Wills November 11, 2015

7/23/2019 Wills November 11, 2015

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wills-november-11-2015 1/2

WILLS & SUCCESSIONNovember 11, 2015Devises and Legacies

1. E!N"NDE# vs. DI$"%I""C'S(

Benedicta de los Reyes left awill which was then submitted byismaela Dimagiba for probate tothe CFI of Bulacan. In the said will,Ismaela was instituted as the soleheir of the deceased.

Oppositors who claim that theyare the intestate heirs of thedeceased, led an oppositionalleging forgery, ices of consent,estoppel by laches and reocationof the will by two deeds of  

coneyance in faor of theproponent.

In another case inoling theintrinsic alidity of the will, the CFIheld that there had been noreocation of the will of thetestator. !his decision was a"rmedby the C# stating that$ thee%ecution of the testatri% of thedeed of sales were made in faor of a testamentary heir, there hadbeen no legal reocation by thee%ecution of the deeds of sale,because the latter had been madein faor of the legatee herself.&ence, this appeal.

ISSUE('hether or not the will of the

deceased had been impliedlyreo(ed by the deeds of  coneyance in faour of thelegatee.

)ELD( !he alleged reocation implied

from the e%ecution of the deeds of coneyance in faor of thetestamentary heir is irreleant tothe probate of the will. For one, if the will is not entitled for probate,or if the probate is denied, all

)uestions for reocation becomesuper*uous in law, there is no suchwill and hence, there is nothing toreo(e. But then again, thereocation ino(ed by theoppositors+appellants is not an

e%press one, but merely impliedfrom subse)uent acts of thetestatri%, allegedly eidencing anabandonment of the originalintention to be)ueath or deise theproperty concerned. #s such, thereocation would not aect the willitself, but merely the particulardeise or legacy. Only the total andabsolute reocation can precludeprobate of the reo(ed testament.

On the issue that reocation is

predicated on par. -, art. /0$ #scorrectly obsered by the C#, thee%istence of any such change ordeparture from the original intentof the testatri%, is rendereddoubtful by the circumstance thatthe subse)uent alienations weree%ecuted in faour of the legateeherself. !here was no considerationpaid by the respondent Dimagibaon account of the transfers,thereby rendering it een moredoubtful whether in coneying theproperty to the legatee, thetestatri% merely intended tocomply in adance with what shehas ordained in her testament,rather than an alteration ordeparture therefrom. Reocation,being an e%ception, therefore, isnot applicable in the present case.

&oweer, gien that it wasapplicable, the annulment of theconeyances would not necessarilyresult in the reocation of thelegacies$ It was the moral in*uenceoriginating from their condentialrelationship, which was the causeof the e%ecution of the deeds of sale.

If the annulment was due toundue in*uence, then the

7/23/2019 Wills November 11, 2015

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wills-november-11-2015 2/2

transferor is not e%pressing herown free will and intent in ma(ingthe coneyances. &ence, it cannotbe concluded either, that suchconeyances established a decisionon the part of the testator to

abandon the property.

-. B1213 s. B4IF#C!5$

Benigno Dia6 e%ecuted a will aswell as a codicil where, in the saidcodicil, he instituted Filomena Dia6

as a oluntary heir where shewould get 789 of the estate.

Benigno died and theadministration of the estate wasgien to B4I.

Filomena Dia6 died, leaing two

children, :ilagros and OnesimaBelen.

Osemina Belen then led apetition contending that the shareof Filomena Dia6 should be e)uallydiided