Rule 45) donation being in the nature
Judge Cawed of deed of donation as will but donation mortis of mortis causa, there is non-
donation) causa) compliance with the
formalities of the law (lack of
acknowledgment before
notary public). Therefore, it is
void.
12. Caniza vs. CA Carmen Caiza Complaint for Holographic will Amparo Evangelista Pedro & Leonora Estrada MTC -> Caiza Affirmed RTC Ruled in favor of Caiza, the
(senile) ejectment (against (niece/legal guardian of (possessors by tolerance and RTC-> dismissed, right of ownership of PRs is
private respondents Carmen Caiza) kindness) should be accion merely inchoate; no transfer
Pedro and Leonora publiciana of ownership as the will has
Estrada) not yet been probated.
13. Cua vs. Vargas Paulina Vargas Petition for n/a Joseph Cua (no relation; Gloria Vargas (one of the co- MTC first-> denied Reversed the decision of Affirmed CA, ruled in favor of
(99 ha. Annulment of Extra- buyer of the partitioned heirs) and children Aurora, petition, Extra-Judicial the lower court, the EJSs private respondent, no
Residential Judicial Partition with property) Ramon, Marites, Edelina and Settlement with Sale is were void and without written notice before
land in Virac, Sale; Request for Gemma Vargas) valid legal effect partition and EJS; PRs have a
Catanduanes) Legal Redemption RTC-> same with MTC right to redeem the property.
14. Rodriguez vs. Juanito Rodriguez Complaint for Notarial (?) Crescenciana Rodriguez Evangeline, Belen and MTC-> ruled in favor Reinstated MTC ruling Ruled in favor of petitioners.
Rodriguez unlawful detainer (live-in partner) (+) Buenaventura Rodriguez of PRs. DOAS in favor and ruled in favor of PRs. Before any will can have force
(Apartments (against PRs) substituted by Susana (children( of petitioner is or validity, it must be
A-E, Huling Llagas simulated. probatedthis cannot be
Habilin at RTC-> ruled in favor of dispensed with and it is a

Wills
Testamento) petitioner. TCT is matter of public policy under
conclusive evidence of Art. 838.
ownership and the
LWT was not
probated; hence, has
no effect and no right
can be claimed
therein.