G.R. No.

L-68053 May 7, 1990

LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ, vs. !E !ONORA"LE
#NERMED#AE A$ELLAE %OUR and &E'U' YANE', E'EL#A YANE', ANON#O YANE',
RO'AR#O YANE', and #LUM#NADO YANE',.
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of: (a) the decision of the Fourth Civil Cases
Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated August !" !#$ in AC%&.'. C( )o. *++,+ entitled
-.esus /anes et al. v. Dr. 'odolfo 0iason et al.- affirming the decision dated .ul1 $" !#23 of the Court of
First Instance of )egros 4ccidental insofar as it ordered the petitioners to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 the
private respondents the sum of 6,7"777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots )os. 22%A and 22%9 of
the cadastral surve1 of :urcia" )egros 4ccidental and reversing the su;5ect decision insofar as it
awarded the sums of 6,"777.77" 6*"777.77 and 6,"777.77 as actual damages" moral damages and
attorne1<s fees" respectivel1 and (;) the resolution of said appellate court dated :a1 7" !#$3" den1ing
the motion for reconsideration of its decision.
The real properties involved are two parcels of land identified as 8ot 22%A and 8ot 22%9 which were
originall1 known as 8ot 22 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia" )egros 4ccidental. 8ot 22" with an area of
!*+"*3# s=uare meters" was registered in the name of the heirs of Aniceto /anes under 4riginal
Certificate of Title )o. '4%3$*$ ($$73) issued on 4cto;er #" !#!2 ;1 the 'egister of Deeds of 4ccidental
)egros (>?h. A).
Aniceto /anes was survived ;1 his children" 'ufino" Felipe and Teodora. @erein private respondents"
>stelita" Iluminado and .esus" are the children of 'ufino who died in !#+, while the other private
respondents" Antonio and 'osario /anes" are children of Felipe. Teodora was survived ;1 her child"
.ovita (.ovito) Ali;.
1
It is not clear wh1 the latter is not included as a part1 in this case.
Aniceto left his children 8ots 22 and $,. Teodora cultivated onl1 three hectares of 8ot $, as she could
not attend to the other portions of the two lots which had a total area of around twent1%four hectares. The
record does not show whether the children of Felipe also cultivated some portions of the lots ;ut it is
esta;lished that 'ufino and his children left the province to settle in other places as a result of the
out;reak of Aorld Aar II. According to >stelita" from the -.apanese time up to peace time-" the1 did not
visit the parcels of land in =uestion ;ut -after li;eration-" when her ;rother went there to get their share of
the sugar produced therein" he was informed that Fortunato 0antiago" Fuente;ella (6uentevella) and
AlvareB were in possession of 8ot 22.
(
It is on record that on :a1 !#" !#$" Fortunato D. 0antiago was issued Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 'F
,+#3 (,#2#2) covering 8ot 22%A with an area of 2"$!$ s=uare meters.
3
TCT )o. 'F ,+#3 descri;es 8ot
22%A as a portion of 8ot 22 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia and as originall1 registered under 4CT
)o. $$73.
The ;igger portion of 8ot 22 with an area of !!$"$! s=uare meters was also registered in the name of
Fortunato D. 0antiago on 0eptem;er +" !#$ Cnder TCT )o. 'T%,+#* (,$!#, ).
)
0aid transfer certificate
of title also contains a certification to the effect that 8ot 22%9 was originall1 registered under 4CT )o.
$$73.
4n :a1 7" !#**" 0antiago sold 8ots 22%A and 22%9 to :onico 9. Fuente;ella" .r. in consideration of
the sum of 62"777.77.
5
Conse=uentl1" on Fe;ruar1 ,7" !#*+" TCT )os. T%!#,#! and T%!#,#, were
issued in Fuente;ella<s name.
6
After Fuente;ella<s death and during the settlement of his estate" the administratri? thereof (Arsenia '.
(da. de Fuente;ella" his wife) filed in 0pecial 6roceedings )o. 32 in the Court of First Instance of
)egros 4ccidental" a motion re=uesting authorit1 to sell 8ots 22%A and 22%9.
7
91 virtue of a court order
granting said motion"
8
on :arch ,3" !#*$" Arsenia (da. de Fuente;ella sold said lots for 6+"777.77 to
'osendo AlvareB.
9
@ence" on April !" !#*$ TCT )os. T%,!+* and T%,!++ covering 8ots 22%A and
22%9 were respectivel1 issued to 'osendo AlvareB.
10
Two 1ears later or on :a1 ,+" !#+7" Teodora /anes and the children of her ;rother 'ufino" namel1"
>stelita" Iluminado and .esus" filed in the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental a complaint against
Fortunato 0antiago" Arsenia (da. de Fuente;ella" AlvareB and the 'egister of Deeds of )egros
4ccidental for the -return- of the ownership and possession of 8ots 22 and $,. The1 also pra1ed that
an accounting of the produce of the land from !#33 up to the filing of the complaint ;e made ;1 the
defendants" that after court approval of said accounting" the share or mone1 e=uivalent due the plaintiffs
;e delivered to them" and that defendants ;e ordered to pa1 plaintiffs 6*77.77 as damages in the form of
attorne1<s fees.
11
During the pendenc1 in court of said case or on )ovem;er !" !#+!" AlvareB sold 8ots 22%A" 22%9 and
another lot for 6,*"777.77 to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason.
1(
Accordingl1" TCT )os. 7#!# and 7#,7 were issued
to 0iason"
13
who thereafter" declared the two lots in his name for assessment purposes.
1)
:eanwhile" on )ovem;er +" !#+," .esus /anes" in his own ;ehalf and in ;ehalf of the other plaintiffs" and
assisted ;1 their counsel" filed a manifestation in Civil Case )o. *7,, stating that the therein plaintiffs
-renounce" forfeit and =uitclaims (sic) an1 claim" monetar1 or otherwise" against the defendant Arsenia
(da. de Fuente;ella in connection with the a;ove%entitled case.-
15
4n 4cto;er !!" !#+" a decision was rendered ;1 the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental in Civil
Case )o. *7,," the dispositive portion of which reads:
A@>'>F4'>" 5udgment is rendered" ordering the defendant 'osendo AlvareB to
reconve1 to the plaintiffs lots )os. 22 and $, of the Cadastral 0urve1 of :urcia"
)egros 4ccidental" now covered ;1 Transfer Certificates of Title )os. T%,!+* and T%
,!++ in the name of said defendant" and thereafter to deliver the possession of said lots
to the plaintiffs. )o special pronouncement as to costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
16
It will ;e noted that the a;ove%mentioned manifestation of .esus /anes was not mentioned in the
aforesaid decision.
@owever" e?ecution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to 8ot 22. In his return of service
dated 4cto;er ,7" !#+*" the sheriff stated that he discovered that 8ot 22 had ;een su;divided into 8ots
22%A and 22%9D that the1 were -in the name- of 'odolfo 0iason who had purchased them from AlvareB"
and that 8ot 22 could not ;e delivered to the plaintiffs as 0iason was -not a part1 per writ of e?ecution.-
17
The e?ecution of the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, having met a hindrance" herein private respondents
(the /aneses) filed on .ul1 !" !#+*" in the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental a petition for the
issuance of a new certificate of title and for a declaration of nullit1 of TCT )os. T%,!+* and T%,!++
issued to 'osendo AlvareB.
18
Thereafter" the court re=uired 'odolfo 0iason to produce the certificates of
title covering 8ots 22 and $,.
>?pectedl1" 0iason filed a manifestation stating that he purchased 8ots 22%A" 22%9 and +*$" not 8ots
22 and $," -in good faith and for a valua;le consideration without an1 knowledge of an1 lien or
encum;rances against said properties-D that the decision in the cadastral proceeding
19
could not ;e
enforced against him as he was not a part1 theretoD and that the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, could
neither ;e enforced against him not onl1 ;ecause he was not a part1%litigant therein ;ut also ;ecause it
had long ;ecome final and e?ecutor1.
(0
Finding said manifestation to ;e well%founded" the cadastral
court" in its order of 0eptem;er 3" !#+*" nullified its previous order re=uiring 0iason to surrender the
certificates of title mentioned therein.
(1
In !#+$" the /aneses filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of e?ecution in Civil Case
)o. *7,,. 0iason opposed it.
((
In its order of 0eptem;er ,$" !#+$ in Civil Case )o. *7,," the lower court"
noting that the /aneses had instituted another action for the recover1 of the land in =uestion" ruled that at
the 5udgment therein could not ;e enforced against 0iason as he was not a part1 in the case.
(3
The action filed ;1 the /aneses on Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#+$ was for recover1 of real propert1 with damages.
()

)amed defendants therein were Dr. 'odolfo 0iason" 8aura AlvareB" Flora AlvareB" 'a1mundo AlvareB
and the 'egister of Deeds of )egros 4ccidental. The /aneses pra1ed for the cancellation of TCT )os. T%
!#,#! and !#,#, issued to 0iason (sic) for ;eing null and voidD the issuance of a new certificate of title in
the name of the /aneses -in accordance with the sheriffs return of service dated 4cto;er ,7" !#+*D-
0iason<s deliver1 of possession of 8ot 22 to the /anesesD and if" deliver1 thereof could not ;e effected"
or" if the issuance of a new title could not ;e made" that the AlvareB and 0iason 5ointl1 and severall1 pa1
the /aneses the sum of 63*"777.77. The1 also pra1ed that 0iason render an accounting of the fruits of
8ot 22 from )ovem;er !" !#+! until the filing of the complaintD and that the defendants 5ointl1 and
severall1 pa1 the /aneses moral damages of 6,7"777.77 and e?emplar1 damages of 6!7"777.77 plus
attorne1<s fees of 63" 777.77.
(5
In his answer to the complaint" 0iason alleged that the validit1 of his titles to 8ots 22%A and 22%9"
having ;een passed upon ;1 the court in its order of 0eptem;er 3" !#+*" had ;ecome res judicata and
the /aneses were estopped from =uestioning said order.
(6
4n their part" the AlvareB stated in their
answer that the /aneses< cause of action had ;een -;arred ;1 res judicata" statute of limitation and
estoppel.-
(7
In its decision of .ul1 $" !#23" the lower court found that 'odolfo 0iason" who purchased the properties in
=uestion thru an agent as he was then in :e?ico pursuing further medical studies" was a ;u1er in good
faith for a valua;le consideration. Although the /aneses were negligent in their failure to place a notice of
lis pendens -;efore the 'egister of Deeds of )egros 4ccidental in order to protect their rights over the
propert1 in =uestion- in Civil Case )o. *7,," e=uit1 demanded that the1 recover the actual value of the
land ;ecause the sale thereof e?ecuted ;etween AlvareB and 0iason was without court approval.
(8
The
dispositive portion of the decision states:
I) (I>A 4F T@> F4'>&4I)& C4)0ID>'ATI4)" 5udgment is here;1 rendered in the
following manner:
A. The case against the defendant Dr. 'odolfo 0iason and the 'egister of Deeds are
(sic) here;1 dismmissed"
9. The defendants" 8aura" Flora and 'a1mundo" all surnamed AlvareB ;eing the
legitimate children of the deceased 'osendo AlvareB are here;1 ordered to pa1 5ointl1
and severall1 the plaintiffs the sum of 6,7"777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots
)os. 22%A and 22%9 of :urcia Cadastre" )egros 4ccidentalD the sum of 6,"777.77 as
actual damages suffered ;1 the plaintiffD the sum of 6*"777.77 representing moral
damages and the sum of 6,.777 as attorne1<s fees" all with legal rate of interest from
date of the filing of this complaint up to final pa1ment.
C. The cross%claim filed ;1 the defendant Dr. 'odolfo 0iason against the defendants"
8aura" Flora and 'a1mundo" all surnamed AlvareB is here;1 dismissed.
D. Defendants" 8aura" Flora and 'a1mundo" all surnamed AlvareB are here;1 ordered to
pa1 the costs of this suit.
04 4'D>'>D.
(9
The AlvareB appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which in its decision of August !" !#$
30

affirmed the lower court<s decision -insofar as it ordered defendants%appellants to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1
the plaintiffs%appellees the sum of 6,7"777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots )os. 22%A and 22%
9 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia" )egros 4ccidental" and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of
6,"777.77" 6*"777.77 and 6,"777.77 as actual damages" moral damages and attorne1<s fees"
respectivel1.-
31
The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
A@>'>F4'>" the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it ordered defendants%
appellants to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 the plaintiffs% appellees the sum of 6,7"777.77
representing the actual value of 8ots )os. 22%A and 22%9 of the cadastral surve1 of
:urcia" )egros 4ccidental" and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of 6,"777.77"
6*"777.77 and 6,"777.77 as actual damages" moral damages and attorne1<s fees"
respectivel1. )o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
3(
Finding no cogent reason to grant appellants motion for reconsideration" said appellate court denied the
same.
@ence" the instant petition. ln their memorandum petitioners raised the following issues:
!. Ahethere or not the defense of prescription and estoppel had ;een timel1 and properl1
invoked and raised ;1 the petitioners in the lower court.
,. Ahether or not the cause andEor causes of action of the private respondents" if ever
there are an1" as alleged in their complaint dated Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#+$ which has ;een
docketed in the trial court as Civil Case )o. $323 supra" are forever ;arred ;1 statute of
limitation andEor prescription of action and estoppel.
. Ahether or not the late 'osendo AlvareB" a defendant in Civil Case )o. *7,," supra
and father of the petitioners ;ecome a priv1 andEor part1 to the waiver (>?hi;it 3%
defendant 0iason) in Civil Case )o. $323" supra where the private respondents had
un=ualifiedl1 and a;solutel1 waived" renounced and =uitclaimed all their alleged rights
and interests" if ever there is an1" on 8ots )os. 22%A and 22%9 of :urcia Cadastre as
appearing in their written manifestation dated )ovem;er +" !#+, (>?hi;its -3- 0iason)
which had not ;een controverted or even impliedl1 or indirectl1 denied ;1 them.
3. Ahether or not the lia;ilit1 or lia;ilities of 'osendo AlvareB arising from the sale of 8ots
)os. 22%A and 22%9 of :urcia Cadastre to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason" if ever there is an1"
could ;e legall1 passed or transmitted ;1 operations (sic) of law to the petitioners without
violation of law and due process .
33
The petition is devoid of merit.
As correctl1 ruled ;1 the Court of Appeals" it is powerless and for that matter so is the 0upreme Court" to
review the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, ordering AlvareB to reconve1 the lots in dispute to herein
private respondents. 0aid decision had long ;ecome final and e?ecutor1 and with the possi;le e?ception
of Dr. 0iason" who was not a part1 to said case" the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, is the law of the case
;etween the parties thereto. It ended when AlvareB or his heirs failed to appeal the decision against them.
3)
Thus" it is a?iomatic that when a right or fact has ;een 5udiciall1 tried and determined ;1 a court of
competent 5urisdiction" so long as it remains unreversed" it should ;e conclusive upon the parties and
those in privit1 with them in law or estate.
35
As consistentl1 ruled ;1 this Court" ever1 litigation must come
to an end. Access to the court is guaranteed. 9ut there must ;e a limit to it. 4nce a litigant<s right has
;een ad5udicated in a valid final 5udgment of a competent court" he should not ;e granted an un;ridled
license to return for another tr1. The prevailing part1 should not ;e harassed ;1 su;se=uent suits. For" if
endless litigation were to ;e allowed" unscrupulous litigations will multipl1 in num;er to the detriment of
the administration of 5ustice.
36
There is no dispute that the rights of the /aneses to the properties in =uestion have ;een finall1
ad5udicated in Civil Case )o. *7,,. As found ;1 the lower court" from the uncontroverted evidence
presented" the /aneses have ;een illegall1 deprived of ownership and possession of the lots in =uestion.
37
In fact" Civil Case )o. $323 now under review" arose from the failure to e?ecute Civil Case )o. *7,," as
su;5ect lots can no longer ;e reconve1ed to private respondents /aneses" the same having ;een sold
during the pendenc1 of the case ;1 the petitioners< father to Dr. 0iason who did not know a;out the
controvers1" there ;eing no lis pendens annotated on the titles. @ence" it was also settled ;e1ond
=uestion that Dr. 0iason is a purchaser in good faith.
Cnder the circumstances" the trial court did not annul the sale e?ecuted ;1 AlvareB in favor of Dr. 0iason
on )ovem;er !!" !#+! ;ut in fact sustained it. The trial court ordered the heirs of 'osendo AlvareB who
lost in Civil Case )o. *7,, to pa1 the plaintiffs (private respondents herein) the amount of 6,7"777.77
representing the actual value of the su;divided lots in dispute. It did not order defendant 0iason to pa1
said amount.
38
As to the propriet1 of the present case" it has long ;een esta;lished that the sole remed1 of the
landowner whose propert1 has ;een wrongfull1 or erroneousl1 registered in another<s name is to ;ring an
ordinar1 action in the ordinar1 court of 5ustice for reconve1ance or" if the propert1 has passed into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value" for damages.
39
-It is one thing to protect an innocent third
part1D it is entirel1 a different matter and one devoid of 5ustification if deceit would ;e rewarded ;1 allowing
the perpetrator to en5o1 the fruits of his nefarious decided As clearl1 revealed ;1 the undeviating line of
decisions coming from this Court" such an undesira;le eventualit1 is precisel1 sought to ;e guarded
against.-
)0
The issue on the right to the properties in litigation having ;een finall1 ad5udicated in Civil Case )o. *7,,
in favor of private respondents" it cannot now ;e reopened in the instant case on the prete?t that the
defenses of prescription and estoppel have not ;een properl1 considered ;1 the lower court. 6etitioners
could have appealed in the former case ;ut the1 did not. The1 have therefore foreclosed their rights" if
an1" and the1 cannot now ;e heard to complain in another case in order to defeat the enforcement of a
5udgment which has longing ;ecome final and e?ecutor1.
6etitioners further contend that the lia;ilit1 arising from the sale of 8ots )o. 22%A and 22%9 made ;1
'osendo AlvareB to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason should ;e the sole lia;ilit1 of the late 'osendo AlvareB or of his
estate" after his death.
0uch contention is untena;le for it overlooks the doctrine o;taining in this 5urisdiction on the general
transmissi;ilit1 of the rights and o;ligations of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs. Thus" the
pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state:
Art. 223. 0uccession is a mode of ac=uisition ;1 virtue of which the propert1" rights and
o;ligations to the e?tent of the value of the inheritance" of a person are transmitted
through his death to another or others either ;1 his will or ;1 operation of law.
Art. 22+. The inheritance includes all the propert1" rights and o;ligations of a person
which are not e?tinguished ;1 his death.
Art. !!!. Contract stake effect onl1 ;etween the parties" their assigns and heirs e?cept
in case where the rights and o;ligations arising from the contract are not transmissi;le ;1
their nature" or ;1 stipulation or ;1 provision of law. The heir is not lia;le ;e1ond the
value of the propert1 received from the decedent.
As e?plained ;1 this Court through Associate .ustice ..9.8. 'e1es in the case of Estate of Hemady vs.
Luzon Surety Co., Inc.
)1
The ;inding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased part1 is not altered ;1 the
provision of our 'ules of Court that mone1 de;ts of a deceased must ;e li=uidated and
paid from his estate ;efore the residue is distri;uted among said heirs ('ule $#). The
reason is that whatever pa1ment is thus made from the state is ultimatel1 a pa1ment ;1
the heirs or distri;utees" since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces
the shares that the heirs would have ;een entitled to receive.
Cnder our law" therefore. the general rule is that a part1<s contractual rights and
o;ligations are transmissi;le to the successors.
The rule is a conse=uence of the progressive -depersonaliBation- of patrimonial rights
and duties that" as o;served ;1 (ictorio 6olacco has characteriBed the histor1 of these
institutions. From the 'oman concept of a relation from person to person" the o;ligation
has evolved into a relation from patrimon1 to patrimon1 with the persons occup1ing onl1
a representative position" ;arring those rare cases where the o;ligation is strictl1
personal" i.e." is contracted intuitu personae" in consideration of its performance ;1 a
specific person and ;1 no other.
??? ??? ???
6etitioners ;eing the heirs of the late 'osendo AlvareB" the1 cannot escape the legal conse=uences of
their father<s transaction" which gave rise to the present claim for damages. That petitioners did not inherit
the propert1 involved herein is of no moment ;ecause ;1 legal fiction" the monetar1 e=uivalent thereof
devolved into the mass of their father<s hereditar1 estate" and we have ruled that the hereditar1 assets are
alwa1s lia;le in their totalit1 for the pa1ment of the de;ts of the estate.
)(
It must" however" ;e made clear that petitioners are lia;le onl1 to the e?tent of the value of their
inheritance. Aith this clarification and considering petitioners< admission that there are other properties
left ;1 the deceased which are sufficient to cover the amount ad5udged in favor of private respondents" we
see no cogent reason to distur; the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.
A@>'>F4'>" su;5ect to the clarification herein a;ove stated" the assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals is here;1 AFFI':>D. Costs against petitioners.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No*. 89(()-(5 &an+a,y (3, 199(
MAUR#%#O 'AY'ON, RO'AR#O 'AY'ON-MALONDA, "A'#L#'A 'AY'ON-L#R#O, REMED#O'
'AY'ON-REYE' and &UANA %. "AU#'A, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL', DEL#A
'AY'ON, a**-*./d 0y 1/, 1+*0and, %#R#LO %EDO, &R., EDMUNDO 'AY'ON AND DOR#"EL
'AY'ON,.
At issue in this case is the status of the private respondents and their capacit1 to inherit from their alleged
parents and grandparents. The petitioners den1 them that right" asserting if for themselves to the
e?clusion of all others.
The relevant genealogical facts are as follows.
>leno and 'afaela 0a1son ;egot five children" namel1" :auricio" 'osario" 9asilisa" 'emedios and
Teodoro. >leno died on )ovem;er !7" !#*," and 'afaela on :a1 !*" !#2+. Teodoro" who had married
Isa;el 9autista" died on :arch ," !#2,. @is wife died nine 1ears later" on :arch ,+" !#$!. Their
properties were left in the possession of Delia" >dmundo" and Dori;el" all surnamed 0a1son" who claim to
;e their children.
4n April ,*" !#$" :auricio" 'osario" 9asilisa" and 'emedios" together with .uana C. 9autista" Isa;el<s
mother" filed a complaint for partition and accounting of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isa;el
0a1son. It was docketed as Civil Case )o. !77 in 9ranch ! of the 'egional Trial Court of Al;a1. The
action was resisted ;1 Delia" >dmundo and Dori;el 0a1son" who alleged successional rights to the
disputed estate as the decedents< lawful descendants.
4n .ul1 !!" !#$" Delia" >dmundo and Dori;el filed their own complaint" this time for the accounting and
partition of the intestate estate of >leno and 'afaela 0a1son" against the couple<s four surviving children.
This was docketed as Civil Case )o. !73, in the 'egional Trial Court of Al;a1" 9ranch !,. The
complainants asserted the defense the1 raised in Civil Case )o. !77" to wit" that Delia and >dmundo
were the adopted children and Dori;el was the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and Isa;el. As such" the1
were entitled to inherit Teodoro<s share in his parents< estate ;1 right of representation.
9oth cases were decided in favor of the herein private respondents on the ;asis of practicall1 the same
evidence.
.udge 'afael 6. 0antelices declared in his decision dated :a1 ,+"
!#$+"
1
that Delia and >dmundo were the legall1 adopted children of Teodoro and Isa;el 0a1son ;1 virtue
of the decree of adoption dated :arch #" !#+2.
(
Dori;el was their legitimate daughter as evidenced ;1
her ;irth certificate dated Fe;ruar1 ,2" !#+2.
3
Conse=uentl1" the three children were entitled to inherit
from >leno and 'afaela ;1 right of representation.
In his decision dated 0eptem;er 7" !#$+"
)
.udge .ose 0. 0aFeB dismissed Civil Case )o. !77" holding
that the defendants" ;eing the legitimate heirs of Teodoro and Isa;el as esta;lished ;1 the
aforementioned evidence" e?cluded the plaintiffs from sharing in their estate.
9oth cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals" where the1 were consolidated. In its own decision
dated Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#$#"
5
the respondent court disposed as follows:
A@>'>F4'>" in Civil Case )o. !77 (CA%&.'. )o. !!*3!)" the appealed decision is
here;1 AFFI':>D. In Civil case )o. !73, (CA%&.'. )o. !,+3)" the appealed decision
is :4DIFI>D in that Delia and >dmundo 0a1son are dis=ualified from inheriting from the
estate of the deceased spouses >leno and 'afaela 0a1son" ;ut is affirmed in all other
respects.
04 4'D>'>D.
That 5udgment is now ;efore us in this petition for review ;1 certiorari. 'eversal of the respondent court is
sought on the ground that it disregarded the evidence of the petitioners and misapplied the pertinent law
and 5urisprudence when it declared the private respondents as the e?clusive heirs of Teodoro and Isa;el
0a1son.
The contention of the petitioners is that Delia and >dmundo were not legall1 adopted ;ecause Dori;el
had alread1 ;een ;orn on Fe;ruar1 ,2" !#+2" when the decree of adoption was issued on :arch #" !#+2.
The ;irth of Dori;el dis=ualified her parents from adopting. The pertinent provision is Article * of the
Civil Code" naming among those who cannot adopt -(!) Those who have legitimate" legitimated"
acknowledged natural children" or natural children ;1 legal fiction.-
Curiousl1 enough" the petitioners also argue that Dori;el herself is not the legitimate daughter of Teodoro
and Isa;el ;ut was in fact ;orn to one >dita A;ila" who manifested in a petition for guardianship of the
child that she was her natural mother.
6
The inconsistenc1 of this position is immediatel1 apparent. The petitioners seek to annul the adoption of
Delia and >dmundo on the ground that Teodoro and Isa;el alread1 had a legitimate daughter at the time
;ut in the same ;reath tr1 to demolish this argument ;1 den1ing that Dori;el was ;orn to the couple.
4n top of this" there is the vital =uestion of timeliness. It is too late now to challenge the decree of
adoption" 1ears after it ;ecame final and e?ecutor1. That was wa1 ;ack in !#+2.
7
Assuming the the
petitioners were proper parties" what the1 should have done was seasona;l1 appeal the decree of
adoption" pointing to the ;irth of Dori;el that dis=ualified Teodoro and Isa;el from adopting Delia and
>dmundo. The1 did not. In fact" the1 should have done this earlier" ;efore the decree of adoption was
issued. The1 did not" although :auricio claimed he had personal knowledge of such ;irth.
As the respondent court correctl1 o;served:
Ahen Dori;el was ;orn on Fe;ruar1 ,2" !#+2" or a;out T>) (!7) da1s ;efore the
issuance of the 4rder of Adoption" the petitioners could have notified the court a;out the
fact of ;irth of D4'I9>8 and perhaps withdrew the petition or perhaps petitioners could
have filed a petition for the revocation or rescission of the adoption (although the ;irth of
a child is not one of those provided ;1 law for the revocation or rescission of an
adoption). The court is of the considered opinion that the adoption of the plaintiffs D>8IA
and >D:C)D4 0A/04) is valid" outstanding and ;inding to the present" the same not
having ;een revoked or rescinded.
)ot having an1 information of Dori;el<s ;irth to Teodoro and Isa;el 0a1son" the trial 5udge cannot ;e
faulted for granting the petition for adoption on the finding inter alia that the adopting parents were not
dis=ualified.
A no less important argument against the petitioners is that their challenge to the validit1 of the adoption
cannot ;e made collaterall1" as in their action for partition" ;ut in a direct proceeding frontall1 addressing
the issue.
The settled rule is that a finding that the re=uisite 5urisdictional facts e?ists" whether
erroneous or not" cannot e !uestioned in a collateral proceeding" for a presumption
arises in such cases where the validit1 of the 5udgment is thus attacked that the
necessar1 5urisdictional facts were proven GFreeman on .udgments" (ol. I" 0ec. *7" pp.
2!#%2,7H. (>mphasis supplied.)
In the case of Santos v. "ranzanso" 8 this Court declared:
Anent this point" the rulings are summed up in , American .urisprudence" ,nd 0eries"
Adoption" 0ec. 2*" p. #,," thus:
An adoption order implies the finding of the necessar1 facts and the
;urden of proof is on the part1 attacking itD it cannot ;e considered void
merel1 ;ecause the fact needed to show statutor1 compliance is
o;scure. Ahile a 5udicial determination of some particular fact" such as
the a;andonment of his ne?t of kin to the adoption" ma1 ;e essential to
the e?ercise of 5urisdiction to enter the order of adoption" this does not
make it essential to the 5urisdictional validit1 of the decree that the fact ;e
determined upon proper evidence" or necessaril1 in accordance with the
truthD a mere error cannot affect the 5urisdiction" and the determination
must stand until reversed on appeal" and hence cannot e collaterally
attac#ed. If this were not the rule" the status of adopted children would
alwa1s ;e uncertain" since the evidence might not ;e the same at all
investigations" and might ;e regarded with different effect ;1 different
tri;unals" and the adoption might ;e held ;1 one court to have ;een
valid" while another court would hold it to have ;een of no avail.
(>mphasis supplied.)
4n the =uestion of Dori;el<s legitimac1" we hold that the findings of the trial courts as affirmed ;1 the
respondent court must ;e sustained. Dori;el<s ;irth certificate is a formida;le piece of evidence. It is one
of the prescri;ed means of recognition under Article ,+* of the Civil Code and Article !2, of the Famil1
Code. It is true" as the petitioners stress" that the ;irth certificate offers onl1 prima facie evidence
9
of
filiation and ma1 ;e refuted ;1 contrar1 evidence. @owever" such evidence is lacking in the case at ;ar.
:auricio<s testimon1 that he was present when Dori;el was ;orn to >dita A;ila was understand;l1
suspect" coming as it did from an interested part1. The affidavit of A;ila
10
den1ing her earlier statement in
the petition for the guardianship of Dori;el is of course hearsa1" let alone the fact that it was never offered
in evidence in the lower courts. >ven without it" however" the ;irth certificate must ;e upheld in line with
Legaspi v. Court of "ppeals"
11
where we ruled that -the evidentiar1 nature of pu;lic documents must ;e
sustained in the a;sence of strong" complete and conclusive proof of its falsit1 or nullit1.-
Another reason wh1 the petitioners< challenge must fail is the impropriet1 of the present proceedings for
that purpose. Dori;el<s legitimac1 cannot ;e =uestioned in a complaint for partition and accounting ;ut in
a direct action seasona;l1 filed ;1 the proper part1.
The presumption of legitimac1 in the Civil Code . . . does not have this purel1 evidential
character. It serves a more fundamental purpose. It actuall1 fi?es a civil status for the
child ;orn in wedlock" and that civil status cannot e attac#ed collaterally. The legitimac1
of the child can e impugned only in a direct action roug$t for t$at purpose" ;1 the
proper parties" and within the period limited ;1 law.
The legitimac1 of the child cannot e contested y %ay of defense or as a collateral issue
in another action for a different purpose. . . .
1(
(>mphasis supplied.)
In conse=uence of the a;ove o;servations" we hold that Dori;el" as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro
and Isa;el 0a1son" and Delia and >dmundo" as their adopted children" are the e?clusive heirs to the
intestate estate of the deceased couple" conforma;l1 to the following Article #2# of the Civil Code:
Art. #2#. 8egitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other
ascendants" without distinction as to se? or age" and even if the1 should come from
different marriages.
An adopted child succeeds to the propert1 of the adopting parents in the same manner
as a legitimate child.
The philosoph1 underl1ing this article is that a person<s love descends first to his children and
grandchildren ;efore it ascends to his parents and thereafter spreads among his collateral relatives. It is
also supposed that one of his purposes in ac=uiring properties is to leave them eventuall1 to his children
as a token of his love for them and as a provision for their continued care even after he is gone from this
earth.
Coming now to the right of representation" we stress first the following pertinent provisions of the Civil
Code:
Art. #27. 'epresentation is a right created ;1 fiction of law" ;1 virtue of which the
representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented" and
ac=uires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have
inherited.
Art. #2!. The representative is called to the succession ;1 the law and not ;1 the person
represented. The representative does not succeed the person represented ;ut the one
who the person represented would have succeeded.
Art. #$!. 0hould children of the deceased and descendants of other children who are
dead" survive" the former shall inherit in their own right" and the latter ;1 right of
representation.
There is no =uestion that as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and thus the granddaughter of >leno and
'afaela" Dori;el has a right to represent her deceased father in the distri;ution of the intestate estate of
her grandparents. Cnder Article #$!" =uoted a;ove" she is entitled to the share her father would have
directl1 inherited had he survived" which shall ;e e=ual to the shares of her grandparents< other children.
13
9ut a different conclusion must ;e reached in the case of Delia and >dmundo" to whom the grandparents
were total strangers. Ahile it is true that the adopted child shall ;e deemed to ;e a legitimate child and
have the same right as the latter" these rights do not include the right of representation. The relationship
created ;1 the adoption is ;etween onl1 the adopting parents and the adopted child and does not e?tend
to the ;lood relatives of either part1.
1)
In sum" we agree with the lower courts that Delia and >dmundo as the adopted children and Dori;el as
the legitimate daughter of Teodoro 0a1son and Isa;el 9autista" are their e?clusive heirs and are under no
o;ligation to share the estate of their parents with the petitioners. The Court of Appeals was correct"
however" in holding that onl1 Dori;el has the right of representation in the inheritance of her grandparents<
intestate estate" the other private respondents ;eing onl1 the adoptive children of the deceased Teodoro.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D" and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFI':>D in toto" with costs against the petitioners.
G.R. No. 77867 F/0,+a,y 6, 1990
#'A"EL DE LA $UERA, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL' and %ARMEL#A DE LA
$UERA,
The ;asic issue involved in this case is the filiation of private respondent Carmelita de la 6uerta" who
claims successional lights to the estate of her alleged grandmother.
Dominga 'evuelta died on .ul1 " !#++" at the age of #," with a will leaving her properties to her three
surviving children" namel1" Alfredo" (icente and Isa;el" all surnamed de la 6uerta. Isa;el was given the
free portion in addition to her legitime and was appointed e?ecutri? of the will.
1
The petition for the pro;ate of the will filed ;1 Isa;el was opposed ;1 her ;rothers" who averred that their
mother was alread1 senile at the time of the e?ecution of the will and did not full1 comprehend its
meaning. :oreover" some of the properties listed in the inventor1 of her estate ;elonged to them
e?clusivel1.
(
:eantime" Isa;el was appointed special administratri? ;1 the pro;ate court.
3
Alfredo su;se=uentl1 died"
leaving (icente the lone oppositor.
)
4n August !" !#23" (icente de la 6uerta filed with the Court of First Instance of IueBon a petition to
adopt Carmelita de la 6uerta. After hearing" the petition was granted.
5
@owever" the decision was
appealed ;1 Isa;el to the Court of Appeals. During the pendenc1 of the appeal" (icente died" prompting
her to move for the dismissal of the case
6
4n )ovem;er ,7" !#$!" Carmelita" having ;een allowed to intervene in the pro;ate proceedings" filed a
motion for the pa1ment to her of a monthl1 allowance as the acknowledged natural child of (icente de la
6uerta.
7
At the hearing on her motion" Carmelita presented evidence to prove her claimed status to which
Isa;el was allowed to su;mit counter%evidence.
4n )ovem;er !,"!#$," the pro;ate court granted the motion" declaring that it was satisfied from the
evidence at hand that Carmelita was a natural child of (icente de la 6uerta and was entitled to the
amounts claimed for her support. The court added that -the evidence presented ;1 the petitioner against
it (was) too weak to discredit the same.
8
4n appeal" the order of the lower court was affirmed ;1 the respondent court"
9
which is now in turn ;eing
challenged in this petition ;efore us.
The petitioner<s main argument is that Carmelita was not the natural child of (icente de la 6uerta" who
was married to &enoveva de la 6uerta in !#$ and remained his wife until his death in !#2$. Carmelita<s
real parents are .uanita Austrial and &loria .ordan.
Invoking the presumption of legitimac1" she argues that Carmelita was the legitimate child of .uanita
Austrial and &loria .ordan" who were legall1 or presuma;l1 married. :oreover" Carmelita could not have
;een a natural child of (icente de la 6uerta ;ecause he was alread1 married at the time of her ;irth in
!#+,.
To prove her point" Isa;el presented Amado :agpanta1" who testified that he was a neigh;or of Austrial
and .ordan. According to him" the two were living as hus;and and wife and had three children" including a
girl named -6uti"- presuma;l1 Carmelita. @e said though that he was not sure if the couple was legall1
married.
10
Another witness" &enoveva de la 6uerta" Identified herself as (icente de la 6uerta<s wife ;ut said the1
separated two 1ears after their marriage in !#$ and were never reconciled. In !#+," &loria .ordan
started living with (icente de la 6uerta in his house" which was onl1 five or si? houses awa1 from where
she herself was sta1ing. &enoveva said that the relationship ;etween her hus;and and &loria was well
known in the communit1.
11
In finding for Carmelita" the lower court declared that:
. . . 91 her evidence" it was shown to the satisfaction of the Court that she was ;orn on
Decem;er !$" !#+, per her ;irth certificate (>?h. A)D that her father was (icente de la
6uerta and her mother is &loria .ordan who were living as common law hus;and and
wife until his death on .une !3" !#2$D that (icente de la 6uerta was married to" ;ut was
separated from" his legal wife &enoveva de la 6uertaD that upon the death of (icente de
la 6uerta on .une !3" !#2$ without leaving a last will and testament" she was the onl1
child who survived him together with his spouse &enoveva de la 6uerta with whom he
did not ;eget an1 childD that she was treated ;1 (icente de la 6uerta as a true child from
the time of her ;irth until his father diedD that the fact that she was treated as a child of
(icente de la 6uerta is shown ;1 the famil1 pictures showing movant with (icente de la
6uerta (>?hs. D" D%! and D%,) and school records wherein he signed the report cards as
her parent (>?h. > and >%!)D that during the hearing of her adoption case in 0pecial
6roceeding )o. 773! in 9ranch ( of this Court at :au;an" IueBon" (icente de la 6uerta
categoricall1 stated in court that Carmelita de la 6uerta is his daughter with &loria .ordan
(>?hs. 9 and 9%!)D that it was (icente de la 6uerta during his lifetime who spent for her
su;sistence" support and educationD . . .
1(
This is a factual finding that we do not see fit to distur;" a;sent an1 of those circumstances we have laid
down in a long line of decisions that will 5ustif1 reversal.
13
Among these circumstances are: (!) the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirel1 on speculation" surmise and con5ectureD (,) the inference made
is manifestl1 mistakenD () there is grave a;use of discretionD (3) the 5udgment is ;ased on a
misapprehension of factsD (*) the findings of fact are conflictingD (+) the Court of Appeals went ;e1ond the
issues of the case and its findings are contrar1 to the admissions of ;oth appellant and appelleesD (2) the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrar1 to those of the trial courtD ($) said findings of facts are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which the1 are ;asedD (#) the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioner<s main and repl1 ;riefs are not disputed ;1 the respondentsD and (!7)
the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed a;sence of evidence and
contradicted ;1 the evidence on record.
The petitioner insists on the application of the following provisions of the Civil Code to support her thesis
that Carmelita is not the natural child of (icente de la 6uerta ;ut the legitimate child of .uanito Austrial
and &loria .ordan:
Art. ,**. Children ;orn after one hundred and eight1 da1s following the cele;ration of the
marriage" and ;efore three hundred da1s following its dissolution or the separation of the
spouses shall ;e presumed to ;e legitimate.
Against this presumption no evidence shall ;e admitted other than that of the ph1sical
impossi;ilit1 of the hus;and<s having access to his wife within the first one hundred and
twent1 da1s of the three hundred which preceded the ;irth of the child.
This ph1sical impossi;ilit1 ma1 ;e caused:
(!) 91 the impotence of the hus;andD
(,) 91 the fact that the hus;and and wife were living separatel1 in such a wa1 that access
was not possi;leD
() 91 the serious illness of the hus;and.
Art. ,*+. The child shall ;e presumed legitimate" although the mother ma1 have declared
against its legitimac1 or ma1 have ;een sentenced as an adulteress.
These rules are in turn ;ased on the presumption that .uanito and &loria were married at the time of
Carmelita<s ;irth in !#+," pursuant to 'ule !!" 0ec. *(;;) of the 'ules of Court" providing that:
0ec. *. &isputale presumptions.JThe following presumptions are satisfactor1 if
uncontradicted" ;ut ma1 ;e contradicted and overcome ;1 other evidence:
??? ??? ???
(;;) That a man and woman deporting themselves as hus;and and wife have entered
into a lawful contract of marriageD
9ut this last%=uoted presumption is merel1 disputa;le and ma1 ;e refuted with evidence to the contrar1.
As the Court sees it" such evidence has ;een sufficientl1 esta;lished in the case at ;ar.
The cases
1)
cited ;1 the petitioner are not e?actl1 in point ;ecause the1 involve situations where the
couples lived continuousl1 as hus;and and wife and so could ;e reasona;l1 presumed to ;e married. In
the case ;efore us" there was testimon1 from (icente<s own wife that her hus;and and &loria lived
together as a married couple" there;1 re;utting the presumption that &loria was herself the lawful wife of
.uanita Austrial.
0uch testimon1 would for one thing show that .uanito and &loria did not continuousl1 live together as a
married couple. :oreover" it is not e?plained wh1" if he was reall1 married to her" .uanito did not o;5ect
when &loria left the con5ugal home and started openl1 consorting with (icente" and in the same
neigh;orhood at that. That was unnatural" to sa1 the least. It was different with &enoveva for she herself
swore that she had separated from (icente two 1ears after their marriage and had long lost interest in her
hus;and. In fact" she even renounced in open court an1 claim to (icente<s estate.
15
The presumption of marriage ;etween .uanito and &loria having ;een destro1ed" it ;ecame necessar1
for the petitioner to su;mit additional proof to show that the two were legall1 married. 0he did not.
Turning now to the evidence re=uired to prove the private respondent<s filiation" we re5ect the petitioner<s
contention that Article ,2$ of the Civil Code is not availa;le to Carmelita. It is error to contend that as she
is not a natural child ;ut a spurious child (if at all) she cannot prove her status ;1 the record of ;irth" a will"
a statement ;efore a court of record" or an1 authentic writing. 4n the contrar1" it has long ;een settled
that:
The so%called spurious children or illegitimate children other than natural children"
commonl1 known as ;astards" include adulterous children or those ;orn out of wedlock to
a married woman coha;iting with a man other than her hus;and or to a married man
coha;iting with a woman other than his wife. The1 are entitled to support and
successional rights (Art. ,$2" CC). 9ut their filiation must ;e dul1 proven.(Iid" Art. $$2)
@ow should their filiation ;e provenK Article ,$# of the Civil Code allows the investigation
of the paternit1 or maternit1 of spurious children under the circumstances specified in
Articles ,$ and ,$3 of the Civil Code. The implication is that the rules on compulsor1
recognition of natural children are applica;le to spurious children.
0purious children should not ;e in a ;etter position than natural children. The rules on
proof of filiation of natural children or the rule on voluntar1 and compulsor1
acknowledgment for natural children ma1 ;e applied to spurious children.
16
This ;eing so" we need not rule now on the admissi;ilit1 of the private respondent<s certificate of ;irth as
proof of her filiation. That status was sufficientl1 esta;lished ;1 the sworn testimon1 of (icente de la
6uerta at the hearing of the petition for adoption on 0eptem;er +" !#2+" where he categoricall1 declared
as follows:
I Ahat relation if an1 do 1ou have with Carmelita de la 6uertaK
A 0he is m1 daughter.
17
Finall1" we move to the most crucial =uestion" to wit: :a1 Carmelita de la 6uerta claim support and
successional rights to the estate of Dominga 'evueltaK
According to Article #27 of the Civil Code:
Art. #27. 'epresentation is a right created ;1 fiction of law" ;1 virtue of which the
representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented" and
ac=uires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have
inherited.
The answer to the =uestion posed must ;e in the negative. The first reason is that (icente de la 6uerta
did not predecease his motherD and the second is that Carmelita is a spurious child.
It is settled that J
In testamentar1 succession" the right of representation can take place onl1 in the
following cases: first" when the person represented dies ;efore the testatorD second"
when the person represented is incapa;le of succeeding the testatorD and third" when the
person represented is disinherited ;1 the testator. In all of these cases" since there is a
vacanc1 in the inheritance" the law calls the children or descendants of the person
represented to succeed ;1 right of representation.
18
??? ??? ???
The law is clear that there is representation onl1 when relatives of a deceased person tr1
to succeed him in his rights which he would have had if still living. In the present case"
however" said deceased had alread1 succeeded his aunt" the testatri? herein. . . . It is a
fact that at the time of the death of the testatri?" 'e1naldo Cuison was still alive. @e died
two months after her (testatri?<s) death. And upon his death" he transmitted to his heirs"
the petitioners herein >lisa Cuison et al." the legac1 or the right to succeed to the
legac1. . . . In other words" the herein petitioners%appellants are not tr1ing to succeed to
the right to the propert1 of the testatri?" ;ut rather to the right of the legatee 'e1naldo
Cuison in said propert1.
19
)ot having predeceased Dominga 'evuelta" her son (icente had the right to inherit from her directl1 or in
his own right. )o right of representation was involved" nor could it ;e invoked ;1 Carmelita upon her
father<s death" which came after his own mother<s death. It would have ;een different if (icente was
alread1 dead when Dominga 'evuelta died. Carmelita could then have inherited from her in
representation of her father (icente" assuming the private respondent was a lawful heir.
9ut herein lies the cru?" for she is not. As a spurious child of (icente" Carmelita is ;arred from inheriting
from Dominga ;ecause of Article ##, of the Civil Code" which la1s down the ;arrier ;etween the
legitimate and illegitimate families. This article provides =uite clearl1:
Art. ##,. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit a intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or motherD nor shall such children or relatives inherit in
the same manner from the illegitimate child.
Appl1ing this rule in Leonardo v. Court of "ppeals"
(0
this Court declared:
. . . even if it is true that petitioner is the child of 0otero 8eonardo" still he cannot" ;1 right
of representation" claim a share of the estate left ;1 the deceased Francisca 'e1es
considering that" as found again ;1 the Court of Appeals" he was ;orn outside wedlock
as shown ;1 the fact that when he was ;orn" his alleged putative father and mother were
not 1et married" and what is more" his alleged father<s first marriage was still su;sisting.
At most" petitioner would ;e an illegitimate child who has no right to inherit a intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives of his father" like the deceased Francisca
'e1es.
The reason for this rule was e?plained in the recent case of &iaz v. Intermediate "ppellate Court"
(1
thus:
Article ##, of the )ew Civil Code provides a ;arrier or iron curtain in that it prohi;its
a;solutel1 a succession a intestato ;etween the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. The1 ma1 have a
natural tie of ;lood" ;ut this is not recogniBed ;1 law for the purpose of Article ##,.
9etween the legitimate famil1 and the illegitimate famil1 there is presumed to ;e an
intervening antagonism and incompati;ilit1. The illegitimate child is disgracefull1 looked
down upon ;1 the legitimate famil1D the famil1 is in turn" hated ;1 the illegitimate child the
latter considers the privileged condition of the former" and the resources of which it is
there;1 deprivedD the former in turn sees in the illegitimate child nothing ;ut the product
of sin" palpa;le evidence of a ;lemish ;roken in lifeD the law does no more than recogniBe
this truth" ;1 avoiding further ground of resentment.
((
Indeed" even as an adopted child" Carmelita would still ;e ;arred from inheriting from Dominga 'evuelta
for there would ;e no natural kindred ties ;etween them and conse=uentl1" no legal ties to ;ind them
either. As aptl1 pointed out ;1 Dr. Arturo :. Tolentino:
If the adopting parent should die ;efore the adopted child" the latter cannot represent the
former in the inheritance from the parents or ascendants of the adopter. The adopted
child is not related to the deceased in that case" ;ecause the filiation created ;1 fiction of
law is e?clusivel1 ;etween the adopter and the adopted. -91 adoption" the adopters can
make for themselves an heir" ;ut the1 cannot thus make one for their kindred.
(3

The result is that Carmelita" as the spurious daughter of (icente de la 6uerta" has successional rights to
the intestate estate of her father ;ut not to the estate of Dominga 'evuelta. @er claims for support and
inheritance should therefore ;e filed in the proceedings for the settlement of her own father<s
estate
()
and cannot ;e considered in the pro;ate of Dominga 'evuelta<s Aill.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is &'A)T>D and the appealed decision is here;1 '>(>'0>D and 0>T
A0ID>" with costs against the private respondent. It is so ordered.
G.R. No. 118()8 A2,-3 5, (000
D4% !OLD#NG' %OR$ORA#ON, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', V#%OR U. "AROLOME and
REG#'ER OF DEED' FOR MERO MAN#LA, D#'R#% ###,
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Decem;er *" !##3 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. 37$3# entitled -DLC @oldings Corporation vs. (ictor C. 9artolome"
et al.-"
1
affirming in toto the .anuar1 3" !## Decision of the 'egional Trial Court of (alenBuela" 9ranch
!2,"
(
which dismissed Civil Case )o. 2%(%#7 and ordered petitioner to pa1 67"777.77 as attorne1<s
fees.
The su;5ect of the controvers1 is a !3"7,! s=uare meter parcel of land located in :alinta" (alenBuela"
:etro :anila which was originall1 owned ;1 private respondent (ictor C. 9artolome<s deceased mother"
>ncarnacion 9artolome" under Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 9%2+!* of the 'egister of Deeds of :etro
:anila" District III. This lot was in front of one of the te?tile plants of petitioner and" as such" was seen ;1
the latter as a potential warehouse site.
4n :arch !+" !#$$" petitioner entered into a Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1 with >ncarnacion
9artolome" where;1 petitioner was given the option to lease or lease with purchase the su;5ect land"
which option must ;e e?ercised within a period of two 1ears counted from the signing of the Contract. In
turn" petitioner undertook to pa1 6"777.77 a month as consideration for the reservation of its option.
Aithin the two%1ear period" petitioner shall serve formal written notice upon the lessor >ncarnacion
9artolome of its desire to e?ercise its option. The contract also provided that in case petitioner chose to
lease the propert1" it ma1 take actual possession of the premises. In such an event" the lease shall ;e for
a period of si? 1ears" renewa;le for another si? 1ears" and the monthl1 rental fee shall ;e 6!*"777.77 for
the first si? 1ears and 6!$"777.77 for the ne?t si? 1ears" in case of renewal.
6etitioner regularl1 paid the monthl1 6"777.77 provided for ;1 the Contract to >ncarnacion until her
death in .anuar1 !##7. Thereafter" petitioner coursed its pa1ment to private respondent (ictor 9artolome"
;eing the sole heir of >ncarnacion. (ictor" however" refused to accept these pa1ments.
:eanwhile" on .anuar1 !7" !##7" (ictor e?ecuted an Affidavit of 0elf%Ad5udication over all the properties
of >ncarnacion" including the su;5ect lot. Accordingl1" respondent 'egister of Deeds cancelled Transfer
Certificate of Title )o. 9%2+!* and issued Transfer Certificate of Title )o. (%!3,3# in the name of (ictor
9artolome.
4n :arch !3" !##7" petitioner served upon (ictor" via registered mail" notice that it was e?ercising its
option to lease the propert1" tendering the amount of 6!*"777.77 as rent for the month of :arch. Again"
(ictor refused to accept the tendered rental fee and to surrender possession of the propert1 to petitioner.
6etitioner thus opened 0avings Account )o. !%73%7,**$%I%! with the China 9anking Corporation" Cu;ao
9ranch" in the name of (ictor 9artolome and deposited therein the 6!*"777.77 rental fee for :arch as
well as 6+"777.77 reservation fees for the months of Fe;ruar1 and :arch.
6etitioner also tried to register and annotate the Contract on the title of (ictor to the propert1. Although
respondent 'egister of Deeds accepted the re=uired fees" he nevertheless refused to register or annotate
the same or even enter it in the da1 ;ook or primar1 register.'(%p$i'.n)t
Thus" on April ," !##7" petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against (ictor
and the 'egister of Deeds"
3
docketed as Civil Case )o. 2%(%#7 which was raffled off to 9ranch !2! of
the 'egional Trial Court of (alenBuela. 6etitioner pra1ed for the surrender and deliver1 of possession of
the su;5ect land in accordance with the Contract termsD the surrender of title for registration and
annotation thereon of the ContractD and the pa1ment of 6*77"777.77 as actual damages" 6*77"777.77 as
moral damages" 6*77"777.77 as e?emplar1 damages and 677"777.77 as attorne1<s fees.
:eanwhile" on :a1 $" !##7" a :otion for Intervention with :otion to Dismiss
)
was filed ;1 one Andres
8anoBo" who claimed that he was and has ;een a tenant%tiller of the su;5ect propert1" which was
agricultural riceland" for fort1%five 1ears. @e =uestioned the 5urisdiction of the lower court over the propert1
and invoked the Comprehensive Agrarian 'eform 8aw to protect his rights that would ;e affected ;1 the
dispute ;etween the original parties to the case.
4n :a1 !$" !##7" the lower court issued an 4rder
5
referring the case to the Department of Agrarian
'eform for preliminar1 determination and certification as to whether it was proper for trial ;1 said court.
4n .ul1 3" !##7" the lower court issued another 4rder
6
referring the case to 9ranch !2, of the 'TC of
(alenBuela which was designated to hear cases involving agrarian land" after the Department of Agrarian
'eform issued a letter%certification stating that referral to it for preliminar1 determination is no longer
re=uired.
4n .ul1 !+" !##7" the lower court issued an 4rder den1ing the :otion to Intervene"
7
holding that 8anoBo<s
rights ma1 well ;e ventilated in another proceeding in due time.
After trial on the merits" the 'TC of (alenBuela" 9ranch !2, rendered its Decision on .anuar1 3" !##"
dismissing the Complaint and ordering petitioner to pa1 (ictor 67"777.77 as attorne1<s fees. 4n appeal
to the CA" the Decision was affirmed in toto.
@ence" the instant 6etition assigning the following errors:
(A)
FI'0T A00I&):>)T 4F >''4'
T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT T@> 6'4(I0I4)
4) T@> )4TIC> T4 >M>'CI0> 46TI4) AA0 )4T T'A)0:I00I98>.
(9)
0>C4)D A00I&):>)T 4F >''4'
T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT T@> )4TIC> 4F
46TI4) :C0T 9> 0>'(>D 9/ DLC C64) >)CA')ACI4) 9A'T484:>
6>'04)A88/.
(C)
T@I'D A00I&):>)T 4F >''4'
T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT T@> C4)T'ACT
AA0 4)>%0ID>D A)D 4)>'4C0 I) FA(4' 4F DLC.
(D)
F4C'T@ A00I&):>)T 4F >''4'
T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT T@> >MI0T>)C>
4F A '>&I0T>'>D T>)A)C/ AA0 FATA8 T4 T@> (A8IDIT/ 4F T@> C4)T'ACT.
(>)
FIFT@ A00I&):>)T 4F >''4'
T@> @4)4'A98> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) 'C8I)& T@AT 68AI)TIFF%
A66>88A)T AA0 8IA98> T4 D>F>)DA)T%A66>88>> F4' ATT4')>/<0 F>>0.
8
The issue to ;e resolved in this case is whether or not the Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1 entered
into ;1 the late >ncarnacion 9artolome with petitioner was terminated upon her death or whether it ;inds
her sole heir" (ictor" even after her demise.
9oth the lower court and the Court of Appeals held that the said contract was terminated upon the death
of >ncarnacion 9artolome and did not ;ind (ictor ;ecause he was not a part1 thereto.
Art. !!! of the Civil Code provides" as follows J
Art. !!!. Contracts take effect onl1 ;etween the parties" their assigns and heirs" e?cept
in case where the rights and o;ligations arising from the contract are not transmissi;le ;1
their nature" or ;1 stipulation or ;1 provision of law. The heir is not lia;le ;e1ond the
value of the propert1 he received from the decedent.
??? ??? ???
The general rule" therefore" is that heirs are ;ound ;1 contracts entered into ;1 their predecessors%in%
interest e?cept when the rights and o;ligations arising therefrom are not transmissi;le ;1 (!) their nature"
(,) stipulation or () provision of law.
In the case at ;ar" there is neither contractual stipulation nor legal provision making the rights and
o;ligations under the contract intransmissi;le. :ore importantl1" the nature of the rights and o;ligations
therein are" ;1 their nature" transmissi;le.
The nature of intransmissi;le rights as e?plained ;1 Arturo Tolentino" an eminent civilist" is as follows:
Among contracts which are intransmissi;le are those which are purel1 personal" either ;1
provision of law" such as in cases of partnerships and agenc1" or ;1 the ver1 nature of
the o;ligations arising therefrom" such as those re=uiring special personal =ualifications
of the o;ligor. It ma1 also ;e stated that contracts for the pa1ment of mone1 de;ts are not
transmitted to the heirs of a part1" ;ut constitute a charge against his estate. Thus" where
the client in a contract for professional services of a law1er died" leaving minor heirs" and
the law1er" instead of presenting his claim for professional services under the contract to
the pro;ate court" su;stituted the minors as parties for his client" it was held that the
contract could not ;e enforced against the minorsD the law1er was limited to a recover1
on the ;asis of !uantum meruit.
9
In American 5urisprudence" -(A)here acts stipulated in a contract re=uire the e?ercise of special
knowledge" genius" skill" taste" a;ilit1" e?perience" 5udgment" discretion" integrit1" or other personal
=ualification of one or ;oth parties" the agreement is of a personal nature" and terminates on the death of
the part1 who is re=uired to render such service.-
10
It has also ;een held that a good measure for determining whether a contract terminates upon the death
of one of the parties is whether it is of such a character that it ma1 ;e performed ;1 the promissor<s
personal representative. Contracts to perform personal acts which cannot ;e as well performed ;1 others
are discharged ;1 the death of the promissor. Conversel1" where the service or act is of such a character
that it ma1 as well ;e performed ;1 another" or where the contract" ;1 its terms" shows that performance
;1 others was contemplated" death does not terminate the contract or e?cuse nonperformance.
11
In the case at ;ar" there is no personal act re=uired from the late >ncarnacion 9artolome. 'ather" the
o;ligation of >ncarnacion in the contract to deliver possession of the su;5ect propert1 to petitioner upon
the e?ercise ;1 the latter of its option to lease the same ma1 ver1 well ;e performed ;1 her heir (ictor.
As earl1 as !#7" it was held that -(@)e who contracts does so for himself and his heirs.-
1(
In !#*," it was
ruled that if the predecessor was dut1%;ound to reconve1 land to another" and at his death the
reconve1ance had not ;een made" the heirs can ;e compelled to e?ecute the proper deed for
reconve1ance. This was grounded upon the principle that heirs cannot escape the legal conse=uence of a
transaction entered into ;1 their predecessor%in%interest ;ecause the1 have inherited the propert1 su;5ect
to the lia;ilit1 affecting their common ancestor.
13
It is futile for (ictor to insist that he is not a part1 to the contract ;ecause of the clear provision of Article
!!! of the Civil Code. Indeed" ;eing an heir of >ncarnacion" there is privit1 of interest ;etween him and
his deceased mother. @e onl1 succeeds to what rights his mother had and what is valid and ;inding
against her is also valid and ;inding as against him.
1)
This is clear from *ara+a!ue ,ings Enterprises vs.
Court of "ppeals"
15
where this Court re5ected a similar defense J
Aith respect to the contention of respondent 'a1mundo that he is not priv1 to the lease
contract" not ;eing the lessor nor the lessee referred to therein" he could thus not have
violated its provisions" ;ut he is nevertheless a proper part1. Clearl1" he stepped into the
shoes of the owner%lessor of the land as" ;1 virtue of his purchase" he assumed all the
o;ligations of the lessor under the lease contract. :oreover" he received ;enefits in the
form of rental pa1ments. Furthermore" the complaint" as well as the petition" pra1ed for
the annulment of the sale of the properties to him. 9oth pleadings also alleged collusion
;etween him and respondent 0antos which defeated the e?ercise ;1 petitioner of its right
of first refusal.
In order then to accord complete relief to petitioner" respondent 'a1mundo was a
necessar1" if not indispensa;le" part1 to the case. A favora;le 5udgment for the petitioner
will necessaril1 affect the rights of respondent 'a1mundo as the ;u1er of the propert1
over which petitioner would like to assert its right of first option to ;u1.
In the case at ;ar" the su;5ect matter of the contract is likewise a lease" which is a propert1 right. The
death of a part1 does not e?cuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a propert1 right" and the
rights and o;ligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. 0imilarl1"
nonperformance is not e?cused ;1 the death of the part1 when the other part1 has a propert1 interest in
the su;5ect matter of the contract.
16
Cnder ;oth Article !!! of the Civil Code and 5urisprudence" therefore" (ictor is ;ound ;1 the su;5ect
Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1.
That ;eing resolved" we now rule on the issue of whether petitioner had complied with its o;ligations
under the contract and with the re=uisites to e?ercise its option. The pa1ment ;1 petitioner of the
reservation fees during the two%1ear period within which it had the option to lease or purchase the
propert1 is not disputed. In fact" the pa1ment of such reservation fees" e?cept those for Fe;ruar1 and
:arch" !##7 were admitted ;1 (ictor.
17
This is clear from the transcripts" to wit J
ATT/. :4.AD4:
4ne re=uest" /our @onor. The last pa1ment which was allegedl1 made in
.anuar1 !##7 5ust indicate in that stipulation that it was issued )ovem;er
of !#$# and postdated .anuar1 !##7 and then we will admit all.
C4C'T:
All reservation feeK
ATT/. :4.AD4:
/es" /our @onor.
C4C'T:
All as part of the leaseK
ATT/. :4.AD4:
'eservation fee" /our @onor. There was no pa1ment with respect to
pa1ment of rentals.
18
6etitioner also paid the 6!*"777.77 monthl1 rental fee on the su;5ect propert1 ;1 depositing the same in
China 9ank 0avings Account )o. !%73%7,**$%I%!" in the name of (ictor as the sole heir of >ncarnacion
9artolome"
19
for the months of :arch to .ul1 7" !##7" or a total of five (*) months" despite the refusal of
(ictor to turn over the su;5ect propert1.
(0
8ikewise" petitioner complied with its dut1 to inform the other part1 of its intention to e?ercise its option to
lease through its letter dated :atch !,"
!##7"
(1
well within the two%1ear period for it to e?ercise its option. Considering that at that time
>ncarnacion 9artolome had alread1 passed awa1" it was legitimate for petitioner to have addressed its
letter to her heir.
It appears" therefore" that the e?ercise ;1 petitioner of its option to lease the su;5ect propert1 was made in
accordance with the contractual provisions. Concomitantl1" private respondent (ictor 9artolome has the
o;ligation to surrender possession of and lease the premises to petitioner for a period of si? (+) 1ears"
pursuant to the Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1.
Coming now to the issue of tenanc1" we find that this is not for this Court to pass upon in the present
petition. Ae note that the :otion to Intervene and to Dismiss of the alleged tenant" Andres 8anoBo" was
denied ;1 the lower court and that such denial was never made the su;5ect of an appeal. As the lower
court stated in its 4rder" the alleged right of the tenant ma1 well ;e ventilated in another proceeding in
due time.
A@>'>F4'>" in view of the foregoing" the instant 6etition for 'eview is &'A)T>D. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. 37$3# and that of the 'egional Trial Court of (alenBuela in Civil
Case )o. 2%(%#7 are ;oth 0>T A0ID> and a new one rendered ordering private respondent (ictor
9artolome to:
(a) surrender and deliver possession of that parcel of land covered ;1
Transfer Certificate of Title )o. (%!3,3# ;1 wa1 of lease to petitioner and
to perform all o;ligations of his predecessor%in%interest" >ncarnacion
9artolome" under the su;5ect Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1D
(;) surrender and deliver his cop1 of Transfer Certificate of Title )o. (%
!3,3# to respondent 'egister of Deeds for registration and annotation
thereon of the su;5ect Contract of 8ease with 4ption to 9u1D
(c) pa1 costs of suit.
'espondent 'egister of Deeds is" accordingl1" ordered to register and annotate the su;5ect Contract of
8ease with 4ption to 9u1 at the ;ack of Transfer Certificate of Title )o. (%!3,3# upon su;mission ;1
petitioner of a cop1 thereof to his office.
04 4'D>'>D.'(%p$i'.n)t
G.R. No. 770(9 A+5+*. 30, 1990
"#ENVEN#DO, E'EL#A, MA%AR#O, LU#', ADELA#DE, ENR#6U#A and %LAUD#O, a33 *+,na7/d,
GEVERO, vs. #NERMED#AE A$$ELLAE %OUR and DEL MONE DEVELO$MEN
%OR$ORA#ON,
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the :arch ,7" !#$$ decision
1
of the then Intermediate
Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in AC%&' C( )o. +#,+3" entitled Del :onte Development
Corporation vs. >nri=ue A;a;a" et al." etc. affirming the decision
(
of the then Court of First Instance (now
'egional Trial Court) of :isamis 4riental declaring the plaintiff corporation as the true and a;solute owner
of that portion of 8ot 32+ of the Caga1an Cadastre" particularl1 8ot )o. ,32+%D of the su;division plan
(8'C) 6sd%$73*7" containing an area of 0even Thousand >ight @undred 0event1 >ight (2"$2$) s=uare
meters more or less.
As found ;1 the Appellate Court" the facts are as follows:
The parcel of land under litigation is 8ot )o. ,32+ of the 0u;division 6lan 6sd%2+*
containing an area of ,7"!!# s=uare meters and situated at &usa" Caga1an de 4ro Cit1.
0aid lot was ac=uired ;1 purchase from the late 8uis 8ancero on 0eptem;er !*" !#+3 as
per Deed of A;solute 0ale e?ecuted in favor of plaintiff and ;1 virtue of which Transfer
Certificate of Title )o. 3,7 was issued to plaintiff (D>8C4' for ;revit1). 8uis 8ancero" in
turn ac=uired the same parcel from 'icardo &evero on Fe;ruar1 *" !#*, per deed of sale
e?ecuted ;1 'icardo &evero which was dul1 annotated as entr1 )o. !!,$ at the ;ack of
4riginal Certificate of Title )o. 2+!7 covering the mother lot identified as 8ot )o. ,32+ in
the names of Teodorica 9a;angha J !E, share and her children: :ariaD 'estituto" >lena"
'icardo" >usta=uio and Crsula" all surnamed surnamed &evero" !E, undivided share of
the whole area containing 3$"!,, s=uare meters.
Teodorica 9a;angha died long ;efore Aorld Aar II and was survived ;1 her si? children
aforementioned. The heirs of Teodorica 9a;angha on 4cto;er !2"!#++ e?ecuted an
>?tra%.udicial 0ettlement and 6artition of the estate of Teodorica 9a;angha" consisting of
two lots" among them was lot ,32+. 91 virtue of the e?tra%5udicial settlement and partition
e?ecuted ;1 the said heirs of Teodorica 9a;angha" 8ot ,32+%A to 8ot ,32+%I" inclusive"
under su;division plan (8'C) 6sd%$73*7 dul1 approved ;1 the 8and 'egistration
Commission" 8ot ,32+%D" among others" was ad5udicated to 'icardo &evero who was
then alive at the time of e?tra%5udicial settlement and partition in !#++. 6laintiff (private
respondent herein) filed an action with the CFI (now 'TC) of :isamis 4riental to =uiet
title andEor annul the partition made ;1 the heirs of Teodorica 9a;angha insofar as the
same pre5udices the land which it ac=uired a portion of lot ,32+.
6laintiff now seeks to =uiet title andEor annul the partition made ;1 the heirs of Teodorica
9a;angha insofar as the same pre5udices the land which it ac=uired" a portion of 8ot
,32+. 6laintiff proved that ;efore purchasing 8ot ,32+%A it first investigated and checked
the title of 8uis 8ancero and found the same to ;e intact in the office of the 'egister of
Deeds of Caga1an de 4ro Cit1. The same with the su;division plan (>?h. -9-)" the
corresponding technical description (>?h. -6-) and the Deed of 0ale e?ecuted ;1 'icardo
&evero J all of which were found to ;e un=uestiona;le. 91 reason of all these" plaintiff
claims to have ;ought the land in good faith and for value" occup1ing the land since the
sale and taking over from 8ancero<s possession until :a1 !#+#" when the defendants
A;adas forci;l1 entered the propert1. (-ollo" p. ,)
After trial the court a !uo on .ul1 !$" !#22 rendered 5udgment" the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:
A@>'>F4'>" premises considered" 5udgment is here;1 rendered declaring the plaintiff
corporation as the true and a;solute owner of that portion of 8ot )o. ,32+ of the Caga1an
Cadastre" particularl1 8ot )o. ,32+%D of the su;division plan (8'C) 6sd%$73*7"
containing an area of 0>(>) T@4C0A)D >I&@T @C)D'>D 0>(>)T/ >I&@T (2"$2$)
s=uare meters" more or less. The other portions of 8ot )o. ,32+ are here;1 ad5udicated
as follows:
8ot )o. ,32+ N 9 N to the heirs of >lena &everoD
8ot )o. ,32+ N C N to the heirs of 'estituto &everoD
8ot )o. ,32+ N > N to the defendant spouses >nri=ue C. Torres and Francisca A=uinoD
8ot )o. ,32+ N F N to the defendant spouses >duard 'umohr and >milia :erida
'umohf D
8ot )os. ,32+%@" ,32+%I and ,32+ J & J to defendant spouses >nri=ue A;ada and 8ilia
AlvareB A;ada.
)o ad5udication can ;e made with respect to 8ot )o. ,32+%A considering that the said lot
is the su;5ect of a civil case ;etween the @eirs of :aria &evero on one hand and the
spouses Daniel 9orkingkito and Crsula &evero on the other hand" which case is now
pending appeal ;efore the Court of Appeals. )o pronouncement as to costs"
04 4'D>'>D. (Decision" 'ecord on Appeal" p. ,7D -ollo" pp. ,!%,,)
From said decision" defendant heirs of 'icardo &evero (petitioners herein) appealed to the IAC (now
Court of Appeals) which su;se=uentl1" on :arch ,7" !#$+" affirmed the decision appealed from.
6etitioners" on :arch !" !#$+" filed a motion for reconsideration (-ollo" p. ,$) ;ut was denied on April
,!" !#$+.
@ence" the present petition.
This petition is devoid of merit.
9asicall1" the issues to ;e resolved in the instant case are: !) whether or not the deed of sale
e?ecuted ;1 'icardo &evero to 8uis 8ancero is validD ,) in the affirmative" whether or not the !E,
share of interest of Teodorica 9a;angha in one of the litigated lots" lot no. ,32+ under 4CT )o.
2+!7 is included in the deed of saleD and ) whether or not the private respondents< action is
;arred ;1 laches.
6etitioners maintain that the deed of sale is entirel1 invalid citing alleged flaws thereto" such as that: !)
the signature of 'icardo was forged without his knowledge of such factD ,) 8ancero had recogniBed the
fatal defect of the !#*, deed of sale when he signed the document in !#+$ entitled -0ettlement to Avoid
the 8itigation-D ) 'icardo<s children remained in the propert1 notwithstanding the sale to 8anceroD 3) the
designated 8ot )o. is ,327 instead of the correct num;er ;eing 8ot )o. ,32+D *) the deed of sale included
the share of >usta=uio &evero without his authorit1D +) T.C.T. )o. !!$ of 8ancero segregated the area
of ,7"!!# s=uare meters from the ;igger area (4CT )o. 2+!+) without the consent of the other co%
ownersD 2) 8ancero caused the !#*, 0u;division surve1 without the consent of the &everos< to ;ring
a;out the segregation of the ,7"!!# s=uare meters lot from the mother lot ,32+ which ;rought a;out the
issuance of his title T%!!$ and to D>8C4'<s title T3,7" ;oth of which were illegall1 issuedD and $) the
area sold as per document is ,7"+3# s=uare meters whereas the segregated area covered ;1 TCT )o. T%
!!$ of 8ancero turned out to ;e ,7"!!# s=uare meters (6etitioners :emorandum" pp. +,%2$).
As to petitioners< claim that the signature of 'icardo in the !#*, deed of sale in favor of 8ancero was
forged without 'icardo<s knowledge of such fact (-ollo" p. 2!) it will ;e o;served that the deed of sale in
=uestion was e?ecuted with all the legal formalities of a pu;lic document. The !#*, deed was dul1
acknowledged ;1 ;oth parties ;efore the notar1 pu;lic" 1et petitioners did not ;other to re;ut the legal
presumption of the regularit1 of the notariBed document (D1 v. 0aca1" !+* 0C'A 32 G!#$$H)D )uguid v.
C.A." &.'. )o. 223," :arch !" !#$#). In fact it has long ;een settled that a pu;lic document e?ecuted
and attested through the intervention of the notar1 pu;lic is evidence of the facts in clear" une=uivocal
manner therein e?pressed. It has the presumption of regularit1 and to contradict all these" evidence must
;e clear" convincing and more than merel1 preponderant ('e;uleda v. I.A.C." !** 0C'A *,7%*,! G!#$2H).
Forger1 cannot ;e presumed" it must ;e proven (0iasat v. IAC" )o. +2$$#" 4cto;er !7" !#$*). 8ikewise"
petitioners allegation of a;sence of consideration of the deed was not su;stantiated. Cnder Art. !*3 of
the Civil Code" consideration is presumed unless the contrar1 is proven.
As to petitioners< contention that 8ancero had recogniBed the fatal defect of the !#*, deed when he
signed the document in !#+$ entitled -0ettlement to Avoid 8itigation- (-ollo" p. 2!)" it is a ;asic rule of
evidence that the right of a part1 cannot ;e pre5udiced ;1 an act" declaration" or omission of another (0ec.
,$. 'ule !7" 'ules of Court). This particular rule is em;odied in the ma?im .res inter alios acta alteri
nocere non deet.- Cnder 0ection !" 'ule !7" 'ules of Court -where one derives title to propert1 from
another" the act" declaration" or omission of the latter" while holding the title" in relation to the propert1 is
evidence against the former.- It is however stressed that the admission of the former owner of a propert1
must have ;een made while he was the owner thereof in order that such admission ma1 ;e ;inding upon
the present owner (Cit1 of :anila v. del 'osario" * 6hil. ,,2 G!#7*HD :edel v. Avecilla" !* 6hil. 3+*
G!#!7H). @ence" 8anceros< declaration or acts of e?ecuting the !#+$ document have no ;inding effect on
D>8C4'" the ownership of the land having passed to D>8C4' in !#+3.
6etitioners< claim that the1 remained in the propert1" notwithstanding the alleged sale ;1 'icardo to
8ancero (-ollo" p. 2!) involves a =uestion of fact alread1 raised and passed upon ;1 ;oth the trial and
appellate courts. 0aid the Court of Appeals:
Contrar1 to the allegations of the appellants" the trial court found that 8uis 8ancero had
taken possession of the land upon proper investigation ;1 plaintiff the latter learned that it
was indeed 8uis 8ancero who was the owner and possessor of 8ot ,32+ D. . . .
(Decision" C.A." p. +).
As a finding of fact" it is ;inding upon this Court (De &ola%0ison v. :analo" $ 0C'A *#* G!#+HD &aduco
vs. C.A." !3 0C'A ,$, G!#+*HD 'amos v. 6epsi%Cola" !# 0C'A ,$# G!#+2HD Tan v. C.A." ,7 0C'A *3
G!#+2HD 'amireB Tel. Co. v. 9ank of America" 0C'A 22 G!#27HD 8ucero v. 8oot" ,* 0C'A +$2 G!#+$HD
&uerrero v. C.A." !3, 0C'A !7 G!#$+H).
0uffice it to sa1 that the other flaws claimed ;1 the petitioners which allegedl1 invalidated the !#*, deed
of sale have not ;een raised ;efore the trial court nor ;efore the appellate court. It is settled 5urisprudence
that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court ;elow
cannot ;e raised for the first time on appeal as it would ;e offensive to the ;asic rules of fair pla1" 5ustice
and due process. (:atienBo v. 0ervidad" !72 0C'A ,2+ G!#$!HD Dela 0anta v. C.A." !37 0C'A 33 G!#$*HD
Dihiansan v. C.A." !*2 0C'A 33 G!#$2HD Anchuelo v. IAC" !32 0C'A 33 G!#$2HD Dulos 'ealt1 and
Development Corporation v. C.A." !*2 0C'A G!#$$HD Lamos v. IAC" &.'. )o. 2$,$," .ul1 *" !#$#).
6etitioners aver that the !E, share of interest of Teodorica (mother of 'icardo) in 8ot ,32+ under 4CT )o.
2+!7 was not included in the deed of sale as it was intended to limit solel1 to 'icardos< proportionate
share out of the undivided !E, of the area pertaining to the si? (+) ;rothers and sisters listed in the Title
and that the Deed did not include the share of 'icardo" as inheritance from Teodorica" ;ecause the Deed
did not recite that she was deceased at the time it was e?ecuted (-ollo" pp. +2%+$).
The hereditar1 share in a decedents< estate is transmitted or vested immediatel1 from the moment of the
death of the -causante- or predecessor in interest (Civil Code of the 6hilippines" Art. 222)" and there is no
legal ;ar to a successor (with re=uisite contracting capacit1) disposing of his hereditar1 share immediatel1
after such death" even if the actual e?tent of such share is not determined until the su;se=uent li=uidation
of the estate (De 9or5a v. (da. de 9or5a" 3+ 0C'A *22 G!#2,H).
Teodorica 9a;angha died long ;efore Aorld Aar II" hence" the rights to the succession were transmitted
from the moment of her death. It is therefore incorrect to state that it was onl1 in !#++" the date of
e?tra5udicial partition" when 'icardo received his share in the lot as inheritance from his mother
Teodorica. Thus" when 'icardo sold his share over lot ,32+ that share which he inherited from Teodorica
was also included unless e?pressl1 e?cluded in the deed of sale.
6etitioners contend that 'icardo<s share from Teodorica was e?cluded in the sale considering that a
paragraph of the aforementioned deed refers merel1 to the shares of 'icardo and >usta=uio (-ollo" p. +2%
+$).
It is well settled that laws and contracts shall ;e so construed as to harmoniBe and give effect to the
different provisions thereof ('eparations Commission v. )orthern 8ines" Inc." 3 0C'A ,7 G!#27H)" to
ascertain the meaning of the provisions of a contract" its entiret1 must ;e taken into account ('uiB v.
0heriff of :anila" 3 0C'A $ G!#27H). The interpretation insisted upon ;1 the petitioners" ;1 citing onl1
one paragraph of the deed of sale" would not onl1 create contradictions ;ut also" render meaningless and
set at naught the entire provisions thereof.
6etitioners claim that D>8C4'<s action is ;arred ;1 laches considering that the petitioners have
remained in the actual" open" uninterrupted and adverse possession thereof until at present (-ollo" p. !2).
An instrument notariBed ;1 a notar1 pu;lic as in the case at ;ar is a pu;lic instrument (>acnio v. 9aens" *
6hil. 23,). The e?ecution of a pu;lic instrument is e=uivalent to the deliver1 of the thing (Art. !3#$" !st
6ar." Civil Code) and is deemed legal deliver1. @ence" its e?ecution was considered a sufficient deliver1
of the propert1 (9uencamino v. (iceo" ! 6hil. #2D G!#7+HD 6uato v. :endoBa" +3 6hil. 3*2 G!#2HD (da. de
0armiento v. 8esaca" !7$ 6hil. #77 G!#+7HD 6hil. 0u;ur;an Development Corp. v. Auditor &en." + 0C'A
#2 (!#2*H).
9esides" the propert1 sold is a registered land. It is the act of registration that transfers the ownership of
the land sold. (&0I0 v. C.A." &.'. )o. 3,,2$" .anuar1 ,7" !#$#). If the propert1 is a registered land" the
purchaser in good" faith has a right to rel1 on the certificate of title and is under no dut1 to go ;ehind it to
look for flaws (:allorca v. De 4campo" )o. 8%,+$*," :arch ,*" !#27D Cnchuan v. C.A." !+! 0C'A 2!7
G!#$$HD )uguid v. CA%&.'. )o. 223,2" :arch !" !#$#).
Cnder the esta;lished principles of land registration law" the person dealing with registered land ma1
generall1 rel1 on the correctness of its certificate of title and the law will in no wa1 o;lige him to go ;ehind
the certificate to determine the condition of the propert1 (Tiongco v. de la :erced" 8%,33+" .ul1 ,*" !#23D
8opeB vs. CA." &.'. )o. 3#2#" .anuar1 ,7" !#$#D Davao &rains Inc. vs. IAC" !2! 0C'A +!, G!#$#H).
This notwithstanding" D>8C4' did more than that. It did not onl1 rel1 on the certificate of title. The Court
of Appeals found that it had first investigated and checked the title (T.C.T. )o. T%!!$) in the name of
8uis 8ancero. It likewise in=uired into the 0u;division 6lan" the corresponding technical description and
the deed of sale e?ecuted ;1 'icardo &evero in favor of 8uis 8ancero and found ever1thing in order. It
even went to the premises and found 8uis 8ancero to ;e in possession of the land to the e?clusion of an1
other person. D>8C4' had therefore acted in good faith in purchasing the land in =uestion.
Conse=uentl1" D>8C4'<s action is not ;arred ;1 laches.
The main issues having ;een disposed of" discussion of the other issues appear unnecessar1.
6'>:I0>0 C4)0ID>'>D" the instant petition is here;1 DI0:I00>D and the decision of the Court of
Appeals is here;1 AFFI':>D.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-)636) A2,-3 6, 1990
'UL$#%#A &#MENEZ and OR#"#O MA#A', vs. V#%ENE FERNANDEZ a3-a* !O'$#%#O
FERNANDEZ and EODORA GRADO,
9efore Cs is a petition for review on certiorari of the following Decision
1
and 'esolution
(
of the
@onora;le Court of Appeals: (!) Decision" dated :arch !" !#22 in C.A.%&.'. )o. 3#!2$%' entitled
-0ulpicia .imeneB" et al." v. (icente FernandeB" et al.- affirming in toto the 5udgment of the Court of First
Instance of 6angasinan" Third .udicial District in Civil Case )o. !3$7,%I ;etween the same parties and (,)
'esolution dated .une " !#22 den1ing plaintiffs%appellants< motion for reconsideration.
As gathered from the records" the factual ;ackground of this case is as follows:
The land in =uestion is the >astern portion with an area of Four @undred Thirt1 0i? (3+) s=uare meters
of that parcel of residential land situated in 9arrio Dulig (now :agsa1sa1)" :unicipalit1 of 8a;rador"
6angasinan actuall1 covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. $,,2* (>?hi;it A) issued in the name of
0ulpicia .imeneB.
The entire parcel of land with an area of ,"#, s=uare meters" formerl1 ;elonged to Fermin .imeneB.
Fermin .imeneB has two (,) sons named Fortunato and Carlos .imeneB. This Fortunato .imeneB who
predeceased his father has onl1 one child" the petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB. After the death of Fermin
.imeneB" the entire parcel of land was registered under Act 3#+ in the name of Carlos .imeneB and
0ulpicia .imeneB (uncle and niece) in e=ual shares pro%indiviso. As a result of the registration case
4riginal Certificate of Title )o. *7# (>?hi;it $) was issued on Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#" in the names of Carlos
.imeneB and 0ulpicia .imeneB" in e=ual shares pro%indiviso.
Carlos .imeneB died on .ul1 #" !#+ and his illegitimate daughter" :elecia Ca1a;1a;" also known as
:elecia .imeneB" took possession of the eastern portion of the propert1 consisting of 3+ s=uare meters.
4n .anuar1 ,7" !#33" :elecia .imeneB sold said 3+ s=uare meter%portion of the propert1 to >dil;erto
Cagampan and defendant Teodora &rado e?ecuted a contract entitled ->?change of 'eal 6roperties-
where;1 the former transferred said 3+ s=uare meter%portion to the latter" who has ;een in occupation
since.
4n August ,#" !#+#" plaintiff 0ulpicia .imeneB e?ecuted an affidavit ad5udicating unto herself the other
half of the propert1 appertaining to Carlos .imeneB" upon manifestation that she is the onl1 heir of her
deceased uncle. Conse=uentl1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. $,,2* was issued on 4cto;er !" !#+# in
petitioner<s name alone over the entire ,"#, s=uare meter propert1.
4n April !" !#27" 0ulpicia .imeneB" 5oined ;1 her hus;and" instituted the present action for the recover1 of
the eastern portion of the propert1 consisting of 3+ s=uare meters occupied ;1 defendant Teodora
&rado and her son.
After trial on the merits" the lower court rendered 5udgment" the dispositive portion of which reads:
A@>'>F4'>" decision is here;1 rendered dismissing the complaint and holding the
defendant" Teodora &rado" the a;solute owner of the land in =uestionD ordering the
plaintiffs to pa1 to the defendant the amount of 6*77.77 as damages" as attorne1<s fees"
and to pa1 the costs of suit.
04 4'D>'>D. (-ollo" p. ,7)
6etitioner appealed the a;ove 5udgment to the respondent Court of Appeals and on :arch !" !#22"
respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the same in toto. 0aid decision was rendered
;1 a special division of five (*) 5ustices" with the @on. 8ourdes 0an Diego" dissenting.
6etitioners within the reglementar1 period granted ;1 the @onora;le Court of Appeals" filed therewith a
motion for reconsideration. 9ut said motion for reconsideration was denied ;1 the Court of Appeals in its
resolution dated .une " !#22.
In their appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals from the afore=uoted decision of the trial court" herein
petitioner raised the following assignments of error to wit:
A00I&):>)T0 4F >''4'
I
T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT :>8>CIA CA/A9/A9"
A804 L)4A) A0 :>8>CIA .I:>)>O" I0 )4T T@> DAC&@T>' 4F CA'840
.I:>)>O.
II
T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT :>8>CIA CA/A9/A9"
A804 L)4A) A0 :>8>CIA .I:>)>O" @A0 )4 'I&@T T4 0>88 T@> 8A)D I)
IC>0TI4) T4 >DI89>'T4 CA&A:6A).
III
T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT >DI89>'T4 CA&A:6A)
DID )4T 9>C4:> T@> 4A)>' 4F T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) 9/ (I'TC> 4F T@>
D>>D 4F 0A8> (>M@. -!-) >M>CCT>D 9/ :>8>CIA CA/A9/A9" A8IA0 :>8>CIA
.I:>)>O" I) @I0 FA(4'.
I(
T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT T>4D4'A &'AD4 DID
)4T 9>C4:> T@> 4A)>' 4F T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) 9/ (I'TC> 4F T@> D>>D
4F >MC@A)&> (>M@. -2-) >M>CCT>D 9/ @>' A)D >DI89>'T4 CA&A:6A).
(
T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) )4T D>C8A'I)& T@AT T@> TIT8> 4F A66>88A)T
0C86ICIA .I:>)>O 4(>' T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) CA) )4T 9> D>F>AT>D 9/
T@> AD(>'0> 46>) A)D )4T4'I4C0 6400>00I4) 4F A66>88>> T>4D4'A
&'AD4.
(I
T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) D>C8A'I)& T@AT T@> A66>88>> T>4D4'A
&'AD4 I0 T@> A9048CT> 4A)>' 4F T@> 8A)D I) IC>0TI4) I) T@> 8I&@T 4F
T@> D>CI0I4) 4F T@> 0C6'>:> C4C'T I) T@> CA0> 4F 84C'D>0 A'CCI)4"
>T A8." (. 'CFI)A A6A'I0 A)D CA0IA)4 6C'A/" &.'. )4. 8%,3,3"
6'4:C8&AT>D .A)CA'/ !" !#+$" A@IC@ CA0> I0 )4T A668ICA98> T4 T@>
CA0> AT 9A'.
(II
T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) DI0:I00I)& T@> C4:68AI)T A)D 4'D>'I)&
T@> A66>88A)T0 T4 6A/ T@> A66>88>>0 T@> 0C: 4F 6*77.77 A0 ATT4')>/0
F>>0 68C0 T@> C40T0.
From the foregoing" this petition for review was filed.
Ae find merit in the petition.
From the start the respondent court erred in not declaring that :elecia .imeneB Ca1a;1a; also known as
:elecia .imeneB" is not the daughter of Carlos .imeneB and therefore" had no right over the propert1 in
=uestion. 'espondents failed to present concrete evidence to prove that :elecia Ca1a;1a; was reall1 the
daughter of Carlos .imeneB. )onetheless" assuming for the sake of argument that :elecia Ca1a;1a; was
the illegitimate daughter of Carlos .imeneB there can ;e no =uestion that :elecia Ca1a;1a; had no right
to succeed to the estate of Carlos .imeneB and could not have validl1 ac=uired" nor legall1 transferred to
>dil;erto Cagampan that portion of the propert1 su;5ect of this petition.
It is well%settled in this 5urisdiction that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the
death of the decedent (Art. 222" Civil Code). :oreover" Art. ,,+ of the Civil Code provides as follows:
'ights to the inheritance of a person who died with or without a will" ;efore the effectivit1
of this Code" shall ;e governed ;1 the Civil Code of !$$#" ;1 other previous laws" and ;1
the 'ules of Court . . . (-ollo" p. !2)
Thus" since Carlos .imeneB" owner of one%half pro%indiviso portion of that parcel of land then covered ;1
4riginal Certificate of title )o. *7#" died on .ul1 #" !#+ (>?hi;it -F-) wa1 ;efore the effectivit1 of the
Civil Code of the 6hilippines" the successional rights pertaining to his estate must ;e determined in
accordance with the Civil Code of !$$#.
Citing the case of Cid v. 9urnaman (,3 0C'A 33) wherein this Court categoricall1 held that:
To ;e an heir under the rules of Civil Code of !$$# (which was the law in force when
Carlos .imeneB died and which should ;e the governing law in so far as the right to
inherit from his estate was concerned)" a child must ;e either a child legitimate"
legitimated" or adopted" or else an acknowledged natural child J for illegitimate not
natural are dis=ualified to inherit. (Civil Code of !$$#" Art. $72" #*)
>ven assuming that :elecia Ca1a;1a; was ;orn out of the common%law%relationship ;etween her mother
(:aria Ca1a;1a;) and Carlos .imeneB" she could not even ;e considered an acknowledged natural child
;ecause Carlos .imeneB was then legall1 married to 0usana A;alos and therefore not =ualified to marr1
:aria Ca1a;1a; and conse=uentl1 :elecia Ca1a;1a; was an illegitimate spurious child and not entitled
to an1 successional rights in so far as the estate of Carlos .imeneB was concerned.
:elecia Ca1a;1a; in the a;sence of an1 voluntar1 conve1ance to her ;1 Carlos .imeneB or 0ulpicia
.imeneB of the litigated portion of the land could not even legall1 transfer the parcel of land to >dil;erto
Cagampan who accordingl1" could not also legall1 transfer the same to herein private respondents.
Anal1Bing the case ;efore Cs in this manner" Ae can immediatel1 discern another error in the decision of
the respondent court" which is that the said court sustained and made applica;le to the case at ;ar the
ruling in the case of Arcuino" et al." v. Aparis and 6ura1" )o. 8%,3,3" .anuar1 !" !#+$" ,, 0C'A 372"
wherein Ae held that:
. . . it is true that the lands registered under the Torrens 01stem ma1 not ;e ac=uired ;1
prescription ;ut plaintiffs herein are not the registered owners. The1 merel1 claim to have
ac=uired ;1 succession" their alleged title or interest in lot )o. **. At an1 rate plaintiffs
herein are guilt1 of laches.
The respondent court rel1ing on the Arcuino case" concluded that respondents had ac=uired the propert1
under litigation ;1 prescription. Ae cannot agree with such conclusion" ;ecause there is one ver1 marked
and important difference ;etween the case at ;ar and that of the Arcuino case" and that is" that since
!# petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB was a title $older" the propert1 then ;eing registered in her and her
uncle Carlos .imeneB< name. In the Arcuino case" this 0upreme Court held. -(I)t is true that lands
registered under the Torrens 01stem ma1 not ;e ac=uired ;1 prescription ;ut plaintiffs herein are not the
registered owners.- (-ollo" p. $) >ven in the said cited case the principle of imprescripti;ilit1 of Torrens
Titles was respected.
:elecia Ca1a;1a;<s possession or of her predecessors%in%interest would ;e unavailing against the
petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB who was the holder pro%indiviso with Carlos .imeneB of the Torrens Certificate
of Title covering a tract of land which includes the portion now in =uestion" from Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#" when
the 4riginal Certificate of Title )o. *7# (>?hi;it $) was issued.
)o possession ;1 an1 person of an1 portion of the land covered ;1 said original certificate of titles" could
defeat the title of the registered owner of the land covered ;1 the certificate of title. (9enin v. Tuason" 8%
,+!,2" .une ,$" !#23" *2 0C'A *!)
0ulpicia<s title over her one%half undivided propert1 remained good and continued to ;e good when she
segregated it into a new title (T.C.T )o. $,,2*" >?hi;it -A-) in !#+#. 0ulpicia<s ownership over her one%
half of the land and which is the land in dispute was alwa1s covered ;1 a /orrens title, and therefore" no
amount of possession thereof ;1 the respondents" could ever defeat her proprietar1 rights thereon. It is
apparent" that the right of plaintiff (now petitioner) to institute this action to recover possession of the
portion of the land in =uestion ;ased on the Torrens Title of 0ulpicia .imeneB" T.C.T. )o. $,,2* (>?hi;it
-A-) is imprescripti;le and not ;arred under the doctrine of laches. (..:. Tuason P Co. v. :acalindong" 8%
!*#$" Decem;er ,#" !#+," Francisco v. CruB" et al." 3 4.&. *!7*) -ollo" p. #)
The respondent Court of Appeals declared the petitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB guilt1 of laches and citing the
ruling in the case of @eirs of 8acamen v. @eirs of 8aruan (+* 0C'A +7*)" held that" since petitioner
0ulpicia .imeneB e?ecuted her Affidavit of 0elf%Ad5udication onl1 in !#+#" she lost the right to recover
possession of the parcel of land su;5ect of the litigation.
In this instance" again Ae rule for the petitioner. There is no a;solute rule as to what constitutes laches or
staleness of demandD each case is to ;e determined according to its particular circumstances. The
=uestion of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and since laches is an e=uita;le
doctrine" its application is controlled ;1 e=uita;le considerations. It cannot ;e worked to defeat 5ustice or
to perpetrate fraud and in5ustice. It would ;e rank in5ustice and patentl1 ine=uitous to deprive the lawful
heirs of their rightful inheritance.
6etitioner 0ulpicia .imeneB is entitled to the relief pra1ed for" declaring her to ;e the sole and a;solute
owner of the land in =uestion with right to its possession and en5o1ment. 0ince her uncle Carlos .imeneB
died in !#+" his pro%indiviso share in the properties then owned in co%ownership with his niece 0ulpicia
descended ;1 intestac1 to 0ulpicia .imeneB alone ;ecause Carlos died without an1 issue or other heirs.
After all" the professed o;5ective of Act )o. 3#+" otherwise known as the 8and 'egistration Act or the law
which esta;lished the Torrens 01stem of 8and 'egistration in the 6hilippines is that the sta;ilit1 of the
landholding s1stem in the 6hilippines depends on the confidence of the people in the titles covering the
properties. And to this end" this Court has invaria;l1 upheld the indefeasi;ilit1 of the Torrens Title and in"
among others" ..:. Tuason and Co." Inc. v. :acalindong (+ 0C'A #$)" held that -the right of the
appellee to file an action to recover possession ;ased on its Torrens Title is imprescriptile and not
arred under t$e doctrine of lac$es.
A@>'>F4'>" the 6etition for 'eview is here;1 &'A)T>D. The Decision and 'esolution dated :arch
!" !#22 and .une " !#22 in CA &.'. )o. 8%3#!2$%' are 0>T A0ID>.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 1(6950 &+3y (, 1999
NEL'ON NUFA"LE, '#LMOR NUFA"LE and A6U#L#NA NUFA"LE, vs. GENERO'A NUFA"LE,
V#LFOR NUFA"LE, MAR%ELO NUFA"LE, and .1/ %OUR OF A$$EAL',
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision dated )ovem;er ,*"
!##* of the Fifth Division
1
of the Court of Appeals for allegedl1 ;eing contrar1 to law.
The following facts as found ;1 the Court of Appeals are undisputed:
>dras )ufa;le owned at 6o;lacion" :an5u1od" )egros 4riental" consisting of #3$ s=uare
meters" more or less. @e died on August #" !#+* and was survived ;1 his children"
namel1: Angel Custodio" &enerosa" (ilfor and :arcelo" all surnamed )ufa;le. Cpon
petition for pro;ate filed ;1 said heirs and after due pu;lication and hearing" the then
Court of First Instance of )egros 4riental (9ranch II) issued an 4rder dated :arch 7"
!#++ admitting to pro;ate the last will and testament e?ecuted ;1 the deceased >dras
)ufa;le (>?hs. 9" C and C%!).
4n .une +" !#++ the same court issued an 4rder approving the 0ettlement of >state
su;mitted ;1 the heirs of the late >0dras )ufa;le" portions of which read:
L)4A A88 :>) 9/ T@>0> 6'>0>)T0:
Ae" A)&>8 CC0T4DI4 )CFA98>" &>)>'40A )CFA98>" (I8F4'
)CFA98> and :A'C>84 )CFA98>" all of legal ages (sic)" Filipinos"
and with residence and postal address at :an5u1od" )egros 4riental"
6hilippines"
J @>'>9/ D>C8A'> A)D :AL> :A)IF>0T J
!. That on August #" !#+*" 'ev. Fr. >sdras )ufa;le died leaving (a) 8ast
Aill and Testament (marked >?h. &) disposing (of) his properties or
estate in favor of his four legitimate children" namel1: Angel Custodio
)ufa;le" &enerosa )ufa;le" (ilfor )ufa;le and :arcelo )ufa;leD
,. That on :arch 7" !#++ the said 8ast Aill and Testament was
pro;ated ;1 the @onora;le Court" Court of First Instance of )egros
4riental" and is em;odied in the same order appointing an Administratri?"
&enerosa )ufa;le" ;ut to =ualif1 onl1 if she put up a necessar1 ;ond of
6!"777.77D
. That herein legitimate children prefer not to appoint an Administratri?"
as agreed upon (;1) all the heirs" ;ecause the1 have no o;5ection as to
the manner of disposition of their share made ;1 the testator" the
e?penses of the proceedings and that the1 have alread1 taken
possession of their respective shares in accordance with the willD
3. That the herein heirs agreed" as the1 here;1 agree to settle the estate
in accordance with the terms and condition of the will in the following
manner" to wit:
a) That the parcel of land situated in 6o;lacion :an5u1od" )egros
4riental remains undivided for communit1 ownership ;ut respecting
conditions imposed therein (sic) in the willD
??? ??? ???
(>?hs. ->- and ->%!-)
Two months earlier" or on :arch !*" !#++" spouses Angel Custodio and A=uilina )ufa;le
mortgaged the entire propert1 located at :an5u1od to the Development 9ank of the
6hilippines GD96H (6re%trial 4rder" dated .anuar1 2" !##," p. !7" 4riginal 'ecords). 0aid
mortgagors ;ecame delin=uent for which reason the mortgaged propert1 was foreclosed
;1 D96 on Fe;ruar1 ,+" !#2 (id.).
4n .anuar1 !!" !#$7" )elson )ufa;le" the son of Angel Custodio )ufa;le (who died on
August ,#" !#2$ GT0)" Testimon1 of )elson )ufa;le" @earing of August !$" !##," p.
!2H)" purchased said propert1 from D96 (>?h. -!-).
&enerosa" (ilfor and :arcelo" all surnamed )ufa;le filed with the lower court a complaint
dated .ul1 ,*" !#$* -To Annul Fraudulent Transactions" to Iuiet Title and To 'ecover
Damages< against )elson )ufa;le" and wife" 0ilmor )ufa;le and his mother A=uilina
)ufa;le. 6laintiffs pra1:
A@>'>F4'>" plaintiffs pra1 this @onora;le Court that after trial
5udgment ;e rendered ordering:
(a) That the said Deed of 0ale (Anne? -C-) e?ecuted ;1 the Development
9ank of the 6hilippines in favor of the defendants ;e declared null and
void as far as the three fourths (E3) rights which ;elongs (sic) to the
plaintiffs are concernedD
(;) That the said three fourths (E3) rights over the a;ove parcel in
=uestion ;e declared as ;elonging to the plaintiffs at one fourth right to
each of themD
(c) To order the defendants to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 to the plaintiffs ;1
wa1 of actual and moral damages the amount of 6!7"777.77 and another
6*"777.77 as Attorne1<s fees" and to pa1 the costs.
(d) 6lus an1 other amount which this Court ma1 deem 5ust and e=uita;le.
(p. +" 4riginal 'ecords)
In their Answer" defendants contend:
3. 6aragraph 3 is denied" the truth ;eing that the late Angel )ufa;le was
the e?clusive owner of said propert1" that as such owner he mortgaged
the same to the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines on :arch !*" !#++"
that said mortgage was foreclosed and the D96 ;ecame the successful
;idder at the auction sale" that ownership was consolidated in the name
of the D96" and that defendant )elson )ufa;le ;ought said propert1
from the D96 thereafter. During this period" the plaintiffs never
=uestioned the transactions which were pu;lic" never filed an1 third part1
claim nor attempted to redeem said propert1 as redemptioners" and that
said Deed of 0ale" Anne? -9- to the complaint" is fictitious" not ;eing
supported ;1 an1 considerationD (pp. ,7%,!" id.)
The Deed of 0ale (Anne? -9-)" referred to ;1 the parties is a notariBed Deed of 0ale"
dated .ul1 !," !#++ (marked as >?hi;it -@-) ;1 virtue of which" spouses Angel and
A=uilina )ufa;le" as vendors" sold E3 portion of the su;5ect propert1 to herein plaintiffs
for and in consideration of 6!"777.77 (>?h. -*-).
(
4n )ovem;er ,#" !##*" the Court of Appeals rendered 5udgment" the dispositive portion
3
of which reads:
A@>'>F4'>" the appealed decision of the lower court is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>.
A new 5udgment is here;1 entered declaring plaintiffs%appellants as the rightful co%owners
of the su;5ect propert1 and entitled to possession of E3 southern portion thereofD and
defendant%appellee )elson )ufa;le to !E3 portion.
)o award on damages.
)o costs.
Defendants%appellees< :otion for 'econsideration was denied for lack of merit in the 'esolution of the
Court of Appeals
)
dated 4cto;er ," !##+.
@ence" the present petition. 6etitioners raise the following grounds for the petition:
!. @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in considering as controlling the pro;ate of the 8ast
Aill and Testament of >sdras )ufa;le" the pro;ate thereof not ;eing an issue in this
caseD
,. The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in not considering the fact that the Development
9ank of the 6hilippines ;ecame a;solute" e?clusive" legal and rightful owner of the land
in =uestion" from whom petitioner )elson )ufa;le ac=uired the same ;1 purchase and
that" therefore" no award can ;e made in favor of private respondent unless and until the
Development 9ank of the 6hilippines< title thereto is first declared null and void ;1 the
court.
The Court of Appeals" in its decision" stated that the trial court failed to take into consideration the
pro;ated will of the late >sdras )ufa;le ;e=ueathing the su;5ect propert1 to all his four children.
5
In the
present petition" petitioner present the issue of whether or not the 8ast Aill and Testament of >sdras
)ufa;le and its su;se=uent pro;ate are pertinent and material to the =uestion of the right of ownership of
petitioner )elson )ufa;le who purchased the land in =uestion from" and as ac=uired propert1 of" the
Development 9ank of the 6hilippines (D96" for short). The1 contend that the pro;ate of the 8ast Aill
Testament and of >sdras )ufa;le did not determine the ownership of the land in =uestion as against third
parties.'(%p$i'.n)t
As a general rule" courts in pro;ate proceedings are limited onl1 to passing upon the e?trinsic validit1 of
the will sought to ;e pro;ated" the due e?ecution thereof" the testator<s testamentar1 capacit1 and the
compliance with the re=uisites or solemnities prescri;es ;1 law. 0aid court at this stage of the
proceedings is not called to rule on the rule on the intrinsic validit1 or efficac1 of the will.
6
The =uestion of
the intrinsic validit1 of a will normall1 comes onl1 after the court has declared that the will has ;een dul1
authenticated.
The records show that upon petition for pro;ate filed ;1 the heirs of the late >sdras )ufa;le" an 4rder
dated :arch 7" !#++ was issued ;1 then Court of First Instance of )egros 4riental" 9ranch II" admitting
to pro;ate the last will and testament e?ecuted ;1 the decedent.
7
Thereafter" on .une +" !#++" the same
court approved the 0ettlement of >state su;mitted ;1 the heirs of the late >sdras )ufa;le wherein the1
agreed -(T)hat the parcel land situated in 6o;lacion :an5u1od" )egros 4riental remains undivided for
communit1 ownership ;ut respecting conditions imposed therein (sic) in the will.-
8
In paragraph thereof"
the1 stated that -the1 have no o;5ection as to the manner of disposition of their share made ;1 the
testator" the e?penses of the proceeding and that the1 have alread1 taken possession of their respective
shares in accordance with the will.- (eril1" it was the heirs of the late >sdras )ufa;le who agreed among
themselves on the disposition of their shares. The pro;ate court simpl1 approved the agreement among
the heirs which approval was necessar1 for the validit1 of an1 disposition of the decedent<s estate.
9
It should likewise ;e noted that the late >sdras )ufa;le died on August #" !#+*. Ahen the entire propert1
located at :an5u1od was mortgaged on :arch !*" !#++ ;1 his son Angel Custodio with D96" the other
heirs of >sdras J namel1: &enerosa" (ilfor and :arcelo J had alread1 ac=uired successional rights
over the said propert1. This is so ;ecause of the principle contained in Article 222 of the Civil Code to the
effect that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
Accordingl1" for the purpose of transmission of rights" it does not matter whether the 8ast Aill and
Testament of the late >sdras )ufa;le was admitted on :arch 7" !#++ or thereafter or that the
0ettlement of >state was approved on .une +" !#++ or months later. It is to ;e noted that the pro;ated will
of the late >sdras )ufa;le specificall1 referred to the su;5ect propert1 in stating that -the land situated in
the 6o;lacion" :an5u1od" )egros 4riental" should not ;e divided ;ecause this must remain in common for
them" ;ut it is necessar1 to allow an1one of them ;rothers and sisters to construct a house therein.-
10
It
was therefor the will of the decedent that the su;5ect propert1 should undivided" although the restriction
should not e?ceed twent1 (,7) 1ears pursuant to Article $27
11
of the Civil Code.
Thus" when Angel )ufa;le and his spouses mortgaged the su;5ect propert1 to D96 on :arch !*" !#++"
the1 had no right to mortgage the entire propert1. Angel<s right over the su;5ect propert1 was limited onl1
to !E3 pro indiviso share. As co%owner of the su;5ect propert1" Angel<s right to sell" assign or mortgage is
limited to that portion that ma1 ;e allotted to him upon termination of the co%ownership. Aell%entrenched
is the rule that a co%owner can onl1 alienate his pro indiviso share in the co%owned propert1.
1(
The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Angel Custodio )ufa;le -had no right to mortgage the
su;5ect propert1 in its entiret1. @is right to encum;er said propert1 was limited onl1 to !E3 pro indiviso
share of the propert1 in =uestion.-
13
Article 3# of the Civil Code spells out the rights or co%owners over a
co%owned propert1. 6ursuant to said Article" a co%owner shall have full ownership of his part and of the
fruits and ;enefits pertaining thereto. @e has the right to alienate" assign or mortgage it" and even
su;stitute another person in its en5o1ment. As a mere part owner" he cannot alienate the shares of the
other co%owners. The prohi;ition is premised on the elementar1 rule that -no one can give what he does
not have.-
1)
:oreover" respondents stipulated that the1 were not aware of the mortgage ;1 petitioners of the su;5ect
propert1.
15
This ;eing the case" a co%owner does not lose his part ownership of a co%owned propert1
when his share is mortgaged ;1 another co%owner without the former<s knowledge and consent
16
as in
the case at ;ar. It has likewise ;een ruled that the mortgage of the inherited propert1 is not ;inding
against co%heirs who never ;enefitted.
17
Furthermore" the Deed of 0ale dated .une !2" !#++ marked as >?hi;it -@- e?ecuted ;1 spouses Angel
and A=uilina )ufa;le in favor of respondents &enerosa" (ilfor and :arcelo wherein the former sold"
ceded and transferred ;ack to the latter the E3 portion of the su;5ect propert1 ;olsters respondents< claim
that there was co%ownership. 6etitioner )elson himself claimed that he was aware of the aforesaid Deed
of 0ale.
18
Anent the second ground of the petition" petitioners allege that the Development 9ank of the 6hilippines
ac=uired ownership of the land in =uestion through foreclosure" purchase and consolidation of ownership.
6etitioners argue that if petitioner )elson )ufa;le had not ;ought said land from the D96" private
respondents" in order to ac=uire said propert1" must sue said ;ank for the recover1 thereof" and in so
doing" must allege grounds for the annulment of documents evidencing the ;ank<s ownership thereof.
6etitioners contend that since petitioner )elson )ufa;le simpl1 ;ought the whole land from the ;ank" the1
cannot ;e deprived of the ownership of E3 without making an1 pronouncement as to the legalit1 or
illegalit1 of the ;ank<s ownership of said land. It is argued that there was no evidence to warrant
declaration of nullit1 of the ;ank<s ac=uisition of said landD and that neither was there a finding ;1 the
court that the ;ank illegall1 ac=uired the said propert1.
As adverted to a;ove" when the su;5ect propert1 was mortgaged ;1 Angel Custodio" he had no right to
mortgage the entire propert1 ;ut onl1 with respect to his !E3 pro indiviso share as the propert1 was
su;5ect to the successional rights of the other heirs of the late >sdras. :oreover" in case of foreclosureD a
sale would result in the transmission of title to the ;u1er which is feasi;le onl1 if the seller can ;e in a
position to conve1 ownership of the things sold.
19
And in one case"
(0
it was held that a foreclosure would
;e ineffective unless the mortgagor has title to the propert1 to ;e foreclosed. Therefore" as regards the
remaining E3 pro indiviso share" the same was held in trust for the part1 rightfull1 entitled thereto"
(1
who
are the private respondents herein.
6ursuant to Article !3*! of the Civil Code" when land passes ;1 succession to an1 person and he causes
the legal title to ;e put in the name of another" a trust is esta;lished ;1 implication of law for the ;enefit of
the true owner. 8ikewise" under Article !3*+ of the same Code" if propert1 is ac=uired through mistake or
fraud" the person o;taining it is" ;1 force of law" considered a trustee of an implied trust for the ;enefit of
the person from whom the propert1 comes. In the case of 0oel vs. Court of "ppeals"
((
this Court held
that -a ;u1er of a parcel of land at a pu;lic auction to satisf1 a 5udgment against a widow ac=uired onl1
one%half interest on the land corresponding to the share of the widow and the other half ;elonging to the
heirs of her hus;and ;ecame impressed with a constructive trust in ;ehalf of said heirs.-
)either does the fact that D96 succeeded in consolidating ownership over the su;5ect propert1 in its
name terminate the e?isting co%ownership. 'egistration of propert1 is not a means of ac=uiring ownership.
(3
Ahen the su;5ect propert1 was sold to and consolidated in the name of D96" it ;eing the winning
;idder in the pu;lic auction" D96 merel1 held the E3 portion in trust for the private respondents. Ahen
petitioner )elson purchased the said propert1" he merel1 stepped into the shoes of D96 and ac=uired
whatever rights and o;ligations appertain thereto.
This ;rings us to the issue of whether or not the D96 should have ;een impleaded as part1%defendant in
the case at ;ar. 6etitioners contend that D96 was never impleaded and that due process re=uires that
D96 ;e impleaded so that it can defend its sale to petitioner )elson )ufa;leD and that it was the dut1 of
private respondents" and not of petitioner )elson" to implead the ;ank and ask for the annulment of
documents evidencing the ;ank<s ownership of the disputed land.
In the 'e5oinder to the 'epl1" private respondents that the non%inclusion of D96 as a -necessar1 part1-
was not =uestioned ;1 petitioners from the time the Complaint was filed until the case was -finished.- It
was onl1 after the adverse decision ;1 the respondent Court of Appeals that petitioners raised the issue.
At the outset" it should ;e stated petitioners never raised this issue in their Answers and pursuant to
0ection ," 'ule # of the 'ules of Court" defenses and o;5ections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss
or in the answer are deemed waived.
)onetheless" the rule is that indispensa;le parties" i.e." parties in interest without whom no final
determination can ;e had of an action" shall ;e 5oined either as plaintiffs or defendantsD the inclusion as a
part1" i.e." persons who are not indispensa;le ;ut ought to ;e parties if complete relief is to ;e accorded
as ;etween those alread1 parties" the court ma1" in its discretion" proceed in the action without making
such persons parties" and the 5udgment rendered therein shall ;e without pre5udice to the rights of such
persons.
(5
6roper parties" therefore" have ;een descri;ed as parties whose presence in necessar1 in
order to ad5udicate the whole controvers1" ;ut whose interests are so far separa;le that a final decree can
;e made in their a;sence without affecting them.
(6
An1 claim against a part1 ma1 ;e severed and
proceeded with separatel1.
(7
The pivotal issue to ;e determined is whether D96 is an indispensa;le part1 in this case.
6rivate respondents do not =uestion the legalit1 of the foreclosure of the mortgaged propert1 and the
su;se=uent sale of the same to D96. The su;5ect propert1 was alread1 purchased ;1 petitioner )elson
from D96 and latter" ;1 such sale" transferred its rights and o;ligations to the former. Clearl1" petitioners<
interest in the controvers1 is distinct and separa;le from the interest of D96 and a final determination can
;e had of the action despite the non%inclusion of D96 as part1%defendant. @ence" D96" not ;eing an
indispensa;le part1" did not have to ;e impleaded in this case.
A@>'>F4'>" there ;eing no reversi;le error in the decision appealed from" the petition for review on
certiorari is here;1 D>)I>D.'(%p$i'.n)t
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 89783 F/0,+a,y 19, 199(
MAR#ANO ". LO%'#N, &UL#AN &. LO%'#N, &O'E ". LO%'#N, AUREA ". LO%'#N, MA#LDE L.
%ORDERO, 'ALVADOR ". LO%'#N and MANUEL V. DEL RO'AR#O, vs. !E !ON. %OUR OF
A$$EAL', &O'E &AU%#AN, FLOREN#NO &AU%#AN, MER%EDE' &AU%#AN AR"OLEDA, !E#R' OF
&O'EF#NA &. "OR&A, !E#R' OF EDUARDO &AU%#AN and !E#R' OF V#%ENE &AU%#AN,
'eversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. )o. C(%!!!$+ J affirming with modification
the 5udgment of the 'egional Trial Court of Al;a1 in favor of the plaintiffs in Civil Case )o. 2!*, entitled
-.ose .aucian" et al. v. :ariano 9. 8ocsin" et al."- an action for recover1 of real propert1 with damages J
is sought. in these proceedings initiated ;1 petition for review on certiorari in accordance with 'ule 3* of
the 'ules of Court.
The petition was initiall1 denied due course and dismissed ;1 this Court. It was however reinstated upon
a second motion for reconsideration filed ;1 the petitioners" and the respondents were re=uired to
comment thereon. The petition was thereafter given due course and the parties were directed to su;mit
their memorandums. These" together with the evidence" having ;een carefull1 considered" the Court now
decides the case.
First" the facts as the Court sees them in light of the evidence on record:
The late &etulio 8ocsin had three children named :ariano" .ulian and :agdalena" all surnamed 8ocsin.
@e owned e?tensive residential and agricultural properties in the provinces of Al;a1 and 0orsogon. After
his death" his estate was divided among his three () children as follows:
(a) the coconut lands of some 277 hectares in 9ual" 6ilar" 0orsogon" were ad5udicated to his daughter"
:agdalena 8ocsinD
(;) !7+ hectares of coconut lands were given to .ulian 8ocsin" father of the petitioners .ulian" :ariano"
.ose" 0alvador" :atilde" and Aurea" all surnamed 8ocsinD
(c) more than fort1 (37) hectares of coconut lands in 9ogtong" eighteen (!$) hectares of riceland in
Daraga" and the residential lots in Daraga" Al;a1 and in 8egaBpi Cit1 went to his son :ariano" which
:ariano ;rought into his marriage to Catalina .aucian in !#7$. Catalina" for her part" ;rought into the
marriage untitled properties which she had inherited from her parents" 9al;ino .aucian and 0imona
Anson. These were augmented ;1 other properties ac=uired ;1 the spouses in the course of their union"
1

which however was not ;lessed with children.
>ventuall1" the properties of :ariano and Catalina were ;rought under the Torrens 01stem. Those that
:ariano inherited from his father" &etulio 8ocsin" were surve1ed cadastrall1 and registered in the name of
-:ariano 8ocsin" married to Catalina .aucian.<<
(
:ariano 8ocsin e?ecuted a 8ast Aill and Testament instituting his wife" Catalina" as the sole and
universal heir of all his properties.
3
The will was drawn up ;1 his wife<s nephew and trusted legal adviser"
Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1es. Attorne1 8ora1es disclosed that the spouses ;eing childless" the1 had agreed
that their properties" after ;oth of them shall have died should revert to their respective sides of the famil1"
i.e., :ariano<s properties would go to his -8ocsin relatives- (i.e., ;rothers and sisters or nephews and
nieces)" and those of Catalina to her -.aucian relatives.-
)
Don :ariano 8ocsin died of cancer on 0eptem;er !3" !#3$ after a lingering illness. In due time" his will
was pro;ated in 0pecial 6roceedings )o. !$" CFI of Al;a1 without an1 opposition from ;oth sides of the
famil1. As directed in his will" DoFa Catalina was appointed e?ecutri? of his estate. @er law1er in the
pro;ate proceeding was Attorne1 8ora1es. In the inventor1 of her hus;and<s estate
5
which she su;mitted
to the pro;ate court for approval"
6
Catalina declared that -all items mentioned from )os. ! to are the
private properties of the deceased and form part of his capital at the time of the marriage with the
surviving spouse" while items )os. 3 to 3, are con5ugal.-
7

Among her own and Don :ariano<s relatives" DoFa Catalina was closest to her nephew" Attorne1
0alvador 8ora1es" her nieces" >lena .aucian" :aria 8ora1es%Cornelio and :aria 4l;es%(elasco" and the
hus;ands of the last two: @ostilio Cornelio and Fernando (elasco. 8 @er trust in @ostilio Cornelio was
such that she made him custodian of all the titles of her propertiesD and ;efore she disposed of an1 of
them" she unfailingl1 consulted her law1er%nephew" Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1es. It was Att1. 8ora1es who
prepared the legal documents and" more often than not" the witnesses to the transactions were her niece
>lena .aucian" :aria 8ora1es%Cornelio" :aria 4l;es%(elasco" or their hus;ands. @er niece" >lena
.aucian" was her life%long companion in her house.
Don :ariano relied on DoFa Catalina to carr1 out the terms of their compact" hence" nine (#) 1ears after
his death" as if in o;edience to his voice from the grave" and full1 cogniBant that she was also advancing
in 1ears" DoFa Catalina ;egan transferring" ;1 sale" donation or assignment" Don :ariano<s as well as
her own" properties to their respective nephews and nieces. 0he made the following sales and donation
of properties which she had received from her hus;and<s estate" to his 8ocsin nephews and nieces:
E1HI2I/ &"/E *"-/IC3L"-S "-E"4S5.6. *-ICE 7I/0ESSES
, .an. ,+" !#*2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in #+, 6 3$!
favor of :ariano 8ocsin
!%.'8 Apr. 2" !#++ Deed of 0ale in favor of 37",7 6 ,7"777
.ose '. 8ocsin
!%..8 :ar. ,," !#+2 Deed of 0ale in favor of *"777 6 !"777 @ostilio Cornello
.ulian 8ocsin (8ot ,7,7) @elen :. .aucian
! )ov. ,#" !#23 Deed of Donation in ,+"*7#
favor Aurea 8ocsin"
:atilde 8. Cordero
and 0alvador 8ocsin
, Fe;. 3" !#2* Deed of Donation in 3"73*
favor Aurea 8ocsin"
:atilde 8. Cordero
and 0alvador 8ocsin
0ept. #" !#2* Deed of Donation in (8ot ,7*#)
favor Aurea 8ocsin"
:atilde 8. Cordero
and 0alvador 8ocsin
3 .ul1 !*" !#23 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !"3,3 @ostilio Cornelio
favor of Aurea 9. 8ocsin Fernando (elasco
* .ul1 !*" !#23 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !"3*+ 6 *"2*7 @ostilio Cornelio
favor of Aurea 9. 8ocsin >lena .aucian
+ .ul1 !*" !#23 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !",2 6 *"2,7 % ditto %
favor of Aurea 9. 8ocsin
2 .ul1 !*" !#23 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !"373 6 3"7*7 % ditto %
favor of Aurea 9. 8ocsin
!* )ov. ,+" !#2* Deed of 0ale in favor of ,+! 6 3"#7 % ditto %
Aurea 8ocsin
!+ 4ct. !2" !#2* Deed of 0ale in favor of * 6 ,"777 Delfina Anson
Aurea 8ocsin :. Aca;ado
!2 )ov. ,+" !#2* Deed of 0ale in favor of 2 6 !"777 8eonor 0atuito
Aurea 8ocsin :ariano 9. 8ocsin
!# 0ept. !" !#2* Conditional Donation in !"!7 6 "777 % ditto %
favor of :ariano 8ocsin
!%:('. Dec. ,#" !#2, Deed of 'econve1ance !"*!!7.++ 6 !"777 Delfina Anson
in favor of :anuel (. del (8ot ,!**) Antonio Illegi;le
'osario whose maternal
grandfather was &etulio
8ocsin
,%:('. .une 7" !#2 Deed of 'econve1ance !#.3 6 *77 Antonio Illegi;le
in favor of :anuel (. del (8ot ,!**) 0alvador )ical
'osario ;ut the rentals
from ;igger portion of
8ot ,!** leased to Filoil
'efiner1 were assigned to
:aria .aucian 8ora1es
Cornelio
4f her own properties" DoFa Catalina conve1ed the following to her own nephews and nieces and others:
E1HI2I/ &"/E *"-/IC3L"-S "-E"4S5.6. *-ICE
,%..8 .ul1 !+" !#+3 Deed of 0ale in favor *"777 6 !"777
(icente .aucian (lot ,7,7)
(+"$,* s=m. when
resurve1ed)
,3 Fe;. !," !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale !77 6 !"777
in favor of Francisco :.
:a=uiniana
,+ .ul1 !*" !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !7 6 !"77
favor of Francisco
:a=uiniana
,2 :a1 " !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !77 6 !"777
favor of Ireneo :amia
,$ :a1 " !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in 2* 6 2*7
favor of Oenaida 9uiBa
,# :a1 " !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !*7 6 !"*77
favor of Felisa :or5ella
7 Apr. " !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in ! 6 !"777
favor of Inocentes :otocinos
! Fe;. !," !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !*7 6 !"*77
favor of Casimiro :ondevil
, :ar. !" !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in !!, 6 !",77
favor of .uan 0a;alla
,* Dec. ,$" !#2 Deed of A;solute 0ale in ,*7 6 ,"*77
of 'ogelio :articio
DoFa Catalina died on .ul1 +" !#22.
Four 1ears ;efore her death" she had made a will on 4cto;er ,," !#2 affirming and ratif1ing the
transfers she had made during her lifetime in favor of her hus;and<s" and her own" relatives. After the
reading of her will" all the relatives agreed that there was no need to su;mit it to the court for pro;ate
;ecause the properties devised to them under the will had alread1 ;een conve1ed to them ;1 the
deceased when she was still alive" e?cept some legacies which the e?ecutor of her will or estate" Attorne1
0alvador 8ora1es" proceeded to distri;ute.
In !#$#" or si? (+) 1ears after DoFa Catalina<s demise" some of her .aucian nephews and nieces who had
alread1 received their legacies and hereditar1 shares from her estate" filed action in the 'egional Trial
Court of 8egaspi Cit1 (9ranch (III" Civil Case )o. 2!*,) to recover the properties which she had
conve1ed to the 8ocsins during her lifetime" alleging that the conve1ances were inofficious" without
consideration" and intended solel1 to circumvent the laws on succession. Those who were closest to
DoFa Catalina did not 5oin the action.
After the trial" 5udgment was rendered on .ul1 $" l#$* in favor of the plaintiffs (.aucian)" and against the
8ocsin defendants" the dispositive part of which reads:
A@>'>F4'>" this Court renders 5udgment for the plaintiffs and against the defendants:
(!) declaring the" plaintiffs" e?cept the heirs of .osefina .. 9or5a and >duardo .aucian"
who withdrew" the rightful heirs and entitled to the entire estate" in e=ual portions" of
Catalina .aucian (da. de 8ocsin" ;eing the nearest collateral heirs ;1 right of
representation of .uan and &regorio" ;oth surnamed .aucian" and full%;lood ;rothers of
CatalinaD
(,) declaring the deeds of sale" donations" reconve1ance and e?change and all other
instruments conve1ing an1 part of the estate of Catalina .. (da. de 8ocsin including" ;ut
not limited to those in the inventor1 of known properties (Anne? 9 of the complaint) as
null and void a-initioD
() ordering the 'egister of Deeds of Al;a1 andEor 8egaBpi Cit1 to cancel all certificates
of title and other transfers of the real properties" su;5ect of this case" in the name of
defendants" and derivatives therefrom" and issue new ones to the plaintiffsD
(3) ordering the defendants" 5ointl1 and severall1" to reconve1 ownership and possession
of all such properties to the plaintiffs" together with all muniments of title properl1
endorsed and delivered" and all the fruits and incomes received ;1 the defendants from
the estate of Catalina" with legal interest from the filing of this actionD and where
reconve1ance and deliver1 cannot ;e effected for reasons that might have intervened
and prevent the same" defendants shall pa1 for the value of such properties" fruits and
incomes received ;1 them" also with legal interest from the filing" of this case
(*) ordering each of the defendants to pa1 the plaintiffs the amount of 67"777.77 as
e?emplar1 damagesD and the further sum of 6,7"777.77 each as moral damagesD and
(+) ordering the defendants to pa1 the plaintiffs attorne1<s fees and litigation e?penses" in
the amount of 67"777.77 without pre5udice to an1 contract ;etween plaintiffs and
counsel.
Costs against the defendants.
9
The 8ocsins appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA%&.'. )o. C(%!!!$+) which rendered its now appealed
5udgment on :arch !3" !#$#" affirming the trial court<s decision.
The petition has merit and should ;e granted.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the private respondents" nephews and nieces
of DoFa Catalina .. (da. de 8ocsin" entitled to inherit the properties which she had alread1 disposed of
more than ten (!7) 1ears ;efore her death. For those properties did not form part of her hereditar1 estate"
i.e., -the propert1 and transmissi;le rights and o;ligations existing at t$e time of 8t$e decedent9s: deat$
and those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession.-
10
The rights to a person<s
succession are transmitted from the moment of his death" and do not vest in his heirs until such time.
11

6ropert1 which DoFa Catalina had transferred or conve1ed to other persons during her lifetime no longer
formed part of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs ma1 la1 claim. @ad she died intestate"
onl1 the propert1 that remained in her estate at the time of her death devolved to her legal heirsD and even
if those transfers were" one and all" treated as donations" the right arising under certain circumstances to
impugn and compel the reduction or revocation of a decedent<s gifts inter vivos does not inure to the
respondents since neither the1 nor the donees are compulsor1 (or forced) heirs.
1(
There is thus no ;asis for assuming an intention on the part of DoFa Catalina" in transferring the
properties she had received from her late hus;and to his nephews and nieces" an intent to circumvent the
law in violation of the private respondents< rights to her succession. 0aid respondents are not her
compulsor1 heirs" and it is not pretended that she had an1 such" hence there were no legitimes that could
conceiva;l1 ;e impaired ;1 an1 transfer of her propert1 during her lifetime. All that the respondents had
was an expectancy that in nowise restricted her freedom to dispose of even her entire estate su;5ect onl1
to the limitation set forth in Art. 2*7" Civil Code which" even if it were ;reached" the respondents ma1 not
invoke:
Art. 2*7. The donation ma1 comprehend all the present propert1 of the donor or part
thereof" provided he reserves" in full ownership or in usufruct" sufficient means for the
support of himself" and of all relatives who" at the time of the acceptance of the donation"
are ;1 law entitled to ;e supported ;1 the donor. Aithout such reservation" the donation
shall ;e reduced on petition of an1 person affected. (+3a)
The lower court capitaliBed on the fact that DoFa Catalina was alread1 #7 1ears old when she died on
.ul1 +" !#22. It insinuated that ;ecause of her advanced 1ears she ma1 have ;een imposed upon" or
undul1 influenced and morall1 pressured ;1 her hus;and<s nephews and nieces (the petitioners) to
transfer to them the properties which she had inherited from Don :ariano<s estate. The records do not
support that con5ecture.
For as earl1 as ';<=" or twent1%eight (,$) 1ears ;efore her death" DoFa Catalina had alread1 ;egun
transferring to her 8ocsin nephews and nieces the properties which she received from Don :ariano. 0he
sold a #+,%s=.m. lot on .anuar1 ,+" !#*2 to his nephew and namesake :ariano 8ocsin II.
13
4n April 2"
!#++" or !# 1ears ;efore she passed awa1" she also sold a 3 hectare land to another 8ocsin nephew"
.ose '. 8ocsin.
1)
The ne?t 1ear" or on :arch ,," !#+2" she sold a *"777%s=.m. portion of 8ot ,7,7 to
.ulian 8ocsin.
15
4n :arch ,2" !#+2" 8ot ,7,7
16
was partitioned ;1 and among DoFa Catalina" .ulian 8ocsin" (icente
.aucian and Agapito 8orete.
17
At least (icente .aucian" among the other respondents in this case" is
estopped from assailing the genuineness and due e?ecution of the sale of portions of 8ot ,7,7 to himself"
.ulian 8ocsin" and Agapito 8orete" and the partition agreement that he ((icente) concluded with the other
co%owners of 8ot ,7,7.
Among DoFa" Catalina<s last transactions ;efore she died in !#22 were the sales of propert1 which she
made in favor of Aurea 8ocsin and :ariano 8ocsin in !#2*.
18
There is not the slightest suggestion in the record that DoFa Catalina was mentall1 incompetent when she
made those dispositions. Indeed" how can an1 such suggestion ;e made in light of the fact that even as
she was transferring properties to the 8ocsins" she was also contemporaneousl1 disposing of her other
properties in favor of the .auciansK 0he sold to her nephew" (icente .aucian" on .ul1 !+" !#+3 (,! 1ears
;efore her death) one%half (or *"777 s=.m.) of 8ot ,7,7. Three 1ears later" or on :arch ,," !#+2" she sold
another *777 s=.m. of the same lot to .ulian 8ocsin.
19
From !#2, to !#2 she made several other transfers of her properties to her relatives and other persons"
namel1: Francisco :a=uiniana" Ireneo :amia" Oenaida 9uiBa" FeliBa :or5ella" Inocentes :otocinos"
Casimiro :ondevil" .uan 0a;alla and 'ogelio :articio.
(0
)one of those transactions was impugned ;1
the private respondents.
In !#2*" or two 1ears ;efore her death" DoFa Catalina sold some lots not onl1 to Don :ariano<s niece"
Aurea 8ocsin" and his nephew" :ariano 8ocsin
II"
(1
;ut also to her niece" :ercedes .aucian Ar;oleda.
((
If she was competent to make that conve1ance
to :ercedes" how can there ;e an1 dou;t that she was e=uall1 competent to transfer her other pieces of
propert1 to Aurea and :ariano IIK
The trial court<s ;elief that Don :ariano 8ocsin ;e=ueathed his entire estate to his wife" from a
-consciousness of its real origin- which carries the implication that said estate consisted of properties
which his wife had inherited from her parents" flies in the teeth of DoFa Catalina<s admission in her
inventor1 of that estate" that -items ! to are the private properties of the deceased (Don :ariano) and
forms (sic) part of his capital at the time of the marriage with the surviving spouse" while items 3 to 3,
are conjugal properties" ac=uired during the marriage.- 0he would have known ;etter than an1one else
whether the listing included an1 of her paraphernal propert1 so it is safe to assume that none was in fact
included. The inventor1 was signed ;1 her under oath" and was approved ;1 the pro;ate court in 0pecial
6roceeding )o. !$ of the Court of First Instance of Al;a1. It was prepared with the assistance of her own
nephew and counsel" Att1. 0alvador 8ora1es" who surel1 would not have prepared a false inventor1 that
would have ;een pre5udicial to his aunt<s interest and to his own" since he stood to inherit from her
eventuall1.
This Court finds no reason to dis;elieve Attorne1 8ora1es< testimon1 that ;efore Don :ariano died" he
and his wife (DoFa Catalina)" ;eing childless" had agreed that their respective properties should
eventuall1 revert to their respective lineal relatives. As the trusted legal adviser of the spouses and a full%
;lood nephew of DoFa Catalina" he would not have spun a tale out of thin air that would also pre5udice his
own interest.
8ittle significance" it seems" has ;een attached to the fact that among DoFa Catalina<s nephews and
nieces" those closest to her: (a) her law1er%nephew Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1esD (;) her niece and
companion >lena .aucian: (c) her nieces :aria 4l;es%(elasco and :aria 8ora1es%Cornelio and their
respective hus;ands" Fernando (elasco and @ostilio Cornelio" did not join t$e suit to annul and undo the
dispositions of propert1 which she made in favor of the 8ocsins" although it would have ;een to their
advantage to do so. Their desistance persuasivel1 demonstrates that DoFa Catalina acted as a
completel1 free agent when she made the conve1ances in favor of the petitioners. In fact" considering
their closeness to DoFa Catalina it would have ;een well%nigh impossi;le for the petitioners to emplo1
-fraud" undue pressure" and su;tle manipulations- on her to make her sell or donate her properties to
them. DoFa Catalina<s niece" >lena .aucian" daughter of her ;rother" >duardo .aucian" lived with her in
her house. @er nephew%in%law" @ostilio Cornelio" was the custodian of the titles of her properties. The
sales and donations which she signed in favor of the petitioners were prepared ;1 her trusted legal
adviser and nephew" Attorne1 0alvador 8ora1es. The (!) deed of donation dated )ovem;er !#"
!#23
(3
in favor of Aurea 8ocsin" (,) another deed of donation dated Fe;ruar1 3" !#2*
()
in favor of :atilde
Cordero" and () still another deed dated 0eptem;er #" !#2*
(5
in favor of 0alvador 8ora1es" were all
witnessed ;1 @ostilio Cornelio (who is married to DoFa Catalina<s niece" :aria 8ora1es) and Fernando
(elasco who is married to another niece" :aria 4l;es.
(6
The sales which she made in favor of Aurea
8ocsin on .ul1 !*" !#23
(7
were witnessed ;1 @ostilio Cornelio and >lena .aucian. &iven those
circumstances" said transactions could not have ;een an1thing ;ut free and voluntar1 acts on her part.
Apart from the foregoing considerations" the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing
this action for annulment and reconve1ance on the ground of prescription. Commenced decades after the
transactions had ;een consummated" and si? (+) 1ears after DoFa Catalina<s death" it prescri;ed four (3)
1ears after the su;5ect transactions were recorded in the 'egistr1 of 6ropert1"
(8
whether considered an
action ;ased on fraud" or one to redress an in5ur1 to the rights of the plaintiffs. The private respondents
ma1 not feign ignorance of said transactions ;ecause the registration of the deeds was constructive
notice thereof to them and the whole world.
(9
A@>'>F4'>" the petition for review is granted. The decision dated :arch !3" !#$# of the Court of
Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. !!!$+ is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>. The private respondents< complaint
for annulment of contracts and reconve1ance of properties in Civil Case )o. 2!*, of the 'egional Trial
Court" 9ranch (III of 8egaBpi Cit1" is DI0:I00>D" with costs against the private respondents" plaintiffs
therein.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 1(5835 &+3y 30, 1998
NAAL#A %AR$ENA O$ULEN%#A, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', ALAD#N '#MUNDA% and M#GUEL
OL#VAN,
Is a contract to sell a real propert1 involved in restate proceedings valid and ;inding without the approval
of the pro;ate courtK
Statement of t$e Case
This is the main =uestion raised in this petition for review ;efore us" assailing the Decision
1
of the Court
of Appeals
(
in CA%&' C( )o. 3!##3 promulgated on Fe;ruar1 +" !##+ and its 'esolution
3
dated .ul1
!#" !##+. The challenged Decision disposed as follows:
A@>'>F4'>" premises considered" the order of the lower court dismissing the
complaint is 0>T A0ID> and 5udgment is here;1 rendered declaring the C4)T'ACT T4
0>88 e?ecuted ;1 appellee in favor of appellants as valid and ;inding" su;5ect to the
result of the administration proceedings of the testate >state of Demetrio Carpena.
04 4'D>'>D.
)
6etitioner<s :otion for 'econsideration was denied in the challenged 'esolution.
5
/$e >acts
The antecedent facts" as succinctl1 narrated ;1 'espondent Court of Appeals" are:
In a complaint for specific performance filed with the court a !uo Gherein private
respondentsH Aladin 0imundac and :iguel 4liven alleged that Gherein petitionerH )atalia
Carpena 4pulencia e?ecuted in their favor a -C4)T'ACT T4 0>88- 8ot ,!,* of the 0ta.
'osa >state" consisting of ,"2++ s=uare meters located in 0ta. 'osa" 8aguna at
6!*7.77 per s=uare meterD that plaintiffs paid a downpa1ment of 677"777.77 ;ut
defendant" despite demands" failed to compl1 with her o;ligations under the contract.
G6rivate respondentsH therefore pra1ed that GpetitionerH ;e ordered to perform her
contractual o;ligations and to further pa1 damages" attorne1<s fee and litigation
e?penses.
In her traverse" GpetitionerH admitted the e?ecution of the contract in favor of plaintiffs and
receipt of 677"777.77 as downpa1ment. @owever" she put forward the following
affirmative defenses: that the propert1 su;5ect of the contract formed part of the >state of
Demetrio Carpena (petitioner<s father)" in respect of which a petition for pro;ate was filed
with the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch ,3" 9iFan" 8agunaD that at the time the contract was
e?ecuted" the parties were aware of the pendenc1 of the pro;ate proceedingD that the
contract to sell was not approved ;1 the pro;ate courtD that realiBing the nullit1 of the
contract GpetitionerH had offered to return the downpa1ment received from Gprivate
respondentsH" ;ut the latter refused to accept itD that Gprivate respondentsH further failed to
provide funds for the tenant who demanded 6!*7"77.77 in pa1ment of his tenanc1 rights
on the landD that GpetitionerH had chosen to rescind the contract.
At the pre%trial conference the parties stipulated on GsicH the following facts:
!. That on Fe;ruar1 " !#$#" Gprivate respondentsH and GpetitionerH
entered into a contract to sell involving a parcel of land situated in 0ta.
'osa" 8aguna" otherwise known as 8ot )o. ,!,* of the 0ta. 'osa >state.
,. That the price or consideration of the said sell GsicH is 6!*7.77 per
s=uare metersD
. That the amount of 677"777.77 had alread1 ;een received ;1
GpetitionerHD
3. That the parties have knowledge that the propert1 su;5ect of the
contract to sell is su;5ect of the pro;ate proceedingsD
*. That GasH of this time" the pro;ate Court has not 1et issued an order
either approving or den1ing the said sale. (p. " appealed 4rder of
0eptem;er !*" !##," pp. !7#%!!," record).
G6rivate respondentsH su;mitted their evidence in support of the material allegations of
the complaint. In addition to testimonies of witnesses" Gprivate respondentsH presented
the following documentar1 evidences: (!) Contract to 0ell (>?h A)D (,) machine cop1 of
the last will and testament of Demetrio Carpena (defendant<s father) to show that the
propert1 sold ;1 defendant was one of those devised to her in said will (>?h 9)D ()
receipts signed ;1 defendant for the downpa1ment in the total amount of 677"777.77
(>?hs C" D P >)D and (3) demand letters sent to defendant (>?hs F P &).
It appears that GpetitionerH" instead of su;mitting her evidence" filed a Demurrer to
>vidence. In essence" defendant maintained that the contract to sell was null and void for
want of approval ;1 the pro;ate court. 0he further argued that the contract was su;5ect to
a suspensive condition" which was the pro;ate of the will of defendant<s father Demetrio
Carpena. An 4pposition was filed ;1 Gprivate respondentsH. It appears further that in an
4rder dated Decem;er !*" !##, the court a !uo granted the demurrer to evidence and
dismissed the complaint. It 5ustified its action in dismissing the complaint in the following
manner:
It is noteworth1 that when the contract to sell was consummated" no petition was filed in
the Court with notice to the heirs of the time and place of hearing" to show that the sale is
necessar1 and ;eneficial. A sale of properties of an estate as ;eneficial to the interested
parties must compl1 with the re=uisites provided ;1 law" (0ec. 2" 'ule $#" 'ules of Court)
which are mandator1" and without them" the authorit1 to sell" the sale itself" and the order
approving it" would ;e null and void a initio. (Arcilla vs. David" 22 6hil. 2!$" &a;riel" et
al." vs. >ncarnacion" et al." 8%+2+" :a1 3" !#*3D 9onaga vs. 0oler" , 6hil. 2**) 9esides"
it is a?iomatic that where the estate of a deceased person is alread1 the su;5ect of a
testate or intestate proceeding" the administrator cannot enter into an1 transaction
involving it without prior approval of the pro;ate Court. (>state of 4;ave" vs. 'e1es" !,
0C'A 2+2).
As held ;1 the 0upreme Court" a decedent<s representative (administrator) is not
estopped from =uestioning the validit1 of his own void deed purporting to conve1 land.
(9ona vs. 0oler" , 6hil" 2**). In the case at ;ar" the Gpetitioner"H realiBing the illegalit1 of
the transactionG"H has interposed the nullit1 of the contract as her defense" there ;eing no
approval from the pro;ate Court" and" in good faith offers to return the mone1 she
received from the Gprivate respondentsH. Certainl1" the administratri? is not estopGpedH
from doing so and the action to declare the ine?istence of contracts do not prescri;e. This
is what precipitated the filing of Gpetitioner<sH demurrer to evidence.
6
The trial court<s order of dismissal was elevated to the Court of Appeals ;1 private respondents who
alleged:
!. The lower court erred in concluding that the contract to sell is null and void" there ;eing
no approval of the pro;ate court.
,. The lower court erred in concluding that GpetitionerH in good faith offers to return the
mone1 to Gprivate respondentsH.
. The lower court erred in concluding that GpetitionerH is not under estoppel to =uestion
the validit1 of the contract to sell.
3. The lower court erred in not ruling on the consideration of the contract to sell which is
tantamount to plain un5ust enrichment of GpetitionerH at the e?pense of Gprivate
respondentsH.
7
*ulic -espondent9s -uling
Declaring the Contract to 0ell valid" su;5ect to the outcome of the testate proceedings on Demetrio
Carpena<s estate" the appellate court set aside the trial court<s dismissal of the complaint and correctl1
ruled as follows:
It is apparent from the appealed order that the lower court treated the contract to sell
e?ecuted ;1 appellee as one made ;1 the administratri? of the >state of Demetrio
Carpena for the ;enefit of the estate. @ence" its main reason for voiding the contract in
=uestion was the a;sence of the pro;ate court<s approval. 6resuma;l1" what the lower
court had in mind was the sale of the estate or part thereof made ;1 the administrator for
the ;enefit of the estate" as authoriBed under 'ule $# of the 'evised 'ules of Court"
which re=uires the approval of the pro;ate court upon application therefor with notice to
the heirs" devisees and legatees.
@owever" as adverted to ;1 appellants in their ;rief" the contract to sell in =uestion is not
covered ;1 'ule $# of the 'evised 'ules of Court since it was made ;1 appellee in her
capacit1 as an heir" of a propert1 that was devised to her under the will sought to ;e
pro;ated. Thus" while the document inadvertentl1 stated that appellee e?ecuted the
contract in her capacit1 as -e?ecutri? and administratri?- of the estate" a cursor1 reading
of the entire te?t of the contract would unerringl1 show that what she undertook to sell to
appellants was one of the -other properties given to her ;1 her late father"- and more
importantl1" it was not made for the ;enefit of the estate ;ut for her own needs. To
illustrate this point" it is apropos to refer to the pream;ular or preliminar1 portion of the
document" which reads:
A@>'>A0" t$e SELLE- is t$e la%ful o%ner of a certain parcel of land"
which is more particularl1 descri;ed as follows:
??? ??? ???
??? ??? ???
??? ??? ???
A@>'>A0" the 0>88>' suffers difficulties in her living and has forced to
offer the sale of the a;ove%descri;ed propert1" -which propert1 was onl1
one among the other properties given to her ;1 her late father"- to
an1one who can wait for complete clearance of the court on the 8ast Aill
Testament of her father.
A@>'>A0" the 0>88>' in order to meet her need of cash" has offered
for sale the said propert1 at 4)> @C)D'>D FIFT/ 6>040 (!*7.77)
6hilippine Currenc1" per s=uare meter unto the 9C/>'0" and with this
offer" the latter has accepted to ;u1 andEor purchase the same" less the
area for the road and other easements indicated at the ;ack of Transfer
Certificate of Title )o. ,!,* dul1 confirmed after the surve1 to ;e
conducted ;1 the 9C/>'<s 8icensed &eodetic >ngineer" and whatever
area GisH left. (>mphasis added).
To emphasiBe" it is evident from the foregoing clauses of the contract that appellee sold
8ot ,!,* not in her capacit1 as e?ecutri? of the will or administratri? of the estate of her
father" ;ut as an heir and more importantl1 as owner of said lot which" along with other
properties" was devised to her under the will sought to ;e pro;ated. That ;eing so" the
re=uisites stipulated in 'ule $# of the 'evised 'ules of Court which refer to a sale made
;1 the administrator for the ;enefit of the estate do not appl1.
??? ??? ???
It is noteworth1 that in a :anifestation filed with this court ;1 appellants" which is not
controverted ;1 appellee" it is mentioned that the last will and testament of Demetrio
Carpena was approved in a final 5udgment rendered in 0pecial 6roceeding )o. 9%#2# ;1
the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch ,3 9iFan" 8aguna. 9ut of course such approval does not
terminate the proceedingGsH since the settlement of the estate will ensue. 0uch
proceedings will consist" among others" in the issuance ;1 the court of a notice to
creditors ('ule $+)" hearing of mone1 claims and pa1ment of ta?es and estate de;ts
('ule $$) and distri;ution of the residue to the heirs or persons entitled thereto ('ule #7).
In effect" the final e?ecution of the deed of sale itself upon appellants< pa1ment of the
;alance of the purchase price will have to wait for the settlement or termination of the
administration proceedings of the >state of Demetrio Carpena. Cnder the foregoing
premises" what the trial court should have done with the complaint was not to dismiss it
;ut to simpl1 put on hold further proceedings until such time that the estate or its residue
will ;e distri;uted in accordance with the approved will.
The rule is that when a demurrer to the evidence is granted ;1 the trial court ;ut reversed
on appeal" defendant loses the right to adduce his evidence. In such a case" the
appellate court will decide the controvers1 on the ;asis of plaintiff<s evidence. In the case
at ;ench" while we find the contract to sell valid and ;inding ;etween the parties" we
cannot as 1et order appellee to perform her o;ligations under the contract ;ecause the
result of the administration proceedings of the testate >state of Demetrio Carpena has to
;e awaited. @ence" we shall confine our ad5udication to merel1 declaring the validit1 of
the =uestioned Contract to 0ell.
@ence" this appeal.
8
/$e Issue
6etitioner raises onl1 one issue:
Ahether or not the Contract to 0ell dated 7 Fe;ruar1 !#$# e?ecuted ;1 the GpHetitioner
and GpHrivate GrHespondentGsH without the re=uisite pro;ate court approval is valid.
/$e Court9s -uling
The petition has no merit.
Contract to Sell ?alid
In a nutshell" petitioner contends that -where the estate of the deceased person is alread1 the su;5ect of a
testate or intestate proceeding" the administrator cannot enter into an1 transaction involving it without
prior approval of the 6ro;ate Court.-
9
0he maintains that the Contract to 0ell is void ;ecause it was not
approved ;1 the pro;ate court" as re=uired ;1 0ection 2" 'ule $# of the 'ules of Court:
0ec. 2. 'egulations for granting authorit1 to sell" mortgage" or otherwise encum;er
estate. J The court having 5urisdiction of the estate of the deceased ma1 authoriBe the
e?ecutor or administrator to sell" mortgage" or otherwise encum;er real estate" in cases
provided ;1 these rules and when it appears necessar1 or ;eneficial" under the following
regulations:
??? ??? ???
Insisting that the a;ove rule should appl1 to this case" petitioner argues that the stipulations in the
Contract to 0ell re=uire her to act in her capacit1 as an e?ecutri? or administratri?. 0he avers that her
o;ligation to e5ect tenants pertains to the administratri? or e?ecutri?" the estate ;eing the landlord of the
said tenants.
10
8ikewise demonstrating that she entered into the contract in her capacit1 as e?ecutor is
the stipulation that she must effect the conversion of su;5ect land from irrigated rice land to residential
land and secure the necessar1 clearances from government offices. 6etitioner alleges that these
o;ligations can ;e undertaken onl1 ;1 an e?ecutor or administrator of an estate" and not ;1 an heir.
11
The Court is not persuaded. As correctl1 ruled ;1 the Court of Appeals" 0ection 2 of 'ule $# of the 'ules
of Court is not applica;le" ;ecause petitioner entered into the Contract to 0ell in her capacit1 as an
heiress" not as an e?ecutri? or administratri? of the estate. In the contract" she represented herself as the
-lawful owner- and seller of the su;5ect parcel of land.
1(
0he also e?plained the reason for the sale to ;e
-difficulties in her living- conditions and conse=uent -need of cash.-
13
These representations clearl1
evince that she was not acting on ;ehalf of the estate under pro;ate when she entered into the Contract
to 0ell. Accordingl1" the 5urisprudence cited ;1 petitioners has no application to the instant case.
Ae emphasiBe that hereditar1 rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the decedent<s
death.
1)
6etitioner" therefore" ;ecame the owner of her hereditar1 share the moment her father died.
Thus" the lack of 5udicial approval does not invalidate the Contract to 0ell" ;ecause the petitioner has the
su;stantive right to sell the whole or a part of her share in the estate of her late father.
15
Thus" in
@a#osalem vs. -afols"
16
the Court resolved an identical issue under the old Civil Code and held:
Art. 337 of the Civil Code provides that -the possession of hereditar1 propert1 is deemed
to ;e transmitted to the heir without interruption from the instant of the death of the
decedent" in case the inheritance ;e accepted.- And :anresa with reason states that
upon the death of a person" each of his heirs -;ecomes the undivided owner of the whole
estate left with respect to the part or portion which might ;e ad5udicated to him" a
communit1 of ownership ;eing thus formed among the coowners of the estate while it
remains undivided.- . . . And according to article ## of the Civil Code" ever1 part owner
ma1 assign or mortgage his part in the common propert1" and the effect of such
assignment or mortgage shall ;e limited to the portion which ma1 ;e allotted him in the
partition upon the dissolution of the communit1. @ence" where some of the heirs" without
the concurrence of the others" sold a propert1 left ;1 their deceased father" this Court"
speaking thru its then Chief .ustice Ca1etano Arellano" said that the sale was valid" ;ut
that the effect thereof was limited to the share which ma1 ;e allotted to the vendors upon
the partition of the estate.
"dministration of t$e Estate 0ot
*rejudiced y t$e Contract to Sell
6etitioner further contends that -GtHo sanction the sale at this stage would ;ring a;out a partial distri;ution
of the decedent<s estate pending the final termination of the testate proceedings.-
17
This ;ecomes all the
more significant in the light of the trial court<s finding" as stated in its 4rder dated August ,7" !##2" that
-the legitimate of one of the heirs has ;een impaired.-
18
6etitioner<s contention is not convincing. The Contract to 0ell stipulates that petitioner<s offer to sell is
contingent on the -complete clearance of the court on the 8ast Aill Testament of her father.-
19

Conse=uentl1" although the Contract to 0ell was perfected ;etween the petitioner and private
respondents during the pendenc1 of the pro;ate proceedings" the consummation of the sale or the
transfer of ownership over the parcel of land to the private respondents is su;5ect to the full pa1ment of
the purchase price and to the termination and outcome of the testate proceedings. Therefore" there is no
;asis for petitioner<s apprehension that the Contract to 0ell ma1 result in a premature partition and
distri;ution of the properties of the estate. Indeed" it is settled that -the sale made ;1 an heir of his share
in an inheritance" su;5ect to the pending administration" in no wise stands in the wa1 of such
administration.-
(0
Estoppel
Finall1" petitioner is estopped from ;acking out of her representations in her valid Contract to 0ell with
private respondents" from whom she had alread1 received 677"777 as initial pa1ment of the purchase
price. 6etitioner ma1 not renege on her own acts and representations" to the pre5udice of the private
respondents who have relied on them.
(1
.urisprudence teaches us that neither the law nor the courts will
e?tricate a part1 from an unwise or undesira;le contract he or she entered into with all the re=uired
formalities and with full awareness of its conse=uences.
((
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is here;1 D>)I>D and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
AFFI':>D. Costs against petitioner.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 1(633) No8/70/, (3, (001
EM#L#O EMNA%E, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', E'AE OF V#%ENE A"ANAO, '!ER9#N
A"ANAO, V#%ENE 9#LL#AM A"ANAO, &ANEE A"ANAO DE$O'OY, V#%ENA MAY
A"ANAO VARELA, RO'ELA A"ANAO and V#N%EN A"ANAO,
6etitioner >milio >mnace" (icente Ta;anao and .acinto Divinagracia were partners in a ;usiness concern
known as :a. )elma Fishing Industr1. 0ometime in .anuar1 of !#$+" the1 decided to dissolve their
partnership and e?ecuted an agreement of partition and distri;ution of the partnership properties among
them" conse=uent to .acinto Divinagracia<s withdrawal from the partnership.
!
Among the assets to ;e
distri;uted were five (*) fishing ;oats" si? (+) vehicles" two (,) parcels of land located at 0to. )iFo and
Talisa1" )egros 4ccidental" and cash deposits in the local ;ranches of the 9ank of the 6hilippine Islands
and 6rudential 9ank.
Throughout the e?istence of the partnership" and even after (icente Ta;anao<s untimel1 demise in !##3"
petitioner failed to su;mit to Ta;anao<s heirs an1 statement of assets and lia;ilities of the partnership" and
to render an accounting of the partnership<s finances. 6etitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over
to Ta;anao<s heirs the deceased<s !E share in the total assets of the partnership" amounting to
67"777"777.77" or the sum of 6!7"777"777.77" despite formal demand for pa1ment thereof.
,
Conse=uentl1" Ta;anao< s heirs" respondents herein" filed against petitioner an action for accounting"
pa1ment of shares" division of assets and damages.

In their complaint" respondents pra1ed as follows:

!. Defendant ;e ordered to render the proper accounting of all the assets and lia;ilities of the
partnership at ;arD and
,. After due notice and hearing defendant ;e ordered to pa1EremitEdeliverEsurrenderE1ield to the
plaintiffs the following:
A. )o less than 4ne Third (!E) of the assets" properties" dividends" cash" land(s)" fishing
vessels" trucks" motor vehicles" and other forms and su;stance of treasures which ;elong
andEor should ;elong" had accrued andEor must accrue to the partnershipD
9. )o less than Two @undred Thousand 6esos (6,77"777.77) as moral damagesD
C. Attorne1<s fees e=uivalent to Thirt1 6ercent (7Q) of the entire shareEamountEaward
which the @onora;le Court ma1 resolve the plaintiffs as entitled to plus 6!"777.77 for
ever1 appearance in court.
3
6etitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue" lack of 5urisdiction
over the nature of the action or suit" and lack of capacit1 of the estate of Ta;anao to sue.
*
4n August 7"
!##3" the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that venue was properl1 laid ;ecause" while
realties were involved" the action was directed against a particular person on the ;asis of his personal
lia;ilit1D hence" the action is not onl1 a personal action ;ut also an action in personam. As regards
petitioner<s argument of lack of 5urisdiction over the action ;ecause the prescri;ed docket fee was not
paid considering the huge amount involved in the claim" the trial court noted that a re=uest for accounting
was made in order that the e?act value of the partnership ma1 ;e ascertained and" thus" the correct
docket fee ma1 ;e paid. Finall1" the trial court held that the heirs of Ta;anao had aright to sue in their own
names" in view of the provision of Article 222 of the Civil Code" which states that the rights to the
succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
+
The following da1" respondents filed an amended complaint"
2
incorporating the additional pra1er that
petitioner ;e ordered to -sell all (the partnership<s) assets and thereafter pa1EremitEdeliverEsurrenderE1ield
to the plaintiffs- their corresponding share in the proceeds thereof. In due time" petitioner filed a
manifestation and motion to dismiss"
$
arguing that the trial court did not ac=uire 5urisdiction over the case
due to the plaintiffs< failure to pa1 the proper docket fees. Further" in a supplement to his motion to
dismiss"
#
petitioner also raised prescription as an additional ground warranting the outright dismissal of
the complaint.
4n .une !*" !##*" the trial court issued an 4rder"
!7
den1ing the motion to dismiss inasmuch as the
grounds raised therein were ;asicall1 the same as the earlier motion to dismiss which has ;een denied.
Anent the issue of prescription" the trial court ruled that prescription ;egins to run onl1 upon the
dissolution of the partnership when the final accounting is done. @ence" prescription has not set in the
a;sence of a final accounting. :oreover" an action ;ased on a written contract prescri;es in ten 1ears
from the time the right of action accrues.
6etitioner filed a petition for certiorari ;efore the Court of Appeals"
!!
raising the following issues:
I. Ahether or not respondent .udge acted without 5urisdiction or with grave a;use of
discretion in taking cogniBance of a case despite the failure to pa1 the re=uired docket feeD
II. Ahether or not respondent .udge acted without 5urisdiction or with grave a;use of
discretion in insisting to tr1 the case which involve (sic) a parcel of land situated outside of its
territorial 5urisdictionD
III. Ahether or not respondent .udge acted without 5urisdiction or with grave a;use of
discretion in allowing the estate of the deceased to appear as part1 plaintiff" when there is no
intestate case and filed ;1 one who was never appointed ;1 the court as administratri? of the
estatesD and
I(. Ahether or not respondent .udge acted without 5urisdiction or with grave a;use of
discretion in not dismissing the case on the ground of prescription.
4n August $" !##+" the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision"
!,
dismissing the petition for
certiorari" upon a finding that no grave a;use of discretion amounting to lack or e?cess of 5urisdiction was
committed ;1 the trial court in issuing the =uestioned orders den1ing petitioner<s motions to dismiss.
)ot satisfied" petitioner filed the instant petition for review" raising the same issues resolved ;1 the Court
of Appeals" namel1:
I. Failure to pa1 the proper docket feeD
II. 6arcel of land su;5ect of the case pending ;efore the trial court is outside the said court<s
territorial 5urisdictionD
III. 8ack of capacit1 to sue on the part of plaintiff heirs of (icente Ta;anaoD and
I(. 6rescription of the plaintiff heirs< cause of action.
It can ;e readil1 seen that respondents< primar1 and ultimate o;5ective in instituting the action ;elow was
to recover the decedent<s !E share in the partnership< s assets. Ahile the1 ask for an accounting of the
partnership< s assets and finances" what the1 are actuall1 asking is for the trial court to compel petitioner
to pa1 and turn over their share" or the e=uivalent value thereof" from the proceeds of the sale of the
partnership assets. The1 also assert that until and unless a proper accounting is done" the e?act value of
the partnership< s assets" as well as their corresponding share therein" cannot ;e ascertained.
Conse=uentl1" the1 feel 5ustified in not having paid the commensurate docket fee as re=uired ;1 the 'ules
of Court.'(%p$i'.n)t
Ae do not agree. The trial court does not have to emplo1 guesswork in ascertaining the estimated value
of the partnership<s assets" for respondents themselves voluntaril1 pegged the worth thereof at Thirt1
:illion 6esos (67"777"777.77). @ence" this case is one which is reall1 not ;e1ond pecuniar1 estimation"
;ut rather partakes of the nature of a simple collection case where the value of the su;5ect assets or
amount demanded is pecuniaril1 determina;le.
!
Ahile it is true that the e?act value of the partnership<s
total assets cannot ;e shown with certaint1 at the time of filing" respondents can and must ascertain"
through informed and practical estimation" the amount the1 e?pect to collect from the partnership"
particularl1 from petitioner" in order to determine the proper amount of docket and other fees.
!3
It is thus
imperative for respondents to pa1 the corresponding docket fees in order that the trial court ma1 ac=uire
5urisdiction over the action.
!*
)evertheless" unlike in the case of 6anc$ester &evelopment Corp. v. Court of "ppeals,
!+
where there
was clearl1 an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to pa1 the correct docket fees" we see no
attempt to cheat the courts on the part of respondents. In fact" the lower courts have noted their
e?pressed desire to remit to the court -an1 pa1a;le ;alance or lien on whatever award which the
@onora;le Court ma1 grant them in this case should there ;e an1 deficienc1 in the pa1ment of the docket
fees to ;e computed ;1 the Clerk of Court.-
!2
There is evident willingness to pa1" and the fact that the
docket fee paid so far is inade=uate is not an indication that the1 are tr1ing to avoid pa1ing the re=uired
amount" ;ut ma1 simpl1 ;e due to an ina;ilit1 to pa1 at the time of filing. This consideration ma1 have
moved the trial court and the Court of Appeals to declare that the unpaid docket fees shall ;e considered
a lien on the 5udgment award.
6etitioner" however" argues that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in condoning the non%
pa1ment of the proper legal fees and in allowing the same to ;ecome a lien on the monetar1 or propert1
5udgment that ma1 ;e rendered in favor of respondents. There is merit in petitioner<s assertion. The third
paragraph of 0ection !+" 'ule !3! of the 'ules of Court states that:
The legal fees shall ;e a lien on the monetar1 or propert1 5udgment in favor of the pauper%litigant.
'espondents cannot invoke the a;ove provision in their favor ;ecause it specificall1 applies to pauper%
litigants. )owhere in the records does it appear that respondents are litigating as paupers" and as such
are e?empted from the pa1ment of court fees.
!$
The rule applica;le to the case at ;ar is 0ection *(a) of 'ule !3! of the 'ules of Court" which defines the
two kinds of claims as: (!) those which are immediatel1 ascertaina;leD and (,) those which cannot ;e
immediatel1 ascertained as to the e?act amount. This second class of claims" where the e?act amount
still has to ;e finall1 determined ;1 the courts ;ased on evidence presented" falls s=uarel1 under the third
paragraph of said 0ection *(a)" which provides:
In case the value of the propert1 or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in accordance with
the appraisal of the court" the difference of fee shall ;e refunded or paid as the case ma1 ;e.
(Cnderscoring ours)
In *ilipinas S$ell *etroleum Corporation v. Court of "ppeals,
!#
this Court pronounced that the a;ove%
=uoted provision -clearl1 contemplates an Initial pa1ment of the filing fees corresponding to the estimated
amount of the claim su;5ect to ad5ustment as to what later ma1 ;e proved.-
,7
:oreover" we reiterated
therein the principle that the pa1ment of filing fees cannot ;e made contingent or dependent on the result
of the case. Thus" an initial pa1ment of the docket fees ;ased on an estimated amount must ;e paid
simultaneous with the filing of the complaint. 4therwise" the court would stand to lose the filing fees
should the 5udgment later turn out to ;e adverse to an1 claim of the respondent heirs.
The matter of pa1ment of docket fees is not a mere trivialit1. These fees are necessar1 to defra1 court
e?penses in the handling of cases. Conse=uentl1" in order to avoid tremendous losses to the 5udiciar1"
and to the government as well" the pa1ment of docket fees cannot ;e made dependent on the outcome of
the case" e?cept when the claimant is a pauper%litigant.
Applied to the instant case" respondents have a specific claim % !E of the value of all the partnership
assets % ;ut the1 did not allege a specific amount. The1 did" however" estimate the partnership<s total
assets to ;e worth Thirt1 :illion 6esos (67"777"777.77)" in a letter
,!
addressed to petitioner.
'espondents cannot now sa1 that the1 are una;le to make an estimate" for the said letter and the
admissions therein form part of the records of this case. The1 cannot avoid pa1ing the initial docket fees
;1 convenientl1 omitting the said amount in their amended complaint. This estimate can ;e made the
;asis for the initial docket fees that respondents should pa1. >ven if it were later esta;lished that the
amount proved was less or more than the amount alleged or estimated" 'ule !3!" 0ection *(a) of the
'ules of Court specificall1 provides that the court ma1 refund the <e?cess or e?act additional fees should
the initial pa1ment ;e insufficient. It is clear that it is onl1 the difference ;etween the amount finall1
awarded and the fees paid upon filing of this complaint that is su;5ect to ad5ustment and which ma1 ;e
su;5ected to alien.
In the oft%=uoted case of Sun Insurance Affice, Ltd. v. Hon. 6aximiano "suncion,
,,
this Court held that
when the specific claim -has ;een left for the determination ;1 the court" the additional filing fee therefor
shall constitute a lien on the 5udgment and it shall ;e the responsi;ilit1 of the Clerk of Court or his dul1
authoriBed deput1 to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.- Clearl1" the rules and
5urisprudence contemplate the initial pa1ment of filing and docket fees ;ased on the estimated claims of
the plaintiff" and it is onl1 when there is a deficienc1 that a lien ma1 ;e constituted on the 5udgment award
until such additional fee is collected.
9ased on the foregoing" the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint outright despite their failure to
pa1 the proper docket fees. )evertheless" as in other procedural rules" it ma1 ;e li;erall1 construed in
certain cases if onl1 to secure a 5ust and speed1 disposition of an action. Ahile the rule is that the
pa1ment of the docket fee in the proper amount should ;e adhered to" there are certain e?ceptions which
must ;e strictl1 construed.
,
In recent rulings" this Court has rela?ed the strict adherence to the 6anc$ester doctrine" allowing the
plaintiff to pa1 the proper docket fees within a reasona;le time ;efore the e?piration of the applica;le
prescriptive or reglementar1 period.
,3
In the recent case of 0ational Steel Corp. v. Court of "ppeals,
,*
this Court held that:
The court ac=uires 5urisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiator1 pleading is accompanied
;1 the pa1ment of the re=uisite fees" or" if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the
pleading" as of the time of full pa1ment of the fees within such reasona;le time as the court ma1
grant" unless" of course" prescription has set in the meantime.
It does not follow" however" that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint for failure of
private respondent to pa1 the correct amount of docket fees. Although the pa1ment of the proper
docket fees is a 5urisdictional re=uirement" the trial court ma1 allow the plaintiff in an action to pa1
the same within a reasona;le time ;efore the e?piration of the applica;le prescriptive or
reglementar1 period. If the plaintiff fails to compl1 within this re=uirement" the defendant should
timel1 raise the issue of 5urisdiction or else he would ;e considered in estoppel. In the latter case"
the ;alance ;etween the appropriate docket fees and the amount actuall1 paid ;1 the plaintiff will
;e considered a lien or an1 award he ma1 o;tain in his favor. (Cnderscoring ours)
Accordingl1" the trial court in the case at ;ar should determine the proper docket fee ;ased on the
estimated amount that respondents seek to collect from petitioner" and direct them to pa1 the same within
a reasona;le time" provided the applica;le prescriptive or reglementar1 period has not 1et e?pired"
Failure to compl1 therewith" and upon motion ;1 petitioner" the immediate dismissal of the complaint shall
issue on 5urisdictional grounds.
4n the matter of improper venue" we find no error on the part of the trial court and the Court of Appeals in
holding that the case ;elow is a personal action which" under the 'ules" ma1 ;e commenced and tried
where the defendant resides or ma1 ;e found" or where the plaintiffs reside" at the election of the latter.
,+
6etitioner" however" insists that venue was improperl1 laid since the action is a real action involving a
parcel of land that is located outside the territorial 5urisdiction of the court a !uo. This contention is not
well%taken. The records indu;ita;l1 show that respondents are asking that the assets of the partnership
;e accounted for" sold and distri;uted according to the agreement of the partners. The fact that two of the
assets of the partnership are parcels of land does not materiall1 change the nature of the action. It is an
action in personam ;ecause it is an action against a person" namel1" petitioner" on the ;asis of his
personal lia;ilit1. It is not an action in rem where the action is against the thing itself instead of against the
person.
,2
Furthermore" there is no showing that the parcels of land involved in this case are ;eing
disputed. In fact" it is onl1 incidental that part of the assets of the partnership under li=uidation happen to
;e parcels of land.
The time%tested case of Claridades v. 6ercader, et al.,
,$
settled this issue thus:
The fact that plaintiff pra1s for the sale of the assets of the partnership" including the fishpond in
=uestion" did not change the nature or character of the action" such sale ;eing merel1 a
necessar1 incident of the li=uidation of the partnership" which should precede andEor is part of its
process of dissolution.
The action filed ;1 respondents not onl1 seeks redress against petitioner. It also seeks the enforcement
of" and petitioner<s compliance with" the contract that the partners e?ecuted to formaliBe the partnership<s
dissolution" as well as to implement the li=uidation and partition of the partnership<s assets. Clearl1" it is a
personal action that" in effect" claims a de;t from petitioner and seeks the performance of a personal dut1
on his part.
,#
In fine" respondents< complaint seeking the li=uidation and partition of the assets of the
partnership with damages is a personal action which ma1 ;e filed in the proper court where an1 of the
parties reside.
7
9esides" venue has nothing to do with 5urisdiction for venue touches more upon the
su;stance or merits of the case.
!
As it is" venue in this case was properl1 laid and the trial court correctl1
ruled so.
4n the third issue" petitioner asserts that the surviving spouse of (icente Ta;anao has no legal capacit1
to sue since she was never appointed as administratri? or e?ecutri? of his estate. 6etitioner<s o;5ection in
this regard is misplaced. The surviving spouse does not need to ;e appointed as e?ecutri? or
administratri? of the estate ;efore she can file the action. 0he and her children are complainants in their
own right as successors of (icente Ta;anao. From the ver1 moment of (icente Ta;anao< s death" his
rights insofar as the partnership was concerned were transmitted to his heirs" for rights to the succession
are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.,
Ahatever claims and rights (icente Ta;anao had against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted
to respondents ;1 operation of law" more particularl1 ;1 succession" which is a mode of ac=uisition ;1
virtue of which the propert1" rights and o;ligations to the e?tent of the value of the inheritance of a person
are transmitted.

:oreover" respondents ;ecame owners of their respective hereditar1 shares from the
moment (icente Ta;anao died.
3
A prior settlement of the estate" or even the appointment of 0alvacion Ta;anao as e?ecutri? or
administratri?" is not necessar1 for an1 of the heirs to ac=uire legal capacit1 to sue. As successors who
stepped into the shoes of their decedent upon his death" the1 can commence an1 action originall1
pertaining to the decedent.
*
From the moment of his death" his rights as a partner and to demand
fulfillment of petitioner<s o;ligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement were transmitted to
respondents. The1" therefore" had the capacit1 to sue and seek the court<s intervention to compel
petitioner to fulfill his o;ligations.
Finall1" petitioner contends that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint on the ground of
prescription" arguing that respondents< action prescri;ed four (3) 1ears after it accrued in !#$+. The trial
court and the Court of Appeals gave scant consideration to petitioner<s hollow arguments" and rightl1 so.
The three () final stages of a partnership are: (!) dissolutionD (,) winding%upD and () termination.
+
The
partnership" although dissolved" continues to e?ist and its legal personalit1 is retained" at which time it
completes the winding up of its affairs" including the partitioning and distri;ution of the net partnership
assets to the partners.
2
For as long as the partnership e?ists" an1 of the partners ma1 demand an
accounting of the partnership<s ;usiness. 6rescription of the said right starts to run onl1 upon the
dissolution of the partnership when the final accounting is done.
$
Contrar1 to petitioner<s protestations that respondents< right to in=uire into the ;usiness affairs of the
partnership accrued in !#$+" prescri;ing four (3) 1ears thereafter" prescription had not even ;egun to run
in the a;sence of a final accounting. Article !$3, of the Civil Code provides:
The right to an account of his interest shall accrue to an1 partner" or his legal representative as
against the winding up partners or the surviving partners or the person or partnership continuing
the ;usiness" at the date of dissolution" in the a;sence of an1 agreement to the contrar1.
Applied in relation to Articles !$72 and !$7#" which also deal with the dut1 to account" the a;ove%cited
provision states that the right to demand an accounting accrues at the date of dissolution in the a;sence
of an1 agreement to the contrar1. Ahen a final accounting is made" it is onl1 then that prescription ;egins
to run. In the case at ;ar" no final accounting has ;een made" and that is precisel1 what respondents are
seeking in their action ;efore the trial court" since petitioner has failed or refused to render an accounting
of the partnership<s ;usiness and assets. @ence" the said action is not ;arred ;1 prescription.
In fine" the trial court neither erred nor a;used its discretion when it denied petitioner<s motions to dismiss.
8ikewise" the Court of Appeals did not commit reversi;le error in upholding the trial court<s orders.
6recious time has ;een lost 5ust to settle this preliminar1 issue" with petitioner resurrecting the ver1 same
arguments from the trial court all the wa1 up to the 0upreme Court. The litigation of the merits and
su;stantial issues of this controvers1 is now long overdue and must proceed without further dela1.
9!EREFORE, in view of all the foregoing" the instant petition is DEN#ED for lack of merit" and the case is
REMANDED to the 'egional Trial Court of CadiB Cit1" 9ranch +7" which is ORDERED to determine the
proper docket fee ;ased on the estimated amount that plaintiffs therein seek to collect" and direct said
plaintiffs to pa1 the same within a reasona;le time" provided the applica;le prescriptive or reglementar1
period has not 1et e?pired. Thereafter" the trial court is ORDERED to conduct the appropriate
proceedings in Civil Case )o. 3!+%C.
Costs against petitioner.'(%p$i'.n)t
'O ORDERED.
:G.R. No. 1137(5. &+n/ (9, (000;
&O!NNY '. RA"AD#LLA, , vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL' AND MAR#A MARLENA
%O'%OLUELLA Y "ELLEZA V#LLA%ARLO',
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals" dated Decem;er ," !##" in
CA%&.'. )o. C(%****" which set aside the decision of 9ranch *, of the 'egional Trial Court in
9acolod Cit1" and ordered the defendants%appellees 8including $erein petitioner:, as heirs of Dr.
.orge 'a;adilla" to reconve1 title over 8ot )o. !#," together with its fruits and interests" to the
estate of Ale5a 9elleBa.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In a Codicil appended to the 8ast Aill and Testament of testatri? Ale5a 9elleBa" Dr. .orge
'a;adilla" predecessor%in%interest of the herein petitioner" .ohnn1 0. 'a;adilla" was instituted as
a devisee of *!!" $** s=uare meters of that parcel of land surve1ed as 8ot )o. !#, of the
9acolod Cadastre. The said Codicil" which was dul1 pro;ated and admitted in 0pecial
6roceedings )o. 373+ ;efore the then Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental" contained the
following provisions:
-FI'0T
I give" leave and ;e=ueath the following propert1 owned ;1 me to Dr. .orge 'a;adilla
resident of !3! 6. (illanueva" 6asa1 Cit1:
(a) 8ot )o. !#, of the 9acolod Cadastre" covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 'T%
377, (!7#3,)" which is registered in m1 name according to the records of the 'egister of
Deeds of )egros 4ccidental.
(;) That should .orge 'a;adilla die ahead of me" the aforementioned propert1 and the
rights which I shall set forth herein;elow" shall ;e inherited and acknowledged ;1 the
children and spouse of .orge 'a;adilla.
???
F4C'T@
(a)....It is also m1 command" in this m1 addition (Codicil)" that should I die and .orge
'a;adilla shall have alread1 received the ownership of the said 8ot )o. !#, of the
9acolod Cadastre" covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 'T%377, (!7#3,)" and also
at the time that the lease of 9al;inito &. &uanBon of the said lot shall e?pire" .orge
'a;adilla shall have the o;ligation until he dies" ever1 1ear to give to :aria :arlina
Coscolluela 1 9elleBa" 0event1 (2*) (sic) piculs of >?port sugar and Twent1 Five (,*)
piculs of Domestic sugar" until the said :aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa dies.
FIFT@
(a) 0hould .orge 'a;adilla die" his heir to whom he shall give 8ot )o. !#, of the
9acolod Cadastre" covered ;1 Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 'T%377, (!73#,)" shall
have the o;ligation to still give 1earl1" the sugar as specified in the Fourth paragraph of
his testament" to :aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa on the month of Decem;er of each
1ear.
0IMT@
I command" in this m1 addition (Codicil) that the 8ot )o. !#," in the event that the one to
whom I have left and ;e=ueathed" and his heir shall later sell" lease" mortgage this said
8ot" the ;u1er" lessee" mortgagee" shall have also the o;ligation to respect and deliver
1earl1 4)> @C)D'>D (!77) piculs of sugar to :aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa" on
each month of Decem;er" 0>(>)T/ FI(> (2*) piculs of >?port and TA>)T/ FI(> (,*)
piculs of Domestic" until :aria :arlina shall die" lastl1 should the ;u1er" lessee or the
mortgagee of this lot" not have respected m1 command in this m1 addition (Codicil)"
:aria :arlina Coscolluela 1 9elleBa" shall immediatel1 seiBe this 8ot )o. !#, from m1
heir and the latter<s heirs" and shall turn it over to m1 near desendants" (sic) and the latter
shall then have the o;ligation to give the 4)> @C)D'>D (!77) piculs of sugar until
:aria :arlina shall die. I further command in this m1 addition (Codicil) that m1 heir and
his heirs of this 8ot )o. !#," that the1 will o;e1 and follow that should the1 decide to
sell" lease" mortgage" the1 cannot negotiate with others than m1 near descendants and
m1 sister.-
6ursuant to the same Codicil" 8ot )o. !#, was transferred to the deceased" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla"
and Transfer Certificate of Title )o. 333#$ thereto issued in his name.
Dr. .orge 'a;adilla died in !#$ and was survived ;1 his wife 'ufina and children .ohnn1
(petitioner)" Aurora" 4felia and Oenaida" all surnamed 'a;adilla.
4n August ,!" !#$#" :aria :arlena Coscolluela 1 9elleBa (illacarlos ;rought a complaint"
docketed as Civil Case )o. **$$" ;efore 9ranch *, of the 'egional Trial Court in 9acolod Cit1"
against the a;ove%mentioned heirs of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" to enforce the provisions of su;5ect
Codicil. The Complaint alleged that the defendant%heirs violated the conditions of the Codicil" in
that:
!. 8ot )o. !#, was mortgaged to the 6hilippine )ational 9ank and the 'epu;lic 6lanters
9ank in disregard of the testatri?<s specific instruction to sell" lease" or mortgage onl1 to
the near descendants and sister of the testatri?.
,. Defendant%heirs failed to compl1 with their o;ligation to deliver one hundred (!77)
piculs of sugar (2* piculs e?port sugar and ,* piculs domestic sugar) to plaintiff :aria
:arlena Coscolluela 1 9elleBa from sugar crop 1ears !#$* up to the filing of the
complaint as mandated ;1 the Codicil" despite repeated demands for compliance.
. The ;anks failed to compl1 with the +th paragraph of the Codicil which provided that in
case of the sale" lease" or mortgage of the propert1" the ;u1er" lessee" or mortgagee
shall likewise have the o;ligation to deliver !77 piculs of sugar per crop 1ear to herein
private respondent.
The plaintiff then pra1ed that 5udgment ;e rendered ordering defendant%heirs to reconve1Ereturn%
8ot )o. !#, to the surviving heirs of the late Ale5a 9elleBa" the cancellation of TCT )o. 333#$ in
the name of the deceased" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the
names of the surviving heirs of the late Ale5a 9elleBa.
4n Fe;ruar1 ,+" !##7" the defendant%heirs were declared in default ;ut on :arch ,$" !##7 the
4rder of Default was lifted" with respect to defendant .ohnn1 0. 'a;adilla" who filed his Answer"
accordingl1.
During the pre%trial" the parties admitted that:
4n )ovem;er !*" !##$" the plaintiff 8private respondent: and a certain Alan ABurin" son%in%law of
the herein petitioner who was lessee of the propert1 and acting as attorne1%in%fact of defendant%
heirs" arrived at an amica;le settlement and entered into a :emorandum of Agreement on the
o;ligation to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar" to the following effect:
-That for crop 1ear !#$$%$#" the annuit1 mentioned in >ntr1 )o. 3#723 of TCT )o. 333$#
will ;e delivered not later than .anuar1 of !#$#" more specificall1" to wit:
2* piculs of <A< sugar" and ,* piculs of <9< sugar" or then e?isting in an1 of
our names" :ar1 'ose 'a;adilla 1 ABurin or Alan ABurin" during
Decem;er of each sugar crop 1ear" in ABucar 0ugar CentralD and" this is
considered compliance of the annuit1 as mentioned" and in the same
manner will compliance of the annuit1 ;e in the ne?t succeeding crop
1ears.
That the annuit1 a;ove stated for crop 1ear !#$*%$+" !#$+%$2" and !#$2%$$" will ;e
complied in cash e=uivalent of the num;er of piculs as mentioned therein and which is as
herein agreed upon" taking into consideration the composite price of sugar during each
sugar crop 1ear" which is in the total amount of 4)> @C)D'>D FI(> T@4C0A)D
6>040 (6!7*"777.77).
That the a;ove%mentioned amount will ;e paid or delivered on a staggered cash installment"
pa1a;le on or ;efore the end of Decem;er of ever1 sugar crop 1ear" to wit:
For !#$*%$+" TA>)T/ 0IM T@4C0A)D TA4 @C)D'>D FIFT/ (6,+",*7.77) 6esos" pa1a;le
on or ;efore Decem;er of crop 1ear !#$$%$#D
For !#$+%$2" TA>)T/ 0IM T@4C0A)D TA4 @C)D'>D FIFT/ (6,+",*7.77) 6esos" pa1a;le
on or ;efore Decem;er of crop 1ear !#$#%#7D
For !#$2%$$" TA>)T/ 0IM T@4C0A)D TA4 @C)D'>D FIFT/ (6,+",*7.77) 6esos" pa1a;le
on or ;efore Decem;er of crop 1ear !##7%#!D and
For !#$$%$#" TA>)T/ 0IM T@4C0A)D TA4 @C)D'>D FIFT/ (6,+",*7.77) 6esos" pa1a;le
on or ;efore Decem;er of crop 1ear !##!%#,.-
@owever" there was no compliance with the aforesaid :emorandum of Agreement e?cept for a
partial deliver1 of *7.$7 piculs of sugar corresponding to sugar crop 1ear !#$$ %!#$#.
4n .ul1 ,," !##!" the 'egional Trial Court came out with a decision" dismissing the complaint
and disposing as follows:
-A@>'>F4'>" in the light of the aforegoing findings" the Court finds that the action is
prematurel1 filed as no cause of action against the defendants has as 1et arose in favor
of plaintiff. Ahile there ma1;e the non%performance of the command as mandated
e?action from them simpl1 ;ecause the1 are the children of .orge 'a;adilla" the title
holderEowner of the lot in =uestion" does not warrant the filing of the present complaint.
The remed1 at ;ar must fall. Incidentall1" ;eing in the categor1 as creditor of the left
estate" it is opined that plaintiff ma1 initiate the intestate proceedings" if onl1 to esta;lish
the heirs of .orge 'a;adilla and in order to give full meaning and sem;lance to her claim
under the Codicil.
In the light of the aforegoing findings" the Complaint ;eing prematurel1 filed is
DI0:I00>D without pre5udice.
04 4'D>'>D.-
4n appeal ;1 plaintiff" the First Division of the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial
courtD ratiocinating and ordering thus:
-Therefore" the evidence on record having esta;lished plaintiff%appellant<s right to receive
!77 piculs of sugar annuall1 out of the produce of 8ot )o. !#,D defendants%appellee<s
o;ligation under Ale5a 9elleBa<s codicil" as heirs of the modal heir" .orge 'a;adilla" to
deliver such amount of sugar to plaintiff%appellantD defendants%appellee<s admitted non%
compliance with said o;ligation since !#$*D and" the punitive conse=uences en5oined ;1
;oth the codicil and the Civil Code" of seiBure of 8ot )o. !#, and its reversion to the
estate of Ale5a 9elleBa in case of such non%compliance" this Court deems it proper to
order the reconve1ance of title over 8ot )o. !#, from the estates of .orge 'a;adilla to
the estate of Ale5a 9elleBa. @owever" plaintiff%appellant must institute separate
proceedings to re%open Ale5a 9elleBa<s estate" secure the appointment of an
administrator" and distri;ute 8ot )o. !#, to Ale5a 9elleBa<s legal heirs in order to enforce
her right" reserved to her ;1 the codicil" to receive her legac1 of !77 piculs of sugar per
1ear out of the produce of 8ot )o. !#, until she dies.
Accordingl1" the decision appealed from is 0>T A0ID> and another one entered ordering
defendants%appellees" as heirs of .orge 'a;adilla" to reconve1 title over 8ot )o. !#,"
together with its fruits and interests" to the estate of Ale5a 9elleBa.
04 4'D>'>D.-
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition ;1 the Court of Appeals" petitioner found his wa1 to this
Court via the present petition" contending that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the
reversion of 8ot !#, to the estate of the testatri? Ale5a 9elleBa on the ;asis of paragraph + of the
Codicil" and in ruling that the testamentar1 institution of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla is a modal institution
within the purview of Article $$, of the )ew Civil Code.
The petition is not impressed with merit.
6etitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the appeal in accordance with
Article $$, of the )ew Civil Code on modal institutions and in deviating from the sole issue raised
which is the a;sence or prematurit1 of the cause of action. 6etitioner maintains that Article $$,
does not find application as there was no modal institution and the testatri? intended a mere
simple su;stitution % i.e. the instituted heir" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" was to ;e su;stituted ;1 the
testatri?<s -near descendants- should the o;ligation to deliver the fruits to herein private
respondent ;e not complied with. And since the testatri? died single and without issue" there can
;e no valid su;stitution and such testamentar1 provision cannot ;e given an1 effect.
The petitioner theoriBes further that there can ;e no valid su;stitution for the reason that the
su;stituted heirs are not definite" as the su;stituted heirs are merel1 referred to as -near
descendants- without a definite identit1 or reference as to who are the -near descendants- and
therefore" under Articles $3 and $3* of the )ew Civil Code" the su;stitution should ;e deemed
as not written.
The contentions of petitioner are untena;le. Contrar1 to his supposition that the Court of Appeals
deviated from the issue posed ;efore it" which was the propriet1 of the dismissal of the complaint
on the ground of prematurit1 of cause of action" there was no such deviation. The Court of
Appeals found that the private respondent had a cause of action against the petitioner. The
dis=uisition made on modal institution was" precisel1" to stress that the private respondent had a
legall1 demanda;le right against the petitioner pursuant to su;5ect CodicilD on which issue the
Court of Appeals ruled in accordance with law.
It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent and compulsor1 heirs are called to succeed ;1 operation of law.
The legitimate children and descendants" in relation to their legitimate parents" and the widow or
widower" are compulsor1 heirs. Thus" the petitioner" his mother and sisters" as compulsor1 heirs
of the instituted heir" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" succeeded the latter ;1 operation of law" without need
of further proceedings" and the successional rights were transmitted to them from the moment of
death of the decedent" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla.
Cnder Article 22+ of the )ew Civil Code" inheritance includes all the propert1" rights and
o;ligations of a person" not e?tinguished ;1 his death. Conforma;l1" whatever rights Dr. .orge
'a;adilla had ;1 virtue of su;5ect Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs" at the time of his
death. And since o;ligations not e?tinguished ;1 death also form part of the estate of the
decedentD corollaril1" the o;ligations imposed ;1 the Codicil on the deceased Dr. .orge 'a;adilla"
were likewise transmitted to his compulsor1 heirs upon his death.
In the said Codicil" testatri? Ale5a 9elleBa devised 8ot )o. !#, to Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" su;5ect to
the condition that the usufruct thereof would ;e delivered to the herein private respondent ever1
1ear. Cpon the death of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" his compulsor1 heirs succeeded to his rights and
title over the said propert1" and the1 also assumed his (decedent<s) o;ligation to deliver the fruits
of the lot involved to herein private respondent. 0uch o;ligation of the instituted heir reciprocall1
corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct" the fulfillment or performance of
which is now ;eing demanded ;1 the latter through the institution of the case at ;ar. Therefore"
private respondent has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing
the complaint ;elow.
6etitioner also theoriBes that Article $$, of the )ew Civil Code on modal institutions is not
applica;le ;ecause what the testatri? intended was a su;stitution % Dr. .orge 'a;adilla was to ;e
su;stituted ;1 the testatri?<s near descendants should there ;e noncompliance with the o;ligation
to deliver the piculs of sugar to private respondent.
Again" the contention is without merit.
0u;stitution is the designation ;1 the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir
or heirs first instituted. Cnder su;stitutions in general" the testator ma1 either (!) provide for the
designation of another heir to whom the propert1 shall pass in case the original heir should die
;efore himEher" renounce the inheritance or ;e incapacitated to inherit" as in a simple su;stitution"
or (,) leave hisEher propert1 to one person with the e?press charge that it ;e transmitted
su;se=uentl1 to another or others" as in a fideicommissar1 su;stitution. The Codicil sued upon
contemplates neither of the two.
In simple su;stitutions" the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir ;1 reason
of incapacit1" predecease or renunciation. In the case under consideration" the provisions of
su;5ect Codicil do not provide that should Dr. .orge 'a;adilla default due to predecease"
incapacit1 or renunciation" the testatri?<s near descendants would su;stitute him. Ahat the Codicil
provides is that" should Dr. .orge 'a;adilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the
Codicil" the propert1 referred to shall ;e seiBed and turned over to the testatri?<s near
descendants.
)either is there a fideicommissar1 su;stitution here and on this point" petitioner is correct. In a
fideicommissar1 su;stitution" the first heir is strictl1 mandated to preserve the 2,o2/,.y and .o
.,an*7-. the same later to the second heir. In the case under consideration" the instituted heir is
in fact allowed under the Codicil to alienate the propert1 provided the negotiation is with the near
descendants or the sister of the testatri?. Thus" a ver1 important element of a fideicommissar1
su;stitution is lackingD the o;ligation clearl1 imposing upon the first heir the preservation of the
propert1 and its transmission to the second heir. -Aithout this o;ligation to preserve clearl1
imposed ;1 the testator in his will" there is no fideicommissar1 su;stitution.- Also" the near
descendants< right to inherit from the testatri? is not definite. The propert1 will onl1 pass to them
should Dr. .orge 'a;adilla or his heirs not fulfill the o;ligation to deliver part of the usufruct to
private respondent.
Another important element of a fideicommissar1 su;stitution is also missing here. Cnder Article
$+" the second heir or the fideicommissar1 to whom the propert1 is transmitted must not ;e
;e1ond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciar1. A fideicommissar1 su;stitution is therefore"
void if the first heir is not related ;1 first degree to the second heir. In the case under scrutin1" the
near descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla.
The Court of Appeals erred not in ruling that the institution of Dr. .orge 'a;adilla under su;5ect
Codicil is in the nature of a modal institution and therefore" Article $$, of the )ew Civil Code is
the provision of law in point. Articles $$, and $$ of the )ew Civil Code provide:
Art. $$,. The statement of the o;5ect of the institution or the application of the propert1
left ;1 the testator" or the charge imposed on him" shall not ;e considered as a condition
unless it appears that such was his intention.
That which has ;een left in this manner ma1 ;e claimed at once provided that the
instituted heir or his heirs give securit1 for compliance with the wishes of the testator and
for the return of an1thing he or the1 ma1 receive" together with its fruits and interests" if
he or the1 should disregard this o;ligation.
Art. $$. Ahen without the fault of the heir" an institution referred to in the preceding
article cannot take effect in the e?act manner stated ;1 the testator" it shall ;e complied
with in a manner most analogous to and in conformit1 with his wishes.
The institution of an heir in the manner prescri;ed in Article $$, is what is known in the law of
succession as an institucion su modo or a modal institution. In a modal institution" the testator
states (!) the o;5ect of the institution" (,) the purpose or application of the propert1 left ;1 the
testator" or () the charge imposed ;1 the testator upon the heir. A -mode- imposes an o;ligation
upon the heir or legatee ;ut it does not affect the efficac1 of his rights to the succession. 4n the
other hand" in a conditional testamentar1 disposition" the condition must happen or ;e fulfilled in
order for the heir to ;e entitled to succeed the testator. The condition suspends ;ut does not
o;ligateD and the mode o;ligates ;ut does not suspend. To some e?tent" it is similar to a
resolutor1 condition.
From the provisions of the Codicil litigated upon" it can ;e gleaned unerringl1 that the testatri?
intended that su;5ect propert1 ;e inherited ;1 Dr. .orge 'a;adilla. It is likewise clearl1 worded
that the testatri? imposed an o;ligation on the said instituted heir and his successors%in%interest to
deliver one hundred piculs of sugar to the herein private respondent" :arlena Coscolluela
9elleBa" during the lifetime of the latter. @owever" the testatri? did not make Dr. .orge 'a;adilla<s
inheritance and the effectivit1 of his institution as a devisee" dependent on the performance of the
said o;ligation. It is clear" though" that should the o;ligation ;e not complied with" the propert1
shall ;e turned over to the testatri?<s near descendants. The manner of institution of Dr. .orge
'a;adilla under su;5ect Codicil is evidentl1 modal in nature ;ecause it imposes a charge upon
the instituted heir without" however" affecting the efficac1 of such institution.
Then too" since testamentar1 dispositions are generall1 acts of li;eralit1" an o;ligation imposed
upon the heir should not ;e considered a condition unless it clearl1 appears from the Aill itself
that such was the intention of the testator. In case of dou;t" the institution should ;e considered
as modal and not conditional.
)either is there tena;ilit1 in the other contention of petitioner that the private respondent has onl1
a right of usufruct ;ut not the right to seiBe the propert1 itself from the instituted heir ;ecause the
right to seiBe was e?pressl1 limited to violations ;1 the ;u1er" lessee or mortgagee.
In the interpretation of Aills" when an uncertaint1 arises on the face of the Aill" as to the
application of an1 of its provisions" the testator<s intention is to ;e ascertained from the words of
the Aill" taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. 0uch construction
as will sustain and uphold the Aill in all its parts must ;e adopted.
0u;5ect Codicil provides that the instituted heir is under o;ligation to deliver 4ne @undred (!77)
piculs of sugar 1earl1 to :arlena 9elleBa Coscuella. 0uch o;ligation is imposed on the instituted
heir" Dr. .orge 'a;adilla" his heirs" and their ;u1er" lessee" or mortgagee should the1 sell" lease"
mortgage or otherwise negotiate the propert1 involved. The Codicil further provides that in the
event that the o;ligation to deliver the sugar is not respected" :arlena 9elleBa Coscuella shall
seiBe the propert1 and turn it over to the testatri?<s near descendants. The non%performance of
the said o;ligation is thus with the sanction of seiBure of the propert1 and reversion thereof to the
testatri?<s near descendants. 0ince the said o;ligation is clearl1 imposed ;1 the testatri?" not onl1
on the instituted heir ;ut also on his successors%in%interest" the sanction imposed ;1 the testatri?
in case of non%fulfillment of said o;ligation should e=uall1 appl1 to the instituted heir and his
successors%in%interest.
0imilarl1 unsustaina;le is petitioner<s su;mission that ;1 virtue of the amica;le settlement" the
said o;ligation imposed ;1 the Codicil has ;een assumed ;1 the lessee" and whatever o;ligation
petitioner had ;ecome the o;ligation of the lesseeD that petitioner is deemed to have made a
su;stantial and constructive compliance of his o;ligation through the consummated settlement
;etween the lessee and the private respondent" and having consummated a settlement with the
petitioner" the recourse of the private respondent is the fulfillment of the o;ligation under the
amica;le settlement and not the seiBure of su;5ect propert1.
0uffice it to state that a Aill is a personal" solemn" revoca;le and free act ;1 which a person
disposes of his propert1" to take effect after his death. 0ince the Aill e?presses the manner in
which a person intends how his properties ;e disposed" the wishes and desires of the testator
must ;e strictl1 followed. Thus" a Aill cannot ;e the su;5ect of a compromise agreement which
would there;1 defeat the ver1 purpose of making a Aill.
9!EREFORE, the petition is here;1 DI0:I00>D and the decision of the Court of Appeals" dated
Decem;er ," !##" in CA%&.'. )o. C(%**** AFFI':>D. )o pronouncement as to costs
'O ORDERED.
G.R. No. 10))8( &an+a,y ((, 1996
"EL#NDA A<EDO, =o, 1/,*/3= and -n ,/2,/*/n.a.-on o= 1/, 0,o.1/,* and *-*./,*, and EOF#LA
%OR$UZ A<EDO, ,/2,/*/n.-n5 1/, 7-no, da+51./, VERNA A<EDO, vs. !E %OUR OF
A$$EAL', '$OU'E' R#%ARDO M. A<EDO AND ERE'#A "ARERA A<EDO,
Is a sale of future inheritance validK In multiple sales of the same real propert1" who has preference in
ownershipK Ahat is the pro;ative value of the lower court<s finding of good faith in registration of such
sales in the registr1 of propert1K These are the main =uestions raised in this 6etition for review on
certiorari under 'ule 3* of the 'ules of Court to set aside and reverse the Decision
!
of the Court of
Appeals
,
in CA%&.'. C( )4. ,3#$2 promulgated on 0eptem;er ,+" !##! affirming the decision of the
'egional Trial Court" 9ranch +" Third .udicial 'egion" Tarlac" Tarlac in Civil Case )o. +,$" and its
'esolution den1ing reconsideration thereof" promulgated on :a1 ,2" !##,.
91 the Court<s 'esolution on 4cto;er ,*" !##*" this case (along with several others) was transferred from
the First to the Third Division and after due deli;eration" the Court assigned it to the undersigned ponente
for the writing of this Decision.
/$e >acts
4n 4cto;er ,7" !#+," 8aBardo TaFedo e?ecuted a notariBed deed of a;solute sale in favor of his eldest
;rother" 'icardo TaFedo" and the latter<s wife" Teresita 9arera" private respondents herein" where;1 he
conve1ed to the latter in consideration of 6!"*77.77" -one hectare of whatever share I shall have over 8ot
)o. !#! of the cadastral surve1 of &erona" 6rovince of Tarlac and covered ;1 Title T%!$,# of the
'egister of Deeds of Tarlac-" the said propert1 ;eing his -future inheritance- from his parents (>?h. !).
Cpon the death of his father :atias" 8aBaro e?ecuted an -Affidavit of Conformit1- dated Fe;ruar1 ,$"
!#$7 (>?h. ) to -re%affirm" respect" acknowledge and validate the sale I made in !#+,.- 4n .anuar1 !"
!#$!" 8aBaro e?ecuted another notariBed deed of sale in favor of private respondents covering his
-undivided 4)> TA>8(> (!E!,) of a parcel of land known as 8ot !#! . . . - (>?h. 3). @e acknowledged
therein his receipt of 6!7"777.77 as consideration therefor. In Fe;ruar1 !#$!" 'icardo learned that 8aBaro
sold the same propert1 to his children" petitioners herein" through a deed of sale dated Decem;er ,#"
!#$7 (>?h. >). 4n .une 2" !#$," private respondents recorded the Deed of 0ale (>?h. 3) in their favor in
the 'egistr1 of Deeds and the corresponding entr1 was made in Transfer Certificate of Title )o. !++3*!
(>?h. *).
6etitioners on .ul1 !+" !#$, filed a complaint for rescission (plus damages) of the deeds of sale e?ecuted
;1 8aBaro in favor of private respondents covering the propert1 inherited ;1 8aBaro from his father.
6etitioners claimed that their father" 8aBaro" e?ecuted an -A;solute Deed of 0ale- dated Decem;er ,#"
!#$7 (>?it. >). Conve1ing to his ten children his allotted portion tinder the e?tra5udicial partition e?ecuted
;1 the heirs of :atias" which deed included the land in litigation (8ot !#!).
6etitioners also presented in evidence: (!) a private writing purportedl1 prepared and signed ;1 :atias
dated Decem;er ,$" !#2$" stating that it was his desire that whatever inheritance 8aBaro would receive
from him should ;e given to his (8aBaro<s) children (>?h. A)D (,) a t1pewritten document dated :arch !7"
!#2# signed ;1 8aBaro in the presence of two witnesses" wherein he confirmed that he would voluntaril1
a;ide ;1 the wishes of his father" :atias" to give to his (8aBaro<s) children all the propert1 he would inherit
from the latter (>?h. 9)D and () a letter dated .anuar1 !" !#$7 of 8aBaro to his daughter" Carmela" stating
that his share in the e?tra5udicial settlement of the estate of his father was intended for his children"
petitioners herein (>?h. C).
6rivate respondents" however presented in evidence a -Deed of 'evocation of a Deed of 0ale- dated
:arch !," !#$! (>?h. +)" wherein 8aBaro revoked the sale in favor of petitioners for the reason that it was
-simulated or fictitious without an1 consideration whatsoever-.
0hortl1 after the case a !uo was filed" 8aBaro e?ecuted a sworn statement (>?h. &) which virtuall1
repudiated the contents of the Deed of 'evocation of a Deed of 0ale (>?h. +) and the Deed of 0ale (>?h.
3) in favor of private respondents. @owever" 8aBaro testified that he sold the propert1 to 'icardo" and that
it was a law1er who induced him to e?ecute a deed of sale in favor of his children after giving him five
pesos (6*.77) to ;u1 a -drink- (T0) 0eptem;er !$" !#$*" pp. ,73%,7*).
The trial court decided in favor of private respondents" holding that petitioners failed -to adduce a
proponderance of evidence to support (their) claim.- 4n appeal" the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court" ruling that the Deed of 0ale dated .anuar1 !" !#$! (>?h. #) was valid and that
its registration in good faith vested title in said respondents.
/$e Issues
6etitioners raised the following -errors- in the respondent Court" which the1 also now allege in the instant
6etition:
I. The trial court erred in concluding that the Contract of 0ale of 4cto;er ,7" !#+, (>?hi;it 2"
Answer) is merel1 voida;le or annula;le and not void a initio pursuant to paragraph , of Article
!32 of the )ew Civil Code involving as it does a -future inheritance-.
II. The trial court erred in holding that defendants%appellees acted in good faith in registering the
deed of sale of .anuar1 !" !#$! (>?hi;it #) with the 'egister of Deeds of Tarlac and therefore
ownership of the land in =uestion passed on to defendants%appellees.
III. The trial court erred in ignoring and failing to consider the testimonial and documentar1
evidence of plaintiffs%appellants which clearl1 esta;lished ;1 preponderance of evidence that the1
are indeed the legitimate and lawful owners of the propert1 in =uestion.
I(. The decision is contrar1 to law and the facts of the case and the conclusions drawn from the
esta;lished facts are illogical and off%tangent.
From the foregoing" the issues ma1 ;e restated as follows:
!. Is the sale of a future inheritance validK
,. Aas the su;se=uent e?ecution on .anuar1 !" !#$! (and registration with the 'egistr1 of
6ropert1) of a deed of sale covering the same propert1 to the same ;u1ers validK
. :a1 this Court review the findings of the respondent Court (a) holding that the ;u1ers acted in
good faith in registering the said su;se=uent deed of sale and (;) in -failing to consider
petitioners< evidence-K Are the conclusions of the respondent Court -illogical and off%tangent-K
/$e Court9s -uling
At the outset" let it ;e clear that the -errors- which are reviewa;le ;1 this Court in this petition for review
on certiorari are onl1 those allegedl1 committed ;1 the respondent Court of Appeals and not directl1 those
of the trial court" which is not a part1 here. The -assignment of errors- in the petition =uoted a;ove are
therefore totall1 misplaced" and for that reason" the petition should ;e dismissed. 9ut in order to give the
parties su;stantial 5ustice we have decided to delve into the issues as a;ove re%stated. The errors
attri;uted ;1 petitioners to the latter (trial) court will ;e discussed onl1 insofar as the1 are relevant to the
appellate court<s assailed Decision and 'esolution.
The sale made in !#+, involving future inheritance is not reall1 at issue here. In conte?t" the assailed
Decision conceded -it ma1 ;e legall1 correct that a contract of sale of anticipated future inheritance is null
and void.-

9ut to remove all dou;ts" we here;1 categoricall1 rule that" pursuant to Article !32 of the Civil Code"
-(n)o contract ma1 ;e entered into upon a future inheritance e?cept in cases e?pressl1 authoriBed ;1 law.-
Conse=uentl1" said contract made in !#+, is not valid and cannot ;e the source of an1 right nor the
creator of an1 o;ligation ;etween the parties.
@ence" the -affidavit of conformit1- dated Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#$7" insofar as it sought to validate or ratif1 the
!#+, sale" is also useless and" in the words of the respondent Court" -suffers from the same infirmit1.-
>ven private respondents in their memorandum
3
concede this.
@owever" the documents that are critical to the resolution of this case are: (a) the deed of sale of .anuar1
!" !#$! in favor of private respondents covering 8aBaro<s undivided inheritance of one%twelfth (!E!,)
share in 8ot )o. !#!" which was su;se=uentl1 registered on .une 2" !#$,D and (;) the deed of sale dated
Decem;er ,#" !#$7 in favor of petitioners covering the same propert1. These two documents were
e?ecuted after the death of :atias (and his spouse) and after a deed of e?tra%5udicial settlement of his
(:atias<) estate was e?ecuted" thus vesting in 8aBaro actual title over said propert1. In other words" these
dispositions" though conflicting" were no longer infected with the infirmities of the !#+, sale.
6etitioners contend that what was sold on .anuar1 !" !#$! was onl1 one%half hectare out of 8ot )o. !#!"
citing as authorit1 the trial court<s decision. As earlier pointed out" what is on review in these proceedings
;1 this Court is the Court of Appeals< decision J which correctl1 identified the su;5ect matter of the
.anuar1 !" !#$! sale to ;e the entire undivided !E!, share of 8aBaro in 8ot )o. !#! and which is the
same propert1 disposed of on Decem;er ,#" !#$7 in favor of petitioners.
Critical in determining which of these two deeds should ;e given effect is the registration of the sale in
favor of private respondents with the register of deeds on .une 2" !#$,.
Article !*33 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees in cases of multiple sales" as
follows:
Art. !*33. If the same thing should have ;een sold to different vendees" the ownership shall ;e
transferred to the person who ma1 have first taken possession thereof in good faith" if it should ;e
mova;le propert1.
0hould it ;e immova;le propert1" the ownership shall ;elong to the person ac=uiring it who in
good faith first recorded it in the 'egistr1 of 6ropert1.
0hould there ;e no inscription" the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was
first in the possessionD and" in the a;sence thereof" to the person who presents the oldest title"
provided there is good faith.
The propert1 in =uestion is land" an immova;le" and following the a;ove%=uoted law" ownership shall
;elong to the ;u1er who in good faith registers it first in the registr1 of propert1. Thus" although the deed
of sale in favor of private respondents was later than the one in favor of petitioners" ownership would vest
in the former ;ecause of the undisputed fact of registration. 4n the other hand" petitioners have not
registered the sale to them at all.
6etitioners contend that the1 were in possession of the propert1 and that private respondents never took
possession thereof. As ;etween two purchasers" the one who registered the sale in his favor has a
preferred right over the other who has not registered his title" even if the latter is in actual possession of
the immova;le propert1.
*

As to third issue" while petitioners conceded the fact of registration" the1 nevertheless contended that it
was done in ;ad faith. 4n this issue" the respondent Court ruledD
Cnder the second assignment of error" plaintiffs%appellants contend that defendants%appellees
acted in ;ad faith when the1 registered the Deed of 0ale in their favor as appellee 'icardo
alread1 knew of the e?ecution of the deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffsD appellants cite the
testimon1 of plaintiff 9elinda TaFedo to the effect that defendant 'icardo TaFedo called her up on
.anuar1 3 or *" !#$! to tell her that he was alread1 the owner of the land in =uestion -;ut the
contract of sale ;etween our father and us were (sic) alread1 consumated- (pp. #%!7" tsn" .anuar1
+" !#$3). This testimon1 is o;viousl1 self%serving" and ;ecause it was a telephone conversation"
the deed of sale dated Decem;er ,#" !#$7 was not shownD 9elinda merel1 told her uncle that
there was alread1 a document showing that plaintiffs are the owners (p. $7). 'icardo TaFedo
controverted this and testified that he learned for the first time of the deed of sale e?ecuted ;1
8aBaro in favor of his children -a;out a month or sometime in Fe;ruar1 !#$!- (p. !!!" tsn" )ov.
,$" !#$3). . . .
+
The respondent Court" reviewing the trial court<s findings" refused to overturn the latter<s assessment of
the testimonial evidence" as followsD
Ae are not prepared to set aside the finding of the lower court upholding 'icardo TaFedo<s
testimon1" as it involves a matter of credi;ilit1 of witnesses which the trial 5udge" who presided at
the hearing" was in a ;etter position to resolve. (Court of Appeals< Decision" p. +.)
In this connection" we note the tenacious allegations made ;1 petitioners" ;oth in their ;asic petition and
in their memorandum" as follows:
!. The respondent Court allegedl1 ignored the claimed fact that respondent 'icardo -;1 fraud and
deceit and with foreknowledge- that the propert1 in =uestion had alread1 ;een sold to petitioners"
made 8aBaro e?ecute the deed of .anuar1 !" !#$!D
,. There is allegedl1 ade=uate evidence to show that onl1 !E, of the purchase price of
6!7"777.77 was paid at the time of the e?ecution of the deed of sale" contrar1 to the written
acknowledgment" thus showing ;ad faithD
. There is allegedl1 sufficient evidence showing that the deed of revocation of the sale in favor of
petitioners -was tainted with fraud or deceit.-
3. There is allegedl1 enough evidence to show that private respondents -took undue advantage
over the weakness and unschooled and pitiful situation of 8aBaro TaFedo . . .- and that
respondent 'icardo TaFedo -e?ercised moral ascendanc1 over his 1ounger ;rother he ;eing the
eldest ;rother and who reached fourth 1ear college of law and at one time a former (ice%
&overnor of Tarlac" while his 1ounger ;rother onl1 attained first 1ear high school . . . D
*. The respondent Court erred in not giving credence to petitioners< evidence" especiall1 8aBaro
TaFedo<s Sinumpaang Salaysay dated .ul1 ,2" !#$, stating that 'icardo TaFedo deceived the
former in e?ecuting the deed of sale in favor of private respondents.
To ;e sure" there are indeed man1 conflicting documents and testimonies as well as arguments over their
pro;ative value and significance. 0uffice it to sa1" however" that all the a;ove contentions involve
=uestions of fact" appreciation of evidence and credi;ilit1 of witnesses" which are not proper in this
review. It is well%settled that the 0upreme Court is not a trier of facts. In petitions for review under 'ule 3*
of the 'evised 'ules of Court" onl1 =uestions of law ma1 ;e raised and passed upon. A;sent an1
whimsical or capricious e?ercise of 5udgment" and unless the lack of an1 ;asis for the conclusions made
;1 the lower courts ;e ampl1 demonstrated" the 0upreme Court will not distur; their findings. At most" it
appears that petitioners have shown that their evidence was not ;elieved ;1 ;oth the trial and the
appellate courts" and that the said courts tended to give more credence to the evidence presented ;1
private respondents. 9ut this in itself is not a reason for setting aside such findings. Ae are far from
convinced that ;oth courts gravel1 a;used their respective authorities and 5udicial prerogatives.
As held in the recent case of C$ua /iong /ay vs. Court of "ppeals and Boldroc# Construction and
&evelopment Corp.
2
The Court has consistentl1 held that the factual findings of the trial court" as well as the Court of Appeals"
are final and conclusive and ma1 not ;e reviewed on appeal. Among the e?ceptional circumstances
where a reassessment of facts found ;1 the lower courts is allowed are when the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirel1 on speculation" surmises or con5ecturesD when the inference made is manifestl1 a;surd"
mistaken or impossi;leD when there is grave a;use of discretion in the appreciation of factsD when the
5udgment is premised on a misapprehension of factsD when the findings went ;e1ond the issues of the
case and the same are contrar1 to the admissions of ;oth appellant and appellee. After a careful stud1 of
the case at ;ench" we find none of the a;ove grounds present to 5ustif1 the re%evaluation of the findings of
fact made ;1 the courts ;elow.
In the same vein" the ruling in the recent case of Sout$ Sea Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Hon.
Court of "ppeals, et al.
$
is e=uall1 applica;le to the present case:
Ae see no valid reason to discard the factual conclusions of the appellate court. . . . (I)t is not the
function of this Court to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence" testimonial and
documentar1" adduced ;1 the parties" particularl1 where" such as here" the findings of ;oth the
trial court and the appellate court on the matter coincide. (emphasis supplied)
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFI':>D.
)o Costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-)(75 Ma,>1 (3, 1909
$AULA %ONDE vs. ROMAN A"AYA
From the hearing of the appeal interposed ;1 'oman A;a1a in the special proceedings ;rought in the
Court of First Instance of 8a 8aguna for the settlement of the intestate estate and the distri;ution of the
propert1 of Casiano A;a1a it appears:
I. As antecedents: that Casiano A;a1a" unmarried" the son of 'omualdo A;a1a and 0a;rina 8a;adia"
died on the +th of April" !$##D that 6aula Conde" as the mother of the natural children .ose and Teopista
Conde" whom the states she had ;1 Casiano A;a1a" on the +th of )ovem;er" !#7*" moved the
settlement of the said intestate successionD that an administrator having ;een appointed for the said
estate on the ,*th of )ovem;er" !#7*" 'oman A;a1a" a son of the said 'omualdo A;a1a and 0a;rina
8a;adia" the parents of the late Casiano A;a1a" came forward and opposed said appointment and
claimed it for himself as ;eing the nearest relative of the deceasedD that this was granted ;1 the court
;elow on the #th of .anuar1" !#7+D that on the !2th of )ovem;er" !#7+" 'oman A;a1a moved that" after
due process of law" the court declare him to ;e the sole heir of Casiano A;a1a" to the e?clusion of all
other persons" especiall1 of 6aula Conde" and to ;e therefore entitled to take possession of all the
propert1 of said estate" and that it ;e ad5udicated to himD and that on )ovem;er ,," !#7+" the court
ordered the pu;lication of notices for the declaration of heirs and distri;ution of the propert1 of the estate.
II. That on the ,$th of )ovem;er" !#7+" 6aula Conde" in repl1ing to the foregoing motion of 'oman
A;a1a" filed a petition wherein she stated that she acknowledged the relationship alleged ;1 'oman
A;a1a" ;ut that she considered that her right was superior to his and moved for a hearing of the matter"
and" in conse=uence of the evidence that she intended to present she pra1ed that she ;e declared to
have preferential rights to the propert1 left ;1 Casiano A;a1a" and that the same ;e ad5udicated to her
together with the corresponding products thereof.
III. That the trial was held" ;oth parties presenting documentar1 and oral evidence" and the court ;elow
entered the following 5udgment:
That the administrator of the estate of Casiano A;a1a should recogniBe Teopista and .ose Conde
as ;eing natural children of Casiano A;a1aD that the petitioner 6aula Conde should succeed to
the hereditar1 rights of her children with respect to the inheritance of their deceased natural father
Casiano A;a1aD and therefore" it is here;1 declared that she is the onl1 heir to the propert1 of the
said intestate estate" to the e?clusion of the administrator" 'oman A;a1a.
I(. That 'oman A;a1a e?cepted to the foregoing 5udgment" appealed to this court" and presented the
following statement of errors:
!. The fact that the court ;elow found that an ordinar1 action for the acknowledgment of natural children
under articles !* and !2 of the Civil Code" might ;e ;rought in special pro;ate proceedings.
,. The finding that after the death of a person claimed to ;e an unacknowledged natural child" the mother
of such presumed natural child" as heir to the latter" ma1 ;ring an action to enforce the acknowledgment
of her deceased child in accordance with articles !* and !2 of the Civil Code.
. The finding in the 5udgment that the alleged continuos possession of the deceased children of 6aula
Conde of the status of natural children of the late Casiano A;a1a" has ;een full1 proven in these
proceedingsD and
3. 4n the h1pothesis that it was proper to ad5udicate the propert1 of this intestate estate to 6aula Conde"
as improperl1 found ;1 the court ;elow" the court erred in not having declared that said propert1 should
;e reserved in favor of relatives of Casiano A;a1a to the third degree" and in not having previousl1
demanded securities from 6aula Conde to guarantee the transmission of the propert1 to those who might
fall within the reservation.
As to the first error assigned" the =uestion is set up as to whether in special proceedings for the
administration and distri;ution of an intestate estate" an action might ;e ;rought to enforce the
acknowledgment of the natural child of the person from whom the inheritance is derived" that is to sa1"
whether one might appear as heir on the ground that he is a recogniBed natural child of the deceased" not
having ;een so recogniBed ;1 the deceased either voluntaril1 or compulsoril1 ;1 reason of a pree?isting
5udicial decision" ;ut asking at the same time that" in the special proceeding itself" he ;e recogniBed ;1
the presumed legitimate heirs of the deceased who claim to ;e entitled to the succession opened in the
special proceeding.
According to section 2$, of the Code of Civil 6rocedure J
If there shall ;e a controvers1 ;efore the Court of First Instance as to who the lawful heirs of the
deceased person are" or as to the distri;utive share to which each person is entitled under the
law" the testimon1 as to such controvers1 shall ;e taken in writing ;1 the 5udge" under oath" and
signed ;1 the witness. An1 part1 in interest whose distri;utive share is affected ;1 the
determination of such controvers1" ma1 appeal from the 5udgment of the Court of First Instance
determining such controvers1 to the 0upreme Court" within the time and in the manner provided
in the last preceding section.
This court has decided the present =uestion in the manner shown in the case of @uana *imentel vs.
Engracio *alanca (* 6hil. 'ep." 3+.)
The main =uestion with regard to the second error assigned" is whether or not the mother of a natural
child now deceased" ;ut who survived the person who" it is claimed" was his natural father" also
deceased" ma1 ;ring an action for the acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor of such child in
order to appear in his ;ehalf to receive the inheritance from the person who is supposed to ;e his natural
father.
In order to decide in the affirmative the court ;elow has assigned the following as the onl1 foundation:
In resolving a similar =uestion :anresa sa1s: -An acknowledgment can onl1 ;e demanded ;1 the
natural child and his descendants whom it shall ;enefit" and should the1 ;e minors or otherwise
incapacitated" such person as legall1 represents themD the mother ma1 ask it in ;ehalf of her child
so long as he is under her authorit1.- 4n this point no positive declaration has ;een made"
undou;tedl1 ;ecause it was not considered necessar1. A private action is in =uestion and the
general rule must ;e followed. >lsewhere the same author adds: -It ma1 so happen that the child
dies ;efore four 1ears have e?pired after attaining ma5orit1" or that the document supporting his
petition for acknowledgment is discovered after his death" such death perhaps occurring after his
parents had died" as is supposed ;1 article !2" or during their lifetime. In an1 case such right of
action shall pertain to the descendants of the child whom the acknowledgment ma1 interest.-
(0ee Commentaries to arts. !* and !2" Civil Code" (ol. I.)
The a;ove doctrine" advanced ;1 one of the most eminent commentators of the Civil Code" lacks legal
and doctrinal foundation. The power to transmit the right of such action ;1 the natural child to his
descendants can not ;e sustained under the law" and still less to his mother.
It is without an1 support in law ;ecause the rule laid down in the code is most positive" limiting in form"
when esta;lishing the e?ception for the e?ercise of such right of action after the death of the presumed
parents" as is shown hereafter. It is not supported ;1 an1 doctrine" ;ecause up to the present time no
argument has ;een presented" upon which even an appro?imate conclusion could ;e ;ased.
Although the Civil Code considera;l1 improved the condition of recogniBed natural children" granting them
rights and actions that the1 did not possess under the former laws" the1 were not" however" placed upon
the same place as legitimate ones. The difference that separates these two classes of children is still
great" as proven ;1 so man1 articles dealing with the rights of the famil1 and the succession in relation to
the mem;ers thereof. It ma1 ;e laid down as legal ma?im" that whatever the code does not grant to the
legitimate children" or in connection with their rights" must still less ;e understood as granted to
recogniBed natural children or in connection with their rights. There is not a single e?ception in its
provisions.
If legitimac1 is the attri;ute that constitutes the ;asis of the a;solute famil1 rights of the child" the
acknowledgment of the natural child is" among illegitimate ones" that which unites him to the famil1 of the
father or the mother who recogniBed him" and affords him a participation in the rights of the famil1"
relativel1 advantageous according to whether the1 are alone or whether the1 concur with other individuals
of the famil1 of his purel1 natural father or mother.
Thus" in order to consider the spirit of the Civil Code" nothing is more logical than to esta;lish a
comparison ;etween an action to claim the legitimac1" and one to enforce acknowledgment.
A'T. !!$. The action to claim its legitimac1 ma1 ;e ;rought ;1 the child at an1 time of its lifetime
and shall ;e transmitted to its heirs" should it die during minorit1 or in a state of insanit1. In such
cases the heirs shall ;e allowed a period of five 1ears in which to institute the action.
The action alread1 instituted ;1 the child is transmitted ;1 its death to the heirs" if it has not lapsed ;efore
then.
A'T. !2. The actions for the acknowledgment of natural children can ;e instituted only during
the life of the presumed parents" e?cept in the following cases:
!. If the father or mother died during the maturit1 of the child" in which case t$e latter ma1 institute
the action ;efore the e?piration of the first four 1ears of its maturit1.
,. If" after the death of the father or mother" some instrument" ;efore unknown" should ;e
discovered in which the child is e?pressl1 acknowledged.
In this case the action must ;e instituted with the si? months following the discover1 of such
instrument.
4n this supposition the first difference that results ;etween one action and the other consists in that the
right of action for legitimac1 lasts during the whole lifetime of the child" that is" it can alwa1s ;e ;rought
against the presumed parents or their heirs ;1 the child itself" while the right of action for the
acknowledgment of a natural child does not last his whole lifetime" and" as a general rule" it can not ;e
instituted against the heirs of the presumed parents" inasmuch as it can ;e e?ercised only during the life
of the presumed parents.
Aith regard to the =uestion at issue" that is" the transmission to the heirs of the presumed parents of the
o;ligation to admit the legitimate filiation" or to recogniBe the natural filiation" there e?ists the most radical
difference in that the former continues during the life of the child who claims to ;e legitimate" and he ma1
demand it either directl1 and primaril1 from the said presumed parents" or indirectl1 and secondaril1 from
the heirs of the latterD while the second does not endure for lifeD as a general rule" it only lasts during the
life of the presumed parents. @ence the other difference" derived as a conse=uence" that an action for
legitimac1 is alwa1s ;rought against the heirs of the presumed parents in case of the death of the latter"
while the action for acknowledgment is not ;rought against the heirs of such parents" with the e?ception
of the two cases prescri;ed ;1 article !2 transcri;ed a;ove.
0o much for the passive transmission of the o;ligation to admit the legitimate filiation" or to acknowledge
the natural filiation.
As to the transmission to the heirs of the child of the latter9s action to claim his legitimac1" or to o;tain the
acknowledgment of his natural filiation" it is seen that the code grants it in the first case" ;ut not in the
second. It contains provisions for the transmission of the right of action which" for the purpose claiming his
legitimac1 inheres in the child" ;ut it does not sa1 a word with regard to the transmission of the right to
o;tain the acknowledgment of the natural filiation.
Therefore" the respective corollar1 of each of the two a;ove%cited articles is: (!) That the right of action
which devolves upon the child to claim his legitimac1 under article !!$" ma1 ;e transmitted to his heirs in
certain cases designated in the said articleD (,) That the right of action for the acknowledgment of natural
children to which article !2 refers" can never ;e transmitted" for the reason that the code makes no
mention of it in an1 case" not even as an e?ception.
It is most illogical and contrar1 to ever1 rule of correct interpretation" that the right of action to secure
acknowledgment ;1 the natural child should ;e presumed to ;e transmitted" independentl1" as a rule" to
his heirs" while the right of action to claim legitimac1 from his predecessor is not e?pressl1" independentl1"
or" as a general rule" conceded to the heirs of the legitimate child" ;ut onl1 relativel1 and as an e?ception.
Conse=uentl1" the pretension that the right of action on the part of the child to o;tain the acknowledgment
of his natural filiation is transmitted to his descendants is altogether unfounded. )o legal provision e?ists
to sustain such pretension" nor can an argument of presumption ;e ;ased on the lesser claim when there
is no ;asis for the greater one" and when it is onl1 given as an e?ception in well%defined cases. It is
placing the heirs of the natural child on a ;etter footing than the heirs of the legitimate one" when" as a
matter of fact" the position of a natural child is no ;etter than" no even e=ual to" that of a legitimate child.
From the e?press and precise precepts of the code the following conclusions are derived:
The right of action that devolves upon the child to claim his legitimac1 lasts during his whole life" while the
right to claim the acknowledgment of a natural child lasts onl1 during the life of his presumed parents.
Inasmuch as the right of action accruing to the child to claim his legitimac1 lasts during his whole life" he
ma1 e?ercise it either against the presumed parents" or their heirsD while the right of action to secure the
acknowledgment of a natural child" since it does not last during his whole life" ;ut depends on that of the
presumed parents" as a general rule can onl1 ;e e?ercised against the latter.
Csuall1 the right of action for legitimac1 devolving upon the child is of a personal character and pertains
e?clusivel1 to him" onl1 the child ma1 e?ercise it at an1 time during his lifetime. As an e?ception" and in
three cases onl1" it ma1 ;e transmitted to the heirs of the child" to wit" if he died during his minorit1" or
while insane" or after action had ;een alread1 instituted.
An action for the acknowledgment of a natural child ma1" as an e?ception" ;e e?ercised against the heirs
of the presumed parents in two cases: first" in the event of the death of the latter during the minorit1 of the
child" and second" upon the discover1 of some instrument of e?press acknowledgment of the child"
e?ecuted ;1 the father or mother" the e?istence of which was unknown during the life of the latter.
9ut such action for the acknowledgment of a natural child can onl1 ;e e?ercised ;1 $im. It can not ;e
transmitted to his descendants" or his ascendants.
In support of the foregoing the following authorities ma1 ;e cited:
0ancheB 'oman" in his Treatise of Civil 8aw" propounds the =uestion as to whether said action should ;e
considered transmissive to the heirs or descendants of the natural child" whether he had or had not
e?ercised it up to the time of his death" and decides it as follows:
There is an entire a;sence of legal provisions" and at most" it might ;e deemed admissi;le as a
solution" that the right of action to claim the acknowledgment of a natural child is transmitted ;1
the analog1 to his heirs on the same conditions and terms that it is transmitted to the
descendants of a legitimate child" to claim his legitimac1" under article !!$" ;ut nothing moreD
;ecause on this point nothing warrants placing the heirs of a natural child on a ;etter footing than
those of the legitimate child" and even to compare them %ould not fail to e a strained and
!uestionale matter" and one of great difficulty for decision ;1 the courts" for the simple reason
that for the heirs of the legitimate child" the said article !!$ e?ists" while for those of the natural
child" as we have said" there is no provision in the code authoriBing the same" although on the
other hand there is none that prohi;its it. ((ol. (.)
DiaB &ui5arro and :artineB 'uiB in their work on -The Civil Code as construed ;1 the supreme court of
0pain"- commenting upon article !2" sa1:
Article !!$" taking into account the privileges due to the legitimac1 of children" grants them the
right to claim said legitimac1 during their lifetime" and even authoriBes the transmission of said
right for the space of five 1ears to the heirs thereof" if the child die during his minorit1 or in a state
of insanit1. 9ut as article !2 is ;ased on the consideration that in the case of a natural child" ties
are less strong and sacred in the e1es of the law" it does not fi? such a long and indefinite period
for the e?ercise of the actionD it limits it to the life of the parents" e?cepting in the two cases
mentioned in said articleD and it does not allo%" as does article !!$" the action to pass on to the
heirs" inasmuch as" although it does not prohi;it it" and for that reason it might ;e deemed on
general principles of law to consent to it" suc$ a supposition is inadmissile for the reason that a
comparison of ;oth articles shows that the silence of the law in the latter case is not" nor it can
;e" an omission" ;ut a deli;erate intent to esta;lish a wide difference ;etween the advantages
granted to a legitimate child and to a natural one.
(Iid." (ol. II" !2!.)
)avarro Amandi (Cuestionario del CCdigo Civil) raises the =uestion: -Can the heirs of a natural child claim
the acknowledgment in those cases wherein the father or mother are under o;ligation to acknowledge-K
And sa1s:
4pinions are widel1 divergent. The court of 'ennes held (on April !" !$33) that the right of
investigation forms a part of the estate of the child" and along with his patrimon1 is transmitted to
his heirs. The affirmation is altogether too categorical to ;e admissi;le. If it were correct the same
thing would happen as when the legitimac1 of a child is claimed" and as alread1 seen" the right of
action to demand the legitimac1 is not transmitted to the heirs in ever1 case and as an a;solute
right" ;ut under certain limitations and circumstances. )ow" were we to admit the doctrine of the
court of 'ennes" the result would ;e that the claim for natural filiation would ;e more favored than
one for legitimate filiation. This would ;e a;surd" ;ecause it can not ;e conceived that the
legislator should have granted a right of action to the heirs of the natural child" which is onl1
granted under great limitations and in ver1 few cases to those of a legitimate one. 0ome persons
insist that the same rules that govern legitimate filiation appl1 ;1 analog1 to natural child are
entitled to claim it in the cases prescri;ed ;1 the article !!$. The ma5orit1" however" are inclined
to consider the right to claim acknowledgment as a personal right" and conse=uentl1" not
transmissive to the heirs. 'eall1 there are no legal grounds to warrant the transmission. ((ol. ,"
,,#.)
In a decision like the present one it is impossi;le to ;ring forward the argument of analog1 for the purpose
of considering that the heirs of the natural child are entitled to the right of action which article !!$
concedes to the heirs of the legitimate child. The e?istence of a provision for the one case and the
a;sence thereof for the other is a conclusive argument that inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" and it can
not ;e understood that the provision of law should ;e the same when the same reason does not hold in
the one case as in the other.
The theor1 of law of transmission is also entirel1 inapplica;le in this case. This theor1" which in the
'oman 8aw e?pressed the general rule than an heir who did not accept an inheritance during his lifetime
was incapacitated from transmitting it to his own heirs" included at the same time the idea that if the
inheritance was not transmitted ;ecause the heir did not possess it" there were" however" certain things
which the heir held and could transmit. 0uch was the law and the right to accept the inheritance" for the
e?isting reason that all rights" ;oth real and personal" shall pass to the heirD !uia $aeres representat
defunctum in omnius et per omnia. According to the article +*# of the Civil Code" -the inheritance
includes all the propert1" rights" and o;ligations of a person" which are not e?tinguished ;1 his death.- If
the mother is the heir of her natural child" and the latter" among other rights during his lifetime was entitled
to e?ercise an action of his acknowledgment against his father" during the life of the latter" if after his
death in some of the e?cepting cases of article !2" such right" which is a portion of his inheritance" is
transmitted to his mother as ;eing his heir" and it was so understood ;1 the court of 'ennes when it
considered the right in =uestion" not as a personal and e?clusive right of the child which is e?tinguished
;1 his death" ;ut a an1 other right which might ;e transmitted after his death. This right of supposed
transmission is even less tena;le than that sought to ;e sustained ;1 the argument of analog1.
The right of action pertaining to the child to claim his legitimac1 is in all respects superior to that of the
child who claims acknowledgment as a natural child. And it is evident that the right of action to claim his
legitimac1 is not one of those rights which the legitimate child ma1 transmit ;1 inheritance to his heirsD it
forms no part of the component rights of his inheritance. If it were so" there would have ;een no necessit1
to esta;lish its transmissi;ilit1 to heirs as an e?ception in the terms and conditions of article !!$ of the
code. 0o that" in order that it ma1 constitute a portion of the child<s inheritance" it is necessar1 that the
conditions and the terms contained in article !!$ shall ;e present" since without them" the right that the
child held during his lifetime" ;eing personal and e?clusive in principle" and therefore" as a general rule
not suscepti;le of transmission" would and should have ;een e?tinguished ;1 his death. Therefore" where
no e?press provision like that of article !!$ e?ists" the right of action for the acknowledgment of a natural
child is" in principle and without e?ception" e?tinguished ;1 his death" and can not ;e transmitted as a
portion of the inheritance of the deceased child.
4n the other hand" if said right of action formed a part of the child<s inheritance" it would ;e necessar1 to
esta;lish the doctrine that the right to claim such an acknowledgment from the presumed natural father
and from his heirs is an a;solute right of the heirs of the child" not limited ;1 certain circumstances as in
the case of the heirs of a natural child with a legitimate one to place the heirs of a natural child and his
inheritance on a ;etter footing than those of a legitimate child would not onl1 ;e unreasona;le" ;ut" as
stated in one of the a;ove citations" most a;surd and illegal in the present state of the law and in
accordance with the general principles thereof.
For all of the foregoing reasons we here;1 reverse the 5udgment appealed from in all its parts" without an1
special ruling as to the costs of this instance.
6apa, @o$nson, Carson, and 7illard, @@., concur.
G.R. No. L-33187 Ma,>1 31, 1980
%ORNEL#O $AM$LONA a3-a* GEM#N#ANO $AM$LONA and A$OLON#A ONE, vs. V#VEN%#O
MOREO, V#%OR MOREO, EL#G#O MOREO, MAR%ELO MOREO, $AUL#NA MOREO,
RO'AR#O MOREO, MARA MOREO, 'EVER#NA MENDOZA, $A"LO MENDOZA, LAZARO
MENDOZA, V#%OR#A U#ZA, &O'EF#NA MOREO, LEANDRO MOREO and LORENZO
MENDOZA,
This is a petition for certiorari ;1 wa1 of appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals
1
in CA%&.'. )o.
*#+,%'" entitled -?ivencio 6oreto, et al." 6laintiff%Appellees vs. Cornelio *amplona, et al." Defendants%
Appellants"- affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of 8aguna" 9ranch I at 9iFan.
The facts" as stated in the decision appealed from" show that:
Flaviano :oreto and :onica :aniega were hus;and and wife. During their marriage" the1 ac=uired
ad5acent lots )os. !3#*" 3*3*" and !3#+ of the Calam;a Friar 8and >state" situated in Calam;a" 8aguna"
containing 2$!%*33 and !"7,! s=uare meters respectivel1 and covered ;1 certificates of title issued in the
name of -Flaviano :oreto" married to :onica :aniega.-
The spouses Flaviano :oreto and :onica :aniega ;egot during their marriage si? (+) children" namel1"
Crsulo" :arta" 8a 6aB" Alipio" 6a;lo" and 8eandro" all surnamed :oreto.
Crsulo :oreto died intestate on :a1 ,3" !#*# leaving as his heirs herein plaintiffs (ivencio" :arcelo"
'osario" (ictor" 6aulina" :arta and >ligio" all surnamed :oreto.
:arta :oreto died also intestate on April 7" !#$ leaving as her heir plaintiff (ictoria TuiBa.
8a 6aB :oreto died intestate on .ul1 !2" !#*3 leaving the following heirs" namel1" herein plaintiffs 6a;lo"
0everina" 8aBaro" and 8orenBo" all surnamed :endoBa.
Alipio :oreto died intestate on .une 7" !#3 leaving as his heir herein plaintiff .osefina :oreto.
6a;lo :oreto died intestate on April ,*" !#3, leaving no issue and as his heirs his ;rother plaintiff
8eandro :oreto and the other plaintiffs herein.
4n :a1 +" !#3+" :onica :aniega died intestate in Calam;a" 8aguna.
4n .ul1 7" !#*," or more than si? (+) 1ears after the death of his wife :onica :aniega" Flaviano :oreto"
without the consent of the heirs of his said deceased wife :onica" and ;efore an1 li=uidation of the
con5ugal partnership of :onica and Flaviano could ;e effected" e?ecuted in favor of &eminiano
6amplona" married to defendant Apolonia 4nte" the deed of a;solute sale (>?h. -!-) covering lot )o.
!3#* for 6#77.77. The deed of sale (>?h. -!-) contained a description of lot )o. !3#* as having an area
of 2$! s=uare meters and covered ;1 transfer certificate of title )o. !3*27 issued in the name of Flaviano
:oreto" married to :onica :aniega" although the lot was ac=uired during their marriage. As a result of
the sale" the said certificate of title was cancelled and a new transfer certificate of title )o. T%*+2! was
issued in the name of &eminiano 6amplona married to Apolonia 4nte (>?h. -A-).
After the e?ecution of the a;ove%mentioned deed of sale (>?h. -!-)" the spouses &eminiano 6amplona
and Apolonia 4nte constructed their house on the eastern part of lot !3#+ as Flaviano :oreto" at the time
of the sale" pointed to it as the land which he sold to &eminiano 6amplona. 0hortl1 thereafter" 'afael
6amplona" son of the spouses &eminiano 6amplona and Apolonia 4nte" also ;uilt his house within lot
!3#+ a;out one meter from its ;oundar1 with the ad5oining lot. The vendor Flaviano :oreto and the
vendee &eminiano 6amplona thought all the time that the portion of 2$! s=uare meters which was the
su;5ect matter of their sale transaction was )o. !3#* and so lot )o. !3#* appears to ;e the su;5ect
matter in the deed of sale (>?h. -!-) although the fact is that the said portion sold thought of ;1 the parties
to ;e lot )o. !3#* is a part of lot )o. !3#+.
From !#*+ to !#+7" the spouses &eminiano 6amplona and Apolonio 4nte enlarged their house and the1
even constructed a pigger1 corral at the ;ack of their said house a;out one and one%half meters from the
eastern ;oundar1 of lot !3#+.
4n August !," !#*+" Flaviano :oreto died intestate. In !#+!" the plaintiffs demanded on the defendants
to vacate the premises where the1 had their house and pigger1 on the ground that Flaviano :oreto had
no right to sell the lot which he sold to &eminiano 6amplona as the same ;elongs to the con5ugal
partnership of Flaviano and his deceased wife and the latter was alread1 dead when the sale was
e?ecuted without the consent of the plaintiffs who are the heirs of :onica. The spouses &eminiano
6amplona and Apolonia 4nte refused to vacate the premises occupied ;1 them and hence" this suit was
instituted ;1 the heirs of :onica :aniega seeking for the declaration of the nullit1 of the deed of sale of
.ul1 7" !#*, a;ove%mentioned as regards one%half of the propert1 su;5ect matter of said deedD to declare
the plaintiffs as the rightful owners of the other half of said lotD to allow the plaintiffs to redeem the one%half
portion thereof sold to the defendants. -After pa1ment of the other half of the purchase price-D to order the
defendants to vacate the portions occupied ;1 themD to order the defendants to pa1 actual and moral
damages and attorne1<s fees to the plaintiffsD to order the defendants to pa1 plaintiffs 6!,7.77 a 1ear from
August !#*$ until the1 have vacated the premises occupied ;1 them for the use and occupanc1 of the
same.
The defendants claim that the sale made ;1 Flaviano :oreto in their favor is valid as the lot sold is
registered in the name of Flaviano :oreto and the1 are purchasers ;elieving in good faith that the vendor
was the sole owner of the lot sold.
After a relocation of lots !3#*" !3#+ and 3*3* made ;1 agreement of the parties" it was found out that
there was mutual error ;etween Flaviano :oreto and the defendants in the e?ecution of the deed of sale
;ecause while the said deed recited that the lot sold is lot )o. !3#*" the real intention of the parties is that
it was a portion consisting of 2$! s=uare meters of lot )o. !3#+ which was the su;5ect matter of their sale
transaction.
After trial" the lower court rendered 5udgment" the dispositive part thereof ;eing as follows:
A@>'>F4'>" 5udgment is here;1 rendered for the plaintiffs declaring the deed of
a;solute sale dated .ul1 7" !#*, pertaining to the eastern portion of 8ot !3#+ covering
an area of 2$! s=uare meters null and void as regards the #7.* s=uare meters of which
plaintiffs are here;1 declared the rightful owners and entitled to its possession.
The sale is ordered valid with respect to the eastern one%half (!E,) of !2$! s=uare meters
of 8ot !3#+ measuring #7.* s=uare meters of which defendants are declared lawful
owners and entitled to its possession.
After proper surve1 segregating the eastern one%half portion with an area of #7.* s=uare
meters of 8ot !3#+" the defendants shall ;e entitled to a certificate of title covering said
portion and Transfer Certificate of Title )o. #$3 of the office of the 'egister of Deeds of
8aguna shall ;e cancelled accordingl1 and new titles issued to the plaintiffs and to the
defendants covering their respective portions.
Transfer Certificate of Title )o. *+2! of the office of the 'egister of Deeds of 8aguna
covering 8ot )o. !3#* and registered in the name of Cornelio 6amplona" married to
Apolonia 4nte" is ;1 virtue of this decision ordered cancelled. The defendants are
ordered to surrender to the office of the 'egister of Deeds of 8aguna the owner<s
duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title )o. *+2! within thirt1 (7) da1s after this decision
shall have ;ecome final for cancellation in accordance with this decision.
8et cop1 of this decision ;e furnished the 'egister of Deeds for the province of 8aguna
for his information and guidance.
Aith costs against the defendants.
(

The defendants%appellants" not ;eing satisfied with said 5udgment" appealed to the Court of Appeals"
which affirmed the 5udgment" hence the1 now come to this Court.
The fundamental and crucial issue in the case at ;ar is whether under the facts and circumstances dul1
esta;lished ;1 the evidence" petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the propert1 in litigation" or
onl1 one%half of the same.
There is no =uestion that when the petitioners purchased the propert1 on .ul1 7" !#*, from Flaviano
:oreto for the price of 6#77.77" his wife :onica :aniega had alread1 ;een dead si? 1ears ;efore"
:onica having died on :a1 +" !#3+. @ence" the con5ugal partnership of the spouses Flaviano :oreto and
:onica :aniega had alread1 ;een dissolved. (Article !2*" (!) )ew Civil CodeD Article !3!2" 4ld Civil
Code). The records show that the con5ugal estate had not ;een inventoried" li=uidated" settled and
divided ;1 the heirs thereto in accordance with law. The necessar1 proceedings for the li=uidation of the
con5ugal partnership were not instituted ;1 the heirs either in the testate or intestate proceedings of the
deceased spouse pursuant to Act !2+ amending 0ection +$* of Act !#7. )either was there an e?tra%
5udicial partition ;etween the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse nor was an ordinar1
action for partition ;rought for the purpose. Accordingl1" the estate ;ecame the propert1 of a communit1
;etween the surviving hus;and" Flaviano :oreto" and his children with the deceased :onica :aniega in
the concept of a co%ownership.
The communit1 propert1 of the marriage" at the dissolution of this ;ond ;1 the death of
one of the spouses" ceases to ;elong to the legal partnership and ;ecomes the propert1
of a communit1" ;1 operation of law" ;etween the surviving spouse and the heirs of the
deceased spouse" or the e?clusive propert1 of the widower or the widow" it he or she ;e
the heir of the deceased spouse. >ver1 co%owner shall have full ownership of his part and
in the fruits and ;enefits derived therefrom" and he therefore ma1 alienate" assign or
mortgage it" and even su;stitute another person in its en5o1ment" unless personal rights
are in =uestion. (:arigsa vs. :aca;untoc" !2 6hil. !72)
In 2orja vs. "ddision" 33 6hil. $#*" #7+" the 0upreme Court said that -(t)here is no reason in law wh1 the
heirs of the deceased wife ma1 not form a partnership with the surviving hus;and for the management
and control of the communit1 propert1 of the marriage and conceiva;l1 such a partnership" or rather
communit1 of propert1" ;etween the heirs and the surviving hus;and might ;e formed without a written
agreement.- In *rades vs. /ecson" 3# 6hil. ,7" the 0upreme Court held that -(a)lthough" when the wife
dies" the surviving hus;and" as administrator of the communit1 propert1" has authorit1 to sell the propert1
with ut the concurrence of the children of the marriage" nevertheless this power can ;e waived in favor
of the children" with the result of ;ringing a;out a conventional ownership in common ;etween the father
and children as to such propert1D and an1 one purchasing with knowledge of the changed status of the
propert1 will ac=uire onl1 the undivided interest of those mem;ers of the famil1 who 5oin in the act of
conve1ance.
It is also not disputed that immediatel1 after the e?ecution of the sale in !#*," the vendees constructed
their house on the eastern part of 8ot !3#+ which the vendor pointed out to them as the area sold" and
two weeks thereafter" 'afael who is a son of the vendees" also ;uilt his house within 8ot !3#+.
0u;se=uentl1" a cemented pigger1 coral was constructed ;1 the vendees at the ;ack of their house a;out
one and one%half meters from the eastern ;oundar1 of 8ot !3#+. 9oth vendor and vendees ;elieved all
the time that the area of 2$! s=. meters su;5ect of the sale was 8ot )o. !3#* which according to its title
(T.C.T. )o. !3*27) contains an area of 2$! s=. meters so that the deed of sale ;etween the parties
Identified and descri;ed the land sold as 8ot !3#*. 9ut actuall1" as verified later ;1 a surve1or upon
agreement of the parties during the proceedings of the case ;elow" the area sold was within 8ot !3#+.
Again" there is no dispute that the houses of the spouses Cornelio 6amplona and Apolonia 4nte as well
as that of their son 'afael 6amplona" including the concrete pigger1 coral ad5acent thereto" stood on the
land from !#*, up to the filing of the complaint ;1 the private respondents on .ul1 ,*" !#+!" or a period of
over nine (#) 1ears. And during said period" the private respondents who are the heirs of :onica :aniega
as well as of Flaviano :oreto who also died intestate on August !," !#*+" lived as neigh;ors to the
petitioner%vendees" 1et lifted no finger to =uestion the occupation" possession and ownership of the land
purchased ;1 the 6amplonas" so that Ae are persuaded and convinced to rule that private respondents
are in estoppel ;1 laches to claim half of the propert1" in dispute as null and void. >stoppel ;1 laches is a
rule of e=uit1 which ;ars a claimant from presenting his claim when" ;1 reason of a;andonment and
negligence" he allowed a long time to elapse without presenting the same. (International 9anking
Corporation vs. /ared" *# 6hil. #,)
Ae have ruled that at the time of the sale in !#*," the con5ugal partnership was alread1 dissolved si?
1ears ;efore and therefore" the estate ;ecame a co%ownership ;etween Flaviano :oreto" the surviving
hus;and" and the heirs of his deceased wife" :onica :aniega. Article 3# of the )ew Civil Code is
applica;le and it provides a follows:
Art. 3#. >ach co%owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and
;enefits pertaining thereto" and he ma1 therefore alienate" assign or mortgage it" and
even su;stitute another person in its en5o1ment" e?cept when personal rights are involve.
9ut the effect of the alienation or the mortgage" with respect to the co%owners" shall ;e
limited to the portion which ma1 ;e allotted to him in the division upon the termination of
the co%ownership.
Ae agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of the co%ownership when at the time of the
sale Flaviano :oreto pointed out the area and location of the 2$! s=. meters sold ;1 him to the
petitioners%vendees on which the latter ;uilt their house and also that whereon 'afael" the son of
petitioners likewise erected his house and an ad5acent coral for pigger1.
6etitioners point to the fact that spouses Flaviano :oreto and :onica :aniega owned three parcels of
land denominated as 8ot !3#* having an area of 2$! s=. meters" 8ot !3#+ with an area of !"7,! s=.
meters" and 8ot 3*3* with an area of *33 s=. meters. The three lots have a total area of ,"3+ s=. meters.
These three parcels of lots are contiguous with one another as each is ;ounded on one side ;1 the other"
thus: 8ot 3*3* is ;ounded on the northeast ;1 8ot !3#* and on the southeast ;1 8ot !3#+. 8ot !3#* is
;ounded on the west ;1 8ot 3*3*. 8ot !3#+ is ;ounded on the west ;1 8ot 3*3*. It is therefore" clear that
the three lots constitute one ;ig land. The1 are not separate properties located in different places ;ut the1
a;ut each other. This is not disputed ;1 private respondents. @ence" at the time of the sale" the co%
ownership constituted or covered these three lots ad5acent to each other. And since Flaviano :oreto was
entitled to one%half pro%indiviso of the entire land area or !"!2 s=. meters as his share" he had a perfect
legal and lawful right to dispose of 2$! s=. meters of his share to the 6amplona spouses. Indeed" there
was still a remainder of some #, s=. meters ;elonging to him at the time of the sale.
Ae re5ect respondent Court<s ruling that the sale was valid as to one%half and invalid as to the other half
for the ver1 simple reason that Flaviano :oreto" the vendor" had the legal right to more than 2$! s=.
meters of the communal estate" a title which he could dispose" alienate in favor of the vendees%
petitioners. The title ma1 ;e pro%indiviso or inchoate ;ut the moment the co%owner as vendor pointed out
its location and even indicated the ;oundaries over which the fences were to ;e erectd without o;5ection"
protest or complaint ;1 the other co%owners" on the contrar1 the1 ac=uiesced and tolerated such
alienation" occupation and possession" Ae rule that a factual partition or termination of the co%ownership"
although partial" was created" and ;arred not onl1 the vendor" Flaviano :oreto" ;ut also his heirs" the
private respondents herein from asserting as against the vendees%petitioners an1 right or title in
derogation of the deed of sale e?ecuted ;1 said vendor Flaiano :oreto.
>=uit1 commands that the private respondents" the successors of ;oth the deceased spouses" Flaviano
:oreto and :onica :aniega ;e not allowed to impugn the sale e?ecuted ;1 Flaviano :oreto who
indisputa;l1 received the consideration of 6#77.77 and which he" including his children" ;enefitted from
the same. :oreover" as the heirs of ;oth :onica :aniega and Flaviano :oreto" private respondents are
dut1%;ound to compl1 with the provisions of Articles !3*$ and !3#*" Civil Code" which is the o;ligation of
the vendor of the propert1 of delivering and transfering the ownership of the whole propert1 sold" which is
transmitted on his death to his heirs" the herein private respondents. The articles cited provide" thus:
Art. !3*$. 91 the contract of sale one of the contracting parties o;ligates himself to
transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing" and the other part to pa1
therefore a price certain in mone1 or its e=uivalent.
A contract of sale ma1 ;e a;solute or conditionial.
Art. !3#*. The vendor is ;ound to transfer the ownership of and deliver" as well as
warrant the thing which is the o;5ect of the sale.
Cnder Article 22+" )ew Civil Code" the inheritance which private respondents received from their
deceased parents andEor predecessors%in%interest included all the propert1 rights and o;ligations which
were not e?tinguished ;1 their parents< death. And under Art. !!!" paragraph !" )ew Civil Code" the
contract of sale e?ecuted ;1 the deceased Flaviano :oreto took effect ;etween the parties" their assigns
and heirs" who are the private respondents herein. Accordingl1" to the private respondents is transmitted
the o;ligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 2$! s=. meters to the petitioners (which was
the original o;ligation of their predecessor Flaviano :oreto) and not onl1 one%half thereof. 6rivate
respondents must compl1 with said o;ligation.
The records reveal that the area of 2$! s=. meters sold to and occupied ;1 petitioners for more than #
1ears alread1 as of the filing of the complaint in !#+! had ;een re%surve1ed ;1 private land surve1or
Daniel Aranas. 6etitioners are entitled to a segregation of the area from Transfer Certificate of Title )o. T%
#$3 covering 8ot !3#+ and the1 are also entitled to the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in
their name ;ased on the relocation surve1.
A@>'>F4'>" I) (I>A 4F T@> F4'>&4I)&" the 5udgment appealed from is here;1 AFFI':>D with
modification in the sense that the sale made and e?ecuted ;1 Flaviano :oreto in favor of the petitioners%
vendees is here;1 declared legal and valid in its entirel1.
6etitioners are here;1 declared owners in full ownership of the 2$! s=. meters at the eastern portion of
8ot !3#+ now occupied ;1 said petitioners and whereon their houses and pigger1 coral stand.
The 'egister of Deeds of 8aguna is here;1 ordered to segregate the area of 2$! s=. meters from
Certificate of Title )o. #$3 and to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title to the petitioners covering the
segregated area of 2$! s=. meters.
)o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-33365 D/>/70/, (0, 1930
E*.a./ o= .1/ d/>/a*/d $a+3-no D-an>-n. EO$#'A DOLAR, proponent%appellant" vs. F#DEL
D#AN%#N, E AL., oppositors%appellees.
The will of the deceased 6aulino Diancin was denied pro;ate in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on the
sole ground that the thum;marks appearing thereon were not the thum;marks of the testator.
Disregarding the other errors assigned ;1 the proponent of the will" we would direct attention to the third
error which challenges s=uarel1 the correctness of this finding.
The will in =uestion is alleged to have ;een e?ecuted ;1 6aulino Diancin at Dumangas" Iloilo" on
)ovem;er !" !#,2. A thum;mark appears at the end of the will and on the left hand margin of each of its
pages in the following manner: -6aulino Diancin" 0u 0igno" 6or 6edro Diamante.- The witnesses to the
will were the same 6edro Diamante" Inocentes Deocampo" and .uan Dominado. The will is detailed in
nature" and disposes of an estate amounting appro?imatel1 to 6*7"777.
For comparative purposes" >?hi;it $" a document of sale containing an admittedl1 genuine thum;mark of
6aulino Diancin" was presented. 6hotographs of the thum;marks on the will and of the thum;mark on
>?hi;it $ were also offered in evidence. 4ne" Carlos .. .aena" attempted to =ualif1 as an -e?pert"- and
thereafter gave as his opinion that the thum;marks had not ;een made ;1 the same person .4ne" .ose
&. (illanueva" likewise attempted to =ualif1 as were authentic. The petition of the proponent of the will to
permit the will to ;e sent to :anila to ;e e?amined ;1 an e?pert was denied. 4n one fact onl1 were the
opposing witnesses agreed" and this was that the ink used to make the thum;marks on the will was of the
ordinar1 t1pe which ;lurred the characteristics of the marks" whereas the thum;mark on >?hi;it $ was
formed clearl1 ;1 the use of the special ink re=uired for this purpose. The trial 5udge e?pressed his
personal view as ;eing that great differences e?isted ;etween the =uestioned marks and the genuine
mar.la%p$i'Dnet
The re=uirement of the statute that the will shall ;e -signed- is satisfied not onl1 the customar1 written
signature ;ut also ;1 the testator<s or testatri?< thum;mark .>?pert testimon1 as to the identit1 of
thum;marks or fingerprints is of course admissi;le. The method of identification of fingerprints is a
science re=uiring close stud1 .Ahere thum; impressions are ;lurred and man1 of the characteristic marks
far from clear" thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated ;1 e?perts as showing the
identit1 or lack of identit1 of the impressions" the court is 5ustified in refusing to accept the opinions of
alleged e?perts and in su;stituting its own opinion that a distinct similarit1 in some respects ;etween the
admittedl1 genuine thum;mark and the =uestioned thum;marks" is evident .This we do here. (>mperor
vs. A;dul @amid G!#7*H" , Indian 8. 'ep." 2*#" cited in Cham;erla1ne on the :odern 8aw of >vidence"
sec. ,*+!" notes .)
There is another means of approach to the =uestion and an o;vious one. The three instrumental
witnesses united in testif1ing concerning the circumstances surrounding the e?ecution of the will. It was
stated that in addition to the testator and themselves" on other person" Diosdado Dominado" was present.
This latter individual was called as a witness ;1 the oppositors to the will to identif1 >?hi;it $. @e was later
placed on the witness stand ;1 the proponent on re;uttal" and thereupon declared positivel1 that he was
the one who prepared the will for the signature of 6aulino DiancinD that the thum;marks appearing on the
will were those of 6aulino Diancin" and that he saw 6aulino Diancin make these impressions. The
testimon1 of a witness called ;1 ;oth parties is worth1 of credit.
Ae reach the ver1 definite conclusion that the document presented for pro;ate as the last will of the
deceased 6aulino Diancin was" in truth" his will" and that the thum;marks appearing thereon were the
thum;marks of the testator .Accordingl1" error is found" which means that the 5udgment appealed from
must ;e" as it is here;1" reversed" and the will ordered admitted to pro;ate" without special finding as to
costs in this instance.
"vance+a, C.@., @o$nson, Street, ?illamor, Astand, @o$ns, -omualdez and ?illa--eal, @@., concur.
G.R. No. 68)5 '/2./70/, 1, 191)
YA$ UA, petitioner%appellee" vs. YA$ %A 4UAN and YA$ %A 4UAN, o;5ectors%appellants.
It appears from the record that on the ,d da1 of August" !#7#" one 6erfecto &a;riel" representing the
petitioner" /ap Tua" presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the cit1 of :anila" asking that the
will of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong ;e admitted to pro;ate" as the last will and testament of Tomasa
>liBaga /ap Caong" deceased. It appears that the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong died in the cit1 of
:anila on the !!th da1 of August" !#7#. Accompan1ing said petition and attached thereto was the alleged
will of the deceased. It appears that the will was signed ;1 the deceased" as well as Anselmo Oacarias"
0evero Ta;ora" and Timoteo 6aeB.
0aid petition" after due notice was given" was ;rought on for hearing on the !$th da1 of 0eptem;er" !#7#.
Timoteo 6aeB declared that he was 3$ 1ears of ageD that he had known the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap
CaongD that she had died on the !!th da1 of August" !#7#D that ;efore her death she had e?ecuted a last
will and testamentD that he was present at the time of the e?ecution of the sameD that he had signed the
will as a witnessD that Anselmo Oacarias and 0evero Ta;ora had also signed said will as witnesses and
that the1 had signed the will in the presence of the deceased.
6a;lo Agustin also declared as a witness and said that he was 37 1ears of ageD that he knew Tomasa
>liBaga /ap Caong during her lifetimeD that she died on the !!th da1 of August" !#7#" in the cit1 of
:anilaD that ;efore her death she had e?ecuted a last will and testamentD that he was present at the time
said last will was e?ecutedD that there were also present Timoteo 6aeB and 0evero Ta;ora and a person
called AnselmoD that the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong signed the will in the presence of the
witnessesD that he had seen her sign the will with his own e1esD that the witnesses had signed the will in
the presence of the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong and in the presence of each otherD that the said
Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong signed the will voluntaril1" and in his 5udgment" she was in the possession of
her facultiesD that there were no threats or intimidation used to induce her to sign the willD that she signed
it voluntaril1.
)o further witnesses were called and there was no further opposition presented to the legaliBation of the
said will.
After hearing the foregoing witnesses" the @onora;le A. 0. Crossfield" 5udge" on the ,#th da1 of
0eptem;er" !#7#" ordered that the last will and testament of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong ;e allowed and
admitted to pro;ate. The will was attached to the record and marked >?hi;it A. The court further ordered
that one /ap Tua ;e appointed as e?ecutor of the will" upon the giving of a ;ond" the amount of which
was to ;e fi?ed later.
From the record it appears that no further proceedings were had until the ,$th of Fe;ruar1" !#!7" when
/ap Ca Luan and /ap Ca 8lu appeared and presented a petition" alleging that the1 were interested in the
matters of the said will and desired to intervene and asked that a guardian ad litem ;e appointed to
represent them in the cause.
4n the !st da1 of :arch" !#!7" the court appointed &a;riel 8a 4 as guardian ad litem of said parties.
&a;riel 8a 4 accepted said appointment" took the oath of office and entered upon the performance of his
duties as guardian ad litem of said parties. 4n the ,d da1 of :arch" !#!7" the said &a;riel 8a 4 appeared
in court and presented a motion in which he alleged" in su;stance:
First. That the will dated the !!th da1 of August" !#7#" and admitted to pro;ate ;1 order of the court on
the ,#th da1 of 0eptem;er" !#7#" was null" for the following reasons:
(a) 9ecause the same had not ;een authoriBed nor signed ;1 the witnesses as the law
prescri;es.
(;) 9ecause at the time of the e?ecution of the will" the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong was not
then mentall1 capacitated to e?ecute the same" due to her sickness.
(c) 9ecause her signature to the will had ;een o;tained through fraud and illegal influence upon
the part of persons who were to receive a ;enefit from the same" and ;ecause the said Tomasa
>liBaga /ap Caong had no intention of e?ecuting the same.
0econd. That ;efore the e?ecution of the said will" which the1 alleged to ;e null" the said Tomasa >liBaga
/ap Caong had e?ecuted another will" with all the formalities re=uired ;1 law" upon the +th da1 of August"
!#7#.
Third. That the said /ap Ca Luan and /ap Ca 8lu were minors and that" even though the1 had ;een
negligent in presenting their opposition to the legaliBation of the will" said negligence was e?cusa;le" on
account of their age.
Cpon the foregoing facts the court was re=uested to annul and set aside the order of the ,#th da1 of
0eptem;er" !#7#" and to grant to said minors an opportunit1 to present new proof relating to the due
e?ecution of said will. 0aid petition was ;ased upon the provisions of section !! of the Code of
6rocedure in Civil Actions.
Ahile it is not clear from the record" apparentl1 the said minors in their petition for a new trial" attached to
said petition the alleged will of August +" !#7#" of the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" and the affidavits
of 0evero Ta;ora" Clotilde and Cornelia 0errano.
Cpon the !7th da1 of :arch" !#!7" upon the hearing of said motion for a rehearing" the @onora;le A. 0.
Crossfield" 5udge" granted said motion and ordered that the rehearing should take place upon the !$th
da1 of :arch" !#!7" and directed that notice should ;e given to the petitioners of said rehearing and to all
other persons interested in the will. At the rehearing a num;er of witnesses were e?amined.
It will ;e remem;ered that one of the grounds upon which the new trial was re=uested was that the
deceased" Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" had not signed the will (>?hi;it A) of the !!th of August" !#7#D
that in support of that allegation" the protestants" during the rehearing" presented a witness called Tomas
6uBon. 6uBon testified that he was a professor and an e?pert in handwriting" and upon ;eing shown the
will (of August !!" !#7#) >?hi;it A" testified that the name and surname on >?hi;it A" in his 5udgment were
written ;1 two different hands" though the given name is the same as that upon >?hi;it ! (the will of
August +" !#7#)" ;ecause he found in the name -Tomasa- on >?hi;it A a similarit1 in the tracing to the
-Tomasa- in >?hi;it !D that comparing the surname on >?hi;it A with the surname on >?hi;it ! he found
that the character of the writing was thoroughl1 distinguished and different ;1 the tracing and ;1 the
direction of the letters in the said two e?hi;itsD that from his e?perience and o;servation he ;elieved that
the name -Tomasa- and -/ap Caong"- appearing in the signature on >?hi;it A were written ;1 different
person.
6uBon" ;eing cross%e?amined with reference to his capacit1 as an e?pert in handwriting" testified that
while he was a student in the Ateneo de :anila" he had studied penmanshipD that he could not tell e?actl1
when that was" e?cept that he had concluded his course in the 1ear !$$,D that since that time he had
;een a telegraph operator for seventeen 1ears and that he had acted as an e?pert in hand% writing in the
courts in the provinces.
&a;riel 8a 4 was called as a witness during the rehearing and testified that he had drawn the will of the
+th of August" !#7#" at the re=uest of Tomasa >liBaga /ap CaongD that it was drawn in accordance with
her re=uest and under her directionsD that she had signed itD that the same had ;een signed ;1 three
witnesses in her presence and in the presence of each otherD that the will was written in her houseD that
she was sick and was l1ing in her ;ed" ;ut that she sat up to sign the willD that she signed the will with
great difficult1D that she was signed in her right mind.
The said 0evero Ta;ora was also called as a witness again during the rehearing. @e testified that he
knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong during her lifetimeD that she was deadD that his signature as a witness
to >?hi;it A (the will of August !!" !#7#) was placed there ;1 himD that the deceased" Tomasa >liBaga
/ap Caong" ;ecame familiar with the contents of the will ;ecause she signed it ;efore he (the witness)
didD that he did not know whether an1;od1 there told her to sign the will or notD that he signed two ;illsD
that he did not know 8a 4D that he did not ;elieve that Tomasa had signed the will (>?hi;it A) ;efore he
arrived at the houseD that he was not sure that he had seen Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong sign >?hi;it A
;ecause there were man1 people and there was a screen at the door and he could not seeD that he was
called a a witness to sign the second will and was told ;1 the people there that it was the same as the
firstD that the will (>?hi;it A) was on a ta;le" far from the patient" in the house ;ut outside the room where
the patient wasD that the will was signed ;1 6aeB and himselfD that Anselmo Oacarias was thereD that he
was not sure whether Anselmo Oacarias signed the will or notD that he was not sure whether Tomasa
>liBaga /ap Caong could see the ta;le on which the will was written at the time it was signed or notD that
there were man1 people in the houseD that he remem;ered the names of 6edro and 8orenBoD that he
could not remem;er the names of an1 othersD that the will remained on the ta;le after he signed itD that
after he signed the will he went to the room where Tomasa was l1ingD that the will was left on the ta;le
outsideD that Tomasa was ver1 illD that he heard the people asking Tomasa to sign the will after he was
(the witness) had signed itD that he saw 6aeB sign the will" that he could not remem;er whether Anselmo
Oacarias had signed the will" ;ecause immediatel1 after he and 6aeB signed it" he left ;ecause he was
hungr1D that the place where the ta;le was located was in the same house" on the floor" a;out two steps
down from the floor on which Tomasa was.
'ufino '. 6apa" was called as a witness for the purpose of supporting the allegation that Tomasa >liBaga
/ap Caong was mentall1 incapacitated to make the will dated August !!" !#7# (>?hi;it A). 6apa declared
that he was a ph1sicianD that he knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap CaongD that he had treated her in the month
of AugustD that he visited her first on the $th da1 of AugustD that he visited her again on the #th and !7th
da1s of AugustD that on the first visit he found the sick woman completel1 weak J ver1 weak from her
sickness" in the third stage of tu;erculosisD that she was l1ing in ;edD that on the first visit he found her
with ;ut little sense" the second da1 also" and on the third da1 she had lost all her intelligenceD that she
died on the !!th of AugustD tat he was re=uested to issue the death certificateD that when he asked her
(Tomasa) whether she was feeling an1 pain or an1thing of that kind" she did not answer at allD that she
was in a condition of stupor" induced" as he ;elieved" ;1 the stage of uraemia from which she was
suffering.
Anselmo Oacarias" who had signed the will of August !!" !#7#" was also called as a witnesses during the
rehearing. @e testified that he had known Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong since he was a childD that Tomasa
was deadD that he had written the will e?hi;it AD that it was all in his writing e?cept the last part" which was
written ;1 Carlos 0o;acoD that he had written the will >?hi;it A at the re=uest of the uncle of TomasaD that
8orenBo" the ;rother of the deceased" was the one who had instructed him as to the terms of the will D that
the deceased had not spoken to him concerning the terms of the willD that the will was written in the dining
room of the residence of the deceasedD that Tomasa was in another room different from that in which the
will was writtenD that the will was not written in the presence of TomasaD that he signed the will as a
witness in the room where Tomasa was l1ingD that the other witnesses signed the will in the same room
that when he went into the room where the sick woman was (Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong) 8orenBo had
the will in his handsD that when 8orenBo came to the ;ed he showed the will to his sister (Tomasa) and
re=uested her to sign itD that she was l1ing stretched out on the ;ed and two women" who were taking
care of her" helped her to sit up" supporting her ;1 lacing their hands at her ;ackD that when she started to
write her name" he withdrew from the ;ed on account of the ;est inside the roomD when he came ;ack
again to the sick ;ed the will was signed and was again in the hands of 8orenBoD that he did not see
Tomasa sign the will ;ecause he withdrew from the roomD that he did not know whether Tomasa had
;een informed of the contents of the will or notD he supposed she must have read it ;ecause 8orenBo
turned the will over to herD that when 8orenBo asked her to sign the will" he did not know what she said J
he could not hear her voiceD that he did not know whether the sick woman was him sign the will or notD
that he ;elieved that Tomasa died the ne?t da1 after the will had ;een signedD that the other two
witnesses" Timoteo 6aeB and 0evero Ta;ora" had signed the will in the room with the sick womanD that
he saw them sign the will and that the1 saw him sign itD that he was not sure whether the testatri? could
have seen them at the time the1 signed the will or notD that there was a screen ;efore the ;edD that he did
not think that 8orenBo had ;een giving instructions as to the contents of the willD that a;out ten or fifteen
minutes elapsed from the time 8orenBo handed the will to Tomasa ;efore she started to sign itD that the
pen with which she signed the will as given to her and she held it.
Clotilde :ariano testified that he was a cigarette makerD that he knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong and
that she was deadD that she had made two willsD that the first one was written ;1 8a 4 and the second ;1
OacariasD that he was present at the time Oacarias wrote the second oneD that he was present when the
second will was taken to Tomasa for signatureD that 8orenBo had told Tomasa that the second will was
e?actl1 like the firstD that Tomasa said she could not sign it.
4n cross e?amination he testified that there was a lot of visitors thereD that Oacarias was not thereD that
6aeB and Ta;ora were thereD that he had told Tomasa that the second will was e?actl1 like the first.
During the rehearing Cornelia 0errano and 6edro Francisco were also e?amined as witnesses. There is
nothing in their testimon1" however" which in our opinion is important.
In re;uttal .ulia e la CruB was called as a witness. 0he testified that she was !# 1ears of ageD that she
knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong during her lifetimeD that she lived in the house of Tomasa during the
last week of her illnessD that Tomasa had made two willsD that she was present when the second one was
e?ecutedD that a law1er had drawn the will in the dining room and after it had ;een drawn and ever1thing
finished " it was taken to where DoFa Tomasa was" for her signatureD that it was taken to her ;1 Anselmo
OacariasD that she was present at the time Tomasa signed the will that there were man1 other people
present alsoD that she did not see Timoteo 6aeB thereD that she saw 0evero Ta;oraD that Anselmo
Oacarias was presentD that she did not hear Clotilde :ariano ask Tomasa to sign the willD that she did not
hear 8orenBo sa1 to Tomasa that the second will was the same sa the firstD that Tomasa asked her to
help her to sit up and to put a pillow to her ;ack when Oacarias gave her some paper or document and
asked her to sign itD that she saw Tomasa take hold of the pen and tr1 to sign it ;ut she did not see the
place she signed the document" for the reason that she left the roomD that she saw Tomasa sign the
document ;ut did not see on what place on the document she signedD and that a notar1 pu;lic came the
ne?t morningD that Tomasa was a;le to move a;out in the ;edD that she had seen Tomasa in the act of
starting to write her signature when she told her to get her some water.
/ap Cao Iuiang was also called as a witness in re;uttal. @e testified that he knew Tomasa >liBaga /ap
Caong and knew that she had made a willD that he saw the will at the time it was writtenD that he saw
Tomasa sign it on her headD that he did not hear 8orenBo ask Tomasa to sign the willD that 8orenBo had
handed the will to Tomasa to signD that he saw the witnesses sign the will on a ta;le near the ;edD that the
ta;le was outside the curtain or screen and near the entrance to the room where Tomasa was l1ing.
8orenBo /ap Caong testified as a witness on re;uttal. @e said that he knew Anselmo Oacarias and that
Oacarias wrote the will of Tomasa >liBaga /ap CaongD that Tomasa had given him instructionsD that
Tomasa had said that she sign the willD that the will was on a ta;le near the ;ed of TomasaD that Tomasa"
from where she was l1ing in the ;ed" could seethe ta;le where the witnesses had signed the will.
During the rehearing certain other witnesses were also e?aminedD in our opinion" however" it is necessar1
to =uote from them for the reason that their testimon1 in no wa1 affects the preponderance of proof a;ove
=uoted.
At the close of the rehearing the @onora;le A. 0. Crossfield" 5udge" in an e?tended opinion" reached the
conclusion that the last will and testament of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" which was attached to the
record and marked >?hi;it A was the last will and testament of the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong and
admitted it to pro;ate and ordered that the administrator therefore appointed should continue as such
administrator. From that order the protestants appealed to this court" and made the following assignments
of error:
I. The court erred in declaring that the will" >?hi;it A" was e?ecuted ;1 the deceased Tomasa /ap
Caong" without the intervention of an1 e?ternal influence on the part of other persons.
II. The court erred in declaring that the testator had clear knowledge and knew what she was
doing at the time of signing the will.
III. The court erred in declaring that the signature of the deceased Tomasa /ap Caong in the first
will" >?hi;it !" is identical with that which appears in the second will" >?hi;it A.
I(. The court erred in declaring that the will" >?hi;it A" was e?ecuted in accordance with the law.
Aith reference to the first assignment of error" to wit" that undue influence was ;rought to ;ear upon
Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong in the e?ecution of her will of August !!th" !#7# (>?hi;it A)" the lower court
found that no undue influence had ;een e?ercised over the mind of the said Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong.
Ahile it is true that some of the witnesses testified that the ;rother of Tomasa" one 8orenBo" had
attempted to undul1 influence her mind in the e?ecution of he will" upon the other hand" there were
several witnesses who testified that 8orenBo did not attempt" at the time of the e?ecution of the will" to
influence her mind in an1 wa1. The lower court having had an opportunit1 to see" to hear" and to note the
witnesses during their e?amination reached the conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence showed
that no undue influence had ;een used. we find no good reason in the record for reversing his
conclusions upon that =uestion.
Aith reference to the second assignment of error to wit" that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong was not of
sound mind and memor1 at the time of the e?ecution of the will" we find the same conflict in the
declarations of the witnesses which we found with reference to the undue influence. Ahile the testimon1
of Dr. 6apa is ver1 strong relating to the mental condition of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" 1et"
nevertheless" his testimon1 related to a time perhaps twent1%four hours ;efore the e?ecution of the will in
=uestion (>?hi;it A). 0everal witnesses testified that at the time the will was presented to her for her
signature" she was of sound mind and memor1 and asked for a pen and ink and kept the will in her
possession for ten or fifteen minutes and finall1 signed it. The lower court found that there was a
preponderance of evidence sustaining the conclusion that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong was of sound
mind and memor1 and in the possession of her faculties at the time she signed this will. In view of the
conflict in the testimon1 of the witnesses and the finding of the lower court" we do not feel 5ustified in
reversing his conclusions upon that =uestion.
Aith reference to the third assignment of error" to wit" that the lower court committed an error in declaring
that the signature of Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" on her first will (August +" !#7#" >?hi;it !)" is identical
with that which appears in the second will (August !!" !#7#" >?hi;it A)" it ma1 ;e said:
First. That whether or not Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong e?ecuted the will of August +" !#7# (>?hi;it !)" was
not the =uestion presented to the court. The =uestion presented was whether or not she had dul1
e?ecuted the will of August !!" !#7# (>?hi;it A).
0econd. There appears to ;e ;ut little dou;t that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong did e?ecute the will of
August +" !#7#. 0everal witnesses testified to that fact. The mere fact" however" that she e?ecuted a
former will is no proof that she did not e?ecute a later will. 0he had a perfect right" ;1 will" to dispose of
her propert1" in accordance with the provisions of law" up to the ver1 last of moment her life. 0he had a
perfect right to change" alter" modif1 or revoke an1 and all of her former wills and to make a new one.
)either will the fact that the new will fails to e?pressl1 revoke all former wills" in an1 wa1 sustain the
charge that she did not make the new will.
Third. In said third assignment of error there is involved in the statement that -The signature of Tomasa
>liBaga /ap Caong" in her first will (>?hi;it !) was not identical with that which appears in her second will
(>?hi;it A)- the inference that she had not signed the second will and all the argument of the appellants
relating to said third assignment of error is ;ased upon the alleged fact that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong
did not sign >?hi;it A. 0everal witnesses testified that the1 saw her write the name -Tomasa.- 4ne of the
witnesses testified that she had written her full name. Ae are of the opinion" and we think the law sustains
our conclusion" that if Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong signed an1 portion of her name tot he will" with the
intention to sign the same" that the will amount to a signature. It has ;een held time and time again that
one who makes a will ma1 sign the same ;1 using a mark" the name having ;een written ;1 others. If
writing a mark simpl1 upon a will is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make and e?ecute
a will" then certainl1 the writing of a portion or all of her name ought to ;e accepted as a clear indication of
her intention to e?ecute the will. (-e &oods of 0avor1" !* .ur." !73,D Add1 vs. &ri?" $ (es. .r." *73D 9aker
vs. Dening" $ Ad. and >l." #3 8ong vs. Oook" ! 6enn." 377D (ernon vs. Lirk" 7 6enn." ,!$D CoBBen<s
Aill" +! 6enn." !#+D -e &oods of >merson" 8. '. # Ir." 33D :ain vs. '1der" $3 6enn." ,!2.)
Ae find a ver1 interesting case reported in !! 6enns1lvania 0tate" ,,7 (+ 8. '. A." *)" and cited ;1 the
appellees" which was known as -Lno?<s Appeal.- In this case one @arriett 0. Lno? died ver1 suddenl1 on
the !2th of 4cto;er" !$$$" at the residence of her father. After her death a paper was found in her room"
wholl1 in her handwriting" written with a lead pencil" upon three sides of an ordinar1 folded sheet of note
paper and ;earing the signature simpl1 of -@arriett.- In this paper the deceased attempted to make
certain disposition of her propert1. The will was presented for pro;ate. The pro;ation was opposed upon
the ground that the same did not contain the signature of the deceased. That was the onl1 =uestion
presented to the court" whether the signature" in the form a;ove indicated" was a sufficient signature to
constitute said paper the last will and testament of @arriett 0. Lno?. It was admitted that the entire paper
was in the handwriting of the deceased. In deciding that =uestion" .ustice :itchell said:
The precise case of a signature y t$e first name only" does not appear to have arisen either in
>ngland or the Cnited 0tatesD ;ut the principle on which the decisions alread1 referred to were
;ased" especiall1 those in regard to signing ;1 initials onl1" are e=uall1 applica;le to the present
case" and additional force is given to them ;1 the decisions as to what constitutes a ;inding
signature to a contract. (6almer vs. 0tephens" ! Denio" 32$D 0an;orne vs. Flager" # Alle" 323D
Aeston vs. :1ers" Ill." 3,3D 0almon Falls" etc. Co. vs. &oddard" !3 @ow. (C. 0.)" 33+.)
The man who cannot write and who is o;liged to make his mark simpl1 therefor" upon the will" is held to
-sign- as effectuall1 as if he had written his initials or his full name. It would seem to ;e sufficient" under
the law re=uiring a signature ;1 the person making a will" to make his mark" to place his initials or all or
an1 part of his name thereon. In the present case we think the proof shows" ;1 a large preponderance"
that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong" if she did not sign her full name" did at least sign her given name
-Tomasa"- and that is sufficient to satisf1 the statute.
Aith reference to the fourth assignment of error" it ma1 ;e said that the argument which was preceded is
sufficient to answer it also.
During the trial of the cause the protestants made a strong effort to show that Tomasa >liBaga /ap Caong
did not sign her name in the presence of the witnesses and that the1 did not sign their names in their
presence nor in the presence of each other. Cpon that =uestion there is considera;le conflict of proof. An
effort was made to show that the will was signed ;1 the witnesses in one room and ;1 Tomasa in another.
A plan of the room or rooms in which the will was signed was presented as proof and it was shown that
there was ;ut one roomD that one part of the room was one or two steps ;elow the floor of the otherD that
the ta;le on which the witnesses signed the will was located upon the lower floor of the room. It was also
shown that from the ;ed in which Tomasa was l1ing" it was possi;le for her to see the ta;le on which the
witnesses signed the will. Ahile the rule is a;solute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the
presence of the witnesses and that the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other" as well as in
the presence of the one making the will" 1et" nevertheless" the actual seeing of the signatures made is not
necessar1. It is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possi;le for each of the necessar1 parties"
if the1 desire to see" ma1 see the signatures placed upon the will.
In cases like the present where there is so much conflict in the proof" it is ver1 difficult for the courts to
reach conclusions that are a;solutel1 free from dou;t. &reat weight must ;e given ;1 appellate courts
who do not see or hear the witnesses" to the conclusions of the trial courts who had that opportunit1.
Cpon a full consideration of the record" we find that a preponderance of the proof shows that Tomasa
>liBaga /ap Caong did e?ecute" freel1 and voluntaril1" while she was in the right use of all her faculties"
the will dated August !!" !#7# (>?hi;it A). Therefore the 5udgment of the lower court admitting said will to
pro;ate is here;1 affirmed with costs.
"rellano, C. @., /orres, Carson, 6oreland and "raullo, @@., concur.
G.R. No. 15566 '/2./70/, 1), 19(1
EU#6U#A AVERA, vs. MAR#NO GAR%#A, and &UAN RODR#GUEZ, a* 5+a,d-an o= .1/ 7-no,* %/*a,
Ga,>-a and &o*/ Ga,>-a,
In proceedings in the court ;elow" instituted ;1 >uti=uia Avera for pro;ate of the will of one >ste;an
&arcia" contest was made ;1 :arino &arcia and .uan 'odrigueB" the latter in the capacit1 of guardian for
the minors .ose &arcia and Cesar &arcia. Cpon the date appointed for the hearing" the proponent of the
will introduced one of the three attesting witnesses who testified J with details not necessar1 to ;e here
specified J that the will was e?ecuted with all necessar1 e?ternal formalities" and that the testator was at
the time in full possession of disposing faculties. Cpon the latter point the witness was corro;orated ;1
the person who wrote the will at the re=uest of the testator. Two of the attesting witnesses were not
introduced" nor was their a;sence accounted for ;1 the proponent of the will.
Ahen the proponent rested the attorne1 for the opposition introduced a single witness whose testimon1
tended to show in a vague and indecisive manner that at the time the will was made the testator was so
de;ilitated as to ;e una;le to comprehend what he was a;out.
After the cause had ;een su;mitted for determination upon the proof thus presented" the trial 5udge found
that the testator at the time of the making of the will was of sound mind and disposing memor1 and that
the will had ;een properl1 e?ecuted. @e accordingl1 admitted the will to pro;ate.
From this 5udgment an appeal was taken in ;ehalf of the persons contesting the will" and the onl1 errors
here assigned have reference to the two following points" namel1" first" whether a will can ;e admitted to
pro;ate" where opposition is made" upon the proof of a single attesting witness" without producing or
accounting for the a;sence of the other twoD and" secondl1" whether the will in =uestion is rendered
invalid ;1 reason of the fact that the signature of the testator and of the three attesting witnesses are
written on the right margin of each page of the will instead of the left margin.
Cpon the first point" while it is undou;tedl1 true that an uncontested will ;a1 ;e proved ;1 the testimon1 of
onl1 one of the three attesting witnesses" nevertheless in Ca;ang vs. Delfinado (3 6hil." ,#!)" this court
declared after an ela;orate e?amination of the American and >nglish authorities that when a contest is
instituted" all of the attesting witnesses must ;e e?amined" if alive and within reach of the process of the
court.
In the present case no e?planation was made at the trial as to wh1 all three of the attesting witnesses
were not produced" ;ut the pro;a;le reason is found in the fact that" although the petition for the pro;ate
of this will had ;een pending from Decem;er ,!" !#!2" until the date set for the hearing" which was April
*" !#!#" no formal contest was entered until the ver1 da1 set for the hearingD and it is pro;a;le that the
attorne1 for the proponent" ;elieving in good faith the pro;ate would not ;e contested" repaired to the
court with onl1 one of the three attesting witnesses at hand" and upon finding that the will was contested"
incautiousl1 permitted the case to go to proof without asking for a postponement of the trial in order that
he might produce all the attesting witnesses.
Although this circumstance ma1 e?plain wh1 the three witnesses were not produced" it does not in itself
suppl1 an1 ;asis for changing the rule e?pounded in the case a;ove referred toD and were it not for a fact
now to ;e mentioned" this court would pro;a;l1 ;e compelled to reverse this case on the ground that the
e?ecution of the will had not ;een proved ;1 a sufficient num;er of attesting witnesses.
It appears" however" that this point was not raised ;1 the appellant in the lower court either upon the
su;mission of the cause for determination in that court or upon the occasion of the filing of the motion for
a new trial. Accordingl1 it is insisted for the appellee that this =uestion cannot now ;e raised for the first
time in this court. Ae ;elieve this point is well taken" and the first assignment of error must ;e declared
not ;e well taken. This e?act =uestion has ;een decided ;1 the 0upreme Court of California adversel1 to
the contention of the appellant" and we see no reason wh1 the same rule of practice should not ;e
o;served ;1 us. (>state of :cCart1" *$ Cal." *" 2.)
There are at least two reason wh1 the appellate tri;unals are disinclined to permit certain =uestions to ;e
raised for the first time in the second instance. In the first place it eliminates the 5udicial criterion of the
Court of First Instance upon the point there presented and makes the appellate court in effect a court of
first instance with reference to that point" unless the case is remanded for a new trial. In the second place"
it permits" if it does not encourage" attorne1s to trifle with the administration of 5ustice ;1 concealing from
the trial court and from their opponent the actual point upon which reliance is placed" while the1 are
engaged in other discussions more simulated than real. These considerations are" we think" decisive.
In ruling upon the point a;ove presented we do not wish to ;e understood as la1ing down an1 hard and
fast rule that would prove an em;arrassment to this court in the administration of 5ustice in the future. In
one wa1 or another we are constantl1 here considering aspects of cases and appl1ing doctrines which
have escaped the attention of all persons concerned in the litigation ;elowD and this is necessar1 if this
court is to contri;ute the part due from it in the correct decision of the cases ;rought ;efore it. Ahat we
mean to declare is that when we ;elieve that su;stantial 5ustice has ;een done in the Court of First
Instance" and the point relied on for reversal in this court appears to ;e one which ought properl1 to have
;een presented in that court" we will in the e?ercise of a sound discretion ignore such =uestion relates a
defect which might have ;een cured in the Court of First Instance if attention had ;een called to it there.
In the present case" if the appellant had raised this =uestion in the lower court" either at the hearing or
upon a motion for a new trial" that court would have had the power" and it would have ;een is dut1"
considering the tard1 institution of the contest" to have granted a new trial in order that all the witnesses to
the will might ;e ;rought into court. 9ut instead of thus calling the error to the attention of the court and
his adversar1" the point is first raised ;1 the appellant in this court. Ae hold that this is too late.
6roperl1 understood" the case of Ca;ang vs. Delfinado" supra" contains nothing inconsistent with the
ruling we now make" for it appears from the opinion in that case that the proponent of the will had
o;tained an order for a repu;lication and new trial for the avowed purpose of presenting the two
additional attesting witnesses who had not ;een previousl1 e?amined" ;ut nevertheless su;se=uentl1
failed without an1 apparent reason to take their testimon1. 9oth parties in that case were therefore full1
apprised that the =uestion of the num;er of witnesses necessar1 to prove the will was in issue in the
lower court.
The second point involved in this case is whether" under section +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" as
amended ;1 Act )o. ,+3*" it is essential to the validit1 of a will in this 5urisdiction that the names of the
testator and the instrumental witnesses should ;e written on the left margin of each page" as re=uired in
said Act" and not upon the right margin" as in the will now ;efore usD and upon this we are of the opinion
that the will in =uestion is valid. It is true that the statute sa1s that the testator and the instrumental
witnesses shall sign their names on the left margin of each and ever1 pageD and it is undenia;le that the
general doctrine is to the effect that all statutor1 re=uirements as to the e?ecution of wills must ;e full1
complied with. The same doctrine is also deduci;le from cases heretofore decided ;1 this court.
0till some details at times creep into legislative enactments which are so trivial it would ;e a;surd to
suppose that the 8egislature could have attached an1 decisive importance to them. The provision to the
effect that the signatures of the testator and witnesses shall ;e written on the left margin of each page J
rather than on the right margin J seems to ;e this character. 0o far as concerns the authentication of the
will" and of ever1 part thereof" it can make no possi;le difference whether the names appear on the left or
no the right margin" provided the1 are on one or the other. In Caraig vs. Tatlonghari ('. &. )o. !,**$"
decided :arch ," !#!$" not reported)" this court declared a will void which was totall1 lacking in the
signatures re=uired to ;e written on its several pagesD and in the case of 'e estate of 0aguinsin (3! 6hil."
$2*)" a will was likewise declared void which contained the necessar1 signatures on the margin of each
leaf ( folio)" ;ut not in the margin of each page containing written matter.
The instrument now ;efore us contains the necessar1 signatures on ever1 page" and the onl1 point of
deviation from the re=uirement of the statute is that these signatures appear in the right margin instead of
the left. 91 the mode of signing adopted ever1 page and provision of the will is authenticated and guarded
from possi;le alteration in e?actl1 the same degree that it would have ;een protected ;1 ;eing signed in
the left marginD and the resources of casuistr1 could ;e e?hausted without discovering the slightest
difference ;etween the conse=uences of affi?ing the signatures in one margin or the other.
The same could not ;e said of a case like that of >state of 0aguinsin" supra" where onl1 the leaves" or
alternate pages" were signed and not each written pageD for as o;served in that case ;1 our late lamented
Chief .ustice" it was possi;le that in the will as there originall1 e?ecuted ;1 the testratri? onl1 the
alternative pages had ;een used" leaving ;lanks on the reverse sides" which conceiva;l1 might have
;een filled in su;se=uentl1.
The controlling considerations on the point now ;efore us were well stated In -e will of A;angan (37 6hil."
32+" 32#)" where the court" speaking through :r. .ustice AvanceFa" in a case where the signatures were
placed at the ;ottom of the page and not in the margin" said:
The o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of wills is to close the door against ;ad
faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution o will and testaments and to guarantee their truth and
authenticit1. Therefore the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in such a wa1 as to attain
these primordial ends. 9ut" on the other hand" also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not
the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise of the right to make a will. 0o when an
interpretation alread1 given assures such ends" an1 other interpretation whatsoever" that adds
nothing ;ut demands more re=uisites entirel1 unnecessar1" useless and frustrative of the
testator<s last will" must ;e disregarded.
In the case ;efore us" where ingenuit1 could not suggest an1 possi;le pre5udice to an1 person" as
attendant upon the actual deviation from the letter of the law" such deviation must ;e considered too trivial
to invalidate the instrument.
It results that the legal errors assigned are not sustaina;le" and the 5udgment appealed from will ;e
affirmed. It is so ordered" with costs against the appellants.
@o$nson, "raullo, "vance+a and ?illamor, @@., concur.
G.R. No. L-(1755 D/>/70/, (9, 19()
#n .1/ 7a../, o= .1/ ./*.a./ /*.a./ o= An.on-o Mo?a3, d/>/a*/d. F#LOMENA NAYVE, vs. LEONA
MO&AL and LU%#ANA AGU#LAR, opponents%appellants.
This is a proceeding for the pro;ate of the will of the deceased Antonio :o5al instituted ;1 his surviving
spouse" Filomena )a1ve. The pro;ate is opposed ;1 8eona :o5al and 8uciana Aguilar" sister and niece"
respectivel1" of the deceased.
The Court of First Instance of Al;a1" which tried the case" overruled the o;5ections to the will" and ordered
the pro;ate thereof" holding that the document in controvers1 was the last will and testament of Antonio
:o5al" e?ecuted in accordance with law. From this 5udgment the opponents appeal" assigning error to the
decree of the court allowing the will to pro;ate and overruling their opposition.
The will in =uestion" >?hi;it A" is composed of four sheets with written matter on onl1 side of each" that is"
four pages written on four sheets. The four sides or pages containing written matter are paged -6ag. !"-
-6ag. ,"- -6ag. "- -6ag. 3"- successivel1. >ach of the first two sides or pages" which was issued" was
signed ;1 the testator and the three witnesses on the margin" left side of the reader. 4n the third page
actuall1 used" the signatures of the three witnesses appear also on the margin" left side of the reader" ;ut
the signature of the testator is not on the margin" ;ut a;out the middle of the page" at the end of the will
and ;efore the attestation clause. 4n the fourth page" the signatures of the witnesses do not appear on
the margin" ;ut at the ;ottom of the attestation clause" it ;eing the signature of the testator that is on the
margin" left side of the reader.
The defects attri;uted to the will are:
(a) The fact of not having ;een signed ;1 the testator and the witnesses on each and ever1 sheet on the
left marginD () the fact of the sheets of the document not ;eing paged with lettersD (c) the fact that the
attestation clause does not state the num;er of sheets or pages actuall1 used of the willD and (d) the fact
that the testator does not appear to have signed all the sheets in the presence of the three witnesses" and
the latter to have attested and signed all the sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other.
As to the signatures on the margin" it is true" as a;ove stated" that the third page actuall1 used was
signed ;1 the testator" not on the left margin" as it was ;1 the witnesses" ;ut a;out the middle of the page
and the end of the willD and that the fourth page was signed ;1 the witnesses" not on the left margin" as it
was ;1 the testator" ;ut a;out the middle of the page and at the end of the attestation clause.
In this respect the holding of this court in the case of "vera vs. Barcia and -odriguez (3, 6hil." !3*)" is
applica;le" wherein the will in =uestion was signed ;1 the testator and the witnesses" not on the left" ;ut
right" margin. The rule laid down in that case is that the document contained the necessar1 signatures on
each page" where;1 each page of the will was authenticated and safeguarded against an1 possi;le
alteration. In that case" the validit1 of the will was sustained" and conse=uentl1 it was allowed to pro;ate.
Appl1ing that doctrine to the instant case" we hold that" as each and ever1 page used of the will ;ears the
signatures of the testator and the witnesses" the fact that said signatures do not all appear on the left
margin of each page does not detract from the validit1 of the will.la%p$i'.net
Turning to the second defect alleged" that is to sa1" the fact that the sheets of the document are not
paged with letters" suffice it to cite the case of 3nson vs. "ella (3 6hil." 3#3)" where this court held that
paging with Ara;ic numerals and not with letters" as in the case ;efore us" is within the spirit of the law
and is 5ust as valid as paging with letters.
As to the proposition that the attestation clause does not state the num;er of sheets or pages of the will"
which is the third defect assigned" it must ;e noted that the last paragraph of the will here in =uestion and
the attestation clause" coming ne?t to it" are of the following tenor:
In witness whereof" I set m1 hand unto this will here in the town of Camalig"
Al;a1" 6hilippine Islands" this ,+th da1 of )ovem;er" nineteen hundred and
eighteen" composed of four sheets" including the ne?t:
A)T4)I4 :4.A8
(0igned and declared ;1 the testator Don Antonio :o5al to ;e his last will and
testament in the presence of each of us" and at the re=uest of said testator Don
Antonio :o5al" we signed this will in the presence of each other and of the
testator.)
6>D'4 CA'4
0I8(>'I4 :4'C4
O4I84 :A0I)A0
As ma1 ;e seen" the num;er of sheets is stated in said last paragraph of the will. It is true that in the case
of 3y Co!ue vs. 0avas L. Sioca (3 6hil." 37*)" it was held that the attestation clause must state the
num;er of sheets or pages composing the willD ;ut when" as in the case ;efore us" such fact" while it is
not stated in the attestation clause" appears at the end of the will proper" so that no proof aliunde is
necessar1 of the num;er of the sheets of the will" then there can ;e no dou;t that it complies with the
intention of the law that the num;er of sheets of which the will is composed ;e shown ;1 the document
itself" to prevent the num;er of the sheets of the will from ;eing undul1 increased or decreased.
Aith regard to the last defect pointed out" namel1" that the testator does not appear to have signed on all
the sheets of the will in the presence of the three witnesses" and the latter to have attested and signed on
all the sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other" it must ;e noted that in the attestation
clause a;ove set out it is said that the testator signed the will .in t$e presence of eac$ of t$e %itnesses.
and the latter signed .in t$e presence of eac$ ot$er and of t$e testator.. 0o that" as to whether the
testator and the attesting witnesses saw each other sign the will" such a re=uirement was clearl1 and
sufficientl1 complied with. Ahat is not stated in this clause is whether the testator and the witnesses
signed all the sheets of the will.
The act of the testator and the witnesses seeing reciprocall1 the signing of the will is one which cannot ;e
proven ;1 the mere e?hi;ition of the will unless it is stated in the document. And this fact is e?pressl1
stated in the attestation clause now ;efore us. 9ut the fact of the testator and the witnesses having signed
all the sheets of the will ma1 ;e proven ;1 the mere e?amination of the document" although it does not
sa1 an1thing a;out this" and if that is the fact" as it is in the instant case" the danger of fraud in this
respect" which is what the law tries to avoid" does not e?ist.
Therefore" as in the instant case the fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and ever1 page
of the will is proven ;1 the mere e?amination of the signatures in the will" the omission to e?pressl1 state
such evident fact does not invalidate the will nor prevent its pro;ate.
The order appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the appellants. 0o ordered.
@o$nson, 6alcolm, and ?illamor, @@., concur.
G.R. No. 1)71)5 &an+a,y 31, (005
E'AE E'AE OF !E LAE AL#$#O A"ADA, "EL#NDA %A$ONONG-NO"LE, vs. AL#$#O
A"A&A and NOEL A"ELLAR,
The Case
9efore the Court is a petition for review
!
assailing the Decision
,
of the Court of Appeals of !, .anuar1
,77! in CA%&.'. C( )o. 32+33. The Court of Appeals sustained the 'esolution

of the 'egional Trial

Court of La;ankalan" )egros 4ccidental" 9ranch +! (-'TC%La;ankalan-)" admitting to pro;ate the last
will and testament of Alipio A;ada (-A;ada-).
The Antecedent Facts
A;ada died sometime in :a1 !#37.
3
@is widow 6aula Tora1 (-Tora1-) died sometime in 0eptem;er !#3.
9oth died without legitimate children.
4n ! 0eptem;er !#+$" Alipio C. A;a5a (-Alipio-) filed with the then Court of First Instance of )egros
4ccidental (now 'TC%La;ankalan) a petition"
*
docketed as 06 )o. 727 (!%$++$)" for the pro;ate of the
last will and testament (-will-) of A;ada. A;ada allegedl1 named as his testamentar1 heirs his natural
children >ulogio A;a5a (->ulogio-) and 'osario Cordova. Alipio is the son of >ulogio.
)icanor Caponong (-Caponong-) opposed the petition on the ground that A;ada left no will when he died
in !#37. Caponong further alleged that the will" if A;ada reall1 e?ecuted it" should ;e disallowed for the
following reasons: (!) it was not e?ecuted and attested as re=uired ;1 lawD (,) it was not intended as the
last will of the testatorD and () it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence on the part
of the ;eneficiaries. Citing the same grounds invoked ;1 Caponong" the alleged intestate heirs of A;ada"
namel1" .oel" .ulian" 6aB" >vangeline" &eronimo" @um;erto" Teodora and >lena A;ada (-.oel A;ada" et
al.-)" and 8evi" 8eandro" Antonio" Florian" @ernani and Carmela Tronco (-8evi Tronco" et al.-)" also
opposed the petition. The oppositors are the nephews" nieces and grandchildren of A;ada and Tora1.
4n ! 0eptem;er !#+$" Alipio filed another petition
+
;efore the 'TC%La;ankalan" docketed as 06 )o.
72! (!,%$++#)" for the pro;ate of the last will and testament of Tora1. Caponong" .oel A;ada" et al." and
8evi Tronco" et al. opposed the petition on the same grounds the1 cited in 06 )o. 727 (!%$++$).
4n ,7 0eptem;er !#+$" Caponong filed a petition
2
;efore the 'TC%La;ankalan" docketed as 06 )o. 7+#
(7#)" pra1ing for the issuance in his name of letters of administration of the intestate estate of A;ada and
Tora1.
In an 4rder dated !3 August !#$!" the 'TC%La;ankalan admitted to pro;ate the will of Tora1. 0ince the
oppositors did not file an1 motion for reconsideration" the order allowing the pro;ate of Tora1Rs will
;ecame final and e?ecutor1.
$

In an order dated , )ovem;er !##7" the 'TC%La;ankalan designated 9elinda Caponong%)o;le
(-Caponong%)o;le-) 0pecial Administratri? of the estate of A;ada and Tora1.
#
Caponong%)o;le moved
for the dismissal of the petition for pro;ate of the will of A;ada. The 'TC%La;ankalan denied the motion
in an 4rder dated ,7 August !##!.
!7

0ometime in !##" during the proceedings" 6residing .udge 'odolfo 0. 8a1umas discovered that in an
4rder dated !+ :arch !##," former 6residing .udge >dgardo Catilo had alread1 su;mitted the case for
decision. Thus" the 'TC%La;ankalan rendered a 'esolution dated ,, .une !##3" as follows:
There having ;een sufficient notice to the heirs as re=uired ;1 lawD that there is su;stantial compliance
with the formalities of a Aill as the law directs and that the petitioner through his testimon1 and the
deposition of Feli? &allinero was a;le to esta;lish the regularit1 of the e?ecution of the said Aill and
further" there ;eing no evidence of ;ad faith and fraud" or su;stitution of the said Aill" the 8ast Aill and
Testament of Alipio A;ada dated .une 3" !#, is admitted and allowed pro;ate.
As pra1ed for ;1 counsel" )oel A;;ellar
!!
is appointed administrator of the estate of 6aula Tora1 who
shall discharge his duties as such after letters of administration shall have ;een issued in his favor and
after taking his oath and filing a ;ond in the amount of Ten Thousand (6!7"777.77) 6esos.
:rs. 9elinda C. )o;le" the present administratri? of the estate of Alipio A;ada shall continue discharging
her duties as such until further orders from this Court.
04 4'D>'>D.
!,

The 'TC%La;ankalan ruled on the onl1 issue raised ;1 the oppositors in their motions to dismiss the
petition for pro;ate" that is" whether the will of A;ada has an attestation clause as re=uired ;1 law. The
'TC%La;ankalan further held that the failure of the oppositors to raise an1 other matter forecloses all
other issues.
)ot satisfied with the 'esolution" Caponong%)o;le filed a notice of appeal.
In a Decision promulgated on !, .anuar1 ,77!" the Court of Appeals affirmed the 'esolution of the 'TC%
La;ankalan. The appellate court found that the 'TC%La;ankalan properl1 admitted to pro;ate the will of
A;ada.
@ence" the present recourse ;1 Caponong%)o;le.
The Issues
The petition raises the following issues:
!. Ahat laws appl1 to the pro;ate of the last will of A;adaD
,. Ahether the will of A;ada re=uires acknowledgment ;efore a notar1 pu;licD
!

. Ahether the will must e?pressl1 state that it is written in a language or dialect known to the
testatorD
3. Ahether the will of A;ada has an attestation clause" and if so" whether the attestation clause
complies with the re=uirements of the applica;le lawsD
*. Ahether Caponong%)o;le is precluded from raising the issue of whether the will of A;ada is
written in a language known to A;adaD
+. Ahether evidence aliunde ma1 ;e resorted to in the pro;ate of the will of A;ada.
The 'uling of the Court
The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the 'TC%La;ankalan in admitting to pro;ate the will of
A;ada.
/$e "pplicale La%
A;ada e?ecuted his will on 3 .une !#,. The laws in force at that time are the Civil Code of !$$# or the
4ld Civil Code" and Act )o. !#7 or the Code of Civil 6rocedure
!3
which governed the e?ecution of wills
;efore the enactment of the )ew Civil Code.
The matter in dispute in the present case is the a../*.a.-on >3a+*/ in the will of A;ada. 0ection +!$ of the
Code of Civil 6rocedure" as amended ;1 Act )o. ,+3*"
!*
governs the form of the attestation clause of
A;adaRs will.
!+
0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" as amended" provides:
0>C. +!$. -e!uisites of %ill. N )o will" e?cept as provided in the preceding section"
!2
shall ;e valid to
pass an1 estate" real or personal" nor charge or affect the same" unless it ;e written in the language or
dialect known ;1 the testator and signed ;1 him" or ;1 the testatorRs name written ;1 some other person
in his presence" and ;1 his e?press direction" and attested and su;scri;ed ;1 three or more credi;le
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The testator or the person re=uested ;1 him
to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will" shall also sign" as aforesaid" each and ever1
page thereof" on the left margin" and said pages shall ;e num;ered correlativel1 in letters placed on the
upper part of each sheet. The attestation shall state the num;er of sheets or pages used" upon which the
will is written" and the fact that the testator signed the will and ever1 page thereof" or caused some other
person to write his name" under his e?press direction" in the presence of three witnesses" and the latter
witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.
-e!uisites of a 7ill under t$e Code of Civil *rocedure
Cnder 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" the re=uisites of a will are the following:
(!) The will must ;e written in the language or dialect known ;1 the testatorD
(,) The will must ;e signed ;1 the testator" or ;1 the testatorRs name written ;1 some other
person in his presence" and ;1 his e?press directionD
() The will must ;e attested and su;scri;ed ;1 three or more credi;le witnesses in the presence
of the testator and of each otherD
(3) The testator or the person re=uested ;1 him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses
of the will must sign each and ever1 page of the will on the left marginD
(*) The pages of the will must ;e num;ered correlativel1 in letters placed on the upper part of
each sheetD
(+) The attestation shall state the num;er of sheets or pages used" upon which the will is written"
and the fact that the testator signed the will and ever1 page of the will" or caused some other
person to write his name" under his e?press direction" in the presence of three witnesses" and the
witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all pages of the will in the presence of the testator
and of each other.
Caponong%)o;le asserts that the will of A;ada does not indicate that it is written in a language or dialect
known to the testator. Further" she maintains that the will is not acknowledged ;efore a notar1 pu;lic. 0he
cites in particular Articles $73 and $7* of the 4ld Civil Code" thus:
Art. $73. >ver1 will must ;e in writing and e?ecuted in GaH language or dialect known to the testator.
Art. $7+. >ver1 will must ;e acknowledged ;efore a notar1 pu;lic ;1 the testator and the witnesses. ???
!$

Caponong%)o;le actuall1 cited Articles $73 and $7+ of the N/@ Civil Code.
!#
Article $73 of the 4ld Civil
Code is a;out the rights and o;ligations of administrators of the propert1 of an a;sentee" while Article $7+
of the 4ld Civil Code defines a legitime.
Articles $73 and $7+ of the )ew Civil Code are new provisions. Article $73 of the )ew Civil Code is taken
from 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure.
,7
Article $7+ of the )ew Civil Code is taken from Article
+$* of the 4ld Civil Code
,!
which provides:
Art. +$*. The notar1 and two of the witnesses who authenticate the will must ;e ac=uainted with the
testator" or" should the1 not know him" he shall ;e identified ;1 two witnesses who are ac=uainted with
him and are known to the notar1 and to the attesting witnesses. The notar1 and the witnesses shall also
endeavor to assure themselves that the testator has" in their 5udgment" the legal capacit1 re=uired to
make a will.
Aitnesses authenticating a will without the attendance of a notar1" in cases falling under Articles 277 and
27!" are also re=uired to know the testator.
@owever" the Code of Civil 6rocedure
,,
repealed Article +$* of the 4ld Civil Code. Cnder the Code of
Civil 6rocedure" the intervention of a notar1 is not necessar1 in the e?ecution of any will.
,
Therefore"
A;adaRs will does not re=uire acknowledgment ;efore a notar1 pu;lic.'a%p$i'.nEt
Caponong%)o;le points out that nowhere in the will can one discern that A;ada knew the 0panish
language. 0he alleges that such defect is fatal and must result in the disallowance of the will. 4n this
issue" the Court of Appeals held that the matter was not raised in the motion to dismiss" and that it is now
too late to raise the issue on appeal. Ae agree with Caponong%)o;le that the doctrine of estoppel does
not appl1 in pro;ate proceedings.
,3
In addition" the language used in the will is part of the re=uisites under
0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure and the Court deems it proper to pass upon this issue.
)evertheless" Caponong%)o;leRs contention must still fail. There is no statutor1 re=uirement to state in
the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the will.
,*
This is a matter that a part1
ma1 esta;lish ;1 proof aliunde.
,+
Caponong%)o;le further argues that Alipio" in his testimon1" has failed"
among others" to show that A;ada knew or understood the contents of the will and the 0panish language
used in the will. @owever" Alipio testified that A;ada used to gather 0panish%speaking people in their
place. In these gatherings" A;ada and his companions would talk in the 0panish language.
,2
This
sufficientl1 proves that A;ada speaks the 0panish language.
/$e "ttestation Clause of "adaFs 7ill
A scrutin1 of A;adaRs will shows that it has an attestation clause. The attestation clause of A;adaRs will
reads:
0uscrito 1 declarado por el testador Alipio A;ada como su ultima voluntad 1 testamento en presencia de
nosotros" ha;iendo tam;ien el testador firmado en nuestra presencia en el margen iB=uierdo de todas 1
cada una de las ho5as del mismo. / en testimonio de ello" cada uno de nosotros lo firmamos en
presencia de nosotros 1 del testador al pie de este documento 1 en el margen iB=uierdo de todas 1 cada
una de las dos ho5as de =ue esta compuesto el mismo" las cuales estan paginadas correlativamente con
las letras -C)4- 1 -D40R en la parte superior de la carrilla.
,$

Caponong%)o;le proceeds to point out several defects in the attestation clause. Caponong%)o;le alleges
that the attestation clause fails to state the num;er of pages on which the will is written.
The allegation has no merit. The phrase -en el margen iz!uierdo de todas y cada una de las dos $ojas de
!ue esta compuesto el mismo- which means -in the left margin of each and ever1 one of the two pages
consisting of the same- shows that the will consists of two pages. The pages are num;ered correlativel1
with the letters -4)>- and -TA4- as can ;e gleaned from the phrase -las cuales estan paginadas
correlativamente con las letras .30A. y .&AS.-
Caponong%)o;le further alleges that the attestation clause fails to state e?pressl1 that the testator signed
the will and its ever1 page in the presence of three witnesses. 0he then faults the Court of Appeals for
appl1ing to the present case the rule on su;stantial compliance found in Article $7# of the )ew Civil
Code.
,#

The first sentence of the attestation clause reads: -Suscrito y declarado por el testador "lipio "ada
como su ultima voluntad y testamento en presencia de nosotros, $aiendo tamien el testador firmado
en nuestra presencia en el margen iz!uierdo de todas y cada una de las $ojas del mismo.- The >nglish
translation is: -0u;scri;ed and professed ;1 the testator Alipio A;ada as his last will and testament in our
presence" the testator having also signed it in our presence on the left margin of each and ever1 one of
the pages of the same.- The attestation clause clearl1 states that A;ada signed the will and its ever1
page in the presence of the witnesses.
@owever" Caponong%)o;le is correct in sa1ing that the attestation clause does not indicate the num;er of
witnesses. 4n this point" the Court agrees with the appellate court in appl1ing the rule on su;stantial
compliance in determining the num;er of witnesses. Ahile the attestation clause does not state the
num;er of witnesses" a close inspection of the will shows that three witnesses signed it.
This Court has applied the rule on su;stantial compliance even ;efore the effectivit1 of the )ew Civil
Code. In Dichoso de Ticson v. De Gorostiza"
7
the Court recogniBed that there are two divergent
tendencies in the law on wills" one ;eing ;ased on strict construction and the other on li;eral construction.
In Dichoso" the Court noted that "angan v. "angan"
!
the ;asic case on the li;eral construction" is
cited with approval in later decisions of the Court.
In Adeva vda. De Leynez v. Leynez"
,
the petitioner" arguing for li;eral construction of applica;le laws"
enumerated a long line of cases to support her argument while the respondent" contending that the rule
on strict construction should appl1" also cited a long series of cases to support his view. The Court" after
e?amining the cases invoked ;1 the parties" held:
? ? ? It is" of course" not possi;le to la1 down a general rule" rigid and infle?i;le" which would ;e
applica;le to all cases. :ore than an1thing else" the facts and circumstances of record are to ;e
considered in the application of an1 given rule. If the surrounding circumstances point to a regular
e?ecution of the will" and the instrument appears to have ;een e?ecuted su;stantiall1 in accordance with
the re=uirements of the law" the inclination should" in the a;sence of an1 suggestion of ;ad faith" forger1
or fraud" lean towards its admission to pro;ate" although the document ma1 suffer from some
imperfection of language" or other non%essential defect. ? ? ?.
An attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving" in permanent form" a record of the facts
attending the e?ecution of the will" so that in case of failure of the memor1 of the su;scri;ing witnesses" or
other casualt1" the1 ma1 still ;e proved. (Thompson on Aills" ,d ed." sec. !,.) A will" therefore" should
not ;e re5ected where its attestation clause serves the purpose of the law. ? ? ?

'aGH4p$i'.net
Ae rule to appl1 the li;eral construction in the pro;ate of A;adaRs will. A;adaRs will clearl1 shows four
signatures: that of A;ada and of three other persons. It is reasona;le to conclude that there are three
witnesses to the will. The =uestion on the num;er of the witnesses is answered ;1 an e?amination of the
will itself and without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde. The Court e?plained the e?tent and
limits of the rule on li;eral construction" thus:
GTHhe so%called li;eral rule does not offer an1 puBBle or difficult1" nor does it open the door to serious
conse=uences. The later decisions do tell us when and where to stopD the1 draw the dividing line with
precision. 1/y do no. a33o@ /8-d/n>/ aliunde .o =-33 a 8o-d -n any 2a,. o= .1/ do>+7/n. o, *+223y
7-**-n5 d/.a-3* .1a. *1o+3d a22/a, -n .1/ @-33 -.*/3=.l^vvphi1.net 1/y on3y 2/,7-. a 2,o0/ -n.o .1/
@-33, an /A23o,a.-on @-.1-n -.* >on=-n/*, .o a*>/,.a-n -.* 7/an-n5 o, .o d/./,7-n/ .1/ /A-*./n>/ o,
a0*/n>/ o= .1/ ,/B+-*-./ =o,7a3-.-/* o= 3a@. This clear" sharp limitation eliminates uncertaint1 and ought
to ;anish an1 fear of dire results.
3
(>mphasis supplied)
The phrase -en presencia de nosotros- or -in our presence- coupled with the signatures appearing on the
will itself and after the attestation clause could onl1 mean that: (!) A;ada su;scri;ed to and professed
;efore the three witnesses that the document was his last will" and (,) A;ada signed the will and the left
margin of each page of the will in the presence of these three witnesses.
Finall1" Caponong%)o;le alleges that the attestation clause does not e?pressl1 state the circumstances
that the witnesses @-.n/**/d and signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the testator and of
each other. This Court has ruled:
6recision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is desira;le. @owever" it is not imperative
that a parrot%like cop1 of the words of the statute ;e made. It is sufficient if from the language emplo1ed it
can reasona;l1 ;e deduced that the attestation clause fulfills what the law e?pects of it.
*

The last part of the attestation clause states -en testimonio de ello, cada uno de nosotros lo firmamos en
presencia de nosotros y del testador.- In >nglish" this means -in its witness" ever1 one of us also signed
in our presence and of the testator.- This clearl1 shows that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing
of the will of the testator" and that each witness signed the will in the presence of one another and of the
testator.
9!EREFORE" we AFFI': the Decision of the Court of Appeals of !, .anuar1 ,77! in CA%&.'. C( )o.
32+33.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 10355) May (8, 1993
EODORO %ANEDA, LORENZA %ANEDA, ERE'A %ANEDA, &UAN %A"ALLERO, AUREA
%A"ALLERO, O'%AR LARO'A, !ELEN %A"ALLERO, 'ANO' %A"ALLERO, $A"LO
%A"ALLERO, V#%OR RAGA, MAUR#%#A RAGA, 6U#R#%A RAGA, RU$ERO A"A$O, ,/2,/*/n./d
1/,/-n 0y 1-* A..o,n/y--n-Fa>., ARM'#%#A C A"A$O VELANO, and %ON'E'O %ANEDA,
,/2,/*/n./d 1/,/-n 0y 1-* 1/-,*, &E'U' %ANEDA, NA#V#DAD %ANEDA and ARURO %ANEDA,
vs. !ON. %OUR OF A$$EAL' and 9#LL#AM %A"RERA, a* '2/>-a3 Ad7-n-*.,a.o, o= .1/ E*.a./ o=
Ma./o %a0a33/,o,
6resented for resolution ;1 this Court in the present petition for review on certiorari is the issue of whether
or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and testament of the late :ateo Ca;allero complies
with the re=uirements of Article $7*" in relation to Article $7#" of the Civil Code.
The records show that on Decem;er *" !#2$" :ateo Ca;allero" a widower without an1 children and
alread1 in the twilight 1ears of his life" e?ecuted a last will and testament at his residence in Talisa1" Ce;u
;efore three attesting witnesses" namel1" Cipriano 8a;uca" &regorio Ca;ando and Flaviano Toregosa.
The said testator was dul1 assisted ;1 his law1er" Att1. >milio 8umontad" and a notar1 pu;lic" Att1. Filoteo
:anigos" in the preparation of that last will.
1
It was declared therein" among other things" that the testator
was leaving ;1 wa1 of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to 6resentacion &aviola"
Angel A;ata1o" 'ogelio A;ata1o" Isa;elito A;ata1o" 9enoni &. Ca;rera and :arcosa Alcantara" all of
whom do not appear to ;e related to the testator.
(

Four months later" or on April 3" !#2#" :ateo Ca;allero himself filed a petition docketed as 0pecial
6roceeding )o. $##%' ;efore 9ranch II of the then Court of First Instance of Ce;u seeking the pro;ate
of his last will and testament. The pro;ate court set the petition for hearing on August ,7" !#2# ;ut the
same and su;se=uent scheduled hearings were postponed for one reason to another. 4n :a1 ,#" !#$7"
the testator passed awa1 ;efore his petition could finall1 ;e heard ;1 the pro;ate court.
3
4n Fe;ruar1 ,*"
!#$!" 9enoni Ca;rera" on of the legatees named in the will" sough his appointment as special
administrator of the testator<s estate" the estimated value of which was 6,3"777.77" and he was so
appointed ;1 the pro;ate court in its order of :arch +" !#$!.
)
Thereafter" herein petitioners" claiming to ;e nephews and nieces of the testator" instituted a second
petition" entitled -In the :atter of the Intestate >state of :ateo Ca;allero- and docketed as 0pecial
6roceeding )o. #+*%'" ;efore 9ranch IM of the aforesaid Court of First Instance of Ce;u. 4n 4cto;er
!$" !#$," herein petitioners had their said petition intestate proceeding consolidated with 0pecial
6roceeding )o. $##%' in 9ranch II of the Court of First Instance of Ce;u and opposed thereat the
pro;ate of the Testator<s will and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate.
5
9enoni Ca;rera died on Fe;ruar1 $" !#$, hence the pro;ate court" now known as 9ranch M( of the
'egional Trial Court of Ce;u" appointed Ailliam Ca;rera as special administrator on .une ,!" !#$.
Thereafter" on .ul1 ,7" !#$" it issued an order for the return of the records of 0pecial 6roceeding )o.
#+*%' to the archives since the testate proceeding for the pro;ate of the will had to ;e heard and
resolved first. 4n :arch ,+" !#$3 the case was reraffled and eventuall1 assigned to 9ranch MII of the
'egional Trial Court of Ce;u where it remained until the conclusion of the pro;ate proceedings.
6
In the course of the hearing in 0pecial 6roceeding )o. $##%'" herein petitioners appeared as oppositors
and o;5ected to the allowance of the testator<s will on the ground that on the alleged date of its e?ecution"
the testator was alread1 in the poor state of health such that he could not have possi;l1 e?ecuted the
same. 6etitioners likewise reiterated the issue as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator
therein.
7
4n the other hand" one of the attesting witnesses" Cipriano 8a;uca" and the notar1 pu;lic Att1. Filoteo
:anigos" testified that the testator e?ecuted the will in =uestion in their presence while he was of sound
and disposing mind and that" contrar1 to the assertions of the oppositors" :ateo Ca;allero was in good
health and was not undul1 influenced in an1 wa1 in the e?ecution of his will. 8a;uca also testified that he
and the other witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The
other two attesting witnesses were not presented in the pro;ate hearing as the had died ;1 then.
8
4n April *" !#$$" the pro;ate court rendered a decision declaring the will in =uestion as the last will and
testament of the late :ateo Ca;allero" on the ratiocination that:
. . . The self%serving testimon1 of the two witnesses of the oppositors cannot overcome
the positive testimonies of Att1. Filoteo :anigos and Cipriano 8a;uca who clearl1 told the
Court that indeed :ateo Ca;allero e?ecuted the 8ast Aill and Testament now marked
>?hi;it -C- on Decem;er *" !#2$. :oreover" the fact that it was :ateo Ca;allero who
initiated the pro;ate of his Aill during his lifetime when he caused the filing of the original
petition now marked >?hi;it -D- clearl1 underscores the fact that this was indeed his 8ast
Aill. At the start" counsel for the oppositors manifested that he would want the signature
of :ateo Ca;allero in >?hi;it -C- e?amined ;1 a handwriting e?pert of the )9I ;ut it
would seem that despite their avowal and intention for the e?amination of this signature
of :ateo Ca;allero in >?hi;it -C-" nothing came out of it ;ecause the1 a;andoned the
idea and instead presented Aurea Ca;allero and @elen Ca;allero Campo as witnesses
for the oppositors.
All told" it is the finding of this Court that >?hi;it -C- is the 8ast Aill and Testament of
:ateo Ca;allero and that it was e?ecuted in accordance with all the re=uisites of the law.

9

Cndaunted ;1 the said 5udgment of the pro;ate court" petitioners elevated the case in the Court of
Appeals in CA%&.'. C( )o. !#++#. The1 asserted therein that the will in =uestion is null and void for the
reason that its attestation clause is fatall1 defective since it fails to specificall1 state that the instrumental
witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that the1 also signed the
will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
4n 4cto;er !*" !##!" respondent court promulgated its decision
10
affirming that of the trial court" and
ruling that the attestation clause in the last will of :ateo Ca;allero su;stantiall1 complies with Article $7*
of the Civil Code" thus:
The =uestion therefore is whether the attestation clause in =uestion ma1 ;e considered
as having su;stantial1 complied with the re=uirements of Art. $7* of the Civil Code. Ahat
appears in the attestation clause which the oppositors claim to ;e defective is -we do
certif1 that the testament was read ;1 him and the attestator" :ateo Ca;allero" has
pu;lished unto us the foregoing will consisting of T@'>> 6A&>0" including the
acknowledgment" each page num;ered correlativel1 in letters of the upper part of each
page" as his 8ast Aill and Testament" and $e $as signed t$e same and every page
t$ereof, on t$e spaces provided for $is signature and on t$e left $and margin in t$e
presence of t$e said testator and in t$e presence of eac$ and all of us (emphasis
supplied).
To our thinking" this is sufficient compliance and no evidence need ;e presented to
indicate the meaning that the said will was signed ;1 the testator and ;1 them (the
witnesses) in the presence of all of them and of one another. 4r as the language of the
law would have it that the testator signed the will -in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses" and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in
the presence of the testator and of one another.- If not completel1 or ideall1 perfect in
accordance with the wordings of Art. $7* ;ut (sic) the phrase as formulated is in
su;stantial compliance with the re=uirement of the law.-
11
6etitioners moved for the reconsideration of the said ruling of respondent court" ;ut the same was denied
in the latter<s resolution of .anuar1 !3" !##,"
1(
hence this appeal now ;efore us. 6etitioners assert that
respondent court has ruled upon said issue in a manner not in accord with the law and settled
5urisprudence on the matter and are now =uestioning once more" on the same ground as that raised
;efore respondent court" the validit1 of the attestation clause in the last will of :ateo Ca;allero.
Ae find the present petition to ;e meritorious" as we shall shortl1 hereafter" after some prefator1
o;servations which we feel should ;e made in aid of the rationale for our resolution of the controvers1.
!. A will has ;een defined as a species of conve1ance where;1 a person is permitted" with the formalities
prescri;ed ;1 law" to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate after his death.
13
Cnder the
Civil Code" there are two kinds of wills which a testator ma1 e?ecute.
1)
the first kind is the ordinar1 or
attested will" the e?ecution of which is governed ;1 Articles $73 to $7# of the Code. Article $7* re=uires
that:
Art. $7*. >ver1 will" other than a holographic will" must ;e su;scri;ed at the end thereof
;1 the testator himself or ;1 the testator<s name written ;1 some other person in his
presence" and ;1 his e?press direction" and attested and su;scri;ed ;1 three or more
credi;le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person re=uested ;1 him to write his name and the instrumental
witnesses of the will" shall also sign" as aforesaid" each and ever1 page thereof" e?cept
the last" on the left margin" and all the pages shall ;e num;ered correlativel1 in letters
placed on the upper part of each page.
The attestation should state the num;er of pages used upon which the will is written" and
the fact that the testator signed the will and ever1 page thereof" or caused some other
person to write his name" under his e?press direction" in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses" and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in
the presence of the testator and of one another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witness" it shall ;e interpreted
to them.
In addition" the ordinar1 will must ;e acknowledged ;efore a notar1 pu;lic ;1 a testator and the attesting
witness.
15
hence it is likewise known as notarial will. Ahere the attestator is deaf or deaf%mute" Article
$72 re=uires that he must personall1 read the will" if a;le to do so. 4therwise" he should designate two
persons who would read the will and communicate its contents to him in a practica;le manner. 4n the
other hand" if the testator is ;lind" the will should ;e read to him twiceD once" ;1 an1one of the witnesses
thereto" and then again" ;1 the notar1 pu;lic ;efore whom it is acknowledged.
16

The other kind of will is the holographic will" which Article $!7 defines as one that is entirel1 written"
dated" and signed ;1 the testator himself. This kind of will" unlike the ordinar1 t1pe" re=uires no attestation
;1 witnesses. A common re=uirement in ;oth kinds of will is that the1 should ;e in writing and must have
;een e?ecuted in a language or dialect known to the testator.
17

@owever" in the case of an ordinar1 or attested will" its attestation clause need not ;e written in a
language or dialect known to the testator since it does not form part of the testamentar1 disposition.
Furthermore" the language used in the attestation clause likewise need not even ;e known to the
attesting witnesses.
18
The last paragraph of Article $7* merel1 re=uires that" in such a case" the
attestation clause shall ;e interpreted to said witnesses.
An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinar1 will where;1 the attesting witnesses certif1 that the
instrument has ;een e?ecuted ;efore them and to the manner of the e?ecution the same.
19
It is a
separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of e?ecution and once signed ;1
the witnesses" it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities re=uired ;1 law
has ;een o;served.
(0
It is made for the purpose of preserving in a permanent form a record of the facts
that attended the e?ecution of a particular will" so that in case of failure of the memor1 of the attesting
witnesses" or other casualt1" such facts ma1 still ;e proved.
(1

Cnder the third paragraph of Article $7*" such a clause" the complete lack of which would result in the
invalidit1 of the will"
((
should state (!) t$e numer of t$e pages used upon which the will is writtenD (,)
that the testator signed" or e?pressl1 caused another to sign" the will and ever1 page thereof in t$e
presence of t$e attesting %itnessesD and () that the attesting %itnesses %itnessed t$e signing y t$e
testator of t$e %ill and all its pages" and that said %itnesses also signed t$e %ill and ever1 page thereof in
t$e presence of t$e testator and of one anot$er.
The purpose of the law in re=uiring the clause to state the num;er of pages on which the will is written is
to safeguard against possi;le interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent an1
increase or decrease in the pagesD
(3
whereas the su;scription of the signature of the testator and the
attesting witnesses is made for the purpose of authentication and identification" and thus indicates that
the will is the ver1 same instrument e?ecuted ;1 the testator and attested to ;1 the witnesses.
()
Further" ;1 attesting and su;scri;ing to the will" the witnesses there;1 declare the due e?ecution of the
will as em;odied in the attestation clause.
(5
The attestation clause" therefore" provide strong legal
guaranties for the due e?ecution of a will and to insure the authenticit1 thereof.
(6
As it appertains onl1 to
the witnesses and not to the testator" it need ;e signed onl1 ;1 them.
(7
Ahere it is left unsigned" it would
result in the invalidation of the will as it would ;e possi;le and eas1 to add the clause on a su;se=uent
occasion in the a;sence of the testator and its witnesses.
(8
In its report" the Code Commission commented on the reasons of the law for re=uiring the formalities to
;e followed in the e?ecution of wills" in the following manner:
The underl1ing and fundamental o;5ectives permeating the provisions on the law on wills
in this 6ro5ect consists in the li;eraliBation of the manner of their e?ecution with the end in
view of giving the testator more freedom in e?pressing his last wishes" ;ut with sufficient
safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the e?ercise of undue
and improper pressure and influence upon the testator.
This o;5ective is in accord with the modern tendenc1 with respect to the formalities in the
e?ecution of wills. . . .
(9
,. An e?amination of the last will and testament of :ateo Ca;allero shows that it is comprised of three
sheets all of which have ;een num;ered correlativel1" with the left margin of each page thereof ;earing
the respective signatures of the testator and the three attesting witnesses. The part of the will containing
the testamentar1 dispositions is e?pressed in the Ce;uano%(isa1an dialect and is signed at the foot
thereof ;1 the testator. The attestation clause in =uestion" on the other hand" is recited in the >nglish
language and is likewise signed at the end thereof ;1 the three attesting witnesses hereto.
30
0ince it is
the prover;ial ;one of contention" we reproduce it again for facilit1 of reference:
Ae" the undersigned attesting Aitnesses" whose 'esidences and postal addresses
appear on the 4pposite of our respective names" we do here;1 certif1 that the Testament
was read ;1 him and the testator" :AT>4 CA9A88>'4D has pu;lished unto us the
foregoing Aill consisting of T@'>> 6A&>0" including the Acknowledgment" each page
num;ered correlativel1 in the letters on the upper part of each page" as his 8ast Aill and
Testament and he has the same and ever1 page thereof" on the spaces provided for his
signature and on the left hand margin" in the presence of the said testator and in the
presence of each and all of us.
It will ;e noted that Article $7* re=uires that the witness should ;oth attest and su;scri;e to the will in the
presence of the testator and of one another. -Attestation- and -su;scription- differ in meaning. Attestation
is the act of senses" while su;scription is the act of the hand. The former is mental" the latter mechanical"
and to attest a will is to know that it was pu;lished as such" and to certif1 the facts re=uired to constitute
an actual and legal pu;licationD ;ut to su;scri;e a paper pu;lished as a will is onl1 to write on the same
paper the names of the witnesses" for the sole purpose of identification.
31
In /aoada vs. -izal"
3(
we clarified that attestation consists in witnessing the testator<s e?ecution of the
will in order to see and take note mentall1 that those things are done which the statute re=uires for the
e?ecution of a will and that the signature of the testator e?ists as a fact. 4n the other hand" su;scription is
the signing of the witnesses< names upon the same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper
as the will which was e?ecuted ;1 the testator. As it involves a mental act" there would ;e no means"
therefore" of ascertaining ;1 a ph1sical e?amination of the will whether the witnesses had indeed signed
in the presence of the testator and of each other unless this is su;stantiall1 e?pressed in the attestation.
It is contended ;1 petitioners that the afore=uoted attestation clause" in contravention of the e?press
re=uirements of the third paragraph of Article $7* of the Civil Code for attestation clauses" fails to
specificall1 state the fact that the attesting witnesses the testator sign the will and all its pages in their
presence and that the1" the witnesses" likewise signed the will and ever1 page thereof in the presence of
the testator and of each other. Ae agree.
Ahat is fairl1 apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that
while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three
attesting witnesses and states as well the num;er of pages that were used" the same does not e?pressl1
state therein the circumstance that said witnesses su;scri;ed their respective signatures to the will in the
presence of the testator and of each other.
The phrase -and he has signed the same and ever1 page thereof" on the spaces provided for his
signature and on the left hand margin"- o;viousl1 refers to the testator and not the instrumental witnesses
as it is immediatel1 preceded ;1 the words -as his 8ast Aill and Testament.- 4n the other hand" although
the words -in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of us- ma1" at first ;lush"
appear to likewise signif1 and refer to the witnesses" it must" however" ;e interpreted as referring onl1 to
the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since said phrase immediatel1 follows the words -$e
has signed the same and ever1 page thereof" on the spaces provided for $is signature and on the left
hand margin.- Ahat is then clearl1 lacking" in the final logical anal1sis " is t$e statement t$at t$e
%itnesses signed t$e %ill and every page t$ereof in t$e presence of t$e testator and of one anot$er.
It is our considered view that the a;sence of that statement re=uired ;1 law is a fatal defect or
imperfection which must necessaril1 result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to ;e
admitted to pro;ate. 6etitioners are correct in pointing out that the aforestated defect in the attestation
clause o;viousl1 cannot ;e characteriBed as merel1 involving the form of the will or the language used
therein which would warrant the application of the su;stantial compliance rule" as contemplated in the
pertinent provision thereon in the Civil Code" to wit:
Art. $7#. In the a;sence of ;ad faith" forger1" or fraud" or undue and improper pressure
and influence" defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in t$e language
used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact
e?ecuted and attested in su;stantial compliance with all the re=uirements of article $7*-
(>mphasis supplied.)
Ahile it ma1 ;e true that the attestation clause is indeed su;scri;ed at the end thereof and at the left
margin of each page ;1 the three attesting witnesses" it certainl1 cannot ;e conclusivel1 inferred
therefrom that the said witness affi?ed their respective signatures in the presence of the testator and of
each other since" as petitioners correctl1 o;served" the presence of said signatures onl1 esta;lishes the
fact that it was indeed signed" ;ut it does not prove that the attesting witnesses did su;scri;e to the will in
the presence of the testator and of each other. The e?ecution of a will is supposed to ;e one act so that
where the testator and the witnesses sign on various da1s or occasions and in various com;inations" the
will cannot ;e stamped with the imprimatur of effectivit1.
33
Ae ;elieve that the further comment of former .ustice ..9.8. 'e1es
3)
regarding Article $7#" wherein he
urged caution in the application of the su;stantial compliance rule therein" is correct and should ;e
applied in the case under consideration" as well as to future cases with similar =uestions:
. . . The rule must ;e limited to disregarding those defects that can ;e supplied ;1 an
e?amination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutivel1 num;eredD whether
the signatures appear in each and ever1 pageD whether the su;scri;ing witnesses are
three or the will was notariBed. All theses are facts that the will itself can reveal" and
defects or even omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can ;e safel1
disregarded. 9ut the total num;er of pages" and %$et$er all persons re!uired to sign did
so in t$e presence of eac$ ot$er must sustantially appear in t$e attestation clause,
eing t$e only c$ec# against perjury in t$e proate proceedings. (>mphasis ours.)
. Ae stress once more that under Article $7#" the defects and imperfections must onl1 ;e with respect to
the form of the attestation or the language emplo1ed therein. 0uch defects or imperfections would not
render a will invalid should it ;e proved that the will was reall1 e?ecuted and attested in compliance with
Article $7*. In this regard" however" the manner of proving the due e?ecution and attestation has ;een
held to ;e limited to merel1 an e?amination of the will itself without resorting to evidence aliunde" whether
oral or written.
The foregoing considerations do not appl1 where the attestation clause totall1 omits the fact that the
attesting witnesses signed each and ever1 page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each
other.
35
In such a situation" the defect is not onl1 in the form or language of the attestation clause ;ut the
total a;sence of a specific element re=uired ;1 Article $7* to ;e specificall1 stated in the attestation
clause of a will. That is precisel1 the defect complained of in the present case since there is no plausi;le
wa1 ;1 which we can read into the =uestioned attestation clause statement" or an implication thereof" that
the attesting witness did actuall1 ;ear witness to the signing ;1 the testator of the will and all of its pages
and that said instrumental witnesses also signed the will and ever1 page thereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another.
Furthermore" the rule on su;stantial compliance in Article $7# cannot ;e revoked or relied on ;1
respondents since it presupposes that the defects in the attestation clause can ;e cured or supplied ;1
the te?t of the will or a consideration of matters apparent therefrom which would provide the data not
e?pressed in the attestation clause or from which it ma1 necessaril1 ;e gleaned or clearl1 inferred that the
acts not stated in the omitted te?tual re=uirements were actuall1 complied within the e?ecution of the will.
In other words" defects must ;e remedied ;1 intrinsic evidence supplied ;1 the will itself.
In the case at ;ar" contraril1" proof of the acts re=uired to have ;een performed ;1 the attesting witnesses
can ;e supplied ;1 onl1 e?trinsic evidence thereof" since an overall appreciation of the contents of the will
1ields no ;asis whatsoever from with such facts ma1 ;e plausi;l1 deduced. Ahat private respondent
insists on are the testimonies of his witnesses alleging that the1 saw the compliance with such
re=uirements ;1 the instrumental witnesses" o;livious of the fact that he is there;1 resorting to e?trinsic
evidence to prove the same and would accordingl1 ;e doing ;1 the indirection what in law he cannot do
directl1.
3. 6rior to the advent of the Civil Code on August 7" !#*7" there was a divergence of views as to which
manner of interpretation should ;e followed in resolving issues centering on compliance with the legal
formalities re=uired in the e?ecution of wills. The formal re=uirements were at that time em;odied
primaril1 in 0ection +!$ of Act )o. !#7" the Code of Civil 6rocedure. 0aid section was later amended ;1
Act )o. ,+3*" ;ut the provisions respecting said formalities found in Act. )o. !#7 and the amendment
thereto were practicall1 reproduced and adopted in the Civil Code.
4ne view advance the li;eral or su;stantial compliance rule. This was first laid down in the case of
"angan vs. "angan"
36
where it was held that the o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of
wills is to close the door against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution of wills and testaments and to
guarantee their truth and authenticit1. Therefore" the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in such a
wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. )onetheless" it was also emphasiBed that one must not lose sight
of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise of the right to make a will"
hence when an interpretation alread1 given assures such ends" an1 other interpretation whatsoever that
adds nothing ;ut demands more re=uisites entirel1 unnecessar1" useless and frustrative of the testator<s
last will" must ;e disregarded. The su;se=uent cases of "vera vs. Barcia"
37
"ldaa vs. -o!ue"
38
3nson
vs. "ella"
39
*ecson vs. Coronel"
)0
>ernandez vs. ?ergel de &ios, et al."
)1
and 0ayve vs. 6ojal, et al.
)(

all adhered to this position.
The other view which advocated the rule that statutes which prescri;e the formalities that should ;e
o;served in the e?ecution of wills are mandator1 in nature and are to ;e strictl1 construed was followed in
the su;se=uent cases of In t$e 6atter of t$e Estate of Saguinsin"
)3
In re 7ill of "ndrada"
))
3y Co!ue vs.
Sioca"
)5
In re Estate of 0eumar#"
)6
and Sano vs. 5uintana.
)7
Buman vs. Borec$o, et al."
)8
provided the Court with the occasion to clarif1 the seemingl1 conflicting
decisions in the aforementioned cases. In said case of Buman" the attestation clause had failed to state
that the witnesses signed the will and each and ever1 page thereof on the left margin in the presence of
the testator. The will in =uestion was disallowed" with these reasons therefor:
In support of their argument on the assignment of error a;ove%mentioned" appellants rel1
on a series of cases of this court ;eginning with (I)n the :atter of the (>)state of
0aguinsin (G!#,7H" 3! 6hil." $2*)" continuing with In re Aill of Andrada G!#,!H" 3, 6hil."
!$7)" C1 Co=ue vs. )avas 8. 0ioca G!#,,H" 3 6hil." 37*)" and In re >state of )eumark
(G!#,H" 3+ 6hil." $3!)" and ending with Sano vs. 5uintana (G!#,*H" 3$ 6hil." *7+).
Appellee counters with the citation of a series of cases ;eginning with "angan vs.
"angan (G!#!#H" 37 6hil." 32+)" continuing through "ldaa vs. -o!ue (G!#,,H" 3 6hil."
2$)" and >ernandez vs. ?ergel de &ios (G!#,3H" 3+ 6hil." #,,)" and culminating in 0ayve
vs. 6ojal and "guilar (G!#,3H" 32 6hil." !*,). In its last anal1sis" our task is to contrast
and" if possi;le" conciliate the last two decisions cited ;1 opposing counsel" namel1"
those of Sano vs. 5uintana" supra" and 0ayve vs. 6ojal and "guilar" supra.
In the case of Sano vs. 5uintana" supra" it was decided that an attestation clause which
does not recite that the witnesses signed the will and each and ever1 page thereof on the
left margin in the presence of the testator is defective" and such a defect annuls the will.
The case of 3y Co!ue vs. Sioca" supra" was cited" ;ut the case of 0ayve vs. 6ojal and
"guilar" supra" was not mentioned. In contrast" is the decision in 0ayve vs. 6ojal and
"guilar" supra" wherein it was held that the attestation clause must estate the fact that the
testator and the witnesses reciprocall1 saw the signing of the will" for such an act cannot
;e proved ;1 the mere e?hi;ition of the will" if it is not stated therein. It was also held that
the fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and ever1 page of the will can ;e
proved also ;1 the mere e?amination of the signatures appearing on the document itself"
and the omission to state such evident facts does not invalidate the will.
It is a ha;it of courts to reaffirm or distinguish previous casesD seldom do the1 admit
inconsistenc1 in doctrine. /et here" unless aided impossi;le to reconcile the :o5al and
Iuintana decisions. The1 are fundamentall1 at variance. If we rel1 on one" we affirm. If
we rel1 on the other" we reverse.
In resolving this puBBling =uestion of authorit1" three outstanding points ma1 ;e
mentioned. In the first place" the :o5al" decision was concurred in ;1 onl1 four mem;ers
of the court" less than a ma5orit1" with two strong dissenting opinionsD the Iuintana
decision was concurred in ;1 seven mem;ers of the court" a clear ma5orit1" with one
formal dissent. In the second place" the :o5al decision was promulgated in Decem;er"
!#,3" while the Iuintana decision was promulgated in Decem;er" !#,*D the Iuintana
decision was thus su;se=uent in point of time. And in the third place" the Iuintana
decision is ;elieved more nearl1 to conform to the applica;le provisions of the law.
The right to dispose of propert1 ;1 will is governed entirel1 ;1 statute. The law of the
case is here found in section +! of the Code of Civil 6rocedure as amended ;1 Act )o.
,+3*" and in section +3 of the same Code" as unamended. It is in part provided in
section +!" as amended that -)o %ill . . . s$all e valid . . . unless . . ..- It is further
provided in the same section that -The attestation s$all state the num;er of sheets or
pages used" upon which the will is written" and the fact that the testator signed the will
and ever1 page thereof" or caused some other person to write his name" under his
e?press direction" in the presence of three witnesses" and the latter witnessed and signed
the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.- Codal
section +3 provides that -The will s$all ;e disallowed in either of the following case: !. If
not e?ecuted and attested as in this Act provided.- The law not alone carefull1 makes use
of the imperative" ;ut cautiousl1 goes further and makes use of the negative" to enforce
legislative intention. It is not within the province of the courts to disregard the legislative
purpose so emphaticall1 and clearl1 e?pressed.
Ae adopt and reaffirm the decision in the case of Sano vs. 5uintana" supra" and" to the
e?tent necessar1" modif1 the decision in the case of 0ayve vs. 6ojal and "guilar" supra.
(>mphases in the original te?t).
9ut after the Buman clarificator1 pronouncement" there were decisions of the Court that once more
appeared to revive the seeming diversit1 of views that was earlier threshed out therein. The cases of
5uinto vs. 6orata"
)9
-odriguez vs. "lcala"
50
Enc$evarria vs. Sarmiento"
51
and /estate Estate of /oray
5(

went the wa1 of the ruling as restated in Buman. 9ut &e Bala vs. Bonzales, et al."
53
-ey vs. Cartagena"

5)
&e /icson vs. &e Borostiza"
55
Seastian vs. *anganian"
56
-odriguez vs. Iap"
57
Brey vs. >aia"
58

Leynez vs. Leynez"
59
6artir vs. 6artir"
60
"lcala vs. &e ?illa"
61
Saado vs.
>ernandez"
6(
6endoza vs. *ilapil"
63
and Lopez vs. Lioro"
6)
veered awa1 from the strict interpretation
rule and esta;lished a trend toward an application of the li;eral view.
The Code Commission" cogniBant of such a conflicting welter of views and of the undenia;le inclination
towards a li;eral construction" recommended the codification of the su;stantial compliance rule" as it
;elieved this rule to ;e in accord with the modern tendenc1 to give a li;eral approach to the interpretation
of wills. 0aid rule thus ;ecame what is now Article $7# of the Civil Code" with this e?planation of the Code
Commission:
The present law provides for onl1 one form of e?ecuting a will" and that is" in accordance
with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure as amended
;1 Act )o. ,+3*. The 0upreme Court of the 6hilippines had previousl1 upheld the strict
compliance with the legal formalities and had even said that the provisions of 0ection +!$
of the Code of Civil 6rocedure" as amended regarding the contents of the attestation
clause were mandator1" and non%compliance therewith invalidated the will (C1 Co=ue vs.
0ioca" 3 6hil. 37*). These decisions necessaril1 restrained the freedom of the testator in
disposing of his propert1.
@owever" in recent 1ears the 0upreme Court changed its attitude and has ;ecome more
li;eral in the interpretation of the formalities in the e?ecution of wills. This li;eral view is
enunciated in the cases of -odriguez vs. Iap" &.'. )o. 3*#,3" :a1 !$" !##D Leynez vs.
Leynez" &.'. )o. 3+7#2" 4cto;er !$" !##D 6artir vs. 6artir" &.'. )o. 3+##*" .une ,!"
!#37D and "lcala vs. ?illa" &.'. )o. 32*!" April !$" !#3!.
In the a;ove mentioned decisions of our 0upreme Court" it has practicall1 gone ;ack to
the original provisions of 0ection +!$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure ;efore its
amendment ;1 Act )o. ,+3* in the 1ear !#!+. To turn this attitude into a legislative
declaration and to attain the main o;5ective of the proposed Code in the li;eraliBation of
the manner of e?ecuting wills" article $,# of the 6ro5ect is recommended" which reads:
-Art. $,#. In the a;sence of ;ad faith" forger1" or fraud" or undue and
improper pressure and influence" defects and imperfections in the form of
attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid
if it is proved that the will was in fact e?ecuted and attested in su;stantial
compliance with all the re=uirements of article $,#.-
65
The so%called li;eral rule" the Court said in Bil vs. 6urciano"
66
-does not offer an1 puBBle or difficult1" nor
does it open the door to serious conse=uences. The later decisions do tell us when and where to stopD
the1 draw the dividing line with precision. The1 do not allow evidence aliunde to fill a void in an1 part of
the document or suppl1 missing details that should appear in the will itself. The1 onl1 permit a pro;e into
the will" an e?ploration into its confines" to ascertain its meaning or to determine the e?istence or a;sence
of the re=uisite formalities of law. This clear" sharp limitation eliminates uncertaint1 and ought to ;anish
an1 fear of dire results.-
It ma1 thus ;e stated that the rule" as it now stands" is that omissions which can ;e supplied ;1 an
e?amination of the will itself" without the need of resorting to e?trinsic evidence" will not ;e fatal and"
correspondingl1" would not o;struct the allowance to pro;ate of the will ;eing assailed. @owever" those
omissions which cannot ;e supplied e?cept ;1 evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the
attestation clause and ultimatel1" of the will itself.
67
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is here;1 &'A)T>D and the impugned decision of respondent court is
here;1 '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>. The court a !uo is accordingl1 directed to forthwith DI0:I00 its
0pecial 6roceeding )o. $##%' (6etition for the 6ro;ate of the 8ast Aill and Testament of :ateo
Ca;allero) and to '>(I(> 0pecial 6roceeding )o. #+*%' (In the matter of the Intestate >state of :ateo
Ca;allero) as an active case and thereafter dul1 proceed with the settlement of the estate of the said
decedent.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 1(3)86 A+5+*. 1(, 1999
EUGEN#A RAMONAL %ODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, vs. EVANGEL#NE R. %ALUGAY,
&O'E$!#NE 'AL%EDO, and UEFEM#A $A#GA',
9efore us is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals
!
and its resolution
den1ing reconsideration" ruling:
Cpon the unre;utted testimon1 of appellant >vangeline Caluga1 and witness :atilde 'amonal
9inana1" the authenticit1 of testators holographic will has ;een esta;lished and the handwriting
and signature therein (e?hi;it 0) are hers" enough to pro;ate said will. 'eversal of the 5udgment
appealed from and the pro;ate of the holographic will in =uestion ;e called for. The rule is that
after plaintiff has completed presentation of his evidence and the defendant files a motion for
5udgment on demurrer to evidence on the ground that upon the facts and the law plaintiff has
shown no right to relief" if the motion is granted and the order to dismissal is reversed on appeal"
the movant loses his right to present evidence in his ;ehalf (0ec" ! 'ule * 'evised 'ules of
Court). .udgment ma1" therefore" ;e rendered for appellant in the instant case.
Aherefore" the order appealed from is '>(>'0>D and 5udgment rendered allowing the pro;ate
of the holographic will of the testator :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal.
,
The facts are as follows:
4n April +" !##7" >vangeline Caluga1" .osephine 0alcedo and >ufemia 6atigas" devisees and legatees of
the holographic will of the deceased :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" filed with the 'egional Trial Court"
:isamis 4riental" 9ranch !$" a petition

for pro;ate of the holographic will of the deceased" who died on

.anuar1 !+" !##7.
In the petition" respondents claimed that the deceased :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" was of sound and
disposing mind when she e?ecuted the will on August 7" !#2$" that there was no fraud" undue influence"
and duress emplo1ed in the person of the testator" and will was written voluntaril1.
The assessed value of the decedent<s propert1" including all real and personal propert1 was a;out
6377"777.77" at the time of her death.
3
4n .une ,$" !##7" >ugenia 'amonal Codo1 and :anuel 'amonal filed an opposition
*
to the petition for
pro;ate" alleging that the holographic will was a forger1 and that the same is even illegi;le. This gives an
impression that a -third hand- of an interested part1 other than the -true hand- of :atilde 0eFo (da. de
'amonal e?ecuted the holographic will.
6etitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearing on will after ever1 disposition is out
of the ordinar1. If the deceased was the one who e?ecuted the will" and was not forced" the dates and the
signature should appear at the ;ottom after the dispositions" as regularl1 done and not after ever1
disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of the deceased" it was procured
;1 undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the ;eneficiaries" or through fraud and
tricker1.'(%p$i'.n)t
'espondents presented si? (+) witnesses and various documentar1 evidence. 6etitioners instead of
presenting their evidence" filed a demurrer
+
to evidence" claiming that respondents failed to esta;lish
sufficient factual and legal ;asis for the pro;ate of the holographic will of the deceased :atilde 0eFo (da.
de 'amonal.
4n )ovem;er ,+" !##7" the lower Court issued an order" the dispositive portion of which reads:
A@>'>F4'>" in view of the foregoing consideration" the Demurrer to >vidence having ;eing
well taken" same is granted" and the petition for pro;ate of the document (>?hi;it -0-) on the
purported @olographic Aill of the late :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" is denied for insufficienc1
of evidence and lack of merits.
2
4n Decem;er !," !##7" respondents filed a notice of appeal"
$
and in support of their appeal" the
respondents once again reiterated the testimon1 of the following witnesses" namel1: (!) Augusto )eriD (,)
&enerosa 0enonD () :atilde 'amonal 9inana1D (3) Teresita (edadD (*) Fiscal 'odolfo AagaD and (+)
>vangeline Caluga1.
To have a clear understanding of the testimonies of the witnesses" we recite an account of their
testimonies.
"ugusto 0eri" Clerk of Court" Court of First Instance of :isamis 4riental" where the special proceedings
for the pro;ate of the holographic will of the deceased was filed. @e produced and identified the records
of the case. The documents presented ;ear the signature of the deceased" :atilde 0eFo (da. de
'amonal" for the purpose of la1ing the ;asis for comparison of the handwriting of the testatri?" with the
writing treated or admitted as genuine ;1 the part1 against whom the evidence is offered.
Benerosa Senon" election registrar of Caga1an de 4ro" was presented to produced and identif1 the
voter<s affidavit of the decedent. @owever" the voters< affidavit was not produced for the same was alread1
destro1ed and no longer availa;le.
6atilde -amonal 2inanay" testified that the deceased :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal was her aunt" and
that after the death of :atilde<s hus;and" the latter lived with her in her parent<s house for eleven (!!)
1ears from !#*$ to !#+#. During those eleven (!!) 1ears of close association the deceased" she ac=uired
familiarit1 with her signature and handwriting as she used to accompan1 her (deceased :atilde 0eFo
(da. de 'amonal) in collecting rentals from her various tenants of commercial ;uildings" and deceased
alwa1s issued receipts. In addition to this" she (witness :atilde 9inana1) assisted the deceased in posting
the records of the accounts" and carried personal letters of the deceased to her creditors.
6atilde -amonal 2inanay further testified that at the time of the death of :atilde (da. de 'amonal" she
left a holographic will dated August 7" !#2$" which was personall1 and entirel1 written" dated and signed"
;1 the deceased and that all the dispositions therein" the dates" and the signatures in said will" were that
of the deceased.
>iscal -odolfo 7aga testified that ;efore he was appointed Cit1 Fiscal of Caga1an de 4ro" he was a
practicing law1er" and handled all the pleadings and documents signed ;1 the deceased in connection
with the proceedings of her late hus;and" as a result of which he is familiar with the handwriting of the
latter. @e testified that the signature appearing in the holographic will was similar to that of the deceased"
:atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal" ;ut he can not ;e sure.
The fifth witness presented was 6rs. /eresita ?edad" an emplo1ee of the Department of >nvironment and
)atural 'esources" 'egion !7. 0he testified that she processed the application of the deceased for
pasture permit and was familiar with the signature of the deceased" since the signed documents in her
presence" when the latter was appl1ing for pasture permit.
Finall1" Evangeline Calugay" one of the respondents" testified that she had lived with the deceased since
;irth" and was in fact adopted ;1 the latter. That after a long period of time she ;ecame familiar with the
signature of the deceased. 0he testified that the signature appearing in the holographic will is the true and
genuine signature of :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal.
The holographic will which was written in (isa1an" is translated in >nglish as follows:
Instruction
August 7" !#2$
!. :1 share at Cogon" 'aminal 0treet" for >vangeline Caluga1.
(0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal
August 7" !#2$
,. .osefina 0alcedo must ;e given !"*77 s=uare meters at 6inikan 0treet.
(0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal
August 7" !#2$
. :1 5ewelr1<s shall ;e divided among:
!. >ufemia 6atigas
,. .osefina 0alcedo
. >vangeline Caluga1
(0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal
August 7" !#2$
3. I ;e=ueath m1 one (!) hectare land at :andumol" Indahag to >vangeline '. Caluga1
(0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal
August 7" !#2$
*. &ive the ,"*77 0=uare :eters at 0ta. CruB 'amonal (illage in favor of >vangeline '. Caluga1"
@elen must continue with the 0ta. CruB" once I am no longer around.
(0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal
August 7" !#2$
+. 9ur1 me where m1 hus;and .usto is ever ;uried.
(0gd) :atilde (da de 'amonal
August 7" !#2$
&ene and :anuel:
Follow m1 instruction in order that I will rest peacefull1.
:ama
:atilde (da de 'amonal
4n 4cto;er #" !##*" the Court of Appeals" rendered decision
#
ruling that the appeal was meritorious.
Citing the decision in the case of "zaola vs. Singson" !7# 6hil. !7," penned ;1 :r. .ustice .. 9. 8. 'e1es"
a recogniBed authorit1 in civil law" the Court of Appeals held:
. . . even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested" we are of the opinion that
Article $!! of our present civil code can not ;e interpreted as to re=uire the compulsor1
presentation of three witnesses to identif1 the handwriting of the testator" under penalt1 of having
the pro;ate denied. 0ince no witness ma1 have ;een present at the e?ecution of the holographic
will" none ;eing re=uired ;1 law (art. $!7" new civil code)" it ;ecomes o;vious that the e?istence
of witnesses possessing the re=uisite =ualifications is a matter ;e1ond the control of the
proponent. For it is not merel1 a =uestion of finding and producing an1 three witnessesD the1 must
;e witnesses -who know the handwriting and signature of the testator- and who can declare
(truthfull1" of course" even if the law does not e?press) -that the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator.- There ma1 ;e no availa;le witness ac=uainted with the testator<s
handD or even if so familiariBed" the witness ma1;e unwilling to give a positive opinion.
Compliance with the rule of paragraph ! of article $!! ma1 thus ;ecome an impossi;ilit1. That is
evidentl1 the reason wh1 the second paragraph of article $!! prescri;es that J
in the a;sence of an1 competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph" and if the court
deems it necessar1" e?pert testimon1 ma1 ;e resorted to.
As can ;e see" the law foresees" the possi;ilit1 that no =ualified witness ma ;e found (or what
amounts to the same thing" that no competent witness ma1 ;e willing to testif1 to the authenticit1
of the will)" and provides for resort to e?pert evidence to suppl1 the deficienc1.
It ma1 ;e true that the rule of this article (re=uiring that three witnesses ;e presented if the will is
contested and onl1 one if no contest is had) was derived from the rule esta;lished for ordinar1
testaments (CF Ca;ang vs. Delfianado" 3* 6@I8 ,#!D Tolentino v. Francisco" *2 6@I8 23,). 9ut it
can not ;e ignored that the re=uirement can ;e considered mandator1 onl1 in case of ordinar1
testaments" precisel1 ;ecause the presence of at least three witnesses at the e?ecution of
ordinar1 wills is made ;1 law essential to their validit1 (Art. $7*). Ahere the will is holographic" no
witness need ;e present (art. !7)" and the rule re=uiring production of three witnesses must ;e
deemed merel1 permissive if a;surd results are to ;e avoided.
Again" under Art. $!!" the resort to e?pert evidence is conditioned ;1 the words -if the court deem
it necessar1-" which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the court should ;e
convinced of the will<s authenticit1. Ahere the prescri;ed num;er of witnesses is produced and
the court is convinced ;1 their testimon1 that the will is genuine" it ma1 consider it unnecessar1 to
call for e?pert evidence. 4n the other hand" if no competent witness is availa;le" or none of those
produced is convincing" the court ma1 still" and in fact it should resort to handwriting e?perts. The
dut1 of the court" in fine" is to e?haust all availa;le lines of in=uir1" for the state is as much
interested as the proponent that the true intention of the testator ;e carried into effect.
6araphrasing "zaola vs. Singson" even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested"
Article $!! of the civil code cannot ;e interpreted as to re=uire the compulsor1 presentation of
three witnesses to identif1 the handwriting of the testator" under penalt1 of the having the pro;ate
denied. )o witness need ;e present in the e?ecution of the holographic will. And the rule
re=uiring the production of three witnesses is merel1 permissive. Ahat the law deems essential is
that the court is convinced of the authenticit1 of the will. Its dut1 is to e?haust all availa;le lines of
in=uir1" for the state is as much interested in the proponent that the true intention of the testator
;e carried into effect. And ;ecause the law leaves it to the trial court to decide if e?perts are still
needed" no unfavora;le inference can ;e drawn from a part1<s failure to offer e?pert evidence"
until and unless the court e?presses dissatisfaction with the testimon1 of the la1 witnesses.
!7
According to the Court of Appeals" >vangeline Caluga1" :atilde 'amonal 9inana1 and other witnesses
definitel1 and in no uncertain terms testified that the handwriting and signature in the holographic will
were those of the testator herself.
Thus" upon the unre;utted testimon1 of appellant >vangeline Caluga1 and witness :atilde 'amonal
9inana1" the Court of Appeals sustained the authenticit1 of the holographic will and the handwriting and
signature therein" and allowed the will to pro;ate.
@ence" this petition.
The petitioners raise the following issues:
(!) Ahether or not the ruling of the case of "zaola vs. Singson" !7# 6hil. !7," relied upon ;1 the
respondent Court of Appeals" was applica;le to the case.
(,) Ahether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that private respondents had ;een a;le
to present credi;le evidence to that the date" te?t" and signature on the holographic will written
entirel1 in the hand of the testatri?.
() Ahether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not anal1Bing the signatures in the holographic
will of :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal.
In this petition" the petitioners ask whether the provisions of Article $!! of the Civil Code are permissive or
mandator1. The article provides" as a re=uirement for the pro;ate of a contested holographic will" that at
least three witnesses e?plicitl1 declare that the signature in the will is the genuine signature of the
testator.'(%p$i'.n)t
Ae are convinced" ;ased on the language used" that Article $!! of the Civil Code is mandator1. The word
-shall- connotes a mandator1 order. Ae have ruled that -shall- in a statute commonl1 denotes an
imperative o;ligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the
word -shall"- when used in a statute is mandator1.
!!
8aws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide against an evil or mischief that aims to prevent.
In the case at ;ar" the goal to achieve is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and the evil to ;e
prevented is the possi;ilit1 that unscrupulous individuals who for their ;enefit will emplo1 means to defeat
the wishes of the testator.
0o" we ;elieve that the paramount consideration in the present petition is to determine the true intent of
the deceased. An e?haustive and o;5ective consideration of the evidence is imperative to esta;lish the
true intent of the testator.
It will ;e noted that not all the witnesses presented ;1 the respondents testified e?plicitl1 that the1 were
familiar with the handwriting of testator. In the case of Augusto )eri" clerk of court" Court of First Instance"
:isamis 4riental" he merel1 identified the record of 0pecial 6roceedings )o. 3,2 ;efore said court. @e
was not presented to declare e?plicitl1 that the signature appearing in the holographic was that of the
deceased.
Benerosa E. Senon" the election registrar of Caga1an de 4ro Cit1" was presented to identif1 the signature
of the deceased in the voter<s affidavit" which was not even produced as it was no longer availa;le.
6atilde -amonal 2inanay" on the other hand" testified that:
I. And 1ou said for eleven (!!) 1ears :atilde (da de 'amonal resided with 1our parents at
6inikitan" Caga1an de 4ro Cit1. Aould 1ou tell the court what was 1our occupation or how did
:atilde (da de 'amonal keep herself ;us1 that timeK
A. Collecting rentals.
I. From whereK
A. From the land rentals and commercial ;uildings at 6a;a1o%&omeB streets.
!,
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. Aho sometime accompan1 herK
A. I sometimes accompan1 her.
I. In collecting rentals does she issue receiptsK
A. /es" sir.
!
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. 0howing to 1ou the receipt dated , 4cto;er !#2#" is this the one 1ou are referring to as one
of the receipts which she issued to themK
A. /es" sir.
I. )ow there is that signature of :atilde vda. De 'amonal" whose signature is that :rs.
9inana1K
A. :atilde vda. De 'amonal.
I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 that is the signature of :atilde (da. De 'amonalK
A. I am familiar with her signature.
I. )ow" 1ou tell the court :rs. 9inana1" whether 1ou know :atilde vda de 'amonal kept
records of the accounts of her tenantsK
A. /es" sir.
I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 soK
A. 9ecause we sometimes post a record of accounts in ;ehalf of :atilde (da. De 'amonal.
I. @ow is this record of accounts madeK @ow is this reflectedK
A. In handwritten.
!3
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. In addition to collection of rentals" posting records of accounts of tenants and deed of sale
which 1ou said what else did 1ou do to ac=uire familiarit1 of the signature of :atilde (da De
'amonalK
A. 6osting records.
I. Aside from thatK
A. Carr1ing letters.
I. 8etters of whomK
A. :atilde.
I. To whomK
A. To her creditors.
!*
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. /ou testified that at time of her death she left a will. I am showing to 1ou a document with its
title -tugon- is this the document 1ou are referring toK
A. /es" sir.
I. 0howing to 1ou this e?hi;it -0-" there is that handwritten -tugon-" whose handwriting is thisK
A. :1 Aunt.
I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 this is the handwriting of 1our auntK
A. 9ecause I am familiar with her signature.
!+
Ahat :s. 9inana1 saw were pre%prepared receipts and letters of the deceased" which she either mailed
or gave to her tenants. 0he did not declare that she saw the deceased sign a document or write a note.
Further" during the cross%e?amination" the counsel for petitioners elicited the fact that the will was not
found in the personal ;elongings of the deceased ;ut was in the possession of :s. 9inana1. 0he testified
that:
I. :rs. 9inana1" when 1ou were asked ;1 counsel for the petitioners if the late :atilde 0eno
vda de 'amonal left a will 1ou said" 1esK
A. /es" sir.
I. Aho was in possession of that willK
A. I.
I. 0ince when did 1ou have the possession of the willK
A. It was in m1 mother<s possession.
I. 0o" it was not in 1our possessionK
A. 0orr1" 1es.
I. And when did 1ou come into possession since as 1ou said this was originall1 in the
possession of 1our motherK
A. !#$*.
!2
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. )ow" :rs. 9inana1 was there an1 particular reason wh1 1our mother left that will to 1ou and
therefore 1ou have that in 1our possessionK
A. It was not given to me ;1 m1 mother" I took that in the aparador when she died.
I. After taking that document 1ou kept it with 1ouK
A. I presented it to the fiscal.
I. For what purposeK
A. .ust to seek advice.
I. Advice of whatK
A. A;out the will.
!$
In her testimon1 it was also evident that :s. 9inana1 kept the fact a;out the will from petitioners" the
legall1 adopted children of the deceased. 0uch actions put in issue her motive of keeping the will a secret
to petitioners and revealing it onl1 after the death of :atilde 0eFo (da. de 'amonal.
In the testimon1 of :s. 9inana1" the following were esta;lished:
I. )ow" in !#2$ :atilde 0eno (da de 'amonal was not 1et a sickl1 person is that correctK
A. /es" sir.
I. 0he was up and a;out and was still uprightl1 and she could walk agilel1 and she could go to
her ;uilding to collect rentals" is that correctK
A. /es" sir.
!#
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. )ow" let us go to the third signature of :atilde 'amonal. Do 1ou know that there are
retracings in the word (da.K
A. /es" a little. The letter 8 is continuous.
I. And also in :atilde the letter 8 is continued to letter DK
A. /es" sir.
I. Again the third signature of :atilde (da de 'amonal the letter 8 in :atilde is continued
towards letter D.
A. /es" sir.
I. And there is a retracing in the word (da.K
A. /es" sir.
,7
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. )ow" that was !#2#" remem;er one 1ear after the alleged holographic will. )ow" 1ou
identified a document marked as >?hi;it '. This is dated .anuar1 $" !#2$ which is onl1 a;out
eight months from August 7" !#2$. Do 1ou notice that the signature :atilde (da de 'amonal is
;eautifull1 written and legi;leK
A. /es" sir the handwriting shows that she was ver1 e?hausted.
I. /ou 5ust sa1 that she was ver1 e?hausted while that in !#2$ she was health1 was not sickl1
and she was agile. )ow" 1ou said she was e?haustedK
A. In writing.
I. @ow did 1ou know that she was e?hausted when 1ou were not present and 1ou 5ust tried to
e?plain 1ourself out ;ecause of the apparent inconsistenciesK
A. That was I think. (sic).
I. )ow" 1ou alread1 o;served this signature dated !#2$" the same 1ear as the alleged
holographic will. In e?hi;it I" 1ou will notice that there is no retracingD there is no hesitanc1 and the
signature was written on a fluid movement. . . . And in fact" the name >ufemia '. 6atigas here
refers to one of the petitionersK
A. /es" sir.
I. /ou will also notice :rs. 9inana1 that it is not onl1 with the =uestioned signature appearing in
the alleged holographic will marked as >?hi;it M ;ut in the handwriting themselves" here 1ou will
notice the hesitanc1 and tremors" do 1ou notice thatK
A. /es" sir.
,!
>vangeline Caluga1 declared that the holographic will was written" dated and signed in the handwriting of
the testator. 0he testified that:
I. /ou testified that 1ou sta1ed with the house of the spouses :atilde and .usto 'amonal for
the period of ,, 1ears. Could 1ou tell the court the services if an1 which 1ou rendered to :atilde
'amonalK
A. During m1 sta1 I used to go with her to the church" to market and then to her transactions.
I. Ahat elseK Ahat services that 1ou renderedK
A. After m1 college da1s I assisted her in going to the ;ank" pa1ing ta?es and to her law1er.
I. Ahat was 1our purpose of going to her law1erK
A. I used to ;e her personal driver.
I. In the course of 1our sta1 for ,, 1ears did 1ou ac=uire familiarit1 of the handwriting of :atilde
(da de 'amonalK
A. /es" sir.
I. @ow come that 1ou ac=uired familiarit1K
A. 9ecause I lived with her since ;irth.
,,
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. )ow" I am showing to 1ou >?hi;it 0 which is captioned -tugon- dated Agosto 7" !#2$ there
is a signature here ;elow item )o. !" will 1ou tell this court whose signature is thisK
A. /es" sir" that is her signature.
I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 that is her signatureK
A. I am familiar with her signature.
,
0o" the onl1 reason that >vangeline can give as to wh1 she was familiar with the handwriting of the
deceased was ;ecause she lived with her since ;irth. 0he never declared that she saw the deceased
write a note or sign a document.
The former law1er of the deceased" Fiscal Aaga" testified that:
I. Do 1ou know :atilde (da de 'amonalK
A. /es" sir I know her ;ecause she is m1 godmother the hus;and is m1 godfather. Actuall1 I am
related to the hus;and ;1 consanguinit1.
I. Can 1ou tell the name of the hus;andK
A. The late hus;and is .usto 'amonal.
,3
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. Can 1ou tell this court whether the spouses .usto 'amonal and :atilde 'amonal have
legitimate childrenK
A. As far as I know the1 have no legitimate children.
,*
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. /ou said after ;ecoming a law1er 1ou practice 1our professionK AhereK
A. @ere in Caga1an de 4ro Cit1.
I. Do 1ou have services rendered with the deceased :atilde vda de 'amonalK
A. I assisted her in terminating the partition" of properties.
I. Ahen 1ou said assisted" 1ou acted as her counselK An1 sort of counsel as in what case is
that" FiscalK
A. It is a;out the pro5ect partition to terminate the propert1" which was under the court ;efore.
,+
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. Appearing in special proceeding no. 3,2 is the amended inventor1 which is marked as e?hi;it
) of the estate of .usto 'amonal and there appears a signature over the t1pe written word
:atilde vda de 'amonal" whose signature is thisK
A. That is the signature of :atilde (da de 'amonal.
I. Also in e?hi;it n%" whose signature is thisK
A. This one here that is the signature of :rs. :atilde vda de 'amonal.
,2
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. Aside from attending as counsel in that 0pecial 6roceeding Case )o. 3,2 what were the
other assistance wherein 1ou were rendering professional service to the deceased :atilde (da
de 'amonalK
A. I can not remem;er if I have assisted her in other matters ;ut if there are documents to show
that I have assisted then I can recall.
,$
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. )ow" I am showing to 1ou e?hi;it 0 which is titled -tugon-" kindl1 go over this document"
Fiscal Aaga and tell the court whether 1ou are familiar with the handwriting contained in that
document marked as e?hi;it -0-K
A. I am not familiar with the handwriting.
I. This one" :atilde (da de 'amonal" whose signature is thisK
A. I think this signature here it seems to ;e the signature of :rs. :atilde vda de 'amonal.
I. )ow" in item )o. , there is that signature here of :atilde (da de 'amonal" can 1ou tell the
court whose signature is thisK
A. Aell" that is similar to that signature appearing in the pro5ect of partition.
I. Also in item no. there is that signature :atilde (da de 'amonal" can 1ou tell the court
whose signature is thatK
A. As I said" this signature also seems to ;e the signature of :atilde vda de 'amonal.
I. Ah1 do 1ou sa1 thatK
A. 9ecause there is a similarit1 in the wa1 it is ;eing written.
I. @ow a;out this signature in item no. 3" can 1ou tell the court whose signature is thisK
A. The same is true with the signature in item no. 3. It seems that the1 are similar.
,#
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I. :r. 6rosecutor" I heard 1ou when 1ou said that the signature of :atilde (da de 'amonal
Appearing in e?hi;it 0 seems to ;e the signature of :atilde vda de 'amonalK
A. /es" it is similar to the pro5ect of partition.
I. 0o 1ou are not definite that this is the signature of :atilde vda de 'amonal. /ou are merel1
supposing that it seems to ;e her signature ;ecause it is similar to the signature of the pro5ect of
partition which 1ou have madeK
A. That is true.
7
From the testimonies of these witnesses" the Court of Appeals allowed the will to pro;ate and disregard
the re=uirement of three witnesses in case of contested holographic will" citing the decision in "zaola vs.
Singson"
!
ruling that the re=uirement is merel1 director1 and not mandator1.
In the case of "jero vs. Court of "ppeals"
,
we said that -the o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the
e?ecution of wills is to close the door against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution of wills and
testaments and to guarant1 their truth and authenticit1. Therefore" the laws on this su;5ect should ;e
interpreted in such a wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. 9ut on the other hand" also one must not
lose sight of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise of the right to
make a will.
@owever" we cannot eliminate the possi;ilit1 of a false document ;eing ad5udged as the will of the
testator" which is wh1 if the holographic will is contested" that law re=uires three witnesses to declare that
the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.
The will was found not in the personal ;elongings of the deceased ;ut with one of the respondents" who
kept it even ;efore the death of the deceased. In the testimon1 of :s. 9inana1" she revealed that the will
was in her possession as earl1 as !#$*" or five 1ears ;efore the death of the deceased.
There was no opportunit1 for an e?pert to compare the signature and the handwriting of the deceased
with other documents signed and e?ecuted ;1 her during her lifetime. The onl1 chance at comparison was
during the cross%e?amination of :s. 9inana1 when the law1er of petitioners asked :s. 9inana1 to
compare the documents which contained the signature of the deceased with that of the holographic will
and she is not a handwriting e?pert. >ven the former law1er of the deceased e?pressed dou;ts as to the
authenticit1 of the signature in the holographic will.
A visual e?amination of the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when compared with
other documents written ;1 the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the disposition is not
reada;le. There were uneven strokes" retracing and erasures on the will.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated August 7" !#2$"

and the signatures in several

documents such as the application letter for pasture permit dated Decem;er 7" !#$7"
3
and a letter dated
.une !+" !#2$"
*
the strokes are different. In the letters" there are continuous flows of the strokes"
evidencing that there is no hesitation in writing unlike that of the holographic will. Ae" therefore" cannot ;e
certain that ruling holographic will was in the handwriting ;1 the deceased.
I) (I>A A@>'>4F" the decision appealed from is 0>T A0ID>. The records are ordered remanded to
the court of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their opposition to
the pro;ate of the holographic will of the deceased :atilde 0eFo vda. de 'amonal.'(%p$i'.n)t
)o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 1067(0 '/2./70/, 15, 199)
'$OU'E' RO"ERO AND !ELMA A&ERO, vs. !E %OUR OF A$$EAL' AND %LEMENE
'AND,
This is an appeal ;1 certiorari from the Decision of the Court of
Appeals
1
in CA%&.'. C( )o. ,,$37" dated :arch 7" !##," the dispositive portion of which readsD
6'>:I0>0 C4)0ID>'>D" the =uestioned decision of )ovem;er !#" !#$$ of the trial
court is here;1 '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" and the petition for pro;ate is here;1
DI0:I00>D. )o costs.
The earlier Decision was rendered ;1 the 'TC of IueBon Cit1" 9ranch #3"
(
in 0p. 6roc. )o. I%
2!2!" and the instrument su;mitted for pro;ate is the holographic will of the late Annie 0and"
who died on )ovem;er ,*" !#$,.
In the will" decedent named as devisees" the following: petitioners 'o;erto and Thelma A5ero" private
respondent Clemente 0and" :eriam 0. Arong" 8eah 0and" 8ilia 0and" >dgar 0and" Fe 0and" 8isa 0.
0and" and Dr. .ose A5ero" 0r." and their children.
4n .anuar1 ,7" !#$" petitioners instituted 0p. 6roc. )o. I%2!2!" for allowance of decedent<s
holographic will. The1 alleged that at the time of its e?ecution" she was of sound and disposing mind" not
acting under duress" fraud or undue influence" and was in ever1 respect capacitated to dispose of her
estate ;1 will.
6rivate respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament<s ;od1 nor the
signature therein was in decedent<s handwritingD it contained alterations and corrections which were not
dul1 signed ;1 decedentD and" the will was procured ;1 petitioners through improper pressure and undue
influence. The petition was likewise opposed ;1 Dr. .ose A5ero. @e contested the disposition in the will of
a house and lot located in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan Del )orte. @e claimed that said propert1 could not ;e
conve1ed ;1 decedent in its entiret1" as she was not its sole owner.
)otwithstanding the oppositions" the trial court admitted the decedent<s holographic will to pro;ate. It
found" inter alia:
Considering then that the pro;ate proceedings herein must decide onl1 the =uestion of
identit1 of the will" its due e?ecution and the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri?" this
pro;ate court finds no reason at all for the disallowance of the will for its failure to compl1
with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law nor for lack of testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri?.
For one" no evidence was presented to show that the will in =uestion is different from the
will actuall1 e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. The onl1 o;5ections raised ;1 the oppositors . . .
are that the will was not written in the handwriting of the testatri? which properl1 refers to
the =uestion of its due e?ecution" and not to the =uestion of identit1 of will. )o other will
was alleged to have ;een e?ecuted ;1 the testatri? other than the will herein presented.
@ence" in the light of the evidence adduced" the identit1 of the will presented for pro;ate
must ;e accepted" i.e." the will su;mitted in Court must ;e deemed to ;e the will actuall1
e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?.
??? ??? ???
Ahile the fact that it was entirel1 written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the
testatri? has ;een disputed" the petitioners" however" have satisfactoril1 shown in Court
that the holographic will in =uestion was indeed written entirel1" dated and signed in the
handwriting of the testatri?. Three () witnesses who have convincingl1 shown knowledge
of the handwriting of the testatri? have ;een presented and have e?plicitl1 and
categoricall1 identified the handwriting with which the holographic will in =uestion was
written to ;e the genuine handwriting and signature of the testatri?. &iven then the
aforesaid evidence" the re=uirement of the law that the holographic will ;e entirel1
written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatri? has ;een complied with.
??? ??? ???
As to the =uestion of the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testrati?" (private respondent)
Clemente 0and himself has testified in Court that the testatri? was completel1 in her
sound mind when he visited her during her ;irthda1 cele;ration in !#$!" at or around
which time the holographic will in =uestion was e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. To ;e of sound
mind" it is sufficient that the testatri?" at the time of making the will" knew the value of the
estate to ;e disposed of" the proper oject of her ;ount1" and the c$aracter of the
testamentar1 act . . . The will itself shows that the testatri? even had detailed knowledge
of the nature of her estate. 0he even identified the lot num;er and s=uare meters of the
lots she had conve1ed ;1 will. The o;5ects of her ;ount1 were likewise identified
e?plicitl1. And considering that she had even written a nursing ;ook which contained the
law and 5urisprudence on will and succession" there is more than sufficient showing that
she knows the character of the testamentar1 act.
In this wise" the =uestion of identit1 of the will" its due e?ecution and the testamentar1
capacit1 of the testatri? has to ;e resolved in favor of the allowance of pro;ate of the will
su;mitted herein.
8ikewise" no evidence was presented to show sufficient reason for the disallowance of
herein holographic will. Ahile it was alleged that the said will was procured ;1 undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of the ;eneficiar1 or of some other person"
the evidence adduced have not shown an1 instance where improper pressure or
influence was e?erted on the testatri?. (6rivate respondent) Clemente 0and has testified
that the testatri? was still alert at the time of the e?ecution of the will" i.e." at or around the
time of her ;irth anniversar1 cele;ration in !#$!. It was also esta;lished that she is a ver1
intelligent person and has a mind of her own. @er independence of character and to
some e?tent" her sense of superiorit1" which has ;een testified to in Court" all show the
unlikelihood of her ;eing undul1 influenced or improperl1 pressured to make the
aforesaid will. It must ;e noted that the undue influence or improper pressure in =uestion
herein onl1 refer to the making of a will and not as to the specific testamentar1 provisions
therein which is the proper su;5ect of another proceeding. @ence" under the
circumstances" this Court cannot find convincing reason for the disallowance of the will
herein.
Considering then that it is a well%esta;lished doctrine in the law on succession that in
case of dou;t" testate succession should ;e preferred over intestate succession" and the
fact that no convincing grounds were presented and proven for the disallowance of the
holographic will of the late Annie 0and" the aforesaid will su;mitted herein must ;e
admitted to pro;ate.
3
(Citations omitted.)
4n appeal" said Decision was reversed" and the petition for pro;ate of decedent<s will was dismissed. The
Court of Appeals found that" -the holographic will fails to meet the re=uirements for its validit1.-
)
It held
that the decedent did not compl1 with Articles $! and $!3 of the )ew Civil Code" which read" as follows:
Art. $!: Ahen a num;er of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed
without ;eing dated" and the last disposition has a signature and date" such date
validates the dispositions preceding it" whatever ;e the time of prior dispositions.
Art. $!3: In case of insertion" cancellation" erasure or alteration in a holographic will" the
testator must authenticate the same ;1 his full signature.
It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated" or signed ;ut not
dated. It also found that the erasures" alterations and cancellations made thereon had not ;een
authenticated ;1 decedent.
Thus" this appeal which is impressed with merit.
0ection #" 'ule 2+ of the 'ules of Court provides that will shall ;e disallowed in an1 of the following
cases:
(a) If not e?ecuted and attested as re=uired ;1 lawD
(;) If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentall1 incapa;le to make a will" at the time
of its e?ecutionD
(c) If it was e?ecuted under duress" or the influence of fear" or threatsD
(d) If it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence" on the part of the
;eneficiar1" or of some other person for his ;enefitD
(e) If the signature of the testator was procured ;1 fraud or trick" and he did not intend
that the instrument should ;e his will at the time of fi?ing his signature thereto.
In the same vein" Article $# of the )ew Civil Code reads:
Art. $#: The will shall ;e disallowed in an1 of the following casesD
(!) If the formalities re=uired ;1 law have not ;een complied withD
(,) If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentall1 incapa;le of making
a will" at the time of its e?ecutionD
() If it was e?ecuted through force or under duress" or the influence of
fear" or threatsD
(3) If it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence" on
the part of the ;eneficiar1 or of some other personD
(*) If the signature of the testator was procured ;1 fraudD
(+) If the testator acted ;1 mistake or did not intend that the instrument
he signed should ;e his will at the time of affi?ing his signature thereto.
These lists are e?clusiveD no other grounds can serve to disallow a will.
5
Thus" in a petition to admit a
holographic will to pro;ate" the onl1 issues to ;e resolved are: (!) whether the instrument su;mitted is"
indeed" the decedent<s last will and testamentD (,) whether said will was e?ecuted in accordance with the
formalities prescri;ed ;1 lawD () whether the decedent had the necessar1 testamentar1 capacit1 at the
time the will was e?ecutedD and" (3) whether the e?ecution of the will and its signing were the voluntar1
acts of the decedent.
6
In the case at ;ench" respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne 0and was not e?ecuted in
accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law. It held that Articles $! and $!3 of the )ew Civil Code"
ante" were not complied with" hence" it disallowed the pro;ate of said will. This is erroneous.
Ae reiterate what we held in "angan vs. "angan" 37 6hil. 32+" 32# (!#!#)" that:
The o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of wills is to close the door
against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution of wills and testaments and to guarant1
their truth and authenticit1. Therefore" the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in
such a wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. 9ut" on the other hand" also one must not
lose sight of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise
of the right to make a will. 0o when an interpretation alread1 given assures such ends"
an1 other interpretation whatsoever" that adds nothing ;ut demands more re=uisites
entirel1 unnecessar1" useless and frustrative of the testator<s last will" must ;e
disregarded.
For purposes of pro;ating non%holographic wills" these formal solemnities include the su;scription"
attestation" and acknowledgment re=uirements under Articles $7* and $7+ of the )ew Civil Code.
In the case of holographic wills" on the other hand" what assures authenticit1 is the re=uirement that the1
;e totall1 autographic or handwritten ;1 the testator himself"
7
as provided under Article $!7 of the )ew
Civil Code" thus:
A person ma1 e?ecute a holographic will which must ;e entirel1 written" dated" and
signed ;1 the hand of the testator himself. It is suject to no ot$er form" and ma1 ;e
made in or out of the 6hilippines" and need not ;e witnessed. (>mphasis supplied.)
Failure to strictl1 o;serve other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will
that is un=uestiona;l1 handwritten ;1 the testator.
A reading of Article $! of the )ew Civil Code shows that its re=uirement affects the validit1 of the
dispositions contained in the holographic will" ;ut not its pro;ate. If the testator fails to sign and date some
of the dispositions" the result is that these dispositions cannot ;e effectuated. 0uch failure" however" does
not render the whole testament void.
8ikewise" a holographic will can still ;e admitted to pro;ate" notwithstanding non%compliance with the
provisions of Article $!3. In the case of ,ala% vs. -elova !, 0C'A ,2 ,3, (!#$3)" this Court held:
4rdinaril1" when a num;er of erasures" corrections" and interlineations made ;1 the
testator in a holographic Aill have not ;een noted under his signature" . . . the Aill is not
there;1 invalidated as a whole" ;ut at most onl1 as respects the particular words erased"
corrected or interlined. :anresa gave an identical commentar1 when he said -la omission
de la salvedad no anula el testamento" segun la regla de 5urisprudencia esta;lecida en la
sentencia de 3 de A;ril de !#$*.-
8
(Citations omitted.)
Thus" unless the unauthenticated alterations" cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the
holographic will or on testator<s signature"
9
their presence does not invalidate the will itself.
10
The lack of
authentication will onl1 result in disallowance of such changes.
It is also proper to note that the re=uirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of
dispositions appear in provisions (Articles $! and $!3) separate from that which provides for the
necessar1 conditions for the validit1 of the holographic will (Article $!7). The distinction can ;e traced to
Articles +2$ and +$$ of the 0panish Civil Code" from which the present provisions covering holographic
wills are taken. The1 read as follows:
Art. +2$: A will is called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form and
with the re=uisites re=uired in Article +$$.
Art. +$$: @olographic wills ma1 ;e e?ecuted onl1 ;1 persons of full age.
In order that the will ;e valid it must ;e drawn on stamped paper corresponding to the
1ear of its e?ecution" written in its entiret1 ;1 the testator and signed ;1 him" and must
contain a statement of the 1ear" month and da1 of its e?ecution.
If it should contain an1 erased" corrected" or interlined words" the testator must identif1
them over his signature.
Foreigners ma1 e?ecute holographic wills in their own language.
This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that onl1 the re=uirements of Article $!7
of the )ew Civil Code J and not those found in Articles $! and $!3 of the same Code J are essential
to the pro;ate of a holographic will.
The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie 0and could not validl1 dispose of the house and lot
located in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan del )orte" in its entiret1. This is correct and must ;e affirmed.
As a general rule" courts in pro;ate proceedings are limited to pass onl1 upon the e?trinsic validit1 of the
will sought to ;e pro;ated. @owever" in e?ceptional instances" courts are not powerless to do what the
situation constrains them to do" and pass upon certain provisions of the will.
11
In the case at ;ench"
decedent herself indu;ita;l1 stated in her holographic will that the Ca;ad;aran propert1 is in the name of
her late father" .ohn @. 0and (which led oppositor Dr. .ose A5ero to =uestion her conve1ance of the same
in its entiret1). Thus" as correctl1 held ;1 respondent court" she cannot validl1 dispose of the whole
propert1" which she shares with her father<s other heirs.
I) (I>A A@>'>4F" the instant petition is &'A)T>D. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'.
C( )o. ,,$37" dated :arch 7" !##," is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" e?cept with respect to the
invalidit1 of the disposition of the entire house and lot in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan del )orte. The Decision of
the 'egional Trial Court of IueBon Cit1" 9ranch #3 in 0p. 6roc. )o. I%2!2!" dated )ovem;er !#" !#$$"
admitting to pro;ate the holographic will of decedent Annie 0and" is here;1 '>I)0TAT>D" with the a;ove
=ualification as regards the Ca;ad;aran propert1. )o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-)0(07 '/2./70/, (8, 198)
RO'A 4. 4ALA9, vs. !ON. &UDGE "EN&AM#N RELOVA, $,/*-d-n5 &+d5/ o= .1/ %F# o= "a.an5a*,
",an>1 V#, L-2a %-.y, and GREGOR#O 4. 4ALA9,.
4n 0eptem;er !" !#2!" private respondent &'>&4'I4 L. LA8AA" claiming to ;e the sole heir of his
deceased sister" )atividad L. Lalaw" filed a petition ;efore the Court of First Instance of 9atangas"
9ranch (I" 8ipa Cit1" for the pro;ate of her holographic Aill e?ecuted on Decem;er ,3" !#+$.
The holographic Aill reads in full as follows:
:1 8ast will and Testament
In the name of &od" Amen.
I )atividad L. Lalaw Filipino +1ears of age" single" and a resident of 8ipa Cit1" ;eing of sound and
disposing mind and memor1" do here;1 declare thus to ;e m1 last will and testament.
!. It is m1 will that I<ll ;e ;urried in the cemeter1 of the catholic church of 8ipa Cit1. In accordance with the
rights of said Church" and that m1 e?ecutri? hereinafter named provide and erect at the e?pose of m1
state a suita;le monument to perpetuate m1 memor1.
??? ??? ???
The holographic Aill" as first written" named '40A L. Lalaw" a sister of the testatri? as her sole heir.
@ence" on )ovem;er !7" !#2!" petitioner '40A L. Lalaw opposed pro;ate alleging" in su;stance" that
the holographic Aill contained alterations" corrections" and insertions without the proper authentication ;1
the full signature of the testatri? as re=uired ;1 Article $!3 of the Civil Code reading:
Art. $!3. In case of an1 insertion" cancellation" erasure or alteration in a holographic will
the testator must authenticate the same ;1 his full signature.
'40A<s position was that the holographic Aill" as first written" should ;e given effect and pro;ated so that
she could ;e the sole heir thereunder.
After trial" respondent .udge denied pro;ate in an 4rder" dated 0eptem;er " !#2 " reading in part:
The document >?hi;it -C- was su;mitted to the )ational 9ureau of Investigation for
e?amination. The )9I reported that the handwriting" the signature" the insertions andEor
additions and the initial were made ;1 one and the same person. Conse=uentl1" >?hi;it
-C- was the handwriting of the decedent" )atividad L. Lalaw. The onl1 =uestion is
whether the win" >?hi;it <C<" should ;e admitted to pro;ate although the alterations andEor
insertions or additions a;ove%mentioned were not authenticated ;1 the full signature of
the testatri? pursuant to Art. $!3 of the Civil Code. The petitioner contends that the
oppositors are estopped to assert the provision of Art. $!3 on the ground that the1
themselves agreed thru their counsel to su;mit the Document to the )9I F4'
>MA:I)ATI4)0. This is untena;le. The parties did not agree" nor was it impliedl1
understood" that the oppositors would ;e in estoppel.
The Court finds" therefore" that the provision of Article $!3 of the Civil Code is applica;le
to >?hi;it -C-. Finding the insertions" alterations andEor additions in >?hi;it -C- not to ;e
authenticated ;1 the full signature of the testatri? )atividad L. Lalaw" the Court will den1
the admission to pro;ate of >?hi;it -C-.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition to pro;ate >?hi;it -C- as the holographic will of )atividad L.
Lalaw is here;1 denied.
04 4'D>'>D.
From that 4rder" &'>&4'I4 moved for reconsideration arguing that since the alterations andEor
insertions were the testatri?" the denial to pro;ate of her holographic Aill would ;e contrar1 to her right of
testamentar1 disposition. 'econsideration was denied in an 4rder" dated )ovem;er ," !#2" on the
ground that -Article $!3 of the Civil Code ;eing " clear and e?plicit" (it) re=uires no necessit1 for
interpretation.-
From that 4rder" dated 0eptem;er " !#2" den1ing pro;ate" and the 4rder dated )ovem;er ," !#2
den1ing reconsideration" '40A filed this 6etition for 'eview on certiorari on the sole legal =uestion of
whether or not the original unaltered te?t after su;se=uent alterations and insertions were voided ;1 the
Trial Court for lack of authentication ;1 the full signature of the testatri?" should ;e pro;ated or not" with
her as sole heir.
4rdinaril1" when a numer of erasures" corrections" and interlineations made ;1 the testator in a
holographic Aill litem not ;een noted under his signature" ... the Aill is not there;1 invalidated as a whole"
;ut at most onl1 as respects the particular words erased" corrected or interlined.1 :anresa gave an
Identical commentar1 when he said -la omision de la salvedad no anula el testamento" segun la regla de
5urisprudencia esta;lecida en la sentencia de 3 de A;ril de !$#*.-
(

@owever" when as in this case" the holographic Aill in dispute had onl1 one su;stantial provision" which
was altered ;1 su;stituting the original heir with another" ;ut which alteration did not carr1 the re=uisite of
full authentication ;1 the full signature of the testator" the effect must ;e that the entire Aill is voided or
revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Aill after that which could remain valid. To state
that the Aill as first written should ;e given efficac1 is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the
testatri?. 9ut that change of mind can neither ;e given effect ;ecause she failed to authenticate it in the
manner re=uired ;1 law ;1 affi?ing her full signature"
The ruling in ?elasco, supra, must ;e held confined to such insertions" cancellations" erasures or
alterations in a holographic Aill" which affect onl1 the efficac1 of the altered words themselves ;ut not the
essence and validit1 of the Aill itself. As it is" with the erasures" cancellations and alterations made ;1 the
testatri? herein" her real intention cannot ;e determined with certitude. As :anresa had stated in his
commentar1 on Article +$$ of the 0panish Civil Code" whence Article $!3 of the new Civil Code was
derived:
... )o infringe lo dispuesto en este articulo del Codigo (el +$$) la sentencia =ue no
declara la nulidad de un testamento olografo =ue contenga pala;ras tachadas"
enmendadas o entre renglones no salvadas por el testador ;a5o su firnia segun previene
el parrafo tercero del mismo" por=ue" en realidad" tal omision solo puede afectar a la
validez o eficacia de tales palaras, y nunca al testamento mismo" 1a por estar esa
disposicion en parrafo aparte de a=uel =ue determine las condiciones necesarias para la
valideB del testamento olografo" 1a por=ue" de admitir lo contrario" se Ilegaria al a;surdo
de =ue pe=uefias enmiendas no salvadas" =ue en nada afectasen a la parte esencial 1
respectiva del testamento" vinieran a anular este" 1 1a por=ue el precepto contenido en
dicho parrafo ha de entenderse en perfecta armonia 1 congruencia con el art. ,+ de la
le1 del )otariado =ue declara nulas las adiciones apostillas entrerrenglonados"
raspaduras 1 tachados en las escrituras matrices" siempre =ue no se salven en la forma
prevenida" paro no el documento =ue las contenga" 1 con ma1or motivo cuando las
palaras enmendadas, tac$adas, o entrerrenglonadas no tengan importancia ni susciten
duda alguna acerca del pensamiento del testador" o constitu1an meros accidentes de
ortografia o de pureB escrituraria" sin trascendencia alguna(l).
:as para =ue sea aplica;le la doctrina de e?cepcion contenida en este ultimo fallo" es
preciso !ue las tac$aduras, enmiendas o entrerrenglonados sin salvar saan de pala ras
!ue no afecterJ alteren ni uarien de modo sustancial la express voluntad del testador
manifiesta en el documento. Asi lo advierte la sentencia de ,# de )oviem;re de !#!+"
=ue declara nulo un testamento olografo por no estar salvada por el testador la
enmienda del guarismo ultimo del aFo en =ue fue e?tendido
3
(>mphasis ours).
A@>'>F4'>" this 6etition is here;1 dismissed and the Decision of respondent .udge" dated 0eptem;er
" !#2" is here;1 affirmed in toto. )o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-1)003 A+5+*. 5, 1960
FEDER#%O AZAOLA, vs. %E'AR#O '#NG'ON,
This appeal" taken on points of law from a decision rendered on !* .anuar1 !#*$ ;1 the Court of First
Instance of IueBon Cit1 in its 0pecial 6roceedings )o. I%,+37" involves the determination of the =uantit1
of evidence re=uired for the pro;ate of a holographic will.
The esta;lished facts are thus summariBed in the decision appealed from ('ec. App. pp. ,,%,3):
-9riefl1 speaking" the following facts were esta;lished ;1 the petitionerD that on 0eptem;er #"
!#*2" Fortunata 0. (da. de /ance died at ! 8uskot" IueBon Cit1" known to ;e the last residence
of said testatri?D that Francisco ABaola" petitioner herein for pro;ate of the holographic will"
su;mitted the said holographic will (>?h. C) where;1 :aria :ilagros ABaola was made the sole
heir as against the nephew of deceased Cesario 0ingsonD that witness Francisco ABaola testified
that he saw the holographic will (>?h. C) one month" more or less" ;efore the death of the
testatri?" as the same was handed to him and his wifeD that the witness testified also that he
recogniBed all the signatures appearing in the holographic will (>?h. C) as the handwriting of the
testatri? and to reinforce said statement" witness presented the mortgage (>?h. >)" the special
power of the attorne1 (>?h. F)" and the general power of attorne1 (>?h. F%!)" ;esides the deeds
of sale (>?hs. & and &%!) including an affidavit (>?h. &%,)" and that there were further e?hi;ited
in court two residence certificates (>?hs. @ and @%!) to show the signatures of the testatri?" for
comparison purposesD that said witness" ABaola" testified that the penmanship appearing in the
aforesaid documentar1 evidence is in the handwriting of the testatri? as well as the signatures
appearing in the aforesaid documentar1 evidence is in the handwriting of the testatri? as well as
the signatures appearing therein are the signatures of the testatri?D that said witness" in answer to
a =uestion of his counsel admitted that the holographic will was handed to him ;1 the testatri?.
-apparentl1 it must have ;een written ;1 her- (t.s.n." p. !!). @owever" on page !+ on the same
transcript of the stenographic notes" when the same witness was asked ;1 counsel if he was
familiar with the penmanship and handwriting of the deceased Fortunata (da. de /ance" he
answered positivel1 in the affirmative and when he was asked again whether the penmanship
referred to in the previous answer as appearing in the holographic will (>?h. C) was hers
(testatri?<)" he answered" -I would definitel1 sa1 it is hers-D that it was also esta;lished in the
proceedings that the assessed value of the propert1 of the deceased in 8uskot" IueBon Cit1" is in
the amount of 62"777.77.
The opposition to the pro;ate was on the ground that (!) the e?ecution of the will was procured ;1 undue
and improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner and his wife" and (,) that the testatri? did
not seriousl1 intend the instrument to ;e her last will" and that the same was actuall1 written either on the
*th or +th da1 of August !#*2 and not on )ovem;er ,7" !#*+ as appears on the will.
The pro;ate was denied on the ground that under Article $!! of the Civil Code" the proponent must
present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in the writing of the testatri?"
the pro;ate ;eing contestedD and ;ecause the lone witness presented ;1 the proponent -did not prove
sufficientl1 that the ;od1 of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatri?.-
The proponent appealed" urging: first" that he was not ;ound to produce more than one witness ;ecause
the will<s authenticit1 was not =uestionedD and second" that Article $!! does not mandatoril1 re=uire the
production of three witnesses to identif1 the handwriting and signature of a holographic will" even if its
authenticit1 should ;e denied ;1 the adverse part1.
Article $!! of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines is to the following effect:
A'T. $!!. In the pro;ate of a holographic will" it shall ;e necessar1 that at least one witness who
knows the handwriting and signature of the testator e?plicitl1 declare that the will and the
signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested" at least three of such
witnesses shall ;e re=uired.
In the a;sence of an1 competent witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraph" and if the
court deems it necessar1" e?pert testimon1 ma1 ;e resorted to. (+#!a).
Ae agree with the appellant that since the authenticit1 of the will was not contested" he was not re=uired
to produce more than one witnessD ;ut even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested" we
are of the opinion that Article $!! of our present Civil Code can not ;e interpreted as to re=uire the
compulsor1 presentation of three witnesses to identif1 the handwriting of the testator" under penalt1 of
having the pro;ate denied. 0ince no witness ma1 have ;een present at the e?ecution of a holographic
will" none ;eing re=uired ;1 law (Art. $!7" new Civil Code)" it ;ecomes o;vious that the e?istence of
witness possessing the re=uisite =ualifications is a matter ;e1ond the control of the proponent. For it is
not merel1 a =uestion of finding and producing an1 three witnessesD the1 must ;e witnesses -who know
the handwriting and signature of the testator- and who can declare (truthfull1" of course" even if the law
does not so e?press) -that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator-. There ma1 ;e
no availa;le witness of the testator<s handD or even if so familiariBed" the witnesses ma1 ;e unwilling to
give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph ! of Article $!! ma1 thus ;ecome an
impossi;ilit1. That is evidentl1 the reason wh1 the second paragraph of Article $!! prescri;es that J
in the a;sence of an1 competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph" and if the court
deems it necessar1" e?pert testimon1 ma1 ;e resorted to.
As can ;e seen" the law foresees the possi;ilit1 that no =ualified witness ma1 ;e found (or what amounts
to the same thing" that no competent witness ma1 ;e willing to testif1 to the authenticit1 of the will)" and
provides for resort to e?pert evidence to suppl1 the deficienc1.
It ma1 ;e true that the rule of this article (re=uiring that three witnesses ;e presented if the will is
contested and onl1 one if no contest is had) was derived from the rule esta;lished for ordinar1 testaments
(cf. Ca;ang vs. Delfinado" 3* 6hil." ,#!D Tolentino vs. Francisco" *2 6hil." 23,). 9ut it can not ;e ignored
that the re=uirement can ;e considered mandator1 onl1 in the case of ordinar1 testaments" precisel1
;ecause the presence of at least three witnesses at the e?ecution of ordinar1 wills is made ;1 law
essential to their validit1 (Art. $7*). Ahere the will is holographic" no witness need ;e present (Art. !7)"
and the rule re=uiring production of three witnesses must ;e deemed merel1 permissive if a;surd results
are to ;e avoided.
Again" under Article $!!" the resort to e?pert evidence is conditioned ;1 the words -if the Court deem it
necessar1-" which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the Court should ;e convinced of the
will<s authenticit1. Ahere the prescri;ed num;er of witnesses is produced and the court is convinced ;1
their testimon1 that the ill is genuine" it ma1 consider it unnecessar1 to call for e?pert evidence. 4n the
other hand" if no competent witness is availa;le" or none of those produced is convincing" the Court ma1
still" and in fact it should" resort to handwriting e?perts. The dut1 of the Court" in fine" is to e?haust all
availa;le lines of in=uir1" for the state is as much interested as the proponent that the true intention of the
testator ;e carried into effect.
Commenting on analogous provisions of Article +#! of the 0panish Civil Code of !$$#" the noted
Commentator" :ucuis 0caevola ((ol. !," ,nd >d." p.3,!)" sagel1 remarks:
8a manera como esta conce;ida la redaccion del ultimo apartado de dicho precepto induce la
conclusion de =ue siempre o por lo menos" en la ma1or parte de los casos" el .ueB de;e acudir
al criterio pericial para =ue le ilustre acerca de la autenticidad del testamento olografo" aun=ue 1a
esten insertas en los autos del e?pediente las declaraciones testificales. 8a prudencia con =ue el
.ueB de;e de proceder en resoluciones de transcendencia asi lo e?ige" 1 la indole delicada 1
peligrosa del testamento olografo lo hace necesario para ma1or garantia de todos los interes
comprometidos en a=uel.
>n efecto" el cote5o pericial de letras puede ser una confirmacion facultativa del dicho profano de
los testigos 1 un modo de desvanecer las ultimas dudas =ue pudieran ocurrir al .ueB acerca de la
autenticidad =ue trata de averigaur 1 declarar. 6ara eso se ha escrito la frase del citado ultimo
apartado" (siempre =ue el .ueB lo estime conveniente)" ha1a ha;ido o no testigos 1 dudaran o no
estos respecto de los e?tremos por =ue son preguntados.
>l ar;itrio 5udicial en este caso de;e formarse con independencia de los sucesos 1 de su
significacion" para responder de;idamente de las resoluciones =ue ha1a de dictar.
And ;ecause the law leaves it to the trial court if e?perts are still needed" no unfavoura;le inference can
;e drawn from a part1<s failure to offer e?pert evidence" until and unless the court e?presses
dissatisfaction with the testimon1 of the la1 witnesses.
4ur conclusion is that the rule of the first paragraph of Article $!! of the Civil Code is merel1 director1 and
is not mandator1.
Considering" however" that this is the first occasion in which this Court has ;een called upon to construe
the import of said article" the interest of 5ustice would ;e ;etter served" in our opinion" ;1 giving the parties
ample opportunit1 to adduce additional evidence" including e?pert witnesses" should the Court deem
them necessar1.
In view of the foregoing" the decision appealed from is set aside" and the records ordered remanded to
the Court of origin" with instructions to hold a new trial in conformit1 with this opinion. 9ut evidence
alread1 on record shall not ;e retaken. )o costs.
2engzon, *adilla, 2autista "ngelo, Larador, Concepcion, 2arrera and Butierrez &avid, @@., concur.
G.R. No*. 75005-06 F/0,+a,y 15, 1990
&O'E R#VERA vs. #NERMED#AE A$$ELLAE %OUR and ADELA#DO &. R#VERA,
Aas there onl1 one (enancio 'ivera in :a;alacat" 6ampanga" or were there twoK
4n :a1 7" !#2*" a prominent and wealth1 resident of that town named (enancio 'ivera died. 4n .ul1
,$" !#2*" .ose 'ivera" claiming to ;e the onl1 surviving legitimate son of the deceased" filed a petition for
the issuance of letters of administration over (enancio<s estate. Docketed as 06 )o. !72+" this petition
was opposed ;1 Adelaido .. 'ivera" who denied that .ose was the son of the decedent. Adelaido averred
that (enancio was his father and did not die intestate ;ut in fact left two holographic wills.
1
4n )ovem;er 2" !#2*" Adelaido .. 'ivera filed" also with the 'egional Trial Court of Angeles Cit1" a
petition for the pro;ate of the holographic wills. Docketed as 06 )o. !7#!" this petition was in turn
opposed ;1 .ose 'ivera" who reiterated that he was the sole heir of (enancio<s intestate estate.
(

4n )ovem;er !!" !#2*" the two cases were consolidated. Adelaido .. 'ivera was later appointed special
administrator. After 5oint trial" .udge >liodoro 9. &uinto found that .ose 'ivera was not the son of the
decedent ;ut of a different (enancio 'ivera who was married to :aria (ital. The (enancio 'ivera whose
estate was in =uestion was married to :aria .ocson" ;1 whom he had seven children" including Adelaido.
.ose 'ivera had no claim to this estate ;ecause the decedent was not his father. The holographic wills
were also admitted to pro;ate.
3

4n appeal" the decision of the trial court was affirmed ;1 the then Intermediate Appellate Court.
)
Its
decision is now the su;5ect of this petition" which urges the reversal of the respondent court.
In support of his claim that he was the sole heir of the late (enancio 'ivera" .ose sought to show that the
said person was married in !#,$ to :aria (ital" who was his mother. @e su;mitted for this purpose
>?hi;it A" the marriage certificate of the couple" and >?hi;it 9" his own ;aptismal certificate where the
couple was indicated as his parents. The petitioner also presented Domingo 0antos" who testified that
.ose was indeed the son of the couple and that he saw (enancio and .ose together several times.
5
.ose
himself stressed that Adelaido considered him a half%;rother and kissed his hand as a sign of respect
whenever the1 met. @e insisted that Adelaido and his ;rothers and sisters were illegitimate children" sired
;1 (enancio with :aria .ocson.
6

Adelaido" for his part" maintained that he and his ;rothers and sisters were ;orn to (enancio 'ivera and
:aria .ocson" who were legall1 married and lived as such for man1 1ears. @e e?plained that he could not
present his parents< marriage certificate ;ecause the record of marriages for !#3, in :a;alacat were
destro1ed when the town was ;urned during the war" as certified ;1 >?hi;it +.
7
@e also su;mitted his
own ;irth certificate and those of his sisters Oenaida and /olanda 'ivera" who were each descri;ed
therein as the legimitate children of (enancio 'ivera and :aria .ocson.
8
Att1. 'egalado 6. :orales" then
2! 1ears of age" affirmed that he knew the deceased and his parents" :agno 'ivera and &ertrudes de los
'e1es" and it was during the .apanese occupation that (enancio introduced to him :aria .ocson as his
wife.
9
To prove that there were in fact two persons ;1 the same name of (enancio 'ivera" Adelaido
offered (enancio 'ivera<s ;aptismal certificate showing that his parents were :agno 'ivera and
&ertrudes de los 'e1es"
10
as contrasted with the marriage certificate su;mitted ;1 .ose" which indicated
that the (enancio 'ivera su;5ect thereof was the son of Florencio 'ivera and >strudeB 'e1es.
11
@e also
denied kissing .ose<s hand or recogniBing him as a ;rother.
1(
Ae find in favor of Adelaido .. 'ivera.
It is true that Adelaido could not present his parents< marriage certificate ;ecause" as he e?plained it" the
marriage records for !#3, in the :a;alacat civil registr1 were ;urned during the war. >ven so" he could
still rel1 on the presumption of marriage" since it is not denied that (enancio 'ivera and :aria .ocson
lived together as hus;and and wife for man1 1ears" ;egetting seven children in all during that time.
According to Article ,,7 of the Civil Code:
In case of dou;t" all presumptions favor the solidarit1 of the famil1. Thus ever1
intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validit1 of marriage" the indissolu;ilit1 of
the marriage ;onds" the legitimac1 of children" ... .
The 'ules of Court" in 'ule !!" provides:
0>C. . &isputale presumptions. J The following presumptions are satisfactor1 if
uncontradicted" ;ut ma1 ;e contradicted and overcome ;1 other evidence:
??? ??? ???
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as hus;and and wife have entered
into a lawful contract of marriage.
91 contrast" although .ose did present his parents< marriage certificate" (enancio was descri;ed therein
as the son of Florencio 'ivera. 6resuma;l1" he was not the same (enancio 'ivera descri;ed in >?hi;it 3"
his ;aptismal certificate" as the son of :agno 'ivera. Ahile we realiBe that such ;aptismal certificate is
not conclusive evidence of (enancio<s filiation (which is not the issue here) it ma1 nonetheless ;e
considered to determine his real identit1. .ose insists that :agno and Florencio are one and the same
person" arguing that it is not uncommon for a person to ;e called ;1 different names. The Court is not
convinced. There is no evidence that (enancio<s father was called either :agno or Florencio. Ahat is
more likel1 is that two or more persons ma1 live at the same time and ;ear the same name" even in the
same communit1. That is what the courts ;elow found in the cases at ;ar.
Ahat this Court considers particularl1 intriguing is wh1" if it is true that he was the legitimate son of
(enancio 'ivera" .ose did not assert his right as such when his father was still alive. 91 his own account"
.ose supported himself J and presuma;l1 also his mother :aria (ital J as a gasoline attendant and
driver for man1 1ears. All the time" his father was residing in the same town J and o;viousl1 prospering
J and availa;le for support. @is alleged father was openl1 living with another woman and raising another
famil1" ;ut this was apparentl1 accepted ;1 .ose without protest" taking no step whatsoever to invoke his
status. If" as he insists" he and (enancio 'ivera were on cordial terms" there is no reason wh1 the father
did not help the son and instead left .ose to fend for himself as a hum;le worker while his other children
;1 :aria .ocson en5o1ed a comforta;le life. 0uch paternal discrimination is difficult to understand"
especiall1 if it is considered J assuming the claims to ;e true J that .ose was the oldest and" ;1 his own
account" the onl1 legitimate child of (enancio 'ivera.
And there is also :aria (ital" whose attitude is no less incomprehensi;le. As (enancio<s legitimate wife J
if indeed she was J she should have o;5ected when her hus;and a;andoned her and founded another
famil1 ;1 another woman" and in the same town at that. 0eeing that the children of :aria .ocson were
;eing raised well while her own son .ose was practicall1 ignored and neglected" she nevertheless did not
demand for him at least support" if not ;etter treatment" from his legitimate father. It is unnatural for a
lawful wife to sa1 nothing if she is deserted in favor of another woman and for a caring mother not to
protect her son<s interests from his wa1ward father<s neglect. The fact is that this forsaken wife never
demanded support from her wealth1 if errant hus;and. 0he did not file a complaint for ;igam1 or
concu;inage against (enancio 'ivera and :aria .ocson" the alleged partners in crime and sin. :aria
(ital was completel1 passive and complaisant.
0ignificantl1" as noted ;1 the respondent court" :aria (ital was not even presented at the trial to support
her son<s allegations that she was the decedent<s lawful wife. .ose sa1s this was not done ;ecause she
was alread1 old and ;edridden then. 9ut there was no impediment to the taking of her deposition in her
own house. )o effort was made toward this end although her testimon1 was vital to the petitioner<s cause.
.ose dismisses such testimon1 as merel1 -cumulative"- ;ut this Court does not agree. @aving alleged that
:aria .ocson<s marriage to (enancio 'ivera was null and void" .ose had the ;urden of proving that
serious allegation.
Ae find from the evidence of record that the respondent court did not err in holding that the (enancio
'ivera who married :aria .ocson in !#3, was not the same person who married :aria (ital" .ose<s
legitimate mother" in !#,$. .ose ;elonged to a hum;ler famil1 which had no relation whatsoever with the
famil1 of (enancio 'ivera and :aria (ital. This was more prosperous and prominent. >?cept for the
curious Identit1 of names of the head of each" there is no evidence linking the two families or showing that
the deceased (enancio 'ivera was the head of ;oth.
)ow for the holographic wills. The respondent court considered them valid ;ecause it found them to have
;een written" dated and signed ;1 the testator himself in accordance with Article $!7 of the Civil Code. It
also held there was no necessit1 of presenting the three witnesses re=uired under Article $!! ;ecause
the authenticit1 of the wills had not ;een =uestioned.
The e?istence and therefore also the authenticit1 of the holographic wills were =uestioned ;1 .ose 'ivera.
In his own petition in 06 )o. !72+" he declared that (enancio 'ivera died intestateD and in 06 )o. !7#!"
he denied the e?istence of the holographic wills presented ;1 Adelaido 'ivera for pro;ate. In ;oth
proceedings" .ose 'ivera opposed the holographic wills su;mitted ;1 Adelaido 'ivera and claimed that
the1 were spurious. Conse=uentl1" it ma1 ;e argued" the respondent court should have applied Article
$!! of the Civil Code" providing as follows:
In the pro;ate of a holographic will" it shall ;e necessar1 that at least one witness who
knows the handwriting and signature of the testator e?plicitl1 declare that the will and the
signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested" at least three of
such witnesses shall ;e re=uired.
The flaw in this argument is that" as we have alread1 determined" .ose 'ivera is not the son of the
deceased (enancio 'ivera whose estate is in =uestion. @ence" ;eing a mere stranger" he had no
personalit1 to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have the legal effect of re=uiring the
three witnesses. The testimon1 of Oenaida and (enancio 'ivera" .r." who authenticated the wills as
having ;een written and signed ;1 their father" was sufficient.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D and the challenged decision is AFFI':>D" with costs against the
petitioner.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 7671) &+n/ (, 199)
'ALUD EODORO VDA. DE $EREZ, vs. !ON. ZO#%O A. OLEE -n 1-* >a2a>-.y a* $,/*-d-n5
&+d5/, ",an>1 18, R%, "+3a>an,
This is a petition for certiorari under 'ule +* of the 'evised 'ules of Court to set aside the 4rder dated
)ovem;er !#" !#$+ of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch !$" 9ulacan presided ;1 respondent .udge Ootico
A. Tolete" in 0pecial 6roceedings )o. !2#%:.
Ae grant the petition.
II
Dr. .ose F. Cunanan and his wife" Dr. >vel1n 6ereB%Cunanan" who ;ecame American citiBens"
esta;lished a successful medical practice in )ew /ork" C.0.A. The Cunanans lived at )o. ,$#+ Citation
Drive" 6ompe1" 01racuse" )ew /ork" with their children" .ocel1n" !$D .ac=ueline" !+D and .osephine" !3.
4n August ," !#2#" Dr. Cunanan e?ecuted a last will and testament" ;e=ueathing to his wife -all the
remainder- of his real and personal propert1 at the time of his death -wheresoever situated- (-ollo" p. *).
In the event he would survive his wife" he ;e=ueathed all his propert1 to his children and grandchildren
with Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. as trustee. @e appointed his wife as e?ecutri? of his last will and
testament and Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. as su;stitute e?ecutor. Article (III of his will states:
If m1 wife" >(>8/) 6>'>O%CC)A)A)" and I shall die under such circumstances that
there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our deaths" then it shall ;e
presumed that I predeceased her" and m1 estate shall ;e administered and distri;uted" in
all respects" in accordance with such presumption (-ollo" p. 3!).
Four da1s later" on August ,2" Dr. >vel1n 6. Cunanan e?ecuted her own last will and testament
containing the same provisions as that of the will of her hus;and. Article (III of her will states:
If m1 hus;and" .40> F. CC)A)A)" and I shall die under such circumstances that there
is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our deaths" then it shall ;e presumed
that he predeceased me" and m1 estate shall ;e administered and distri;uted in all
respects" in accordance with such presumption. (-ollo" p. !).
4n .anuar1 #" !#$," Dr. Cunanan and his entire famil1 perished when the1 were trapped ;1 fire that
gutted their home. Thereafter" Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. as trustee and su;stitute e?ecutor of the two
wills" filed separate proceedings for the pro;ate thereof with the 0urrogate Court of the Count1 of
4nondaga" )ew /ork. 4n April 2" these two wills were admitted to pro;ate and letters testamentar1 were
issued in his favor.
4n Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$" 0alud Teodoro 6ereB" the mother of Dr. >vel1n 6. Cunanan" and petitioner herein"
filed with the 'egional 6. Cunanan" and petitioner herein" filed with the 'egional Trial Court" :alolos"
9ulacan a petition for the repro;ate of the two ;ills ancillar1 to the pro;ate proceedings in )ew /ork. 0he
also asked that she ;e appointed the special administratri? of the estate of the deceased couple
consisting primaril1 of a farm land in 0an :iguel" 9ulacan.
4n :arch #" the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch !+" :alolos" 9ulacan" presided ;1 .udge &ual;erto .. de la
8lana" issued an order" directing the issuance of letters of special administration in favor of petitioner upon
her filing of a 6!7"777.77 ;ond. The following da1" petitioner posted the ;ond and took her oath as
special administration.
As her first act of administration" petitioner filed a motion" pra1ing that the 6hilippine 8ife Insurance
Compan1 ;e directed to deliver the proceeds in the amount of 6*7"777.77 of the life insurance polic1
taken ;1 Dr. .ose F. Cunanan with Dr. >vel1n 6ereB%Cunanan and their daughter .ocel1n as
;eneficiaries. The trial court granted the motion.
Counsel for the 6hilippine American 8ife Insurance Compan1 then filed a manifestation" stating that said
compan1 then filed a manifestation" stating that said compan1 had delivered to petitioner the amount of
63#"2+*.$*" representing the proceeds of the life insurance polic1 of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan.
In a motion dated :a1 !#" !#$" petitioner asked that Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r. ;e ordered to deliver to
her a 6hilippine Trust Compan1 pass;ook with 6,*"*#3.77 in savings deposit" and the Famil1 0avings
9ank time deposit certificates in the total amount of 6!,"3!,.*,.
4n :a1 !" Att1. Federico Alda1 filed a notice of appearance as counsel for the heirs of Dr. .ose F.
Cunanan" namel1" Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r." 6riscilla Cunanan 9autista" 81dia Cunanan Ignacio" Felipe F.
Cunanan and 8oreto Cunanan Concepcion (Cunanan heirs). @e also manifested that ;efore receiving
petitioner<s motion of :a1 !#" !#$" his clients were unaware of the filing of the testate estate case and
therefore" -in the interest of simple fair pla1"- the1 should ;e notified of the proceedings ('ecords" p. !!7).
@e pra1ed for deferment of the hearing on the motions of :a1 !#" !#$.
6etitioner then filed a counter manifestation dated .une !" !#$" asserting: (!) that the -Cunanan
collaterals are neither heirs nor creditors of the late Dr. .ose F. Cunanan- and therefore" the1 had -no
legal or proprietar1 interests to protect- and -no right to intervene-D (,) that the wills of Dr. .ose F.
Cunanan and Dr. >vel1n 6ereB%Cunanan" ;eing American citiBens" were e?ecuted in accordance with the
solemnities and formalities of )ew /ork laws" and produced -effects in this 5urisdiction in accordance with
Art. !+ in relation to Art. $!+ of the Civil Code-D () that under Article (III of the two wills" it was presumed
that the hus;and predeceased the wifeD and (3) that -the Cunanan collaterals are neither distri;utees"
legatees or ;eneficiaries" much less" heirs as heirship is onl1 ;1 institution- under a will or ;1 operation of
the law of )ew /ork ('ecords" pp. !!,%!!).
4n .une ," the pro;ate court granted petitioner<s motion of :a1 !#" !#$. @owever" on .ul1 ,!" the
Cunanan heirs filed a motion to nullif1 the proceedings and to set aside the appointment of" or to
dis=ualif1" petitioner as special administratri? of the estates of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan and Dr. >vel1n 6ereB%
Cunanan. The motion stated: (!) that ;eing the -;rothers and sisters and the legal and surviving heirs- of
Dr. .ose F. Cunanan" the1 had ;een -deli;eratel1 e?cluded- in the petition for the pro;ate of the separate
wills of the Cunanan spouses there;1 misleading the 9ulacan court to ;elieve that petitioner was the sole
heir of the spousesD that such -misrepresentation- deprived them of their right to -due process in violation
of 0ection 3" 'ule 2+ of the 'evised 'ules of CourtD (,) that Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r." the e?ecutor of
the estate of the Cunanan spouses" was likewise not notified of the hearings in the 9ulacan courtD () that
the -misrepresentation and concealment committed ;1- petitioner rendered her unfit to ;e a special
administratri?D (3) that Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. had" ;1 virtue of a verified power of attorne1" authoriBed
his father"
Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r." to ;e his attorne1%in%factD and (*) that Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r. is =ualified to ;e
a regular administrator -as practicall1 all of the su;5ect estate in the 6hilippines ;elongs to their ;rother"
Dr. .ose F. Cunanan- ('ecords" pp. !!$%!,,). @ence" the1 pra1ed: (!) that the proceedings in the case
;e declared null and voidD (,) that the appointment of petitioner as special administratri? ;e set asideD and
() that Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r. ;e appointed the regular administrator of the estate of the deceased
spouses.
Thereafter" the Cunanan heirs filed a motion re=uiring petitioner to su;mit an inventor1 or accounting of
all monies received ;1 her in trust for the estate.
In her opposition" petitioner asserted: (!) that she was the -sole and onl1 heir- of her daughter" Dr. >vel1n
6ereB%Cunanan to the e?clusion of the -Cunanan collaterals-D hence the1 were complete strangers to the
proceedings and were not entitled to noticeD (,) that she could not have -concealed- the name and
address of Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. ;ecause his name was prominentl1 mentioned not onl1 in the two
wills ;ut also in the decrees of the American surrogate courtD () that the rule applica;le to the case is
'ule 22" not 'ule 2+" ;ecause it involved the allowance of wills proved outside of the 6hilippines and that
nowhere in 0ection , of 'ule 22 is there a mention of notice ;eing given to the e?ecutor who" ;1 the
same provision" should himself file the necessar1 ancillar1 proceedings in this countr1D (3) that even if the
9ulacan estate came from the -capital- of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan" he had willed all his worldl1 goods to his
wife and nothing to his ;rothers and sistersD and (*) that Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. had unlawfull1
dis;ursed S,!*"777.77 to the Cunanan heirs" misappropriated S!*"777.77 for himself and irregularl1
assigned assets of the estates to his American law1er ('ecords" pp. !*!%!+7).
In their repl1" the Cunanan heirs stressed that on )ovem;er ,3" !#$," petitioner and the Cunanan heirs
had entered into an agreement in the Cnited 0tates -to settle and divide e=uall1 the estates"- and that
under 0ection , of 'ule 22 the -court shall fi? a time and place for the hearing and cause notice thereof to
;e given as in case of an original will presented for allowance- ('ecords" pp. !$3%!$*).
6etitioner asked that Dr. 'afael &. Cunanan" .r. ;e cited for contempt of court for failure to compl1 with
the 4rder of .une ," !#$ and for appropriating mone1 of the estate for his own ;enefit. 0he also
alleged that she had impugned the agreement of )ovem;er ,3" !#$, ;efore the 0urrogate Court of
4nondaga" )ew /ork which rendered a decision on April !" !#$" finding that -all assets are pa1a;le to
Dr. >vel1n 6. CunananRs e?ecutor to ;e then distri;uted pursuant to >6T83%!.! su;d GaH par G3H- (-ollo" p.
*,).
4n their part" the Cunanan heirs replied that petitioner was estopped from claiming that the1 were heirs
;1 the agreement to divide e=uall1 the estates. The1 asserted that ;1 virtue of 0ection , of 'ule 22 of the
'ules of Court" the provisions of 0ections " 3 and * of 'ule 2+ on the re=uirement of notice to all heirs"
e?ecutors" devisees and legatees must ;e complied with. The1 reiterated their pra1er: (!) that the
proceedings in the case ;e nullifiedD (,) that petitioner ;e dis=ualified as special administratri?D () that
she ;e ordered to su;mit an inventor1 of all goods" chattels and monies which she had received and to
surrender the same to the courtD and (3) that Dr. 'afael Cunanan" 0r. ;e appointed the regular
administrator.
6etitioner filed a re5oinder" stating that in violation of the April !" !#$ decision of the American court Dr.
'afael &. Cunanan" .r. made -unauthoriBed dis;ursements from the estates as earl1 as .ul1 2" !#$,-
('ecords" p. ,!). Thereafter" petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings as she had -to
attend to the settlement proceedings- of the estate of the Cunanan spouses in )ew /ork ('ecords" p.
,3,). The Cunanans heirs opposed this motion and filed a manifestation" stating that petitioner had
received S,!*"777.77 -from the 0urrogateRs Court as part of legac1- ;ased on the aforesaid agreement of
)ovem;er ,3" !#$, ('ecords" p. ,3$).
4n Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3" .udge de la 8lana issued an order" disallowing the repro;ate of the two wills"
recalling the appointment of petitioner as special administratri?" re=uiring the su;mission of petitioner of
an inventor1 of the propert1 received ;1 her as special administratri? and declaring all pending incidents
moot and academic. .udge de la 8lana reasoned out that petitioner failed to prove the law of )ew /ork on
procedure and allowance of wills and the court had no wa1 of telling whether the wills were e?ecuted in
accordance with the law of )ew /ork. In the a;sence of such evidence" the presumption is that the law of
succession of the foreign countr1 is the same as the law of the 6hilippines. @owever" he noted" that there
were onl1 two witnesses to the wills of the Cunanan spouses and the 6hilippine law re=uires three
witnesses and that the wills were not signed on each and ever1 page" a re=uirement of the 6hilippine law.
4n August ,2" !#$*" petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 4rder dated Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3"
where she had sufficientl1 proven the applica;le laws of )ew /ork governing the e?ecution of last wills
and testaments.
4n the same da1" .udge de la 8lana issued another order" den1ing the motion of petitioner for the
suspension of the proceedings ;ut gave her !* da1s upon arrival in the countr1 within which to act on the
other order issued that same da1. Contending that the second portion of the second order left its finalit1 to
the discretion of counsel for petitioner" the Cunanans filed a motion for the reconsideration of the
o;5ectiona;le portion of the said order so that it would conform with the pertinent provisions of the
.udiciar1 'eorganiBation Act of !#$7 and the Interim 'ules of Court.
4n April 7" !#$*" the respondent .udge of 9ranch !$ of the 'egional Trial Court" :alolos" to which the
repro;ate case was reassigned" issued an order stating that -(A)hen the last will and testament . . . was
denied pro;ate"- the case was terminated and therefore all orders theretofore issued should ;e given
finalit1. The same 4rder amended the Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3 4rder ;1 re=uiring petitioner to turn over to the
estate the inventoried propert1. It considered the proceedings for all intents and purposes" closed
('ecords"
p. 7,).
4n August !," petitioner filed a motion to resume proceedings on account of the final settlement and
termination of the pro;ate cases in )ew /ork. Three da1s later" petitioner filed a motion pra1ing for the
reconsideration of the 4rder of April 7" !#$* on the strength of the Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3 4rder granting her
a period of !* da1s upon arrival in the countr1 within which to act on the denial of pro;ate of the wills of
the Cunanan spouses. 4n August !#" respondent .udge granted the motion and reconsidered the 4rder
of April 7" !#$*.
4n August ,#" counsel for petitioner" who happens to ;e her daughter" )atividad" filed a motion pra1ing
that since petitioner was ailing in Fort 8ee" )ew .erse1" C.0.A. and therefore incapacitated to act as
special administratri?" she (the counsel) should ;e named su;stitute special administratri?. 0he also filed
a motion for the reconsideration of the 4rder of Fe;ruar1 ,!" !#$3" den1ing pro;ate to the wills of the
Cunanan spouses" alleging that respondent .udge -failed to appreciate the significant pro;ative value of
the e?hi;its . . . which all refer to the offer and admission to pro;ate of the last wills of the Cunanan
spouses including all procedures undertaken and decrees issued in connection with the said pro;ate-
('ecords" pp. !%,).
Thereafter" the Cunanans heirs filed a motion for reconsideration of the 4rder of August !#" !#$*"
alleging lack of notice to their counsel.
4n :arch !" !#$+" respondent .udge to which the case was reassigned denied the motion for
reconsideration holding that the documents su;mitted ;1 petitioner proved -that the wills of the testator
domiciled a;road were properl1 e?ecuted" genuine and sufficient to possess real and personal propert1D
that letters testamentar1 were issuedD and that proceedings were held on a foreign tri;unal and proofs
taken ;1 a competent 5udge who in=uired into all the facts and circumstances and ;eing satisfied with his
findings issued a decree admitting to pro;ate the wills in =uestion.- @owever" respondent .udge said that
the documents did not esta;lish the law of )ew /ork on the procedure and allowance of wills ('ecords" p.
$!).
4n April #" !#$+" petitioner filed a motion to allow her to present further evidence on the foreign law. After
the hearing of the motion on April ,*" !#$+" respondent .udge issued an order wherein he conceded that
insufficienc1 of evidence to prove the foreign law was not a fatal defect and was cura;le ;1 adducing
additional evidence. @e granted petitioner 3* da1s to su;mit the evidence to that effect.
@owever" without waiting for petitioner to adduce the additional evidence" respondent .udge ruled in his
order dated .une ,7" !#$+ that he found -no compelling reason to distur; its ruling of :arch !" !#$+- ;ut
allowed petitioner to -file anew the appropriate pro;ate proceedings for each of the testator- ('ecords" p.
#!).
The 4rder dated .une ,7" !#$+ prompted petitioner to file a second motion for reconsideration stating
that she was -read1 to su;mit further evidence on the law o;taining in the 0tate of )ew /ork- and pra1ing
that she ;e granted -the opportunit1 to present evidence on what the law of the 0tate of )ew /ork has on
the pro;ate and allowance of wills- ('ecords" p. #).
4n .ul1 !$" respondent .udge denied the motion holding that to allow the pro;ate of two wills in a single
proceeding -would ;e a departure from the t1pical and esta;lished mode of pro;ate where one petition
takes care of one will.- @e pointed out that even in )ew /ork -where the wills in =uestion were first
su;mitted for pro;ate" the1 were dealt with in separate proceedings- ('ecords" p. #*).
4n August !" !#$+" petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of the 4rder of .ul1 !$" !#$+" citing
0ection " 'ule , of the 'ules of Court" which provides that no part1 ma1 institute more than one suit for a
single cause of action. 0he pointed out that separate proceedings for the wills of the spouses which
contain ;asicall1 the same provisions as the1 even named each other as a ;eneficiar1 in their respective
wills" would go against -the grain of ine?pensive" 5ust and speed1 determination of the proceedings-
('ecords" pp. 37*%372).
4n 0eptem;er !!" !#$+" petitioner filed a supplement to the motion for reconsideration" citing 2enigno v.
&e La *e+a" *2 6hil. 7* (!#,) ('ecords"
p. 3!!)" ;ut respondent .udge found that this pleading had ;een filed out of time and that the adverse
part1 had not ;een furnished with a cop1 thereof. In her compliance" petitioner stated that she had
furnished a cop1 of the motion to the counsel of the Cunanan heirs and reiterated her motion for a -final
ruling on her supplemental motion- ('ecords" p. 3,!).
4n )ovem;er !#" respondent .udge issued an order" den1ing the motion for reconsideration filed ;1
petitioner on the grounds that -the pro;ate of separate wills of two or more different persons even if the1
are hus;and and wife cannot ;e undertaken in a single petition- ('ecords" pp. 2+%2$).
@ence" petitioner instituted the instant petition" arguing that the evidence offered at the hearing of April
!!" !#$ sufficientl1 proved the laws of the 0tate of )ew /ork on the allowance of wills" and that the
separate wills of the Cunanan spouses need not ;e pro;ated in separate proceedings.
II
6etitioner contends that the following pieces of evidence she had su;mitted ;efore respondent .udge are
sufficient to warrant the allowance of the wills:
(a) two certificates of authentication of the respective wills of >vel1n and .ose ;1 the
Consulate &eneral of the 6hilippines (>?hs. -F- and -&-)D
(;) two certifications from the 0ecretar1 of 0tate of )ew /ork and Custodian of the &reat
0eal on the facts that .udge 9ernard 8. 'eagan is the 0urrogate of the Countr1 of
4nondaga which is a court of record" that his signature and seal of office are genuine"
and that the 0urrogate is dul1 authoriBed to grant cop1 of the respective wills of >vel1n
and .ose
(>?hs. -F%!- and -&%!-)D
(c) two certificates of .udge 'eagan and Chief Clerk Donald >. :oore stating that the1
have in their records and files the said wills which were recorded on April 2" !#$, (>?hs.
-F%,- and -&%,-)D
(d) the respective wills of >vel1n and .ose (>?hs. -F%-" -F%+- and >?h. -&%- J -&%+-)D
(e) certificates of .udge 'eagan and the Chief Clerk certif1ing to the genuineness and
authenticit1 of the e?emplified copies of the two wills (>?hs. -F%2- and -F%2-)D
(f) two certificates of authentication from the Consulate &eneral of the 6hilippines in )ew
/ork (>?h. -@- and -F-).
(g) certifications from the 0ecretar1 of 0tate that .udge 'eagan is dul1 authoriBed to
grant e?emplified copies of the decree of pro;ate" letters testamentar1 and all
proceedings had and proofs dul1 taken
(>?hs. -@%!- and -I%!-)D
(h) certificates of .udge 'eagan and the Chief Clerk that letters testamentar1 were
issued to 'afael &. Cunanan (>?hs. -@%,- and -I%,-)D
(i) certification to the effect that it was during the term of .udge 'eagan that a decree
admitting the wills to pro;ate had ;een issued and appointing 'afael &. Cunanan as
alternate e?ecutor (>?hs. -@%- and
-I%!7-)D
(5) the decrees on pro;ate of the two wills specif1ing that proceedings were held and
proofs dul1 taken (>?hs. -@%3- and -I%*-)D
(k) decrees on pro;ate of the two wills stating that the1 were properl1 e?ecuted" genuine
and valid and that the said instruments were admitted to pro;ate and esta;lished as wills
valid to pass real and personal propert1 (>?hs. -@%*- and -I%*-)D and
(l) certificates of .udge 'eagan and the Chief Clerk on the genuineness and authenticit1
of each otherRs signatures in the e?emplified copies of the decrees of pro;ate" letters
testamentar1 and proceedings held in their court (>?hs. -@%+- and -I%+-) (-ollo" pp. !%
!+).
6etitioner adds that the wills had ;een admitted to pro;ate in the 0urrogate CourtRs Decision of April !"
!#$ and that the proceedings were terminated on )ovem;er ,#" !#$3.
The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses" who were American citiBens" will onl1 ;e effective in this
countr1 upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines:
Art. $!+. The will of an alien who is a;road produces effect in the 6hilippines if made with
the formalities prescri;ed ;1 the law of the place in which he resides" or according to the
formalities o;served in his countr1" or in conformit1 with those which this Code
prescri;es.
Thus" proof that ;oth wills conform with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 )ew /ork laws or ;1 6hilippine laws
is imperative.
The evidence necessar1 for the repro;ate or allowance of wills which have ;een pro;ated outside of the
6hilippines are as follows: (!) the due e?ecution of the will in accordance with the foreign lawsD (,) the
testator has his domicile in the foreign countr1 and not in the 6hilippinesD () the will has ;een admitted to
pro;ate in such countr1D (3) the fact that the foreign tri;unal is a pro;ate court" and (*) the laws of a
foreign countr1 on procedure and allowance of wills (III :oran Commentaries on the 'ules of Court" !#27
ed." pp. 3!#%3,#D 0unta1 v. 0unta1" #* 6hil. *77 G!#*3HD Fluemer v. @i?" *3 6hil. +!7 G!#7H). >?cept for
the first and last re=uirements" the petitioner su;mitted all the needed evidence.
The necessit1 of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the pro;ate in the foreign countr1 is
;ased is impelled ;1 the fact that our courts cannot take 5udicial notice of them (6hilippine Commercial
and Industrial 9ank v. >scolin" *+ 0C'A ,++ G!#23H).
6etitioner must have perceived this omission as in fact she moved for more time to su;mit the pertinent
procedural and su;stantive )ew /ork laws ;ut which re=uest respondent .udge 5ust glossed over. Ahile
the pro;ate of a will is a special proceeding wherein courts should rela? the rules on evidence" the goal is
to receive the ;est evidence of which the matter is suscepti;le ;efore a purported will is pro;ated or
denied pro;ate ((da. de 'amos v. Court of Appeals" $! 0C'A # G!#2$H).
There is merit in petitionerRs insistence that the separate wills of the Cunanan spouses should ;e
pro;ated 5ointl1. 'espondent .udgeRs view that the 'ules on allowance of wills is couched in singular
terms and therefore should ;e interpreted to mean that there should ;e separate pro;ate proceedings for
the wills of the Cunanan spouses is too literal and simplistic an approach. 0uch view overlooks the
provisions of 0ection ," 'ule ! of the 'evised 'ules of Court" which advise that the rules shall ;e
-li;erall1 construed in order to promote their o;5ect and to assist the parties in o;taining 5ust" speed1" and
ine?pensive determination of ever1 action and proceeding.-
A literal application of the 'ules should ;e avoided if the1 would onl1 result in the dela1 in the
administration of 5ustice (Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court" !** 0C'A !77 G!#$2HD 'o;erts v.
8eonidas" !,# 0C'A G!#$3H).
Ahat the law e?pressl1 prohi;its is the making of 5oint wills either for the testatorRs reciprocal ;enefit or for
the ;enefit of a third person (Civil Code of the 6hilippines" Article $!$). In the case at ;ench" the Cunanan
spouses e?ecuted separate wills. 0ince the two wills contain essentiall1 the same provisions and pertain
to propert1 which in all pro;a;ilit1 are con5ugal in nature" practical considerations dictate their 5oint
pro;ate. As this Court has held a num;er of times" it will alwa1s strive to settle the entire controvers1 in a
single proceeding leaving no root or ;ranch to ;ear the seeds of future litigation (:otoomull v. Dela 6aB"
!$2 0C'A 23 G!##7H).
This petition cannot ;e completel1 resolved without touching on a ver1 glaring fact J petitioner has
alwa1s considered herself the sole heir of
Dr. >vel1n 6ereB Cunanan and ;ecause she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan"
she noticea;l1 failed to notif1 his heirs of the filing of the proceedings. Thus" even in the instant petition"
she onl1 impleaded respondent .udge" forgetting that a 5udge whose order is ;eing assailed is merel1 a
nominal or formal part1 (Calderon v. 0olicitor &eneral" ,!* 0C'A $2+ G!##,H).
The rule that the court having 5urisdiction over the repro;ate of a will shall -cause notice thereof to ;e
given as in case of an original will presented for allowance- ('evised 'ules of Court" 'ule ,2" 0ection ,)
means that with regard to notices" the will pro;ated a;road should ;e treated as if it were an -original will-
or a will that is presented for pro;ate for the first time. Accordingl1" compliance with 0ections and 3 of
'ule 2+" which re=uire pu;lication and notice ;1 mail or personall1 to the -known heirs" legatees" and
devisees of the testator resident in the 6hilippines- and to the e?ecutor" if he is not the petitioner" are
re=uired.
The ;rothers and sisters of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan" contrar1 to petitioner<s claim" are entitled to notices of
the time and place for proving the wills. Cnder 0ection 3 of 'ule 2+ of the 'evised 'ules of Court" the
-court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fi?ed for proving the will to ;e addressed
to the designated or other known heirs" legatees" and devisees of the testator" . . . -
A@>'>F4'>" the =uestioned 4rder is 0>T A0ID>. 'espondent .udge shall allow petitioner reasona;le
time within which to su;mit evidence needed for the 5oint pro;ate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses and
see to it that the ;rothers and sisters of Dr. .ose F. Cunanan are given all notices and copies of all
pleadings pertinent to the pro;ate proceedings.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 118671 &an+a,y (9, 1996
!E E'AE OF !#LAR#O M. RU#Z, EDMOND RU#Z, EA/>+.o,, vs. !E %OUR OF A$$EAL'
DFo,7/, '2/>-a3 '-A.1 D-8-*-onE, MAR#A $#LAR RU#Z-MONE', MAR#A %A!RYN RU#Z, %AND#%E
AL"ER#NE RU#Z, MAR#A ANGEL#NE RU#Z and !E $RE'#D#NG &UDGE OF !E REG#ONAL R#AL
%OUR OF $A'#G,
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the decision dated )ovem;er !7" !##3
and the resolution dated .anuar1 *" !##* of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. 06 )o. 73*.
The facts show that on .une ,2" !#$2" @ilario :. 'uiB
!
e?ecuted a holographic will naming as his heirs his
onl1 son" >dmond 'uiB" his adopted daughter" private respondent :aria 6ilar 'uiB :ontes" and his three
granddaughters" private respondents :aria Cathr1n" Candice Al;ertine and :aria Angeline" all children of
>dmond 'uiB. The testator ;e=ueathed to his heirs su;stantial cash" personal and real properties and
named >dmond 'uiB e?ecutor of his estate.
,

4n April !," !#$$" @ilario 'uiB died. Immediatel1 thereafter" the cash component of his estate was
distri;uted among >dmond 'uiB and private respondents in accordance with the decedent<s will. For
un;eknown reasons" >dmond" the named e?ecutor" did not take an1 action for the pro;ate of his father<s
holographic will.
4n .une ,#" !##," four 1ears after the testator<s death" it was private respondent :aria 6ilar 'uiB :ontes
who filed ;efore the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch !*+" 6asig" a petition for the pro;ate and approval of
@ilario 'uiB<s will and for the issuance of letters testamentar1 to >dmond 'uiB"

0urprisingl1" >dmond
opposed the petition on the ground that the will was e?ecuted under undue influence.
4n )ovem;er ," !##," one of the properties of the estate J the house and lot at )o. , 4liva 0treet" (alle
(erde I(" 6asig which the testator ;e=ueathed to :aria Cathr1n" Candice Al;ertine and :aria Angeline
3

J was leased out ;1 >dmond 'uiB to third persons.
4n .anuar1 !#" !##" the pro;ate court ordered >dmond to deposit with the 9ranch Clerk of Court the
rental deposit and pa1ments totalling 6*37"777.77 representing the one%1ear lease of the (alle (erde
propert1. In compliance" on .anuar1 ,*" !##" >dmond turned over the amount of 63$"*$.*+"
representing the ;alance of the rent after deducting 6!#!"3!+.!3 for repair and maintenance e?penses on
the estate.
*

In :arch !##" >dmond moved for the release of 6*7"777.77 to pa1 the real estate ta?es on the real
properties of the estate. The pro;ate court approved the release of 62"2,,.77.
+

4n :a1 !3" !##" >dmond withdrew his opposition to the pro;ate of the will. Conse=uentl1" the pro;ate
court" on :a1 !$" !##" admitted the will to pro;ate and ordered the issuance of letters testamentar1 to
>dmond conditioned upon the filing of a ;ond in the amount of 6*7"777.77. The letters testamentar1 were
issued on .une ," !##.
4n .ul1 ,$" !##" petitioner Testate >state of @ilario 'uiB" with >dmond 'uiB as e?ecutor" filed an ->?%
6arte :otion for 'elease of Funds.- It pra1ed for the release of the rent pa1ments deposited with the
9ranch Clerk of Court. 'espondent :ontes opposed the motion and concurrentl1 filed a -:otion for
'elease of Funds to Certain @eirs- and -:otion for Issuance of Certificate of Allowance of 6ro;ate Aill.-
:ontes pra1ed for the release of the said rent pa1ments to :aria Cathr1n" Candice Al;ertine and :aria
Angeline and for the distri;ution of the testator<s properties" specificall1 the (alle (erde propert1 and the
9lue 'idge apartments" in accordance with the provisions of the holographic will.
4n August ,+" !##" the pro;ate court denied petitioner<s motion for release of funds ;ut granted
respondent :ontes< motion in view of petitioner<s lack of opposition. It thus ordered the release of the rent
pa1ments to the decedent<s three granddaughters. It further ordered the deliver1 of the titles to and
possession of the properties ;e=ueathed to the three granddaughters and respondent :ontes upon the
filing of a ;ond of 6*7"777.77.
6etitioner moved for reconsideration alleging that he actuall1 filed his opposition to respondent :ontes<s
motion for release of rent pa1ments which opposition the court failed to consider. 6etitioner likewise
reiterated his previous motion for release of funds.
4n )ovem;er ," !##" petitioner" through counsel" manifested that he was withdrawing his motion for
release of funds in view of the fact that the lease contract over the (alle (erde propert1 had ;een
renewed for another 1ear.
2

Despite petitioner<s manifestation" the pro;ate court" on Decem;er ,," !##" ordered the release of the
funds to >dmond ;ut onl1 -such amount as ma1 ;e necessar1 to cover the e?penses of administration
and allowances for support- of the testator<s three granddaughters su;5ect to collation and deducti;le from
their share in the inheritance. The court" however" held in a;e1ance the release of the titles to respondent
:ontes and the three granddaughters until the lapse of si? months from the date of first pu;lication of the
notice to creditors.
$
The court stated thus:
??? ??? ???
After consideration of the arguments set forth thereon ;1 the parties the court resolves to allow
Administrator >dmond :. 'uiB to take possession of the rental pa1ments deposited with the
Clerk of Court" 6asig 'egional Trial Court" ;ut onl1 such amount as ma1 ;e necessary to cover
the e?penses of administration and allowances for support of :aria Cathr1n (eroni=ue" Candice
Al;ertine and :aria Angeli" which are su;5ect to collation and deducti;le from the share in the
inheritance of said heirs and insofar as the1 e?ceed the fruits or rents pertaining to them.
As to the release of the titles ;e=ueathed to petitioner :aria 6ilar 'uiB%:ontes and the a;ove%
named heirs" the same is here;1 reconsidered and $eld in aeyance until the lapse of si? (+)
months from the date of first pu;lication of )otice to Creditors.
A@>'>F4'>" Administrator >dmond :. 'uiB is here;1 ordered to su;mit an accounting of the
e?penses necessar1 for administration including provisions for the support 4f :aria Cathr1n
(eroni=ue 'uiB" Candice Al;ertine 'uiB and :aria Angeli 'uiB ;efore the amount re=uired can
;e withdrawn and cause the pu;lication of the notice to creditors with reasona;le dispatch.
#
6etitioner assailed this order ;efore the Court of Appeals. Finding no grave a;use of discretion on the
part of respondent 5udge" the appellate court dismissed the petition and sustained the pro;ate court<s
order in a decision dated )ovem;er !7" !##3
!7
and a resolution dated .anuar1 *" !##*.
!!

@ence" this petition.
6etitioner claims that:
T@> 6C98IC '>064)D>)T C4C'T 4F A66>A80 C4::ITT>D &'A(> A9C0> 4F
DI0C'>TI4) A:4C)TI)& T4 8ACL 4' >MC>00 4F .C'I0DICTI4) I) AFFI':I)& A)D
C4)FI':I)& T@> 4'D>' 4F '>064)D>)T '>&I4)A8 T'IA8 C4C'T 4F 6A0I&"
9'A)C@ !*+" DAT>D D>C>:9>' ,," !##" A@IC@ A@>) &I(>) DC> C4C'0> A)D I0
>FF>CT>D A4C8D: (!) DI0A884A T@> >M>CCT4'EAD:I)I0T'AT4' 4F T@> >0TAT> 4F
T@> 8AT> @I8A'I4 :. 'CIO T4 TAL> 6400>00I4) 4F A88 T@> '>A8 A)D 6>'04)A8
6'46>'TI>0 4F T@> >0TAT>D (,) &'A)T 0C664'T" DC'I)& T@> 6>)D>)C/ 4F T@>
0>TT8>:>)T 4F A) >0TAT>" T4 C>'TAI) 6>'04)0 )4T >)TIT8>D T@>'>T4D A)D ()
6'>:ATC'>8/ 6A'TITI4) A)D DI0T'I9CT> T@> >0TAT> 6C'0CA)T T4 T@>
6'4(I0I4)0 4F T@> @484&'A6@IC AI88 >(>) 9>F4'> IT0 I)T'I)0IC (A8IDIT/ @A0
9>>) D>T>':I)>D" A)D D>06IT> T@> >MI0T>)C> 4F C)6AID D>9T0 A)D
498I&ATI4)0 4F T@> >0TAT>.
!,
The issue for resolution is whether the pro;ate court" after admitting the will to pro;ate ;ut ;efore
pa1ment of the estate<s de;ts and o;ligations" has the authorit1: (!) to grant an allowance from the funds
of the estate for the support of the testator<s grandchildrenD (,) to order the release of the titles to certain
heirsD and () to grant possession of all properties of the estate to the e?ecutor of the will.
4n the matter of allowance" 0ection of 'ule $ of the 'evised 'ules of Court provides:
0ec. . "llo%ance to %ido% and family. J The widow and minor or incapacitated children of a
deceased person" during the settlement of the estate" shall receive therefrom under the direction
of the court" such allowance as are provided ;1 law.
6etitioner alleges that this provision onl1 gives the widow and the minor or incapacitated children of the
deceased the right to receive allowances for support during the settlement of estate proceedings. @e
contends that the testator<s three granddaughters do not =ualif1 for an allowance ;ecause the1 are not
incapacitated and are no longer minors ;ut of legal age" married and gainfull1 emplo1ed. In addition" the
provision e?pressl1 states -children- of the deceased which e?cludes the latter<s grandchildren.
It is settled that allowances for support under 0ection of 'ule $ should not ;e limited to the -minor or
incapacitated- children of the deceased. Article !$$
!
of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines" the su;stantive
law in force at the time of the testator<s death" provides that during the li=uidation of the con5ugal
partnership" the deceased<s legitimate spouse and children" regardless of their age" civil status or gainful
emplo1ment" are entitled to provisional support from the funds of the estate.
!3
The law is rooted on the
fact that the right and dut1 to support" especiall1 the right to education" su;sist even ;e1ond the age of
ma5orit1.
!*

9e that as it ma1" grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedent<s
estate. The law clearl1 limits the allowance to -widow and children- and does not e?tend it to the
deceased<s grandchildren" regardless of their minorit1 or incapacit1.
!+
It was error" therefore" for the
appellate court to sustain the pro;ate court<s order granting an allowance to the grandchildren of the
testator pending settlement of his estate.
'espondent courts also erred when the1 ordered the release of the titles of the ;e=ueathed properties to
private respondents si? months after the date of first pu;lication of notice to creditors. An order releasing
titles to properties of the estate amounts to an advance distri;ution of the estate which is allowed onl1
under the following conditions:
0ec. ,. "dvance distriution in special proceedings. J )othwithstanding a pending controvers1
or appeal in proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent" the court ma1" in its discretion and
upon such terms as it ma1 deem proper and 5ust" permit that such part of the estate as ma1 not
;e affected ;1 the controvers1 or appeal ;e distri;uted among the heirs or legatees" upon
compliance with the conditions set forth in 'ule #7 of these 'ules.
!2
And 'ule #7 provides that:
0ec. !. 7$en order for distriution of residue made. J 7$en t$e dets, funeral c$arges, and
expenses of administration t$e allo%ance to t$e %ido%, and in$eritance tax if any, c$argeale to
t$e estate in accordance %it$ la%, $ave een paid, t$e court, on t$e application of t$e executor or
administrator, or of a person interested in t$e estate, and after $earing upon notice s$all assign
t$e residue of t$e estate to t$e persons entitled to t$e same" naming them and the proportions or
parts" to which each is entitled" and such persons ma1 demand and recover their respective
shares from the e?ecutor or administrator" or an1 other person having the same in his
possession. If there is a controvers1 ;efore the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the
deceased person or as to the distri;utive shares to which each person is entitled under the law"
the controvers1 shall ;e heard and decided as in ordinar1 cases.
)o distri;ution shall ;e allowed until the pa1ment of the o;ligations a;ove%mentioned has ;een
made or provided for" unless the distri;utees" or an1 of them" give a ;ond" in a sum to ;e fi?ed ;1
the court" conditioned for the pa1ment of said o;ligations within such time as the court directs.
!$
In settlement of estate proceedings" the distri;ution of the estate properties can onl1 ;e made: (!) after all
the de;ts" funeral charges" e?penses of administration" allowance to the widow" and estate ta? have ;een
paidD or (,) ;efore pa1ment of said o;ligations onl1 if the distri;utees or an1 of them gives a ;ond in a
sum fi?ed ;1 the court conditioned upon the pa1ment of said o;ligations within such time as the court
directs" or when provision is made to meet those o;ligations.
!#
In the case at ;ar" the pro;ate court ordered the release of the titles to the (alle (erde propert1 and the
9lue 'idge apartments to the private respondents after the lapse of si? months from the date of first
pu;lication of the notice to creditors. The =uestioned order speaks of -notice- to creditors" not pa1ment of
de;ts and o;ligations. @ilario 'uiB allegedl1 left no de;ts when he died ;ut the ta?es on his estate had
not hitherto ;een paid" much less ascertained. The estate ta? is one of those o;ligations that must ;e
paid ;efore distri;ution of the estate. If not 1et paid" the rule re=uires that the distri;utees post a ;ond or
make such provisions as to meet the said ta? o;ligation in proportion to their respective shares in the
inheritance.
,7
)ota;l1" at the time the order was issued the properties of the estate had not 1et ;een
inventoried and appraised.
It was also too earl1 in the da1 for the pro;ate court to order the release of the titles si? months after
admitting the will to pro;ate. The pro;ate of a will is conclusive as to its due e?ecution and e?trinsic
validit1
,!
and settles onl1 the =uestion of whether the testator" ;eing of sound mind" freel1 e?ecuted it in
accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law.
,,
Iuestions as to the intrinsic validit1 and efficac1 of
the provisions of the will" the legalit1 of an1 devise or legac1 ma1 ;e raised even after the will has ;een
authenticated.
,

The intrinsic validit1 of @ilario<s holographic will was controverted ;1 petitioner ;efore the pro;ate court in
his 'epl1 to :ontes< 4pposition to his motion for release of funds
,3
and his motion for reconsideration of
the August ,+" !## order of the said court.
,*
Therein" petitioner assailed the distri;utive shares of the
devisees and legatees inasmuch as his father<s will included the estate of his mother and allegedl1
impaired his legitime as an intestate heir of his mother. The 'ules provide that if there is a controvers1 as
to who are the lawful heirs of the decedent and their distri;utive shares in his estate" the pro;ate court
shall proceed to hear and decide the same as in ordinar1 cases.
,+

0till and all" petitioner cannot correctl1 claim that the assailed order deprived him of his right to take
possession of all the real and personal properties of the estate. The right of an e?ecutor or administrator
to the possession and management of the real and personal properties of the deceased is not a;solute
and can onl1 ;e e?ercised -so long as it is necessar1 for the pa1ment of the de;ts and e?penses of
administration"-
,2
0ection of 'ule $3 of the 'evised 'ules of Court e?plicitl1 provides:
0ec. . Executor or administrator to retain %$ole estate to pay dets, and to administer estate not
%illed. J An e?ecutor or administrator shall have the right to the possession and management of
the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary for t$e payment
of t$e dets and expenses for administration.
,$
Ahen petitioner moved for further release of the funds deposited with the clerk of court" he had ;een
previousl1 granted ;1 the pro;ate court certain amounts for repair and maintenance e?penses on the
properties of the estate" and pa1ment of the real estate ta?es thereon. 9ut petitioner moved again for the
release of additional funds for the same reasons he previousl1 cited. It was correct for the pro;ate court to
re=uire him to su;mit an accounting of the necessar1 e?penses for administration ;efore releasing an1
further mone1 in his favor.
It was relevantl1 noted ;1 the pro;ate court that petitioner had deposited with it onl1 a portion of the one%
1ear rental income from the (alle (erde propert1. 6etitioner did not deposit its succeeding rents after
renewal of the lease.
,#
)either did he render an accounting of such funds.
6etitioner must ;e reminded that his right of ownership over the properties of his father is merel1 inchoate
as long as the estate has not ;een full1 settled and partitioned.
7
As e?ecutor" he is a mere trustee of his
father<s estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are trust funds and he is held to the duties and
responsi;ilities of a trustee of the highest order.
!
@e cannot unilaterall1 assign to himself and possess all
his parents< properties and the fruits thereof without first su;mitting an inventor1 and appraisal of all real
and personal properties of the deceased" rendering a true account of his administration" the e?penses of
administration" the amount of the o;ligations and estate ta?" all of which are su;5ect to a determination ;1
the court as to their veracit1" propriet1 and 5ustness.
,

I) (I>A A@>'>4F" the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'. 06 )o. 73*
affirming the order dated Decem;er ,," !## of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch !*+" 6asig in 06 6roc.
)o. !7,*# are affirmed with the modification that those portions of the order granting an allowance to the
testator<s grandchildren and ordering the release of the titles to the private respondents upon notice to
creditors are annulled and set aside.
'espondent 5udge is ordered to proceed with dispatch in the proceedings ;elow.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 8(0(7 Ma,>1 (9, 1990
ROMAR#%O G. V#UG, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL' and RO9ENA FAU'#NO-
%ORONA,
This case is a chapter in an earlier suit decided ;1 this Court
1
involving the pro;ate of the two wills of the
late Dolores 8uchangco (itug" who died in )ew /ork" C. 0.A." on )ovem;er !7" !#$7" naming private
respondent 'owena Faustino%Corona e?ecutri?. In our said decision" we upheld the appointment of
)enita Alonte as co%special administrator of :rs. (itug<s estate with her (:rs. (itug<s) widower" petitioner
'omarico &. (itug" pending pro;ate.
4n .anuar1 !" !#$*" 'omarico &. (itug filed a motion asking for authorit1 from the pro;ate court to sell
certain shares of stock and real properties ;elonging to the estate to cover allegedl1 his advances to the
estate in the sum of 6++2"2!.++" plus interests" which he claimed were personal funds. As found ;1 the
Court of Appeals"
(
the alleged advances consisted of 6*$"!32.37 spent for the pa1ment of estate ta?"
6*!$"$3.,2 as deficienc1 estate ta?" and 6#7"23#.## as -increment thereto.-
3
According to :r. (itug" he
withdrew the sums of 6*!$"$3.,2 and 6#7"23#.## from savings account )o. *3,%7$ of the 9ank of
America" :akati" :etro :anila.
4n April !," !#$*" 'owena Corona opposed the motion to sell on the ground that the same funds
withdrawn from savings account )o. *3,%7$ were con5ugal partnership properties and part of the
estate" and hence" there was allegedl1 no ground for reim;ursement. 0he also sought his ouster for
failure to include the sums in =uestion for inventor1 and for -concealment of funds ;elonging to the
estate.-
)

(itug insists that the said funds are his e?clusive propert1 having ac=uired the same through a
survivorship agreement e?ecuted with his late wife and the ;ank on .une !#" !#27. The agreement
provides:
Ae here;1 agree with each other and with the 9A)L 4F A:>'ICA) )ATI4)A8 T'C0T
A)D 0A(I)&0 A004CIATI4) (hereinafter referred to as the 9A)L)" that all mone1 now
or hereafter deposited ;1 us or an1 or either of us with the 9A)L in our 5oint savings
current account shall ;e the propert1 of all or ;oth of us and shall ;e pa1a;le to and
collecti;le or withdrawa;le ;1 either or an1 of us during our lifetime" and after the death of
either or an1 of us shall ;elong to and ;e the sole propert1 of the survivor or survivors"
and shall ;e pa1a;le to and collecti;le or withdrawa;le ;1 such survivor or survivors.
Ae further agree with each other and the 9A)L that the receipt or check of either" an1 or
all of us during our lifetime" or the receipt or check of the survivor or survivors" for an1
pa1ment or withdrawal made for our a;ove%mentioned account shall ;e valid and
sufficient release and discharge of the 9A)L for such pa1ment or withdrawal.
5

The trial courts
6
upheld the validit1 of this agreement and granted -the motion to sell some of the estate
of Dolores 8. (itug" the proceeds of which shall ;e used to pa1 the personal funds of 'omarico (itug in
the total sum of 6++2"2!.++ ... .-
7

4n the other hand" the Court of Appeals" in the petition for certiorari filed ;1 the herein private
respondent" held that the a;ove%=uoted survivorship agreement constitutes a conve1ance mortis causa
which -did not compl1 with the formalities of a valid will as prescri;ed ;1 Article $7* of the Civil Code"-
8

and secondl1" assuming that it is a mere donation inter vivos, it is a prohi;ited donation under the
provisions of Article ! of the Civil Code.
9

The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals states:
A@>'>F4'>" the order of respondent .udge dated )ovem;er ,+" !#$* (Anne? II"
petition) is here;1 set aside insofar as it granted private respondent<s motion to sell
certain properties of the estate of Dolores 8. (itug for reim;ursement of his alleged
advances to the estate" ;ut the same order is sustained in all other respects. In addition"
respondent .udge is directed to include provisionall1 the deposits in 0avings Account )o.
*3,%7$ with the 9ank of America" :akati" in the inventor1 of actual properties
possessed ;1 the spouses at the time of the decedent<s death. Aith costs against private
respondent.
10
In his petition" (itug" the surviving spouse" assails the appellate court<s ruling on the strength of our
decisions in -ivera v. *eople9s 2an# and /rust Co.
11
and 6acam v. Batmaitan
1(
in which we sustained
the validit1 of -survivorship agreements- and considering them as aleator1 contracts.
13

The petition is meritorious.
The conve1ance in =uestion is not" first of all" one of mortis causa, which should ;e em;odied in a will. A
will has ;een defined as -a personal" solemn" revoca;le and free act ;1 which a capacitated person
disposes of his propert1 and rights and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death.-
1)

In other words" the ;e=uest or device must pertain to the testator.
15
In this case" the monies su;5ect of
savings account )o. *3,%7$ were in the nature of con5ugal funds In the case relied on" -ivera v.
*eople9s 2an# and /rust Co.,
16
we re5ected claims that a survivorship agreement purports to deliver one
part1<s separate properties in favor of the other" ;ut simpl1" their 5oint holdings:
??? ??? ???
... 0uch conclusion is evidentl1 predicated on the assumption that 0tephenson was the
e?clusive owner of the funds%deposited in the ;ank" which assumption was in turn ;ased
on the facts (!) that the account was originall1 opened in the name of 0tephenson alone
and (,) that Ana 'ivera -served onl1 as housemaid of the deceased.- 9ut it not
infre=uentl1 happens that a person deposits mone1 in the ;ank in the name of anotherD
and in the instant case it also appears that Ana 'ivera served her master for a;out
nineteen 1ears without actuall1 receiving her salar1 from him. The fact that su;se=uentl1
0tephenson transferred the account to the name of himself andEor Ana 'ivera and
e?ecuted with the latter the survivorship agreement in =uestion although there was no
relation of kinship ;etween them ;ut onl1 that of master and servant" nullifies the
assumption that 0tephenson was the e?clusive owner of the ;ank account. In the
a;sence" then" of clear proof to the contrar1" we must give full faith and credit to the
certificate of deposit which recites in effect that the funds in =uestion ;elonged to >dgar
0tephenson and Ana 'iveraD that the1 were 5oint (and several) owners thereofD and that
either of them could withdraw an1 part or the whole of said account during the lifetime of
;oth" and the ;alance" if an1" upon the death of either" ;elonged to the survivor.
17

??? ??? ???
In 6acam v. Batmaitan,
18
it was held:
??? ??? ???
This Court is of the opinion that >?hi;it C is an aleator1 contract where;1" according to
article !2#7 of the Civil Code" one of the parties or ;oth reciprocall1 ;ind themselves to
give or do something as an e=uivalent for that which the other part1 is to give or do in
case of the occurrence of an event which is uncertain or will happen at an indeterminate
time. As alread1 stated" 8eonarda was the owner of the house and .uana of the 9uick
automo;ile and most of the furniture. 91 virtue of >?hi;it C" .uana would ;ecome the
owner of the house in case 8eonarda died first" and 8eonarda would ;ecome the owner
of the automo;ile and the furniture if .uana were to die first. In this manner 8eonarda and
.uana reciprocall1 assigned their respective propert1 to one another conditioned upon
who might die first" the time of death determining the event upon which the ac=uisition of
such right ;1 the one or the other depended. This contract" as an1 other contract" is
;inding upon the parties thereto. Inasmuch as 8eonarda had died ;efore .uana" the latter
thereupon ac=uired the ownership of the house" in the same manner as 8eonarda would
have ac=uired the ownership of the automo;ile and of the furniture if .uana had died first.
19

??? ??? ???
There is no showing that the funds e?clusivel1 ;elonged to one part1" and hence it must ;e presumed to
;e con5ugal" having ;een ac=uired during the e?istence of the marita. relations.
(0

)either is the survivorship agreement a donation inter vivos, for o;vious reasons" ;ecause it was to take
effect after the death of one part1. 0econdl1" it is not a donation ;etween the spouses ;ecause it involved
no conve1ance of a spouse<s own properties to the other.
It is also our opinion that the agreement involves no modification petition of the con5ugal partnership" as
held ;1 the Court of Appeals"
(1
;1 -mere stipulation-
((
and that it is no -cloak-
(3
to circumvent the law on
con5ugal propert1 relations. Certainl1" the spouses are not prohi;ited ;1 law to invest con5ugal propert1"
sa1" ;1 wa1 of a 5oint and several ;ank account" more commonl1 denominated in ;anking parlance as an
-andEor- account. In the case at ;ar" when the spouses (itug opened savings account )o. *3,%7$"
the1 merel1 put what rightfull1 ;elonged to them in a mone1%making venture. The1 did not dispose of it in
favor of the other" which would have argua;l1 ;een sanctiona;le as a prohi;ited donation. And since the
funds were con5ugal" it can not ;e said that one spouse could have pressured the other in placing his or
her deposits in the mone1 pool.
The validit1 of the contract seems de;ata;le ;1 reason of its -survivor%take%all- feature" ;ut in realit1" that
contract imposed a mere o;ligation with a term" the term ;eing death. 0uch agreements are permitted ;1
the Civil Code.
()

Cnder Article ,7!7 of the Code:
A'T. ,7!7. 91 an aleator1 contract" one of the parties or ;oth reciprocall1 ;ind
themselves to give or to do something in consideration of what the other shall give or do
upon the happening of an event which is uncertain" or which is to occur at an
indeterminate time.
Cnder the afore=uoted provision" the fulfillment of an aleator1 contract depends on either the happening
of an event which is (!) -uncertain"- (,) -which is to occur at an indeterminate time.- A survivorship
agreement" the sale of a sweepstake ticket" a transaction stipulating on the value of currenc1" and
insurance have ;een held to fall under the first categor1" while a contract for life annuit1 or pension under
Article ,7,!" et se!uentia" has ;een categoriBed under the second.
(5
In either case" the element of risk is
present. In the case at ;ar" the risk was the death of one part1 and survivorship of the other.
@owever" as we have warned:
??? ??? ???
9ut although the survivorship agreement is per se not contrar1 to law its operation or
effect ma1 ;e violative of the law. For instance" if it ;e shown in a given case that such
agreement is a mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation" to transfer propert1 in fraud of
creditors" or to defeat the legitime of a forced heir" it ma1 ;e assailed and annulled upon
such grounds. )o such vice has ;een imputed and esta;lished against the agreement
involved in this case.
(6

??? ??? ???
There is no demonstration here that the survivorship agreement had ;een e?ecuted for such unlawful
purposes" or" as held ;1 the respondent court" in order to frustrate our laws on wills" donations" and
con5ugal partnership.
The conclusion is accordingl1 unavoida;le that :rs. (itug having predeceased her hus;and" the latter
has ac=uired upon her death a vested right over the amounts under savings account )o. *3,%7$ of
the 9ank of America. Insofar as the respondent court ordered their inclusion in the inventor1 of assets left
;1 :rs. (itug" we hold that the court was in error. 9eing the separate propert1 of petitioner" it forms no
more part of the estate of the deceased.
A@>'>F4'>" the decision of the respondent appellate court" dated .une ,#" !#$2" and its resolution"
dated Fe;ruar1 #" !#$$" are 0>T A0ID>.
)o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No*. 838)3-)) A2,-3 5, 1990
#N !E MAER OF !E $E##ON O A$$ROVE !E 9#LL OF MELE%#O LA"RADOR. 'AGRADO
LA"RADOR DD/>/a*/dE, *+0*.-.+./d 0y RO'#A LA"RADOR, ENR#%A LA"RADOR, and
%R#'O"AL LA"RADOR, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL',
1
GAUDEN%#O LA"RADOR, and &E'U'
LA"RADOR,
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the alleged holographic will of one :elecio 8a;rador is dated"
as provided for in Article $!7
(
of the )ew Civil Code.
The antecedent and relevant facts are as follows: 4n .une !7" !#2," :elecio 8a;rador died in the
:unicipalit1 of I;a" province of Oam;ales" where he was residing" leaving ;ehind a parcel of land
designated as 8ot )o. !#!+ under 4riginal Certificate of Title )o. 6%!+*," and the following heirs" namel1:
0agrado" >nrica" Cristo;al" .esus" &audencio" .osefina" .uliana" @ilaria and .ovita" all surnamed
8a;rador" and a holographic will.
4n .ul1 ,$" !#2*" 0agrado 8a;rador (now deceased ;ut su;stituted ;1 his heirs)" >nrica 8a;rador and
Cristo;al 8a;rador" filed in the court a !uo a petition for the pro;ate docketed as 0pecial 6roceeding )o.
#,,%I of the alleged holographic will of the late :elecio 8a;rador.
0u;se=uentl1" on 0eptem;er 7" !#2*" .esus 8a;rador (now deceased ;ut su;stituted ;1 his heirs)" and
&audencio 8a;rador filed an opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has ;een e?tinguished
or revoked ;1 implication of law" alleging therein that on 0eptem;er 7" !#2!" that is" ;efore :elecio<s
death" for the consideration of 0i? Thousand (6+"777) 6esos" testator :elecio e?ecuted a Deed of
A;solute 0ale" selling" transferring and conve1ing in favor of oppositors .esus and &audencio 8ot )o.
!#!+ and that as a matter of fact" 4.C.T. )o. 6%!+*, had ;een cancelled ;1 T.C.T. )o. T%,!!2$. >arlier
however" in !#2" .esus 8a;rador sold said parcel of land to )avat for onl1 Five Thousand (6*"777)
6esos. (-ollo" p. 2)
0agrado thereupon filed" on )ovem;er ,$" !#2*" against his ;rothers" &audencio and .esus" for the
annulment of said purported Deed of A;solute 0ale over a parcel of land which 0agrado allegedl1 had
alread1 ac=uired ;1 devise from their father :elecio 8a;rador under a holographic will e?ecuted on :arch
!2" !#+$" the complaint for annulment docketed as Civil Case )o. #3%I" ;eing premised on the fact that
the aforesaid Deed of A;solute 0ale is fictitious.
After ;oth parties had rested and su;mitted their respective evidence" the trial court rendered a 5oint
decision dated Fe;ruar1 ,$" !#$*" allowing the pro;ate of the holographic will and declaring null and void
the Deed of A;solute sale. The court a !uo had also directed the respondents (the defendants in Civil
Case )o. #3%I) to reim;urse to the petitioners the sum of 6*"777.77 representing the redemption price
for the propert1 paid ;1 the plaintiff%petitioner 0agrado with legal interest thereon from Decem;er ,7"
!#2+" when it was paid to vendee a retro.
'espondents appealed the 5oint decision to the Court of Appeals" which on :arch !7" !#$$ modified said
5oint decision of the court a !uo ;1 den1ing the allowance of the pro;ate of the will for ;eing undated and
reversing the order of reim;ursement. 6etitioners< :otion for 'econsideration of the aforesaid decision
was denied ;1 the Court of Appeals" in the resolution of .une !" !#$$. @ence" this petition.
6etitioners now assign the following errors committed ;1 respondent court" to wit:
I
T@> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) )4T A884AI)& A)D A66'4(I)& T@>
6'49AT> 4F T@> @484&'A6@IC AI88 4F T@> T>0TAT4' :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4'D
and
II
T@> C4C'T 4F A66>A80 >''>D I) FI)DI)& T@AT T@> 4'D>' 4F T@> 84A>'
C4C'T DI'>CTI)& T@> '>I:9C'0>:>)T 4F T@> FI(> T@4C0A)D 6>040
'>6'>0>)TI)& T@> '>D>:6TI4) 6'IC> AA0 >''4)>4C0.
The alleged undated holographic will written in Ilocano translated into >nglish" is =uoted as follows:
>)&8I0@ I)T>'6'>TATI4) 4F T@> AI88 4F T@>
8AT> :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4' A'ITT>) I) I84CA)4
9/ ATT/. FID>)CI4 8. F>')A)D>O
I J First 6age
This is also where it appears in writing of the place which is assigned and shared or the
partition in favor of 0A&'AD4 8A9'AD4' which is the fishpond located and known
place as Tagale.
And this place that is given as the share to him" there is a measurement of more or less
one hectare" and the ;oundar1 at the 0outh is the propert1 and assignment share of
>)'ICA 8A9'AD4'" also their sister" and the ;oundar1 in the Aest is the sea" known
as the 0>A as it is" and the ;oundar1 on the )4'T@ is assignment ;elonging to
C'I0T49A8 8A9'AD4'" who likewise is also their ;rother. That ;ecause it is now the
time for me ;eing now ninet1 three (#) 1ears" then I feel it is the right time for me to
partition the fishponds which were and had ;een ;ought or ac=uired ;1 us" meaning with
their two mothers" hence there shall ;e no differences among themselves" those among
;rothers and sisters" for it is I m1self their father who am making the apportionment and
delivering to each and ever1one of them the said portion and assignment so that there
shall not ;e an1 cause of trou;les or differences among the ;rothers and sisters.
II J 0econd 6age
And this is the da1 in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning
the respective assignment of the said fishpond" and this ;eing in the month of :arch"
!2th da1" in the 1ear !#+$" and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to ;e
followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4'"
their father.
)ow" this is the final disposition that I am making in writing and it is this that should ;e
followed and complied with in order that an1 differences or trou;les ma1 ;e forestalled
and nothing will happen along these trou;les among m1 children" and that the1 will ;e in
good relations among themselves" ;rothers and sistersD
And those improvements and fruits of the landD mangoes" ;am;oos and all coconut trees
and all others like the other kind of ;am;oo ;1 name of 9a1og" it is their right to get if
the1 so need" in order that there shall ;e nothing that an1one of them shall complain
against the other" and against an1one of the ;rothers and sisters.
III J T@I'D 6A&>
And that referring to the other places of propert1" where the said propert1 is located" the
same ;eing the fruits of our earnings of the two mothers of m1 children" there shall ;e
e=ual portion of each share among themselves" and or to ;e ;enefitted with all those
propert1" which propert1 we have ;een a;le to ac=uire.
That in order that there shall ;e ;asis of the truth of this writing (AI88) which I am here
hereof manifesting of the truth and of the fruits of our la;or which their two mothers" I am
signing m1 signature ;elow hereof" and that this is what should ;e complied with" ;1 all
the ;rothers and sisters" the children of their two mothers J .C8IA)A ICI)T>'4
6I8A'I0A and CA0IA)A AICI)4 (I88A)C>(A /our father who made this writing
(AI88)" and he is" :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4' 1 'A8CTI) (p. 3+" -ollo)
The petition" which principall1 alleges that the holographic will is reall1 dated" although the date is not in
its usual place" is impressed with merit.
The will has ;een dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article $!7. It is
worth1 of note to =uote the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will" viz:
And this is the da1 in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning
the respective assignment of the said fishpond" and this ;eing in the month of 6arc$,
'=t$ day, in t$e year ';KL" and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to ;e
followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than :>8>CI4 8A9'AD4'"
their father. (emphasis supplied) (p. 3+" -ollo)
The law does not specif1 a particular location where the date should ;e placed in the will. The onl1
re=uirements are that the date ;e in the will itself and e?ecuted in the hand of the testator. These
re=uirements are present in the su;5ect will.
'espondents claim that the date !2 :arch !#+$ in the will was when the testator and his ;eneficiaries
entered into an agreement among themselves a;out -the partitioning and assigning the respective
assignments of the said fishpond"- and was not the date of e?ecution of the holographic willD hence" the
will is more of an -agreement- ;etween the testator and the ;eneficiaries thereof to the pre5udice of other
compulsor1 heirs like the respondents. This was thus a failure to compl1 with Article 2$ which defines a
will as -an act where;1 a person is permitted" with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law" to control to a certain
degree the disposition of his estate" to take effect after his death.-
'espondents are in error. The intention to show '= 6arc$ ';KL as the date of the e?ecution of the will is
plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptl1 put ;1 petitioner" the will was not
an agreement ;ut a unilateral act of :elecio 8a;rador who plainl1 knew that what he was e?ecuting was a
will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning as the testator<s instruction or
decision to ;e followed reveal that :elecio 8a;rador was full1 aware of the nature of the estate propert1
to ;e disposed of and of the character of the testamentar1 act as a means to control the disposition of his
estate.
Anent the second issue of finding the reim;ursement of the 6*"777 representing the redemption price as
erroneous" respondent court<s conclusion is incorrect. Ahen private respondents sold the propert1
(fishpond) with right to repurchase to )avat for 6*"777" the1 were actuall1 selling propert1 ;elonging to
another and which the1 had no authorit1 to sell" rendering such sale null and void. 6etitioners" thus
-redeemed- the propert1 from )avat for 6*"777" to immediatel1 regain possession of the propert1 for its
disposition in accordance with the will. 6etitioners therefore deserve to ;e reim;ursed the 6*"777.
6'>:I0>0 C4)0ID>'>D" the decision of the Court of Appeals dated :arch !7" !#$$ is here;1
'>(>'0>D. The holographic will of :elecio 8a;rador is A66'4(>D and A884A>D pro;ate. The
private respondents are directed to '>I:9C'0> the petitioners the sum of Five Thousand 6esos
(6*"777.77).
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-58509 D/>/70/, 7, 198(
#N !E MAER OF !E $E##ON O A$$ROVE !E 9#LL OF R#%ARDO ". "ON#LLA d/>/a*/d,
MAR%ELA RODELA', vs. AM$ARO ARANZA, E AL., oppositors%appellees" AY. LORENZO
'UMULONG, intervenor.
This case was certified to this Tri;unal ;1 the Court of Appeals for final determination pursuant to 0ection
" 'ule *7 of the 'ules of Court.
As found ;1 the Court of Appeals:
... 4n .anuar1 !!" !#22" appellant filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of 'iBal
for the pro;ate of the holographic will of 'icardo 9. 9onilla and the issuance of letters
testamentar1 in her favor. The petition" docketed as 0p. 6roc. )o. $3," was opposed ;1
the appellees Amparo AranBa 9onilla" Ailferine 9onilla Tre1es >?pedita 9onilla Frias and
>phraim 9onilla on the following grounds:
(!) Appellant was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will ;1 failing to
produce the will within twent1 da1s of the death of the testator as re=uired ;1 'ule 2*"
section , of the 'ules of CourtD
(,) The alleged cop1 of the alleged holographic will did not contain a disposition of
propert1 after death and was not intended to take effect after death" and therefore it was
not a will
() The alleged hollographic will itself"and not an alleged cop1 thereof" must ;e produced"
otherwise it would produce no effect" as held in &am v. /ap" !73 6hil. *7#D and
(3 ) The deceased did not leave an1 will" holographic or otherwise" e?ecuted and attested
as re=uired ;1 law.
The appellees likewise moved for the consolidation of the case with another case 0p.
6roc. )o" $,2*). Their motion was granted ;1 the court in an order dated April 3" !#22.
4n )ovem;er !" !#2$" following the consolidation of the cases" the appellees moved
again to dismiss the petition for the pro;ate of the will. The1 argued that:
(!) The alleged holographic was not a last will ;ut merel1 an instruction as to the
management and improvement of the schools and colleges founded ;1 decedent 'icardo
9. 9onillaD and
(,) 8ost or destro1ed holographic wills cannot ;e proved ;1 secondar1 evidence unlike
ordinar1 wills.
Cpon opposition of the appellant" the motion to dismiss was denied ;1 the court in its
order of Fe;ruar1 ," !#2#.
The appellees then filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the order was
contrar1 to law and settled pronouncements and rulings of the 0upreme Court" to which
the appellant in turn filed an opposition. 4n .ul1 ," !#2#" the court set aside its order of
Fe;ruar1 ," !#2# and dismissed the petition for the pro;ate of the will of 'icardo 9.
9onilla. The court said:
... It is our considered opinion that once the original cop1 of the holographic will is lost" a
cop1 thereof cannot stand in lieu of the original.
In the case of &am vs. /ap" !73 6hil. *7#" *,," the 0upreme Court held that <in the
matter of holographic wills the law" it is reasona;le to suppose" regards the document
itself as the material proof of authenticit1 of said wills.
:4'>4(>'" this Court notes that the alleged holographic will was e?ecuted on .anuar1
,*" !#+, while 'icardo 9. 9onilla died on :a1 !" !#2+. In view of the lapse of more than
!3 1ears from the time of the e?ecution of the will to the death of the decedent" the fact
that the original of the will could not ;e located shows to our mind that the decedent had
discarded ;efore his death his allegedl1 missing @olographic Aill.
Appellant<s motion for reconsideration was denied. @ence" an appeal to the Court of Appeals in which it is
contended that the dismissal of appellant<s petition is contrar1 to law and well%settled 5urisprudence.
4n .ul1 2" !#$7" appellees moved to forward the case to this Court on the ground that the appeal does
not involve =uestion of fact and alleged that the trial court committed the following assigned errors:
I. T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) @48DI)& T@AT A 840T @484&'A6@IC AI88
:A/ )4T 9> 6'4(>D 9/ A C46/ T@>'>4FD
II. T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) @48DI)& T@AT T@> D>C>D>)T @A0
DI0CA'D>D 9>F4'> @I0 D>AT@ T@> :I00I)& @484&'A6@IC AI88D
III. T@> 84A>' C4C'T >''>D I) DI0:I00I)& A66>88A)T<0 AI88.
The onl1 =uestion here is whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot ;e found can ;e proved ;1
means of a photostatic cop1. 6ursuant to Article $!! of the Civil Code" pro;ate of holographic wills is the
allowance of the will ;1 the court after its due e?ecution has ;een proved. The pro;ate ma1 ;e
uncontested or not. If uncontested" at least one Identif1ing witness is re=uired and" if no witness is
availa;le" e?perts ma1 ;e resorted to. If contested" at least three Identif1ing witnesses are re=uired.
@owever" if the holographic will has ;een lost or destro1ed and no other cop1 is availa;le" the will can not
;e pro;ated ;ecause the ;est and onl1 evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is
necessar1 that there ;e a comparison ;etween sample handwritten statements of the testator and the
handwritten will. 9ut" a photostatic cop1 or ?ero? cop1 of the holographic will ma1 ;e allowed ;ecause
comparison can ;e made with the standard writings of the testator. In the case of &am vs. /ap" !73 6@I8.
*7#" the Court ruled that -the e?ecution and the contents of a lost or destro1ed holographic will ma1 not
;e proved ;1 the ;are testimon1 of witnesses who have seen andEor read such will. The will itself must ;e
presentedD otherwise" it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of
authenticit1.- 9ut" in Footnote $ of said decision" it sa1s that -6erhaps it ma1 ;e proved ;1 a photographic
or photostatic cop1. >ven a mimeographed or car;on cop1D or ;1 other similar means" if an1" where;1 the
authenticit1 of the handwriting of the deceased ma1 ;e e?hi;ited and tested ;efore the pro;ate court"-
>videntl1" the photostatic or ?ero? cop1 of the lost or destro1ed holographic will ma1 ;e admitted ;ecause
then the authenticit1 of the handwriting of the deceased can ;e determined ;1 the pro;ate court.
A@>'>F4'>" the order of the lower court dated 4cto;er " !#2#" den1ing appellant<s motion for
reconsideration dated August #" !#2#" of the 4rder dated .ul1 ," !#2#" dismissing her petition to
approve the will of the late 'icardo 9. 9onilla" is here;1 0>T A0ID>.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 1067(0 '/2./70/, 15, 199)
'$OU'E' RO"ERO AND !ELMA A&ERO, vs. !E %OUR OF A$$EAL' AND %LEMENE
'AND,
This is an appeal ;1 certiorari from the Decision of the Court of
Appeals
1
in CA%&.'. C( )o. ,,$37" dated :arch 7" !##," the dispositive portion of which readsD
6'>:I0>0 C4)0ID>'>D" the =uestioned decision of )ovem;er !#" !#$$ of the trial
court is here;1 '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" and the petition for pro;ate is here;1
DI0:I00>D. )o costs.
The earlier Decision was rendered ;1 the 'TC of IueBon Cit1" 9ranch #3"
(
in 0p. 6roc. )o. I%
2!2!" and the instrument su;mitted for pro;ate is the holographic will of the late Annie 0and"
who died on )ovem;er ,*" !#$,.
In the will" decedent named as devisees" the following: petitioners 'o;erto and Thelma A5ero" private
respondent Clemente 0and" :eriam 0. Arong" 8eah 0and" 8ilia 0and" >dgar 0and" Fe 0and" 8isa 0.
0and" and Dr. .ose A5ero" 0r." and their children.
4n .anuar1 ,7" !#$" petitioners instituted 0p. 6roc. )o. I%2!2!" for allowance of decedent<s
holographic will. The1 alleged that at the time of its e?ecution" she was of sound and disposing mind" not
acting under duress" fraud or undue influence" and was in ever1 respect capacitated to dispose of her
estate ;1 will.
6rivate respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament<s ;od1 nor the
signature therein was in decedent<s handwritingD it contained alterations and corrections which were not
dul1 signed ;1 decedentD and" the will was procured ;1 petitioners through improper pressure and undue
influence. The petition was likewise opposed ;1 Dr. .ose A5ero. @e contested the disposition in the will of
a house and lot located in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan Del )orte. @e claimed that said propert1 could not ;e
conve1ed ;1 decedent in its entiret1" as she was not its sole owner.
)otwithstanding the oppositions" the trial court admitted the decedent<s holographic will to pro;ate. It
found" inter alia:
Considering then that the pro;ate proceedings herein must decide onl1 the =uestion of
identit1 of the will" its due e?ecution and the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri?" this
pro;ate court finds no reason at all for the disallowance of the will for its failure to compl1
with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law nor for lack of testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatri?.
For one" no evidence was presented to show that the will in =uestion is different from the
will actuall1 e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. The onl1 o;5ections raised ;1 the oppositors . . .
are that the will was not written in the handwriting of the testatri? which properl1 refers to
the =uestion of its due e?ecution" and not to the =uestion of identit1 of will. )o other will
was alleged to have ;een e?ecuted ;1 the testatri? other than the will herein presented.
@ence" in the light of the evidence adduced" the identit1 of the will presented for pro;ate
must ;e accepted" i.e." the will su;mitted in Court must ;e deemed to ;e the will actuall1
e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?.
??? ??? ???
Ahile the fact that it was entirel1 written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the
testatri? has ;een disputed" the petitioners" however" have satisfactoril1 shown in Court
that the holographic will in =uestion was indeed written entirel1" dated and signed in the
handwriting of the testatri?. Three () witnesses who have convincingl1 shown knowledge
of the handwriting of the testatri? have ;een presented and have e?plicitl1 and
categoricall1 identified the handwriting with which the holographic will in =uestion was
written to ;e the genuine handwriting and signature of the testatri?. &iven then the
aforesaid evidence" the re=uirement of the law that the holographic will ;e entirel1
written" dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatri? has ;een complied with.
??? ??? ???
As to the =uestion of the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testrati?" (private respondent)
Clemente 0and himself has testified in Court that the testatri? was completel1 in her
sound mind when he visited her during her ;irthda1 cele;ration in !#$!" at or around
which time the holographic will in =uestion was e?ecuted ;1 the testatri?. To ;e of sound
mind" it is sufficient that the testatri?" at the time of making the will" knew the value of the
estate to ;e disposed of" the proper oject of her ;ount1" and the c$aracter of the
testamentar1 act . . . The will itself shows that the testatri? even had detailed knowledge
of the nature of her estate. 0he even identified the lot num;er and s=uare meters of the
lots she had conve1ed ;1 will. The o;5ects of her ;ount1 were likewise identified
e?plicitl1. And considering that she had even written a nursing ;ook which contained the
law and 5urisprudence on will and succession" there is more than sufficient showing that
she knows the character of the testamentar1 act.
In this wise" the =uestion of identit1 of the will" its due e?ecution and the testamentar1
capacit1 of the testatri? has to ;e resolved in favor of the allowance of pro;ate of the will
su;mitted herein.
8ikewise" no evidence was presented to show sufficient reason for the disallowance of
herein holographic will. Ahile it was alleged that the said will was procured ;1 undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of the ;eneficiar1 or of some other person"
the evidence adduced have not shown an1 instance where improper pressure or
influence was e?erted on the testatri?. (6rivate respondent) Clemente 0and has testified
that the testatri? was still alert at the time of the e?ecution of the will" i.e." at or around the
time of her ;irth anniversar1 cele;ration in !#$!. It was also esta;lished that she is a ver1
intelligent person and has a mind of her own. @er independence of character and to
some e?tent" her sense of superiorit1" which has ;een testified to in Court" all show the
unlikelihood of her ;eing undul1 influenced or improperl1 pressured to make the
aforesaid will. It must ;e noted that the undue influence or improper pressure in =uestion
herein onl1 refer to the making of a will and not as to the specific testamentar1 provisions
therein which is the proper su;5ect of another proceeding. @ence" under the
circumstances" this Court cannot find convincing reason for the disallowance of the will
herein.
Considering then that it is a well%esta;lished doctrine in the law on succession that in
case of dou;t" testate succession should ;e preferred over intestate succession" and the
fact that no convincing grounds were presented and proven for the disallowance of the
holographic will of the late Annie 0and" the aforesaid will su;mitted herein must ;e
admitted to pro;ate.
3
(Citations omitted.)
4n appeal" said Decision was reversed" and the petition for pro;ate of decedent<s will was dismissed. The
Court of Appeals found that" -the holographic will fails to meet the re=uirements for its validit1.-
)
It held
that the decedent did not compl1 with Articles $! and $!3 of the )ew Civil Code" which read" as follows:
Art. $!: Ahen a num;er of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed
without ;eing dated" and the last disposition has a signature and date" such date
validates the dispositions preceding it" whatever ;e the time of prior dispositions.
Art. $!3: In case of insertion" cancellation" erasure or alteration in a holographic will" the
testator must authenticate the same ;1 his full signature.
It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated" or signed ;ut not
dated. It also found that the erasures" alterations and cancellations made thereon had not ;een
authenticated ;1 decedent.
Thus" this appeal which is impressed with merit.
0ection #" 'ule 2+ of the 'ules of Court provides that will shall ;e disallowed in an1 of the following
cases:
(a) If not e?ecuted and attested as re=uired ;1 lawD
(;) If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentall1 incapa;le to make a will" at the time
of its e?ecutionD
(c) If it was e?ecuted under duress" or the influence of fear" or threatsD
(d) If it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence" on the part of the
;eneficiar1" or of some other person for his ;enefitD
(e) If the signature of the testator was procured ;1 fraud or trick" and he did not intend
that the instrument should ;e his will at the time of fi?ing his signature thereto.
In the same vein" Article $# of the )ew Civil Code reads:
Art. $#: The will shall ;e disallowed in an1 of the following casesD
(!) If the formalities re=uired ;1 law have not ;een complied withD
(,) If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentall1 incapa;le of making
a will" at the time of its e?ecutionD
() If it was e?ecuted through force or under duress" or the influence of
fear" or threatsD
(3) If it was procured ;1 undue and improper pressure and influence" on
the part of the ;eneficiar1 or of some other personD
(*) If the signature of the testator was procured ;1 fraudD
(+) If the testator acted ;1 mistake or did not intend that the instrument
he signed should ;e his will at the time of affi?ing his signature thereto.
These lists are e?clusiveD no other grounds can serve to disallow a will.
5
Thus" in a petition to admit a
holographic will to pro;ate" the onl1 issues to ;e resolved are: (!) whether the instrument su;mitted is"
indeed" the decedent<s last will and testamentD (,) whether said will was e?ecuted in accordance with the
formalities prescri;ed ;1 lawD () whether the decedent had the necessar1 testamentar1 capacit1 at the
time the will was e?ecutedD and" (3) whether the e?ecution of the will and its signing were the voluntar1
acts of the decedent.
6
In the case at ;ench" respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne 0and was not e?ecuted in
accordance with the formalities prescri;ed ;1 law. It held that Articles $! and $!3 of the )ew Civil Code"
ante" were not complied with" hence" it disallowed the pro;ate of said will. This is erroneous.
Ae reiterate what we held in "angan vs. "angan" 37 6hil. 32+" 32# (!#!#)" that:
The o;5ect of the solemnities surrounding the e?ecution of wills is to close the door
against ;ad faith and fraud" to avoid su;stitution of wills and testaments and to guarant1
their truth and authenticit1. Therefore" the laws on this su;5ect should ;e interpreted in
such a wa1 as to attain these primordial ends. 9ut" on the other hand" also one must not
lose sight of the fact that it is not the o;5ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e?ercise
of the right to make a will. 0o when an interpretation alread1 given assures such ends"
an1 other interpretation whatsoever" that adds nothing ;ut demands more re=uisites
entirel1 unnecessar1" useless and frustrative of the testator<s last will" must ;e
disregarded.
For purposes of pro;ating non%holographic wills" these formal solemnities include the su;scription"
attestation" and acknowledgment re=uirements under Articles $7* and $7+ of the )ew Civil Code.
In the case of holographic wills" on the other hand" what assures authenticit1 is the re=uirement that the1
;e totall1 autographic or handwritten ;1 the testator himself"
7
as provided under Article $!7 of the )ew
Civil Code" thus:
A person ma1 e?ecute a holographic will which must ;e entirel1 written" dated" and
signed ;1 the hand of the testator himself. It is suject to no ot$er form" and ma1 ;e
made in or out of the 6hilippines" and need not ;e witnessed. (>mphasis supplied.)
Failure to strictl1 o;serve other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will
that is un=uestiona;l1 handwritten ;1 the testator.
A reading of Article $! of the )ew Civil Code shows that its re=uirement affects the validit1 of the
dispositions contained in the holographic will" ;ut not its pro;ate. If the testator fails to sign and date some
of the dispositions" the result is that these dispositions cannot ;e effectuated. 0uch failure" however" does
not render the whole testament void.
8ikewise" a holographic will can still ;e admitted to pro;ate" notwithstanding non%compliance with the
provisions of Article $!3. In the case of ,ala% vs. -elova !, 0C'A ,2 ,3, (!#$3)" this Court held:
4rdinaril1" when a num;er of erasures" corrections" and interlineations made ;1 the
testator in a holographic Aill have not ;een noted under his signature" . . . the Aill is not
there;1 invalidated as a whole" ;ut at most onl1 as respects the particular words erased"
corrected or interlined. :anresa gave an identical commentar1 when he said -la omission
de la salvedad no anula el testamento" segun la regla de 5urisprudencia esta;lecida en la
sentencia de 3 de A;ril de !#$*.-
8
(Citations omitted.)
Thus" unless the unauthenticated alterations" cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the
holographic will or on testator<s signature"
9
their presence does not invalidate the will itself.
10
The lack of
authentication will onl1 result in disallowance of such changes.
It is also proper to note that the re=uirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of
dispositions appear in provisions (Articles $! and $!3) separate from that which provides for the
necessar1 conditions for the validit1 of the holographic will (Article $!7). The distinction can ;e traced to
Articles +2$ and +$$ of the 0panish Civil Code" from which the present provisions covering holographic
wills are taken. The1 read as follows:
Art. +2$: A will is called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form and
with the re=uisites re=uired in Article +$$.
Art. +$$: @olographic wills ma1 ;e e?ecuted onl1 ;1 persons of full age.
In order that the will ;e valid it must ;e drawn on stamped paper corresponding to the
1ear of its e?ecution" written in its entiret1 ;1 the testator and signed ;1 him" and must
contain a statement of the 1ear" month and da1 of its e?ecution.
If it should contain an1 erased" corrected" or interlined words" the testator must identif1
them over his signature.
Foreigners ma1 e?ecute holographic wills in their own language.
This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that onl1 the re=uirements of Article $!7
of the )ew Civil Code J and not those found in Articles $! and $!3 of the same Code J are essential
to the pro;ate of a holographic will.
The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie 0and could not validl1 dispose of the house and lot
located in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan del )orte" in its entiret1. This is correct and must ;e affirmed.
As a general rule" courts in pro;ate proceedings are limited to pass onl1 upon the e?trinsic validit1 of the
will sought to ;e pro;ated. @owever" in e?ceptional instances" courts are not powerless to do what the
situation constrains them to do" and pass upon certain provisions of the will.
11
In the case at ;ench"
decedent herself indu;ita;l1 stated in her holographic will that the Ca;ad;aran propert1 is in the name of
her late father" .ohn @. 0and (which led oppositor Dr. .ose A5ero to =uestion her conve1ance of the same
in its entiret1). Thus" as correctl1 held ;1 respondent court" she cannot validl1 dispose of the whole
propert1" which she shares with her father<s other heirs.
I) (I>A A@>'>4F" the instant petition is &'A)T>D. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&.'.
C( )o. ,,$37" dated :arch 7" !##," is '>(>'0>D and 0>T A0ID>" e?cept with respect to the
invalidit1 of the disposition of the entire house and lot in Ca;ad;aran" Agusan del )orte. The Decision of
the 'egional Trial Court of IueBon Cit1" 9ranch #3 in 0p. 6roc. )o. I%2!2!" dated )ovem;er !#" !#$$"
admitting to pro;ate the holographic will of decedent Annie 0and" is here;1 '>I)0TAT>D" with the a;ove
=ualification as regards the Ca;ad;aran propert1. )o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-6(95( O>.o0/, 9, 1985
'OF#A &. NE$OMU%ENO, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL', RUF#NA GOMEZ, O'%AR
&UGO ANG, %ARMEL#A &UGO,
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside that portion of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals
(now intermediate Appellate Court) dated .une " !#$," as amended ;1 the resolution dated August !7"
!#$," declaring as null and void the devise in favor of the petitioner and the resolution dated Decem;er
,$" !#$, den1ing petitioner<s motion for reconsideration.
:artin .ugo died on .ul1 !+" !#23 in :ala;on" 'iBal. @e left a last Aill and Testament dul1 signed ;1 him
at the end of the Aill on page three and on the left margin of pages !" , and 3 thereof in the presence of
Celestina Ale5andro" :1rna C. CorteB" and 8eandro 8eano" who in turn" affi?ed their signatures ;elow the
attestation clause and on the left margin of pages !" , and 3 of the Aill in the presence of the testator and
of each other and the )otar1 6u;lic. The Aill was acknowledged ;efore the )otar1 6u;lic 'omeo
>scareal ;1 the testator and his three attesting witnesses.
In the said Aill" the testator named and appointed herein petitioner 0ofia .. )epomuceno as his sole and
onl1 e?ecutor of his estate. It is clearl1 stated in the Aill that the testator was legall1 married to a certain
'ufina &omeB ;1 whom he had two legitimate children" 4scar and Carmelita" ;ut since !#*," he had
;een estranged from his lawfull1 wedded wife and had ;een living with petitioner as hus;and and wife. In
fact" on Decem;er *" !#*," the testator :artin .ugo and the petitioner herein" 0ofia .. )epomuceno were
married in (ictoria" Tarlac ;efore the .ustice of the 6eace. The testator devised to his forced heirs"
namel1" his legal wife 'ufina &omeB and his children 4scar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free
portion thereof to herein petitioner. The Aill reads in part:
Art. III. That I have the following legal heirs" namel1: m1 aforementioned legal wife"
'ufina &omeB" and our son" 4scar" and daughter Carmelita" ;oth surnamed .ugo" whom
I declare and admit to ;e legall1 and properl1 entitled to inherit from meD that while I have
;een estranged from m1 a;ove%named wife for so man1 1ears" I cannot den1 that I was
legall1 married to her or that we have ;een separated up to the present for reasons and
5ustifications known full1 well ;1 them:
Art. I(. That since !#*," ! have ;een living" as man and %ife with one 0ofia ..
)epomuceno" whom I declare and avow to ;e entitled to m1 love and affection" for all the
things which she has done for me" now and in the pastD that while 0ofia .. )epomuceno
has with m1 full knowledge and consent" did comport and represent m1self as her own
hus;and" in truth and in fact" as well as in the e1es of the law" I could not ;ind her to me
in the hol1 ;onds of matrimon1 ;ecause of m1 aforementioned previous marriageD
4n August ,!" !#23" the petitioner filed a petition for the pro;ate of the last Aill and Testament of the
deceased :artin .ugo in the Court of First Instance of 'iBal" 9ranch MMMI(" Caloocan Cit1 and asked for
the issuance to her of letters testamentar1.
4n :a1 !" !#2*" the legal wife of the testator" 'ufina &omeB and her children filed an opposition
alleging inter alia that the e?ecution of the Aill was procured ;1 undue and improper influence on the part
of the petitionerD that at the time of the e?ecution of the Aill" the testator was alread1 ver1 sick and that
petitioner having admitted her living in concu;inage with the testator" she is wanting in integrit1 and thus"
letters testamentar1 should not ;e issued to her.
4n .anuar1 +" !#2+" the lower court denied the pro;ate of the Aill on the ground that as the testator
admitted in his Aill to coha;iting with the petitioner from Decem;er !#*, until his death on .ul1 !+" !#23"
the Aill<s admission to pro;ate will ;e an Idle e?ercise ;ecause on the face of the Aill" the invalidit1 of its
intrinsic provisions is evident.
The petitioner appealed to the respondent%appellate court.
4n .une ," !#$," the respondent court set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of 'iBal
den1ing the pro;ate of the will. The respondent court declared the Aill to ;e valid e?cept that the devise
in favor of the petitioner is null and void pursuant to Article 2# in relation with Article !7,$ of the Civil
Code of the 6hilippines. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
A@>'>F4'>" the decision a !uo is here;1 set aside" the will in =uestion declared valid
e?cept the devise in favor of the appellant which is declared null and void. The properties
so devised are instead passed on in intestac1 to the appellant in e=ual shares" without
pronouncement as to cost.
4n .une !*" !#$," oppositors 'ufina &omeB and her children filed a -:otion for Correction of Clerical
>rror- pra1ing that the word -appellant- in the last sentence of the dispositive portion of the decision ;e
changed to -appellees- so as to read: -The properties so devised are instead passed on intestac1 to the
appellees in e=ual shares" without pronouncement as to costs.- The motion was granted ;1 the
respondent court on August !7" !#$,.
4n August ," !#$," the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. This was denied ;1 the respondent
court in a resolution dated Decem;er ,$" !#$,.
The main issue raised ;1 the petitioner is whether or not the respondent court acted in e?cess of its
5urisdiction when after declaring the last Aill and Testament of the deceased :artin .ugo validl1 drawn" it
went on to pass upon the intrinsic validit1 of the testamentar1 provision in favor of herein petitioner.
The petitioner su;mits that the validit1 of the testamentar1 provision in her favor cannot ;e passed upon
and decided in the pro;ate proceedings ;ut in some other proceedings ;ecause the onl1 purpose of the
pro;ate of a Aill is to esta;lish conclusivel1 as against ever1one that a Aill was e?ecuted with the
formalities re=uired ;1 law and that the testator has the mental capacit1 to e?ecute the same. The
petitioner further contends that even if the provisions of paragraph ! of Article 2# of the Civil Code of the
6hilippines were applica;le" the declaration of its nullit1 could onl1 ;e made ;1 the proper court in a
separate action ;rought ;1 the legal wife for the specific purpose of o;taining a declaration of the nullit1 of
the testamentar1 provision in the Aill in favor of the person with whom the testator was allegedl1 guilt1 of
adulter1 or concu;inage.
The respondents on the other hand contend that the fact that the last Aill and Testament itself e?pressl1
admits indu;ita;l1 on its face the meretricious relationship ;etween the testator and the petitioner and the
fact that petitioner herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged ignorance of the true civil
status of the testator" which led private respondents to present contrar1 evidence" merits the application
of the doctrine enunciated in 0uguid v. >elix 0uguid, et al. (!2 0C'A 33#) and >elix 2alanay, @r. v. Hon.
"ntonio 6artinez, et al. (&.'. )o. 8% #,32" .une ,2" !#2*). 'espondents also su;mit that the admission
of the testator of the illicit relationship ;etween him and the petitioner put in issue the legalit1 of the
devise. Ae agree with the respondents.
The respondent court acted within its 5urisdiction when after declaring the Aill to ;e validl1 drawn" it went
on to pass upon the intrinsic validit1 of the Aill and declared the devise in favor of the petitioner null and
void.
The general rule is that in pro;ate proceedings" the court<s area of in=uir1 is limited to an e?amination and
resolution of the e?trinsic validit1 of the Aill. The rule is e?pressed thus:
??? ??? ???
... It is elementar1 that a pro;ate decree finall1 and definitivel1 settles all =uestions
concerning capacit1 of the testator and the proper e?ecution and witnessing of his last
Aill and testament" irrespective of whether its provisions are valid and enforcea;le or
otherwise. 8>ernandez v. &imagia, ,! 0C'A 3,$)
The petition ;elow ;eing for the pro;ate of a Aill" the court<s area of in=uir1 is limited to
the e?trinsic validit1 thereof. The testators testamentar1 capacit1 and the compliance with
the formal re=uisites or solemnities prescri;ed ;1 law are the onl1 =uestions presented
for the resolution of the court. An1 in=uir1 into the intrinsic validit1 or efficac1 of the
provisions of the will or the legalit1 of an1 devise or legac1 is premature.
??? ??? ???
True or not" the alleged sale is no ground for the dismissal of the petition for pro;ate.
6ro;ate is one thingD the validit1 of the testamentar1 provisions is another. The first
decides the e?ecution of the document and the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatorD the
second relates to descent and distri;ution (Sumilang v. -amagosa, ,! 0C'A !+#)
??? ??? ???
To esta;lish conclusivel1 as against ever1one" and once for all" the facts that a will was
e?ecuted with the formalities re=uired ;1 law and that the testator was in a condition to
make a will" is the onl1 purpose of the proceedings under the new code for the pro;ate of
a will. (0ec. +,*). The 5udgment in such proceedings determines and can determine
nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass upon the validit1 of an1 provisions
made in the will. It can not decide" for e?ample" that a certain legac1 is void and another
one valid. ... (Castaneda v. "lemany, 6hil. 3,+)
The rule" however" is not infle?i;le and a;solute. &iven e?ceptional circumstances" the pro;ate court is
not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Aill.
In 0uguid v. 0uguid (!2 0C'A 33#) cited ;1 the trial court" the testator instituted the petitioner as
universal heir and completel1 preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of this nature" no matter how
valid it ma1 appear e?trinsicall1" would ;e null and void. 0eparate or latter proceedings to determine the
intrinsic validit1 of the testamentar1 provisions would ;e superfluous.
>ven ;efore esta;lishing the formal validit1 of the will" the Court in 2alanay .@r. v. 6artinez (+3 0C'A
3*,) passed upon the validit1 of its intrinsic provisions.
Invoking -practical considerations-" we stated:
The ;asic issue is whether the pro;ate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validit1 of
the will" ;efore ruling on its allowance or formal validit1" and in declaring it void.
Ae are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual provisions of the will" which are of
du;ious legalit1" and ;ecause of the motion to withdraw the petition for pro;ate (which
the lower court assumed to have ;een filed with the petitioner<s authoriBation) the trial
court acted correctl1 in passing upon the will<s intrinsic validit1 even ;efore its formal
validit1 had ;een esta;lished. The pro;ate of a will might ;ecome an Idle ceremon1 if on
its face it appears to ;e intrinsicall1 void. Ahere practical considerations demand that the
intrinsic validit1 of the will ;e passed upon" even ;efore it is pro;ated" the court should
meet the issue ()uguid v. )uguid" +3 4.&. !*,2" !2 0C'A 33#. Compare with 0umilang
vs. 'amagosa 8%,!*" Decem;er ,+" !#+2" ,! 0C'A !+#D Cacho v. Cdan 8%!###+"
April 7" !#+*" ! 0C'A +#).
There appears to ;e no more dispute at this time over the e?trinsic validit1 of the Aill. 9oth parties are
agreed that the Aill of :artin .ugo was e?ecuted with all the formalities re=uired ;1 law and that the
testator had the mental capacit1 to e?ecute his Aill. The petitioner states that she completel1 agrees with
the respondent court when in resolving the =uestion of whether or not the pro;ate court correctl1 denied
the pro;ate of :artin .ugo<s last Aill and Testament" it ruled:
This ;eing so" the will is declared validl1 drawn. (6age 3" Decision" Anne? A of 6etition.)
4n the other hand the respondents pra1 for the affirmance of the Court of Appeals< decision in toto.
The onl1 issue" therefore" is the 5urisdiction of the respondent court to declare the testamentar1 provision
in favor of the petitioner as null and void.
Ae sustain the respondent court<s 5urisdiction. As stated in 0uguid v. 0uguid, 8supra:M
Ae pause to reflect. If the case were to ;e remanded for pro;ate of the will" nothing will
;e gained. 4n the contrar1" this litigation will ;e protracted. And for aught that appears in
the record" in the record" in the event of pro;ate or if the court re5ects the will" pro;a;ilit1
e?ists that the case will come up once again ;efore us on the same issue of the intrinsic
validit1 or nullit1 of the will. 'esult" waste of time" effort" e?pense" plus added an?iet1.
These are the practical considerations that induce us to a ;elief that we might as well
meet head%on the issue of the validit1 of the provisions of the will in =uestion. (0ection ,"
'ule !" 'ules of Court. Case" et al. v. .ugo" et al." 22 6hil. *!2" *,,). After all" there
e?ists a 5usticia;le controvers1 cr1ing for solution.
Ae see no useful purpose that would ;e served if we remand the nullified provision to the proper court in
a separate action for that purpose simpl1 ;ecause" in the pro;ate of a will" the court does not ordinaril1
look into the intrinsic validit1 of its provisions.
Article 2# of the Civil Code provides:
The following donations shall ;e void:
(!) Those made ;etween persons who were guilt1 of adulter1 or concu;inage at the time
of the donationD
(,) Those made ;etween persons found guilt1 of the same criminal offense" in
consideration thereofD
() Those made to a pu;lic officer or his wife" descendants and ascendants" ;1 reason of
his office.
In the case referred to in )o. !" the action for declaration of nullit1 ma1 ;e ;rought ;1 the
spouse of the donor or doneeD and the guilt of the donor and donee ma1 ;e proved ;1
preponderance of evidence in the same action.
Article !7,$ of the Civil Code provides:
The prohi;itions mentioned in Article 2#" concerning donations inter vivos shall appl1 to
testamentar1 provisions.
In Article III of the disputed Aill" e?ecuted on August !*" !#+$" or almost si? 1ears ;efore the testator<s
death on .ul1 !+" !#23" :artin .ugo stated that respondent 'ufina &omeB was his legal wife from whom
he had ;een estranged -for so man1 1ears.- @e also declared that respondents Carmelita .ugo and
4scar .ugo were his legitimate children. In Article I(" he stated that he had ;een living as man and wife
with the petitioner since !#*,. Testator .ugo declared that the petitioner was entitled to his love and
affection. @e stated that )epomuceno represented .ugo as her own hus;and ;ut -in truth and in fact" as
well as in the e1es of the law" I could not ;ind her to me in the hol1 ;onds of matrimon1 ;ecause of m1
aforementioned previous marriage.
There is no =uestion from the records a;out the fact of a prior e?isting marriage when :artin .ugo
e?ecuted his Aill. There is also no dispute that the petitioner and :r. .ugo lived together in an ostensi;le
marital relationship for ,, 1ears until his death.
It is also a fact that on Decem;er ," !#*," :artin .ugo and 0ofia .. )epomuceno contracted a marriage
;efore the .ustice of the 6eace of (ictoria" Tarlac. The man was then *! 1ears old while the woman was
3$. )epomuceno now contends that she acted in good faith for ,, 1ears in the ;elief that she was legall1
married to the testator.
The records do not sustain a finding of innocence or good faith. As argued ;1 the private respondents:
First. The last will and testament itself e?pressl1 admits indu;ita;l1 on its face the
meretricious relationship ;etween the testator and petitioner" the devisee.
0econd. 6etitioner herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged ignorance
of the true civil status of the testator" which led private respondents to present contrar1
evidence.
In short" the parties themselves dueled on the intrinsic validit1 of the legac1 given in the
will to petitioner ;1 the deceased testator at the start of the proceedings.
Ahether or not petitioner knew that testator :artin .ugo" the man he had lived with as
man and wife" as alread1 married" was an important and specific issue ;rought ;1 the
parties ;efore the trial court" and passed upon ;1 the Court of Appeals.
Instead of limiting herself to proving the e?trinsic validit1 of the will" it was petitioner who
opted to present evidence on her alleged good faith in marr1ing the testator. (Testimon1
of 6etitioner" T0) of August !" !#$," pp. *+%*2 and pp. +,%+3).
6rivate respondents" naturall1" presented evidence that would refute the testimon1 of
petitioner on the point.
0e;astian .ugo" 1ounger ;rother of the deceased testator" testified at length on the
meretricious relationship of his ;rother and petitioner. (T0) of August !$"!#2*).
Clearl1" the good faith of petitioner was ;1 option of the parties made a decisive issue
right at the inception of the case.
Confronted ;1 the situation" the trial court had to make a ruling on the =uestion.
Ahen the court a !uo held that the testator :artin .ugo and petitioner <were deemed
guilt1 of adulter1 or concu;inage<" it was a finding that petitioner was not the innocent
woman she pretended to ;e.
??? ??? ???
. If a review of the evidence must ;e made nonetheless" then private respondents
respectfull1 offer the following anal1sis:
FI'0T: The secrec1 of the marriage of petitioner with the deceased testator in a town in
Tarlac where neither she nor the testator ever resided. If there was nothing to hide from"
wh1 the concealment< K 4f course" it ma1;e argued that the marriage of the deceased
with private respondent 'ufina &omeB was likewise done in secrec1. 9ut it should ;e
remem;ered that 'ufina &omeB was alread1 in the famil1 wa1 at that time and it would
seem that the parents of :artin .ugo were not in favor of the marriage so much so that
an action in court was ;rought concerning the marriage. (Testimon1 of 0e;astian .ugo"
T0) of August !$" !#2*" pp. ,#%7)
0>C4)D: 6etitioner was a sweetheart of the deceased testator when the1 were still ;oth
single. That would ;e in !#,, as :artin .ugo married respondent 'ufina &omeB on
)ovem;er ,#" !#, (>?h. ). 6etitioner married the testator onl1 on Decem;er *" !#*,.
There was a space of a;out 7 1ears in ;etween. During those 7 1ears" could it ;e
;elieved that she did not even wonder wh1 :artin .ugo did not marr1 her nor contact her
an1more after )ovem;er" !#, % facts that should impel her to ask her groom ;efore she
married him in secrec1" especiall1 so when she was alread1 a;out *7 1ears old at the
time of marriage.
T@I'D: The fact that petitioner ;roke off from :artin .ugo in !#, is ;1 itself conclusive
demonstration that she new that the man she had openl1 lived for ,, 1ears as man and
wife was a married man with alread1 two children.
F4C'T@: @aving admitted that she knew the children of respondent 'ufina &omeB" is it
possi;le that she would not have asked :artin .ugo whether or not the1 were his
illegitimate or legitimate children and ;1 whomK That is un%Filipino.
FIFT@: @aving often gone to 6asig to the residence of the parents of the deceased
testator" is it possi;le that she would not have known that the mother of private
respondent 4scar .ugo and Carmelita .ugo was respondent 'ufina &omeB" considering
that the houses of the parents of :artin .ugo (where he had lived for man1 1ears) and
that of respondent 'ufina &omeB were 5ust a few meters awa1K
0uch pretentions of petitioner 0ofia )epomuceno are un;elieva;le. The1 are" to sa1 the
least" inherentl1 impro;a;le" for the1 are against the e?perience in common life and the
ordinar1 instincts and promptings of human nature that a woman would not ;other at all
to ask the man she was going to marr1 whether or not he was alread1 married to another"
knowing that her groom had children. It would ;e a stor1 that would strain human
credulit1 to the limit if petitioner did not know that :artin .ugo was alread1 a married man
in view of the irrefuta;le fact that it was precisel1 his marriage to respondent 'ufina
&omeB that led petitioner to ;reak off with the deceased during their 1ounger 1ears.
:oreover" the prohi;ition in Article 2# of the Civil Code is against the making of a donation ;etween
persons who are living in adulter1 or concu;inage. It is the donation which ;ecomes void. The giver
cannot give even assuming that the recipient ma1 receive. The ver1 wordings of the Aill invalidate the
legac1 ;ecause the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a person with whom he had ;een
living in concu;inage.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is DI0:I00>D for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals" now
Intermediate Appellate Court" is AFFI':>D. )o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 8((33 Ma,>1 ((, 1990
&O'E "AR#UA and EDGAR "#AN%OR, vs. !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL', N#%OLA'
NA%AR#O and V#%OR#A RONDA NA%AR#O,
This petition for review on certiorari assails as erroneous and contrar1 to e?isting relevant laws and
applica;le 5urisprudence the decision
1
of the Court of Appeals dated Decem;er !!" !#$2 which reversed
and set aside that of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch MMMII" at 6ili" Camarines 0ur.
(
The challenged
decision ad5udged the petitioners lia;le to the private respondents in the total amount of 6,7"*7*.77 and
for costs.
The facts are as follows:
In the evening of )ovem;er 2" !#2#" the tric1cle then ;eing driven ;1 9ienvenido )acario along the
national highwa1 at 9aranga1 0an Ca1etano" in 9aao" Camarines 0ur" figured in an accident with .9 9us
)o. $7 driven ;1 petitioner >dgar 9itancor and owned and operated ;1 petitioner .ose 9aritua.
3
As a
result of that accident 9ienvenido and his passenger died
)
and the tric1cle was damaged.
5
)o criminal
case arising from the incident was ever instituted.
6
0u;se=uentl1" on :arch ,2" !#$7" as a conse=uence of the e?tra%5udicial settlement of the matter
negotiated ;1 the petitioners and the ;us insurer J 6hilippine First Insurance Compan1" Incorporated
(6FICI for ;revit1) J 9ienvenido )acario<s widow" Alicia 9aracena (da. de )acario" received
6!$"*77.77. In consideration of the amount she received" Alicia e?ecuted on :arch ,2" !#$7 a -'elease
of Claim- in favor of the petitioners and 6FICI" releasing and forever discharging them from all actions"
claims" and demands arising from the accident which resulted in her hus;and<s death and the damage to
the tric1cle which the deceased was then driving. Alicia likewise e?ecuted an affidavit of desistance in
which she formall1 manifested her lack of interest in instituting an1 case" either civil or criminal" against
the petitioners.
7
4n 0eptem;er ," !#$!" or a;out one 1ear and ten months from the date of the accident on )ovem;er 2"
!#2#" the private respondents" who are the parents of 9ienvenido )acario" filed a complaint for damages
against the petitioners with the then Court of First Instance of Camarines 0ur.
8
In their complaint" the
private respondents alleged that during the vigil for their deceased son" the petitioners through their
representatives promised them (the private respondents) that as e?tra%5udicial settlement" the1 shall ;e
indemnified for the death of their son" for the funeral e?penses incurred ;1 reason thereof" and for the
damage for the tric1cle the purchase price of which the1 (the private respondents) onl1 loaned to the
victim. The petitioners" however" reneged on their promise and instead negotiated and settled their
o;ligations with the long%estranged wife of their late son. The )acario spouses pra1ed that the
defendants" petitioners herein" ;e ordered to indemnif1 them in the amount of 6,*"777.77 for the death of
their son 9ienvenido" 6!7"777.77 for the damaged tric1cle" 6,*"777.77 for compensator1 and e?emplar1
damages" 6*"777.77 for attorne1<s fees" and for moral damages.
9
After trial" the court a !uo dismissed the complaint" holding that the pa1ment ;1 the defendants (herein
petitioners) to the widow and her child" who are the preferred heirs and successors%in%interest of the
deceased 9ienvenido to the e?clusion of his parents" the plaintiffs (herein private respondents)"
e?tinguished an1 claim against the defendants (petitioners).
10
The parents appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the 5udgment of the trial court. The
appellate court ruled that the release e?ecuted ;1 Alicia 9aracena (da. de )acario did not discharge the
lia;ilit1 of the petitioners ;ecause the case was instituted ;1 the private respondents in their own capacit1
and not as -heirs" representatives" successors" and assigns- of AliciaD and Alicia could not have validl1
waived the damages ;eing pra1ed for (;1 the private respondents) since she was not the one who
suffered these damages arising from the death of their son. Furthermore" the appellate court said that the
petitioners -failed to re;ut the testimon1 of the appellants (private respondents) that the1 were the ones
who ;ought the tric1cle that was damaged in the incident. Appellants had the ;urden of proof of such fact"
and the1 did esta;lish such fact in their testimon1 . . .
11
Anent the funeral e?penses" -(T)he e?penses for
the funeral were likewise shouldered ;1 the appellants (the private respondents). This was never
contradicted ;1 the appellees (petitioners). . . . 6a1ment (for these) were made ;1 the appellants"
therefore" the reim;ursement must accrue in their favor.
1(
Conse=uentl1" the respondent appellate court ordered the petitioners to pa1 the private respondents
6!7"777.77 for the damage of the tric1cle" 6*"777.77 for -complete- funeral services" 63*7.77 for
cemeter1 lot" 6**.77 for oracion adulto" and 6*"777.77 for attorne1<s fees.
13
The petitioners moved for
a reconsideration of the appellate court<s decision
1)
;ut their motion was denied.
15
@ence" this petition.
The issue here is whether or not the respondent appellate court erred in holding that the petitioners are
still lia;le to pa1 the private respondents the aggregate amount of 6,7"*7*.77 despite the agreement of
e?tra5udicial settlement ;etween the petitioners and the victim<s compulsor1 heirs.
The petition is meritorious.
4;ligations are e?tinguished ;1 various modes among them ;eing ;1 pa1ment. Article !,! of the Civil
Code of the 6hilippines provides:
Art. !,!. 4;ligations are e?tinguished:
(!) 2y payment or performanceD
(,) 91 the loss of the thing dueD
() 91 the condonation or remission of the de;tD
(3) 91 the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and de;torD
(*) 91 compensationD
(+) 91 novation.
(>mphasis ours.)
There is no den1ing that the petitioners had paid their o;ligation petition arising from the accident that
occurred on )ovem;er 2" !#2#. The onl1 =uestion now is whether or not Alicia" the spouse and the one
who received the petitioners< pa1ment" is entitled to it.
Article !,37 of the Civil Code of the 6hilippines enumerates the persons to whom pa1ment to e?tinguish
an o;ligation should ;e made.
Art !,37. 6a1ment shall ;e made to the person in whose favor the o;ligation has ;een
constituted" or his successor in interest" or an1 person authoriBed to receive it.
Certainl1 there can ;e no =uestion that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in
interest referred to in law as the persons authoriBed to receive pa1ment. The Civil Code states:
Article $$2. The following are compulsor1 heirs:
!. 8egitimate children and descendants" with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendantsD
,. In default of t$e foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their
legitimate children and decendantsD
. The widow or widowerD
3. Acknowledged natural children and natural children ;1 legal fictionD
*. 4ther illegitimate children referred to in Article ,$2.
Compulsor1 heirs mentioned in )os. " 3 and * are not e?cluded ;1 those in )os. ! and
,. )either do the1 e?clude one another. (>mphasis ours.)
Article #$*. In default of legitimate c$ildren and descendants of the deceased" his parents
and ascendants shall inherit from him" to the e?clusion of collateral relatives.
(>mphasis ours.)
It is patentl1 clear that the parents of the deceased succeed onl1 when the latter dies without a legitimate
descendant. 4n the other hand" the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs. As it has ;een
esta;lished that 9ienvenido was married to Alicia and that the1 ;egot a child" the private respondents are
not successors%in%interest of 9ienvenidoD the1 are not compulsor1 heirs. The petitioners therefore acted
correctl1 in settling their o;ligation with Alicia as the widow of 9ienvenido and as the natural guardian of
their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had ;een estranged from 9ienvenido. :ere estrangement is not a
legal ground for the dis=ualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.
)either could the private respondents" as alleged creditors of 9ienvenido" seek relief and compensation
from the petitioners. Ahile it ma1 ;e true that the private respondents loaned to 9ienvenido the purchase
price of the damaged tric1cle and shouldered the e?penses for his funeral" the said purchase price and
e?penses are ;ut mone1 claims against the estate of their deceased son.
16
These mone1 claims are not
the lia;ilities of the petitioners who" as we have said" had ;een released ;1 the agreement of the e?tra%
5udicial settlement the1 concluded with Alicia 9aracena (da. de )acario" the victim<s widow and heir" as
well as the natural guardian of their child" her co%heir. As a matter of fact" she e?ecuted a -'elease 4f
Claim- in favor of the petitioners.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is &'A)T>DD the decision of the Court of Appeals is '>(>'0>D and 0>T
A0ID> and the decision of the 'egional Trial Court is here;1 '>I)0TAT>D. Costs against the private
respondents.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 13877) Ma,>1 8, (001
REG#NA FRAN%#'%O AND ZENA#DA $A'%UAL, vs. A#DA FRAN%#'%O-ALFON'O,
:a1 a legitimate daughter ;e deprived of her share in the estate of her deceased father ;1 a simulated
contract transferring the propert1 of her father to his illegitimate childrenK
The case ;efore the Court is an appeal via certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals
!
declaring
void the deed of sale of two parcels of land conve1ed to petitioners who are illegitimate children of the
deceased to the e?clusion of respondent" his sole legitimate daughter.
The facts
,
are:
'espondent Aida Francisco%Alfonso (hereafter Aida) is the onl1 daughter of spouses &regorio Francisco
and Cirila de la CruB" who are now ;oth deceased.
6etitioners" on the other hand" are daughters of the late &regorio Francisco with his common law wife
.ulia :endoBa" with whom he ;egot seven (2) children.
&regorio Francisco (hereafter &regorio) owned two parcels of residential land" situated in 9aranga1
8olom;o1" 9ocaue" 9ulacan" covered ;1 TCT )os. T%,237 and T%!!2!+7. Ahen &regorio was confined
in a hospital in !##7" he confided to his daughter Aida that the certificates of title of his propert1 were in
the possession of 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual.
After &regorio died on .ul1 ,7" !##7"

Aida in=uired a;out the certificates of title from her half sisters.
The1 informed her that &regorio had sold the land to them on August !*" !#$. After verification" Aida
learned that there was indeed a deed of a;solute sale in favor of 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual.
Thus" on August !*" !#$" &regorio e?ecuted a -Lasulatan sa &anap na 9ilihan" where;1 for
6,*"777.77" he sold the two parcels of land to 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual. 91 virtue of the
sale" the 'egister of Deeds of 9ulacan issued TCT )o. T%*#.*$* to 'egina Francisco and TCT T%*#.*$+
to Oenaida 6ascual.
3
4n April !" !##!" Aida filed with the 'egional Trial Court" 9ulacan a complaint against petitioners for
annulment of sale with damages.
*
0he alleged that the signature of her late father" &regorio Francisco" on
the ,asulatan sa Banap na 2ili$an dated August !*" !#$" was a forger1.
In their 5oint answer to the complaint" petitioners denied the alleged forger1 or simulation of the deed of
sale. After due proceedings" on .ul1 ,!" !##3" the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the
complaint. The dispositive portion reads:
-A@>'>F4'>" on the ;asis of the evidence adduced and the law applica;le thereon" the Court
here;1 renders 5udgment:
-a) sustaining the validit1 of the -Lasulatan 0a &anap )a 9ilihan- (>?h.-&-) e?ecuted on !*
August !## ;1 the late &regorio Francisco in favor of the defendantsD
-;) affirming the validit1 of the Transfer Certificates of Title )o. T%*#.*$* (>?h. -I-) issued to
defendant 'egina Francisco and )o. T%*#.$+ (>?h. -@-) issued to defendant Oenaida 6ascualD
and
-c) dismissing the complaint as well as the defendants< counterclaim for damages and attorne1<s
fees for lack of merit.-
+
In time
2
" respondent Alfonso appealed to the Court of Appeals.
$
After due proceedings" on April 7" !###" the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision reversing that of
the trial court" the dispositive portion of which reads:
-A@>'>F4'>" the Decision dated .ul1 ,!" !##3 of the court a =uo is '>(>'0>D and 0>T
A0ID> and another rendered as follows:
-!. The Lasulatan 0a &anap na 9ilihan dated August !*" !#$ (>?hi;it -&-) is declared null and
void from the ;eginning and TCT )os. T%*#.*$* (:) and T%*#%*$+ (:)" ;oth of the 'egistr1 of
Deeds of 9ulacan (:e1caua1an 9ranch) in the names of 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual"
respectivel1" are annulled and cancelledD
-,. The 'egister of Deeds of 9ulacan (:e1caua1an 9ranch) is ordered to cancel the
aforementioned TCT )os. T%*#.*$* (:) and T%*#.*$+ (:) and to reinstate Transfer Certificates of
Title )os. T%!,237 and T%!!2!+7 ;oth in the name of &regorio Francisco.
-. Defendants%appellees 'egina Francisco and Oenaida 6ascual 5ointl1 and solidaril1 are
ordered to pa1 plaintiff%appellant Alfonso the amount of 6*"777.77 as moral damages" 6*"777.77
as e?emplar1 damages and 6*"777.77 as attorne1<s fees.
-3. The counterclaim of defendants%appellees is dismissed for lack of merit.
-Costs of suit against said defendants%appellees.-
#
@ence" this petition.
!7
The main issue raised is whether the 0upreme Court ma1 review the factual findings of the appellate
court. The 5urisdiction of this Court in cases ;rought ;efore it from the Court of Appeals under 'ule 3* of
the 'evised 'ules of Court is limited to review of pure errors of law. It is not the function of this Court to
anal1Be or weigh evidence all over again" unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are
totall1 devoid of support or are glaringl1 erroneous as to constitute grave a;use of discretion.
!!
The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported ;1 su;stantial evidence are conclusive and ;inding
on the parties and are not reviewa;le ;1 this Court"
!,
unless the case falls under an1 of the recogniBed
e?ceptions to the rule.
!
6etitioner has failed to prove that the case falls within the e?ceptions.
!3
Ae affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals ;ecause:
>irst: The #asulatan was simulated. There was no consideration for the contract of sale. Felicitas de la
CruB" a famil1 friend of the Franciscos" testified that Oenaida 6ascual and 'egina Francisco did not have
an1 source of income in !#$" when the1 ;ought the propert1" until the time when Felicitas testified in
!##!.
!*
As proof of income" however" Oenaida 6ascual testified that she was engaged in operating a canteen"
working as cashier in :a1on )ight Clu; as well as ;u1ing and selling 'TA ('ead1 to Aear) items in
August of !#$ and prior thereto.
Oenaida alleged that she paid her father the amount of 6!7"777.77. 0he did not withdraw mone1 from her
;ank account at the 'ural 9ank of :e1caua1an" 9ulacan" to pa1 for the propert1. 0he had personal
savings other than those deposited in the ;ank. @er gross earnings from the 'TA for three 1ears was
6#"777.77" and she earned 6*7.77 a night at the clu;.
!+
'egina Francisco" on the other hand" was a market vendor" selling niluga%" earning a net income of
677.77 a da1 in !#$. 0he ;ought the propert1 from the deceased for 6!*"777.77.
!2
0he had no other
source of income.
Ae find it incredi;le that engaging in ;u1 and sell could raise the amount of 6!7"777.77" or that earnings
in selling goto could save enough to pa1 6!*"777.77" in cash for the land.
The testimonies of petitioners were incredi;le considering their inconsistent statements as to whether
there was consideration for the sale and also as to whether the propert1 was ;ought ;elow or a;ove its
supposed market value. The1 could not even present a single witness to the #asulatan that would prove
receipt of the purchase price.
0ince there was no cause or consideration for the sale" the same was a simulation and hence" null and
void.
!$
Second: >ven if the #asulatan was not simulated" it still violated the Civil Code
!#
provisions insofar as the
transaction affected respondent<s legitime. The sale was e?ecuted in !#$" when the applica;le law was
the Civil Code" not the Famil1 Code.
4;viousl1" the sale was &regorio<s wa1 to transfer the propert1 to his illegitimate daughters
,7
at the
e?pense of his legitimate daughter. The sale was e?ecuted to prevent respondent Alfonso from claiming
her legitime and rightful share in said propert1. 9efore his death" &regorio had a change of heart and
informed his daughter a;out the titles to the propert1.
According to Article $$$" Civil Code:
-The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one%half of the hereditar1 estate
of the father and of the mother.
-The latter ma1 freel1 dispose of the remaining half su;5ect to the rights of illegitimate children
and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.-
&regorio Francisco did not own an1 other propert1. If indeed the parcels of land involved were the onl1
propert1 left ;1 their father" the sale in fact would deprive respondent of her share in her father<s estate.
91 law" she is entitled to half of the estate of her father as his onl1 legitimate child.
,!
The legal heirs of the late &regorio Francisco must ;e determined in proper testate or intestate
proceedings for settlement of the estate. @is compulsor1 heir can not ;e deprived of her share in the
estate save ;1 disinheritance as prescri;ed ;1 law.
,,
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is here;1 D>)I>D. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA%&. '. C( )o.
3$*3* is AFFI':>D" in toto.
)o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 83)8) F/0,+a,y 1(, 1990
%ELEDON#A 'OL#V#O, vs. !E !ONORA"LE %OUR OF A$$EAL' and %ON%ORD#A &AVELLANA
V#LLANUEVA,
This is a petition for review of the decision dated .anuar1 ,+" !#$$ of the Court of Appeals in CA &' C(
)o. 7#7!7 (Concordia (illanueva v. Celedonia 0olivio) affirming the decision of the trial court in Civil Case
)o. !,72 for partition" reconve1ance of ownership and possession and damages" the dispositive portion
of which reads as follows:
A@>'>F4'>" 5udgment is here;1 rendered for the plaintiff and against defendant:
a) 4rdering that the estate of the late >ste;an .avellana" .r. ;e divided into two (,)
shares: one%half for the plaintiff and one%half for defendant. From ;oth shares shall ;e
e=uall1 deducted the e?penses for the ;urial" mausoleum and related e?penditures.
Against the share of defendants shall ;e charged the e?penses for scholarship" awards"
donations and the <0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana :emorial FoundationD<
;) Directing the defendant to su;mit an inventor1 of the entire estate propert1" including
;ut not limited to" specific items alread1 mentioned in this decision and to render an
accounting of the propert1 of the estate" within thirt1 (7) da1s from receipt of this
5udgmentD one%half (!E,) of this produce shall ;elong to plaintiffD
c) 4rdering defendant to pa1 plaintiff 6*"777.77 as e?penses of litigationD 6!7"777.77 for
and as attorne1<s fees plus costs.
04 4'D>'>D. (pp. 3,%3" 'ollo)
This case involves the estate of the late novelist" >ste;an .avellana" .r." author of the first post%war
Filipino novel -Aithout 0eeing the Dawn"- who died a ;achelor" without descendants" ascendants"
;rothers" sisters" nephews or nieces. @is onl1 surviving relatives are: (!) his maternal aunt" petitioner
Celedonia 0olivio" the spinster half%sister of his mother" 0alustia 0olivioD and (,) the private respondent"
Concordia .avellana%(illanueva" sister of his deceased father" >ste;an .avellana" 0r.
@e was a posthumous child. @is father died ;arel1 ten (!7) months after his marriage in Decem;er" !#!+
to 0alustia 0olivio and four months ;efore >ste;an" .r. was ;orn.
0alustia and her sister" Celedonia (daughter of >ngracio 0olivio and his second wife .osefa FernandeB)"
a teacher in the Iloilo 6rovincial @igh 0chool" ;rought up >ste;an" .r.
0alustia ;rought to her marriage paraphernal properties (various parcels of land in Calinog" Iloilo covered
;1 ,3 titles) which she had inherited from her mother" &regoria Celo" >ngracio 0olivio<s first wife (p. ,*"
'ecord)" ;ut no con5ugal propert1 was ac=uired during her short%lived marriage to >ste;an" 0r.
4n 4cto;er !!" !#*#" 0alustia died" leaving all her properties to her onl1 child" >ste;an" .r." including a
house and lot in 8a 6aB" Iloilo Cit1" where she" her son" and her sister lived. In due time" the titles of all
these properties were transferred in the name of >ste;an" .r.
During his lifetime" >ste;an" .r. had" more than once" e?pressed to his aunt Celedonia and some close
friends his plan to place his estate in a foundation to honor his mother and to help poor ;ut deserving
students o;tain a college education. Cnfortunatel1" he died of a heart attack on Fe;ruar1 ,+"!#22 without
having set up the foundation.
Two weeks after his funeral" Concordia and Celedonia talked a;out what to do with >ste;an<s properties.
Celedonia told Concordia a;out >ste;an<s desire to place his estate in a foundation to ;e named after his
mother" from whom his properties came" for the purpose of helping indigent students in their schooling.
Concordia agreed to carr1 out the plan of the deceased. This fact was admitted ;1 her in her -:otion to
'eopen andEor 'econsider the 4rder dated April " !#2$- which she filed on .ul1 ,2" !#2$ in 0pecial
6roceeding )o. ,*37" where she stated:
3. That petitioner knew all along the narrated facts in the immediatel1 preceding
paragraph Gthat herein movant is also the relative of the deceased within the third degree"
she ;eing the 1ounger sister of the late >ste;an .avellana" father of the decedent hereinH"
;ecause prior to t$e filing of t$e petition t$ey 8petitioner Celedonia Solivio and movant
Concordia @avellana: $ave agreed to ma#e t$e estate of t$e decedent a foundation,
;esides the1 have closel1 known each other due to their filiation to the decedent and the1
have ;een visiting each other<s house which are not far awa1 for (sic) each other. (p. ,3"
'ecordD >mphasis supplied.)
6ursuant to their agreement that Celedonia would take care of the proceedings leading to the formation of
the foundation" Celedonia in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel" filed on :arch $" !#22 0pl.
6roceeding )o. ,*37 for her appointment as special administratri? of the estate of >ste;an .avellana" .r.
(>?h. ,). 8ater" she filed an amended petition (>?h. *) pra1ing that letters of administration ;e issued to
herD that she ;e declared sole heir of the deceasedD and that after pa1ment of all claims and rendition of
inventor1 and accounting" the estate ;e ad5udicated to her (p. !!*" 'ollo).
After due pu;lication and hearing of her petition" as well as her amended petition" she was declared sole
heir of the estate of >ste;an .avellana" .r. 0he e?plained that this was done for three reasons: (!)
;ecause the properties of the estate had come from her sister" 0alustia 0olivioD (,) that she is the
decedent<s nearest relative on his mother<s sideD and () with her as sole heir" the disposition of the
properties of the estate to fund the foundation would ;e facilitated.
4n April " !#2$" the court (9ranch II" CFI" now 9ranch ," 'TC) declared her the sole heir of >ste;an"
.r. Thereafter" she sold properties of the estate to pa1 the ta?es and other o;ligations of the deceased
and proceeded to set up the .S"L3S/I" SALI?IA ?&". &E @"?ELL"0" >A30&"/IA0. which she
caused to ;e registered in the 0ecurities and >?change Commission on .ul1 !2"!#$! under 'eg. )o.
7!777,2 (p. #$" 'ollo).
Four months later" or on August 2" !#2$" Concordia .avellana (illanueva filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court<s order declaring Celedonia as -sole heir- of >ste;an" .r." ;ecause she too
was an heir of the deceased. 4n 4cto;er ,2" !#2$" her motion was denied ;1 the court for tardiness (pp.
$7%$!" 'ecord). Instead of appealing the denial" Concordia filed on .anuar1 2" !#$7 (or one 1ear and two
months later)" Civil Case )o. !,72 in the 'egional Trial Court of Iloilo" 9ranch ,+" entitled .Concordia
@avellana- ?illanueva v. Celedonia Solivio. for partition" recover1 of possession" ownership and damages.
4n 0eptem;er " !#$3" the said trial court rendered 5udgment in Civil Case )o. !,72" in favor of
Concordia .avellana%(illanueva.
4n Concordia<s motion" the trial court ordered the e?ecution of its 5udgment pending appeal and re=uired
Celedonia to su;mit an inventor1 and accounting of the estate. In her motions for reconsideration of those
orders" Celedonia averred that the properties of the deceased had alread1 ;een transferred to" and were
in the possession of" the <0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana Foundation.- The trial court denied her
motions for reconsideration.
In the meantime" Celedonia perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA &' C( )o. 7#7!7). 4n
.anuar1 ,+" !#$$" the Court of Appeals" >leventh Division" rendered 5udgment affirming the decision of
the trial court in toto. @ence" this petition for review wherein she raised the following legal issues:
!. whether 9ranch ,+ of the 'TC of Iloilo had 5urisdiction to entertain Civil Case )o.
!,72 for partition and recover1 of Concordia (illanueva<s share of the estate of >ste;an
.avellana" .r. even while the pro;ate proceedings (0pl. 6roc. )o. ,*37) were still pending
in 9ranch , of the same courtD
,. whether Concordia (illanueva was prevented from intervening in 0pl. 6roc. )o. ,*37
through e?trinsic fraudD
. whether the decedent<s properties were su;5ect to reserva troncal in favor of
Celedonia" his relative within the third degree on his mother<s side from whom he had
inherited themD and
3. whether Concordia ma1 recover her share of the estate after she had agreed to place
the same in the 0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana Foundation" and notwithstanding the
fact that conforma;l1 with said agreement" the Foundation has ;een formed and
properties of the estate have alread1 ;een transferred to it.
I. /$e !uestion of jurisdictionN
After a careful review of the records" we find merit in the petitioner<s contention that the 'egional Trial
Court" 9ranch ,+" lacked 5urisdiction to entertain Concordia (illanueva<s action for partition and recover1
of her share of the estate of >ste;an .avellana" .r. while the pro;ate proceedings (0pl" 6roc. )o. ,*37)
for the settlement of said estate are still pending in 9ranch , of the same court" there ;eing as 1et no
orders for the su;mission and approval of the administrati?<s inventor1 and accounting" distri;uting the
residue of the estate to the heir" and terminating the proceedings (p. !" 'ecord).
It is the order of distri;ution directing the deliver1 of the residue of the estate to the persons entitled
thereto that ;rings to a close the intestate proceedings" puts an end to the administration and thus far
relieves the administrator from his duties (0antieste;an v. 0antieste;an" +$ 6hil. +2" 6hilippine
Commercial and Industrial 9ank v. >scolin" et al." 8%,2$+7" :arch ,#" !#23" *+ 0C'A ,++).
The assailed order of .udge Adil in 0pl. 6roc. )o. ,*37 declaring Celedonia as the sole heir of the estate
of >ste;an .avellana" .r. did not toll the end of the proceedings. As a matter of fact" the last paragraph of
the order directed the administratri? to -hurr1 up the settlement of the estate.- The pertinent portions of
the order are =uoted ;elow:
,. As regards the second incident G:otion for Declaration of :iss Celedonia 0olivio as
0ole @eir" dated :arch 2" !#2$H" it appears from the record that despite the notices
posted and the pu;lication of these proceedings as re=uired ;1 law" no other heirs came
out to interpose an1 opposition to the instant proceeding. It further appears that herein
Administratri? is the onl1 claimant%heir to the estate of the late >ste;an .avellana who
died on Fe;ruar1 ,+" !#22.
During the hearing of the motion for declaration as heir on :arch !2" !#2$" it was
esta;lished that the late >ste;an .avellana died single" without an1 known issue" and
without an1 surviving parents. @is nearest relative is the herein Administratri?" an elder
GsicH sister of his late mother who reared him and with whom he had alwa1s ;een living
with GsicH during his lifetime.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
,. :iss Celedonia 0olivio" Administratri? of this estate" is here;1 declared as the sole and
legal heir of the late >ste;an 0. .avellana" who died intestate on Fe;ruar1 ,+" !#22 at 8a
6aB" Iloilo Cit1.
The Administratri? is here;1 instructed to hurr1 up with the settlement of this estate so
that it can ;e terminated. (pp" !3%!+" 'ecord)
In view of the pendenc1 of the pro;ate proceedings in 9ranch !! of the Court of First Instance (now 'TC"
9ranch ,)" Concordia<s motion to set aside the order declaring Celedonia as sole heir of >ste;an" and to
have herself (Concordia) declared as co%heir and recover her share of the properties of the deceased"
was properl1 filed ;1 her in 0pl. 6roc. )o. ,*37. @er remed1 when the court denied her motion" was to
elevate the denial to the Court of Appeals for review on certiorari. @owever" instead of availing of that
remed1" she filed more than one 1ear later" a separate action for the same purpose in 9ranch ,+ of the
court. Ae hold that the separate action was improperl1 filed for it is the pro;ate court that has exclusive
5urisdiction to make a 5ust and legal distri;ution of the estate.
In the interest of orderl1 procedure and to avoid confusing and conflicting dispositions of a decedent<s
estate" a court should not interfere with pro;ate proceedings pending in a co%e=ual court. Thus" did we
rule in Builas v. @udge of t$e Court of >irst Instance of *ampanga, L-OKK;<, @anuary P', ';=O, 3 0C'A
!!!" !!2" where a daughter filed a separate action to annul a pro5ect of partition e?ecuted ;etween her
and her father in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of her mother:
The pro;ate court loses 5urisdiction of an estate under administration onl1 after the
pa1ment of all the de;ts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive
the same. The finalit1 of the approval of the pro5ect of The pro;ate court" in the e?ercise
of its 5urisdiction to make distri;ution" has power to determine the proportion or parts to
which each distri;uted is entitled. ... The power to determine the legalit1 or illegalit1 of the
testamentar1 provision is inherent in the 5urisdiction of the court making a 5ust and legal
distri;ution of the inheritance. ... To hold that a separate and independent action is
necessar1 to that effect" would ;e contrar1 to the general tendenc1 of the 5urisprudence
of avoiding multiplicit1 of suitsD and is further" e?pensive" dilator1" and impractical.
(:arcelino v. Antonio" 27 6hil. $$)
A 5udicial declaration that a certain person is the onl1 heir of the decedent is e?clusivel1
within the range of the administratri? proceedings and can not properl1 ;e made an
independent action. (8itam v. >spiritu" !77 6hil. +3)
A separate action for the declaration of heirs is not proper. (6imentel v. 6alanca" * 6hil.
3+)
partition ;1 itself alone does not terminate the pro;ate proceeding (Tim;ol v. Cano" !
0C'A !,2!" !,2+" 8%!*33*" April ,#" !#+!D 0iguiong v. Tecson" $# 6hil. pp. ,$" 7). As
long as the order of the distri;ution of the estate has not ;een complied with" the pro;ate
proceedings cannot ;e deemed closed and terminated 0iguiong v. Tecson" supra)D
;ecause a 5udicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heirs from
;ringing an action to o;tain his share" provided the prescriptive period therefore has not
elapsed (:ari v. 9onilia" $ 6hil. !2). /$e etter practice, $o%ever, for t$e $eir %$o $as
not received $is s$are, is to demand $is s$are t$roug$ a proper motion in t$e same
proate or administration proceedings, or for reopening of t$e proate or administrative
proceedings if it $ad already een closed, and not t$roug$ an independent action, which
would ;e tried ;1 another court or .udge which ma1 thus reverse a decision or order of
the pro;ate or intestate court alread1 final and e?ecuted and re%shuffle properties long
ago distri;uted and disposed of. ('amos v. 4rtuBar" $# 6hil. 27" 23!%23,D Tim;ol v.
Cano" supraQ .ingco v. DaluB" 8%*!72" April ,3" !#*" #, 6hil. !7$,D 'oman Catholic v.
Agustines" 8%!32!7" :arch ,#" !#+7" !72 6hil. 3**" 3+7%3+!D >mphasis supplied)
In Litam et al., v. -ivera, !77 6hil. +3" where despite the pendenc1 of the special proceedings for the
settlement of the intestate estate of the deceased 'afael 8itam the plaintiffs%appellants filed a civil action
in which the1 claimed that the1 were the children ;1 a previous marriage of the deceased to a Chinese
woman" hence" entitled to inherit his one%half share of the con5ugal properties ac=uired during his
marriage to :arcosa 'ivera" the trial court in the civil case declared that the plaintiffs%appellants were not
children of the deceased" that the properties in =uestion were paraphernal properties of his wife" :arcosa
'ivera" and that the latter was his onl1 heir. 4n appeal to this Court" we ruled that -such declarations (that
:arcosa 'ivera was the onl1 heir of the decedent) is improper" in Civil Case )o. ,72!" it eing %it$in t$e
exclusive competence of t$e court in Special *roceedings 0o. '<P=, in which it is not as 1et" in issue"
and" will not ;e" ordinaril1" in issue until the presentation of the pro5ect of partition. (p. 2$).
@owever" in the &uilas case" supra, since the estate proceedings had ;een closed and terminated for
over three 1ears" the action for annulment of the pro5ect of partition was allowed to continue. Considering
that in the instant case" the estate proceedings are still pending" ;ut nonetheless" Concordia had lost her
right to have herself declared as co%heir in said proceedings" Ae have opted likewise to proceed to
discuss the merits of her claim in the interest of 5ustice.
The orders of the 'egional Trial Court" 9ranch ,+" in Civil Case )o. !,72 setting aside the pro;ate
proceedings in 9ranch , (formerl1 9ranch !!) on the ground of e?trinsic fraud" and declaring Concordia
(illanueva to ;e a co%heir of Celedonia to the estate of >ste;an" .r." ordering the partition of the estate"
and re=uiring the administratri?" Celedonia" to su;mit an inventor1 and accounting of the estate" were
improper and officious, to sa1 the least" for these matters he within the e?clusive competence of the
pro;ate court.
II. /$e !uestion of extrinsic fraudN
Aas Concordia prevented from intervening in the intestate proceedings ;1 extrinsic fraud emplo1ed ;1
CeledoniaK It is noteworth1 that e?trinsic fraud was not alleged in Concordia<s original complaint in Civil
Case )o. !,72. It was onl1 in her amended complaint of :arch +" !#$7" that e?trinsic fraud was alleged
for the first time.
>?trinsic fraud" as a ground for annulment of 5udgment" is an1 act or conduct of the
prevailing part1 which prevented a fair su;mission of the controvers1 (Francisco v. David"
$ 4.&. 2!3). A fraud <which prevents a part1 from having a trial or presenting all of his
case to the court" or one which operates upon matters pertaining" not to the 5udgment
itself" ;ut to the manner ;1 which such 5udgment was procured so much so that there
was no fair su;mission of the controvers1. For instance" if through fraudulent machination
;1 one Ghis adversar1H" a litigant was induced to withdraw his defense or was prevented
from presenting an availa;le defense or cause of action in the case wherein the 5udgment
was o;tained" such that the aggrieved part1 was deprived of his da1 in court through no
fault of his own" the e=uita;le relief against such 5udgment ma1 ;e availed of. (/atco v.
0umagui" 33+,%'" .ul1 !" !#2!). (cited in 6hilippine 8aw Dictionar1" !#2, >d. ;1
:orenoD (arela v. (illanueva" et al." #+ 6hil. ,3$)
A 5udgment ma1 ;e annulled on the ground of e?trinsic or collateral fraud" as
distinguished from intrinsic fraud" which connotes an1 fraudulent scheme e?ecuted ;1 a
prevailing litigant <outside the trial of a case against the defeated part1" or his agents"
attorne1s or witnesses" where;1 said defeated part1 is prevented from presenting full1
and fairl1 his side of the case. ... The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent
scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a part1 from having his da1 in court or from
presenting his case. The fraud" therefore" is one that affects and goes into the 5urisdiction
of the court. (8i;udan v. &il" 8%,!!+" :a1 !2" !#2," 3* 0C'A !2" ,2%,#D 0terling
Investment Corp. v. 'uiB" 8%7+#3" 4cto;er !" !#+#" 7 0C'A !$" ,)
The charge of e?trinsic fraud is" however" unwarranted for the following reasons:
!. Concordia was not unaware of the special proceeding intended to ;e filed ;1
Celedonia. 0he admitted in her complaint that she and Celedonia had agreed that the
latter would -initiate the necessar1 proceeding- and pa1 the ta?es and o;ligations of the
estate. Thus paragraph + of her complaint alleged:
+. ... for the purpose of facilitating the settlement of the estate of the late >ste;an
.avellana" .r. at the lowest possi;le cost and the least effort" t$e plaintiff and t$e
defendant agreed t$at t$e defendant s$all initiate t$e necessary proceeding, cause the
pa1ment of ta?es and other o;ligations" and to do ever1thing else re=uired ;1 law" and
thereafter" secure the partition of the estate ;etween her and the plaintiff" Galthough
Celedonia denied that the1 agreed to partition the estate" for their agreement was to
place the estate in a foundation.H (p. ," 'ecordD emphasis supplied)
>videntl1" Concordia was not prevented from intervening in the proceedings. 0he sta1ed awa1 y c$oice.
9esides" she knew that the estate came e?clusivel1 from >ste;an<s mother" 0alustia 0olivio" and she had
agreed with Celedonia to place it in a foundation as the deceased had planned to do.
,. The pro;ate proceedings are proceedings in rem. )otice of the time and place of
hearing of the petition is re=uired to ;e pu;lished (0ec. " 'ule 2+ in relation to 0ec. "
'ule 2#" 'ules of Court). )otice of the hearing of Celedonia<s original petition was
pu;lished in the -(isa1an Tri;une- on April ,*" :a1 , and #" !#22 (>?h 3" p. !#2"
'ecord). 0imilarl1" notice of the hearing of her amended petition of :a1 ,+" !#22 for the
settlement of the estate was" ;1 order of the court" pu;lished in -9agong Lasanag- ()ew
8ight) issues of :a1 ,2" .une and !7" !#22 (pp. !$,%7*" 'ecord). The pu;lication of
the notice of the proceedings was constructive notice to the whole world. Concordia was
not deprived of her right to intervene in the proceedings for she had actual" as well as
constructive notice of the same. As pointed out ;1 the pro;ate court in its order of
4cto;er ,2" !#2$:
... . The move of Concordia .avellana" however" was filed a;out five months after
Celedonia 0olivio was declared as the sole heir. ... .
Considering that this proceeding is one in rem and had ;een dul1 pu;lished as re=uired
;1 law" despite which the present movant onl1 came to court now" then she is guilt1 of
laches for sleeping on her alleged right. (p. ,," 'ecord)
The court noted that Concordia<s motion did not compl1 with the re=uisites of a petition for relief from
5udgment nor a motion for new trial.
The rule is stated in 3# Corpus .uris 0ecundum $77 as follows:
Ahere petition was sufficient to invoke statutor1 5urisdiction of pro;ate court and
proceeding %as in rem no su;se=uent errors or irregularities are availa;le on collateral
attack. (9edwell v. Dean !, 0o. ,7)
Celedonia<s allegation in her petition that she was the sole heir of >ste;an within the third degree on his
mot$er9s side was not false. :oreover" it was made in good faith and in the honest ;elief that ;ecause the
properties of >ste;an had come from his mother" not his father" she" as >ste;an<s nearest surviving
relative on his mother<s side" is the rightful heir to them. It would have ;een self%defeating and
inconsistent with her claim of sole $eirs$ip if she stated in her petition that Concordia was her co%heir. @er
omission to so state did not constitute e?trinsic fraud.
Failure to disclose to the adversar1" or to the court" matters which would defeat one<s
own claim or defense is not such e?trinsic fraud as will 5ustif1 or re=uire vacation of the
5udgment. (3# C...0. 3$#" citing /oung v. /oung" , 0> ,d +,,D First )ational 9ank P
Trust Co. of Ling Cit1 v. 9owman" !* 0A ,d $3,D 6rice v. 0mith" !7# 0A ,d !!33" !!3#)
It should ;e remem;ered that a petition for administration of a decedent<s estate ma1 ;e filed ;1 an1
-interested person- (0ec. ," 'ule 2#" 'ules of Court). The filing of Celedonia<s petition did not preclude
Concordia from filing her own.
III. An t$e !uestion of reserva troncalN
Ae find no merit in the petitioner<s argument that the estate of the deceased was su;5ect to reserva
troncal and that it pertains to her as his onl1 relative within the third degree on his mother<s side. The
reserva troncal provision of the Civil Code is found in Article $#! which reads as follows:
A'T. $#!. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant an1 propert1 which the latter
ma1 have ac=uired ;1 gratuitous title from another ascendant" or a ;rother or sister" is
o;liged to reserve such propert1 as he ma1 have ac=uired ;1 operation of law for the
;enefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who ;elong to the line from which
said propert1 came.
The persons involved in reserva troncal are:
!. The person o;liged to reserve is the reservor 8reservista:Jthe ascendant who inherits
;1 operation of law propert1 from his descendants.
,. The persons for whom the propert1 is reserved are the reservees 8reservatarios:J
relatives within the third degree counted from the descendant 8propositus:, and ;elonging
to the line from which the propert1 came.
. The propositusJthe descendant who received ;1 gratuitous title and died without
issue" making his other ascendant inherit ;1 operation of law. (p. +#," Civil 8aw ;1
6adilla" (ol. II" !#*+ >d.)
Clearl1" the propert1 of the deceased" >ste;an .avellana" .r." is not reserva;le propert1" for >ste;an" .r.
was not an ascendant" ;ut the descendant of his mother" 0alustia 0olivio" from whom he inherited the
properties in =uestion. Therefore" he did not hold his inheritance su;5ect to a reservation in favor of his
aunt" Celedonia 0olivio" who is his relative within the third degree on his mother<s side. The reserva
troncal applies to properties inherited ;1 an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another
ascendant or # ;rother or sister. It does not appl1 to propert1 inherited ;1 a descendant from his
ascendant" the reverse of the situation covered ;1 Article $#!.
0ince the deceased" >ste;an .avellana" .r." died without descendants" ascendants" illegitimate children"
surviving spouse" ;rothers" sisters" nephews or nieces" what should appl1 in the distri;ution of his estate
are Articles !77 and !77# of the Civil Code which provide:
A'T. !77. If there are no descendants" ascendants" illegitimate children" or a surviving
spouse" the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in
accordance with the following articles.
A'T. !77#. 0hould there ;e neither ;rothers nor sisters" nor children of ;rothers or
sisters" the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them ;1 reason
of relationship ;1 the whole ;lood.
Therefore" the Court of Appeals correctl1 held that:
9oth plaintiff%appellee and defendant%appellant ;eing relatives of the decedent within the
third degree in the collateral line" each" therefore" shall succeed to the su;5ect estate
<without distinction of line or preference among them ;1 reason of relationship ;1 the
whole ;lood"< and is entitled one%half (!E,) share and share alike of the estate. (p. *2"
'ollo)
I(. /$e !uestion of Concordia9s one-$alf s$areN
@owever" inasmuch as Concordia had agreed to deliver the estate of the deceased to the foundation in
honor of his mother" 0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana (from whom the estate came)" an agreement
which she ratified and confirmed in her -:otion to 'eopen andEor 'econsider 4rder dated April " !#2$-
which she filed in 0pl. 6roceeding )o. ,*37:
3. That ... prior to t$e filing of t$e petition t$ey 8petitioner Celedonia Solivio and movant
Concordia @avellana: $ave agreed to ma#e t$e estate of t$e decedent a foundation,
;esides the1 have closel1 known each other due to their filiation to the decedent and the1
have ;een visiting each other<s house which are not far awa1 for (sic) each other. (p. ,3"
'ecordD >mphasis supplied)
she is ;ound ;1 that agreement. It is true that ;1 that agreement" she did not waive her inheritance in
favor of Celedonia" ;ut she did agree to place all of >ste;an<s estate in the -0alustia 0olivio (da. de
.avellana Foundation- which >ste;an" .r." during his lifetime" planned to set up to honor his mother and
to finance the education of indigent ;ut deserving students as well.
@er admission ma1 not ;e taken lightl1 as the lower court did. 9eing a 5udicial admission" it is conclusive
and no evidence need ;e presented to prove the agreement (Cunanan v. Amparo" $7 6hil. ,,2D &ranada
v. 6hilippine )ational 9ank" 8%,723*" 0ept. ," !#++" !$ 0C'A !D 0ta. Ana v. :aliwat" 8%,7," Aug. !"
!#+$" ,3 0C'A !7!$D 6eople v. >ncipido" &.'.277#!" Dec. ,#" !#$+" !3+ 0C'A 32$D and 'odillas v.
0andigan;a1an" &.'. *$+*," :a1 ,7" !#$$" !+! 0C'A 32).
The admission was never withdrawn or impugned ;1 Concordia who" significantl1" did not even testif1 in
the case" although she could have done so ;1 deposition if she were supposedl1 indisposed to attend the
trial. 4nl1 her hus;and" )arciso" and son%in%law" .uanito Domin" activel1 participated in the trial. @er
hus;and confirmed the agreement ;etween his wife and Celedonia" ;ut he endeavored to dilute it ;1
alleging that his wife did not intend to give all" ;ut onl1 one%half" of her share to the foundation (p. ,"
'ecord).
The records show that the -0alustia 0olivio (da. de .avellana Foundation- was esta;lished and dul1
registered in the 0ecurities and >?change Commission under 'eg. )o. 7!777,2 for the following principal
purposes:
!. To provide for the esta;lishment andEor setting up of scholarships for such deserving
students as the 9oard of Trustees of the Foundation ma1 decide of at least one scholar
each to stud1 at Aest (isa1as 0tate College" and the Cniversit1 of the 6hilippines in the
(isa1as ;oth located in Iloilo Cit1.
,. To provide a scholarship for at least one scholar for 0t. Clements 'edemptorist
Communit1 for a deserving student who has the religious vocation to ;ecome a priest.
. To foster" develop" and encourage activities that will promote the advancement and
enrichment of the various fields of educational endeavors" especiall1 in literar1 arts.
0cholarships provided for ;1 this foundation ma1 ;e named after its ;enevolent
;enefactors as a token of gratitude for their contri;utions.
3. To direct or undertake surve1s and studies in the communit1 to determine communit1
needs and ;e a;le to alleviate partiall1 or totall1 said needs.
*. To maintain and provide the necessar1 activities for the proper care of the 0olivio%
.avellana mausoleum at Christ the Ling :emorial 6ark" .aro" Iloilo Cit1" and the
.avellana :emorial at the Aest (isa1as 0tate College" as a token of appreciation for the
contri;ution of the estate of the late >ste;an 0. .avellana which has made this foundation
possi;le. Also" in perpetuation of his 'oman Catholic ;eliefs and those of his mother"
&regorian masses or their e=uivalents will ;e offered ever1 Fe;ruar1 and 4cto;er" and
'e=uiem masses ever1 Fe;ruar1 ,*th and 4cto;er llth" their death anniversaries" as part
of this provision.
+. To receive gifts" legacies" donations" contri;utions" endowments and financial aids or
loans from whatever source" to invest and reinvest the funds" collect the income thereof
and pa1 or appl1 onl1 the income or such part thereof as shall ;e determined ;1 the
Trustees for such endeavors as ma1 ;e necessar1 to carr1 out the o;5ectives of the
Foundation.
2. To ac=uire" purchase" own" hold" operate" develop" lease" mortgage" pledge"
e?change" sell" transfer" or otherwise" invest" trade" or deal" in an1 manner permitted ;1
law" in real and personal propert1 of ever1 kind and description or an1 interest herein.
$. To do and perform all acts and things necessar1" suita;le or proper for the
accomplishments of an1 of the purposes herein enumerated or which shall at an1 time
appear conducive to the protection or ;enefit of the corporation" including the e?ercise of
the powers" authorities and attri;utes concerned upon the corporation organiBed under
the laws of the 6hilippines in general" and upon domestic corporation of like nature in
particular. (pp. #%!7" 'ollo)
As alleged without contradiction in the petition< for review:
The Foundation ;egan to function in .une" !#$," and three () of its eight >ste;an
.avellana scholars graduated in !#$+" one (!) from C6( graduated Cum 8aude and two
(,) from A(0C graduated with honorsD one was a Cum 8aude and the other was a
recipient of 8agos 8opeB award for teaching for ;eing the most outstanding student
teacher.
The Foundation has four (3) high school scholars in &uiso 9aranga1 @igh 0chool" the
site of which was donated ;1 the Foundation. The 0chool has ;een selected as the 6ilot
9aranga1 @igh 0chool for 'egion (I.
The Foundation has a special scholar" Fr. >l;ert (as=ueB" who would ;e ordained this
1ear. @e studied at 0t. Francis Mavier :a5or 'egional 0eminar1 at Davao Cit1. The
Foundation likewise is a mem;er of the 'edemptorist Association that gives 1earl1
donations to help poor students who want to ;ecome 'edemptorist priests or ;rothers. It
gives 1earl1 awards for Creative writing known as the >ste;an .avellana Award.
Further" the Foundation had constructed the >ste;an 0. .avellana :ulti%purpose Center
at the Aest (isa1as 0tate Cniversit1 for teachers< and students< use" and has likewise
contri;uted to religious civic and cultural fund%raising drives" amongst other<s. (p. !7"
'ollo)
@aving agreed to contri;ute her share of the decedent<s estate to the Foundation" Concordia is o;ligated
to honor her commitment as Celedonia has honored hers.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition for review is granted. The decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals
are here;1 0>T A0ID>. Concordia .. (illanueva is declared an heir of the late >ste;an .avellana" .r.
entitled to one%half of his estate. @owever" comforma;l1 with the agreement ;etween her and her co%heir"
Celedonia 0olivio" the entire estate of the deceased should ;e conve1ed to the -0alustia 0olivio (da. de
.avallana Foundation"- of which ;oth the petitioner and the private respondent shall ;e trustees" and each
shall ;e entitled to nominate an e=ual num;er of trustees to constitute the 9oard of Trustees of the
Foundation which shall administer the same for the purposes set forth in its charter. The petitioner" as
administratri? of the estate" shall su;mit to the pro;ate court an inventor1 and accounting of the estate of
the deceased preparator1 to terminating the proceedings therein.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-6657) F/0,+a,y (1, 1990
AN'ELMA D#AZ, 5+a,d-an o= V#%OR, RODR#GO, AN'ELM#NA and M#GUEL, a33 *+,na7/d
'ANERO, and FEL#F"ERA $A%UR'A, 5+a,d-an o= FEDER#%O 'ANERO, /. a3., vs.
#NERMED#AE A$$ELLAE %OUR and FEL#'A $AMU# &ARD#N,
The decision of the 0econd Division of this Court in the case of Anselma DiaB" et al. vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court" et al." &.'. )o. +*23" promulgated .une !2" !#$2 declaring Felisa 6amuti%.ardin to ;e
the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the late 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero" and its
'esolution of Fe;ruar1 ,3" !#$$ den1ing the :otion for 'econsideration dated .ul1 ," !#$2" are ;eing
challenged in this 0econd :otion for 'econsideration dated .ul1 *" !#$$. After the parties had filed their
respective pleadings" the Court" in a resolution dated 4cto;er ,2" !#$$" resolved to grant the re=uest of
the petitioners for oral argument ;efore the court en anc, and the case was set for hearing on )ovem;er
!2" !#$$ to resolve the =uestion: Does the term -relatives- in Article ##, of the )ew Civil Code which
reads:
An illegitimate child has no right to inherit a intestato from the legitimate children or
relatives of his father or motherD nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same
manner from the illegitimate child.
include the legitimate parents of the father or mother of the illegitimate childrenK Invited to discuss as
amici curiae during the hearing were the following: .ustice .ose 9.8. 'e1es" former .ustice :inister
'icardo C. 6uno" Dr. Arturo Tolentino" former .ustice >duardo Caguioa" and 6rofessor 'u;en 9alane.
The facts of the case" as s1nthesiBed in the assailed decision" are as follows:
It is undisputed: !) that Felisa 6amuti .ardin is a niece of 0imona 6amuti (da. de
0antero who together with Felisa<s mother .uliana were the onl1 legitimate children of the
spouses Felipe 6amuti and 6etronila AsuncionD ,) that .uliana married 0imon .ardin and
out of their union were ;orn Felisa 6amuti and another child who died during infanc1D )
that 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero is the widow of 6ascual 0antero and the mother of
6a;lo 0anteroD 3) that 6a;lo 0antero was the onl1 legitimate son of his parents 6ascual
0antero and 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0anteroD *) that 6ascual 0antero died in !#27D
6a;lo 0antero in !#2 and 0imona 0antero in !#2+D +) that 6a;lo 0antero" at the time of
his death was survived ;1 his mother 0imona 0antero and his si? minor natural children
to wit: four minor children with Anselma DiaB and two minor children with Feli?;erta
6acursa.
(pp. !%," DecisionD pp. !#7%!#!" 'ollo)
9riefl1 stated" the real issue in the instant case is this J who are the legal heirs of 0imona 6amuti (da.
de 0antero J her niece Felisa 6amuti%.ardin or her grandchildren (the natural children of 6a;lo
0antero)K
The present controvers1 is confined solel1 to the intestate estate of 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero. In
connection therewith" Ae are tasked with determining anew whether petitioners as illegitimate children of
6a;lo 0antero could inherit from 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero" ;1 right of representation of their father
6a;lo 0antero who is a legitimate child of 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero.
6etitioners claim that the amendment of Articles #3! and #3 of the old Civil Code (Civil Code of 0pain)
;1 Articles ##7 and ##, of the new Civil Code (Civil Code of the 6hilippines) constitute a su;stantial and
not merel1 a formal change" which grants illegitimate children certain successional rights. Ae do not
dispute the fact that the )ew Civil Code has given illegitimate children successional rights" which rights
were never ;efore en5o1ed ;1 them under the 4ld Civil Code. The1 were during that time merel1 entitled
to support. In fact" the1 are now considered as compulsor1 primar1 heirs under Article $$2 of the new
Civil Code ()o. * in the order of intestate succession). Again" Ae do not den1 that fact. These are onl1
some of the man1 rights granted ;1 the new Code to illegitimate children. 9ut that is all. A careful
evaluation of the )ew Civil Code provisions" especiall1 Articles #7," #$," #$#" and ##7" claimed ;1
petitioners to have conferred illegitimate children the right to represent their parents in the inheritance of
their legitimate grandparents" would in point of fact reveal that such right to this time does not e?ist.
8et Cs take a closer look at the a;ove%cited provisions.
Art.#7,. The rights of illegitimate children set forth in the preceding articles are
transmitted upon their death to their descendants" whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Art. #$,. The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit ;1 right of representation
and if an1 one of them should have died" leaving several heirs" the portion pertaining to
him shall ;e divided among the latter in e=ual portions. (#)
Art. #$#. If" together with illegitimate children" there should survive descendants of
another illegitimate child who is dead" the former shall succeed in their own right and the
latter ;1 right of representation. (#37a)
Art. ##7. The hereditar1 rights granted ;1 the two preceding articles to illegitimate
children shall ;e transmitted upon their death to their descendants" who shall inherit ;1
right of representation from their deceased grandparent. (#3!a) >mphasis supplied).
Articles #7," #$#" and ##7 clearl1 speak of successional rights of illegitimate children" which rights are
transmitted to their descendants upon their death. The descendants (of these illegitimate children) who
ma1 inherit ;1 virtue of the right of representation ma1 ;e legitimate or illegitimate. In whatever manner"
one should not overlook the fact that the persons to ;e represented are themselves illegitimate. The three
named provisions are ver1 clear on this matter. The right of representation is not availa;le to illegitimate
descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent. It ma1 ;e argued" as
done ;1 petitioners" that the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate child is entitled to represent ;1 virtue
of the provisions of Article #$," which provides that -the grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit
;1 right of representation.- 0uch a conclusion is erroneous. It would allow intestate succession ;1 an
illegitimate child to the legitimate parent of his father or mother" a situation which would set at naught the
provisions of Article ##,. Article #$, is inapplica;le to instant case ;ecause Article ##, prohi;its
a;solutel1 a succession a intestato ;etween the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and
relatives of the father or mother. It ma1 not ;e amiss to state that Article #$, is the general rule and
Article ##, the e?ception.
-The rules laid down in Article #$, that <grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit ;1 right of
representation and in Article #7, that the rights of illegitimate children ... are transmitted upon their death
to their descendants" whether legitimate or illegitimate are suject to t$e limitation prescri;ed ;1 Article
##, to the end that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit a intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother.-< (Amicus Curiae<s 4pinion ;1 former .ustice :inister 'icardo C. 6uno" p.
!,)
-Article ##, of the )ew Civil Code provides a ;arrier or iron curtain in that it prohi;its a;solutel1 a
succession a intestato ;etween the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the
father or mother of said illegitimate child. The1 ma1 have a natural tie of ;lood" ;ut this is not recogniBed
;1 law for the purpose of Article ##,. 9etween the legitimate famil1 and the illegitimate famil1 there is
presumed to ;e an intervening antagonism and incompati;ilit1. The illegitimate child is disgracefull1
looked down upon ;1 the legitimate famil1D and the famil1 is in turn" hated ;1 the illegitimate childD the
latter considers the privileged condition of the former" and the resources of which it is there;1 deprivedD
the former" in turn" sees in the illegitimate child nothing ;ut the product of sin" palpa;le evidence of a
;lemish ;roken in lifeD the law does no more than recogniBe this truth" ;1 avoiding further ground of
resentment.- (2 :anresa !!7 cited in &re1 v. Fa;le 37 4& (First 0) )o. " p. !#+).
According to petitioners" the commentaries of :anresa as a;ove% =uoted are ;ased on Articles ## to
#33 of the old Civil Code and are therefore inapplica;le to the )ew Civil Code and to the case at ;ar.
6etitioners further argue that the consistent doctrine adopted ;1 this Court in the cases of Llorente vs.
-odriguez, et al., !7 6hil." *$*D Centeno vs. Centeno" *, 6hil. ,," and Ayao vs. Ayao" #3 6hil. ,73" cited
;1 former .ustice :inister .ustice 6uno" .ustice Caguioa" and 6rof. 9alane" which identicall1 held that an
illegitimate child has no right to succeed a intestato the legitimate father or mother of his natural parent
(also a legitimate child himself is alread1 a;rogated ;1 the amendments made ;1 the )ow Civil Code and
thus cannot ;e made to appl1 to the instant case.
4nce more" Ae decline to agree with petitioner. Ae are full1 aware of certain su;stantial changes in our
law of succcession" ;ut there is no change whatsoever with respect to the provision of Article ##, of the
Civil Code. 4therwise" ;1 the said su;stantial change" Article ##," which was a reproduction f Article
#3 of the Civil Code of 0pain" should have ;een suppressed or at least modified to clarif1 the matters
which are now the su;5ect of the present controvers1. Ahile the )ew Civil Code ma1 have granted
successional rights to illegitimate children" those articles" however" in con5unction with Article ##," prohi;it
the right of representation from ;eing e?ercised where the person to ;e represented is a legitimate child.
)eedless to sa1" the determining factor is the legitimac1 or illegitimac1 of the person to ;e represented. If
the person to ;e represented is an illegitimate child" then his descendants" whether legitimate or
illegitimate" ma1 represent himD however" if the person to ;e represented is legitimate" his illegitimate
descendants cannot represent him ;ecause the law provides that onl1 his legitimate descendants ma1
e?ercise the right of representation ;1 reason of the ;arrier imposed Article ##,. In this wise" the
commentaries of :anresa on the matter in issue" even though ;ased on the old Civil Code" are still ver1
much applica;le to the )ew Civil Code ;ecause the amendment" although su;stantial" did not consist of
giving illegitimate children the right to represent their natural parents (legitimate) in the intestate
succession of their grandparents (legitimate). It is with the same line of reasoning that the three aforecited
cases ma1 ;e said to ;e still applica;le to the instant case.
>=uall1 important are the reflections of the Illustrious @on. .ustice .ose 9.8. 'e1es which also find
support from other civilists. Ae =uote:
In the 0panish Civil Code of !$$# the right of representation was admitted onl1 within the
legitimate famil1D so much so that Article #3 of that Code prescri;ed that an illegitimate
child can not inherit a intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father
and mother. The Civil Code of the 6hilippines apparentl1 adhered to this principle since it
reproduced Article #3 of the 0panish Code in its own Art. ##," ;ut with fine
inconsistenc1" in su;se=uent articles (##7" ##* and ##$) our Code allows the hereditar1
portion of the illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants" whether legitimate or
illegitimate. 0o that while Art. ##, prevents the illegitimate issue of a legitimate child from
representing him in the intestate succession of the grandparent" the illegitimates of an
illegitimate child can now do so. This difference ;eing indefensi;le and unwarranted" in
the future revision of the Civil Code we shall have to make a choice and decide either
that the illegitimate issue en5o1s in all cases the right of representation" in which case Art.
##, must ;e suppressedD or contrariwise maintain said article and modif1 Articles ##,
and ##$. The first solution would ;e more in accord with an enlightened attitude vis%a%vis
illegitimate children. (-eflections on t$e -eform of $ereditary Succession, .4C')A8 of
the Integrated 9ar of the 6hilippines" First Iuartet !#2+" (olume 3" )um;er !" pp. 37%
3!). (p. 2" DecisionD p. !#+" 'ollo)
It is therefore clear from Article ##, of the )ew Civil Code that the phrase -legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother- includes 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero as the word -relative- is ;road
enough to comprehend all the kindred of the person spoken of. (Comment" p. !# 'ollo citing p. ,$+,
9ouvier<s 8aw Dictionar1 vol. !!" Third 'evision" >ight >dition) The record reveals that from the
commencement of this case the onl1 parties who claimed to ;e the legitimate heirs of the late 0imona
6amuti (da. de 0antero are Felisa 6amuti .ardin and the si? minor natural or illegitimate children of 6a;lo
0antero. 0ince petitioners herein are ;arred ;1 the provisions of Article ##," the respondent Intermediate
Appellate Court did not commit an1 error in holding Felisa 6amuti .ardin to ;e the sole legitimate heir to
the intestate estate of the late 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero.
It is 4ur shared view that the word -relatives- should ;e construed in its general acceptation. "micus
curiae 6rof. 'u;en 9alane has this to sa1:
The term relatives, although used man1 times in the Code" is not defined ;1 it. In
accordance therefore with the canons of statutor1 interpretation" it should ;e understood
to have a general and inclusive scope" inasmuch as the term is a general one. Beneralia
vera sunt generaliter intelligenda. That the law does not make a distinction prevents us
from making one: 3i lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguera deemus. >srinche" in his
&iccionario de Legislacion y @urisprudencia defines parientes as -los =ue estan
relacionados por los vinculos de la sangre" ya sea por proceder unos de otros, como los
descendientes y ascendientes, 1a sea por proceder de una misma raiB o tronco" como
los colaterales. (cited in 0caevola" op. cit." p. 3*2). (p. 22" 'ollo)
According to 6rof. 9alane" to interpret the term relatives in Article ##, in a more restrictive sense than it is
used and intended is not warranted ;1 an1 rule of interpretation. 9esides" he further states that when the
law intends to use the term in a more restrictive sense" it =ualifies the term with the word collateral" as in
Articles !77 and !77# of the )ew Civil Code.
Thus" the word -relatives- is a general term and when used in a statute it em;races not onl1 collateral
relatives ;ut also all the kindred of the person spoken of" unless the conte?t indicates that it was used in a
more restrictive or limited sense J which as alread1 discussed earlier" is not so in the case at ;ar.
To recapitulate" Ae =uote this:
The lines of this distinction ;etween legitimates and illegitimates. which goes ;ack ver1
far in legal histor1" have ;een softened ;ut not erased ;1 present law. 4ur legislation has
not gone so far as to place legitimate and illegitimate children on e?actl1 the same
footing. >ven the Famil1 Code of !#$2 (>4 ,7#) has not a;olished the gradation
;etween legitimate and illegitimate children (although it has done awa1 with the su;%
classification of illegitimates into natural and <spurious<). It would thus ;e correct to sa1
that illegitimate children have onl1 those rights which are e?pressl1 or clearl1 granted to
them ;1 law (vide Tolentino" Civil Code of the 6hilippines" !#2 ed." vol. III" p. ,#!).
(Amicus Curiae<s 4pinion ;1 6rof. 'u;en 9alane" p. !,).
In the light of the foregoing" Ae conclude that until Article ##, is suppressed or at least amended to clarif1
the term -relatives- there is no other alternative ;ut to appl1 the law literall1. Thus" Ae here;1 reiterate
the decision of .une !2" !#$2 and declare Felisa 6amuti%.ardin to ;e the sole heir to the intestate estate
of 0imona 6amuti (da. de 0antero" to the e?clusion of petitioners.
A@>'>F4'>" the second :otion for 'econsideration is D>)I>D" and the assailed decision is here;1
AFFI':>D.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 10997( A2,-3 (9, 1996
ZO'#MA VERDAD, vs. !E !ON. %OUR OF A$$EAL', 'O%ORRO %. RO'ALE', AURORA
RO'ALE', NA$OLEON RO'ALE', ANON#O RO'ALE', FLORENDA RO'ALE', ELENA RO'ALE'
AND V#RG#N#A RO'ALE',
The petitioner" Oosima (erdad" is the purchaser of a ,3$%s=uare meter residential lot (identified to ;e 8ot
)o. *,#" Ts%+* of the 9utuan Cadastre" located along :agallanes 0treet" now :arcos :. Calo 0t."
9utuan Cit1). 6rivate respondent" 0ocorro Cordero (da. de 'osales" seeks to e?ercise a right of legal
redemption over the su;5ect propert1 and traces her title to the late :acaria Atega" her mother%in%law"
who died intestate on 7$ :arch !#*+.
During her lifetime" :acaria contracted two marriages: the first with Angel 9urdeos and the second"
following the latter<s death" with Canuto 'osales. At the time of her own death" :acaria was survived ;1
her son 'amon A. 9urdeos and her grandchild (;1 her daughter Felicidad A. 9urdeos) >stela 8oBada of
the first marriage and her children of the second marriage" namel1" David 'osales" .usto 'osales"
'omulo 'osales" and Aurora 'osales.
0ocorro 'osales is the widow of David 'osales who himself" some time after :acaria<s death" died
intestate without an issue.
In an instrument" dated !3 .une !#$," the heirs of 'amon 9urdeos" namel1" his widow :anuela 8egaspi
9urdeos and children Felicidad and 'amon" .r." sold to petitioner Oosima (erdad (their interest on) the
disputed lot supposedl1 for the price of 6**"3+7.77. In a dul1 notariBed deed of sale" dated !3 )ovem;er
!#$," it would appear" however" that the lot was sold for onl1 6,"777.77. 6etitioner e?plained that the
second deed was intended merel1 to save on the ta? on capital gains.
0ocorro discovered the sale on 7 :arch !#$2 while she was at the Cit1 Treasurer<s 4ffice. 4n ! :arch
!#$2" she sought the intervention of the 8upong Tagapa1apa of 9aranga1 #" 6rincess Crdu5a" for the
redemption of the propert1. 0he tendered the sum of 6,"777.77 to Oosima. The latter refused to accept
the amount for ;eing much less than the lot<s current value of 6$7"777.77. )o settlement having ;een
reached ;efore the 8upong Tagapa1apa" private respondents" on !+ 4cto;er !#$2" initiated against
petitioner an action for -8egal 'edemption with 6reliminar1 In5unction- ;efore the 'egional Trial Court of
9utuan Cit1.
4n ,# .une !##7" following the reception of evidence" the trial court handed down its decision holding" in
fine" that private respondents< right to redeem the propert1 had alread1 lapsed.
An appeal to the Court of Appeals was interposed ;1 private respondents. The appellate court" in its
decision of ,, April !##" reversed the court a !uoD thus:
A@>'>F4'>" premises considered" the 5udgment appealed from is here;1
'>(>'0>D" and a new one is accordingl1 entered declaring plaintiff%appellant" 0ocorro
C. 'osales" entitled to redeem the inheritance rights (Art. !7$$" )CC) or pro indiviso
share (Art. !+,7" )CC) of the @eirs of 'amon 9urdeos" 0r. in 8ot *,#" Ts%+* of the
9utuan Cadastre" within the remaining >8>(>) (!!) DA/0 from finalit1 hereon" unless
written notice of the sale and its terms are received in the interim" under the same terms
and conditions appearing under >?hi;it -.- and after returning the purchase price of
6,"777.77 within the foregoing period. )o cost.
1
In her recourse to this Court" petitioner assigned the following -errors:- That J
The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in declaring 0ocorro C. 'osales is entitled to
redeem the inheritance rights (Article !7$$" )CC) or pro-indiviso share (Article !+,7"
)CC) of the heirs of 'amon 9urdeos" 0r. in 8ot *,#" Ts%+* of the 9utuan Cadastre" for
;eing contrar1 to law and evidence.
The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in ignoring the peculiar circumstance" in that" the
respondents< actual knowledge" as a factor in the dela1 constitutes laches.
The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in concluding that 0ocorro C. 'osales" in effect"
timel1 e?ercised the right of legal redemption when referral to 9aranga1 ;1 respondent
signifies ;ona fide intention to redeem andD that" redemption is properl1 made even if
there is no offer of redemption in legal tender.
The @onora;le Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the running of the statutor1
redemption period is sta1ed upon commencement of 9aranga1 proceedings.
(
0till" the thrust of the petition ;efore us is the alleged incapacit1 of private respondent 0ocorro C. 'osales
to redeem the propert1" she ;eing merel1 the spouse of David 'osales" a son of :acaria" and not ;eing a
co%heir herself in the intestate estate of :acaria.
Ae rule that 0ocorro can. It is true that 0ocorro" a daughter%in%law (or" for that matter" a mere relative ;1
affinit1)" is not an intestate heir of her parents%in%lawD
3
however" 0ocorro<s right to the propert1 is not
;ecause she rightfull1 can claim heirship in :acaria<s estate ;ut that she is a legal heir of her hus;and"
David 'osales" part of whose estate is a share in his mother<s inheritance.
David 'osales" incontroverti;l1" survived his mother<s death. Ahen :acaria died on 7$ :arch !#*+ her
estate passed on to her surviving children" among them David 'osales" who thereupon ;ecame co%
owners of the propert1. Ahen David 'osales himself later died" his own estate" which included his
undivided interest over the propert1 inherited from :acaria" passed on to his widow 0ocorro and her co%
heirs pursuant to the law on succession.
Art. ##*. In the a;sence of legitimate descendants and ascendants" and illegitimate
children and their descendants" whether legitimate or illegitimate" the surviving spouse
shall inherit the entire estate" without pre5udice to the rights of ;rothers and sisters"
nephews and nieces" should there ;e an1" under article !77!.
??? ??? ???
Art. !77!. 0hould ;rothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower"
the latter shall ;e entitled to one%half of the inheritance and the ;rothers and sisters or
their children to the other half.
)
0ocorro and herein private respondents" along with the co%heirs of David 'osales" thereupon
;ecame co-o%ners of the propert1 that originall1 descended from :acaria.
Ahen their interest in the propert1 was sold ;1 the 9urdeos heirs to petitioner" a right of redemption arose
in favor of private respondentsD thus:
Art. !+!#. 8egal redemption is the right to ;e su;rogated" upon the same terms and
conditions stipulated in the contract" in the place of one who ac=uires a thing ;1 purchase
or dation in pa1ment" or ;1 an1 other transaction where;1 ownership is transmitted ;1
onerous title.
Art. !+,7. A co%owner of a thing ma1 e?ercise the right of redemption in case the shares
of all the other co%owners or of an1 of them" are sold to a third person. If the price of the
alienation is grossl1 e?cessive" the redemptioner shall pa1 onl1 a reasona;le one.
Ae hold that the right of redemption was timel1 e?ercised ;1 private respondents. Concededl1" no written
notice of the sale was given ;1 the 9urdeos heirs (vendors) to the co%owners
5
re=uired under Article !+,
of the Civil
Code J
Art. !+,. The right of legal pre%emption or redemption shall not ;e e?ercised e?cept
within thirt1 da1s from the notice in writing ;1 the prospective vendor" or ;1 the vendor"
as the case ma1 ;e. The deed of safe shall not ;e recorded in the 'egistr1 of 6ropert1"
unless accompanied ;1 an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof
to all possi;le redemptioners.
@ence" the thirt1%da1 period of redemption had 1et to commence when private respondent
'osales sought to e?ercise the right of redemption on ! :arch !#$2" a da1 after she discovered
the sale from the 4ffice of the Cit1 Treasurer of 9utuan Cit1" or when the case was initiated" on
!+ 4cto;er !#$2" ;efore the trial court.
The written notice of sale is mandator1. This Court has long esta;lished the rule that notwithstanding
actual knowledge of a co%owner" the latter is still entitled to a written notice from the selling co%owner in
order to remove all uncertainties a;out the sale" its terms and conditions" as well as its efficac1 and
status.
6
>ven in "lonzo vs. Intermediate "ppellate Court"
7
relied upon ;1 petitioner in contending that actual
knowledge should ;e an e=uivalent to a written notice of sale" the Court made it clear that it was not
reversing the prevailing 5urisprudenceD said the Court:
Ae realiBe that in arriving at our conclusion toda1" we are deviating from the strict letter
of the law" which the respondent court understanda;l1 applied pursuant to e?isting
5urisprudence. The said court acted properl1 as it had no competence to reverse the
doctrines laid down ;1 this Court in the a;ove%cited cases. In fact" and this should ;e
clearl1 stressed" we ourselves are not a;andoning the De Cone5ero and 9uttle doctrines.
Ahat we are doing simpl1 is adopting an e?ception to the general rule" in view of the
peculiar circumstances of this case.
8
In "lonzo" the right of legal redemption was invoked several 1ears" not 5ust da1s or months" after
the consummation of the contracts of sale. The complaint for legal redemption itself was there
filed more than thirteen 1ears after the sales were concluded.
'elative to the =uestion posed ;1 petitioner on private respondents< tender of pa1ment" it is enough that
we =uote" with approval" the appellate courtD viz.:
In contrast" records dearl1 show that an amount was offered" as re=uired in Sempio vs.
&el -osario" 33 6hil. ! and &aza vs. /omacruz" *$ 6hil. 3!3" ;1 the redemptioner%
appellant during the ;aranga1 conciliation proceedings (Answer" par. $) ;ut was flatl1
re5ected ;1 the appellee" not on the ground that it was not the purchase price (though it
appeared on the face of the deed of sale" >?h. -.%!-)" nor that it was offered as partial
pa1ment thereof" ;ut rather that it was
All given" we find no error in the appellate court<s finding that private respondents are entitled to the
redemption of the su;5ect propert1.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFI':>D.
Costs against petitioner.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. 108581 D/>/70/, 8, 1999
LOURDE' L. DORO!EO, vs. %OUR OF A$$EAL', N#LDA D. 6U#NANA, =o, !/,*/3= and a*
A..o,n/y--n-Fa>. o= V#%ENE DORO!EO and &O'E DORO!EO,
:a1 a last will and testament admitted to pro;ate ;ut declared intrinsicall1 void in an order that has
;ecome final and e?ecutor1 still ;e given effectK This is the issue that arose from the following
antecedents:
6rivate respondents were the legitimate children of Ale5andro Dorotheo and Aniceta 'e1es. The latter
died in !#+# without her estate ;eing settled. Ale5andro died thereafter. 0ometime in !#22" after
Ale5andro<s death" petitioner" who claims to have taken care of Ale5andro ;efore he died" filed a special
proceeding for the pro;ate of the latter<s last will and testament. In !#$!" the court issued an order
admitting Ale5andro<s will to pro;ate. 6rivate respondents did not appeal from said order. In !#$" the1
filed a -:otion To Declare The Aill Intrinsicall1 (oid.- The trial court granted the motion and issued an
order" the dispositive portion of which reads:
A@>'>F4'>" in view of the foregoing" 4rder is here;1 issued declaring 8ourdes
8egaspi not the wife of the late Ale5andro Dorotheo" the provisions of the last will and
testament of Ale5andro Dorotheo as intrinsicall1 void" and declaring the oppositors
(icente Dorotheo" .ose Dorotheo and )ilda Dorotheo Iuintana as the onl1 heirs of the
late spouses Ale5andro Dorotheo and Aniceta 'e1es" whose respective estates shall ;e
li=uidated and distri;uted according to the laws on intestac1 upon pa1ment of estate and
other ta?es due to the government.
1
6etitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to some compensation since she took
care of Ale5andro prior to his death although she admitted that the1 were not married to each other. Cpon
denial of her motion for reconsideration" petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals" ;ut the same was
dismissed for failure to file appellant<s ;rief within the e?tended period
granted.
(
This dismissal ;ecame final and e?ecutor1 on Fe;ruar1 " !#$# and a corresponding entr1 of
5udgment was forthwith issued ;1 the Court of Appeals on :a1 !+" !#$#. A writ of e?ecution was issued
;1 the lower court to implement the final and e?ecutor1 4rder. Conse=uentl1" private respondents filed
several motions including a motion to compel petitioner to surrender to them the Transfer Certificates of
Titles (TCT) covering the properties of the late Ale5andro. Ahen petitioner refused to surrender the TCT<s"
private respondents filed a motion for cancellation of said titles and for issuance of new titles in their
names. 6etitioner opposed the motion.
An 4rder was issued on )ovem;er ,#" !##7 ;1 .udge Oain 9. Angas setting aside the final and
e?ecutor1 4rder dated .anuar1 7" !#$+" as well as the 4rder directing the issuance of the writ of
e?ecution" on the ground that the order was merel1 -interlocutor1-" hence not final in character. The court
added that the dispositive portion of the said 4rder even directs the distri;ution of the estate of the
deceased spouses. 6rivate respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in an 4rder
dated Fe;ruar1 !" !##!. Thus" private respondents filed a petition ;efore the Court of Appeals" which
nullified the two assailed 4rders dated )ovem;er ,#" !##7 and Fe;ruar1 !" !##!.
Aggrieved" petitioner instituted a petition for review arguing that the case filed ;1 private respondents
;efore the Court of Appeals was a petition under 'ule +* on the ground of grave a;use of discretion or
lack of 5urisdiction. 6etitioner contends that in issuing the two assailed orders" .udge Angas cannot ;e
said to have no 5urisdiction ;ecause he was particularl1 designated to hear the case. 6etitioner likewise
assails the 4rder of the Court of Appeals upholding the validit1 of the .anuar1 7" !#$+ 4rder which
declared the intrinsic invalidit1 of Ale5andro<s will that was earlier admitted to pro;ate.
6etitioner also filed a motion to reinstate her as e?ecutri? of the estate of the late Ale5andro and to
maintain the status !uo or lease of the premises thereon to third parties.
3
6rivate respondents opposed
the motion on the ground that petitioner has no interest in the estate since she is not the lawful wife of the
late Ale5andro.
The petition is without merit. A final and e?ecutor1 decision or order can no longer ;e distur;ed or
reopened no matter how erroneous it ma1 ;e. In setting aside the .anuar1 7" !#$+ 4rder that has
attained finalit1" the trial court in effect nullified the entr1 of 5udgment made ;1 the Court of Appeals. It is
well settled that a lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court" for to do
so would ;e to negate the hierarch1 of courts and nullif1 the essence of review. It has ;een ruled that a
final 5udgment on pro;ated will" al;eit erroneous" is ;inding on the whole world.
)
It has ;een consistentl1 held that if no appeal is taken in due time from a 5udgment or order of the trial
court" the same attains finalit1 ;1 mere lapse of time. Thus" the order allowing the will ;ecame final and
the =uestion determined ;1 the court in such order can no longer ;e raised anew" either in the same
proceedings or in a different motion. The matters of due e?ecution of the will and the capacit1 of the
testator ac=uired the character of res judicata and cannot again ;e ;rought into =uestion" all 5uridical
=uestions in connection therewith ;eing for once and forever closed.
5
0uch final order makes the will
conclusive against the whole world as to its e?trinsic validit1 and due e?ecution.
6
It should ;e noted that pro;ate proceedings deals generall1 with the e?trinsic validit1 of the will sought to
;e pro;ated"
7
particularl1 on three aspects:
n whether the will su;mitted is indeed" the decedent<s
last will and testamentD
n compliance with the prescri;ed formalities for the
e?ecution of willsD
n the testamentar1 capacit1 of the testatorD
8
n and the due e?ecution of the last will and testament.
9
Cnder the Civil Code" due e?ecution includes a determination of whether the testator was of sound and
disposing mind at the time of its e?ecution" that he had freel1 e?ecuted the will and was not acting under
duress" fraud" menace or undue influence and that the will is genuine and not a forger1"
10
that he was of
the proper testamentar1 age and that he is a person not e?pressl1 prohi;ited ;1 law from making a will.
11
The intrinsic validit1 is another matter and =uestions regarding the same ma1 still ;e raised even after the
will has ;een authenticated.
1(
Thus" it does not necessaril1 follow that an e?trinsicall1 valid last will and
testament is alwa1s intrinsicall1 valid. >ven if the will was validl1 e?ecuted" if the testator provides for
dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to
the laws on succession"
13
the unlawful provisionsEdispositions thereof cannot ;e given effect. This is
speciall1 so when the courts had alread1 determined in a final and e?ecutor1 decision that the will is
intrinsicall1 void. 0uch determination having attained that character of finalit1 is ;inding on this Court
which will no longer ;e distur;ed. )ot that this Court finds the will to ;e intrinsicall1 valid" ;ut that a final
and e?ecutor1 decision of which the part1 had the opportunit1 to challenge ;efore the higher tri;unals
must stand and should no longer ;e reevaluated. Failure to avail of the remedies provided ;1 law
constitutes waiver. And if the part1 does not avail of other remedies despite its ;elief that it was aggrieved
;1 a decision or court action" then it is deemed to have full1 agreed and is satisfied with the decision or
order. As earl1 as !#!$" it has ;een declared that pu;lic polic1 and sound practice demand that" at the
risk of occasional errors" 5udgments of courts must at some point of time fi?ed ;1 law
1)
;ecome final
otherwise there will ;e no end to litigation. Interes rei pulicae ut finis sit litium J the ver1 o;5ect of which
the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies.
15
To fulfill this purpose and to do so
speedil1" certain time limits" more or less ar;itrar1" have to ;e set up to spur on the slothful.
16
The onl1
instance where a part1 interested in a pro;ate proceeding ma1 have a final li=uidation set aside is when
he is left out ;1 reason of circumstances ;e1ond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not
imputa;le to negligence"
17
which circumstances do not concur herein.
6etitioner was priv1 to the suit calling for the declaration of the intrinsic invalidit1 of the will" as she
precisel1 appealed from an unfavora;le order therefrom. Although the final and e?ecutor1 4rder of
.anuar1 7" !#$+ wherein private respondents were declared as the onl1 heirs do not ;ind those who are
not parties thereto such as the alleged illegitimate son of the testator" the same constitutes res judicata
with respect to those who were parties to the pro;ate proceedings. 6etitioner cannot again raise those
matters anew for relitigation otherwise that would amount to forum%shopping. It should ;e remem;ered
that forum shopping also occurs when the same issue had alread1 ;een resolved adversel1 ;1 some
other court.
18
It is clear from the e?ecutor1 order that the estates of Ale5andro and his spouse should ;e
distri;uted according to the laws of intestate succession.
6etitioner posits that the .anuar1 7" !#$+ 4rder is merel1 interlocutor1" hence it can still ;e set aside ;1
the trial court. In support thereof" petitioner argues that -an order merel1 declaring who are heirs and the
shares to which set of heirs is entitled cannot ;e the ;asis of e?ecution to re=uire deliver1 of shares from
one person to another particularl1 when no pro5ect of partition has ;een filed.-
19
The trial court declared in
the .anuar1 7" !#$+ 4rder that petitioner is not the legal wife of Ale5andro" whose onl1 heirs are his three
legitimate children (petitioners herein)" and at the same time it nullified the will. 9ut it should ;e noted that
in the same 4rder" the trial court also said that the estate of the late spouses ;e distri;uted according to
the laws of intestac1. Accordingl1" it has no option ;ut to implement that order of intestate distri;ution and
not to reopen and again re%e?amine the intrinsic provisions of the same will.
It can ;e clearl1 inferred from Article #+7 of the Civil Code" on the law of successional rights that testac1
is preferred to intestac1.
(0
9ut ;efore there could ;e testate distri;ution" the will must pass the
scrutiniBing test and safeguards provided ;1 law considering that the deceased testator is no longer
availa;le to prove the voluntariness of his actions" aside from the fact that the transfer of the estate is
usuall1 onerous in nature and that no one is presumed to give J 0emo praesumitur donare.
(1
)o
intestate distri;ution of the estate can ;e done until and unless the will had failed to pass ;oth its e?trinsic
and intrinsic validit1. If the will is e?trinsicall1 void" the rules of intestac1 appl1 regardless of the intrinsic
validit1 thereof. If it is e?trinsicall1 valid" the ne?t test is to determine its intrinsic validit1 J that is whether
the provisions of the will are valid according to the laws of succession. In this case" the court had ruled
that the will of Ale5andro was e?trinsicall1 valid ;ut the intrinsic provisions thereof were void. Thus" the
rules of intestac1 appl1 as correctl1 held ;1 the trial court.
Furthermore" Ale5andro<s disposition in his will of the alleged share in the con5ugal properties of his late
spouse" whom he descri;ed as his -onl1 ;eloved wife-" is not a valid reason to reverse a final and
e?ecutor1 order. Testamentar1 dispositions of properties not ;elonging e?clusivel1 to the testator or
properties which are part of the con5ugal regime cannot ;e given effect. :atters with respect to who owns
the properties that were disposed of ;1 Ale5andro in the void will ma1 still ;e properl1 ventilated and
determined in the intestate proceedings for the settlement of his and that of his late spouse<s estate.
6etitioner<s motion for appointment as administratri? is rendered moot considering that she was not
married to the late Ale5andro and" therefore" is not an heir.
A@>'>F4'>" the petition is D>)I>D and the decision appealed from is AFFI':>D.
04 4'D>'>D.
G.R. No. L-5)919 May 30, 198)
$OLLY %AYEANO, vs. !ON. OMA' . LEON#DA', -n 1-* >a2a>-.y a* .1/ $,/*-d-n5 &+d5/ o=
",an>1 FFFV###, %o+,. o= F-,*. #n*.an>/ o= Man-3a and NEN#A %AM$O' $AGU#A,
This is a petition for review on certiorari" seeking to annul the order of the respondent 5udge of the Court
of First Instance of :anila" 9ranch MMM(III" which admitted to and allowed the pro;ate of the last will and
testament of Adoracion C. Campos" after an e?%parte presentation of evidence ;1 herein private
respondent.
4n .anuar1 !" !#22" Adoracion C. Campos died" leaving her father" petitioner @ermogenes Campos and
her sisters" private respondent )enita C. 6aguia" 'emedios C. 8opeB and :arieta C. :edina as the
surviving heirs. As @ermogenes Campos was the onl1 compulsor1 heir" he e?ecuted an Affidavit of
Ad5udication under 'ule 23" 0ection I of the 'ules of Court where;1 he ad5udicated unto himself the
ownership of the entire estate of the deceased Adoracion Campos.
>leven months after" on )ovem;er ,*" !#22" )enita C. 6aguia filed a petition for the repro;ate of a will of
the deceased" Adoracion Campos" which was allegedl1 e?ecuted in the Cnited 0tates and for her
appointment as administratri? of the estate of the deceased testatri?.
In her petition" )enita alleged that the testatri? was an American citiBen at the time of her death and was
a permanent resident of 3+ Ditman 0treet" 6hiladelphia" 6enns1lvania" C.0.A.D that the testatri? died in
:anila on .anuar1 !" !#22 while temporaril1 residing with her sister at ,!+2 8everiBa" :alate" :anilaD
that during her lifetime" the testatri? made her last wig and testament on .ul1 !7" !#2*" according to the
laws of 6enns1lvania" C.0.A." nominating Ailfredo 9arBaga of )ew .erse1 as e?ecutorD that after the
testatri? death" her last will and testament was presented" pro;ated" allowed" and registered with the
'egistr1 of Ains at the Count1 of 6hiladelphia" C.0.A." that Clement 8. :c8aughlin" the administrator who
was appointed after Dr. 9arBaga had declined and waived his appointment as e?ecutor in favor of the
former" is also a resident of 6hiladelphia" C.0.A." and that therefore" there is an urgent need for the
appointment of an administratri? to administer and eventuall1 distri;ute the properties of the estate
located in the 6hilippines.
4n .anuar1 !!" !#2$" an opposition to the repro;ate of the will was filed ;1 herein petitioner alleging
among other things" that he has ever1 reason to ;elieve that the will in =uestion is a forger1D that the
intrinsic provisions of the will are null and voidD and that even if pertinent American laws on intrinsic
provisions are invoked" the same could not appl1 inasmuch as the1 would work in5ustice and in5ur1 to him.
4n Decem;er !" !#2$" however" the petitioner through his counsel" Att1. Franco 8o1ola" filed a :otion to
Dismiss 4pposition (Aith Aaiver of 'ights or Interests) stating that he -has ;een a;le to verif1 the
veracit1 thereof (of the will) and now confirms the same to ;e trul1 the pro;ated will of his daughter
Adoracion.- @ence" an ex-parte presentation of evidence for the repro;ate of the =uestioned will was
made.
4n .anuar1 !7" !#2#" the respondent 5udge issued an order" to wit:
At the hearing" it has ;een satisfactoril1 esta;lished that Adoracion C. Campos" in her
lifetime" was a citiBen of the Cnited 0tates of America with a permanent residence at
3+ Ditman 0treet" 6hiladelphia" 6A !#!,3" (>?hi;it D) that when alive" Adoracion C.
Campos e?ecuted a 8ast Aill and Testament in the count1 of 6hiladelphia" 6enns1lvania"
C.0.A." according to the laws thereat (>?hi;its >% to >%%;) that while in temporar1
so5ourn in the 6hilippines" Adoracion C. Campos died in the Cit1 of :anila (>?hi;it C)
leaving propert1 ;oth in the 6hilippines and in the Cnited 0tates of AmericaD that the 8ast
Aill and Testament of the late Adoracion C. Campos was admitted and granted pro;ate
;1 the 4rphan<s Court Division of the Court of Common 6leas" the pro;ate court of the
Commonwealth of 6enns1lvania" Count1 of 6hiladelphia" C.0.A." and letters of
administration were issued in favor of Clement .. :c8aughlin all in accordance with the
laws of the said foreign countr1 on procedure and allowance of wills (>?hi;its > to >%!7)D
and that the petitioner is not suffering from an1 dis=ualification which would render her
unfit as administratri? of the estate in the 6hilippines of the late Adoracion C. Campos.
A@>'>F4'>" the 8ast Aill and Testament of the late Adoracion C. Campos is here;1
admitted to and allowed pro;ate in the 6hilippines" and )enita Campos 6aguia is here;1
appointed Administratri? of the estate of said decedentD let 8etters of Administration with
the Aill anne?ed issue in favor of said Administratri? upon her filing of a ;ond in the
amount of 6*"777.77 conditioned under the provisions of 0ection I" 'ule $! of the 'ules
of Court.
Another manifestation was filed ;1 the petitioner on April !3" !#2#" confirming the withdrawal of his
opposition" acknowledging the same to ;e his voluntar1 act and deed.
4n :a1 ,*" !#2#" @ermogenes Campos filed a petition for relief" pra1ing that the order allowing the will
;e set aside on the ground that the withdrawal of his opposition to the same was secured through
fraudulent means. According to him" the -:otion to Dismiss 4pposition- was inserted among the papers
which he signed in connection with two Deeds of Conditional 0ales which he e?ecuted with the
Construction and Development Corporation of the 6hilippines (CDC6). @e also alleged that the law1er
who filed the withdrawal of the opposition was not his counsel%of%record in the special proceedings case.
The petition for relief was set for hearing ;ut the petitioner failed to appear. @e made several motions for
postponement until the hearing was set on :a1 ,#" !#$7.
4n :a1 !$" !#$7" petitioner filed another motion entitled -:otion to (acate andEor 0et Aside the 4rder of
.anuar1 !7" !#2#" andEor dismiss the case for lack of 5urisdiction. In this motion" the notice of hearing
provided:
6lease include this motion in 1our calendar for hearing on :a1 ,#" !#$7 at $:7 in the
morning for su;mission for reconsideration and resolution of the @onora;le Court. Cntil
this :otion is resolved" ma1 I also re=uest for the future setting of the case for hearing on
the 4ppositor<s motion to set aside previousl1 filed.
The hearing of :a1 ,#" !#$7 was re%set ;1 the court for .une !#" !#$7. Ahen the case was called for
hearing on this date" the counsel for petitioner tried to argue his motion to vacate instead of adducing
evidence in support of the petition for relief. Thus" the respondent 5udge issued an order dismissing the
petition for relief for failure to present evidence in support thereof. 6etitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration ;ut the same was denied. In the same order" respondent 5udge also denied the motion to
vacate for lack of merit. @ence" this petition.
:eanwhile" on .une +"!#$," petitioner @ermogenes Campos died and left a will" which" incidentall1 has
;een =uestioned ;1 the respondent" his children and forced heirs as" on its face" patentl1 null and void"
and a fa;rication" appointing 6oll1 Ca1etano as the e?ecutri? of his last will and testament. Ca1etano"
therefore" filed a motion to su;stitute herself as petitioner in the instant case which was granted ;1 the
court on 0eptem;er !" !#$,.
A motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the rights of the petitioner @ermogenes Campos
merged upon his death with the rights of the respondent and her sisters" onl1 remaining children and
forced heirs was denied on 0eptem;er !," !#$.
6etitioner Ca1etano persists with the allegations that the respondent 5udge acted without or in e?cess of
his 5urisdiction when:
!) @e ruled the petitioner lost his standing in court deprived the 'ight to )otice (sic) upon
the filing of the :otion to Dismiss opposition with waiver of rights or interests against the
estate of deceased Adoracion C. Campos" thus" paving the wa1 for the hearing ex-parte
of the petition for the pro;ate of decedent will.
,) @e ruled that petitioner can waive" renounce or repudiate (not made in a pu;lic or
authenticated instrument)" or ;1 wa1 of a petition presented to the court ;ut ;1 wa1 of a
motion presented prior to an order for the distri;ution of the estate%the law especiall1
providing that repudiation of an inheritance must ;e presented" within 7 da1s after it has
issued an order for the distri;ution of the estate in accordance with the rules of Court.
) @e ruled that the right of a forced heir to his legitime can ;e divested ;1 a decree
admitting a will to pro;ate in which no provision is made for the forced heir in complete
disregard of 8aw of 0uccession
3) @e denied petitioner<s petition for 'elief on the ground that no evidence was adduced
to support the 6etition for 'elief when no )otice nor hearing was set to afford petitioner
to prove the merit of his petition J a denial of the due process and a grave a;use of
discretion amounting to lack of 5urisdiction.
*) @e ac=uired no 5urisdiction over the testate case" the fact that the Testator at the time
of death was a usual resident of DasmariFas" Cavite" conse=uentl1 Cavite Court of First
Instance has e?clusive 5urisdiction over the case (De 9or5a vs. Tan" &.'. )o. 8%22#," .ul1
!#**).
The first two issues raised ;1 the petitioner are anchored on the allegation that the respondent 5udge
acted with grave a;use of discretion when he allowed the withdrawal of the petitioner<s opposition to the
repro;ate of the will.
Ae find no grave a;use of discretion on the part of the respondent 5udge. )o proof was adduced to
support petitioner<s contention that the motion to withdraw was secured through fraudulent means and
that Att1. Franco 8o1ola was not his counsel of record. The records show that after the firing of the
contested motion" the petitioner at a later date" filed a manifestation wherein he confirmed that the :otion
to Dismiss 4pposition was his voluntar1 act and deed. :oreover" at the time the motion was filed" the
petitioner<s former counsel" Att1. .ose 6. 8agrosa had long withdrawn from the case and had ;een
su;stituted ;1 Att1. Franco 8o1ola who in turn filed the motion. The present petitioner cannot" therefore"
maintain that the old man<s attorne1 of record was Att1. 8agrosa at the time of filing the motion. 0ince the
withdrawal was in order" the respondent 5udge acted correctl1 in hearing the pro;ate of the will ex-parte,
there ;eing no other opposition to the same.
The third issue raised deals with the validit1 of the provisions of the will. As a general rule" the pro;ate
court<s authorit1 is limited onl1 to the e?trinsic validit1 of the will" the due e?ecution thereof" the testatri?<s
testamentar1 capacit1 and the compliance with the re=uisites or solemnities prescri;ed ;1 law. The
intrinsic validit1 of the will normall1 comes onl1 after the court has declared that the will has ;een dul1
authenticated. @owever" where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validit1 of the will ;e
passed upon" even ;efore it is pro;ated" the court should meet the issue. (:aninang vs. Court of
Appeals" !!3 0C'A 32$).
In the case at ;ar" the petitioner maintains that since the respondent 5udge allowed the repro;ate of
Adoracion<s will" @ermogenes C. Campos was divested of his legitime which was reserved ;1 the law for
him.
This contention is without merit.
Although on its face" the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus" the respondent 5udge
should have denied its repro;ate outright" the private respondents have sufficientl1 esta;lished that
Adoracion was" at the time of her death" an American citiBen and a permanent resident of 6hiladelphia"
6enns1lvania" C.0.A. Therefore" under Article !+ par. (,) and !7# of the Civil Code which respectivel1
provide:
Art. !+ par. (,).
??? ??? ???
@owever" intestate and testamentar1 successions" ;oth with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validit1 of
testamentar1 provisions" shall ;e regulated ;1 the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration" whatever ma1 ;e the nature of the propert1 and
regardless of the countr1 wherein said propert1 ma1 ;e found.
Art. !7#.
Capacit1 to succeed is governed ;1 the law of the nation of the decedent.
the law which governs Adoracion Campo<s will is the law of 6enns1lvania" C.0.A." which is the national
law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the 6enns1lvania law does not provide for legitimes
and that all the estate ma1 ;e given awa1 ;1 the testatri? to a complete stranger" the petitioner argues
that such law should not appl1 ;ecause it would ;e contrar1 to the sound and esta;lished pu;lic polic1
and would run counter to the specific provisions of 6hilippine 8aw.
It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validit1 of the provisions of the will" as provided for ;1 Article
!+(,) and !7# of the Civil Code" the national law of the decedent must appl1. This was s=uarel1 applied
in the case of 2ellis v. 2ellis (,7 0C'A *$) wherein we ruled:
It is therefore evident that whatever pu;lic polic1 or good customs ma1 ;e involved in our
s1stem of legitimes" Congress has not intended to e?tend the same to the succession of
foreign nationals. For it has specificall1 chosen to leave" inter alia" the amount of
successional rights" to the decedent<s national law. 0pecific provisions must prevail over
general ones.
??? ??? ???
The parties admit that the decedent" Amos &. 9ellis" was a citiBen of the 0tate of Te?as"
C.0.A." and under the law of Te?as" there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingl1"
since the intrinsic validit1 of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights
are to ;e determined under Te?as law" the 6hilippine 8aw on legitimes cannot ;e applied
to the testac1 of Amos &. 9ellis.
As regards the alleged a;sence of notice of hearing for the petition for relief" the records wig ;ear the fact
that what was repeatedl1 scheduled for hearing on separate dates until .une !#" !#$7 was the petitioner<s
petition for relief and not his motion to vacate the order of .anuar1 !7" !#2#. There is no reason wh1 the
petitioner should have ;een led to ;elieve otherwise. The court even admonished the petitioner<s failing to
adduce evidence when his petition for relief was repeatedl1 set for hearing. There was no denial of due
process. The fact that he re=uested -for the future setting of the case for hearing . . .- did not mean that at
the ne?t hearing" the motion to vacate would ;e heard and given preference in lieu of the petition for
relief. Furthermore" such re=uest should ;e em;odied in a motion and not in a mere notice of hearing.
Finall1" we find the contention of the petition as to the issue of 5urisdiction utterl1 devoid of merit. Cnder
'ule 2" 0ection !" of the 'ules of Court" it is provided that:
0>CTI4) !. 7$ere estate of deceased persons settled. J If the decedent is an
inha;itant of the 6hilippines at the time of his death" whether a citiBen or an alien" his will
shall ;e proved" or letters of administration granted" and his estate settled" in the Court of
First Instance in the province in which he resided at the time of his death" and if he is an
inha;itant of a foreign countr1" the Court of First Instance of an1 province in which he had
estate. The court first taking cogniBance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent"
shall e?ercise 5urisdiction to the e?clusion of all other courts. The 5urisdiction assumed ;1
a court" so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent" or of the location
of his estate" shall not ;e contested in a suit or proceeding" e?cept in an appeal from that
court" in the original case" or when the want of 5urisdiction appears on the record.
Therefore" the settlement of the estate of Adoracion Campos was correctl1 filed with the Court of First
Instance of :anila where she had an estate since it was alleged and proven that Adoracion at the time of
her death was a citiBen and permanent resident of 6enns1lvania" Cnited 0tates of America and not a
-usual resident of Cavite- as alleged ;1 the petitioner. :oreover" petitioner is now estopped from
=uestioning the 5urisdiction of the pro;ate court in the petition for relief. It is a settled rule that a part1
cannot invoke the 5urisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief" against his opponent and after failing
to o;tain such relief" repudiate or =uestion that same 5urisdiction. (0ee 0aulog Transit" Inc. vs. @on.
:anuel 8aBaro" et al." &. '. )o. + ,$3" April 3" !#$3).
A@>'>F4'>" the petition for certiorari and prohi;ition is here;1 dismissed for lack of merit.
04 4'D>'>D.
MOLO VS. MOLO
90 Phil 37
FACTS:
1. Mariano Molo died on January 2! 191 "i#hou# lea$in% any &or'ed heir ei#her in #he
de('endin% or a('endin% line.
2. )i( "i&e Juana Molo *+e#i#ioner, (ur$i$ed hi-! and .y hi( nie'e( and ne+he" Lu/! 0li'eria
and Cornelio! all (urna-ed Molo *o++o(i#or(1a++ellan#(,.
3. O++o(i#or( 2 a++ellan#( "ere #he le%i#i-a#e 'hildren o& a de'ea(ed .ro#her o& #he #e(#a#or.
. Mariano le&# #"o "ill(! one e3e'u#ed on Au%u(# 17! 1914 and ano#her e3e'u#ed on June 20!
1939!
5. 6n .o#h #he 1914 and 1939 "ill( Juana "a( in(#i#u#ed a( hi( uni$er(al heir.
7. The la##er "ill 'on#ain( a 'lau(e! "hi'h e3+re((ly re$o8e( #he "ill e3e'u#ed in 1914.
7. Juana Molo &iled in #he CF6 a +e#i#ion (ee8in% #he +ro.a#e o& #he "ill e3e'u#ed in 1939.
4. The 'our# rendered a de'i(ion denyin% #he +ro.a#e o& (aid "ill on #he %round #ha# #he
+e#i#ioner &ailed #o +ro$e #ha# #he (a-e "a( e3e'u#ed in a''ordan'e "i#h la".
9. 6n $ie" o& #he di(allo"an'e o& #he "ill! #he "ido" &iled ano#her +e#i#ion &or #he +ro.a#e o& #he
"ill e3e'u#ed .y #he de'ea(ed on Au%u(# 14! 1914.
10. The o++o(i#or( &iled an o++o(i#ion #o #he +e#i#ion 'on#endin% #ha#! no#"i#h(#andin% #he
di(allo"an'e o& #he 1939 "ill! #he re$o'a#ory 'lau(e i( $alid and (#ill ha( #he e&&e'# o& nulli&yin%
#he +rior "ill o& 1914.
11. Li8e"i(e! re%ardle(( o& #he re$o'a#ory 'lau(e! (aid "ill o& 1914 'anno# (#ill .e %i$en e&&e'#
.e'au(e o& #he +re(u-+#ion #ha# #he #e(#a#or hi-(el& deli.era#ely re$o8ed i#.
12. The "ill o& 1914 "a( ad-i##ed #o +ro.a#e.
13. )en'e #hi( a++eal.
6SS9::
;a( #he ad-i##an'e in#o +ro.a#e +ro+er<
;ha# i( #he do'#rine o& de+enden# rela#i$e re$o'a#ion<
):L=:
A (u.(e>uen# "ill 'on#ainin% a 'lau(e re$o8in% a +re$iou( "ill! ha$in% .een di(allo"ed! &or #he
rea(on #ha# i# "a( no# e3e'u#ed in 'on&or-i#y "i#h #he +ro$i(ion( o& la" a( #o #he -a8in% o& "ill(!
'anno# +rodu'e #he e&&e'# o& annullin% #he +re$iou( "ill! ina(-u'h a( (aid re$o'a#ory 'lau(e i(
$oid.
The do'#rine o& de+enden# rela#i$e re$o'a#ion i( u(ually a++lied "here #he #e(#a#or 'an'el( or
de(#roy( a "ill or e3e'u#ed an in(#ru-en# in#ended #o re$o8e a "ill "i#h a +re(en# in#en#ion #o
-a8e a ne" #e(#a-en#ary di(+o(i#ion a( a (u.(#i#u#e &or #he old! and #he ne" di(+o(i#ion i( no#
-ade or! i& -ade! &ail( #o e&&e'# &or (a-e rea(on.
The &ailure o& #he ne" #e(#a-en#ary di(+o(i#ion! u+on "ho(e $alidi#y #he re$o'a#ion de+end(! i(
e>ui$alen# #o #he non1&ul&ill-en# o& a (u(+en(i$e 'ondi#ion! and hen'e +re$en#( #he re$o'a#ion o&
#he ori%inal "ill. ?u# a -ere in#en# #o -a8e a# (o-e #i-e a "ill in +la'e o& #ha# de(#royed "ill no#
render #he de(#ru'#ion 'ondi#ional. 6# -u(# a++ear #ha# #he re$o'a#ion i( de+enden# u+on #he
$alid e3e'u#ion o& a ne" "ill.
:$en in #he (u++o(i#ion #ha# #he de(#ru'#ion o& #he ori%inal "ill .y #he #e(#a#or 'ould .e +re(u-ed
&ro- #he &ailure o& #he +e#i#ioner #o +rodu'e i# in 'our#! (u'h de(#ru'#ion 'anno# ha$e #he e&&e'# o&
de&ea#in% #he +rior "ill o& 1914 .e'au(e o& #he &a'# #ha# i# i( &ounded on #he -i(#a8en .elie& #ha#
#he "ill o& 1939 ha( .een $alidly e3e'u#ed and "ould .e %i$en due e&&e'#.
The #heory on "hi'h #he @+rin'i+le o& de+enden# rela#i$e re$o'a#ion @ i( +redi'a#ed in #ha# #he
#e(#a#or did no# in#end #o die in#e(#a#e. And #hi( in#en#ion i( 'learly -ani&e(# "hen he e3e'u#ed
#"o "ill( on di&&eren# o''a(ion( and in(#i#u#ed hi( "i&e a( hi( uni$er(al heir. There 'an #here&ore
.e no -i(#a8e a( #o hi( in#en#ion o& dyin% #e(#a#e.