28. GARCIA vs.
CAPARAS FACTS:
GR No. 180843
Date: ​2013-April-17
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO,J.:
Digest Author: Ramos
Topic in the Syllabus:
Testamentary Succession (Arts. 779; 783 – 856)
Relevant Law: ​(cited in the Footnotes of the case)
RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Section 23:
Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of
adverse party.​ – ​Parties or assignors of parties to a
case​, or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or
other representative of a deceased person, or
against a person of unsound mind, ​upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person
or against such person of unsound mind, ​cannot
testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the
death of such deceased person ​or before such
person became of unsound mind.
Doctrine:
Dead Man’s Statute​. If one party to the alleged
transaction is precluded from testifying by death,
insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party
is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his
own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction.
Decedent: Eugenio Caparas
Will: ​[The case did not mention anything about a
will.]
PARTIES:
Petitioners​:
● Apolonio Garcia
● Cristina Salamat
Respondent:
Dominga Robles Vda. De Caparas
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
● Flora Makapugay is the owner of a 2.5-hectare
farm (the land) -
■ being tilled by Eugenio Caparas as
agricultural lessee under a leasehold
agreement.
○ Makapugay appointed Amanda as her
attorney-in-fact.
○ Makapugay passed away and was
succeeded by her nephews and niece —
Amanda, Justo and Augusto.
● Eugenio died in 1974.
○ Eugenio’s children – Modesta Garcia,
Cristina Salamat and ​Pedro​ – succeeded
him.
● Amanda and Pedro entered into the following
agreements where Pedro was installed and
recognized as the lone agricultural lessee and
cultivator of the land:
○ “Kasunduan sa Buwisan”;
○ Agricultural Leasehold Contract.
● Pedro passed away in 1984,
○ and his wife, respondent Dominga Robles
Vda. de Caparas, took over as agricultural
lessee.
● In 1996, the landowners (Amanda, Justo and
Augusto) and Pedro’s sisters (Garcia and
Salamat) entered into a “Kasunduan sa Buwisan
ng Lupa” whereby Garcia and Salamat were
acknowledged as Pedro’s co-lessees.
● Petitioners Garcia and Salamat filed a Complaint
before the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) -
○ for nullification of leasehold and
○ restoration of rights as agricultural lessees
against Pedro’s heirs, represented by his
surviving spouse Dominga;
○ claiming that when their father Eugenio
died, they entered into an agreement with
their brother Pedro -
■ that they would alternately farm the
land on a “per-season basis”;
■ that the landowner Makapugay knew
of this agreement;
■ that when Makapugay passed away,
Pedro reneged on their agreement and
misrepresented to Amanda that he is
Eugenio’s sole heir;
Page 1 of 21
 ■
that as a result, Amanda was deceived
into installing him as sole agricultural
lessee in their 1979 Agricultural
Leasehold Contract;
■ that when Amanda learned of Pedro’s
misrepresentations, she executed an
Affidavit​ stating among others that
Pedro assured her that he would not
deprive Garcia and Salamat of their
“cultivatory rights”​.
● Respondent Dominga claimed -
○ that when her father-in-law Eugenio died,
only her husband Pedro succeeded and
cultivated the land, and
○ that petitioners never assisted him in
farming the land;
○ that Pedro is the sole agricultural lessee of
the land;
○ that ​Amanda’s Affidavit ​and “Kasunduan sa
Buwisan ng Lupa” are self-serving and
violate the existing 1979 Agricultural
Leasehold Contract;
○ Pedro has been in possession of the land
even while Eugenio lived;
○ that when Pedro died in 1984, ​she
succeeded in his rights as lessee by
operation of law​, and
○ that she had been remitting lease rentals to
the landowners since 1985.
● The PARAD dismissed the case and declared
Dominga as the lawful successor-tenant.
In the DARAB case, which was filed in 1996 or long
after Pedro’s death in 1984, Amanda made a
declaration in her Affidavit -
● that when she confronted him about this and
the alleged alternate farming scheme between
him and petitioners, ​Pedro allegedly told her
that “​ he and his two sisters had an
understanding about it and he did not have
the intention of depriving them of their
cultivatory rights.”
● In upholding the PARAD Decision, the DARAB
held:
○ there was no alternate farming agreement
between the parties,
○ thus petitioners may not claim that they
were co-lessees;
○ that Pedro merely shared his harvest with
petitioners as an act of generosity;
○ Dominga’s act of stopping this practice
after succeeding Pedro prompted
petitioners to file the case;
○ Amanda’s Affidavit​ and the “Kasunduan sa
Buwisan ng Lupa” between the
landowners and petitioners ​cannot​ defeat
Pedro’s 1979 Agricultural Leasehold
Contract and his rights as the sole tenant
over the land.
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
Petitioners raised the matter with the CA.
The CA dismissed the appeal.
ISSUES:
1) Whether the alleged statement of Pedro
(deceased) can be a basis for the declaration of
Amanda. ​NO
2) Whether the agricultural leasehold relation
survived the death of the agricultural lessee. ​YES.
RULING:
1) Violation of the Dead Man’s Statute
The DARAB Case has ​no​ leg to stand; on other than
Amanda’s declaration in Affidavit.
Petitioners have ​no other evidence​, which proves
the existence of such arrangement.
● No written memorandum of such agreement
exists,
● nor have they shown that they actually
cultivated the land even if only for one cropping.
● No receipt evidencing payment to the
landowners of the latter’s share, or any other
documentary evidence, has been put forward.
What the PARAD, DARAB and CA failed to consider
and realize is that Amanda’s declaration in her
Affidavit covering Pedro’s alleged admission and
recognition of the alternate farming scheme is
inadmissible for being a violation of the ​DEAD
MAN’S STATUTE,​ which provides that “​[i]f one party
to the alleged transaction is precluded from
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental
disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the
undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted
and unexplained account of the transaction.”
Since ​Pedro is deceased,​ Amanda’s declaration
cannot be admitted and used against Dominga, who
is placed in an unfair situation by reason of her being
unable to contradict or disprove such declaration as
a result of her husband-declarant Pedro’s prior
death.
Petitioners should have confronted Pedro or sought
an audience with Amanda to discuss the possibility
of their institution as co-lessees of the land, and they
should have done so soon after the passing away of
their father Eugenio.
● However, it was only in 1996, or 17 years after
Pedro was installed as tenant in 1979 and long
after his death in 1984, that they came forward
to question Pedro’s succession to the leasehold.
● As correctly held by the PARAD, petitioners slept
on their rights, and are thus precluded from
questioning Pedro’s 1979 agricultural leasehold
contract.
Page 2 of 21

2) Duty of landowner to make a choice as to who
will succeed to the leasehold in case of death of the
original tenant
Amanda, on the other hand, cannot claim that Pedro
deceived her into believing that he is the sole
successor to the leasehold.
● Part of her duties as the landowner’s
representative or administrator was to know
the personal circumstances of the lessee
Eugenio; more especially so, when Eugenio
died.
● She was duty-bound to make an inquiry as to
who survived Eugenio, in order that the
landowner – or she as representative – could
choose from among them who would succeed
to the leasehold.
Under RA 3844, Makapugay, or Amanda – as
Makapugay’s ​duly appointed representative or
administrator​ – was required to ​make a choice​,
within one month from Eugenio’s death, ​who would
succeed as agricultural lessee:
Section 9. ​Agricultural Leasehold Relation N ​ ot
Extinguished by Death​ or Incapacity of the Parties.
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the
agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the
leasehold shall continue between the agricultural
lessor and the person who can cultivate the
landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural
lessor within one month from such death or
permanent incapacity, from among the following:
(a) the surviving spouse;
(b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or
(c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the
order of their age:
Provided, That in case the death or permanent
incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the
agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at
the end of that agricultural year:
Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural
lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods
herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance
with the order herein established.
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the
agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal
heirs.
Thus, ​when Amanda executed the 1979 Agricultural
Leasehold Contract with Pedro, she is deemed to
have chosen the latter as Eugenio’s successor​, and is
presumed to have diligently performed her duties, as
Makapugay’s representative, in conducting an
inquiry prior to making the choice.
Dominga entitled to security of tenure
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
The 1996 “Kasunduan sa Buwisan ng Lupa” between
Amanda and petitioners, which is grounded on
Pedro’s inadmissible verbal admission​, and which
agreement was entered into without obtaining
Dominga’s consent, constitutes an undue
infringement of ​Dominga’s rights as Pedro’s
successor-in-interest​ under Section 9, and operates
to deprive her of such rights and dispossess her of
the leasehold against her will.
Under Section 732 of RA 3844, Dominga is entitled
to security of tenure; and under Section 16, any
modification of the lease agreement must be done
with the consent of both parties and without
prejudicing Dominga's security of tenure.
OTHER ISSUES
● The CA dismissed the appeal holding that:
○ that the issue raised by petitioners – the
cancellation of the survey returns and plans
covering TCT RT-65932 – was not part of
their causes of action in the PARAD or
DARAB,
○ and this new issue changed the theory of
their case against Dominga, which is not
allowed.
○ Moreover, the cancellation of the survey
returns and plans covering TCT RT-65932
reverts the property to its original
classification as agricultural land which thus
vindicates the leasehold agreements of the
parties.
○ The petitioners may not be considered as
Pedro’s co-lessees, for lack of proof that
they actually tilled the land.
● Petitioners moved for reconsideration, -
○ arguing that the land has been re-classified
as residential land, and has been actually
used as such.
○ cited a 1997 ordinance, Malolos Municipal
Resolution No. 41-97,23 which adopted
and approved the zoning ordinance and
the Malolos Development Plan prepared
jointly by the HLURB and the Malolos
Sangguniang Bayan.
● The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
● Hence, this petition. Petitioners this time
argue:
○ that in building houses upon the land for
herself and her children without a homelot
award from the Department of Agrarian
Reform, Dominga converted the same to
residential use; and
○ by this act of conversion, Dominga violated
her own security of tenure and the land
was removed from coverage of the land
reform laws.
○ The Malolos zoning ordinance and the tax
declaration covering the land effectively
converted the property into residential
land.
Page 3 of 21
Only the duly designated lessee -Dominga - is
entitled to disturbance compensation in case of
re-classification/ conversion of the landholding
This Court shall not delve into the issue of
re-classification or conversion of the land.
Re-classification/conversion changes nothing as
between the landowners and Dominga in regard to
their agreement, rights and obligations. On the
contrary, re-classification/conversion can only have
deleterious effects upon petitioners' cause. Not
being agricultural lessees of the land, petitioners
may not benefit at all.
Besides, a valid re-classification of the land not only
erases petitioners' supposed leasehold rights; it
renders them illegal occupants and ​sowers in bad
faith​ thereof, since from the position they have
taken as alleged lessees, they are not the owners of
the land.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed
August 31, 2007 Decision and December 13, 2007
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession Page 4 of 21

29. SOLLA V. ASCUETA ● Neither was there any testamentary
GR No. 24955 proceeding instituted for the settlement of the
Date: September 4, 1926 estate left. Serrano on the other hand did not
Ponente: Villareal deliver anything
Digest Author: Uy ● Plaintiffs Julia Solla, Ambrosio Lagmay, Lucia
Solla etc are the heirs of some of the original
Topic in the Syllabus: legatees (Silvestra Sajor and Rosenda Lagmay)
Testamentary Succession (Arts. 779; 783 – 856) ● Defendants on the other hand are heirs of
Leandro Serrano.
Relevant Law: ● The facts as stated above are because of the
[insert text] stipulation of facts signed by the parties.
● When Solla died, her orders were for Leandro
Doctrine: to deliver the legacies during his lifetime as
In order to determine the testator’s intention, the well as to give sufficient amounts of money to
court should place itself as near as possible in his the church for prayers and novenas every year.
position. Where the language of the will is ● Said will also contained orders to Leandro to
ambiguous or doubtful, the court should take into order the latter’s heirs to fulfill her orders as
consideration the situation of the testator and the well. Leandro occupied the properties left by
facts and circumstances surrounding him at the time Maria without any of the legatees filing a case
the will was executed. for partition or distribution for such a long time
(39 years to be exact).
Parties: ● Leandro died, stating in his will that his heirs
Plaintiffs: should still fulfill Maria’s orders.
Julian Solla and Lucia Solla are heirs of Sergio Solla ● Now the relatives of some of the legatees filed
Ambrosio Lagmay is the heir of deceased Cayetana a case for delivery of their ancestor’s legacies.
Solla ● The RTC sided with them, holding that the
Francisco Serna and Juana Baclig are heirs of action has not prescribed and that Leandro’s
deceased Josefa Solla orders to his relatives to comply with Maria
Pedro Serna and Agapita Serna - heirs of deceased Solla’s order meant that they should deliver
Jacinto Serna the legacies.
Pedro Garcia is nephew and heir of deceased Matias
Savedea NATURE OF THE CASE:

Defendants: ● This is an appeal from the decision of the CFI

Ascueta is the widow of deceased Leandro Serrano
Other defendants are children and heirs of Serrano
FACTS:
● Dona Maria Solla died in June 1883 in the
municipality of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur,
○ leaving a will executed in accordance with
the laws in force,
○ but which has not been probated.
○ It named as legatees:
■ Sergio Solla
■ Cayetano Solla
■ Josefa Solla
■ Jacinto Serna
■ Roesnda Lagmay
■ Silvestra Sajor and Matias Seveda
■ Leandro Serrano (her grandson) as
universal heir
● The legatees did not claim their legacies during
the lifetime of Serrano, who was taking
possession of the properties (June 11 1883 to
August 5 1921).
finding the ff:
○ Leandro Serrano during his lifetime
possessed the disputed property, that the
property is sought by the plaintiffs
○ Defendants were ordered to deliver the
same to the plaintiffs together with ½ of
fruits
○ Partition is ordered
● The appeal raised the following errors:
○ Lack of appropriate description of each
parcel of land claimed is a bar to the action
○ The RTC made a mistake in allowing the
attorneys of both parties to agree about
Exhibit A (statements of the estate left by
Maria) when it did not even state a
description of the land being claimed by
plaintiffs
○ The action has already prescribed
○ Paragraph 3 of Leandro Serrano’s will did
not order the delivery of the legacies left by
Maria Solla in her will.
■ RTC erred in applying Leandro
Serrano’s will to mean that every
legacy found in Maria Solla’s will is
ordered delivered.

II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession Page 5 of 21

 ■ A distinction should be made between
those which Leandro should’ve done on
his own and those which his heirs are
still obligated to do
ISSUES:
SEE the raised errors by the appellants [NATURE OF
THE CASE]
RULING:
1st and 2nd arguments:
While Exhibit A did in fact contain some lands which
are proven to be Leandro Serrano’s own, it does not
mean that the other parcels in said Exhibit are not
those left by the deceased
3rd argument/issue:
The SC found it error on the part of the trial court to
disregard the other exhibit is which the parties
agreed to submit to the court. Most relevant of
these is Exhibit 4 which is the record of proceedings
in the municipality of Cabugao where, upon the
instance of Leandro Serrano, a formal renunciation
of the legacies was made by the legatees in Maria
Solla’s will
In addition to that, Leandro was in possession of the
property from June 11 1883 to August 5 1921.
● He even obtained a possessory information,
registered in the Registry of Deeds, exclusively
enjoyed the products of the properties without
anyone judicially or extrajudicially claiming a
title to anything - In one of the possessory
information filed by Serrano, one of the legatees
even testified in support of the petitions
● Thus, under Articles 1940 and 1957 of the Civil
Code, in addition to the Code of Civil Procedure,
the plaintiffs have lost by prescription whatever
right of ownership they have had to the same
because of Serrano’s exclusive, open, peaceful
and continuous possession which was adverse
to all the world for a period of 39 years under
claim of ownership.
5th issue
Maria Solla, in her will, ordered her grandson Leando
Serrano to be her universal heir and to strictly
comply with her orders and requests in her will.
In his last will on the other hand, Leandro Serrano
ordered his son, as executor to separate all of his
property that came from his grandmother and to
comply with her orders.
What are the requests that Maria Solla wanted to be
complied with?
● 1st there is the distribution of the legacies
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
● 2nd is the delivery of a sufficient sum of money
to the parish of Cabugao for the annual novena
● 3rd that Leandro order his heirs to comply as
well with her orders
Now, all that Leandro could have and should have
done was to deliver the legacies and order his
relatives to comply with the wishes of his
grandmother.
What then are Leandro’s heirs liable for?
It is not logical to conclude that Maria Solla intended
that all the orders should be complied with by the
heirs of Leandro. That was why she chose Leandro,
because the trusted him to do her wishes during his
lifetime.
The only obligation left for the heirs to do is to
regularly give money to the parish of Cabugao.
In order to determine the testator’s intention, the
court should place itself as near as possible in his
position.
Where the language of the will is ambiguous or
doubtful, the court should take into consideration
the situation of the testator and the facts and
circumstances surrounding him at the time the will
was executed.
Where the testator’s intention is manifest in his will
but is obscured by the mode of expression, the
language will be subordinated to the intention and in
order to give effect to such intention, the court may
depart from the strict wording
Thus, in this case, it clearly appears that Maria Solla
meant that Leandro Serrano’s heirs only comply with
the pious orders. Her statement in the will therefore
“all that I have ordered” as well as the statement in
Leandro’s will saying “all her orders” must be limited
to the pious orders.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that
the judgment appealed from must be, as hereby,
reversed in all its parts and the complaint dismissed
Page 6 of 21
30. VDA. DE VILLANUEVA VS. JUICO
GR No. L-15737
Date ​Feb. 28, 1962
Ponente: JBL Reyes
Digest Author: Charry
Topic in the Syllabus:
[insert text]
Relevant Law:
ART. 791. The words of a will are to receive an
interpretation which will give to every expression
some effect, rather than one which will render any
of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of
interpreting a will, that one is to be preferred which
will prevent intestacy."
Doctrine:
[insert text]
Decedent: [insert text]
Will: ​[No will.] / [If Yes, paste the text of the will
here].
Parties:
Don Nicolas Villaflor (Granduncle
Fausta Nepomuceno (Widow of Don Nicolas)
Leonor Villaflor Vda. de Villanueva (Grandniece)
Juico (Judicial Administrator of the estate of Fausta)
FACTS:
● Don Nicolas Villaflor, executed a will in Spanish
in his own handwriting,
○ devising and bequeathing in favor of his
wife, Doña Fausta Nepomuceno, one-half of
all his real and personal properties,
○ giving the other half to his brother Don
Fausto Villaflor.
● Doña Fausta Nepomuceno received the
ownership and possession of a considerable
amount of real and personal estate.
○ By virtue of the said project of partition,
she received the use and possession of all
the real and personal properties
mentioned and referred to in Clause 7th of
the will with the condition that “... she
does not remarry, otherwise the
properties will pass to my grandniece.”,
Leonor Villaflor.
○ Doña Fausta died without contracting a
second marriage and without having
begotten any child.
○ Her estate is being settled with Delfin Juico
as the duly appointed and qualified judicial
administrator.
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
● Leonor wanted to retrieve said properties in
Clause 7th of Don Nicolas’ will that was
inherited by Doña Fausta.
● However, Juico contended that since Fausta
never remarried then she cannot get the said
properties because the title to the properties
became absolutely vested upon death of Doña
Fausta.
ISSUES:
WON Leonor is entitled to the ownership of the
property mentioned in the Clause 7th of the will
upon the Death of Doña Fausta [YES]
RULING:
Leonor can get the property even if Doña Fausta
never remarried.
ART. 791. The words of a will are to receive an
interpretation which will give to every expression
some effect, rather than one which will render any
of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of
interpreting a will, that one is to be preferred which
will prevent intestacy.
In re Estate of Calderon, 26 Phil., 233:​ The intention
and wishes of the testator, when clearly expressed in
his will, constitute the fixed law of interpretation,
and all questions raised at the trial, relative to its
execution and fulfillment, must be settled in
accordance therewith, following the plain and literal
meaning of the testator's words, unless it clearly
appears that his intention was otherwise.
Leonor is the ​reversionary legatee​, as already
shown, the testament of Don Nicolas clearly and
unmistakably provided that his widow should have
the possession and use​ ​of the legacies while alive
and did not remarry.
It necessarily follows that by the express provisions
of the 8th clause of his will, the legacies should pass
to the testator's "sobrinanieta", Leonor, upon the
widow's death, even if the widow never remarried in
her lifetime.
Consequently, the widow had no right to retain or
dispose of the aforesaid properties, and her estate is
accountable to the reversionary legatee for their
return, unless they had been lost due to fortuitous
event, or for their value should rights of innocent
third parties have intervened.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from
is reversed, and the appellant Leonor Villaflor Vda.
de VILLANUEVA is declared entitled to the ownership
and fruits of the properties described in clause 7 of
the will or testament, from the date of the death of
Page 7 of 21
Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. The records are ordered
remanded to the court of origin for liquidation,
accounting and further proceedings conformably to
this decision. Costs against the
Administrator-appellee.

II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession Page 8 of 21

31. BALTAZAR v. LAXA
G.R. No. 174489
Date ​April 11, 2012
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO,J.
Digest Author: Biag
Topic in the Syllabus:
Testamentary Succession (Arts. 779; 783 – 856)
Relevant Law:
Art. 805.​ Every will, other than a holographic will,
must be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself or by the testator's name written by
some other person in his presence, and by his
express direction, and attested and subscribed by
three or more credible witnesses in the presence of
the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write
his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will,
shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page
thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all
the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters
placed on the upper part of each page.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used
upon which the will is written, and the fact that the
testator signed the will and every page thereof, or
caused some other person to write his name, under
his express 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 witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
Art. 806​. Every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The
notary public shall not be required to retain a copy
of the will, or file another with the Office of the Clerk
of Court.
Art. 799.​ To be of sound mind, it is not necessary
that the testator be in full possession of all his
reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly
unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease,
injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the
time of making the will to know the nature of the
estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his
bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
Art. 800.​ The law presumes that every person is of
sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
The burden of proof that the testator was not of
sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is
on the person who opposes the probate of the will;
but if the testator, one month, or less, before
making his will was publicly known to be insane, the
person who maintains the validity of the will must
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
prove that the testator made it during a lucid
interval.
Doctrine:
It is incumbent upon those who oppose the probate
of a will to clearly establish that the decedent was
not of sound and disposing mind at the time of the
execution of said will. Otherwise, the state is
duty-bound to give full effect to the wishes of the
testator to distribute his estate in the manner
provided in his will so long as it is legally tenable.
Decedent: Paciencia Regala
Will: Yes. Lorenzo was assigned as administrator.
Fourth - In consideration of their valuable services to
me since then up to the present by the spouses
LORENZO LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA, I hereby
BEQUEATH, CONVEY and GIVE all my properties
enumerated in parcels 1 to 5 unto the spouses
LORENZO R. LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA and their
children, LUNA LORELLA LAXA and KATHERINE LAXA,
and the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa
both of legal age, Filipinos, presently residing at
Barrio Sta. Monica, [Sasmuan], Pampanga and their
children, LUNA LORELLA and KATHERINE ROSS LAXA,
who are still not of legal age and living with their
parents who would decide to bequeath since they are
the children of the spouses;
xxxx
[Sixth] - Should other properties of mine may be
discovered aside from the properties mentioned in
this last will and testament, I am also bequeathing
and giving the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa
and Corazon F. Laxa and their two children and I also
command them to offer masses yearly for the repose
of my soul and that of D[]a Nicomeda Regala,
Epifania Regala and their spouses and with respect
to the fishpond situated at San Antonio, I likewise
command to fulfill the wishes of D[]a Nicomeda
Regala in accordance with her testament as stated in
my testa​ ment. x x x
Parties:
*The filial relationship of Lorenzo with Paciencia
remains undisputed. Lorenzo is Paciencias nephew
Page 9 of 21
whom she treated as her own son. Conversely,
Lorenzo came to know and treated Paciencia as his
own mother.​ ​Paciencia lived with Lorenzos family in
Sasmuan, Pampanga and it was she who raised and
cared for Lorenzo since his birth. Six days after the
execution of the Will or on September 19, 1981,
Paciencia left for the United States of America (USA).
There, she resided with Lorenzo and his family until
her death on January 4, 1996.
OPPOSITORS:
(relationship to the testatrix established only by
testimony)
● Antonio Baltazar (Antonio) - stated that
Paciencia is his aunt
● Sebastian M. Baltazar
● Virgilio Regala, Jr.
● Nenita A. Pacheco
● Felix B. Flores
● Rafael Titco
● Rosie M. Mateo (Rosie) - testified that her
mother and Paciencia were first cousins
● Antonio L. Mangalindan
FACTS:
● Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she
made her last will and testament entitled ​Tauli
Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala
(Will) in the Pampango dialect on September 13,
1981.
● The Will, executed in the house of retired Judge
Ernestino G. Limpin (Judge Limpin), was read to
Paciencia twice.
● After which, Paciencia expressed in the
presence of the instrumental witnesses that the
document is her last will and testament.
● She thereafter affixed her signature at the end
of the said document on page 3​ ​and then on the
left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof.
● The witnesses to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba
A. Limpin (Dra. Limpin), Francisco Garcia
(Francisco) and Faustino R. Mercado (Faustino).
● Childless and without any brothers or sisters,
Paciencia bequeathed all her properties to
respondent Lorenzo Laxa and his wife Corazon
Laza and their children Luna and Katherine.
○ Lorenzo is Paciencia’s nephew whom she
treated as her own son.
○ Lorenzo came to know and treated
Paciencia as his own mother.
● Six days after the execution of the Will (Sept. 19,
1981), Paciencia left for USA.
○ There, she resided with Lorenzo and his
family until her death on Jan. 4, 1996.
○ In the interim, the Will remained in the
custody of Judge Limpin.
● More than 4 years after the death of Paciencia
or on Apr. 27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a petition with
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of
the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of
Letters of Administration in his favor.
● There being no opposition to the petition after
its due publication, the RTC issued an Order on
June 13, 2000 allowing Lorenzo to present
evidence on June 22, 2000.
○ On said date, Dra. Limpin testified that she
was one of the instrumental witnesses in
the execution of the last will and testament
of Paciencia on September 13, 1981.
● The Will was executed in her fathers (Judge
Limpin) home office, in her presence and of two
other witnesses, Francisco and Faustino.
○ Dra. Limpin positively identified the Will
and her signatures on all its four pages.
○ She likewise positively identified the
signature of her father appearing thereon.
● On Jun 23, 2000 one of petitioners, Antonio
Baltazar filed an opposition to Lorenzo’s
petition.
○ Antonio averred that the properties subject
of Paciencia’s Will belong to Nicomeda
Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest;
○ hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath
them to Lorenzo.
○ Petitioners also opposed the issuance of
Letters of Administration in Lorenzos favor
arguing that Lorenzo was disqualified to be
appointed as such, he being a citizen and
resident of the USA.
○ Petitioners prayed that Letters of
Administration be instead issued in favor of
Antonio.
● Petitioners filed an amended opposition asking
the RTC to deny the probate of Paciencia’s will
on the ff. Grounds:
○ the Will was not executed and attested to
in accordance with the requirements of
the law;
○ that Paciencia was mentally incapable to
make a Will at the time of its execution;
○ that she was forced to execute the Will
under duress or influence of fear or
threats;
○ that the execution of the Will had been
procured by undue and improper pressure
and influence by Lorenzo or by some other
persons for his benefit;
○ that the signature of Paciencia on the Will
was forged;
○ that assuming the signature to be genuine,
it was obtained through fraud or trickery;
and,
○ that Paciencia did not intend the
document to be her Will.
Page 10 of 21
 ● On direct examination, Rosie Mateo
testified that Paciencia is in the state of
being “mangulyan” or forgetful making her
unfit for executing a will and that the
execution of the will had been procured by
undue and improper pressure and
influence.
● Antonio also testified that He identified the
Will and testified that he had seen the said
document before because Paciencia
brought the same to his mother’s house
and showed it to him along with another
document on September 16, 1981.
○ Antonio alleged that when the
documents were shown to him, the
same were still unsigned.
○ According to him, Paciencia thought
that the documents pertained to a
lease of one of her rice lands, and it
was he who explained that the
documents were actually a special
power of attorney to lease and sell her
fishpond and other properties upon her
departure for the USA, and a Will which
would transfer her properties to
Lorenzo and his family upon her death.
○ Upon hearing this, Paciencia allegedly
uttered the following words: ​Why will I
never [return], why will I sell all my
properties? Who is Lorenzo? Is he the
only [son] of God? I have other relatives
[who should] benefit from my
properties. Why should I die already?
● RTC denied the petition for the probate of the
will ​and disallowed the notarized will of
Paciencia.
○ The trial court gave considerable weight to
the testimony of Rosie and concluded that
at the time Paciencia signed the Will, she
was no longer possessed of sufficient
reason or strength of mind to have
testamentary capacity.
● CA reversed the RTC Decision​ and granted the
probate of the Will of Paciencia.
○ The appellate court did not agree with the
RTCs conclusion that Paciencia was of
unsound mind when she executed the Will.
○ It avers that the state of being ​magulyan
does not make a person mentally unsound
so [as] to render [Paciencia] unfit for
executing a Will.
○ Oppositors in the probate proceedings were
not able to overcome the presumption that
every person is of sound mind and no
concrete circumstances or events were
given to prove the allegation that Paciencia
was tricked or forced into signing the Will.
ISSUES:
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
1. Whether or not the authenticity and due
execution of the notarial Will was
sufficiently established to warrant its
allowance for probate. ​[YES.]
2. Whether or not the court of appeals gravely
erred in ruling that petitioners failed to
prove that paciencia was not of sound mind
at the time the will was allegedly executed.
[NO.]
RULING:
Faithful compliance with the formalities
laid down by law is apparent from the face of the
Will.
Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity
pertains to whether the testator, being of sound
mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law. These formalities are
enshrined in ​Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil
Code. (see Relevant Law)
A careful examination of the face of the Will shows
faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by
law.
The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her
instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all
present and evident on the Will.
Further, the attestation clause explicitly states the
critical requirement that the testatrix and her
instrumental witnesses attested and subscribed to
the Will in the presence of the testator and of one
another.
In fact, even the petitioners acceded that the
signature of Paciencia in the Will may be authentic
although they question of her state of mind when
she signed the same as well as the voluntary nature
of said act.
The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound
mind at the time of the execution of the will lies on
the shoulders of the petitioners.
Petitioners, through their witness Rosie, claim that
Paciencia was ​magulyan​ or forgetful so much so that
it effectively stripped her of testamentary capacity.
There was no showing that Paciencia was publicly
known to be insane one month or less before the
making of the Will. Clearly, thus, the burden to prove
that Paciencia was of unsound mind lies upon the
shoulders of petitioners.
The SC agreed with the position of the CA that the
state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a
person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit
Page 11 of 21
to execute a Will. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no matter
being of unsound mind. ​(Art.799 see Relevant Law) how forceful, if not based on concrete and
substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the
Apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining to Court to uphold said allegations.
Paciencias forgetfulness, there is no substantial
evidence, medical or otherwise, that would show DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of
the execution of the Will. WHEREFORE​, the petition is ​DENIED​. The Decision
dated June 15, 2006 and the Resolution dated
On the other hand, the SC finds more worthy of August 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
credence Dra. Limpins testimony as to the CV No. 80979 are ​AFFIRMED​.
soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter went SO ORDERED.
to Judge Limpins house and voluntarily executed the
Will. The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will
concerning the testators mental condition is entitled
to great weight where they are truthful and
intelligent.

A testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the

time of the execution of the Will and the burden to
prove otherwise lies on the oppositor. ​(Art. 800 see
Relevant Law)

Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear or

threats, undue and improper influence and
pressure, fraud and trickery cannot be used as basis
to deny the probate of a will.

Petitioners claim that Paciencia was forced to

execute the Will under duress or influence of fear or
threats;
that the execution of the Will had been procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence by
Lorenzo or by some other persons for his benefit;
and
that assuming Paciencias signature to be genuine, it
was obtained through fraud or trickery.

These are grounded on the alleged conversation

between Paciencia and Antonio on September 16,
1981 wherein the former purportedly repudiated the
Will and left it unsigned.

The SC did not give weight to this. It took into

consideration the unrebutted fact that Paciencia
loved and treated Lorenzo as her own son and that
love even extended to Lorenzos wife and children.

This kind of relationship is not unusual. It is in fact

not unheard of in our culture for old maids or
spinsters to care for and raise their nephews and
nieces and treat them as their own children. The
very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo and
lived with him both here and abroad, even if the
latter was already married and already has children,
highlights the special bond between them. This
unquestioned relationship between Paciencia and
the devisees tends to support the authenticity of the
said document.

II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession Page 12 of 21

32. TORRES vs. LOPEZ
GR No. L-24569
Date: Feb. 26, 1926
Ponente: Malcolm, J.
Digest Author: de Vera
Topic in the Syllabus:
Compulsory Succession
Relevant Law:
Doctrine:
As a rule, the Code of Civil Procedure provides that,
for a will to be allowed, the testator must be “of
sound mind.”
Decedent: Tomas Rodriguez
Will:
● This WILL, consisting of one page, provided:
○ Vicente Lopez & Luz Lopez de Bueno
(petitioner, and Rodriguez’ niece through
Lopez) were the “only universal heirs” to
all his property;
○ Manuel Torres (petitioner herein) and
Santiago Lopez were appointed executors.
● It was executed on January 3, 1924, and
witnessed by Santiago Lopez and Dr. de Asis as
attesting witnesses, and in the presence of
several others.
FACTS:
● February 25, 1924: Tomas Rodriguez died in
Manila, leaving a considerable estate.
● Petitioner Torres is one of the executors named,
who applied to allow the will to probate.
● Respondent Lopez, first cousin of the decedent,
opposed the application on the grounds that:
○ The testator was without capacity to
execute the will, having been under
guardianship on account of​ senile dementia;​
○ Undue influence had been exercised by the
beneficiaries of the will; and,
○ The signature of Rodriguez was obtained
through fraud and deceit.
● After trial, the lower court denied the entry of
the will into probate, on account of Rodriguez’
mental condition at the time the will was signed.
○ Additionally, witness testimony established
that Rodriguez was misled into signing the
document, thinking it was related to a
complaint he had filed against one Castito.
○ Hence, the instant suit before the SC, where
the parties presented their respective
evidence.
● What is undisputed by any party is that on
January 3, 1924:
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
○ Tomas Rodriguez was 76 years of age,
confined to PGH, and afflicted with anemia,
hernia inguinal, chronic dypsia, and senility.
○ All the doctors involved testified that
Rodriguez was senile, that his memory for
events in the distant past was generally
good, but that he was also “given to
irrational exclamations symptomatic of a
deceased mind.”
On Testamentary Capacity
● Prior to his death, Rodriguez had suffered from
poor health, on account of his advancing years
(i.e. he was 76 years of age at the time of his
death), and had suffered an accident in 1921. In
1923, Vicente Lopez, his cousin, had been
appointed his guardian & administrator.
● In connection with this poor health, Rodriguez,
was taken to PGH in November 1923, where he
remained until his demise.
● The testimony of his physicians established the
following:
○ He was secluded from most visitors, except
a specified list of persons, which included
petitioners, but DID NOT include
respondents herein.
○ Witnesses who saw him in his last days
testified that he wished to execute a will,
for which reason Rodriguez & Vicente
Lopez, his cousin, guardian, & property
administrator, met Judge Maximino Mina,
who helped write a rough draft, which was
deposited with Santiago Lopez.
● This WILL, consisting of one page, provided:
○ Vicente Lopez & Luz Lopez de Bueno
(petitioner, and Rodriguez’ niece through
Lopez) were the “only universal heirs” to all
his property;
○ Manuel Torres (petitioner herein) and
Santiago Lopez were appointed executors.
● It was executed on January 3, 1924, and
witnessed by Santiago Lopez and Dr. de Asis as
attesting witnesses, and in the presence of
several others.
○ Dr. Bonoan​, who was present, testified
before the court that Rodriguez was told to
sign the will because it was related to his
complaint against Castito,[2] and that the
will was not in fact read to him.
○ Meanwhile, ​Vicente Legarda​, in conformity
with all others present at the execution of
the will, testified that the will was read by
Rodriguez, and read ​to​ him, and signed it[3]
on his own prompting.
○ Dr. Calderon​, Director of PGH, who was also
present, testified that Rodriguez signed the
will without hesitation or prompting, and
that nothing was said of any complaint
against Castito.[4]
Page 13 of 21
● The SC held that there was ​a clear
preponderance of evidence​ in favor of the
testimony of Vicente Legarda.
● After Rodriguez’ death, the factions of the Lopez
family prepared their respective suits over his
estate.
On Undue Influence
● An additional allegation was made that Vicente
F. Lopez, Rodriguez’ administrator and guardian,
manipulated Rodriguez so that he and his
daughter would—and were—be constituted the
sole heirs of the testator.
ISSUE:
1. WON the Testator possessed the necessary
Testamentary Capacity to execute the will.
YES
2. WON the Testator’s signature was
obtained through Undue Influence. NO
RULING:
On Testamentary Capacity
“Testamentary Capacity,” or the capacity to
execute documents creating testamentary
relations, is defined as “the capacity to
comprehend the nature of the transaction in which
the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the
property to be disposed of and the persons who
would naturally be supposed to have claims upon
the testator, and to comprehend the manner in
which the instrument will distribute his property
among the objects of his bounty.”
As a rule, the Code of Civil Procedure provides that,
for a will to be allowed, the testator must be “of
sound mind.” In fact, insanity or mental incapability
is one of the grounds to disallow a will. This is
determined as of the date of the execution of his will
(Civil Code, Art. 666).
The general presumption is that every adult is sane,
and therefore capacitated. Given that guardianship
only raises a presumption of incapacity to make a
will (i.e. it does not invalidate the testament if
competency is shown), the burden of providing
sanity lies with the proponents.
In the vast majority of cases questioning the mental
capacity of a testator to execute a will, the Supreme
Court has almost overwhelmingly allowed the
testaments therein, showing “great tenderness on
the part of the court towards the last will and
testament of the aged.”
The rule on capacity was enunciated as follows: “To
constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
unimpaired or unshattered by disease or otherwise
or that the testator should be in the full possession
of his reasoning faculties.”
The SC held that on the date that the will was
executed, Rodriguez comprehended the nature of
the transaction into which he entered.
○ His conferences with Judge Mina indicate clearly
his intent to execute a will, and indeed the
dispositions he intended to make.
○ His signing of the will was proven by competent
and trustworthy witnesses.
○ Occasional lapses in his memory, and only of
matters such as the names of his relatives, do
not suffice to indicate testamentary incapacity.
In conclusion: “Tomas Rodriguez may have been of
advanced years, may have been physically decrepit,
may have been weak in intellect, may have suffered
a loss of memory, may have had a guardian and may
have a been extremely eccentric, but he still
possessed the spark of reason and of life, that
strength of mind to form a fixed intention and to
summon his enfeebled thoughts to enforce that
intention, which the law terms ‘testamentary
capacity.’”
On Undue Influence
● In this case, it is clear that Rodriguez
reposed great the trust in Lopez, as was
made apparent by the limitation on visitors
on his deathbed.
● Additionally, the SC found it hard to believe
that “men of the standing of Judge Mina,
Doctors Calderon, Domingo, Herrera, and
De Asis and Mr. Legarda” would willfully
participate in the betrayal of Rodriguez’
wishes in the manner alleged herein.
● One of the grounds for disallowing a will is
that it was procured by undue influence.
○ Undue influence, as here
mentioned in connection with the
law of wills and as further
mentioned in the, may be defined
as that which compelled the
testator to do that which is against
the will from fear the desire of
peace or from other feeling which
is unable to resist.
● The theory of undue influence is ​totally
rejected​ as not proved.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Page 14 of 21
33. DELA PUERTA v. CA
GR No. 77867
Date ​Feb 6 1990
Ponente: Cruz
Digest Author: Lim
Topic in the Syllabus:
Testamentary Succession; Intestate Succession
Relevant Law:
Art. 970.​ Representation is a right created by fiction
of law, by virtue of which the representative is raised
to the place and the degree of the person
represented, and acquires the rights which the latter
would have if he were living or if he could have
inherited
Art. 992​. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit
ab intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from
the illegitimate child.
Doctrine:
There is representation only when relatives of a
deceased person try to succeed him in his rights
which he would have had if still living.
Decedent: Dominga Revuelta
Will: ​Yes, the will appointed Isabel as executrix and
gave her the free portion in addition to her legitime.
Parties:
FACTS:
● Dominga Revuelta died on July 3, 1966,
○ with a will
○ leaving her properties to her 3 surviving
children (Alfredo, Isabel, and Vicente)
● The will appointed Isabel as executrix and was
given the free portion in addition to her
legitime.
● The petition for probate filed by Isabel was
opposed by her brothers.
● Alfredo died leaving Vicente as lone oppositor.
● On August 1974, Vicente filed with CFI of
Quezon to adopt Carmelita which was
subsequently granted
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
○ However, this decision was appealed by
Isabel to CA
● During pendency of appeal, Vicente died
● On Nov 20, 1981 Carmelita was allowed to
intervene in the probate proceedings
○ Carmelita filed for the payment to her of a
monthly allowance as the acknowledged
child of Vicente
● On Nov 12, 1982 Probate court granted motion
and recognized Carmelita as:
○ Vicente’s natural child and
○ was entitled to the amounts claimed for her
support
● Isabel now argues that Carmelita was not the
natural child of Vicente who was married to
Genoveva.
○ She further argued that Carmelita’s real
parents were Juanito and Gloria Jordan.
○ Witness Genoveva identified herself as
Vicente’s wife but said that they had
separated two years after their marriage in
1938.
○ And that in 1962, Gloria Jordan started
living with Vicente in his house.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Carmelita de la Puerta can claim
support and successional rights to the estate of
Dominga Revuelta. ​[NO]
RULING:
Vicente de la Puerta did not predecease his mother
In testamentary succession, the right of
representation can take place only in the following
cases:
1. When the person represented dies before
the testator;
2. When the person represented is incapable
of succeeding the testator;
3. When the person represented is
disinherited by the testator;
In all of these cases, since there is vacancy in the
inheritance, the law calls the children or
descendants of the person represented to succeed
by right of representation.
Not having predeceased his mother, Vicente had the
right to inherit from her directly. No right of
representation was involved, nor could in be invoked
by Carmelita upon her father’s death.
Carmelita is a spurious child of Vicente
As spurious child of Vicente, Carmelita is barred from
inheriting from Dominga because of art. 992 of the
Civil Code.
Page 15 of 21
Art. 992 provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it
prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato
between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother of said
legitimate child.

Even as an adopted child, Carmelita would still be

barred from inheriting from Dominga Revuelta
because there would be no natural kindred ties
between them, and consequently, no legal ties to
bind them either.

Carmelita’s claims for support and inheritance

should therefore be filed in the proceedings for the
settlement of her own father’s estate, and cannot
be considered in the probate of Dominga Revuelta’s
will.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and appealed
decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, with
costs against the private respondent.

II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession Page 16 of 21

34. CORPUS V CORPUS
85 SCRA 567
Date: ​October 23, 1978
Ponente: Aquino, J.
Digest Author: Ollero
Topic in the Syllabus​ :
Intestate Succession
Relevant Law:
Article 992 of the Civil Code which provides that "an
illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives
inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate
child.
Doctrine:
There is no reciprocal succession between legitimate
and illegitimate relatives.
Decedent:​ Teodoro Yangco
Will:​ Yes. Probated.
Relevant Portion (from G.R. No. 47568, 1941)
"Second - I declare that I do not have ascendant heirs
or descendants.
​ ephews Rafael Corpus, Jose V.
"Third - I name my n
Corpus and Ramon Corpus​ by my ​executors​, in the
order of appointment, in case of death, disability or
resignation.
"Fourth - It is my will that all my property, property
and other business that I had at the time of my
death, be preserved in the form that is expressed
below, for which, the legatees in this my testament,
shall intervene in the management and
administration of these businesses, as if they were
partners or members of a mercantile corporation
with capital and paid shares, organized under the
law of corporations, each legatee having a share
equal to the amount of his legacy.
"Ninth - In the determination of net profit, the
accepted principles of accounting will be followed,
but in any case it is my will that benefits will never be
distributed that tend to reduce or reduce capital and
reserve funds.
"Tenth - With the deductions mentioned above in
paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, the remainder of the net
profit of my business will be distributed annually in
the following manner. It will be divided into five
equal parts, of which four fifths will be divided
equally among the following l​ egatees: R ​ afael
Corpus, Amalia Corpus, Jose V. Corpus, Ramon
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
Corpus, ​Enrique Corpus, Soledad Asprer, Reverend
Samuel V. Stagg and Reverend Cipriano Navarro.
"And the other fifth part that remains will also be
divided equally among the following legatees:
[several other persons not parties in this case].
"Undecimo.- No legatee or forced heir may sell,
enrage, transfer, encumber or mortgage or in any
way dispose of his right, interest or participation
specified in this will except for inheritance in favor of
his forced heirs, in accordance with the laws that
they were valid.
"In the case of not having any of the legatees,
descendants or ascendants with the character of
forced heirs, it is my will that the part or legacy that
corresponds to said legatee be reverted to the
common mass of my assets. or they die before me,
one or more legatees and leave descendants or
ascendants with the character of forced heirs, it is
my will that the part or legacy of said legatee or
legatees lies with their descendants or ascendants
cited, in any case, to avoid doubts, when I speak of
legatees, I refer to those I mention by their names
and surnames in this will, and when I speak of forced
heirs or descendants of these legatees I refer to any
descendants of any generation, who had such
legatees as heirs according to the laws.
Parties:
(see diagram)
Pedro Martinez and Juliana de Castro - no
designation. (presumably creditors of Teodoro???)
FACTS:
● Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila at the age of
seventy-seven years.
● His will was probated in Aug. 29, 1934
● Yangco had no forced heirs.
● At the time of his death, his nearest relatives
were
(1) his half brother, Luis R. Yangco,
(2) his half sister, Paz Yangco,
(3) Amalia Corpus, Jose A. V. Corpus, and
Ramon L. Corpus, the children of his half
brother, Pablo Corpus, and
(4) ​Juana (Juanita) Corpus,​ the daughter of his
half brother Jose Corpus.
- Juanita died Oct. 1944.
● Pursuant to the order of the probate court, a
project of partition dated November 26, 1945
was submitted by the administrator and the
legatees named in the will.
Page 17 of 21

The said project was contested on the following
grounds (oppositors):
● Estate of LUIS YANGCO: intestacy should be
declared because the will does not contain an
institution of heir
● JUANITA Corpus, PEDRO MARTINEZ and
JULIANA DE CASTO:
○ the proposed partition was not in
conformity with the will as the testator
intended that the estate should be
CONSERVED and not physically
partitioned.
○ [google translated: the decedent did not
dispose in his will of his property and
business; and that it has been intestate
with respect to them]
The probate court approved the project of partition:
● The will the testator intended to conserve his
properties not in the sense of disposing of them
after his death but for the purpose of preventing
that [such assets were wasted or dissipated by
the legatees];
● if the testator intended a perpetual prohibition
against alienation, that condition would be
regarded [as not laid or not existing].
● [there are no legal or moral reasons for the
succession of Don Teodoro R. Yangco to be
declared intestate]
JUANITA Corpus (deceased), PEDRO MARTINEZ and
JULIANA DE CASTO appealed to CA;
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
● but appeal was dismissed after the legatees
and the appellants entered into ​compromise
agreements,
○ wherein the legatees agreed to pay P35k
■ to PEDRO MARTINEZ,
■ the heirs of PIO CORPUS,
■ the heirs of ISABEL CORPUS, and
■ the heir of JUANITA CORPUS.
○ Tomas Corpus signed as the sole heir of
Juanita Corpus in Oct. 1947.
For the estate of Luis Yangco, a similar​ compromise
agreement​ was entered in Nov. 1947.
The dismissal of the appeal became final and
executory.
Pursuant to the ​compromise agreement ​-
● Tomas Corpus signed a receipt acknowledging
that he received from the Yangco estate P2k as
“settlement in full of my share of the
compromise agreement”.
● The legatees executed an agreement for the
settlement and physical partition of the Yangco
estate which was approved by the probate
court.
● The probate court approved that agreement
and noted that the 1945 project of partition
was pro tanto modified.
TOMAS CORPUS still filed action to recover
JUANITA’s supposed share in Yangco’s intestate
estate, alleging that:
Page 18 of 21
● the dispositions in Yangco’s will cause perpetual
prohibitions upon alienation which rendered it
void under A785, OCC and
● that partition is invalid.
● The decedent’s estate should have been
distributed according to the rules on intestacy.
TC: DISMISS: Res Judicata and laches.
Tomas Corpus appealed to CA; appeal was certified
to SC. Petitioner’s contention: Trial court erred in
holding:
(1) Teodoro Yangco was a natural child;
(2) Teodoro Yangco’s will had been duly legalized;
(3) Plaintiff’s action is barred by res judicata and
laches.
ISSUE:​ WON Juanita Corpus, as REPRESENTED by
TOMAS JR., may inherit from Teodoro Yangco as a
forced heir.
HELD: No​.
JUANITA CORPUS was NOT A LEGAL HEIR of Yangco
because there is NO RECIPROCAL SUCCESSION
between legitimate and illegitimate relatives.
NCC: Art. 992 An illegitimate child has no right to
inherit ab intestate from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from
the legitimate child.
Example (previously decided cases):
● Legitimate relatives of the mother cannot
succeed her illegitimate child.
● The natural child cannot represent his natural
father in the succession to the estate of the
legitimate grandparent.
● The natural daughter cannot succeed to the
estate of her deceased uncle, a legitimate
brother of her natural mother.
The rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate
child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate
family while the legitimate family is, in turn, hated
by the legitimate child. The Law does not recognize
blood tie and seeks to avoid further grounds of
resentment.
TEODORO YANGCO, and 3 other children, was
ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL CHILD and NOT A
LEGITIMATE CHILD, of LUIS RAFAEL YANGCO and
RAMONA ARGUELLES.
The basis of the trial court's conclusion that Teodoro
R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child and
not a legitimate child was the statement in the will
of his father, Luis Rafael Yangco, that Teodoro and
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
his three other children were his acknowledged
natural children.
His [Luis Rafael, Teodoro’s father] exact words are:
[First. I declare that I have four recognized natural
children, called Teodoro, Paz, Luisa and Luis, who are
my only forced heirs]
Therefore, TOMAS CORPUS (Petitioner) had no cause
of action for the recovery of the supposed hereditary
share of his mother, JUANITA CORPUS, as legal heir
in YANGCO’s estate.
Teodoro R. Yangco's half brothers on the Corpus
side, who were legitimate, had no right to succeed to
his estate under the rules of intestacy.
The children of Ramona Arguelles and Tomas
Corpus are presumed to be legitimate.
A marriage is presumed to have taken place
between Ramona and Tomas. ​Semper praesumitur
pro matrimonio.
It is disputably presumed "That a man and a woman
deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage"; "that a
child born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce,
absolute or from bed and board, is legitimate", and
"that things have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of
life" (Rule 131, Rules of Court).
ON VALIDITY OF THE WILL
The will of Luis Rafael, Teodoro’s father was
attested.
Appellant Corpus assails the probative value of the
will -
● which he says is a mere copy of Exhibit 20, as
found in the record on appeal in Special
Proceeding No. 54863.
● it [the will] should not prevail
○ over the presumption of legitimacy found in
section 69, Rule 123 of the old Rules of
Court and
○ over the statement of Samuel W. Stagg in
his biography of Teodoro R. Yangco, that
Luis Rafael Yangco made a second marital
venture with Victoria Obin, implying that he
had a first marital venture with Ramona
Arguelles, the mother of Teodoro.
These contentions have no merit.
The authenticity of the will of Luis Rafael Yangco, as
reproduced in herein and as copied from the
proceeding for the probate of Teodoro R. Yangco's
will, in incontestable.
Page 19 of 21
The said will is part of a public or official judicial
record.

WHEREFORE the lower court's judgment is affirmed.

No costs. SO ORDERED.

35. BICOMONG V. ALMANZA

G.R. No. L-37365

Date: November 29, 1977

Ponente: J. Guerrero
Digest Author: Pajo

Topic: Testamentary Succession; Intestate

Succession

Relevant Law: New Civil Code

Art. 975​. When children of one or more brothers or
sisters of tile deceased survive, they shall inherit
from the latter by representation, if they survive
with their uncles or aunts. But if they alone survive,
FACTS:
they shall inherit in equal portions.
Art. 1006.​ Should brothers and sisters of the full
● Simeon Bagsic was married to Sisenanda
blood survive together with brothers and sisters of
Barcenas and were born three children namely:
the half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share
○ Perpetua Bagsic, Igmedia Bagsic, and
double that of the latter.
Ignacio Bagsic.
Art. 1008.​ Children of brothers and sisters of the half
● Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of her husband
blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in
Simeon Bagsic.
accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and
sisters of the full blood.
● Simeon Bagsic remarried Silvestra Glorioso.
○ Of this second marriage were born two
Doctrine:
children, Felipa Bagsic and Maura Bagsic.
In the absence of defendants, ascendants,
○ Simeon Bagsic and Silvestra Glorioso died.
illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, Article
○ Of the children of the second marriage,
1003 of the New Civil Code provides that collateral
Maura Bagsic died also leaving no heir as
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
her husband died ahead of her.
deceased.
○ Felipa Bagsic, the other daughter of the
second Geronimo Almanza and her
NO WILL from Maura Bagsic
daughter Cristeta Almanza.
○ But five (5) months before the present suit
Parties: Red for Plaintiffs; Blue for Defendant
was filed or on July 23, 1959, Cristeta
Almanza died leaving behind her husband,
the defendant herein Engracio Manese and
her father Geronimo Almanza.

The subject matter concerns the one-half undivided

share of Maura Bagsic in the following described five
(5) parcels of land which she inherited from her
deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso.

● Three sets of plaintiffs filed the complaint on

December 1, 1959 in CFI San Pablo, Laguna
against Geronimo Almanza and Engracio
Menese, namely:
○ Bicomongs, children of Perpetua Bagsic;
○ Tolentinos, children of Igmedia Bagsic;
○ Francisco Bagsic, daughter of Ignacio Bagsic.

II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession Page 20 of 21

● After the death of Maura Bagsic, the
above-described properties passed on to
Cristela Almanza who took charge of the
administration of the properties
● The plaintiffs approached her and requested for
the partition of their aunt's properties.
○ However, they were prevailed upon by
Cristeta Almanza not to divide the
properties yet as the expenses for the last
illness and burial of Maura Bagsic had not
yet been paid.
● Having agreed to defer the partition of the
same, the plaintiffs brought out the subject
again sometime in 1959 only.
○ This time Cristeta Almanza acceded to the
request as the debts, accordingly, had
already been paid. Unfortunately, she died
without the division of the properties
having been effected, thereby leaving the
possession and administration of the same
to the defendants.
CFI ruled in favor of plaintiffs to 10/24 of share of
the 5 properties.
In CA:
● Respondents contend that Art. 995, 1006, and
1008 of the NCC are not applicable.
○ He asserts that in the course of the trial of
the case in the lower court, plaintiffs
requested defendants to admit that Felipa
Bagsic, the sole sister of full blood of Maura
Bagsic, died on May 9. 1955.
○ Since Maura Bagsic died on April 14, 1952,
Felipa succeeded to Maura's estate.
○ In support thereof, he cites Art. 1004 of the
New Civil Code which provides that "should
the only survivors be brothers and sisters of
the full blood, they shall inherit in equal
shares," and
○ he concludes with the rule that the relatives
nearest in degree excludes the more distant
ones. (Art. 962, New Civil Code)
● Plaintiffs-appellees claim -
○ that the date of death of Felipa Bagsic was
not raised as an issue in the trial court.
○ It was even the subject of stipulation of the
parties as clearly shown in the transcript of
the stenographic notes that Felipa Bagsic
died on May 9. 1945.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the facts of the case
have been duly established in the trial court and that
the only issue left for determination is a purely legal
question involving the correct application of the law
and jurisprudence on the matter
ISSUE:
II. B 1 - Testamentary Succession, Intestate Succession
Can the nephews and nieces inherit the property?
YES
RULING:
In the absence of defendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, Article
1003 of the New Civil Code provides that collateral
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased.
It appearing that Maura Bagsic died intestate
without an issue, and her husband and all her
ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded
by the surviving collateral relatives, namely the
daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10)
children of her brother and two (2) sisters of half
blood in accordance with the provision of Art. 975 of
the New Civil Code.
By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned
nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their
own right.
Under the same provision, Art. 975, which makes no
qualification as to whether the nephews or nieces
are on the maternal or paternal line and without
preference as to
whether their relationship to the deceased is by
whole or half blood, the sole niece of whole blood of
the deceased does not exclude the ten nephews and
n of half blood.
The only difference in their right of succession is
provided in Art. 1008, NCC in relation to Article 1006
of the New Civil Code , which provisions, in effect,
entitle the sole niece of full blood to a share double
that of the nephews and nieces of half blood.
Dispositive Portion:
We find the judgment of the trial court to be in
consonance with law and jurisprudence.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the trial court is
hereby affirmed. No costs.
Page 21 of 21