Case Pool Batch 1(Succession)

7/30/2019 Case Pool Batch 1(Succession)

1/9

1. Octavio S. Maloles II vs. Pacita De Los Reyes Phillips

G.R. No. 129505, January 31, 2000

Facts: Dr. Arturo de Santos, Filipino and a resident of Makati City, filed a petition for probate of his will in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. M-4223. In his

petition, Dr. De Santos alleged that he had no compulsory heirs; that he had named in his will assole legatee and devisee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc.; that he disposed by his will his

properties with an approximate value of not less than P2,000,000.00; and that copies of said willwere in the custody of the named executrix, private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips. Acopy of the will was annexed to the petition for probate. Shortly after the probate of his will Dr.Arturo de Santos died on February 26, 1996.

Petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming that, as theonly child of Alicia de Santos (testator's sister) and Octavio L. Maloles, Sr., he was thesole full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr. De Santos. He likewise alleged thathe was a creditor of the testator and prayed for the reconsideration of the order allowingthe will and the issuance of letters of administration in his name. Private respondentPacita de los Reyes Phillips, the designated executrix of the will, filed a motion for theissuance of letters testamentary with Branch 61 later withdraw her motion and refilled apetition for the same purpose at the RTC, Makati assigned at Branch 65 in which anorder issued appointing her as special administrator of Dr. De Santos estate.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner, being a creditor of the late Dr. Arturo de Santos,has a right to intervene and oppose the petition for issuance of letters testamentary filedby the respondent.

Held: The private respondent herein is not an heir or legatee under the will of thedecedent Arturo de Santos. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the latter. As the only andnearest collateral relative of the decedent, he can inherit from the latter only in case of

intestacy. Since the decedent has left a will which has already been probated anddisposes of all his properties the private respondent can inherit only if the said will isannulled. His interest in the decedent's estate is, therefore, not direct or immediate.

His claim to being a creditor of the estate is a belated one, having been raised for the first time only in his reply to the opposition to his motion to intervene, and, as far asthe records show, not supported by evidence. The opposition must come from one witha direct interest in the estate or the will, and the private respondent has none.


2/9

Even if petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De Santos, he cannot beconsidered an "heir" of the testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentary successionthat one who has no compulsory or forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by will.Thus, Article 842 of the Civil Code provides:

One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or anypart of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed.

One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does notcontravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitimate of said heirs.

Compulsory heirs are limited to the testator's

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parentsand ascendants;

(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect totheir 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 of the Civil Code.

Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is not a compulsory heir who may have beenpreterited in the testator's will.


3/9

2. LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA vs. JOSEFINA C. VALMONTEG.R. No. 157451, December 16, 2005

Facts: Placido Valmonte executed a notarial last will and testament leaving his propertiesin the Philippines to his wife Josefina Valmonte. He also left real and personal

properties, including savings account bank book in USA which is in the possession of his nephew, to his wife. Lastly, he instituted herein respondent as the sole executrix of his last will and testament, and it be exempt from filing a bond. Petitioner LeticiaValmonte Ortega opposed the will declaring that respondent should not inherit becausethere are relatives who are just entitled to inherit from the testator. She attacked themental capacity of the testator claiming deterioration, aberrations and senility of thetestators physical and mental condition. Reversing the trial court, the appellate courtadmitted the will of Placido Valmonte to probate. The CA upheld the credibility and dueexecution of the will. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not Placido Valmonte has testamentary capacity at the time he

allegedly executed the subject will.Held: The Court finds that the appellate court was correct in holding that Placido hadtestamentary capacity at the time of the execution of his will. Applying Article 799 to thepresent case, there are three things that the testator must have the ability to know to beconsidered 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 testamentaryact.

It must be noted that 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. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that heidentified his wife as sole beneficiary. As we have stated earlier, the omission of somerelatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraudin its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.


4/9

3. Spouses Ajero vs CA and SandGr no. 106720, September 15, 1994

Facts: A holographic will was executed by late Annie Sand, who died on Nov. 25,1982. Petitioners Spouses Alejo and private respondent Clemente Sand were named as

devisees in the will. Petitioners moved for the allowance of the decedents holographic.They alleged that the formalities required for a holographic will has been complied with.Private respondent however opposed the petition on the grounds that; neither thetestaments body nor the signature therein was in decedents hand writing, that itcontained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent and thatthe will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence.The trial Court admitted the will to probate for the fact that there were no convincinggrounds presented and proven for the disallowance of the holographic. On appeal, thepetition for probate of the will was dismissed. Hence this petition.

Issue: WON the will failed to meet the requirements for its validity thus should not be

probated.Held: The Court held that in case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is therequirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself.Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of aholographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator. The requirement thatit must be corrected in case of alteration as provided in Art.813 and 814 affects thevalidity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If thetestator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that thesedispositions cannot de effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the wholetestament void. Thus the court ruled that a holographic will can still be admitted to

probate notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 813 and 814,because only the requirements in Art, 810 and not those of the former are essential tothe probate of a holographic will.


5/9

4. G.R. No. 76648 February 26, 1988The Heirs of the Late Matilde Montinola-Sanson vs. Court of Appeals

FACTS:

Private respondent Atty. Hernandez filed a petition seeking for the probate of theholographic will of the late Herminia Montinola. The testatrix, who died single, parentless andchildless at the age of 70 years, devised in this will several of her real properties to specified

persons. petitioner Matilde Montinola Sanson, the only surviving sister of the deceased but whowas not named in the said will, filed her Opposition to Probate of Will, alleging that the subjectwill was not entirely written, dated and signed by the testatrix herself and the same was falselydated or antedated; that the testatrix was not in full possession of her mental faculties to maketestamentary dispositions; that undue influence was exerted upon the person and mind of thetestatrix by the beneficiaries named in the will; and that the will failed to institute a residual heir to the remainder of the estate. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion for new trial alleging thatwitnesses have been located whose testimonies could shed light as to the ill health of the testatrix

as well as undue influence exerted on the latter and that her exclusion from the allegedholographic will was without rhyme or reason, being the only surviving sister of the testatrixwith whom she shares an intimate relationship, thus demonstrating the lack of testamentarycapacity of testatrix and since the testatrix failed to dispose of all of her estate is an indication of the unsoundness of her mind. The Probate Court allowed the probate of the disputed will.

ISSUE:W/N the Holographic will was wholly written, dated and signed by the testator herself

and whether she had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will?

HELD:

During the hearing before the probate court, not only were three (3) close relatives of thetestatrix presented but also two (2) expert witnesses who declared that the contested will andsignature are in the handwriting of the testatrix. These testimonies more than satisfy therequirements of Art. 811 of the Civil Code in conjunction with the probate of holographic wills.

Article 842 of the Civil Code provides that one who has no compulsory heirs maydispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having capacity tosucceed. It is within the right of the testatrix not to include her only sister who is not acompulsory heir in her will.

Art. 841 of the Civil Code provides A will shall be valid even though it should notcontain an institution of an heir, or such institution should not comprise the entire estate, andeven though the person so instituted should not accept the inheritance or should be incapacitatedto succeed. Thus, the fact that in her holographic will, testatrix disposed of only 11 of her real

properties does not invalidate the will, or is it an indication that the testatrix was of unsoundmind. The portion of the estate undisposed of shall pass on to the heirs of the deceased inintestate succession. The most authentic proof that deceased had testamentary capacity at thetime of the execution of the Will, is the Will itself which according to a report of one of the twoexpert witnesses reveals the existence of significant handwriting characteristics such as:spontaneity, freedom and good line quality that could not be achieved by the testatrix if it was


6/9

true that she was indeed of unsound mind and/or under undue influence or improper pressurewhen she made the Will.

5. Dy Yieng Sangio vs. ReyesG.R. Nos. 140371-72, November 27, 2006

Facts:A petition for the probate of the alleged holographic will of Segundodenominated as kasulatan sa pag aalis ng mana was filed by thepetitioner. The private respondent moved for the dismissal of the probateproceedings primarily on the ground that the document purporting to be theholographic will of Segundo did not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus did not meet the definition of a will under Article 783of the Civil Code. According to private respondents, the will only showed analleged act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and

nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor institutedas heir, devisee or legatee; hence there was preterition which would result tointestacy. Such being the case, private respondents maintained that whileprocedurally the court is called upon to rule only on the extrinsic validity of the will, it is not barred from delving into the intrinsic validity of the same,and ordering the dismissal of the petition for probate when on the face of thewill it is clear that it contains no testamentary disposition of the property of the decedent.

Issue:

Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be considered as aholographic will and whether a document not entitled last will andtestament, could still be treated as a will.

Held:

A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the Civil Code, must beentirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It issubject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, andneed not be witnessed.

The document, even if captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-alis ng Mana, wasintended by the testator to be his last testamentary act and was executed byhim in accordance with law in the form of a holographic will. Although it mayinitially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to theformalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated andsigned by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa


7/9

can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it doesnot make an affirmative disposition of the latters property, thedisinheritance, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other words,the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator infavor of those who would succeed in the in the disinherited heir.

Antonip Baltazar Vs. Lorenzo Laxa April 11, 2012Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari on the decision of the CA which reversedthe decision of the RTC.

Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will andtestament in the Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. The Will,executed in the house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin, complying withall the procedures necessary for the validy of the will. The three witnessesattested to the Wills due execution by affixing their signatures thereon.

Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed allher properties to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa and his wife Corazon F. Laxaand their children. Six days after the execution of the Will or on September19, 1981, Paciencia left for the United States of America (USA). There, sheresided with Lorenzo and his family until her death on January 4, 1996

More than four years after the death of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000,Lorenzo filed a petition with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of Letters of Administration in hisfavor.

There being no opposition to the petition after its due publication, theRTC issued an Order on June 13, 2000 allowing Lorenzo to present evidenceon June 22, 2000.

The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar filed anopposition to Lorenzos petition. Antonio averred that the properties subjectof Paciencias Will belong to Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo.

Barely a month after or on July 20, 2000, Antonio, now joined by otherpetitioners filed a Supplemental Opposition contending that Paciencias Willwas null and void because ownership of the properties had not beentransferred and/or titled to Paciencia before her death and that he isdisqualifies to administer the estate being a US citizen.

Later still on September 26, 2000, petitioners filed an AmendedOpposition asking the RTC to deny the probate of Paciencias Will on thefollowing grounds: the Will was not executed and attested to in accordancewith the requirements of the law; that Paciencia was mentally incapable tomake a Will at the time of its execution; that she was forced to execute theWill under duress or influence of fear or threats; that the execution of theWill had been procured by undue and improper pressure and influence byLorenzo or by some other persons for his benefit; that the signature of


8/9

Paciencia on the Will was forged; that assuming the signature to be genuine,it was obtained through fraud or trickery; and, that Paciencia did not intendthe document to be her Will.

On January 29, 2001, the RTC issued an Order denying the requests of both Lorenzo and Antonio to be appointed administrator since the former is a

citizen and resident of the USA while the latters claim as a co-owner of theproperties subject of the Will has not yet been established.Meanwhile, proceedings on the petition for the probate of the Will

continued. The witnesses testified and also Lorenzo . For petitioners, Rosietestified and claimed that she saw Faustino bring something for Pacienciato sign at the latters house. Rosie further testified that Paciencia wasreferred to as magulyan or forgetful.

On September 30, 2003, the RTC rendered its decision denying thepetition and disallowed the notarized will. The trial court gave considerableweight to the testimony of Rosie and concluded that at the time Paciencia

signed the Will, she was no longer possessed of sufficient reason or strengthof mind to have testamentary capacity.On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and granted the probate

of the Will of Paciencia. The appellate court did not agree with the RTCsconclusion that Paciencia was of unsound mind when she executed the Will.Further, no concrete circumstances or events were given to prove theallegation that Paciencia was tricked or forced into signing the Will.Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by the CA.Hence, this petition.Issues :

W/N C.A. gravely erred in ruling that petitioners failed to prove that Pacencia was not

of sound mind at the time the will was allegedly executed

HELD:We deny the petition.Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether

the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance withthe formalities prescribed by law which are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806of the New Civil Code.

A careful examination of the face of the Will shows faithful compliancewith the formalities laid down by law. The signatures of the testatrix,Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all presentand evident on the Will. Further, the attestation clause explicitly states thecritical requirement that the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses signedthe Will in the presence of one another and that the witnesses attested andsubscribed to the Will in the presence of the testator and of one another. Infact, even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Willmay be authentic although they question her state of mind when she signedthe same as well as the voluntary nature of said act.


9/9

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 petitioners. Petitionersclaim that Paciencia was magulyan or forgetful so much so that iteffectively stripped her of testamentary capacity.

We agree with the position of the CA that the state of being forgetful doesnot necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit toexecute a Will. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind.

In this case, apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining to Pacienciasforgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, thatwould show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the executionof the Will.

WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Decision dated June 15, 2006and the Resolution dated August 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.

CV No. 80979 are AFFIRMED .SO ORDERED.

Documents

Case Pool Batch 1(Succession)