NENITA DE VERA SUROZA v. JUDGE REYNALDO P.

HONRADO
Aquino, J.
19 December 1981
Adm. Matter No. 2026-CFI
Doctrine
Art. 804 of the Civil Codeevery will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.
Summary
Facts

Judge probated a will which violated the above doctrine and also completely excluded the direct descendant of
the decedent, skipping it all over to a supposed granddaughter. Judge was fined.
THE CAST

THE DECEDENT: Marcelina Salvador, married to Mauro Suroza. The two raised Agapito, who used the
name Suroza and considered the two his parents.

THE HEIR: Agapito Suroza, married Nenita de Vera. Agapito and Nenita had a child named Lilia.

THE GUARDIAN: Agapito, a soldier, became disabled and was declared incompetent. Nenita was
appointed his guardian.

THE EPAL: In another guardianship proceeding (which failed), a woman named Arsenia de la Cruz.
She was apparently his girlfriend and wanted to be Agapitos guardian, claiming that Nenita had
cheated on Agapito and that the two lived separately.

THE USURPER: Marilyn Sy, daughter of Antonio and Hermogena Talan entrusted to Arsenia.
Supposedly, Marilyn was raised by Marcelina and used the name Suroza, too. She stayed in their house
but was not adopted by Agapito.
THE DRAMA

Marcelina allegedly executed a notarial will when she was 73 in English and thumbmarked by her
(illiterate si lola), leaving her entire estate to her supposed granddaughter Marilyn.

Upon Marcelinas death, her labandera and alleged executrix of her will Marina Paje petitioned for the
probate of the will. Judge Honrado appointed Marina as administratrix and issued two orders allowing
withdrawals from Marina of P10k to deliver to Marilyn.

Another order was issued to the deputy sheriff to eject the occupants of Marcelinas house, including
Nenita.

Nenita was previously unaware of the will and thus moved to set aside the ejection order, claiming that
Agapito was the sole heir of Marcelina and that Marilyn was not Agapitos daughter nor Marcelinas
granddaughter. Further, she alleged that the will was void because of the preterition of Agapito and
Marina was unqualified to be an administratrix.

Marina answered and admitted that Marilyn was not Marcelinas granddaughter, but the daughter of
Agapito and Arsenia (gasp!), and that Agapito was not Marcelinas son but merely an anak-anakan.

Judge Honrado denied the various petitions raised by Nenita. Instead of appealing the decision, Nenita
filed to annul the probate proceedings and an administrative complaint against the judge.

Among the affidavits attached to the petition was one from the notary, Domingo P. Aquino, who swore
that the testatrix and the three witnesses did not personally appear before him; it was an
accommodation for a brother lawyer (brod?) on the condition that the persons would be brought to the
notary. This was never complied with.

The petition was dismissed by the CA because the remedy was effectively an appeal, and her failure to
appeal does not entitle her to file a petition for certiorari

Relying on that dismissal, Honrado filed a motion to dismiss the administrative case for having been
mooted.

Ratio/Issues
I

Whether the administrative case should be dismissed (NO)

1
2
3
4

5
6
7

RPC Art.204-206judges may be held criminally liable for judgments/orders manifestly unjust or
with inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Sec. 67, Judiciary Lawadmin action may be taken for serious misconduct or inefficiency.
In this case, judge should have seen that the will written in English and thumbmarked by an
illiterate was void.
In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a language "understood and
known" to the testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will was read to the
testatrix "and translated into Filipino language". That could only mean that the will was written in
a language not known to the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is void
Art. 804 of the Civil Codeevery will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the
testator.
The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment
where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is repeatedly referred to as the "testator" instead of "testatrix".
Had respondent judge been careful and observant, he could have noted not only the anomaly as to
the language of the will but also that there was something 'wrong in instituting the supposed
granddaughter as sole heiress and giving nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive.

Held

Petition GRANTED. Fined 1 mo. Salary.

Prepared by: Job de Leon [CivPro | Prof. Alfonso Cruz]