In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. De Jesus and Bibiana Roxa de Jesus, Simeon R.

ROXAS and Pedro ROXAS de Jesus, petitioners vs. Andres R. de JESUS, Jr. G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985 FACTS: After the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus, a special proceeding was instituted by Simeon, brother of Bibiana. Simeon was then appointed administrator of the estate and consequently, he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibiana which was then set for a hearing. Luz Henson, one of the compulsory heirs filed an opposition to probate assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana was not executed in accordance with law. However, the lower court issued an order allowing the probate which was found to have been duly executed in accordance with law. A motion for reconsideration was then filed by Luz assailing that the alleged holographic will was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code and contending that the law requires that the Will should contain the day, month and year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied with. The court then reconsidered its earlier order and disallowed the probate of the holographic will on the ground that the word dated has generally been held to include the month, day, and year. ISSUE: Whether or not the date (FEB/61) appearing on the holographic will of the deceased Bibian Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code. RULING: ART. 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. As a general rule, the date in a holographic will should include the day, month and year of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not the date FEB/61 appearing on the holographic will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance. DOROTHEO vs. CA 320 SCRA 12 FACTS: Private respondents were the legitimate children of Alejandro and Aniceta. Aniceta died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Alejandro died thereafter. Lourdes, claiming to have taken care of Alejandro before he died, filed a petition for probate of Alejandros will. In1981, the will was admitted to probate but private respondents did not appeal from the said order. In 1983, upon motion of the private respondents, the trial court ruled that the will was intrinsically void and declared private respondents as the only heirs of the late spouses. HELD: Probate proceedings deal generally with the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated particularly on these aspects: Whether the will submitted is indeed the decedents last will and testament Compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of wills The testamentary capacity of the testator And the due execution of the last will and testament Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of its execution. The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding the same may still be raised even after the will has been authenticated. It does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and testaments is always intrinsically valid.

GARCIA vs. GATCHALIAN November 25, 1967 FACTS: The allowance of the will of Gatchalian was denied on the ground that the attesting witnesses did not acknowledge it before a notary public as required by law. HELD: An examination of the document shows that the same was acknowledged before a notary public by the testator but not by the instrumental witnesses. Compliance with the requirement contained in Article 806 to the effect that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and also by the witnesses is indispensable for its validity . As the document under consideration does not comply with this requirement, it is obvious that the same may not be probated. Manuel Reyes v. Court of Appeals and Julio VivaresG.R. No. 12099; October 30, 1997 Facts: On January 3, 1992, Torcuato Reyes executed his last will and testament. He bequeathed all his prop to his wife Asuncion (Oning) and his brother Jose. The will consisted of two pages and was signed by Torcuato Reyes in the presence of three witnesses: Antonio Veloso, Gloria Borromeo, and Soledad Gaputan. Private respondent Julio A. Vivares was designated the executor and in his default or incapacity, his son Roch Alan S. Vivares. PR filed a petition for probate of the will. The recognized natural children of Torcuato with Estebana Galolo and Celsa Agape filed an opposition. The court declared that the will was exec according w/ the forma prescribed by law. However, it ruled that Asuncion was never married to the deceased (Hence, dispo made in will is invalid). Julio Vivares filed anappeals before the CA with the allegation that the oppositors failed to present ay comp. evidence that Asuncion was legally married to another person. The CA affirmed the trial court's decision but with the modification that dispo in favor of Oning was valid. Ruling: As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. Thus, the court merely inquires on its due execution, whether or not it complies with the formalities prescribed by law, and the testamentary capacity of the testator. It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficacy of the will's provisions. The intrinsic validity is not considered since the consideration thereof usually comes only after the will has been proved and allowed. There are, however, notable circumstances wherein the intrinsic validity was first determined as when the defect of the will is apparent on its face and the probate of the will may become a useless ceremony if it is intrinsically invalid. The intrinsic validity of a will may be passed upon because "practical considerations" demanded it as when there is preterition of heirs or the testamentary provisions are of doubtful legality. Parenthetically, the rule on probate is not inflexible and absolute. Underexceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the will. The lower court was not asked to rule upon the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will. As a result, the declaration of the testator that Asuncion "Oning" Reyes was his wife did not have to be scrutinized during the probate proceedings. The propriety of the institution of Oning Reyes as one of the devisees/legatees already involved inquiry on the will's intrinsic validity and which need not be inquired upon by the probate court. DELA CERNA vs. POTOT December 23, 1964 FACTS: Spouses Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervasia Rebaca executed a joint last will and testament whereby they willed that the 2 parcels of land acquired they during their marriage be given to Manuela, their niece. The will of Bernabe was admitted to probate by final order. The will of Gervasia was declared null and void by the CFI for being executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills. HELD: The final decree of the probate of the will Bernabe has conclusive effect. The error committed by the probate court was an error of law, that should have been corrected by appeal, but which did not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, nor the conclusive effect of its final decision, however erroneous. A final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world. But the CA should have taken into account that the probate decree could only affect the share of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la Cerna. It follows that the validity of the joint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, must be, on her death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator.

Therefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs intestate, and not exclusively to the testamentary heir, unless some other valid will in her favor is shown to exist, or unless she be the only heir intestate of said Gervasia. ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA September 14, 1993 FACTS: The testator did not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the 8-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the testator, the 3 instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter 4 followed the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them. Said will was admitted to probate. Later on, a codicil was executed, and by that time, the testator was already suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of the notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading using their own copies. HELD: Article 808 not only applies to blind testators, but also to those who, for one reason or another, are incapable of reading their wills . Hence, the will should have been read by the notary public and an instrumental witness. However, the spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. In this case, there was substantial compliance. Substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege. In this case, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take place. GARCIA vs. VASQUEZ 32 SCRA 490 FACTS: The oppositors challenged the correctness of the admission of the will for probate on the ground that the testatrix eyesight was so poor and defective that she could not have read the provisions of the will, contrary to the testimonies of witnesses. The ophthalmologist testified that the vision of the testatrix remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading print. HELD: Against the background of defective eyesight of the alleged testatrix, the appearance of the 1960 will, acquires striking significance. Upon, its face, the testamentary provisions, the attestation clause and acknowledgment were crammed together into a single sheet of paper, so much so that the words had to be written very close to the top, bottom and two sides of the paper, leaving no margin whatsoever; the word "and" had to be written by the symbol "&," apparently to save on space. Plainly, the testament was not prepared with any regard for the defective vision of Doa Gliceria. The typographical errors remained uncorrected thereby indicating that the execution thereof must have been characterized by haste. It is difficult to understand that so important a document containing the final disposition of one's worldly possessions should be embodied in an informal and untidily written instrument; or that the glaring spelling errors should have escaped her notice if she had actually retained the ability to read the purported will and had done so. Where Article 808 is not complied with, the said will suffers from infirmity that affects its due execution. LEDESMA vs. MCLACHLIN 66 PHIL 547 FACTS: Lorenzo Mclachlin is indebted to 3 rd person. But Lorenzo before he was able to pay the debt, he died. But when he died, he had no property. Theoretically, there should have been succession between Lorenzo and Anna. So Anna should have inherited from Lorenzo. But because Lorenzo had no properties, Anna did not inherit anything from Lorenzo. ISSUE: Can the 3rd person claim from Anna?

RULING: No. He cannot because Lorenzo did not transmit anything to Anna and the inheritance is only to the extent of the value. So, for example, Lorenzo had debts. The value of the inheritance should only be to the value of the debts. But there was no property left. So the value of the inheritance is zero. The debts cannot be enforced against Anna because Anna inherited nothing. Johny Rabadilla v. Court of Appeals G.R. No, 113725; June 29, 2000 Facts: Testator Aleja Belleza appended a codicil to his last will and testament wherein he instituted Dr. Jorge Rabadilla as a devisee of 511, 855 sq meters of a parcel of land in Bacolod. Devisee herein is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The codicil was duly probated and admitted before the CFI of Negros Occidental. The codicil stated that should the devisee die ahead of the testator, the property and rights shall be inherited by his children and spouse. The codicil also required Rabadilla to deliver75 piculs of export sugar and 25 piculs of domestic sugar to Maria Marlina Cosculuella y Belleza, and should he die, his heir shall have the same obligation. Lastly, in the event that the devisee or his heir shall later sell, lease, mortgage the said lot, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee shall also have the obligation to deliver the piculs. Dr. Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife and children (pet).In 1989, Maria Marlena brought a complaint against the heirs to enforce the provisions of the codicil and to revert the ownership to the heirs of the testator. The RTC dismissed the complaint. The appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court.. Ruling: Yes. Petitioner maintains that Article 882 does not find application as there was no modal institution and the testatrix intended a mere simple substitution. Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person, not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And since obligations not extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death. In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. 1392 to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the condition that the usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private respondent every year. Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said property, and they also assumed his(decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved to herein private respondent. Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct, the fulfillment or performance of which is now being demanded by the latter through the institution of the case at bar. Therefore, private respondent has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint below. Modal Institutions ::*Petitioner also theorizes that Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions is not applicable because what the testatrix intended was a substitution- the contention is without merit. In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason of incapacity, predecease or renunciation.[14] In the case under consideration, the provisions of subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or renunciation, the testatrix's near descendants would substitute him. What the Codicil provides is that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property referred to shall be seized and turned over to the testatrix's near descendants. AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY vs. CA March 7, 2000 FACTS: Private respondents set up the defense of ownership and questioned the title of Aznar to the subject lot, alleging that the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale upon which petitioner bases its title is null and void for being fraudulently made. Private respondents claim that not all the known heirs of Crisanta participated in the extrajudicial partition and that 2 person who participated and were made parties thereto were not heirs of Crisanta. HELD: Under Article 1104, partition made with preterition shall not be rescinded unless it be proved that there was bad faith or fraud. In this case, there was no evidence of bad faith or fraud. As to the 2 parties to the deed who were allegedly not heirs, Article 1105 is applicable. The participation of non-heirs does not render the partition void in its entirety but only to the extent corresponding them.

AJERO vs. CA

September 15, 1994 FACTS: The petition for probate of the will was opposed on the ground that it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent. HELD: Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void. Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814. Unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes. KALAW vs. RELOVA January 15, 1990 FACTS: The probate of the will was opposed on the ground that it contained alterations, corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code. HELD: Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic will have not been noted under his signature, the will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined. However, when as in this case, the holographic will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the will after that which could remain valid. That change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature. JABONETA vs. GUSTILO January 19, 1906 FACTS: There were 3 witnesses as to the execution of the will of Jaboneta. Jena signed first, followed by Jalbuena. At that moment, Jena, being in a hurry to leave, took his hat and left the room. As he was leaving the room, Jena saw Javellana, the 3 rd witness, took the pen in his hand and put himself in position to sign the will as a witness, but did not sign in the presence of Jena. Nevertheless, after Jena had left the room, Javellana signed as a witness in the presence of the testator and of the witness Jalbuena. (pansin ko lang puro J ang surname sa testator ug witnesses .. hehe ) HELD: The will should be admitted to probate. It is not required that the witness must see the actual signing of the other witnesses. The purpose of a statutory requirement that the witness sign in the presence of the testator is said to be that the testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument subscribed by the witness and himself, and the generally accepted tests of presence are vision and mental apprehension. The true test of vision is not whether the testator actually saw the witness sign, but whether he might have seen him sign, considering his mental and physical condition and position at the time of the subscription . The fact that he was in the act of leaving, and that his back was turned while a portion of the name of the witness was being written, is of no importance. At the moment when the witness Javellana signed the document, he was actually and physically present and in such position with relation to Javellana that he could see everything which took place by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction, and without any physical obstruction to prevent his doing so.

MICIANO vs. BRIMO

November 1, 1924 FACTS: The appellant's opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph G. Brimo's will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality. The will provided that his property be disposed of in accordance with the laws in the Philippines. Otherwise, if relatives does not respect such wish, any disposition favorable tot them shall be annulled. HELD: The Turkish laws should be followed. However, the oppositor did not prove that said testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the absence of evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines, following the DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION . It has not been proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws are. It should be noted that the condition stated in the will is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the testator's national law when such national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary dispositions. Said condition is considered unwritten. LLORENTE vs. CA November 23, 2000 FACTS: Llorente, enlisted as a serviceman of the US navy, was married to a Filipina. He was later on admitted as a US citizen. When he went to back to the Philippines, he filed for divorce since he found out that his wife was having an adulterous relationship with his brother. Thereafter, he married his 2nd wife. In 1981, Lorenzo executed a will and bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their 3 children. HELD: Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo are issued best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and proved. Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required is answered by referring to Philippine law. The will was duly probated. The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife and children is glaringly shown in the will he executed. The SC does not wish to frustrate his wishes, since he was a foreigner, not covered by our laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity. NB: In this case, it must be noted that Llorente was already an American citizen *** CANEDA vs. CA May 28, 1993 FACTS: The oppositors of the probate of the will asserted that the will in question is null and void for the reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. HELD: Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another. Attestation is the act of senses, while subscription is the act of the hand. The former is mental, the latter mechanical, and to attest a will is to know that it was published as such, and to certify the facts required to constitute an actual and legal publication; but subscription, on the other hand, is only to write on the same paper the names of the witnesses, for the sole purpose of identification. What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other . What is then clearly lacking, in the final logical analysis, is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The absence of that statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be admitted to probate. RODELAS vs. ARANZA

December 7, 1982 FACTS: The petition was opposed on the ground that the alleged holographic will itself, and not an alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would produce no effect. HELD: A photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator. Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court. BAGTAS vs. PAGUIO March 14, 1912 FACTS: Paguio suffered from paralysis of the left side of his body until his death. In the probation of his will, it was contended that he was not in full enjoyment and use of his mental faculties and was without the mental capacity necessary to execute a will HELD: In this jurisdiction, there is a presumption in favor of mental capacity of the testator and the burden is upon the contestants of the will to prove the lack of the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will. In this case, the testator has never been adjudged insane. Paralysis is not equivalent to mental incapacity. It is not necessary that a person must be in full possession of his mental and reasoning faculties to be able to be considered of sound mind. It is not necessary that his mind be unbroken, unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. CRUZ vs. VILLASOR November 26, 1973 FACTS: Of the 3 instrumental witnesses thereto, Atty. Teves, Jr. is at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have been acknowledged. As the 3 rd witness is the notary public himself, petitioner argues that the result is that only 2 witnesses appeared before the notary public to acknowledge the will. HELD: The last will and testament in question was not executed in accordance with law. The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. If the third witness were the notary public himself, he would have to avow, assent, or admit his having signed the will in front of himself. This cannot be done because he cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his participation in the making of the will. To permit such a situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.