GENERAL PRINCIPLES testator was used (3) Notary was not presented as witness (4) The legal heir

testator was used (3) Notary was not presented as witness (4) The legal heir ( Agapito ) was
not instituted as legal heir, instead the heiress Marilyn. The Court found Judge Honrado guilty
Opening of Succession of dereliction of duty for allowing the will to be probated despite several anomalies attendant
to it.
1. Uson vs Del Rosario
2.Garcia vs Lacuesta
2. De Borja vs De Borja
An appeal was filed before SC to reverse the decision of the CA disallowing the will of Antero
3. Bonilla vs Barcena Mercado for failing to observe the attestation requirement under 618 of Code of Civil
Procedure specifically the affixing of his signature or thumbmark in each and every page. It
4. Barromeo-Herrera vs Borromeo
appears that the testator wrote cross at the end of his name which are not his usual signature
5. Rioferio vs Court of Appeals and not to be considered as thumbmark.

Subject and Object of Succession 3.Matias vs Salud

1. Cayetano vs Leonides Aurea Matias initiated a special proceeding for the allowance of the will of Gabina Raquel
who died single on May 15, 1952 and named her as heir and executrix. Basilia Salud, one of
2. Parish Priest of Victoria vs Rigor the nieces and nephews of the deceased opposed such petition and asked the court that the
administration should be given to them. The Court dismissed Horacio Rodriguez as special
3. Samaniego-Celada vs Abena administrator for abuse of authority and gross negligence. The court assigned Basilia Salud as
special administratix in his stead. While the main petition is pending before Judge Gonzales,
Law Governing form and content the camp of Basilia Salud requested the court to allow them to collect the rents due, and gather
and sell all the produce of the deceased lands which was granted later on. Meanwhile, Basilia
1. Enriquez vs Abadia Salud resigned as special administratix due to old age and recommended Victorina Salud as
her replacement. Aurea Matias opposed such request and moved that the administration should
2. Fleumer vs His
be given to her being the universal heir or appoint other administrator other than the Saluds.
The main issue in this case is who should be the right administrator for the properties of
3. Dela Cerna vs Potot
decedent Gabina Raquel. The Court remand the case to the lower court and consider the
4. Estate of Amos Bellis appointment of co-administrators.

CONCEPT OF WILLS 4.Nera vs Rimando

1.Suroza vs. Honrado The issue in this case is whether the testator and witnesses in their presence have seen each
other in the signing of the will of the testator. The trial court ruled that despite the allegation
Spouses Mauro Suroza, US Army, and Marcelina Salvador adopted Agapito Suroza when he that the other subscribing witness was in the outside the room and have impeded by the curtain
was 5. Agapito got married to Nenita De Vera and begot a child named Lilia. When Mauro to see the other witnesses signing the document would still be sufficient to validate the due
died, Marcelina inherited his properties. Agapito during his lifetime was also an US Army but execution of the will. Upon appeal, the SC affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The high court
got sicked and hospitalized in San Francisco USA. His paramour Arsenia Dela Cruz, gave to held that “ at the moment when the witness Javellana signed the document he was actually and
Marcelina a child named Marilyn Sy as alleged Agapito’s daughter to her. Then Marcelina physically present and in such position with relation to Jaboneta and without any physical
died and in her will, she named Marilyn Sy as her soul heir. Marina Paje, laundrywoman of obstruction to prevent his doing so.” It went further and said that the rule is it does not depend
Marcelina as the designated executrix asked the court to probate the will but upon learning of solely on the fact that their eyes were actually cast upon on the paper at the moment of
Nenita De Vera during the eviction case, she filed his opposition and asked the court to declare subscription by each of them but by merely casting the eyes in the proper direction they could
the will void and named her as the administratix. Judge Honrado despite being apprised of the have seen each other sign.
circumstances he still allowed the will to be probated and dismissed the counter petition
despite the protestation of Nenita that ; (1) The will was written in English not known to the 5.Icasiano vs Icasiano
testratix which is clear violation of Sec (2) Hasty preparation of will, instead of testratix,
Celso Icasiano filed a petition for the allowance and admission to probate the will of Josefa Apolinaria Ledesma, during his lifetime, executed her last will in the presence of three
Villacorte and for his appointment as executor. Both Natividad and Enrique Icasiano, children instrumental witnesses, Ramon Tabiana, Gloria Montinola and Vicente Yap. Her sister, Matea
of Josefa, filed their opposition. During the trail, Celso Icasiano introduced the duplicate copy Ledesma, however disputed such will for having it made with lacked of testamentary capacity
of the will and alleged that all the requirements prescribed by law were complied with, to wit; and procured through undue influence and not in compliance with law. Despite her
that the Testator died in 1958 at the house of her daughter in Manila. That it was prepared by protestation, the trial court admitted to probate such will. The issues to be resolved are 1.
Attorney Fermin Samson and published and attested by three instrumental witnesses namely; Whether the will was executed by testatrix in the presence of the instrumental witnesses 2.
Attorneys Justo Torres Jr, and Jose Natividad and Vinicio B. Diy, and further witnessed by Whether the acknowledgement clause was signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary
Governor Emilio Rustia of Bulacan, Judge Ramon Icasiano and a little girl and acknowledged without the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses. The SC ruled that the will was executed
by the notary Attorney Oyengco Ong,. That from the testimony of the material witnesses, it in compliance with law. The SC held that the testimonies of those oppositor’s witnesses are
tends to show that testratix signed her signature at the end and on the left margin of each and bereft of worth being either heresy and farfetched while those of testimonies of instrumental
every page and attested and subscribed by three instrumental witnesses in the presence of the witnesses are worthy of credence and should be given probative value. The Court went on to
testator and of each other. However, the original will has shown that attorney Natividad say that the Article 806 does not require the attestation clause to be acknowledged by the
signature was missing on the page three of the instrument. That also, it was prepared and notary public in the same day or occasion. The subsequent signing and sealing by the notary of
attested in the language known to and spoken by to the testatrix and witnesses and was his certification that the testament was duly acknowledged by the participants therein is no
executed on one single occasion in duplicate copies and duly acknowledged before Notary part of the acknowledgement itself nor the testamentary act. Separate execution without the
Public Jose Oyengco. The oppositor introduced expert testimony to the effect that the presence of the testatrix and her witnesses cannot be said to violate the rule that testatment
signatures of testatrix in the duplicate are not genuine nor were they written or affixed on the should be completed without interrruption
same occasion as the original. It also alleged that it was procured through mistake, and undue
influence. The SC ruled that duplicate copy of the will is probatable despite the absence of 8. Caneda vs Court of Appeals
original will. On the ground that the signature of the testatrix were not genuine, the high court
held that the expert testimony failed to show with certainty and did not deny the fact that the Mateo Caballero executed his last will at his residence in Talisay Cebu before three attesting
due execution of the will and the signature being true despite some slight variation to it. As to witnesses and duly assisted by two attorneys. The will designated several individuals as
the ground of mistake and undue influence, the court said that no such thing exists and the legacies and devises over his real and personal properties. Before he passed away, he asked the
missing signature by attorney was due to mere inadvertence and not caused by fraud and court to probate his will. After his death, one Benoni Cabrera filed before the court testate
malice. proceeding and named him as administrator. Second petition was filed by nieces and nephews
of the testator. After the death of the testator, RTC Cebu appointed William Cabrera as special
6.Cruz vs Villasor administrator and deferred the second petition until the first petition was resolved. Petitioners
opposed the allowance of first petition alleging that the purported will was procured during the
Agapita Cruz, the surviving spouse of late Valente Cruz asked the court to disallow the testator was not in good health and the signature was not genuine. Such allegation was
probate of the will of her late husband which was filed by Manuel Lugas, the executor. She countered by those witnesses who positively attested and subscribed the will. The Probate
argued that the will was procured through fraud, deceit, undue influence and Court granted the petition. Upon appeal, they again asserted that the will in question is null
misrepresentation. Also she posited that the testator executed such will without knowledge of and void for the reason that its clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that
the details of the properties to be disposed of and hence not in accordance with law. The the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence
executor however maintained that there was substantial compliance of the law having atleast and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of
three attesting witnesses even if the notary acted one of them. Despite her objection, the court one another. CA affirmed the ruling of the Trial Court for the reason that such will specifically
probated the will. The SC ruled that there was no substantial compliance of legal the attestation clause was substantially complied with the requirements of the law. SC granted
requirements. The notary public whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered a the petition. The SC held that upon careful reading of the attestation clause, there were no
third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed. This statements that state “the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence
cannot be done because he cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before of the testator and of one another”. The absence of such statement required by law is a fatal
the other to acknowledge his participation in the making of the will. It would place him in defect of imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will. The
inconsistent position and the very purpose of acknowledgement which is to minimize fraud presence of said signatures only establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does not
would be thwarted. prove that the attesting witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of
each other. And such omissions which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself,
7. Javellana vs Ledesma without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and correspondingly,
would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed.
9. Taboada vs Rosal-SIGNING MUST BE THE SAME PLACE AS THE TESTATOR incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing and give him the
opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his instructions. The SC ruled in favour of the
The will of late Dorotea Perez was the subject of Probate proceeding. The will was written in defendants. Although, the requirement of Art 808 of double reading was not strictly followed
the Cebuano-Visayan dialect and consists of two pages. The first page contained the entire since instead the will was read by any of instrumental witness and then by the notary public, it
testamentary dispositions, signed at the end or bottom of the page by testatrix alone and the was the attorney who drafted the will read before the testator and the witnesses, and read them
left hand margin by three instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the only once not twice. However, SC has held in number of occasions that substantial compliance
attestation clause and the acknowledgment was signed at the end of the attestation clause by is acceptable when the purpose of the law has been satisfied and the rules must not be so rigid
the three attesting witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. After hearing on the and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege. In this case, the will was previously
merits. Judge Pamatian denied the probate of the will for want of a formality in its execution. acknowledged by the testator and during the execution, the instrumental witnesses asked the
Judge Pamatian was replaced by Judge Rosal. Then, the motion for reconsideration and testator if the contents thereon were of his own free will and he answered in the affirmative.
motion for appointment for special administrator were both denied. Judge Rosal interpreted These facts coupled with his own acts would have assured him that what was read to him were
Art. 805 that it is not enough that only the testatrix signs at the end but and the three the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents.
subscribing witnesses must also sign at the same place or at the end, in the presence of the
testatrix and of one another because the attesting witnesses to a will attest not merely the will 11. Garcia vs Vasquez
itself but also the signature of the testator. The SC ruled in favour of the petitioner. The Court
held that the signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin have the same effect Gliceria Avelino Del Rosario, in 1965 died unmarried and without descendant, ascendants nor
and the will was attested not only the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the brother or sister. At the time of death, she was said to be 90 years old and owned several real
due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. As to the question that the properties. Consuelo Gonzales Vda. De Precillia petitioned the CFI of Manila for probate the
attestation clause did not state the number of pages used in writing in will. The SC held that 1956 alleged last will and Testament of the testator. The petition was opposed by several
such will would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is individual being either legatee or relatives within fifth civil degree. Despite such opposition,
discernible from the entire will that it is really and actually composed of only two pages duly the probate court granted the petition and named her as special administratrix upon a bond of
signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. The acknowledgment itself states that “ 30,000. However, upon the death of the testatrix, another will allegedly made in 1960 was
This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including this page” a substantial presented before the Court for probate replacing the previous will. Such will of the testator
compliance thereof. despite several oppositions against the due execution, conflict of interest and capacity of the
testator in executing the same, the probate court approved it.The issue here is whether or not
10. Alvarado vs Gaviola- BLIND, DOUBLE READING, SUBSTANTIAL the will made in 1960 was valid. The SC ruled in the negative, it said that despite the removal
COMPLAINCE of cataract in her eyes, her vision was mainly for viewing distant objects and for reading print.
The record shows that she could not have physically read or understood the alleged testament
A 79 year old Brigido Alvarado executed his last will wherein he disinherited an illegitimate hence her due execution of the will would have required observance of the provisions of
son and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will . Such will was read by the Article 808 which requires double reading by any witness in the will and by notary public
lawyer who drafted the eight-paged document, in the presence of the testator and instrumental during acknowledgment. The rationale of the requirement is to be able her to object if the
witnesses and the notary public. The latter four followed the reading with their own respective dispositions thereof are not in accordance with her wishes. The court also grants the prayer to
copies previously furnished them. Later on, the holographic will was admitted to probate. remove the Consuelo as administratrix for conflict of interest and institute action to recover
However, a codicil was executed in which changed some of the dispositions in the will. Like the properties allegedly sold by her to the late Alfonso Precilla.
the previous will, the private respondent who read it load in his presence and in the presence
of instrumental witnesses and the notary public. Petition to probate the will and the codicil was 12. Gonzales vs Court of Appeal
filed after the death of the testator. Opposition was filed on the ground that it was executed by
fraud and the testator at the time of execution of the will, the testator was blind and insane or A petition for the probate of a will of the deceased Isabel Gabriel was file by Lutgarda
otherwise mentally incapacitated due to his old age and senility. After trail on the merits, the Santiago in 1961. Being the niece of the Testatrix, she was named as universal heir of all the
Probate Court granted the petition. The CA affirmed the findings of the lower court since there properties already acquired or to be acquired after payment of debts and legacies. Rizalina
was substantial compliance of the law. The SC ruled in favour of the petitioner. Article 808 Gabriel Gonzales opposed such petition on the ground that the will was not genuine, not
does not only apply to blind testator but to those incapable of reading their will. Being blind, executed and attested as required by law, lack of testamentary capacity due to old and sickness
the requirements of the law must be complied with. Art. 808 requires that the will should be and was procured through undue pressure and influence. After hearing on the merits, the
read before the testator twice, by one of the instrumental witnesses and again by the notary probate court disallowed the will being made not in accordance with law. Upon Appeal, CA
public before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to the reversed the decision and granted the petition. The issue here is whether the will is validly
executed. The SC ruled in the negative.
 1. Whether or not the witnesses are credible. The Court basing its decision under notarial commission be revoked. The issue here is whether or not the will was executed in
Articles 820 and 821. It is enough that the witnesses have complied those mentioned accordance with law. The Court ruled in the negative. The Court held that the
articles to be qualified as witness. acknowledgement of the will in question shows that it was not strictly nor substantially
a. Sound Mind complied with. There was clear absence of a notation of the residence certificates of notarial
b. Of legal age witnesses. Also, old residence certificate in the same document was a clear violation of the
c. Not blind or deaf or dumb law. Finally, the will in question was attested by only two witnesses Noynay and Grajo. On
d. Able to read and write this fact alone, the will must be considered void.
e. Domiciled in the Philippines
f. Not convicted by falsification, perjury or false testimony 15. Samaniego-Celada vs Abena

2. Whether or not the attesting and subscribing witnesses were in the same place and Margarita Mayores died in 1987 and without heirs. She was survived by her first cousins.
occasion where the will was made. The Court answered in the affirmative. The court During his lifetime, the decedent left a last will and testament where she bequeathed one-half
said that the attesting and subscribing witnesses were all present during the signing of her undivided share of a real property in Manila to respondent Pahingalo and Abena. She
and acknowledgement by the notary. The Court also subscribed to the findings of also bequeathed one-half of her undivided share of a real property in Makati to respondent
CA that the testatrix was of sound mind at the time the will was executed. While the Isabelo Abena and Amanda Abena. Margarita also left all her personal properties to
will was prepared by the lawyer, the same was under the presence and direction of respondents and named her as sole executor of the said will. Petition for probate was filed by
the testatrix. Admittedly though that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the respondent and despite such opposition, the same was granted. Upon appeal, CA affirmed
the witnesses but nevertheless it did not anyway render the will defective. in toto the resolution of the probate court. The issue here is whether or not the will was validly
executed. The petitioner argues that the will was executed not in accordance with the
13. Guerrero vs Bihis formalities prescribed by law. The will was not signed in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses nor the instrumental witnesses attested and subscribed not in the presence of the
Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura died in 1994. Bella Guerrero filed a petition for the probate of testatrix and of one another. The testatrix was of unsound mind, weak and fully dependent
the last will and testament of the decedent. Opposition was filed on the ground that the will upon the respondent which in return affected her freedom and willpower to decide on her own.
was not executed and attested as required by law; its attestation clause and acknowledgement The Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court held that as to the issue of capacity, the doctor of
did not comply with the requirements of the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured by the decedent testified that prior to her death, the decedent could engage in a normal
fraud and undue and improper pressure and influence. After due hearing, the court disallowed conversation and even her alleged illness does not warrant hospitalization. The testator may be
the will on the ground that article 806 was not complied with because the will was physically weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound mind. As to the
“acknowledged” by the testratrix in Quezon City but the commissioned notary public Atty. issue of invalid attestation clause, where the will has 2 pages only while the attestation clause
Directo was in made in Caloocan City. The issue is whether or not the will was validly stated that it has 3 pages, the court said that upon cursory examination of the whole document,
acknowledged by Atty. Directo. The Court answered in the negative. The Court said that his and applying the doctrine of liberal interpretation, the error in the number of pages of the will
notarial authority is only confined within the territorial jurisdiction granted to him by law. as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the will since such numbering
Here his place of commission is within Caloocan City. Outside of it will render his notarial act appeared in the document is sufficient safeguard from the possibility of an omission of some
bereft force and effect. Hence, since his notarial act in the acknowledgment portion of the will of the pages. As to the issue that the execution of the will was not made on the same day or
of the decedent is without force and effect, the will itself is also void and illegal. occasion. The Court ruled that the picture showing that the testator was smiling and in good
mood affixing her signature in the presence of instrumental witnesses and notary proved that
14. Lee vs Tambago the latter was not coerced or under pressure to sign the will.

A complaint was filed by Manuel Lee against Atty. Regino Tambago in violation of Notarial HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS
Law and ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament. It was
alleged that his father never executed the subject will and the witnesses’ signature were
forged. Such will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent in 1965 and 1. Casiano vs Court of Appeals
signature of the decedent was not the same as his signature in other documents. The
respondent lawyer entered his general denial and averred that the complaint was simply to Adriana Maloto died intestate, Aldina, Constancio and Panfilo, niece and nephews of decedent
harass him. After due hearing, the IBP Board of Governors found out that the respondent agreed to divide the estate among themselves into four equal parts. Extrajudicial partition was
lawyer was guilty as charged and suspended him from practice of law for one year and his presented to the court and it was granted in 1964. It appears that in 1967, one Atty Palma
discovered the allegedly the will of Adriana. The said will was presented to the Clerk of Court. 3. Rodelas vs Aranza
Although, Panfilo and Felino were still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio
received the lion share in the estate of the testatrix. Also, the will designated some other Marcela Rodelas filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla and
person’s devises and legacies. Aldina and Constancio and other devisees and legatees filed named her as heir of the testator. Such petition was opposed by Amparo, Wilferine, Frias and
their petition to allow the said will to be probated and annul the previous agreement. The court Ephraim Bonilla on the ground that the said will was not executed in accordance with law, it
denied. The reason was that the will was apparently burned by the househelp of Adriana upon was not a disposition but mere instruction and the duplicate copy of the will cannot produce
instruction of the testatrix and the other will is to be drawn up. Hence Animus revocandi in the any legal effect. The issue here is whether or not the duplicate copy of holographic will of the
destruction of the will was sufficiently proven. The issue here is whether or not the will was decedent can be probated. The Court ruled in the affirmative. Article 811 provides that probate
revoked by Adriana. The Court held that for the will to be effectively revoked, such overt or of holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been
physical act of revocation like burning, tearing, obliterating or cancelling by him or if by proved. The probate may be uncontested or not. If uncontested, atleast one identifying witness
another person, upon his presence or direction must be clearly proven and the intention to is required and if no witness is available, experts may be resorted. If contested, at least three
revoke is an established fact. In this case, those requirements were not followed and the identifying witnesses are required. However, if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed
purported will that burned was in fact the true will as claimed by the respondents’ witnesses. and no other copy is available, the will cannot be probated because the best and only evidence
Res Judicata cannot lie because there was no final judgement could be construed with respect is the handwriting of the testator in said will. However, a photostatic copy of the holographic
to the probate of subsequently discovered will of the decedent. The intestate proceeding is will may be allowed because comparison can be made with standard writings of the testator
different from the probate proceeding of the will since the former is premised on the fact that and the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate
the decedent left no will while the latter has not. court.

2. Molo vs Molo 4. Azaola vs Singson

Mariano Molo died in 1941 without forced heir but he was survived by his wife and by his Fortunata Yance died in 1957. Francisco Azaola filed a petition for the probate of holographic
nieces and nephew, Luz Gliceria and Cornelio Molo. During his lifetime, Mariano left 2 wills, will and designate Maria Milagros Azaola as sole heir. During the hearing, Francisco Azaola
one executed in 1918 and the other one executed in 1939. The wife, Juana Juan De Molo testified that he saw the will before the death of the testatrix and recognized all the signatures
petitioned the court to probate the will executed in 1939. The will was initially granted but appearing in the holographic will and several documents were exhibited to show that her
upon motion of the appellant-oppositor, the same was re-opened and eventually disallowed for penmanship in the said documents and in the will are all in the handwriting of the testatrix.
being made not in accordance with the law. As a result of such disallowance, in 1944, the will The opposition argued that the execution of the will was procured by undue influence and
executed in 1918 was presented and asked to be probated. Opposition was entered and raise improper pressure on the part of the petitioner and that the testatrix did not seriously intend the
the same grounds for its invalidation by the same people of the previous case. This time, the instrument to be her last will. The Probate Court denied the probate on the ground that the will
court allowed the will to be probated. The issue here is whether or not the will executed in being contested failed to provide atleast three witnesses to support that the signature is in the
1918 be allowed as the last will and testament of the testator. The SC ruled in the affirmative. handwriting of the testatrix. The issue here is whether or not the holographic will need three
The Court held that the wife has the right to protect her right over the properties of her witnesses to become valid. The SC ruled in the negative. The Court held that under Article
husband as universal heir. However, the oppositors argued that revocatory clause contained in 810, no witness is required at the time of execution of the holographic will while under article
1939 will of the deceased is valid and still has the effect of nullifying the prior will of 1918 811 requires the presentation of attesting witness or witnesses in case the will is being
even the latter will was denied probate. The court did not agree since the denial of subsequent contested or not and in the absence thereof, the court may deem resorted to expert witness. In
will shall rendered it void and any provision thereof revoking the first will had no force and the case at bar, the court said that the presence of lone witness will not make the will invalid
effect. Another contention of the oppositors was that since the first will was not original copy since what is required is to show and prove that the handwriting of the decedent in the will is
and only duplicate hence the original copy was deliberately destroyed by the decedent to give the same handwriting the witness or witnesses know or ought to know.
effect to the subsequent will. The court ruled otherwise. There were no evidence that would
indicate that the testator deliberately revoked the first will since if that’s the case, the testator 5. Cuenco vs Court of Appeals
should have asked the duplicate copy and likewise destroyed it. Granting that the there was
Former Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in 1964. He was survived by his wife and 2 minor
really an intention to revoke the first will, the subsequent invalidation of the new will shall
sons and his children of the first marriage in Cebu. During the same year, Lourdes Cuenco,
give rise to the revival of the first will. This is also known as “dependent relative revocation”
filed a petition for intestate proceeding in Cebu City. A week after, Rosa Cayetano Cuenco
where the new will is dependent upon the efficacy of a new disposition. It is a suspensive
filed before CFI of Rizal for the probate of the deceased last will and testament and named her
condition and if it turns out then to be invalid, the old will shall remain in full force.
as executrix and filed her opposition against the petition for intestate proceeding filed in
Cebu.Lourdes on the other hand filed her opposition on the probate of last will and testament
filed in Quezon City. The Quezon City court denied the motion on the basis that probate that such proceeding will prejudice their interest. The issue here is whether the testate and
proceeding takes precedence over intestate proceeding and thereafter rendered its decision intestate proceeding be consolidated and heard in one proceeding. The court ruled that under
allowing the will to probate. Upon appeal, The CA reversed the resolution of the trail court rules of court provide that “ no will shall pass either real and personal property unless it is
and said that under rules of court, whoever court take cognizance of the proceeding first proved and allowed. However, it would be anomalous that the estate of a person who died
shall acquire jurisdiction thereof to the exclusion of the other courts. The issue here is whether testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be
or not Cebu Court acquired jurisdiction first to the exclusion of Quezon City. The SC ruled in consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding
the negative because for the following reasons; 1. Under Judiciary Act, it confers original should continue hearing the two cases.
jurisdiction upon all CFI over “all matters of probate both testate and instate estates” while
Rule 73 of the Rules of Court lays down the rule of venue where that “the court first taking 8. Nepomuceno vs Court of Appeals
cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the
exclusion of all other courts.” Although the Cebu Court assumed jurisdiction first for having Martin Jugo died in 1974. He was survived by his legal wife and 2 children and his paramour.
the intestate proceeding filed two weeks earlier than of the Quezon city Court, the Cebu court He left a last will and testament stating among others that his legal wife and 2 sons shall have
however upon learning that testate proceeding was filed in Quezon City Court have decided to inherited properties while his paramour shall be named the as executor and will also inherit
defer its own proceeding and let its co-equal court to take cognizance of the case was not some properties. The legal wife opposed the probate proceeding on the gorund of undue
considered grave abuse of discretion since the law allowed the venue waivable and to give influence and fraud. After hearing, the probate court denied the petition since the intrinsic
priority to the testate proceeding which was acquired by Quezon City Court with due provision is contrary to law specifically Art. 739 in relation to Art. 1028 which provides that
deference in comity and consent of Cebu Court. prohibition in Art 739 shall be applicable in testamentary provisions. Upon appeal, the CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court with respect to the void provision therein and ordered
6. Codoy vs Calugay that the properties so devised are instead passed on the intestacy to the appellant in equal
share. The respondent filed a motion for correction of clerical error praying that the word
Legatees and Devisees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Ramonal filed with the appellant should be replaced by word appellees. The issue here is whether or not the Probate
RTC of Misamis Oriental a petition for probate of the will of the deceased who died in has jurisdiction to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will. The Court ruled that, as a general
1990.Oppositors filed their objections alleging forgery in the handwriting of the deceased. The rule, Court has no authority to pass upon issues concerning the intrinsic validity of the will and
petitioner during the trial presented several witnesses and various documentary evidence to any controversy affecting the validity should be thresh out in a separate proceeding .However,
support their position while the opposition offered no evidence but instead filed motion for such rule admits some exceptions, one of these is when it appears on its face glaring facts that
judgement on demurrer to evidence on the assumption that the petitioners have no right to it is intrinsically void. Also, practical consideration demand that the intrinsic validity of the
relief. The Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss. On Appeal, the appellant again presented will be passed upon, even before it is probated. Here, it was admitted in petitioner’s testimony
several witnesses to show that they know the handwriting and signature of the testatrix which her amorous and illicit relationship with the testator during their cohabitation as man and wife.
are similar or identical in the will and were those of the testator herself. The issue here is The will itself admits such illicit relationship. Such admission would render the devise
whether or Article 811 is permissive or mandatory in character. The SC ruled that it is contrary to law.
mandatory since the objective of the law is to preclude the possibility of fraud and let the
testator show his true intent and wishes written in the will. In the case at bar, the Court ruled 9. Nuguid vs nuguid
that such failure to establish the three-witness rule attesting that the signature in the will was
that of the testatrix shall give rise to the uncertainty as to due execution and genuineness of Rosario Nuguid died in 1962. He died single without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate.
the will. Surviving her were her parents and her six siblings. In 1963, one of her siblings, Remedios
filed before CFI-Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed in 1951 by the deceased. The
7. Roberts vs Leonides deceased parents filed their opposition stating among others that the holographic will naming
the petitioner as universal heir is in effect excluded them to inherit as legitimate ascendants in
Edward Grimm died in 1977 and was survived by his second wife and two children and his the direct ascending line. After hearing, The probate court disallowed the will and intestate
two children by a first wife. During his life, he executed 2 wills in San Francisco California. proceeding should be instituted instead. The issue here is whether the Trial Court can pass
After his death, the two wills and codicil were presented for probate in District Court of Utah upon the intrinsic validity of the will. The Court answered in the affirmative. The Court has
while another proceeding this time intestate was file in the Philippines by Ethel Grimm in the occasion to discuss the authority of the court in probate proceeding. It said that the court’s
1978. Then during the same, both parties, first and second wife and their children entered into area of inquiry is limited- to an examination of and resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the
compromise agreement to finally dispose of the properties left by the decedent within and will. The due execution thereof, the testator’s testamentary capacity, and the compliance with
outside of the Philippines. Pending performance of such compromise agreement, both parties the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. The issue here is whether or not the trial court
filed before the court several motion and manifestation to impugn those proceedings believing can pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will. The Court held in the affirmative. The Court
ruled that, as a general rule, Court has no authority to pass upon issues concerning the intrinsic Dr. Arturo de Santos being single and no compulsory heirs filed before CFI-Makati Branch 61
validity of the will and any controversy affecting the validity should be thresh out in a separate a petition for the allowance of his last and will and testament and designating Arturo de Santos
proceeding. However, such rule admits some exceptions, one of these is when it appears on its Foundation Inc as his devisee and legatee and constitute Pacita delos Reyes Phillips as his
face glaring facts that it is intrinsically void. Also, practical consideration demand that the executrix. Since no one opposed on the petition, Dr. De Santos adduced evidence and being
intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated. Here, it was admitted put in the witness stand to be questioned by court as to determine his mental fitness and
in petitioner’s testimony her amorous and illicit relationship with the testator during their capacity to execute the will and to know if he is under physical and moral pressure to execute
cohabitation as man and wife. The will itself admits such illicit relationship. Such admission the will. After the judge was satisfied as to his mental fitness, the court allowed the will to
would render the devise contrary to law. probate. After such order, Dr. De Santos died in 1996. Upon learning of the said death,
petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming that he is the nearest
10. Kalaw vs Relova next of kin of the deceased and creditor of the same.Also, the executrix filed before CFI-
Makati Branch 61 motion for the issuance of letters of testamentary for the settlement of the
Natividad Kalaw during her lifetime executed a holographic will and named Rosa Kalaw as properties of the testator. However, respondent withdraw her motion with branch 61 and
her sole heir. Gregorio Kalaw apposed and argued that the holographic will had several refilled it in branch 65. Acting of the said motion, judge Salvador Abad Santos issued an order
insertions, cancellations, alteration or erasure that need full signature of the testator to make appointing her as special administrator.However, Judge Abad Santos remand the case to
such valid and in compliance of the law. After hearing, The trial court denied the petition on Branch 61 on the notion that there is still a pending case that should be continued until the last
the ground that it violated Article 814. The petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same issue which is the settlement of the estate has been finally distributed. But that order was
was dismissed. The issue here is whether or not the holographic will shall be denied and recalled and subsequently took cognizance of the case. He then allowed the motion of the
frustrate the will and wishes of the testator. The Court held that the subject will failed to petitioner for intervention. Respondent opposed but denied. Upon appeal with CA, it was
comply with the requirements of the law hence should have him died intestate.The granted. Hence the petition. The issue here is whether the petitioner has the personality to
holographic will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was altered by intervene. The Court answered in the negative. The Court held that under rules of court and
substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisites of article 842, only those mentioned or enumerated in the law has personality to seek redress or
full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire will is to claim their rights. In this case, being nephew is not among the list to be considered as
voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the will after that which could compulsory heir and as the rule in testamentary succession, the testator can dispose all his
remain valid. properties to anyone provided no rights of compulsory heir has been violated. He can be
named as heir in case of intestacy or if the will is eventually declared void. As to the issue of
11. In the matter of the intestate estate of Andres de Jesus vs Roxas
jurisdiction, it is well settled that the authority of the court is limited to ascertaining the
After the death of spouses Andres de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Simeon Roxas filed extrinsic validity of the will i.e whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the
before the court the allegedly holographic will of Bibiana de Jesus. Luz Henson another will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. After determination of authenticity
compulsory heir filed his opposition on the ground that the said will was not executed in of the will, there is no issue left to be resolved but to execute the will. However, if the intrinsic
compliance with the law and it was procured through fraud, intimidation, undue influence and validity is being contested, the court where the residence of the decedent at the time of death
improper pressure. After the trail, Judge Colayco granted the petition. Upon motion, the Court or court where the property is located is the proper place of suit. In this case, branch 65 has the
reversed its initial findings and believing from respondent’s allegation that the date in the will jurisdiction over venue being coordinate and co-equal court of branch 61.
was not complete as mandated by law, it’s a clear violation of the law specifically Art. 810
13. Dorotheo vs Court of Appeals
which states that the holographic will which must be written, dated, and signed by the hand of
the testator himself. Here, the date was written incomplete. The issue here is whether or not Aniceta Reyes died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Later on, Alejandro Dorotheo
strict interpretation shall be applied when it comes to dates. The Court ruled that by applying died in 1977. He survived by his children and his common law Lourdes Dorotheo. In 1977,
substantial compliance, the testator’s wishes must be given respect and any doubt arise therein Lourdes filed petition for probate of Alejandro’s last will and testament. Respondent did not
must be resolved in favour of testacy. The objective of the law is to give the testator more oppose such proceeding. Later on, such proceeding was admitted. In 1983, respondent filed a
freedom in expressing his last wishes but with safeguards and restrictions to prevent the motion declaring the will intrinsically void. The trial court granted the motion on the ground
commission of fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth that the petitioner was not the legal wife of Alejnadro, hence intrinsically void and ordered the
and authenticity. Here, since the evil sought to be remedied is no longer available, then it is for distribution of properties according to law on intestate succession. Reconsideration was filed
the court to grant the testator her true wishes and last will. but denied. The dismissal became final and executor in 1989 and writ of execution was issued.
The respondents asked the petitioner to return the TCT but she refused. However, in 1990,
12. Maloles II vs Phillips
judge Angas setting aside the final order as well as the order of execution being interlocutory
in character. Upon Motion, CA nullified the said order and reinstated its previous order of fraud of the petitioner. During the trial, petitioner submitted both testimonial evidence and
execution. The issue here is whether or not intrinsic validity of the case can be pass upon by documentary evidence. He also argued that the testator was of sound mind and physically fit
court after it attains finality. The Court said no. The general is that, intrinsic validity is another during the execution of the will and no one had use undue pressure, fraud and undue influence.
matter and questions therein may still be raised even after the will has been authenticated. That the will was duly signed by the testator himself and of the instrumental witnesses while
Thus, it does not follow that an extrinsically valid last and will and testament is always in the same document, the instrumental witnesses attested and subscribed their signature in
intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for each and every page except the last page. Such attestation and subscription shall will be
dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance witnessed by the testator and of among themselves. That the acknowledgement page had been
according to the laws on succession, the unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be witnessed by the testator, witnesses and the notary public to foreclose the threat of fraud and
given effect. However, if such controversy was finally ended and writ of execution was in interpolation. After hearing, the probate court renders its decision disallowing such
order, it cannot be subject for another review although such order is erroneous. testamentary disposition. Upon filing of motion of reconsideration, the same was granted. The
aggrieved party filed an appeal before CA. The issue here is whether or not the will is valid.
The Court ruled that it was not. The Court held that the defects in the attestation clause where
the pages written in the acknowledgment states that “it consists of 7 pages’ where in fact it
14. Ajero vs Court of Appeals was 8 pages cannot be deemed substantial compliance. The law is clear that the attestation
clause must state the number of pages used upon which the will is written. The purpose of the
Annie Sand died in 1982. In her will, she designated several devisees which either petitioners
law is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and
or respondents in this case. In 1983 spouses Roberto and Thelma Ajero, instituted a case for
prevent any increase or decrease in the pages.
the allowance of said will. They alleged that during the execution of the will, the testator was
of sound mind and no undue influence, fraud or improper pressure were used. Opposition was 16. Rivera vs Intermediate Appellate court.
filed on the ground that the said will was executed thorough fraud and there were numerous
erasures, alteration, insertions which were never authenticated by the testator herself hence be Venancio Rivera died in 1975. Jose Rivera, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of
declared void. Also, Dr Jose Ajero contested that the property located in Agusan Del Norte administration over Venancio’s estate. Such petition was opposed by Adelaido Rivera, who
should not be part of the sole properties of the decedent. Notwithstanding the opposition, the denied that Jose was the son of decedent and his father did not die intestate but in fact left two
court rendered its decision allowing the probate of will on the ground that the will comply holographic wills. In the same year, Adelaido filed before RTC-Angeles a petition for the
with all the requirements of the law and the oppositors failed to prove with sufficient evidence probate of holographic wills. This time, Jose opposed and claimed that he is the sole heir of
the allegation proffered therein. Upon appeal, CA reversed the decision on the reason that the the decedent. The two petitions were consolidated and after trail on the merits, Judge Guinto
holographic will was not in compliance with Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC specifically the found that Jose Rivera was not the son of Venancio as initially claimed but infact of different
unauthentication of alterations, erasures, corrections and insertions made therein and moreover father. Hence, he has no personality to oppose the said petition. Then the holographic wills
the will itself was undated. The issue here is whether or not the holographic will substantially were admitted to probate. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision. The issue here is whether or
complied the requirements of the law. The Court ruled in the affirmative. The court ruled that not the holographic wills are valid. The Court ruled in the affirmative. The court affirmed in
in case the holographic will, any of the non-complaince with the provisions under Art. 813 and toto the findings of both trial court and CA with respect to the identity of Jose Rivera. It was
814 will affect the dispositions contained therein, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign clear also during the presentation of evidence that Jose’s Father is different and not the
and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Venancio whose will is the subject to probate. Also, Jose’s allegations are bereft of merits and
Such failure however does not render the whole documents void. Hence, lack of authentication all evidence cannot be sustained for being incomprehensible. As to the issue of due execution
will only result in disallowance of such changes. of the will, the Court said that all the requirements of the law are complied with as regards to
date, signature and attestation of witness. Since Jose has no personality to contest the validity
15. In the matter of the Petition for the Probate of the last will and Testament of Enrique of the will, three-witness rule is not required. The testimony of two witnesses that they know
Lopez and attest the signature of the decedent is enough to grant the petition.

In 1999, Enrique Lopez died leaving his wife and four legimitate children as compulsory heirs. III LEGITIME AND COLLATION
Before his deathm he executed a Last Will and Testament in 1996 and constituted Richard as
his executor and administrator. In 1999, Richard filed a petition for the probate of his Father’s 1. Rosales vs Rosales
Will and named him as executor. Marybeth, sister of Richard opposed the petition and
contending that the purported laws will was not executed and attested in accordance with law Petra Rosales died intestate in 1971. She was survived by her husband and their two children.
and the notary public who acknowledged the will was not authorized to acknowledge the Another child, Carterio Rosales, predeceased her, leaving behind a child Macikequerox
same. It also alleged that the testator was forced to execute such will from undue pressure and Rosales, and his widow Irenea Rosales. In 1971, Magna Rosales Acebes filed a proceeding for
the settlement of the estate in CFI Cebu. After trial, the court ordered declaring the following 6. Spouses Joaquin vs Court of Appeals
individuals the legal heirs; Fortunata (1/4 ), Magna (1/4), Antonio (1/4), Macikequerox (1/4).
However, this partition did not serve very well Irenea Rosales and argued that she should be 7. Arellano vs Pascual
given inheritance as surviving spouse of her husband. Her plea was denied. The issue here is
whether a widow is an intestate heir of her mother in law. The Court answer in the negative. 8. Santos vs Santos Alana
The court had occasion to discuss the rules on legal heirs. It said that intestate or legal heirs are
9. Vizconde vs Court of Appeals
classified into to two groups, namely, those who inherit by their own right and those who
inherit by the right of representation. Articles 980,981,982 and 999 provide for the coverage 10. Suarez vs Court of Appeals
while Aticles 978 to 1014 provide for the order of intestate succession.The court went on and
said that no provisions in the civil code which states that a widow is an intestate heir of her
mother in law whether by her own right or by right of representation. Finally, The court said
that surviving spouse is considered a third person as regards the estate of the parent-in law.
While her son Macikequerox Rosales is called to succession by law because of his blood
relationship. He does not succeed his father who predeceased his grandmother, Petra Rosales,
but the latter whom is father would have succeeded.Petitioner cannot assert the same right of
representation as she has no filiation by blood with her mother in law.

2. Dizon-Rivera vs Dizon

Agripina Valdez, died in 1961 and was survived by seven compulsory heirs, to wit, six
legitimate children and legitimate granddaughter whose father predeceased her grandmother.
The testatrix executed in 1960 her last will written in the Pampango dialect. Named
beneficiaries in her will the abovenamed compulsory heirs and other seven legitimate
grandchildren.After proceeding, the will was allowed and admitted to probate and appointed
Marina as executrix. A commissioner was appointed to appraise the properties of the estate.
The total value of the properties P1,811,695.60 and half portion of it shall be equally divided
to the seven compulsory heirs amounting to P129,362.11.The petitioner-appellees submitted
her project partition according to the wishes of the testatrix and subject to the provision that
the legitime of the compulsory heirs unimpaired or prejudiced. The oppositors-appellants
proposed their counter-project partition which in effect reduced substantially the legitime of
compulsory heirs and result to intestacy. The issue here is whether the project-partition of the
appellees be given effect. The SC answered in the affirmative. SC ruled that the will of the
testator must be given effect subject to the provision of legitime of compulsory heirs. Here, the
Court said that the project partition of Marina is the most plausible distribution without
violating the express provision on legitime of compulsory heirs.

3. De Roma vs Court of Appeals

Candelaria De Roma had two adopted daughter, Buhay and Rosalinda, she died intestate in
1971. Buhay filed intestate proceeding and named her executrix. The guardian of Rosalinda
opposed on the ground that the properties donated by Candelaria to Buhay during her lifetime
should be part of estate and be collated.

4. Locsin vs Court of Appeals

5. Manongsong vs Estimo