ALSUA-BETTS VS CA

FACTS: (1)Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Doa Tinay, together with all their living children, entered into a duly notarized
agreement, (escritura de particion extrajudicial/extra judicial partition) for the inventory and partition of all the spouses
present and existing properties. In the provision of said extra judicial partition, each of the four children was allotted with the
properties considered as their share in the estate or as inheritance left by the deceased where they will be the absolute owner
of the properties assigned in case of death of one of the spouses. (2)Don Jesus and Do a Tinay also separately executed
holographic will with exactly the same terms and conditions in conformity with the executed extra judicial partition naming
each other as an executor without having to post any bond. That in case new properties be acquired same shall be
partitioned one half to the surviving spouse and the other half to children of equal parts.
(3).Spouses subsequently executed separately a codicil of exactly the same terms and conditions, amending and
supplementing their holographic wills stating that they reserved for themselves the other half not disposed of to their
legitimate heirs under the agreement of partition and mutually and reciprocally bequeathed each other their participation as
well all properties which might be acquired subsequently. Doa Tinay died in effect Don Jesus by order of the probate court
was name as executor.
Before Don Jesus died he cancelled his holographic will in the presence of his bookkeeper and secretary and instructed his
lawyer to draft a new will. This was a notarial will and testament of 3 essential features as follows;
1. It expressly cancelled revoked and annulled all the provisions of his holographic will and codicil.
2. It provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four living children by virtue of the Escritura de Partition
Extra judicial.
3. It instituted his children as legatees / devisees of specific properties, and as to the rest of the properties and whatever
may be subsequently acquired in the future, before his death, were to be given to Francisca and Pablo naming Francisca as
executor to serve without a bond.

ISSUE:
1.W/N oppositors to the probate of the will, are in estoppel to question the competence of testator Don Jesus Alsua.
2.Whether testator Don Jesus can or cannot revoke his previous will.

HELD: 1.The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings ( case of Testate Estate of the Late Procopia
Apostol Benedicta Obispo, et al vs. Remedios Obispo, Probate proceedings involve public interest, and the application
therein of the rule of estoppel, when it will block the ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances surrounding the
execution of a testament, would seem inimical to public policy. Over and above the interest of private parties is that of the
state to see that testamentary dispositions be carried out if, and only if, executed conformably to law.

2. We rule that Don Jesus was not forever bound of his previous holographic will and codicil as such, would remain
revokable at his discretion. Art. 828 of the new Civil Code is clear: "A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before
his death. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void." There can be no restriction that may be made on his absolute
freedom to revoke his holographic will and codicil previously made. This would still hold true even if such previous will had as
in the case at bar already been probated (Palacios v. Palacios, 106 Phil. 739). For in the first place, probate only
authenticates the will and does not pass upon the efficacy of the dispositions therein. And secondly, the rights to the
succession are transmitted only from the moment of the death of the decedent (Article 777, New Civil Code). In fine, Don
Jesus retained the liberty of disposing of his property before his death to whomsoever he chose, provided the legitime of the
forced heirs are not prejudiced, which is not herein claimed for it is undisputed that only the free portion of the whole Alsua
estate is being contested.

FRANCISCA ALSUA-BETTS, JOSEPH O. BETTS, JOSE MADARETA, ESTEBAN P.

RAMIREZ, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ALBAY PROVINCE, petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, AMPARO ALSUA BUENVIAJE, FERNANDO BUENVIAJE,

FERNANDO ALSUA, represented by his guardian, CLOTILDE S. ALSUA and PABLO
ALSUA, respondents.

FACTS:
 Nov. 25, 1949- Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Do;a Florentina Rella, together with all
their living children, Francisca, Pablo ,Fernando Alsua thru this judicial guardian Clotilde
Samson, and Amparo Alsua de Buenviaje, entered into a duly notarized agreement, over
the existing. abaca and cacao lands and urban lands registered in the Province of Albay
and in the City of Manila. On January 5, 1955, Don Jesus and Doa Florentina( Doa
Tinay )separately executed their respective holographic wills in which were in conformity
and in implementation of the extrajudicial partition of November 25, 1949.
Their holographic wills similarly provided for the institution of the other to his or her share
in the conjugal properties, the other half of the conjugal assets having been partitioned
to constitute their legitime among their four living children in the Extrajudicial Partition of
1949. The wigs also declared that in the event of future acquisitions of other properties
by either of them, one-half would belong to the other spouse, and the other half shall be
divided equally among the four children. Don Jesus Alsua executed a separate but
similar holographic will on the same day, Jan. 5, 1955 in exactly the same terms and
conditions of the will of his wife. Spouses Don Jesus and Doa Tinay filed before the CFI
of Albay their respective petitions for the probate of their respective holographic wins in
two separate special proceedings.
Spouses then executed their mutual and reciprocal codicils amending and
supplementing their holographic wills in which the codicil also provided that one half of
all the properties( conjugal and paraphernal) is being conveyed to and portioned among
the legitimate heirs, but they are reserving the other half and they reciprocally
bequeathed to each other as well as the properties they are to acquire subsequently and
that the surviving spouse would be named executor in properties or administrator. Dona
Tinay died, Upon the death of Doa Tinay Don Jesus was named executor. Don Jesus
cancelled his holographic will in the presence of his bookkeeper/secretary He instructed
his new lawyer to draft a new will duly signed by Don Jesus and the attesting witnesses .
The will had three essential features: (a) it expressly cancelled, revoked and annulled all the
provisions of Don Jesus' holographic will of January 5, 1955 and his codicil of August 14, 1956; (b) it
provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four living children by virtue of Extrajudicial
Agreement of 1949, and that such properties be taken into account in the partition of his estate among the
children; and (c) it instituted his children as legatees/devisees of certain specific properties, and as to the
rest of the properties and whatever may be subsequently acquired in the future, before his death, were to be
given to Francisca and Pablo, naming Francesca as executrix to serve without a bond.
After all debts, funeral charges and other expenses of the estate of Doa Tinay had
been paid, all her heirs including Don Jesus, submitted to the probate court for approval
a deed of partition, the court approved the partition of 1959 and on January 6, 1961
declared the termination of the proceedings on the estate of Doa Tinay. Don Jesus
Alsua died.

Francisca filed a petition for the probate of the new will. It was opposed by her siblings
Pablo and Fernando, on the ground that Don Jesus was not of sound mind at the time of
the execution of the will. The will was disallowed. The daughter argued that the other
children, Pablo and Fernando, are in estoppel to question the competence of Don Jesus
by virtue of the agreement previously entered.

ISSUE: WON Estoppel is applicable in probate proceedings?

HELD: NO. The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings.

 Probate proceedings involve public interest, and the application therein of the rule of estoppel,
when it will block the ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances, surrounding the
execution of a testament, would seem inimical to public policy.

The controversy as to the competency of Don Jesus to execute his will cannot be determined by
the acts of his sons to the will in formally agreeing in writing with Francisca that their father be
appointed by the court executor of the will of their mother.

The SC allowed the probate of the will upon finding that Don Jesus complied with the
requirements of law as to the execution of the will.