1. Maloto v. CA (Maye) 2.
Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament,
February 29, 1988 | Sarmiento, J. | Effective revocation of a will
PETITIONERS: Testate Estate of Adriana Maloto, Aldina Maloto, Constancio
Maloto, Purificacion Miraflor, Catholic Church of Molo and Asilo de Molo
RESPONDENTS: CA, Panfilo Maloto, Felino Maloto
SUMMARY: Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her nieces (petitioners) and
her nephews (private respondents). At first, the heirs believed that the deceased
did not leave behind a last will and testament, so they commenced an intestate
proceeding for the settlement of their aunt’s estate. During its pendency, they
instituted an extrajudicial settlement, which divided the estate into four equal
parts. Three years later, the associate of Adriana’s former counsel discovered a
document purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. In the purported
will, the parties are still named as heirs but the petitioners were given much bigger
and more valuable shares in the estate than what they received by virtue of the
agreement of extrajudicial settlement signed. The purported will also gives devises
and legacies to other parties (Roman Catholic Church, Miraflor, de Molo). They
filed an annulment of the proceedings and for the allowance of the will, which the
trial court denied. In the appellate court, the CA contradicted itself. First, CA
found it inconclusive that the document was indeed the will. Nevertheless, it ruled
that said will had been revoked by the allegation of Guadalupe (Adriana’s
househelp) that the purported will was burned upon instructions of Adriana. The
presence of animus revocandi in the destruction had been sufficiently proven. The
issue is WoN Adriana effectively revoked her will? SC ruled NO.
See doctrine. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the
testator himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express
direction and in the presence of the testator. It goes without saying that the
document destroyed must be the will itself. In this case, while animus revocandi
or the intention to revoke, may be conceded, for that is a state of mind, yet that
requisite alone would not suffice. There is paucity of evidence to show compliance
with these requirements. The document or papers burned by Adriana's maid,
Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will
of Adriana Maloto. The burning was not proven to have been done under the
express direction of Adriana. The burning was not in her presence
DOCTRINE: The physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case,
does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled
with animus revocandi on the part of the testator.
FACTS:
1. October 1963 – Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews,
the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and the
private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto.
these four heirs commenced an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their
aunt's estate.
3. However, while the case was still in progress, the parties executed an
agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate, which provided for
the division into four equal parts among the parties.
4. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial
court which approved it on March 21, 1964.
5. Three years later, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adriana's
counsel (the late Atty. Hervas) discovered a document entitled
"KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," dated January 3,
1940, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana.
o Atty. Palma claimed to have found the testament, the original copy,
while he was going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer
formerly used by Atty. Hervas.
o In this document, while Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the
said will, Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much bigger and more
valuable shares in the estate of Adriana than what they received by virtue
of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed.
o The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties, among them
being the petitioners Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of
Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor.
6. Aldina and Constancio, joined by the other devisees and legatees named in
the will, filed a Special Proceeding, a motion for reconsideration and
annulment of the proceedings therein and for the allowance of the will. Trial
court denied their motion.
7. They filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of the
trial court with the SC, which SC dismissed.
8. CA findings (not in the facts of the case, but relevant to the issue):
o First, CA found it inconclusive that the document or papers was indeed
the will.
o Nevertheless, CA contradicted itself when it ruled that the said will had
been revoked by virtue of the allegation that Guadalupe Maloto Vda. de
Coral, the househelp of Adrian had burned the document or papers
purported to be the will, upon instructions of the testatrix.
o The respondent court stated that the presence of animus revocandi in the
destruction of the will had, been sufficiently proven.
o The appellate court based its finding on the facts that the document was
not in the two safes in Adriana's residence, by the testatrix going to the
residence of Atty. Hervas to retrieve a copy of the will left in the latter's
possession, and, her seeking the services of Atty. Palma in order to have
a new will drawn up.
ISSUE: WoN the will was revoked by Adriana? NO.
WON case is barred by res judicata. NO. d. Said statements by the witnesses who testified in favor of the will's
revocation appear were "inconclusive." Nowhere in the records does
it appear that the two witnesses, Guadalupe Vda. de Corral and
RATIO: Eladio Itchon, both illiterates, were unequivocably positive that the
1. Under the Civil Code: Art. 830.No will shall be revoked except in the document burned was indeed Adriana's will.
following cases: e. Guadalupe believed that the papers she destroyed was the will only
(1) By implication of law; or because, according to her, Adriana told her so. Eladio, on the other
(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in hand, obtained his information that the burned document was the
case of wills: or will because Guadalupe told him so, thus, his testimony on this point
(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the is double hearsay.
intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other 6. It is an important matter of public interest that a purported will is not denied
person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of
torn cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the testamentary succession will be shaken to its very foundations ...."
express direction of the testator, the will may still be established,
Not barred by res judicata
and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents,
7. There is yet no final judgment rendered insofar as the probate of Adriana
and due execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction,
Maloto's will is concerned. The decision of the trial court in Special
cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the
Proceeding No. 1736, although final, involved only the intestate settlement
Rules of Court. of the estate of Adriana. As such, that judgment could not in any manner be
construed to be final with respect to the probate of the subsequently
2. The physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does discovered will of the decedent.
not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is 8. Neither is it a judgment on the merits of the action for probate. Thus, there is
coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. likewise no Identity between the cause of action in intestate proceeding and
a. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the that in an action for probate.
testator himself. 9. Furthermore, it was precisely because of our ruling in the Special Proceedings
b. It may be performed by another person but under the express that the petitioners instituted this separate action for the probate of the late
direction and in the presence of the testator. Adriana Maloto's will. Hence, on these grounds alone, the position of the
c. It goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will private respondents on this score cannot be sustained.
itself.
3. In this case, while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke, may be
conceded, for that is a state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice.
4. Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE
revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be
the decision of CA and a new one is ENTERED for the allowance of Adriana Maloto’s
accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or
cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his last will and testament.
presence and under his express direction.
5. There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements.
a. The document or papers burned by Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was
not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of
Adriana Maloto.
b. The burning was not proven to have been done under the express
direction of Adriana.
c. The burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses, Guadalupe and
Eladio, were one in stating that they were the only ones present at
the place where the stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in
which the papers proffered as a will were burned.