1. Alfonso v. Sps.

Andres (NO)
Topic:

After the execution of the extra judicial settlement, Jose sold the lot
to Spouses Andres, Jose was suffering from partial paralysis and
could no longer sign his name.
Hence, the current petition.

G.R. No. 166236

July 29, 2010
J. Del Castillo

Petitioner: NOLI ALFONSO and ERLINDA FUNDIALAN

Respondent: SPOUSES HENRY and LIWANAG ANDRES

Facts:

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing petitioners complaint NO

Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 10, 2004 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 78362 is AFFIRMED.

Ratio:
On November 5, 2003, petitioners' previous counsel was notified by
the CA to file appellants' brief within 45 days from receipt of the
notice. Before the expiration of the 45-day period, petitioners' former
counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance and petitioners
consented.
On December 19, petitioners asked for a 30-day extension, which
will expire on January 21. Then on March 3, they asked for a 45-day
fresh period to file their appellants brief.
CA issued a resolution noting the withdrawal of petitioners
previous counsel, requiring the petitioner to cause the Entry of
Appearance of its new counsel, and granting an extension of 75-days
from December 21, 2003 or until March 5, 2004.
Appellant received the CA resolution on April 6. Thereafter they
approached PAO to appear as their counsel. However the CA
dismissed petitioners appeal for failure to file the appellants brief.

Based on the later part of the ratio (Sorry gulo ng pagkasulat ng case)
Filomena Santos Vda de Alfonso and Jose Alfonso, father of herein
petitioners, executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate of
Marcelino Alfonso.

1.

Arguments of both parties

Petitioners contend that their failure to file their appellants'
brief within the required period was due to their indigency
and poverty
o They contend that PAO had just entered its
appearance as new counsel for petitioners as
directed by the CA, and had as yet no opportunity
to prepare the brief.
Respondents contend that failure to file appellants' brief on
time is one instance where the CA may dismiss an appeal

2.

Failure to file a brief or memorandum is a ground for dismissal of

Appeal under Rule 50 Section 1 (e).
Rule 50, Sec. 1, (e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file
the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum
within the time provided by these Rules
Petitioners plead for the suspension of the rules and cite a
number of cases where the Court excused the late filing
o The cases cited by petitioners are not in point. In the
present civil case which involves the failure to file
the appellants' brief on time, there is no showing of

3.

4.

5.

6.

any public interest involved nor an injustice will

result from such dismissal.
Poverty is not a justification for delaying a case
Poverty cannot be used as an excuse to justify petitioners'
complacency in allowing months to pass by before exerting
the required effort to find a replacement lawyer.
Both parties have a right to a speedy resolution of their case.
o The failure to file a brief on time was due primarily
to petitioners' unwise choices and not really due to
poverty.
o Petitioners were able to get a lawyer to represent
them despite their poverty, but, it was too late.
No compelling reason to disregard technicalities
Petitioners theorize that publication of the deed of
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Marcelino Alfonso is
required before their father, Jose Alfonso (Jose) could validly
transfer the subject property
The Court is not convinced
o Alejandrino v. Court of Appeals, the Court upheld the
effectivity of a deed of extrajudicial settlement that
was neither notarized nor published.
The title of the property owned by a person who dies intestate
passes at once to his heirs
Such transmission is subject to the claims of administration
and the property may be taken from the heirs for the
purpose of paying debts and expenses, but this does not
prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the death of
the intestate, from himself to his heirs.
o The deed of extrajudicial settlement executed by
Filomena Santos Vda. de Alfonso evinces their
intention to partition the inherited property.
Jose could validly transfer the specific portion of the inherited
property
The sale to respondents was made after the execution of the
deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate
The extrajudicial settlement of estate, even though not
published, being deemed a partition of the inherited
property, Jose can validly transfer it.
The records show that Jose did in fact sell to respondents the
subject property
o Petitioners failed to prove any defect or
irregularities in the execution of the deed of sale.

They failed to prove by strong evidence, the alleged

lack of consent of Jose to the sale of the subject real
property
There is no showing that his mental faculties
were affected in such a way as to negate the
existence of his valid consent to the sale, as
manifested by his thumbmark on the deed
of sale.
Sufficient testimonial evidence in fact shows
that Jose asked respondents to buy the
subject property so that it could be taken out
from the bank to which it was mortgaged.
This fact evinces that Joses mental faculties
functioned intelligently.

Republic of the Philippines, petitioner

vs.
Imee Marcos-Manotoc, Bongbong Marcos, Gregorio Araneta III, Irene
Marcos-Araneta, Yeung Chun Fan, Yeung Chun Ho, Yeung Chun Kam, and
Pantranco Employees Association (PEA) - PTGWO, respondents
G.R. No. 171701 February, 2012
Sereno, J.
Point of the case: UNDER THE RULES OF SUCCESSION, the heirs
instantaneously became CO-OWNERS of the Marcos properties upon the
death of the President. Thus, three causes of action in this case correctly
refer to the Marcos siblings, to wit: (1) to return; and (2) reconvey ill gottenwealth amassed by their father and family as a whole; and (3) to render an
accounting and inventory. As such, they are supposed to be maintained as
respondents.
Facts:
o

After the EDSA People Power Revolution

Former president Aquino created the Presidential Commission
on Good Government (PCGG) pursuant to E.O. 1
The PCGG was created to, among others, run after the ill-gotten
wealth of former president Marcos, his immediate family,
relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located
here or abroad
Thus, several civil and criminal cases were filed
One of which is Civil Case No. 0002 filed in the
Sandiganbayan - the subject of this Petition
July 16, 1987
The PCGG filed a complaint for reversion, reconveyance,
restitution, accounting and damages against Ferdinand Marcos
He was later substituted, after his death, by his estate,
Imelda Marcos, and herein respondents - Imee Marcos,
Irene Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Tomas Manotoc, and
Gregorio Araneta
Throughout the course of the proceedings, the PCGG amended
its complaint three times to add respondents (Co and Yeungs),
etc.

The Allegations in the Complaint

Against Imee Marcos, Tomas Manotoc, Irene Marcos, Gregorio
Araneta and Bongbong Marcos
The following actively collaborated with Ferdinand
Marcos and Imelda Marcos to confiscate and/or
unlawfully appropriate funds and other property
By taking undue advantage of their relationship,
unlawfully acquired or received property, shares of
stocks in corporations, illegal payments, and other forms
of improper privileges
Against Co and the Yeungs (not relevant to succession)
Note: these people were the controlling stockholders of
Glorious Sun Fashion Manufacturing Corporation
Through Glorious Sun, they acted as fronts or dummies,
cronies or otherwise tools of Sps. Marcos and/or the
family, in the illegal salting of foreign exchange by
importing denim fabrics from only one supplier - a
HongKong based corp also owned and controlled by the
defendants, at prices much higher than those sold by
others, to the irreparable damage of Plaintiff
Causes of action in the complaint:
Breach of Public Trust - appropriation of P200M worth of public
funds to themselves
Abuse of Right and Power (Arts. 19-21, CC)
Unjust Enrichment
Accounting - receiving public funds in excess of their legal net
income
Liability for damages - damages against the government and the
people
Intervention (not relevant to succession)
Pantranco Employees Association-PTGWO (PEA-PTGWO), a
union of Pantranco employees moved to intervene before the
Sandiganbayan
They alleged that the trust funds in the account of
Pantranco amounting to P55M rightfully belonged to the
employees, pursuant to the money judgment by the NLRC
They contested the allegation of petitioner that the assets
of Pantranco were ill-gotten, otherwise the assets would
be returned to the government.

Note: all the other "facts" in this case relate to evidence, demurrer,
formal offer of evidence (not relevant to succession)
Formal offer of evidence of petitioner
Respondents contested it as they alleged that it violated
the "best-evidence" rule because they were
unauthenticated
The pieces of evidence were admitted, with some
reservations
Respondents filed demurrers to evidence
Initial Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
Imelda denied
All the rest accepted
Imee Marcos and Bongbong Marcos - their involvement in
the alleged illegal activities was never established
Their relationship to the Marcos spouses was not
enough reason to hold them liable
Irene Marcos and Gregorio Araneta - there was no
testimonial or documentary evidence that supported
petitioner's allegations against the couple
Yeungs - the court found the allegations against them
baseless
PEA-PTGWO - there was a need to first determine the
ownership of the disputed funds before they could be
ordered released
December 20 2005
Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration
They insisted that there was a preponderance of evidence
to show that respondents Marcos siblings and Araneta
had connived with the parents in acquiring the ill-gotten
wealth
It pointed out that the respondents were compulsory
heirs to the deposed President and were thus obliged to
render an accounting and to return the ill-gotten wealth
Motion denied
Hence, this petition

Issues:
o WON the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the demurrers to evidence
filed by Respondents

o
o

o
o

WON Gregorio Araneta and Irene Marcos connived with the former
president in unlawfully acquiring business interests
WON by virtue of them being compulsory heirs, Imee, Bongbong and
Irene are equally obliged to render an accounting and return the
alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses
WON there exists concrete evidence proving that the Yeungs acted as
dummies for the corporation as a conduit in amassing the ill-gotten
wealth
WON the demurrer filed by intervenor PEA-PTGWO should have been
granted
WON the evidence presented by the petitioner are inadmissible

Held:
o

There is some merit in petitioner's complaint

To be clear, the Marcos Siblings are sued in two capacities
As co-conspirators in the alleged accumulation of illgotten wealth
Allegations
the Marcoses personally benefited from the
sequestered media networks IBC-13, BBC-2,
and RPN-9, in which Imee had a substantial
interest
Irene and Gregorio conspired with President
Marcos to allow the latter to be president of
Pantranco, a violation of the 1973
Constitution
As compulsory heirs of their father

Ratio:
o
o

(1) Petitioner failed to observe the best evidence rule

(2) THE MARCOS SIBLINGS ARE COMPULSORY HEIRS
Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court is tasked to
Determine the properties in the Marcos estate that
constitute the alleged ill-gotten wealth
Trace where the properties are
Issue the appropriate orders for the accounting, the
recovery, and the payment of these properties
Determine if the award of damages is proper

o
o

Since the pending case before the Sandiganbayan survives the

death of Ferdinand Marcos, it is imperative that the estate be
duly represented
The Marcos siblings are indispensable parties (Rule 3,
Sec.7, of the RoC) as there can be no final determination
of the case without them
In order to reach a final determination of the case - that
is, the accounting and the recovery of ill-gotten wealth the present case must be maintained against the Marcos
siblings, as executors of the Marcos estate
UNDER THE RULES OF SUCCESSION, the heirs instantaneously
became CO-OWNERS of the Marcos properties upon the death
of the President.
The property rights and obligations to the extent of the
value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted to
another through the decedent's death
In this concept, nothing prevents the heirs from exercising
their right to transfer or dispose of the properties that
constitute their legitimes, even absent their declaration or
absent the partition or distribution of the estate
The petitioner's prayer in its Third Amended Complaint directly
refers to herein respondents, to wit
As to the first and second causes of action: to return and
reconvey to Plaintiff all funds and other property
acquired that are ill-gotten
As to the fourth cause of action: to individually render to
this Honorable Court a complete accounting and
inventory
IN SUM, the Marcos siblings are maintained as respondents
because:
The action pending before the Sandiganbayan is one that
survives death, and, therefore, the rights to the estate
must be duly protected
They allegedly control, possess or own ill-gotten wealth,
though their direct involvement in accumulating or
acquiring such wealth may not have been proven
The allegations against the Yeungs were found to be baseless
The PEA-PTGWO Demurrer to Evidence was granted primarily as a
consequence of the prosecution's failure to establish that the assets
of Pantranco were ill-gotten, as discussed earlier

Succession:*Arts.*7812783*
1.*BALUS*v.*BALUS*(NO)*
Topic:*Article(781(
(
G.R.(No.(168970(
January(15,(2010(
J.#Peralta#
#
Petitioner:*CELESTINO(BALUS(
Respondent:* SATURNINO( BALUS( and( LEONARDA( BALUS( VDA.( DE(
CALUNOD(
(
Facts:(
The(parties(of(this(case(are(the(children(of(the(spouses(Rufo(
and(Sebastiana(Balus.(
In(1979,(Rufo(mortgaged(a(parcel(of(land,(which(he(owns,(as(
security(for(a(loan(he(obtained(from(the(Rural(Bank(of(Maigo,(
Lanao(del(Norte((Bank).(
o Rufo( failed( to( pay( his( loan,( the( land( was( foreclosed(
and( was( subsequently( bought( by( the( bank( as( the(
highest(bidder.((
In( October( 1989,( the( parties( of( this( case,( executed( an(
extrajudicial( settlement( of( estate( adjudicating( to( each( of(
them(a(specific(oneWthird(portion(of(the(subject(property.(
o The(parties(also(admitted(the(fact(of(the(mortgage(by(
their(father(and(that(they(intend(to(redeem(it(as(soon(
as(possible.(
Three( years( after( the( execution( of( the( Extrajudicial(
Settlement,( herein( respondents( (Saturnino( and( Leonarda)(
bought(the(subject(property(from(the(Bank.(

A( deed( of( sale( was( executed( and( a( Transfer(

Certificate( of( title( was( issued( in( the( names( of(
respondents.((
Respondents( informed( the( petitioner( that( they( are( the( new(
owners(but(the(latter(refused(to(surrender(possession(of(the(
same.( After( that( complaint( for( Recovery( of( Possession( and(
damages(was(filed(against(petitioner.(
RTC( held( that( the( right( of( petitioner( to( purchase( from( the(
respondents( his( share( in( the( disputed( property( was(
recognized( by( the( provisions( of( the( Extrajudicial( Settlement(
of(Estate.(
CA( ruled( that( when( petitioner( and( respondents( did( not(
redeem( the( subject( property( within( the( redemption( period(
and(allowed(the(consolidation(of(ownership(and(the(issuance(
of( a( new( title( in( the( name( of( the( Bank,( their( coWownership(
was(extinguished.(
(
Hence(the(present(petition(
o

(
Issue:(
WON( coWownership( of( the( parties( still( existed( up( to( the( time( it( was(
bought(by(respondents((NO(
(
Held:*
WHEREFORE,(the(instant(petition(is(DENIED.((The(assailed(Decision(of(
the(Court(of(Appeals,(dated(May(31,(2005(in(CAWG.R.(CV(No.(58041,(is(
AFFIRMED.(
*
Ratio:*
1.(Petitioners(arguments;(intention(to(continue(coWownership(
Petitioner( argues( that( the( extrajudicial( settlement( is( the( law(
between(parties(

It( contains( a( provision( whereby( the( parties( agreed( to(

continue( their( coWownership( of( the( subject( property( by(
redeeming(or(repurchasing(the(same(from(the(Bank.(
2.(The(court(is(not(persuaded(by(the(parties(arguments(
Both( parties( are( arguing( on( the( wrong( premise( that,( at( the(
time( of( the( execution( of( the( Extrajudicial( Settlement,( the(
subject(property(formed(part(of(the(estate(of(their(deceased(
father(to(which(they(may(lay(claim(as(his(heirs.(
Evidence( shows( that( a( Definite( Deed( of( Sale( was( executed(
after(the(expiration(of(the(redemption(period.((
No( dispute( was( also( instituted( against( the( title( of( the( bank(
before(Rufo(died.(
o Hence,( there( is( no( question( that( the( Bank( acquired(
exclusive( ownership( of( the( contested( lot( during( the(
lifetime(of(Rufo.(
3.( The( rights( to( a( person's( succession( are( transmitted( from( the(
moment(of(his(death(
In( addition,( the( inheritance( of( a( person( consists( of( the(
property( and( transmissible( rights( and( obligations( existing( at(
the( time( of( his( death,( as( well( as( those( which( have( accrued(
thereto(since(the(opening(of(the(succession(
In( this( case,( Rufo( lost( ownership( of( the( subject( property(
during( his( lifetime,( it( only( follows( that( at( the( time( of( his(
death,( the( disputed( parcel( of( land( no( longer( formed( part( of(
his(estate(to(which(his(heirs(may(lay(claim.((
o Stated( differently,( petitioner( and( respondents( never(
inherited(the(subject(lot(from(their(father.(
o Petitioner(and(respondents,(therefore,(were(wrong(in(
assuming(that(they(became(coWowners(of(the(subject(
lot(
Thus,( any( issue( arising( from( the( supposed(
right( of( petitioner( as( coWowner( of( the(

contested( parcel( of( land( is( negated( by( the(

fact(that,(in(the(eyes(of(the(law,(the(disputed(
lot( did( not( pass( into( their( hands( as(
compulsory(heirs.(
4.( No( express( stipulation( for( the( parties( to( continue( their( coW
ownership.(
A( plain( reading( of( the( provisions( of( the( Extrajudicial(
Settlement( would( not( support( petitioner's( contention( their(
intention(to(buy(the(subject(property(and(continue(what(they(
believed(to(be(coWownership(thereof(
Moreover,( petitioner's( asseveration( of( their( intention( of(
continuing( the( coWownership( is( negated( by( no( less( than( his(
assertions(in(the(present(petition(that(on(several(occasions(he(
had(the(chance(to(purchase(the(subject(property(back,(but(he(
refused(to(do(so.(
5.( Petitioner's( contention( ontradicts( the( provisions( of( the( subject(
Extrajudicial(Settlement(
They(clearly(manifested(their(intention(of(having(the(subject(
property( divided( or( partitioned( by( assigning( to( each( of( the(
petitioner( and( respondents( a( specific( 1/3( portion( of( the(
same.(
It( seeks( a( severance( of( the( individual( interests( of( each( coW
owner,( vesting( in( each( of( them( a( sole( estate( in( a( specific(
property( and( giving( each( one( a( right( to( enjoy( his( estate(
without(supervision(or(interference(from(the(other.(
o Hence( the( purpose( of( the( partition,( to( end( the( coW
ownership,(is(contrary(to(what(petitioner(asserts.(
(
(
(

2.*Seangio*v.*Reyes*(EM)*
(
Dy(Yieng(Seangio,(Barbara(Seangio(and(Virginia(Seangio,(petitioners(
##
vs.(
((
Hon.( Amor( Reyes( (Judge( W( RTC( NCR( Branch( 21( Manila),( Alfredo(
Seangio,( Alberto( Seangio,( Elisa( SeangioWSantos,( Victor( Seangio,(
Alfonso( Seangio,( Shirley( SeangioWLim,( Betty( Seangio( and( James(
Seangio,(respondents(
##
G.R.(Nos.(140371W72(November(27,(2006(
((
Azcuna,(J.:(
((
FACTS:(
o
September(21,(1988((

The( Respondent( Seangios( filed( a( petition( for( the(

settlement( of( the( intestate( estate( of( the( late( Segundo(
Seangio(

They(also(prayed(for(the(appointment(of(Elisa(
SeangioWSantos( as( special( administrator( and(
guardian(ad(litem(of(Dy(Yieng.(

Petitioner( Seangios( opposed( the( petition.( They(

contend(that:(

Dy( Yieng( is( still( very( healthy( and( in( full(

command(of(her(faculties(

The( deceased( Segundo( executed( a( GPA( in(

favor( of( Virginia( giving( her( the( power( to( manage(
and( exercise( control( over( his( business( in( the(
Philippines(

Virginia( is( the( most( competent( to( serve( as(

administrator(of(the(estate(because(she(is(a(CPA(

Segundo*left*a*holographic*will*disinheriting*
one*of*the*respondent*Seangios*

Given( the( holographic( will,( the( intestate*

proceedings* are* to* be* automatically* suspended*
and* replaced* by* the* proceedings* for* the* probate*
of*the*will*
April(7,(1999(

Petitioner( Seangios( file( a( petition( for( the( probate( of(

the(holographic(will(

They( said( that( probate* proceedings* should*

take* precedence* over* the* intestate* proceedings(
(the( one( by( respondents( above)( because( testate(
proceedings( take( precedence( and( enjoy( priority(
over(intestate(proceedings(
July(1,(1999(

Respondent( Seangios( moved( for( the( dismissal( of( the(

probate(proceedings(

On(the(ground(that(the(document(purported(
to( be( the( holographic( will( does* not* contain* and*
disposition* of* the* estate* of* the* deceased( WWW( thus*
does* not* meet* the* definition* of* a* will* under* Art.*
783*of*the*CC(

It*only*shows*disinheritance,(nothing(else(

No(compulsory(heir(was(named(nor(instituted(
as(heir,(devisee(or(legatee(

HENCE,(there(is(preterition(which(would(lead(
to(intestacy((
Petitioner(filed(their(opposition(

Generally,( the( authority( of( the( probate( court( is(

limited* only* to( a( determination( of( the( extrinsic* validity*
of*the*will*

The( ground( raised( by( the( respondent( Seangios(

question(the(intrinsic(and(not(the(extrinsic(validity(of(the(
will(

Disinheritance*constitutes*a*disposition*of*the*estate*
of*a*decedent*

The( rule( on( preterition( does( not( apply( because(

Segundo's( will( does( not( constitute( a( universal( heir( or(
heirs(to(the(exclusion(of(one(or(more(compulsory(heirs(
August(10,(1999(

RTC(dismissed(the(petition(for(probate(proceedings(

A( perusal( of( the( "will"( clearly( shows( that( there( is(

preterition(

The( only( heirs( mentioned( are( Alfredo( and(

Virginia(

The( other( heirs( being( omitted,( Art.( 854(

applies((

However,( insofar( as( the( widow( Dy( Yieng( is(

concerned,(854(does(not(apply(because(she(is(not(a(
compulsory(heir(in(the(direct(line(

The( lower( court( cited( the( case( of( Acain( v.( IAC( which(
stated( that( tolerating( a( will( when( on( its( face,( is(
intrinsically(void,(is(an(exercise(of(futility.(
Thus,(this(petition(

((
ISSUES:(
o
WON( Respondent( Judge( erred( in( ruling( on( the( intrinsic(
validity(of(the(will(despite(the(settled(rule(that(the(authority(of(
probate(courts(is(limited(only(to(a(determination(of(its(extrinsic(
validity( (i.e.( Due( execution,( testator's( testamentary( capacity,(

compliance( with( the( requisites/solemnities( prescribed( by(

law)YES(
o
WON( Judge( erred( in( saying( that( preterition( exists( and( that(
the(will(is(void(
YES*
o
WON( Judge( erred( in( not( suspending( the( proceedings( in( the(
intestate(case(despite(the(settled(rule(that(testate(proceedings(
take(precedence(over(intestate(proceedings(
YES*
o
WON(there(was(a(valid(disinheritance(
YES*
*
HELD/RATIO:*
o
Can( the( document( executed( by( Segundo( be( considered( a(
holographic(will?(

Under(art.(810(of(the(CC,(a(holographic(will(must(be(

Entirely(written(

Dated(and(signed(by(the(hand(of(the(testator(
himself(

Segundo's*document,*though*may*it*come*as*a*mere*
disinheritance* instrument,* conforms* to* the* formalities*
precribed*by*law(W(written,#dated#and#signed#by(Segundo(
himself(

While( it( does( not( make( an( affirmative( disposition( of(

Segundo's( property,( the* disinheritance* of* Alfredo,*
nonetheless*is*an*act*of*disposition*itself(

The( disinheritance( of( Alfredo( results( in( the(

disposition*in*favor*of*those*who*would*succeed*in*
the*absence*of*Alfredo(

A* WILL* DOES* NOT* HAVE* TO* MAKE* AN* EXPLICIT*

DISPOSITION*OF*PROPERTY*TO*BE*VALID(

The( intent( or( will( of( the( testator,( so( long( as( it( is(
expressed(in(the(form(and(within(the(limits(prescribed(by(
law,(must(be(recognized(as(the(supreme(law(in(succession(

Holographic( wills,( being( usually( done( by( those( not(

learned( in( the( law,( should( be( construed( more( liberally(
than(the(ones(drawn(by(experts(
With(regard(to(the(issue(on(preterition(

The( Court( believes( that( the( compulsory( heirs( in( the(

direct(line(were(not(preterited(

Segundo( did( not( institute( an( heir( to( the(

exclusion(of(his(compulsory(heirs(

The(mere(mention(of(the(name(of(one(of(the(
petitioners,( Virginia,( did( not( operate( to( institute(
her( as( a( universal( heir( W( included( plainly( as( a(
witness(
Considering(that(the(document(is(Segundo's(will(and(that(the(
law(favors(testacy(over(intestacy,(the(probate(of(the(will(cannot(
be( dispensed( with( W( thus,( the( testate( proceedings( for( the(
settlement( of( the( estate( takes( precedence( over( intestate(
proceedings(for(the(same(purpose.(

(
*

Succession
Atty. Balane

BLOCK A 2015
o

Article 799-800
o

1. ORTEGA v. VALMONTE
G.R. No. 157451 - December 16, 2005
J. Panganiban
Petitioner: LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA
Respondent: JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE

Facts:
Placido worked in the U.S. until his retirement. In 1980, he went back
to the Philippines. At the age of 80, he married Josefina in 1982.
o Placido died on October 8, 1984
Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English
and consisting of two (2) pages, and dated June 15, 1983 but
acknowledged only on August 9, 1983.
Pertinent portions of the will:
I give, devise and bequeath unto my loving wife, JOSEFINA C.
VALMONTE, one half (1/2) portion of the follow-described properties
which belongs to me:
(a) Lot 4-A, Block 13, situated in Makati, registered jointly as co-owners with
my deceased sister (Ciriaca Valmonte)
(b) 2-storey building standing on the above-described property
All the rest, residue and remainder of my real and personal properties,
including my savings account bank book in USA which is in the possession
of my nephew, and all others whatsoever and wherever found, I give, devise
and bequeath to my said wife, Josefina C. Valmonte;
I hereby appoint my wife, Josefina C. Valmonte as sole executrix of my last
will and testament, and it is my will that said executrix be exempt from filing
a bond

Leticia opposed the appointment of Josefina as executrix and the

probate proceedings on the following grounds(some grounds):
o Will was not executed and attested as required by law

Testator was mentally incapable to make a will at the time

of the alleged execution he being in an advance sate of
senility
Signature of testator was procured by fraud, or trick, and he
did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the
time of affixing his signature thereto

Josefinas Side
Josefina testified that they live in La Union but they came to Manila
every month to get her husbands pension and stayed in the Makati
Residence.
In order to shave off expenses, Placido(Testator) would travel alone
and it was in one of his travels by his lonesome self when the notarial
will was made.
o Josefa said that she had no knowledge about it but just
serendipitously found it in his attache case after his death.
o Josefina declared too that the testator never suffered mental
infirmity because despite his old age he went alone to the
market which is two to three kilometers from their home
cooked and cleaned the kitchen.
Notary Public Floro Sarmiento testified that on June 1983, the
testator, together with the three witnesses, went to law office and
requested him to prepare his last will and testament.
o After the testator instructed him on the terms and
dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public told
them to come back on June 15, 1983 to give him time to
prepare it.
o He was out of town on the said date, so Placido(with the
witnesses) went back on August 9. On the said date, before
the signing of the will, Floro explained to them each and
every term thereof in Ilocano (which Placido spoke and
understood).
o He likewise explained that though it appears that the will
was signed by the testator and his witnesses on June 15, the
day when it should have been executed had he not gone out
of town, the formal execution was actually on August 9.
Spouses Gomez (Witness) testified, that the testator executed the will
in question in their presence while he was of sound and disposing
mind and that he was strong and in good health; that the contents of
the will was explained by the notary public in the Ilocano and

Succession
Atty. Balane
Tagalog dialect and that all of them as witnesses attested and signed
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other
Leticias Opposition
She declared that, Josefina should not inherit alone because aside
from her there are other children from the siblings of Placido who
are just as entitled to inherit from him
The testator was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound
mind.
During the time when the testator lived with her, Placidos physical
and mental condition showed deterioration, aberrations and senility.
This was corroborated by her daughter Mary Jane Ortega for whom
Placido took a fancy and wanted to marry
RTC-CA
RTC ruled in favor of Leticia
CA reversed it.
o It upheld the credibility of the notary public and the
witnesses
o It added that his sexual exhibitionism and unhygienic,
crude and impolite ways did not make him a person of
unsound mind. (So JT, by idolizing Tinky-Winky, can validly
make a Will)

Issue:

WON the CA erred in allowing Placidos will to be probated. NO

BLOCK A 2015
2. Petitioner assails the validity of Placido Valmontes will by imputing fraud in
its execution and challenging the testators state of mind at the time.
She alleges that Josefina, conspired with the notary public and the
three attesting witnesses in deceiving Placido to sign it.
Furthermore, she states that it is highly dubious for a young woman
to marry a man thrice her age, who happens to be an American
pensionado thus casting doubt on her intention on seeking to
probate the will
Lastly, she argues that it defies human reason, logic and common
experience for an old man with a severe psychological condition to
have willingly signed a last will and testament.
3. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of
fraud at the time of its execution.
Fraud is a trick, secret device, false statement, or pretense, by which
the subject of it is cheated.
The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will
only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud
Unfortunately in this case, other than the self-serving allegations of
petitioner, no evidence of fraud was ever presented.
4. It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not affect the
due execution of a will.
Petitioners contention that Placido was tricked into signing it was
not sufficiently established.
5. Conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the
document
The law does not even require that a [notarial] will x x x be executed and
acknowledged on the same occasion.
More importantly, the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by
three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of
the testator and of one another.

Held:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and

Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

Ratio:

1. The law lays down the procedures and requisites that must be satisfied for
the probate of a will.
The fact that public policy favors the probate of a will does not
necessarily mean that every will presented for probate should be
allowed.
Verily, Article 8391 of the Civil Code states the instances when a will
may be disallowed

Article 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:

(1)
If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2)
If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution;
(3)
If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(4)
If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of
some other person;
(5)
If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6)
If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the
time of affixing his signature thereto.

Succession
Atty. Balane

BLOCK A 2015
memory sufficient to enable him to know what he is about
to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his property.
To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or
unshattered by disease or otherwise.

CA held that the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed
execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained
by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.
Notably, petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a grand
conspiracy in the commission of a fraud (No benefit was shown to
have received by the witnesses in the allowance of the will)

Capacity to Make a Will

6. In determining the capacity of the testator to make a will the civil code
provides a guideline (Articles 798-800)2
Under Art. 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability
to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the
nature of the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the
testators bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act.
o SC agreed with the CA that Placido had testamentary
capacity at the time of the execution of his will.
o Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify
accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his
shares in them and even their locations.
o As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient
that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. Omission of
some relatives does not affect its formal validity.
o In Alsua-Betts v. CA, there are numberless degrees of mental
capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it has been
held that mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from
disease of body, or from age, will not render a person
incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded person
may make a valid will, provided he has understanding and
Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its
execution.
2

Article 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 shattered 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.
Article 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 prove that the testator made
it during a lucid interval.

2. BALTAZAR v. LAXA
G.R. No. 174489 - April 11, 2012
J. Del Castillo
Petitioner: ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR,
ANTONIO L. MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A.
PACHECO, VIRGILIO REGALA, JR., and RAFAEL TITCO
Respondent: LORENZO LAXA

Facts:
Paciencia Reagala was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last
will and testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss
Paciencia Regala" (in Pampango) on September 13, 1981.
The Will, executed in the house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin
o It was read to her twice before she affixed her signature.
o The witnesses to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin
(Dra. Limpin), Francisco Garcia (Francisco) and Faustino R.
Mercado (Faustino). The three attested to the Wills due
execution by affixing their signatures below its attestation
clause
Paciencia bequeathed all her properties, since she is childless and
single, to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his wife
Corazon F. Laxa and their children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine
Ross Laxa
o The pertinent provisions are as follows:

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 and their
children
Should other properties of mine may be discovered aside from the
properties mentioned in this last will and testament, I am also

Succession
Atty. Balane
o

BLOCK A 2015
bequeathing and giving the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa
and Corazon F. Laxa
In return she commands the spouses to hold yearly masses for the
repose of her soul

Lorenzo is Paciencias nephew whom she treated as her own son. She
took care of Lorenzo since birth.
Paciencia left for the US, 6 days after executing the will. There, she
resided with Lorenzo and his family until her death on January 4,
1996.
More than four years after the death of Paciencia, Lorenzo filed a
petition with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the
Will of Paciencia.
o An order allowing Lorenzo to present evidence was issued
o Dra. Limpin attests the authenticity of the will but when
asked by the prosecutor regarding his fathers (Judge
Limpin) mental fitness, she said that he suffered a stroke
and could no longer testify.
The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar
(Antonio) filed an opposition
o He averred that Paciencia had no right to bequeath the
properties because it belongs to Nicomeda Regala
Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest.
o Barely a month after, a supplemental opposition was filed
by the other petitioners contending that Paciencias Will was
null and void because ownership of the properties had not
been transferred and/or titled to Paciencia before her death
On September of the same year, petitioners asked the RTC to deny
the probate proceedings based on the following (Some of the
grounds):
o The Will was not executed and attested to in accordance
with the requirements of the law
o Paciencia was mentally incapable
o It was obtained through fraud or trickery
RTC denied the request of both parties to be appointed as
administrator but the Probate of the Will continued.
Respondents
o Lorenzo testified that Paciencia did not suffer from any
mental disorder and was of sound mind, was not blind, deaf
or mute; the Will was in the custody of Judge Limpin and
was only given to him after Paciencias death through

Faustino; and he was already residing in the USA when the

Will was executed
o

o
o

Petitioners
Rosie, a household help, claimed that she saw Faustino
bring "something" for Paciencia to sign at the latters house.
She also alleges that the testator is magulyan (forgetful) but
this is only based on her personal assessment.
Antonio identified the Will and testified that he had seen the
said document before because Paciencia brought the same
to his mothers house but it was still unsigned
He further alleged that he explained the testator the
difference between a lease and a will, after which Paciencia,
allegedly, utter these statements
Who is Lorenzo? Is he the only [son] of God? I have other
relatives [who should] benefit from my properties

Thereafter, the testator left the UNSIGNED

DOCUMENT WITH ANTONIO.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners
CA reversed it
o the state of being magulyan does not make a person
mentally unsound so [as] to render [Paciencia] unfit for
executing a Will.
o

Issue:

WON the authenticity and due execution of the notarial Will was sufficiently
established to warrant its allowance for probate. Yes

Held:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.

Ratio:

1. Courts are tasked to determine nothing more than the extrinsic validity of a
Will in probate proceedings
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

Succession
Atty. Balane
2. 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.
Even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the
Will may be authentic although they question her state of mind when
she signed the same as well as the voluntary nature of said act.
3. 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 petitioner.
Petitioners, trough their witness Rosie, claim that Paciencia was
"magulyan" or forgetful so much so that it effectively stripped her of
testamentary capacity.
SC agreed with the CA, and added that forgetfulness is not equivalent
to being of unsound mind.
4. Of Sound Mind
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.
o Paciencia was aware of the nature of the document she
executed. She specially requested that the customs of her
faith be observed upon her death
Apart from the testimony of Rosie, there is no substantial evidence,
medical or otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was of unsound
mind at the time of the execution of the Will.
The Court finds credence to Dra. Limpins testimony on the
soundness of the testators mind.
The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning
the testators mental condition is entitled to great weight
where they are truthful and intelligent.
More importantly, a testator is presumed to be of sound mind (Under
Art. 800) at the time of the execution of the Will and the burden to
prove otherwise lies on the oppositor.
5. Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear or threats, cannot be used as
basis to deny the probate of a will.
The unrebutted fact that Paciencia loved and treated Lorenzo as her
own son and that love even extended to Lorenzos wife and children.

BLOCK A 2015
The very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo and lived with
him both here and abroad highlights the special bond between them.
This unquestioned relationship between Paciencia and the devisees
tends to support the authenticity of the said document as against
petitioners allegations of duress, influence of fear or threats
6. Petitioner insists that the subscribing witnesses and the notary public should
have been presented in court
We note that the inability of Faustino and Judge Limpin to appear
and testify before the court was satisfactorily explained during the
probate proceedings
o Faustino had a heart attack and could no longer talk
o Judge Limpin is already Limpin because of a stroke and
could no longer talk as well.

Succession
Atty. Balane

BLOCK A 2015

Art. 805

1. Felix Azuela, Petitioner

v.
Court of Appeals, Geralda Castillo substituted by Ernesto
Castillo, Respondents
G.R. No 122880 April 12, 2006
Tinga, J.
Doctrine: (1) A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number
of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective; (2) A will whose
attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally
defective; (3) A will which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a
mere jurat, is fatally defective. Anyone of these defects is sufficient to deny
probate
FACTS:
o April 10 1984 - Petitioner Azuela sought to admit to probate the
notarial will of Eugenia Igsolo
Notarized already
Petitioner is son of decedent
The probate petition adverted to only 2 heirs, legatees and
devisess - petitioner Azuela and one Irene Igsolo
o The will
2 pages, written in Filipino
The three named witnesses (Agrava, Leano and Estrera)
affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages
BUT NOT at the bottom of the attestation clause
o Opposition to the petition
Filed by Geralda Castillo - represented herself as the attorneyin-fact of the "12 legitimate heirs" of the decedent
The will is a forgery
The true purpose of its emergence was so it could be
utilized as a defense in several cases filed by oppositor
against Azuela

Forcible entry and usurpation centered on

Azuela's right to occupy the decedent's
properties
Contrary to petitioner's representations - the decedent
was actually survived by "12" legitimate heirs - namely
her grandchidlren
It was alleged that decedent was widow of
Bonifacio Igsolo (dead) and the mother of a
legitimate child, Asuncion Igsolo who
predeceased her mother by 3 months
Not executed and attested to in accordance with
law
Decedent's signature did not appear on the
second page of the will
Will was not properly acknowledged
In addition to the grounds she mentioned - the document
was also not numbered correlatively in letters and the
attestation also did not state the number of pages
RTC admitted the will to probate
RTC took into account testimony of 3 witnesses (Agrava,
Leano and Estrada) (note: weird sa will its estrera pero sa
decision its estrada)
RTC called to fore "the modern tendency in respect to the
formalities in the execution of a will" - with the end of giving
the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes - used
this as a rebuttal to the improper execution and attestation (or
the lack thereof)
On the issue of lack of acknowledgment - the Court noted
that at the end of the will after the signature of the testatrix, a
statement saying that the testatrix signed the will in front of
the witnesses
The court considered this as substantial compliance with
the legal requirements
With regard to the failure to number correlatively and to state
the number of pages - the court said that since it was only 2
pages - there was no fatal defect
With regard to the allegation of forgery - the court believed
the testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses to establish
the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix.

Succession
Atty. Balane
o

Appeal to CA by Ernesto Castillo (substituted Geralda because of

her death) - reversed the trial court; ordered dismissal of the petition
of probate
Failure to state number of pages - void
Hence, the present petition
Petitioner Azuela argues that the requirement under 805 that
the number of pages used in a notarial will be stated is the
attestation clause is merely directory, rather than mandatory, and
thus subject to what he termed "the substantial
compliance rule."

ISSUE: Is there a valid will? NO

HELD/RATIO:
o As admitted by petitioner himself, the attestation clause failed to
state the number of pages of the will - there was already a space
allotted for such info yet the blank was never filled in
The reason why this is required?
"The document might easily be so prepared that the
removal of a sheet would completely change the
testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence
of a statement of the total number of sheets such
removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and
changing the numbers at the top of the following
sheets or pages"
In In re Will of Andrada - this consideration alone
was sufficient for the Court to declare in unanimity
that the omission was fatal (note: Andrada was decided
with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure substantially the same requirements with the current
Art. 805 of the CC)
Against this, petitioner Azuela cites Singson v. Florentino
and Taboada v. Hon. Rosal
In these cases, the court allowed probate of the wills
concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation
clause did not state the number of pages of the will
HOWEVER, the appellate court considered the
import of these two cases, and made the following
distinction which petitioner Azuela is unable to rebut:

BLOCK A 2015
In Singson v. Florentino, while there was no
mention of the number of pages in the
attestation clause, "the last part of the body of
the will contains a statement that it is composed
of eight pages, which circumstance in our
opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of
construction and places it within the realm of
similar cases where a broad and more liberal
view has been adopted to prevent the will of the
testator from being defeated by purely technical
considerations"
In Taboada v. Rosal, the notarial
acknowledgment in the will states the number of
pages used - "this Last Will and Testament
consists of two pages including this page"
Here, the number of pages used in the will was
NEVER stated in any part of the will.
Substantial Compliance argument (APPLICABLE TO
ARTICLE 809)
It is true that Art. 809 provides that in the absence of
bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue influence 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 executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of 805
Petitioner Azuela cites the report of Civil Code
Commission
"the underlying and fundamental objective
permeating the provisions on the [law] on [wills]
in this projects consists in the [liberalization] of
the manner of their execution with the end in
view of giving the testator more [freedom] in
[expressing] his last wishes. This objective is in
accord with the [modern tendency ] in respect to
the formalities in the execution of wills"
HOWEVER, petitioner conveniently omits the
qualification offered by the Code Commission

Succession
Atty. Balane

in the very same paragraph he cited; that such

liberalization be "but with sufficient
safeguards and restrictions to prevent the
commission of fraud and the exercise of
undue and improper pressure and influence
upon the testator."
Comment of Justice J.B.L. Reyes on how 809 should
be applied
The rule must be limited to disregarding those
defects that can be supplied by an examination
of the will itself (e.g. whether the signatures
appear in every page, whether the subscribing
witnesses are three, whether the will was
notarized)
BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES,
and whether all persons required to sign did so
in the presence of each other must
substantially appear in the attestation
clause, being the only check against perjury in
the probate proceedings
Caneda v. Court of Appeals - the rule is such that
If the omission can be supplied by an
examination of the will itself, without the need
of resorting to extrinsic evidence, then there is
no fatal defect
However, if the omission cannot be supplied
except by evidence aliunde, the attestation clause
is rendered invalid and so is the whole will
An examination of the will at hand reveals a couple of even more
critical defects that should lead to its rejection
The attestation clause was not signed by the
instrumental witnesses
In Cagro v. Cagro, 6, speaking through Chief Justice
Paras, out of 9 justices ,ruled that the failure of the
witnesses to sign the attestation clause is fatal
In the absence of the signature of the witnesses in the
attestation clause, it would be easy to add such clause
to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence
of the testator and any or all of the witnesses

BLOCK A 2015
The signature on the left margin of each page cannot
be "substantial compliance" - they are two entirely
distinct and separate requirements provided by 805
The signature on every page - knowledge of the
contents on each page
Signature to the attestation clause - knowledge
of the contents of the clause itself
Absent the signature in the attestation clause, the
will cannot be deemed to have been attested
ANOTHER DEFECT! (under art. 806) The requirement
that every will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses has also not
been complied with
Its importance is highlighted by the fact that it had
been segregated from all the other requirements in 805
- it merited its own provision (806)
"in lieu" of an acknowledgment, notary public,
Petronio Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko
ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng
Manila"
By no manner of contemplation can those
words be construed as an acknowledgment
Acknowledgment
Act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and
declaring it to be his act or deed
Involves an "extra step" undertaken whereby the
signor actually declares to the notary that the
executor of a document has attested to the
notary that the same is his/her own free will
The averment here may be considered to be a jurat
(part of an affividavit where the notary certifies that
before him/her, the document was subscribed and
sworn to by the executor)
Take note that here, the notary public averred
that he himself signed and notarized the
instrument while a jurat should avow that the
document was subscribed and sworn before the
notary public

Succession
Atty. Balane

Even if it is a jurat, the will is still invalid - 806 requires

acknowledgment and not merely that the will be
subscribed and sworn to
The acknowledgment is not an empty
meaningless act - it coerces the testator and the
instrumental witnesses to declare before an
officer of law that they had executed and
subscribed to the will as their own free act or
deed - under oath and under pain of perjury
A Notarial Will that is not acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and
the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is
subscribed and sworn to before a notary
public.
Two other defects:
The decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both
pages of the will on the left margin - her only signature
appearing at the so called "logical end" of the will on
the first page
The will is not numbered correlatively in letters on
each page - but instead numbered with Arabic
numerals
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner

2. ORTEGA v. VALMONTE
G.R. No. 157451 - December 16, 2005
J. Panganiban
Petitioner: LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA
Respondent: JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE

Facts:
Placido worked in the U.S. until his retirement. In 1980, he went back
to the Philippines. At the age of 80, he married Josefina in 1982.
o Placido died on October 8, 1984

BLOCK A 2015
Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English
and consisting of two (2) pages, and dated June 15, 1983 but
acknowledged only on August 9, 1983.
Pertinent portions of the will:
I give, devise and bequeath unto my loving wife, JOSEFINA C.
VALMONTE, one half (1/2) portion of the follow-described properties
which belongs to me:
(a) Lot 4-A, Block 13, situated in Makati, registered jointly as co-owners with
my deceased sister (Ciriaca Valmonte)
(b) 2-storey building standing on the above-described property
All the rest, residue and remainder of my real and personal properties,
including my savings account bank book in USA which is in the possession
of my nephew, and all others whatsoever and wherever found, I give, devise
and bequeath to my said wife, Josefina C. Valmonte;
I hereby appoint my wife, Josefina C. Valmonte as sole executrix of my last
will and testament, and it is my will that said executrix be exempt from filing
a bond

Leticia opposed the appointment of Josefina as executrix and the

probate proceedings on the following grounds(some grounds):
o Will was not executed and attested as required by law
o Testator was mentally incapable to make a will at the time
of the alleged execution he being in an advance sate of
senility
o Signature of testator was procured by fraud, or trick, and he
did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the
time of affixing his signature thereto
Josefinas Side
Josefina testified that they live in La Union but they came to Manila
every month to get her husbands pension and stayed in the Makati
Residence.
In order to shave off expenses, Placido(Testator) would travel alone
and it was in one of his travels by his lonesome self when the notarial
will was made.
o Josefa said that she had no knowledge about it but just
serendipitously found it in his attache case after his death.
o Josefina declared too that the testator never suffered mental
infirmity because despite his old age he went alone to the

Succession
Atty. Balane
market which is two to three kilometers from their home
cooked and cleaned the kitchen.
Notary Public Floro Sarmiento testified that on June 1983, the
testator, together with the three witnesses, went to law office and
requested him to prepare his last will and testament.
o After the testator instructed him on the terms and
dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public told
them to come back on June 15, 1983 to give him time to
prepare it.
o He was out of town on the said date, so Placido(with the
witnesses) went back on August 9. On the said date, before
the signing of the will, Floro explained to them each and
every term thereof in Ilocano (which Placido spoke and
understood).
o He likewise explained that though it appears that the will
was signed by the testator and his witnesses on June 15, the
day when it should have been executed had he not gone out
of town, the formal execution was actually on August 9.
Spouses Gomez (Witness) testified, that the testator executed the will
in question in their presence while he was of sound and disposing
mind and that he was strong and in good health; that the contents of
the will was explained by the notary public in the Ilocano and
Tagalog dialect and that all of them as witnesses attested and signed
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other
Leticias Opposition
She declared that, Josefina should not inherit alone because aside
from her there are other children from the siblings of Placido who
are just as entitled to inherit from him
The testator was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound
mind.
During the time when the testator lived with her, Placidos physical
and mental condition showed deterioration, aberrations and senility.
This was corroborated by her daughter Mary Jane Ortega for whom
Placido took a fancy and wanted to marry
RTC-CA
RTC ruled in favor of Leticia
CA reversed it.
o It upheld the credibility of the notary public and the
witnesses

BLOCK A 2015
o

It added that his sexual exhibitionism and unhygienic,

crude and impolite ways did not make him a person of
unsound mind. (So JT, by idolizing Tinky-Winky, can validly
make a Will)

Issue:

WON the CA erred in allowing Placidos will to be probated. NO

Held:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

Ratio:

1. The law lays down the procedures and requisites that must be satisfied for
the probate of a will.
The fact that public policy favors the probate of a will does not
necessarily mean that every will presented for probate should be
allowed.
Verily, Article 8391 of the Civil Code states the instances when a will
may be disallowed
2. Petitioner assails the validity of Placido Valmontes will by imputing fraud in
its execution and challenging the testators state of mind at the time.
She alleges that Josefina, conspired with the notary public and the
three attesting witnesses in deceiving Placido to sign it.
Furthermore, she states that it is highly dubious for a young woman
to marry a man thrice her age, who happens to be an American
pensionado thus casting doubt on her intention on seeking to
probate the will

Article 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:

(1)
If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2)
If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution;
(3)
If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(4)
If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of
some other person;
(5)
If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6)
If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the
time of affixing his signature thereto.

Succession
Atty. Balane
Lastly, she argues that it defies human reason, logic and common
experience for an old man with a severe psychological condition to
have willingly signed a last will and testament.
3. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of
fraud at the time of its execution.
Fraud is a trick, secret device, false statement, or pretense, by which
the subject of it is cheated.
The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will
only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud
Unfortunately in this case, other than the self-serving allegations of
petitioner, no evidence of fraud was ever presented.
4. It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not affect the
due execution of a will.
Petitioners contention that Placido was tricked into signing it was
not sufficiently established.
5. Conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the
document
The law does not even require that a [notarial] will x x x be executed and
acknowledged on the same occasion.
More importantly, the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by
three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of
the testator and of one another.

CA held that the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed
execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained
by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.
Notably, petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a grand
conspiracy in the commission of a fraud (No benefit was shown to
have received by the witnesses in the allowance of the will)

Capacity to Make a Will

6. In determining the capacity of the testator to make a will the civil code
provides a guideline (Articles 798-800)2
Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its
execution.
2

BLOCK A 2015
Under Art. 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability
to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the
nature of the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the
testators bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act.
o SC agreed with the CA that Placido had testamentary
capacity at the time of the execution of his will.
o Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify
accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his
shares in them and even their locations.
o As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient
that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. Omission of
some relatives does not affect its formal validity.
In Alsua-Betts v. CA, there are numberless degrees of mental capacity or
incapacity and while on one hand it has been held that mere weakness of mind,
or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from age, will not render a person
incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded person may make a valid
will, provided he has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him to
know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his
property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the
mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered by disease or otherwise

3. Manuel L. Lee, Complainant

v.
Atty. Regino Tambago, Respondent
A.C. No. 5281 February 12, 2008
Corona, J.
FACTS:

Article 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 shattered 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.
Article 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 prove that the testator made
it during a lucid interval.

Succession
Atty. Balane
o

Petitioner Lee charged Respondent Tambago with violation of the

Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a
spurious last will and testament
In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the
decedent, Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will
Moreover, the spurious will contained the forged signatures
of Noynay and Grajo, the purported witnesses (take note,
only 2)
The "spurious" will
Decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to wife Lim
Lee, save for a parcel of land devised to Vicente Lee, Jr. and
Elana Lee, half-siblings of complainant
It was purportedly executed and acknowledged before
respondent on June 1965
HOWEVER, petitioner Lee pointed out that the
residence certificate of the testator noted in the
acknowledgment of the will was dated January 1962
Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not the
same as his signature as donor in a deed of donation
(containing his purported genuine signature)
He also questioned the absence of notation of the
residence certificates of purported witnesses Noynay
and Grajo - he alleged that their signatures were forged
He asserted that no copy of such purported will was
on file in the archives division of the Records
Management and Archives Office of the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)
Respondent's reply - the following are FALSE allegations
That complainant was son of the decedent
He is not legitimate
That the will was fake and spurious
The last will and testament was validly executed and
actually notarized by respondent per affidavit of Gloria
Nebato, common-law wife of the decedent and
corroborated by the joint affidavit of the children also
of the decdent
Also, respondent Tambago said that complainant had no
valid cause of action - he did not first file an action for the

BLOCK A 2015
declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the
inheritance
o Court referred the case to the IBP
The investigating commissioner found respondent Tambago
guilty of violating provisions of the old Notarial Law as found
in the Revised Administrative Code [Canon 1 (obey the law)
and Rule 1.01 (no dishonest, unlawful conduct) of the CPR] recommended suspension for 3 months
IBP Board of governors
Respondent Tambago is suspended from practicing
law for a year
Respondent's notarial commission is revoked and
disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2
years
ISSUE: WON there was a valid will? NO
HELD/RATIO:
o A notarial will is required to be (1) subscribed at the end by the
testator himself; and (2) attested and subscribed to by THREE OR
MORE credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and one
another
The will in question was attested by only two witnesses
(Noynay and Grajo) - THUS VOID
Acts executed against prohibitory or mandatory laws shall be
void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity - 805
and 806 are mandatory
o The will must also be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses (806)
"involves the extra step undertaken whereby the signatory
actually declares to the notary public that the same is his or
her own free act and deed"
Two-fold purpose of this requirement
Safeguard the testator's wishes
Assure that his estate is administered in the manner he
intends it to be done
o Respondent was required to faithfully observe the formalities of a
will and those notarizations - which he FAILED to do
Other grounds for nullity and/or disciplinary action
No residence certificates from the witnesses - required
to ascertain the true and correct identity

Succession
Atty. Balane

Notation of the testator's old residence certificate

He failed to follow the old notarial law with regard to
the required entries in the notarial register
However, respondent's failure to file in the archives division a
copy of the will is not a cause for disciplinary action
The rest of the case talks about notarial law - which he violated
Notaries public must observe with utmost care and fidelity
the basic requirements in the performance of their duties
He acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in question
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby
found guilty of professional misconduct. He violated (1) the
Lawyer's Oath; (2) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of
the Civil Code; and (5) the provisions of the old Notarial Law.
Suspended from the practice of law for a year
Notarial commission revoked
Perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary
public

BLOCK A 2015

RTC

Art. 806
CA

Guerrero v. Bihis
G.R. No. 174144 - April 17, 2007
J. Corona
Petitioner: Bella A. Guerrero
Respondent: Resurrection A. Bihis
Facts:
Felisa Buenaventura, mother of Bella A. Guerrero and
Resurrection A. Bihis, died in Tondo, Manila.
Petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last will and
testament of the decedent in the RTC of Manila.
o It alleges that she was named as executrix, legally
qualified as such.

Testatrix was 79 years old, of sound and disposing mind,

not acting under duress, fraud or undue influence.
Respondent (sister of petitioner) opposed this.
o On the grounds that it was not executed and attested as
required by law; its attestation clause did not comply with
the requirements of the law.
o The signature was procured by fraud.
o

Appointed Guerrero as administratrix and took oath as temporary

special administratrix.
o Respondent opposed it but later withdrew her
opposition.
o After the presentation of evidence, respondent filed a
demurrer, alleging that the Art. 804-805 are not complied
with.
However, it denied the probate of the will, ruling that Art. 806
was not complied with.
o The will was acknowledged, in Quezon City
(Decendents Residence), before Atty. Macario Directo
who was a commissioned notary public for and in
Caloocan.
Then it ordered to proceed with intestate succession because the
will was void.
Dismissed the complaint.

Issue:
WON the acknowledgment of a notary public outside of his commissioned
jurisdiction satisfy the requirement under Article 806. It did not.
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Ratio:
1. A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for
probate.

Succession
Atty. Balane
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.
An acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a deed in
going before some competent officer and declaring it to be his act
of deed.
In case of Notarial will, that competent officer is the Notary
Public.
2. Nature of acknowledgement of a Notarial will.
It coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare
before an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed
and subscribed to the will as their own free act or will.
It is under oath and under the pains of perjury
Further provides a degree of assurance that the testator is of a
certain mindset in making the testamentary disposition.
3. Acknowledgement can only be made before a competent officer.
That a lawyer is duly commissioned as a notary public.
Under the Notarial Law, Section 240. Territorial Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be coextensive with the province.
o Under the said law they were also required to sign a form
wherein the municipality and province must be stated
and indicated that it is limited within the said province.
4. The jurisdiction of a notary public in Manila is co-extensive with the said
city.
NO notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond
the limits of his jurisdiction.
The grant of authority to perform notarial acts is issued within a
particular territorial jurisdiction. Thus, acknowledgments must be
done within that territory only.
Outside of the place commissioned, he is bereft of power to
perform any notarial act. If ever he does a notarial act, it produce
no effect.
In Tecson v. Tecson, An acknowledgement taken outside the
territorial limits of the officers jurisdiction is void as if the person
taking it were wholly without official character.

BLOCK A 2015
Since Atty. Directo was not commission for and in QC, he lacked
authority to acknowledge the will. Thus, in effect Felisa Tamios
will, in effect, not acknowledged as required by law.
Under Art. 5 of the civil code, acts executed against mandatory or
prohibitory laws are void, except when the law authorizes its
validity.
5. Effect of violation of the language of Art. 806.
The compulsory language of Art. 806 was not complied with and
the interdiction of Section 240 of the Notarial law was breached.
Thus the acts of the petitioner and Atty. Directo void.

Art. 809
1. Felix Azuela, Petitioner
v.
Court of Appeals, Geralda Castillo substituted by Ernesto
Castillo, Respondents
G.R. No 122880 April 12, 2006
Tinga, J.
Doctrine: (1) A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number
of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective; (2) A will whose
attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally
defective; (3) A will which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a
mere jurat, is fatally defective. Anyone of these defects is sufficient to deny
probate
FACTS:

Succession
Atty. Balane
o

April 10 1984 - Petitioner Azuela sought to admit to probate the

notarial will of Eugenia Igsolo
Notarized already
Petitioner is son of decedent
The probate petition adverted to only 2 heirs, legatees and
devisess - petitioner Azuela and one Irene Igsolo
The will
2 pages, written in Filipino
The three named witnesses (Agrava, Leano and Estrera)
affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages
BUT NOT at the bottom of the attestation clause
Opposition to the petition
Filed by Geralda Castillo - represented herself as the attorneyin-fact of the "12 legitimate heirs" of the decedent
The will is a forgery
The true purpose of its emergence was so it could be
utilized as a defense in several cases filed by oppositor
against Azuela
Forcible entry and usurpation centered on
Azuela's right to occupy the decedent's
properties
Contrary to petitioner's representations - the decedent
was actually survived by "12" legitimate heirs - namely
her grandchidlren
It was alleged that decedent was widow of
Bonifacio Igsolo (dead) and the mother of a
legitimate child, Asuncion Igsolo who
predeceased her mother by 3 months
Not executed and attested to in accordance with
law
Decedent's signature did not appear on the
second page of the will
Will was not properly acknowledged
In addition to the grounds she mentioned - the document
was also not numbered correlatively in letters and the
attestation also did not state the number of pages
RTC admitted the will to probate

BLOCK A 2015

RTC took into account testimony of 3 witnesses (Agrava,

Leano and Estrada) (note: weird sa will its estrera pero sa
decision its estrada)
RTC called to fore "the modern tendency in respect to the
formalities in the execution of a will" - with the end of giving
the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes - used
this as a rebuttal to the improper execution and attestation (or
the lack thereof)
On the issue of lack of acknowledgment - the Court noted
that at the end of the will after the signature of the testatrix, a
statement saying that the testatrix signed the will in front of
the witnesses
The court considered this as substantial compliance with
the legal requirements
With regard to the failure to number correlatively and to state
the number of pages - the court said that since it was only 2
pages - there was no fatal defect
With regard to the allegation of forgery - the court believed
the testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses to establish
the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix.
Appeal to CA by Ernesto Castillo (substituted Geralda because of
her death) - reversed the trial court; ordered dismissal of the petition
of probate
Failure to state number of pages - void
Hence, the present petition
Petitioner Azuela argues that the requirement under 805 that
the number of pages used in a notarial will be stated is the
attestation clause is merely directory, rather than mandatory, and
thus subject to what he termed "the substantial
compliance rule."

ISSUE: Is there a valid will? NO

HELD/RATIO:
o As admitted by petitioner himself, the attestation clause failed to
state the number of pages of the will - there was already a space
allotted for such info yet the blank was never filled in
The reason why this is required?
"The document might easily be so prepared that the
removal of a sheet would completely change the

10

Succession
Atty. Balane
testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence
of a statement of the total number of sheets such
removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and
changing the numbers at the top of the following
sheets or pages"
In In re Will of Andrada - this consideration alone
was sufficient for the Court to declare in unanimity
that the omission was fatal (note: Andrada was decided
with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure substantially the same requirements with the current
Art. 805 of the CC)
Against this, petitioner Azuela cites Singson v. Florentino
and Taboada v. Hon. Rosal
In these cases, the court allowed probate of the wills
concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation
clause did not state the number of pages of the will
HOWEVER, the appellate court considered the
import of these two cases, and made the following
distinction which petitioner Azuela is unable to rebut:
In Singson v. Florentino, while there was no
mention of the number of pages in the
attestation clause, "the last part of the body of
the will contains a statement that it is composed
of eight pages, which circumstance in our
opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of
construction and places it within the realm of
similar cases where a broad and more liberal
view has been adopted to prevent the will of the
testator from being defeated by purely technical
considerations"
In Taboada v. Rosal, the notarial
acknowledgment in the will states the number of
pages used - "this Last Will and Testament
consists of two pages including this page"
Here, the number of pages used in the will was
NEVER stated in any part of the will.
Substantial Compliance argument (APPLICABLE TO
ARTICLE 809)

BLOCK A 2015
It is true that Art. 809 provides that in the absence of
bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue influence 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 executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of 805
Petitioner Azuela cites the report of Civil Code
Commission
"the underlying and fundamental objective
permeating the provisions on the [law] on [wills]
in this projects consists in the [liberalization] of
the manner of their execution with the end in
view of giving the testator more [freedom] in
[expressing] his last wishes. This objective is in
accord with the [modern tendency ] in respect to
the formalities in the execution of wills"
HOWEVER, petitioner conveniently omits the
qualification offered by the Code Commission
in the very same paragraph he cited; that such
liberalization be "but with sufficient
safeguards and restrictions to prevent the
commission of fraud and the exercise of
undue and improper pressure and influence
upon the testator."
Comment of Justice J.B.L. Reyes on how 809 should
be applied
The rule must be limited to disregarding those
defects that can be supplied by an examination
of the will itself (e.g. whether the signatures
appear in every page, whether the subscribing
witnesses are three, whether the will was
notarized)
BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES,
and whether all persons required to sign did so
in the presence of each other must
substantially appear in the attestation

11

Succession
Atty. Balane

clause, being the only check against perjury in

the probate proceedings
Caneda v. Court of Appeals - the rule is such that
If the omission can be supplied by an
examination of the will itself, without the need
of resorting to extrinsic evidence, then there is
no fatal defect
However, if the omission cannot be supplied
except by evidence aliunde, the attestation clause
is rendered invalid and so is the whole will
An examination of the will at hand reveals a couple of even more
critical defects that should lead to its rejection
The attestation clause was not signed by the
instrumental witnesses
In Cagro v. Cagro, 6, speaking through Chief Justice
Paras, out of 9 justices ,ruled that the failure of the
witnesses to sign the attestation clause is fatal
In the absence of the signature of the witnesses in the
attestation clause, it would be easy to add such clause
to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence
of the testator and any or all of the witnesses
The signature on the left margin of each page cannot
be "substantial compliance" - they are two entirely
distinct and separate requirements provided by 805
The signature on every page - knowledge of the
contents on each page
Signature to the attestation clause - knowledge
of the contents of the clause itself
Absent the signature in the attestation clause, the
will cannot be deemed to have been attested
ANOTHER DEFECT! (under art. 806) The requirement
that every will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses has also not
been complied with
Its importance is highlighted by the fact that it had
been segregated from all the other requirements in 805
- it merited its own provision (806)
"in lieu" of an acknowledgment, notary public,
Petronio Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko

BLOCK A 2015
ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng
Manila"
By no manner of contemplation can those
words be construed as an acknowledgment
Acknowledgment
Act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and
declaring it to be his act or deed
Involves an "extra step" undertaken whereby the
signor actually declares to the notary that the
executor of a document has attested to the
notary that the same is his/her own free will
The averment here may be considered to be a jurat
(part of an affividavit where the notary certifies that
before him/her, the document was subscribed and
sworn to by the executor)
Take note that here, the notary public averred
that he himself signed and notarized the
instrument while a jurat should avow that the
document was subscribed and sworn before the
notary public
Even if it is a jurat, the will is still invalid - 806 requires
acknowledgment and not merely that the will be
subscribed and sworn to
The acknowledgment is not an empty
meaningless act - it coerces the testator and the
instrumental witnesses to declare before an
officer of law that they had executed and
subscribed to the will as their own free act or
deed - under oath and under pain of perjury
A Notarial Will that is not acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and
the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is
subscribed and sworn to before a notary
public.
Two other defects:
The decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both
pages of the will on the left margin - her only signature

12

Succession
Atty. Balane

appearing at the so called "logical end" of the will on

the first page
The will is not numbered correlatively in letters on
each page - but instead numbered with Arabic
numerals
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner

2. Lopez v. Lopez
G. R. No. 189984 November 12, 2012
J. Perlas-Bernabe
Petitioner: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE
OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ENRIQUE S. LOPEZ
RICHARD B. LOPEZ
Respondent: DIANA JEANNE LOPEZ, MARYBETH DE LEON and
VICTORIA L. TUAZON
Facts:
On June 21, 1999, Enrique S. Lopez died leaving his wife, Wendy B.
Lopez, and their four legitimate children, namely, petitioner Richard
B. Lopez and the respondents Diana Jeanne Lopez, Marybeth de
Leon and Victoria L. Tuazon as compulsory heirs
On August 10, 1996 Enrique executed a will and constituted Richard
as the executor and administrator.
On September 27, 1999, Richard filed a petition for the probate of
his father's Last Will and Testament before the RTC of Manila
Marybeth opposed the petition contending (which was later on
adopted by Victoria)
o It was not executed and attested as required by law;
o That it was procured by undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of Richard.
Richards side

BLOCK A 2015
Richard presented the attesting witnesses: Reynaldo Maneja; Romulo
Monteiro; Ana Maria Lourdes Manalo and the notary public who
notarized the will, Atty. Perfecto Nolasco.
o The witnesses testified that after the late Enrique read and
signed the will on each and every page, they also read and
signed the same in the latter's presence and of one another.
o Photographs of the incident were taken and presented
during trial
o Manalo further testified that she was the one who prepared
the drafts and revisions from Enrique before the final copy
of the will was made.
Atty. Nolasco claimed that Enrique had been his client for more than
20 years.
o He testified that prior to the making of the will Enrique
consulted him in the preparation of the subject will and
furnished him the list of his properties for distribution
among his children.
o He prepared the will in accordance with Enrique's
instruction and that before the latter and the attesting
witnesses signed it in the presence of one another, he
translated the will which was written in English to Filipino
and added that Enrique was in good health and of sound
mind at that time.
Oppositions side
Respondents presented Gregorio B. Paraon, Officer-in-Charge of
the Notarial Section, of the RTC of Manila.
o His testimony centered mainly on their findings that Atty.
Nolasco was not a notary public for the City of Manila in
1996, which on cross examination was clarified after Paraon
discovered that Atty. Nolasco was commissioned as such
for the years 1994 to 1997.
RTC
Denied for failure to comply with Article 805 of the Civil Code that
requires a statement in the attestation clause of the number of pages
used upon which the will is written.

13

Succession
Atty. Balane
It held that while Article 809 requires substantial compliance with
Article 805, the rule only applies if the number of pages is reflected
somewhere else in the will with no evidence aliunde or extrinsic
evidence required.
o It was mentioned in the Acknowledgement portion that it
consists of 7 pages including the ratification and
acknowledgement portion, RTC observed that it was
actually 8 pages.
CA
Dismissed the case. (Partly because the RTC erroneous granted the
appeal because it was not made through a record of appeal
[remember tranquil] which applies to appeals in special proceedings)
It also affirmed RTCs finding that the failure to state the number of
pages of the will in the attestation clause was fatal.
Issue:
WON the CA erred in denying Richards petition to probate the will of
Enrique, for failure to substantially comply with the provisions of Article 805
(as mandated by Article 809). NO
Held:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.
Ratio:
1. The provisions of the Civil Code on Forms of Wills, particularly, Articles
805 and 809 of the Civil Code
Article 805, xxx 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. xxx
Article 809, In the absence of bad faith, forgery, 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

BLOCK A 2015
executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of Article 805.
2. The law is clear that the attestation must state the number of pages used
upon which the will is written.
The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible interpolation
or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or
decrease in the
While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the
form of the attestation clause, Richard likewise failed in this respect.
o The fact that it was written in the acknowledgement portion
that the will is consist of 7 pages, it cannot be deemed as
substantial compliance.
o The will actually consists of 8 pages including its
acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by
mere examination of the will itself but through the
presentation of evidence aliund.
3. J.B.L Reyes comment on the application of Article 809,
The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by
an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutively
numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every page; whether the
subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized. All these are facts
that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions concerning them
in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded.
But the total number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign did so
in the presence of each other must substantially appear in the attestation
clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings.

14

BALTAZAR v. LAXA
G.R. No. 174489 - April 11, 2012
J. Del Castillo
Petitioner: ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO
L. MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, VIRGILIO
REGALA, JR., and RAFAEL TITCO
Respondent: LORENZO LAXA

Summary:

Pacienca regala, a spinster, executed a will bequeathing all her property to her nephew
Lorenzo Lax and his spouse Corazon. Four years after her death, Lorenzo filed a
petition for probate. This was opposed by Baltazar, arguing that the bequeathed
properties belong to a certain Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his predecessor-ininterest. On appeal, Baltazar arguing that the Will was not executed and attested
according to law and that she is mentally incapable. SC held that, a careful examination
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 signed the Will in
the presence of one another and that the witnesses attested and subscribed to the Will in
the presence of the testator and of one another. Hence the petition was denied. (Please
see ratio for details regarding contested wills)

Facts:

Paciencia Reagala was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and
testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala" (in
Pampango) on September 13, 1981.
The Will, executed in the house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin
o It was read to her twice before she affixed her signature.
o The witnesses to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin (Dra.
Limpin), Francisco Garcia (Francisco) and Faustino R. Mercado
(Faustino). The three attested to the Wills due execution by affixing
their signatures below its attestation clause
Paciencia bequeathed all her properties, since she is childless and single, to
respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his wife Corazon F. Laxa and their
children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine Ross Laxa
o The pertinent provisions are as follows:
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 and their children

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

In return she commands the spouses to hold yearly masses for the repose of
her soul

Lorenzo is Paciencias nephew whom she treated as her own son. She took
care of Lorenzo since birth.
Paciencia left for the US, 6 days after executing the will. There, she resided
with Lorenzo and his family until her death on January 4, 1996.
More than four years after the death of Paciencia, Lorenzo filed a petition with
the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia.
o An order allowing Lorenzo to present evidence was issued
o Dra. Limpin attests the authenticity of the will but when asked by the
prosecutor regarding his fathers (Judge Limpin) mental fitness, she
said that he suffered a stroke and could no longer testify.
The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar (Antonio)
filed an opposition
o He averred that Paciencia had no right to bequeath the properties
because it belongs to Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his
predecessor-in-interest.
o Barely a month after, a supplemental opposition was filed by the
other petitioners contending that Paciencias Will was null and void
because ownership of the properties had not been transferred and/or
titled to Paciencia before her death
On September of the same year, petitioners asked the RTC to deny the
probate proceedings based on the following (Some of the grounds):
o The Will was not executed and attested to in accordance with the
requirements of the law
o Paciencia was mentally incapable
o It was obtained through fraud or trickery
RTC denied the request of both parties to be appointed as administrator but
the Probate of the Will continued.
Respondents
o Lorenzo testified that Paciencia did not suffer from any mental
disorder and was of sound mind, was not blind, deaf or mute; the
Will was in the custody of Judge Limpin and was only given to him
after Paciencias death through Faustino; and he was already residing
in the USA when the Will was executed
o

Petitioners
Rosie, a household help, claimed that she saw Faustino bring
"something" for Paciencia to sign at the latters house. She also
alleges that the testator is magulyan (forgetful) but this is only based
on her personal assessment.
Antonio identified the Will and testified that he had seen the said
document before because Paciencia brought the same to his mothers
house but it was still unsigned

He further alleged that he explained the testator the difference

between a lease and a will, after which Paciencia, allegedly, utter these
statements
Who is Lorenzo? Is he the only [son] of God? I have other relatives
[who should] benefit from my properties

Thereafter, the testator left the UNSIGNED DOCUMENT WITH

ANTONIO.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners
CA reversed it
o the state of being magulyan does not make a person mentally
unsound so [as] to render [Paciencia] unfit for executing a Will.
o

Issue:
WON the authenticity and due execution of the notarial Will was sufficiently established
to warrant its allowance for probate. Yes

Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.

Ratio:

1. Courts are tasked to determine nothing more than the extrinsic validity of a Will in
probate proceedings
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
2. The face of the Will shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by law.
Rule 75. Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. No will
shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be
conclusive as to its due execution.
The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the
notary public, are all present and evident on the Will.
Even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Will may be
authentic although they question her state of mind when she signed the same
as well as the voluntary nature of said act.
3. Rule regarding contested wills.
Rule 76. Section 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will
contested. If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary
in the case of wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, if present
in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the
death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the
court.

If a holographic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if at least three (3)
witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare that the
will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator; in the absence of
any competent witnesses, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony
may be resorted to.
We note that the inability of Faustino and Judge Limpin to appear and testify
before the court was satisfactorily explained during the probate proceedings
Faustino had a heart attack and could no longer talk
Judge Limpin is already Limpin because of a brain surgery and could no
longer talk as well.
4. Petitioners, despite ample opportunity, did not object to the testimonies nor challenge
the same during cross examination.
It is an established rule that "[a] testament may not be disallowed just because
the attesting witnesses declare against its due execution; neither does it have to
be necessarily allowed just because all the attesting witnesses declare in favor
of its legalization.
What is decisive is that the court is convinced by evidence before it, not
necessarily from the attesting witnesses, although they must testify, that the
will was or was not duly executed in the manner required by law.

5. 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 petitioner.
Petitioners, trough their witness Rosie, claim that Paciencia was "magulyan" or
forgetful so much so that it effectively stripped her of testamentary capacity.
SC agreed with the CA, and added that forgetfulness is not equivalent to being
of unsound mind.
6. Of Sound Mind
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.
o Paciencia was aware of the nature of the document she executed. She
specially requested that the customs of her faith be observed upon
her death
Apart from the testimony of Rosie, there is no substantial evidence, medical or
otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of
the execution of the Will.
The Court finds credence to Dra. Limpins testimony on the soundness of the
testators mind.
! The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning the
testators mental condition is entitled to great weight where they are
truthful and intelligent.

More importantly, a testator is presumed to be of sound mind (Under Art.

800) at the time of the execution of the Will and the burden to prove
otherwise lies on the oppositor.
7. Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear or threats, cannot be used as basis to
deny the probate of a will.
The unrebutted fact that Paciencia loved and treated Lorenzo as her own son
and that love even extended to Lorenzos wife and children.
The very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo and lived with him both
here and abroad highlights the special bond between them.
This unquestioned relationship between Paciencia and the devisees tends to
support the authenticity of the said document as against petitioners allegations
of duress, influence of fear or threats

Heirs of Policronio Ureta v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta

G.R. Nos. 165748, 165930 September 14, 2011
Mendoza, J.
Facts:
-

Background Facts:
o In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta begot 14 children. Among
these 14 belong the ascendants of the parties in this case
Policronio and Liberato. Here, the descendants of Policronio
are up against the rest of Alfonsos children and their
descendants (including those of Liberato)
o When he was alive, Alfonso was well-off he owned several
fishpens, a fishpond and a sari-sari store, among others.
o On October 1969, four of Alfonsos children (Policronio,
Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco), together with their
father met in Liberatos house. Francisco, who was then a
municipal judge suggested that to reduce the inheritance
taxes, their father should make it appear that he sold some
of his lands to his children. As such, Alfonso executed 4
deeds of sale covering parcels of land in favour of
Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and his common-law wife,
Valeriana dela Cruz.
o The dispute of this case is centered on the deed of sale in
favour of Policronio which covered six parcels of land.
o Since the sale was only made to avoid taxes and that no
monetary consideration was received, Alfonso continued to
enjoy the lands.
o When Alfonso died, except for a portion of parcel 5, the rest
of the parcels transferred to Policronio were never turned
over to him. Instead, these were turned over to the
administrators of Alfonsos estate Liberato, succeeded by
Prudencia, and then by her daughter Carmencita Perlas.

Subsequently, Alfonsos heirs executed a Deed of

Extrajudicial Partition, which included all the lands covered
by the 4 deeds of sale executed by Alfonso for tax
purposes.
o When the heirs of Policronio learned about the extrajudicial partition involving Alfonsos estate (Conrado, the
Policronio heirs representative avers that he did not
understand the partitions terms when he signed it) which
excludes them, they sought to amicably settle the matter
with the rest of the heirs of Alfonso.
o Given the futility of these talks, the heirs of Policronio filed
a complaint for declaration of ownership, recovery of
possession, annulment of documents, partition, and
damages.
o Note: a will was never mentioned in this case
RTC Judgment
o In favour of the Heirs of Alfonso. According to the court, it
was clearly established that the deed of sale was null and
void. Policronios heirs never took possession of the
involved lots and not even a single centavo was paid for
consideration of the sale. Even assuming there was, the
2000 pesos for the six parcels of land the heirs of Policronio
claimed that was paid to Alfonso was grossly inadequate.
o The deed of extrajudicial partition was declared valid by the
RTC. The Court considered Conrados (the representative of
the heirs of Policronio) claim that he did not understand the
full significance of his signature when he signed in behalf of
his co-heirs, as a gratuitous assertion. The RTC said that
given his signature in all the pages of the extrajudicial
partition and having appeared personally before the notary
public, he is presumed to have understood the contents.
Court of Appeals Judgment
o Partially Granted the CA, disagreeing with the RTC,
declared that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was void.
This decision of the CA was predicated on the incapacity of

one of the parties to give his consent to the contract. It held

that for Conrado to bind his co-heirs to the partition, it was
necessary that he acquired special powers of attorney from
them pursuant to Article 1878 of the Civil Code.
The CA said that the case should be remanded to determine
the proper portions to be awarded to the heirs

Issue (relevant to preterition): WON the defense of ratification and/or

preterition raised for the first time on appeal may be entertained
Held: No preterition in this case

vs.
Hon. Amor Reyes (Judge - RTC NCR Branch 21 Manila), Alfredo Seangio,
Alberto Seangio, Elisa Seangio-Santos, Victor Seangio, Alfonso Seangio,
Shirley Seangio-Lim, Betty Seangio and James Seangio, respondents
G.R. Nos. 140371-72 November 27, 2006
Azcuna, J.:
Facts:

Ratio:
-

Dy Yieng Seangio, Barbara Seangio and Virginia Seangio, petitioners

The heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the
Heirs of Policronio in the partition or the lack of authority of their
representative results, at the very least, in the preterition and not
the invalidity of the entire deed of partition. They argue that
remanding the case to determine proper inheritance is no longer
necessary since the issue is purely legal. Conrado then, according to
them, should just fully account for what he received and deliver to
his co-heirs their respective shares in the inheritance.
This cannot be given credence AT ALL
Their posited theory on preterition is no longer viable. Why?
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WILL IN THIS CASE
Preterition has been defined as the total omission of a compulsory
heir from the disinheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator
with regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the testatment,
either by not mentioning him at all, or by not giving him anything in
the hereditary property buy without expressly disinheriting him,
even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case
Thus, PRETERITION IS A CONCEPT OF TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION.
In the absence of a will, there can be no preterition.

September 21, 1988

The Respondent Seangios filed a petition for the settlement of
the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio
They also prayed for the appointment of Elisa SeangioSantos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of
Dy Yieng.
Petitioner Seangios opposed the petition. They contend that:
Dy Yieng is still very healthy and in full command of her
faculties
The deceased Segundo executed a GPA in favor of Virginia
giving her the power to manage and exercise control over
his business in the Philippines
Virginia is the most competent to serve as administrator
of the estate because she is a CPA
Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting one of the
respondent Seangios
Given the holographic will, the intestate proceedings are
to be automatically suspended and replaced by the
proceedings for the probate of the will
April 7, 1999
Petitioner Seangios file a petition for the probate of the
holographic will
They said that probate proceedings should take
precedence over the intestate proceedings (the one by
respondents above) because testate proceedings take
precedence and enjoy priority over intestate proceedings
July 1, 1999

Respondent Seangios moved for the dismissal of the probate

proceedings
On the ground that the document purported to be the
holographic will does not contain and disposition of the
estate of the deceased --- thus does not meet the
definition of a will under Art. 783 of the CC
It only shows disinheritance, nothing else
No compulsory heir was named nor instituted as heir,
devisee or legatee
HENCE, there is preterition which would lead to
intestacy
Petitioner filed their opposition
Generally, the authority of the probate court is limited only to a
determination of the extrinsic validity of the will
The ground raised by the respondent Seangios question the
intrinsic and not the extrinsic validity of the will
Disinheritance constitutes a disposition of the estate of a
decedent
The rule on preterition does not apply because Segundo's will
does not constitute a universal heir or heirs to the exclusion of
one or more compulsory heirs
August 10, 1999
RTC dismissed the petition for probate proceedings
A perusal of the "will" clearly shows that there is preterition
The only heirs mentioned are Alfredo and Virginia
The other heirs being omitted, Art. 854 applies
However, insofar as the widow Dy Yieng is concerned, 854
does not apply because she is not a compulsory heir in
the direct line
The lower court cited the case of Acain v. IAC which stated that
tolerating a will when on its face, is intrinsically void, is an
exercise of futility.
Thus, this petition

Issues:
o WON Respondent Judge erred in ruling on the intrinsic validity of the
will despite the settled rule that the authority of probate courts is
limited only to a determination of its extrinsic validity (i.e. Due
execution, testator's testamentary capacity, compliance with the
requisites/solemnities prescribed by law)YES

WON Judge erred in saying that preterition exists and that the will is
void
YES
WON Judge erred in not suspending the proceedings in the intestate
case despite the settled rule that testate proceedings take precedence
over intestate proceedings
YES
WON there was a valid disinheritance
YES

Held/Ratio:
o Can the document executed by Segundo be considered a holographic
will?
Under art. 810 of the CC, a holographic will must be
Entirely written
Dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself
Segundo's document, though may it come as a mere
disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities
precribed by law - written, dated and signed by Segundo
himself
While it does not make an affirmative disposition of Segundo's
property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless is an act
of disposition itself
The disinheritance of Alfredo results in the disposition in
favor of those who would succeed in the absence of
Alfredo
A WILL DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE AN EXPLICIT DISPOSITION
OF PROPERTY TO BE VALID
The intent or will of the testator, so long as it is expressed in the
form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be
recognized as the supreme law in succession
Holographic wills, being usually done by those not learned in
the law, should be construed more liberally than the ones
drawn by experts
o With regard to the issue on preterition
The Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line
were not preterited
Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his
compulsory heirs

The mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners,

Virginia, did not operate to institute her as a universal
heir - included plainly as a witness
Considering that the document is Segundo's will and that the law
favors testacy over intestacy, the probate of the will cannot be
dispensed with - thus, the testate proceedings for the settlement of
the estate takes precedence over intestate proceedings for the same
purpose.

On the issue of preterition

The court believes that the compulsory heirs were not
pereterited in the will
In this case, the court believes that what is involved is
Segundos last expression to bequeath his estate to all
his compulsory heirs, with the exception of Alfredo
Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of
his other compulsory heirs the mere mention of the
name of one of the petitioners, Virginia, in the
document did not operate to institute her as the
universal heir (she was merely designated as a witness
to the altercation between Segundo and Alfredo)

Succession
Atty. Balane

BLOCK A 2015

Article 887

In the meantime (September 21, 1972), prior to the rendition

of final judgment to the criminal case, petitioners
commenced this suit for recovery of ownership and
possession to the CFI of Aklan.
o The RTC(1994, by virtue of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act) rendered a decision in favor of
petitioners.
Apparently, Victor Miralles mortgaged the
land to Inog
o CA reversed
The deed of sale presented by appellees
states that, xxx This parcel of land was
inherited from Alejandra Sespee, xxx being
the sole heir of the said Alejandra Sespee.
CA said that this is false and erroneous
because the deceased had more than one
intestate heir and Miralles is merely a sonin-law.
The court also doubted the supposed sale to
Miralles, which was supposed to be oral.
Moreover, there was no proof that Miralles
exercised the rights and obligations of an
owner.
The cross examination of Crisanto Miralles
also reveals that Apolonia was in possession
of the said land and that Inog was never
took possession.

1. Tumbokon v. Legaspi
G.R. No. 153736 - August 4, 2010
J. Bersamin
Petitioners: SPOUSES NICANOR TUMBOKON (deceased),
substituted by: ROSARIO SESPEE and their Children
Respondents: APOLONIA G. LEGASPI, and PAULINA S. DE
MAGTANUM

Facts:
Under contention herein are the ownership and possession
of that parcel of land with an area of 12,480 square meters,
more or less, situated in Ibajay, Aklan.
o The land planted to rice, corn, and coconuts was
originally owned by the late Alejandra Sespee
(Alejandra), who had had two marriages.
o First with Gaudencio Franco, by whom she bore
Ciriaca Franco, whose husband was Victor Miralles.
o The second marriage was to Jose Garcia, by whom
she bore respondent Apolonia Garcia (Apolonia),
who married Primo Legaspi.
o Alejandra died without a will in 1935, and was
survived by Apolonia and Crisanto Miralles, son of
Victor and Ciriaca.
The controversy started when petitioners asserted that they
bought the land from Cresencia Inog, who supposedly
acquired the land from Victor Miralles.
The Spouses Nicanor Tumbokon and Rosario Sespee filed a
criminal complaint for qualified theft against respondents
Apolonia and Paulina S. Magtanum for stealing coconuts
from the land in dispute.
o CFI found that respondents are guilty
o On appeal, CA rejected Apolonias defense of
ownership.

Issue:
WON CA decision is supported by law and evidence. Yes
WON the decision in the criminal case which involves the same land
constitutes as res judicata for the present case. No
Held:

Succession
Atty. Balane
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied, and the
decision rendered on May 15, 2001 by the Court of Appeals is
affirmed.
Ratio:
CA Decision supported by Law and evidence
1. Petitioners failed to prove the Victor Miralles had any right to
transfer to Cresencia Inog.
He was not himself an heir of Alejandra, being only her sonin-law.
Thus, the statement in the deed of absolute sale entered into
between Victor Miralles and Cresenciana Inog, to the effect
that the parcel of land was inherited from the deceased
Alejandra Sespee by Victor Miralles being the sole heir of
the said Alejandra Sespee, having no other brothers or
sisters, was outrightly false.
2. A decedents compulsory heirs in whose favor the law reserves a
part of the decedents estate are exclusively the persons enumerated
in Article 8871
Only two forced heirs survived Alejandra upon her death,
namely: respondent Apolonia, her daughter, and Crisanto
Miralles, her grandson.

Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their
legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1
and 2; neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall
inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code. (807a)
1

BLOCK A 2015
The latter succeeded Alejandra by right of representation
because his mother, Ciriaca, had predeceased Alejandra.
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 she were living or if she could
have inherited.
o Crisanto Miralles was called to the succession by law
and not by the person represented (Ciriaca); he thus
succeeded Alejandra, not Ciriaca
3. Victor Miralles supposed acquisition of the land by oral sale from
Alejandra had no competent factual support in the records
Oral sale was incompatible with the petitioners anchor
claim that he had acquired the land by inheritance from
Alejandra.
The evidence for oral sale was also not credible and
insufficient
In sum, Victor had no rights, and as such he could not have
transferred anything to Inog, and in turn did not validly transfer it to
petitioners.
Res Judicata
4. Requisites of Res Judicata
(1) the former judgment must be final;
(2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be between the first and second actions (a) identity of
parties, (b) identity of the subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of
action.
5. The causes of action in the civil and the criminal actions were
different and distinct from each other.
The civil action is for the recovery of ownership of the land
filed by the petitioners, while the criminal action was to
determine whether the act of the respondents of taking the

Succession
Atty. Balane

BLOCK A 2015

coconut fruits from the trees growing within the disputed

land constituted the crime of qualified theft.
In the former, the main issue is the legal ownership of the
land, but in the latter, the legal ownership of the land was
not the main issue.
2. Conclusiveness of judgment is not also applicable
The petitioners themselves commenced both actions, and
fully and directly participated in the trial of both actions.
Any estoppel from assailing the authority of the CA to
determine the ownership of the land based on the evidence
presented in the civil action applied only to the petitioners,
who should not be allowed to assail the outcome of the civil
action after the CA had ruled adversely against them.

Suntay v. Cojuanco-Suntay
G.R. No. 183053 - June 16, 2010
J. Nachura
Petitioner: IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF
CRISTINA AGUINALDO-SUNTAY; EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III,
Respondent: ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY
Facts:

Issue:

Decedent, Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay married to Dr. Federico

Suntay, died intestate. They had an only son named Emilio I, who
predeceased his parents.
Cristina was survived by her husband and grandchildren, herein the
petitioner (Emilio Suntay III) and respondent (Isabel CojuangcoSuntay).
Emilio I was married to Isabel Cojuangco and they reared 3 children
(Isabel; Margarita; and Emilio II). Their marriage was subsequently
annulled and Emilio I had 2 children out of wedlock (Namely,
Emilio III and Suntay Tanedo alias Nenita) with two different
women.
Cristina and Frederico reared Emilio III and Nenita, despite being
illegitimate children; both were acknowledged natural children.
The children of the first marriage were living with their mother and
the visitation rights of Frederico was subsequently rescinded.
Emilio adopted his illegitimate grandchildren Emilio III and Nenita
in 1993.
In 1995, Isabela filed a the issuance of letters of administration in her
favor, of approximately 29M worth of property left by the decedent.
She also alleged the following as the surviving heirs:
! (1) Federico C. Suntay, spouse.
! (2) Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, legitimate granddaughter.
! (3) Margarita Cojuangco-Suntay, legitimate granddaughter.
! (4) Emilio Cojuangco-Suntay, legitimate grandson
Frederico opposed this, he argued that he is capable of administering
the estate of Cristina and he is part owner of it. Further alleges that
Isabel and her family had been alienated from their grandparents for
more than thirty (30) years; and that the enumeration of heirs in the
petition was incomplete as it did not mention the other children of
son namely: Emilio III and Nenita.
Failing to amicably settle the issue, Frederico nominated Emilio III as
administrator. In the course of the proceedings, Frederico died.
RTC Ruled in favor of Emilio III. CA reversed.

Who, as between Emilio III and respondent, is better qualified to act as

administrator of the decedents estate? Both
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74949 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Letters of
Administration over the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay shall
issue to both petitioner Emilio A.M. Suntay III and respondent Isabel
Cojuangco-Suntay upon payment by each of a bond.
Ratio:
CA erred in excluding Emilio III in the administration of the
undivided estate. The CA mistakenly glossed over certain facts.
! The underlying philosophy of our law on intestate
succession is to give preference to the wishes and presumed
will of the decedent, absent a valid and effective will.
! The basis for Article 992 of the Civil Code, referred to as the
iron curtain bar rule, is quite the opposite scenario in the
facts obtaining herein for the actual relationship between
Federico and Cristina, on one hand, and Emilio III, on the
other, was akin to the normal relationship of legitimate
relatives
! Emilio III was reared by Cristina and Frederico from infancy
and Emilio III is a legally adopted child of Federico, entitled
to share in the distribution of the latters estate as a direct
heir, one degree from Federico, not simply representing his
deceased illegitimate father, Emilio I.
! The properties of Cristina are still commingled with her
husband because of the conjugal partnership.
As Federicos adopted son, Emilio IIIs interest in the estate of
Cristina is as much apparent to this Court as the interest therein of
respondent
! CA even declared that "under the law, [Federico], being the
surviving spouse, would have the right of succession over a
portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, aside from
his share in the conjugal partnership."
! Thus, the SC was puzzled why the CA resorted to a strained
legal reasoning Emilio IIIs nomination was subject to a
suspensive condition and rendered inoperative by reason of
Federicos death wholly inapplicable to the case at bar.

Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists the order of preference

in the appointment of an administrator of an estate1
! However, the order of preference is not absolute for it
depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each
case. It depends on the discretion of the court.
! The attendant facts and circumstances of this case
necessitate, at the least, a joint administration by both
respondent and Emilio III of their grandmothers, Cristinas,
estate.
! Uy v. Court of Appeals, SC upheld the appointment by the
trial court of a co-administration between the decedents son
and the decedents brother. This was latter reaffirmed by the
cases of Delgado Vda. De De la Rosa v. Hears of Marciana
Rustia.
! The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of
co-administrators, specially in cases where justice and equity
demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in
the management of the estates, a situation which obtains
here.
! Noting that there are other heirs (illegits and legits of Emilio
I) and the unliquidated conjugal partnership, the SC is
impelled to move in only one direction, i.e., joint
administration of the subject estate. Because in essence the
SC said to that both of them that, Youve got that one
thing.
Counsel for petitioner meticulously argues that Article 992 of the
Civil Code.
! Emilio III, an illegitimate grandchild of the decedent, was
actually treated by the decedent and her husband as their
own son, reared from infancy, educated and trained in their

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If no executor is named in the
will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a
person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion
of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to
have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected
by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for
thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that
administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other
person as the court may select.

businesses, and eventually legally adopted by decedents

husband, the original oppositor to respondents petition for
letters of administration.
JBL Reyes,
In the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 the right of representation
was admitted only within the legitimate family; so much so
that Article 943 of that Code prescribed that an illegitimate
child can not inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children
and relatives of his father and mother. The Civil Code of the
Philippines apparently adhered to this principle since it
reproduced Article 943 of the Spanish Code in its own Art.
992, but with fine inconsistency, in subsequent articles (990,
995 and 998) our Code allows the hereditary portion of the
illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate. So that while Art. 992 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 being indefensible and unwarranted, in the future
revision of the Civil Code we shall have to make a choice
and decide either that the illegitimate issue enjoys in all
cases the right of representation, in which case Art. 992 must
be suppressed; or contrariwise maintain said article and
modify Articles 995 and 998.
The factual antecedents of this case accurately reflect the
basis of intestate succession, i.e., love first descends, for the
decedent, Cristina, did not distinguish between her
legitimate and illegitimate grandchildren. Neither did her
husband, Federico, who, in fact, legally raised the status of
Emilio III from an illegitimate grandchild to that of a
legitimate child.
Peculiar circumstances of this case, overthrow the legal
presumption in Article 992 of the Civil Code that there exist
animosity and antagonism between legitimate and
illegitimate descendants of a deceased.

CASILANG V. CASILANG-DIZON
G.R. No. 180269 February 20, 2013

Reyes, J.
FACTS:
The Family
o The late spouses Liborio Casilang and Francisca Zacarias had 8
children
Felicidad
Ireneo
Marcelina
Jacinta
Bonifacio
Leonora
Jose (petitioner)
Flora
o Liborio died intestate on October, 1982, followed by the death of
Francisca on December of the same year
o Bonifacio died in 1986, survived by his child Bernabe
o Ireneo died in 1992, survived by his four children, herein
respondents:
Mario
Angelo
Rosario (Casilang-Dizon as in the title of the case)
Rodolfo
The Property of Liborio
o Left no debts
o Consisted of 3 parcels of land located in Barangay Talibaew,
Clasiao, Pangasinan
o In 1997, Respondent Rosario filed with the MTC a complaint for
unlawful detainer to evict her uncle, Jose (petitioner)
o She claimed that such lot was owned by her father by virtue of a
Tax Declaration issued under her fathers name.
o Subsequently, the respondents executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition with Quitclaim whereby
They adjudicated one lot to themselves

Respondents Mario, Angelo, and Rodolfo renounced their

shares in the lot in favor of Rosario
The Dispute
o Joses position:
Jose raised the defense that he was the lawful, absolute,
exclusive owner and in actual possession of the said lot,
and that he acquired the same through intestate
succession from his late father
However, he and his lawyer failed to appear in the pretrial conference and were then declared in default,
resulting in the adverse judgment against him
o MTC in favor of Rosario
Ordered Jose to remove his house, vacate the lot, and pay
Rosario rentals from the filing of the complaint until the
transfer of possession, plus attorneys fees, litigation
expenses and costs
Writ of execution and writ of demolition were
subsequently issued.
o Petitioners (Jose and other children of Liborio and Francisca) filed
a complaint for annulment of documents, ownership and peaceful
possession with damages against respondents
The sought to annul the Extrajudicial Deed of Partition
They alleged that ALL 8 CHILDREN of Liborio entered
into a verbal partition of the estate where Jose was given
the subject-lot in this case
Jose lived there since childhood
Ireneo never claimed ownership nor possession of such
lot because his share was 1/5 portion of another lot of
which he took exclusive possession during his lifetime
o Rosarios counterclaim
She is the real owner by virtue of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition
Her ownership can be traced back to her late father Ireneo
which the latter inherited by way of intestate succession
from his deceased father Liborio
That Jose has already disposed his share in the estate of
Liborio through a series of sales and dispositions
o Petitioners reply MTC failed to consider a material fact Jose
had long been in prior possession under a claim of title which he
obtained by partition

Ruling of the RTC: in favor of the plaintiffs

o Deed of extrajudicial partition null and void
o Jose as the lawful owner and possessor
o Ordering defendants to pay Jose attorneys fees and litigation
expenses
o The RTC affirmed Joses ownership by virtue of the oral partition
made by all the siblings
o The RTC found baseless the claim of Rosario that the lot was an
inheritance of her father
Tax declaration is not conclusive prove of ownership
The tax declaration, itself, is questionable since it was
issued only in 1994 when Ireneo died in 1992
CA reversed the RTC relying on the factual findings of the MTC in the
eviction case
o Former owner was Ireneo, Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was
valid
o CA said that the case filed by petitioners was a mere afterthought
after they lost the eviction case.
Thus, this petition
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in upholding the deed of extrajudicial partition and
quitclaim dated April 3, 1997 because it grossly violated the substantive right of
Casilang as direct compulsory heir
HELD: Yes, there is merit in the petition
RATIO:
On the issue of conflict of factual findings, the Court decided to make a
determination due to the conflict in the findings of the lower court and the
CA
o By relying solely on the findings of the MTC, the CA disregarded
the testimonial, documentary, and circumstantial evidence of the
petitioners obtained by the RTC after a full trial on the merits
o A review of the parties evidence shows that an oral partition was
entered into by the siblings (children of Liborio) giving the lot in
issue to Jose as his share
o Rosario presented no proof whatsoever that her father, Ireneo,
inherited the lot
The parties verbal partition is valid, and has been ratified by their
taking possession of their shares

The validity of an oral partition is well-settled in our jurisdiction

(Vda. De Espina v. Abaya)
o The validity of such oral partition may be confirmed by subsequent
acts of the parties involved such as the execution of notarized
quitclaims (Maestrado v. CA)
o A parol(oral) partition may be sustained on the ground that parties
thereto have acquiesced in and ratified the partition by taking
possession in severalty, exercising acts of ownership with respect
thereto, or otherwise recognizing the existence of the partition.
(Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot)
o Joses possession of Lot No. 4618 under a claim of ownership is
well borne out by the records. It is also consistent with the claimed
verbal partition with his siblings, and fully corroborated by his
sisters Felicidad, Jacinta, Leonora, and Flora, who further testified
that they each had taken possession of their own shares and built
their houses thereon.
o A possessor of the real estate property is presumed to have title
thereto unless the adverse claimant establishes a better right, which
Rosario failed to do in this case
Tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of
ownership
Even assuming they are, it must be noted that Ireneo did
not file those declarations himself since he died in 1992
while the declarations were dated 1994
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The
decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED.
o