Molo vs.

Molo

Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation

Facts:
1. Marcos Molo executed 2 wills, one in August 1918 and another in June 1939. The latter will
contained a revocation clause which expressly revoked the will in 1918. He died without any forced
heirs but he was survived by his wife, herein petitioner Juana. The oppositors to the probate were
his nephews and nieces.
2. Only a carbon copy of the second will was found. The widow filed a petition for the probate of the
1939 will. It was admitted to probate but subsequently set aside on ground that the petitioner failed
to prove its due execution.
3. As a result, the petitioner filed another petition for the probate of the 1918 will this time. Again the
oppositors alleged that said will had already been revoked under the 1939 will. They contended that
despite the disallowance of the 1939 will, the revocation clause is valid and thus effectively nullified
the 1918 will.
Issue: Whether or not the 1918 will can still be valid despite the revocation in the subsequent
disallowed 1939 will
RULING: Yes.The court applied the doctrine laid down in Samson v. Naval that a subsequent
will,containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the reason that it was
not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will,
inasmuch as the said revocatory clause is void.
There was no valid revocation in this case. No evidence was shown that the testator deliberately
destroyed the original 1918 will because of his knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in the
will executed in 1939.The earlier will can still be probated under the principle of dependent
relative revocation.The doctrine applies when a testator cancels or destroys a will or
executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with the intention to make a new
testamentary disposition as substitute for the old, and the new disposition fails of effect for
some reason.