1. JOSE RIVERA vs. IAC 4.
4. IAC not erred that Venancio who married Jocson not same person who married Vital, Jose's legitimate mother,
1. Venancio Rivera married to Maria Jocson died; Jose claiming to be only surviving legitimate son of Venancio,
filed Pet. for the issuance of letters of administration over Venancio's estate; opposed by Adelaido, who denied
that Jose was the son of Venancio latter being his father and did not die intestate but in fact left 2 holographic
wills.
2. Adelaido filed, w/ RTC Angeles City, Pet. for probate of wills opposed by Jose; 2 cases were consolidated;
Adelaido appointed as special administrator
3. RTC infav. of Adelaido; Jose Rivera not son of decedent but of different Venancio married to Maria Vital; wills
admitted to probate
4. IAC affirmed RTC
5. Jose’s Cont- presented marriage cert. of Venancio and Maria Vital, his baptismal cert, and testimony of Domingo
that Jose is indeed son; Jose testified that Adelaido considered him half-brother and kissed his hand as sign of
respect and that Adelaido & siblings were illegitimate children, sired by Venancio w/ Maria Jocson
6. Adelaido’s Cont- could not present his parents' marriage cert. because it’s destroyed when town burned on
war,; submitted own Birth Cert., baptismal cert. of deceased; Atty. Regalado affirmed that he knew deceased and
the
ISSUE: W/n probate should be admitted= YES
SC: 1. Adelaido could still rely on presumption of marriage, since it’s not denied that Venancio and Jocson lived
together as husband and wife for many years, begetting 7 children in all during that time.
2. Though Jose presented his parents' marriage cert., Venancio was described therein as son of Florencio.
Presumably, he was not the same Venancio described inbaptismal cert., as son of Magno; even if baptismal cert.
is not conclusive evidence of Venancio's filiation it may be considered to determine his real identity; no evidence
that Venancio's father was called either Magno/Florencio; what’s more likely is that 2/more pesons may live at
same time and bear same name, even in same community.
3. if it’s true that he was the legitimate son of Venancio, why Jose did not assert his right as such when his father
was still alive; If, as he insists, he and Venancio Rivera were on cordial terms, no reason why Venancio did not help
son and instead left Jose to fend for himself as such paternal discrimination is difficult to understand
- Maria Vital’s attitude is less incomprehensible; if she’s legitimate wife she should object when her husband
abandoned her and founded another family by another woman; unnatural for lawful wife to say nothing if she’s
abandoned for another woman; not filed complaint for bigamy/concubinage against Venancio and Jocson; she was
not even presented at RTC
-Having alleged that Jocson's marriage to Venancio was null and void, Jose had burden of proof
5. IAC considered wills valid because it found them be written, dated and signed by testator himself in accord. w/
Art. 810 of NCC; no necessity of presenting 3 witnesses required under Art. 811 because authenticity of wills had
not questioned.
- existence & authenticity of wills were questioned by Jose but flaw is that Jose is not son of Venancio whose estate
is in question. Hence, being mere stranger, no personality to contest wills and his opposition not have legal effect
of requiring 3 witnesses; testimony of Zenaida and Venancio Jr., who authenticated wills as having been written
and signed by their father, was sufficient
2. EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL vs.EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY et al
1. Resps., as devisees and legatees of holographic will of deceased Matilde Vda. de Ramonal, filed w/ the RTC
Misamis Oriental, Pet. for probate of holographic will of deceased
2. Pet. filed opposition- will was forged; third hand of interested party than "true hand" of Matilde executed will.
3. Resps presented (6) witnesses and documentary evidence;
4. Pet. filed demurrer- resps. failed to establish sufficient factual and legal basis for probate
5. RTC infav. of Pet.- granted the Demurer
6. Resps. filed appeal- reiterating witnesses: a.) Neri- Clerk of Court of CFI Misamis, documents presented bear
signature of deceased for comparison of handwriting of the testatrix; b.) Senon- election registrar of CDO,
produced and identify voter's affid. of decedent; c.) Binanay- deceased was her aunt, and lived w/ her for (11) yrs,
acquired familiarity w/ deceased’s signature and handwriting as she used to accompany her in collecting rentals;
d.) Fiscal Waga- handled all documents signed by deceased; e.)Vedad- employee of DENR, familiar w/signature of
deceased; f.)Calugay- lived w/ deceased since birth, and was adopted by deceased, familiar w/ signature
-will written in Visayan translated in English
7. CA infav. of Resps- even if genuineness of will were contested, Art.811(requirement for the probate of a
contested holographic will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in the will is the
genuine signature of the testator) is permissive; Resps. & other witnesses testified that handwriting and signature
in will were of testator herself w/c is unrebutted;
ISSUE: w/n CA is correct that Art. 811 is permissive= NO. It’s mandatory
SC: 1. "shall" connotes mandatory order.
-Rationale: give effect to wishes of deceased and evil is possibility that unscrupulous individuals for their benefit
will employ means to defeat the wishes of testator
2. not all witnesses presented by resps. testified explicitly that they were familiar w/ handwriting of testator
- Neri- merely identified record of Spec. Pro.; not presented to declare explicitly that sign. appearing in will was
that deceased; Senon- voter's affidavit not even produced as no longer available; Binanay- what she saw were pre-
prepared receipts & letters of deceased, w/c she either mailed or gave to her tenants; did not declare that she saw
deceased sign it, will not found in personal belongings of deceased but in possession of Binanay who kept said fact
from Pets who are the legally adopted children of deceased, such actions put in issue her motive of keeping will a
secret to Pets. and revealing it only after the death of deceased; Calugay- only reason why she was familiar w/
handwriting of deceased was because she lived w/ her since birth; never declared that she saw deceased write
note/ sign docu.; Fiscal Waga- not certain
3. SC cannot eliminate possibility of false document being adjudged as will of testator, w/c is why if holographic
will is contested, law requires 3 witnesses to declare that will was in the handwriting of deceased; will not in the
personal belongings of deceased but w/ one resps., who kept it even before death of the deceased. In the
testimony of Ms. Binanay, she revealed that the will was in her possession as early as 1985, or 5 years before death
of deceased
4. no opportunity for expert to compare signature and handwriting of deceased w/ other documents; only chance
at comparison was during cross-exam. of Ms. Binanay when lawyer of Pets. asked Ms. Binanay to compare
documents w/c contained signature of deceased w/ that of will and she’s not handwriting expert; Even former
lawyer of deceased expressed doubts as to authenticity of signature in holographic will
5. visual exam. of will convince us that strokes are diff. when compared w/ other documents written by testator;
signature of testator in some of disposition not readable; there were uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on
will.
6. Comparing the signature in holographic will and the signatures in documents such as application letter for
pasture permit and a letter, 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. We, therefore, cannot be certain
that ruling holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased
3. SPS. ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO VS. CA & CLEMENTE SAND
1. Annie Sand left will w/c named as devisees: Pets, Resp, Meriam S. Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe
Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr., & their children.
2. Pet. instituted Spec Pro for allowance of Annie's will alleging she’s of sound and disposing mind, not acting under
duress, fraud
3. Resp. opposed Pet.-neither testament's body nor signature was in Annie’s handwriting; it contained alterations,
corrections not duly signed by Annie; procured by Pet thru improper pressure and undue influence.
-Pet. also opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. As regards disposition of house and lot in Cabadbaran Agusan del Norte
claiming that said property not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.
4. RTC infav. of Pet; admitted holographic will to probate; it must decide only question of identity of will, its due
execution and testamentary capacity of testatrix, no reason for disallowance of will; no evidence that will is diff.
from will actually executed; only objections are that will not written in handwriting of testatrix w/c refers to due
execution, not to identity of will; no other will was alleged to be executed by testatrix; Pets. satisfactorily shown
that will was written entirely, dated and signed in the handwriting of testatrix; (3) witnesses were presented and
identified handwriting; Clemente testified that testatrix was completely in her sound mind around time will in
question was executed by the testatrix; testatrix even identified Lot No. and square meters of lots
5. CA infav. of Sand; reversed RTC; Pet. for probate dismissed; will did not comply w/ Arts 813 and 814 NCC; certain
dispositions in will were either unsigned&undated, or signed but not dated; erasures, alterations and cancellations
not authenticated by decedent.
ISSUE: W/n CA is correct in dismissing the Petr. For Probate= NO.
SC: 1. Rule 76, Sec.9- grounds for disallowance of will: a) not executed and attested;b.) testator was insane, or mentally incapable
to make will, at its execution;c.) executed under duress, influence of fear, or threats;d.) procured by undue and improper
pressure and influence, on beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit;e.) signature was procured by fraud or trick, and
he did not intend that instrument should be his will at the time of fixing it; the same as Art. 839 of NCC; lists are exclusive;
2. CA erred since object of solemnities surrounding execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity; not the object to restrain and curtail exercise
of right to make a will.
3. For probating non-holographic wills, formal solemnities include subscription, attestation, and acknowledgment requirements
under Arts. 805 and 806 of NCC; for holographic wills, what assures authenticity is requirement that they be totally autographic
or handwritten by testator himself, under Art. 810
4. Art. 813 - affects the validity of dispositions contained in holographic will, but not its probate. If testator fails to sign and date
some of dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. but not render whole testament void.
5. holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance w/ Art. 814; unless unauthenticated
alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on date of holographic will or on testator's signature, their presence does not
invalidate the will itself as lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes.
6. requirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in Arts. 813 and 814 separate from
that necessary conditions for validity of holographic will under Art.810, since only Art. 810 and not Arts. 813 and 814 are essential
to probate of a holographic will.
7. CA is correct that decedent could not validly dispose of house and lot in its entirety
-GR: courts in probate limited to pass only upon extrinsic validity of will sought to be probated.
EXCPTN: courts are not powerless to do what the situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will.
-decedent herself indubitably stated in her will that Cabadbaran property is in name of her late father, John H. Sand (which led
oppositor Dr. Jose Ajero to question her conveyance of the same in its entirety); Hence she cannot validly dispose of whole
property, which she shares with her father's other heirs.