Allan S.

Marcaban
Researcher
ADRIANA MALOTO , et. al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et. al.
Facts:
Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners
Aldina Maloto-Casiano andConstancio, Maloto, and the private respondents
Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the deceased did not
leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced an
intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate. However,
while the case was still in progress the parties - Aldina, Constancio, Panfilo,
and Felino - executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate.
The agreement provided for the division of the estate into four equal parts among
the parties. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to
the trial court for approvalwhich the court did approved. Three years later Atty.
Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adriana's counsel discovered a document
entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," and
purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. 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. Incidentally,
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. The will likewise gives devises and legacies to
other parties. Subsequently, Aldina and Constancio, joined by the other devisees
and legatees named in the will, filed a motion for reconsideration and annulment of
the proceedings in the intestate proceedings of Adriana and for the allowance of
the will. Trial court denied their motion,The petitioner came to Supreme Court by
way of a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of the trial
court. SC dismissed that petition and advised to file a separate proceeding
for the probate of the alleged will. By that petitioner file a separate proceeding
for probate of the will. Significantly, during the investigation the appellate court
found out that the will was allegedly burned by the househelp of Adriana,
Guadalupe Maloto Vda. de Coral, upon instructions of the testatrix, and found that
the will had been revoked. The CA stated that the presence of animus revocandi in
the destruction of the will had, nevertheless, been sufficiently proven.
Issue:
Whether or not the will was revoked by Adriana.
Principle:
Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:
(1) By implication of law; or
(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case
of wills: or
(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the
intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other

person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn

cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express
direction of the testator, the will may still be established, and the estate
distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution,
and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or
obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court.
Ruling:
No, there was no revocation. For a valid revocation to occur,the 'corpus'and
'animus' must concur, one without the other will not produce a valid revocation.
The physical act of destruction of a will must come with an intention to revoke
(animus revocandi). In this case, there's paucity of evidence to comply with the said
requirement. The paper burned was not established to be the will and the burning
though done under her express direction was not done in her presence.
Under Art. 830, the physical act of destruction, in this case the burning of the will,
does not constitute an effective revocation, unless it is coupled with animus
revocandi on the part of the testator. Since animus is a state of mind, it has to be
accompanied by an overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating or canceling
done by the testator himself or by another under his express direction and presence.