Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian Art
774. Succession is a mode of Acquisition by virtue of which the
property, rights and obligation to the extent of the value of the
inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to
another or others either by will or by operation of law.
What are the modes of acquisition? (OLD TIPS)O OccupationL LawD
DonationT TraditionI Intellectual propertyP PrescriptionS
Succession
Inheritance of a person consists of property, transmissible
rights and obligations that survive the persons death.
In the old code such was a virtual subrogation, there was no
limit as to Property, Transmissible Right and Obligations (PRO);
but under the NCC the obligations will be to the extent of the
hereditary share.
Art 391. (Presumption of death for purposes of succession)
1. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage or on
aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four
years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;2. A person in the
armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for
four years; and3. A person who has been in danger of death under
other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four
years; 4. BUT (Under ART 390) IF SUCH IS AN ABSENTEE it is 10 years
to open up succession, unless he disappeared after 75 years of age,
5 years will be sufficient.
Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety;Article 774 provides that by
succession, the properties, rights and obligations of a deceased
person are transmitted through his death to his heirs either by his
will or by operation of law. Hemady holds that the contingent
liabilities of the decedent are part of the obligations transmitted
by his death to his heirs. Accordingly, contingent claims against
the estate of a deceased person arising from the decedent's
contractual undertakings under various indemnity agreements
executed in favor of various persons and entities are money claims
which may be proved against his estate and/or heirs. These
contingent claims may be proved during settlement proceedings by an
indemnified surety even if in the meantime, no actual liability on
the part of an indemnified surety has arisen by reason of actual
payment made under the suretyship agreement. Accordingly, Hemady
holds that the contingent obligations of a deceased person arising
from his personal guaranty are not extinguished by his death.
Thus, GR: Contracts are binding on the heirs as well due to NCC
Art. 1311, which refers to the Principle of Relativity of
Contracts;
Exception: When the obligation becomes intransmissible by the
following1) The nature of the obligation;2) Stipulation of Law;
or3) Stipulation of the parties
Pacio v. Billon;Properties not validly conveyed by a person
during his lifetime will form part of his estate upon his demise.
Pacio holds that a parcel of land which was not validly donated
(propter nuptias) by the husband to the wife did not leave his
patrimony, and therefore formed part of his inheritance upon his
demise.(it must be remembered in this case the mistake here was the
application of the codes)
Uson v. Del Rosario;Article 777 provides that the right to the
succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent. Accordingly, Uson holds that the inheritance pertains to
the heirs from the moment of the death of the ancestor as
completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to the
heirs a deed for the same before his death. This transmission takes
place by operation of law;NCC was to be applied retroactively but
could not impair vested rights. Since Faustino died before the NCC
took effect, the illegitimate children could not inherit because
the recognized family had a vested right in the properties. (Art
2253.)
Bonilla v. Barcena;The transmission of the hereditary estate
from the decedent to the heirs takes place from the moment of the
death of the decedent. A prior judicial declaration of heirship is
not necessary to perfect the transmission. Bonilla holds that
claims to or rights over property which were initiated by the
decedent during his lifetime by appropriate court proceedings are
not extinguished by his death. These claims or rights over property
are transmitted to his heirs upon his death, thus may substitute
the decedent in the said case.
Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons Inc. (Yung small portion that
ended up getting the whole- mayaman toh)The right of legal
redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code is property. Thus,
where a decedent dies without having exercised a right of
redemption (and provided it has not expired), the said right shall
be transmitted to his heirs upon his death. In this event, the
right of redemption is part of the inheritance. However, where the
right of redemption was acquired after the death of the decedent,
the same pertains to the heirs directly in their individual
capacities, and not derivatively from the decedent. Butte makes a
clear distinction as to when the right of redemption is part of the
hereditary estate, and when it is not. Accordingly, Butte clarifies
the issue as to who may exercise the right of redemption.
De Borja v. De Borja;The right to the inheritance is transferred
to the heirs precisely at the moment of the death of the decedent.
From such time, the heirs are deemed to be the owners of the same.
De Borja confirms that from the moment of death of the decedent,
the heirs begin to enjoy all the attributes of ownership, including
the right to dispose (jus disponendi). De Borja holds that the
pendency of the probate proceeding is no bar to the exercise of
such proprietary rights, since ownership over the hereditary estate
has vested in the heirs from the time of the death of the
testator.De Borja must be distinguished from the prohibition
against disposicion captatoria in Article 875 of the Civil Code.
Likewise, it must be reconciled with the provision of Article 784
which states that the making of a will is a strictly personal act
of the testator. NHA v. Almedia; (skipped) Go Ong v. CA (model case
of how things should be)She took out a loan based on certain land
from the ACP after her husband died, now she claims that the loan
is void since there was no judicial notice. As per the SC: the
mortgage is valid up to the conjugal share and hereditary rights of
the surviving spouse. (nothing more than your suppose to get)
Important principle: we can dispose from the moment of
death.*Theoretically you can mortgage part of your undivided share,
but in reality no one would do that.
Reganon v. Imperial (new law patterned to this case)You can
garnish or attach share of an heir BUT you cannot garnish or attach
a specific property, since the hereditary share has not been
liquidated and you dont know if he will get that specific property.
But we must also distinguish between heir and legatee, who can be
subject to garnishment or attachment.
Salvador v. Sta. Maria (a case borne out of stupidity and
laziness)Sale is contended to be void, due to simulation and no
payment actually made. There are two cases here in the same court
house but different branches; The seller/owner dies.Seller/Owner
----------------------- Buyer
Branch IIBranch I
1) Handled probate of the will 1) Action for reconveyance (23
people involved in the will) (21 people as substitutes)3) Decision
of the court is to give them 2) went to the CA, who had the
property reconveyed The land to the 21 substitute, since supposedly
the contract is void
6) 21 did not want to give land, since the decision of the court
is final and executor and they have valid title The problem here 9
people in the will where not substituted and the decision was final
& executor. SC said 21, your rights are derived from the owner
or better yet his estate; subs lang kayo, thus no ownership* As per
sir: Tanga ang CA, they should have it ordered it back to the
estate and not o the 21 substitutes Ramirez v. Baltazar ( Rights of
the heirs)The creditors initiated settlement proceedings against
the estate; Diawan, the deputy clerk of court was made
administrator of the estate since Ramirez failed to qualify. Diawan
initiated a trial by commissioners which was allowed by the court
without providing notice to the heirs, heirs in turn was not
present since they had no idea of such proceeding. Diawan was
receiving uncontested evidence from the creditors as commissioner.
The duty of the administrator is to defend the estate, what Diawan
was doing was receiving evidence against estate that he is suppose
to defend. SC: IF the administrator does not want to do the job as
he should, the heirs have a right to assert and protect their
interest despite their being an administrator assigned.
Requisites for extra judicial settlement1. No will2. No debts3.
Heirs are of legal age In any case, if such gets questioned, you
still bring it to court.
ART 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent.
Puno v. Puno Enterprises (Art. 777 not applied)The illegitimate
child succeeding from his fathers death, has rights over the
property of his father upon the moment of death of said father. The
father had shares of stock within Puno Enterprises. Now the child
wishes to inspect the companys books. The SC held: Despite Art.
777, which is inherent from the point of death, one still cannot
obtain the right to the property right away in certain instances.
The illegitimate child got his right over the property BUT his
right as a shareholder is something else, thus he cannot check the
books of the company and until properly registered as a shareholder
as per the Corporation Code. Lesson: though he may have under Art.
777 acquired rights to the stock, he may not inspect the books for
the corporation code provides those who could inspect are
stockholders of record, meaning those names listed in the Stock
& Transfer Book; thus until your name is listed there, there is
no rights to such
Reyes v RTC (Art 777 not applied even if shareholder) Almost the
same facts as Puno, but here the son who has a stockholder himself
in the company wanted to look into the records of the mother.
Naturally the company denied the sons request for inspection, since
the share he requested to inspect was his mothers. The SC decision
was: Your (PRO) that you inherit are inchoate. As per SC, the
estate has to go through liquidation first to pay the debts. As per
Atty. Sebastian: The use of Inchoate is WRONG!!! Remember the case
of Butte? You do not need to pay the obligations with the property
and rights that you inherited, thats why Angela was able to get the
whole property!!! Thus the property and rights are not inchoate
until you pay the obligations since you can choose to pay out such
in order to maintain the property as a whole. This is also wrong
for tax and debt reasons. (For Bar purposes unless you can properly
defend dont use).
Santos v. Lumbao (difference of ideal share from specific prop )
They bought an ideal share or proindiviso share of the property
from Rita and then spouses Lumbao built a house on a portion of the
property they bought. The SC held: what they bought was an ideal
share and not a specific portion of the property, they should have
not done that but in any case they cannot be denied to a portion of
the property. An approved project of partition is required. Blas v.
Santos (Future Inheritance) read the case before exams (pg.55 ng
scra?)When the 1st wife died, the property was not divided thus
when he remarried the PR of wife 1 was infused with the PR of wife
2. To make sure there would be no quarrel in the family of the
testator between his kids from his 1st marriage and wife 2, a
compromise agreement was made. The wife gets half and then her half
will go back to the kids upon her death. Wife 2 agreed to such. The
relatives of wife 2 questioned such as an agreement to future
inheritance which by law is void. SC Held: that what wife 2
compromised where her own shares that she rightfully received.
Example of future inheritance
Henry C --------------- Big Boy such becomes a future
inheritance and is VOIDWorth $6 Billion Can inherit $1 Billion
Takes out a loan based on the $1Billion he can inherit for 10M a
year 5% Interest
Art. 781 (relate to Art 440 accrue) Under Art. 440, the
accession follows the principal. Succession is a mode of
acquisition, once you acquire the property you own such, and with
it its fruits as an owner. Which is why you file the fruits not as
an amended estate tax but rather as part of your income tax return.
Art 781 has a purpose nonetheless For 1) Taxes & 2) for the
creditors
Objects Meaning they cannot claim the fruits unless the
creditors are paid As per Atty. Sebastian: is it a stupid
provision? NO stupid lang ang pagsulat
Art. 793 (Property acquired after making the will) As per Atty.
Sebastian: Para no problem: if any other property not listed to be
divided this way The Difference between Art 781 and Art
793.781793
As to applicationNo other application except to ensure payment
of debtIs to still give the testator the opportunity to decide
When it takes placeAfter the opening of SuccessionRefers to
properties gain after making the will during the testators
lifetime
TestatrixDeadAlive
In relation to Art 793, application How can you still distribute
the totality of your estate? Institution of heirs ---- fractional
parts Requests (Legacy or Devise) Specific personal prop or
specific real prop respectively
Characteristics of a valid will (usual bar question)1. Purely
Personal What can be and cannot be delegated; (the what, the who,
and the determination of the portions to give are dispositions
which cannot be delegated;2. Moris Causa;3. Dispositive of
Properties must dispose of P&R, if not it is not a valid
will;4. Ambulatory it is an act of liberality, thus it can be
revocable any time;5. Free Act done without duress; Under
Obligations and Contracts what are the essential requisites for a
valid contract(a) Consent - characteristics of a valid consent1.
FREEa. There is no undue influence (Art. 1337)b. There is no
violence (Art. 1335)c. There is no intimidation (Art. 1335)2.
INTELIGENCE; andAll required for consent a. There is no mistake
(Art. 1331)to be proper3. SPONTANEOUSa. There is no Fraud (Art.
1338)(b) Subject; and(c) Cause6. Unilateral Act there is only one
person talking and what he wants is what should happen; as compared
to a contract which requires 2 or more for a meeting of the
minds;7. Formal follows the formalities provided by the code in
Art. 804-808 and Art 810;8. Statutory Right you can make a will
only since the law allows you to do so. As per Atty. Sebastian: no
need human rights and& crap daw to explain it.
Art 785 (what can be and cannot be delegated) What can be
delegated to a 3rd person is the (1) the distribution of specific
property or sums of money that he may leave in general to specified
classes or causes and also (2) the designation of the persons,
institutions or establishments to which such property or sums are
to be given or applied. If a 3rd person is disqualified, since he
is not a reputable person, the trinity of corruption will take his
place. Municipal Mayor, Municipal Judge of the same Municipality
& the Municipal Treasurer.
Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon (Testamentary Preference) The testatrix
purposely divided her property so that there can be no
co-ownership, thus no project partition was done. The heirs fought
since the distribution was not even. The estate was assessed at
1.8M and what was given to Marina was 1,148,000.00, thus the
legitimes of the other 7 were affected. Marina wanted to pay-off
missing amounts to complete the legitimes of her siblings, other
heirs wanted more, SC agreed with Marina. SC said, Control of
disposition, the testator wanted to favour one of the heirs over
the others, who are we to question such, the testamentary
preference of the testatrix must be preserved, furthermore, Art.
906 to add to what is missing in the legitime.
Art. 789 (Ambiguities) Patent Ambiguity (Apparent) by reading
the will, you see the problem; Latent Ambiguity (Non-Apparent) it
is in the execution of the will that you will then see the problem.
How do you cure the ambiguity Rule 130 sec. 9 of the Rules of
Court; Parole Evidence Rule What is written in the agreement of the
parties cannot be over-tuned by oral proclamation. There are
exemptions Extrinsic Evidences to such Thus we must first look into
the will in its totality, then when there is no chance to resolve
such, we go to extrinsic evidence (intention first) What is
extrinsic evidence All kinds of evidence except oral declarations
or testimonies of the testator. Why no oral testimonies are allowed
Testatrix cannot refute such, being dead (Dead mans statute rule in
Evidence)
Testate Estate of Adruna Maloto v. Ca (Extrinsic Evidence) Made
a will but later got angry with the heirs, had the will burned by
the maid, in doing so the requisites for revoking a will by burning
was not met, thus no actual revocation; thus a working draft of the
said will submitted by the Atty for probate was accepted as
extrinsic evidence of the said will. Villafor v. Juico Don Nicholas
left his properties to Fausta with a condition that if she would
ever remarry after his death, the said properties would go to
Leonor. Fausta on her part never remarried and when she died left
everything to Juico (the supposed lover). Leonor laid claim to the
properties to which Juico contended that when the properties were
transferred to Fausta she became absolute owner and had the right
to do whatever she pleased with the said properties SC: what she
got was a usufruct being what she got was the right to use and
possess and not naked title, if Nicholas wanted to give it to
Fausta, he could have done so without conditions, thus the
interpretation that is to be followed is what gives effect.
What you look for in a will in terms of validity.
Extrinsic (as to FORM) form, capacity, due
executionWILLIntrinsic (as to SUBSTANCE) substantive provision
Probate only looks at the extrinsic
Form1) Time Law in place (what the law is) at the time of the
execution of the will.2) Place Philippine law or Law of where your
locatedSubstance1) Time What the law is at the time of death2)
Place National Law.
Bellis v Bellis (Law in play making of the will vs. when the
testatrix died) The formal validity of a will depends upon the
observance of the law in force at the time of execution of the
will. On the other hand the substantive validity of the
dispositions therein are governed by the laws in force at the time
of death of the testator.
Who can write a will? Natural person, 18 years of age and of
sound mind Requisites for sound mind:1) He knows the nature of his
estate; though because of Art 2) Proper objects of his bounty
(knows who is going to get such); and 799 not necessary req3) The
character of the testamentary act anymore (need not in perfect
mental health
De Guzman v. Intestate of Franciso Benitez The important factor
here is that the medical records of the testator influenced the
factual findings of the probate court.
Lee v. Tambago ( 3 fold objective of the formalities of a will)
Lee accused Tambago of notarizing the will without the formalities
of law being followed. Lee claims that there is no actual will,
since no residence certificate was obtained, no copy of the will
can be found in the archive and the signatures of the witnesses may
be forged. Residence Certificate use to be a valid form of
identification, under new law govt id with picture is needed. (pero
TIN is allowed, WTF?) The Atty. Herein denied such but by blanket
denial (Thus under RoC becomes admission) SC agreed with Lee and
gave the 3 FOLD DOCTRINE OF THE FORMALITIES OF A WILL as provided,
which are as follows:1) To close the door on fraud;2) To prevent
substitution of pages; and3) To guaranty the wills authenticity.
Why do we have so many stringent rules for succession that are not
applied in other form of documents such as contracts? Lesson: A
will is actually a dead man speaking to us, since the testatrix is
dead he cannot challenge authenticity duh! As per Atty. Sebastian
there are 2 things wrong with the decision1) The only actual issue
in the case was if the will was actually notarized, Justice Corona
did not answer the said question instead he gave out a definition
of a will and the requirements of such. What is the relation to the
issue? I dont know but thanks for the 3 fold objective that came
from interpreting such.2) Tanga! How can anyone say that as a rule,
if there is no residence certificate and was written in the
acknowledgement was the testatrix old residence certificate, the
will is not valid? The purpose of a residence certificate is for
identification of those who are witnesses in front of the notary
only? Magisip-isip naman sila.Atty. herein should have been
disbarred, bobo kasi! Definition of acknowledgement before a notary
public Jurat sworn statement/ affidavitsThis is what the notary
should Acknowledgement Deed/ Contracts attach or affix. Thus must
be remembered a will is not a statement but rather a deed
(disposition of prop)
Suroza v Honrado (language must be understood) The opening
paragraph of the will it was stated in English that the testator
understood English but in the concluding paragraph it stated the
will was read and translated to Filipino for the testatrix. This
coupled with the fact that she did not sign such will but rather
thumbmarked it, infers that she was actually illiterate. Atty
Sebastian: The reason for the language or the dialect must be known
to the testator is because of the 3 fold rule held in Tambago.
Because of the bad faith or fraud, how can you now be sure of its
authenticity? The judge here made a stupid decision, the heir lost
out, thus only correct to go after him, dapat ma disbar din toh,
isa pa tong tanga!
Reyes v. De Vidal ( Disputable presumption) Testatrix died and a
will, there was no descendants or ascendants only sibling involved,
where one got and the other did not. Lower court ruled against the
probate citing language not known to the testator, since there was
no admission that the testatrix knew the language in the will. SC:
you do not need to state if the language is known to the testatrix
since there is a disputable presumption that they do in deed know.
In the case at hand, first of all it should have been presumed that
testator knew Spanish and the other siblings who contest such, must
now bare the burden of proof to show otherwise. But what really
killed this case was the fact the atty. was bobo submitting a
letter that showed the testator had written such in Spanish, who
submits contrary evidences to your own claim?
Balonan v. Abellana (for 3rd persons, where to put testators
name) The will here in was written at the bottomJuan Abello and not
Anacelto Abellanawho happens to be the testator. The will is then
denied probate since it wasvoid for not following Art 805; which
requiresthat the testator himself shall affix his signature or by
the writing of the testators name for a 3rd person. Atty Sebastian:
the reason for such is technical;It is to clarify whos will it is
or better said who is the actual testator of the will (substantial
compliance cannot apply herein); it does not matter who signed
such, what matters is the name of the testator, it can always be
clarified as to who signed such anyway in the attestation
clause.
Garcia v Lacuesta ( Dont lie, admit mistakes) What was written
in the will is simply his name. The problem came about in relation
with the attestation clause which said it was signed by the
testator himself as accompanied to what was stated in the will
under the testators name, which said at the request of the
testator. This created doubt if the testator did actual sign such.
Because of the doubt and + mark beside the name of the testator
that is claimed to be his signature, there can be no assumption of
compliance. Atty. Sebastian: To better understand this case you
have to look into historical aspects of such, which first in the
40s and 50s people were more trustworthy thus it was accepted the +
mark was a mark of an illiterate and was accepted as their
signature. Secondly the testator was not an illiterate, the lawyer
only claimed such to say there was no doubt, which is wrong; SC
took it out on the testator will being that the lawyer lied, so
dont lie, if you made a mistake admit it and they might show favour
upon you.
Nera v. Rimando (Test of Presence) There was 2 rooms, a big room
and a small room that could notAccommodate everyone. Thus all but
one of the witnesses wereIn the small room with the testator. Thus
a question if the third Witness actually witness the execution of
such will. SC: The test of presence does not ask whether they
actually saw each The others sign, but whether they might have seen
each other sign; in the case at bar, though the 3rd witness was in
a separate room such in itself would not be necessarily the factor
for the failure of the test, it is that, coupled with the fact that
there was a curtain that blocked his view that caused the failure
of the test of vision and proximity. It must be remembered a
witness has 2 capacities: 1) to attest and 2) to subscribe; both of
which must be done in the presence of the testator, witnesses and
of one another.
Taboada v. Rosal (Attestation v. Subscription) There is a will
which consist of 2 pages. The 1st page contained the entire
testamentary disposition which was signed at the bottom by the
testatrix alone and by the 3 witnesses on the left margin. The 2nd
page contained the attestation clause and the acknowledgement. The
Issue herein is the fact it must be subscribed at the bottom of the
will. SC: The denial of probate was wrong and emphasized the
difference of attestation and subscription and their purpose as
well. Attestation consist in the witnessing of the execution of the
will and to take note mentally that the requisites of the will were
followed. Subscription is the signing of the paper for the purpose
of identification.
Icasiano v. Icasiano (good idea to keep a copy) One of the pages
of the will was not signed by one of the witnesses, thus the wills
authenticity was questioned. SC: There is a duplicate original
which has all the signatures on all pages of the will, the said
duplicate cures the defect, furthermore this case was a mere
oversight, witness could be correct in saying that she might have
lifted it and flipped 2 pages by accident. Carbon copy used carbon
completely Duplicate copy - the documents are copied but the
signatures are all original Note: no computers pa back then! Atty
Sebastian: emphasized that fraud and undue influence are mutual
repugnant and exclude Each other, their joining as grounds for
opposing probate (as like in this case), shows an absence of
definite evidence against the validity of the will. Art. 1338
provides for what is fraud voluntary act Art. 1337 for undue
influence non-voluntary act In other words BOBO ang lawyer, cant be
the same.
Cargo v. Cargo (Attestation Clause must be signed below) This
case must be correlated with the Taboada case wherein The placing
of the signature was at question. The difference in this case is
what is concerned was theAttestation page, which serves a different
purpose as Explained in the Taboada case Since the signature was on
the left margin and not at the Bottom of the page, the will is void
for the formalities of the Law must be followed. Atty. Sebastian:
An attestation is a statement of a witness thatIf it is not signed,
then it is as if there is no attestation for in turn there is no
actual statement made because of the lack of the signature. The
purpose of an attestation clause is for the witness to admit that
the formalities of law was without a doubt followed.
Lopez v Liboro ( 2 page sequence) The will consists of 2 pages.
The first page for the Dispositions, the other for the attestation
Art. 805 requires that the pages be numbered, in orderTo prevent
pagination/substitution of the pages. It must be noted: this case
was covered under the oldCode, which does not require a notary
public but the Reasoning is still sound nonetheless. (If there is a
notary there will be other ways to redeem the said defects. As per
the SC: the 1st page clearly follows the 2nd, thus there is no
pagination and possible fraud was avoided.
Samaniego-Celada v. Abena (Attestation Clause is part of the
will) It is being argued that the will consist of 2 pages but the
attestation clause state 3 pages. Error in the attestation clause
as to the number of pages is not necessarily fatal. Atty.
Sebastian: Bobo! Dont even know how this got to the SC or even why
it is assumed the attestation clause is not part of the will. There
are really 3 pages, and without the 3 page which is the attestation
clause, the will is void, so duh kasama yan!
Abada v. Abaja ( no. of witnesses need not be stated on the
attestation clause) The facts are too long, the main point as to
succession is even if the attestation clause does not state the
number of witnesses, if it can be seen in the will that there was
3, then there is substantial compliance (seen in the sense 3 signed
duh!) Lesson: Art 809 provides for the liberalization of
interpretation in the Attestation Clause, thus it must be
remembered substantial compliance only happens in regards to the
attestation clause. Reason for such: Is the fact that the
Attestation Clause is not an act of the testator but of the
witnesses combined, thus should not fault the testator as much as
possible.
Azuela v. Ca (Stupidity/bayaran) There are 3 defects in the case
at bar that the court overlooked. 1st the AC did not state the no.
of pages As per SC, cannot apply Taboada since in Taboada the
number of pages is stated elsewhere in the will, in this case it is
not. 2nd AC, witness did not sign at the bottom Completely forgot
or ignored the principle laid down in Cargo. 3rd The notary
attached a mere jurat instead of an acknowledgment Atty Sebastian,
first of all nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayon 10 ng Hunyo is not
even enough to be a jurat, being in a jurat there is a statement
the such is to certify that such is the truth as you know it.
Furthermore, In the will everything was left to Felix the nephew
who supposedly took care of the decendent, despite the fact the
decendent had a daughter in the states and the grandchildren,
meaning the will should have been set aside since the decendants
were petirited. (thus obvious bayaran).
De Ramos v. CA (credibility) Main issue is if the testimony of
the 2 witnesses who opposes to what they have attested to, will be
good enough to deny probate of the will. Decision of the SC; Since
the attestation clause is placed there to ensure that all
formalities be complied with and beyond such the lawyer was
involved in every stage before passing it to another lawyer who
notarized such, both lawyers gain nothing, nor is there any showing
of mischief on their part. Relate to function of notary. As per
Atty. Sebastian, there was 2 problems: (1st) is the credibility of
the 2 witnesses; and (2nd) Parole Evidence Rule when the terms of
an agreement (includes wills) have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successor in interest, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of a written agreement. (Rule
130 sec. 19 of the rules of court there are exemption also).
Garcia v. Gatchalan (Article 806 is a must) Art 806 must be
followed, the will must be notarized before a notary public by the
testator and instrumental witnesses. This is to make sure the will
is authentic but void for non-compliance.
Cruz v. Villasor (Notary as a witness also stupid if notarizes
such) Issue here stems from the fact that one of the instrumental
witnesses is also the notary who notarized the will, thus there is
a question now as to the fact of whether there was a lack of
witnesses to the execution of the will. Lesson: A notary cannot be
a witness to what he is suppose to notarize himself. Atty.
Sebastian: Bobo, claro ng 806 notarized before the notary public;
to notarize is an act of swearing that such is the truth, how do
swear under oath to yourself? Bobo talaga! Moreso the function of a
notary public is to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements, in the said case such purpose was defeated.
Guerero v. Bihis (It is the responsibility of the testator to
check the authority of the notary) The will was notarized in QC but
the notary was commissioned only for Caloocan City. SC: the will is
void despite the fact it could be authentic, for lack of authority
of the notary to notarize such, the testator should have checked
the credentials. Atty. Sebastian: Mga tanga what part of before a
notary dont people understand, wag magtamadtamd at puntahan na lang
yung notario sa office niya to notarize.
Gabucan v. Manta (Doc Stamps) Atty. Sebastian: Court should have
just ordered the doc stamp requirement to be complied with instead
of denying probate Lesson: get doc stamps for what documents need
doc stamps, mura lang naman yun!
-------------------------------------------- End Art 804 806
-----------------------------------------------------
Art 807. (Deaf or Deaf-Mute Testator) If the testator be deaf,
or deaf-mute, he must personally read the will, if able to do so;
otherwise, he shall designate two persons to read it and
communicate to him, some practicable manner, the contents
thereof.
Art 808. (Blind Testator) If the testator is blind, the will
shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is
acknowledged.
Garcia v. Vasquez (what is blind in the legal sense) The issue
herein is to determine is whether or not the testator is blind for
purposes of Art. 808. The witness said she saw the testator read
the will silently but the doctor on the otherhand testified that
because of her glaucoma she would not have been capable to read the
will, despite being able to relatively see things. (lost
portion)
Alvarado v. Gaviola (Substantial Compliance blind) Like the
previous case, testator had glaucoma, SC ruled though that there
was substantial compliance despite the fact the provision of law as
provided in Art 808 were not complied with, specifically the two
readings, 1 by a subscribing witness and by the notary; SC used Art
809. As basis for the substantial compliance. Atty. Sebastian:
Substantial compliance should only be in regards to the Attestation
Clause, as provided by Article 809. Article 1234 of the NCC (law on
substantial compliance) As per Tolentino, The following are the
requirements of substantial Compliance:1. Attempt in good faith to
apply such;2. No wilful deviation;3. Deviation must be slight;
and4. Deviation must be technical or unimportant. Atty. Sebastian
comment: the ruling was most likely made because of the illegitmate
son, to ensure that he would not inherit just like the testator
wanted; but the manner of how the SC did it was still wrong.
Gil v. Murciano Art. 809 enunciates the doctrine of liberal
interpretation; Absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud or undue
influence or other defects, such will not render the attestation
clause invalid and if the will is in fact proven to be executed and
attested, substantial compliance will do. In the case at bar, it
was not stated in the attestation clause if the testator signed in
the presence of the witness but was stated that such happened in
the body of which, thus the SC allowed such under substantial
compliance.
Caneda v. Ca Affirmed the ruling in Gil v. Murciano but denied
probate; the circumstances of the case play a vital part. The
involves a reconstituted will that was obtained from the records of
appeal (from the CA), since the original was lost due to the war.
SC did not allow such due to the lack of the original copy of the
will.
Roxas v. De Jesus (Holographic will and the date requirement)
The holographic will is being questioned in the case since what was
written in the said will was FEB/61 as the date instead of the
required format which is MM/DD/YR, as stated by the old code. The
said will was also in a form of a letter to her children. Atty.
Sebastian: The decision is correct pero tang-ina substantial
compliance ulit! Why is the date important?1. To check if there is
testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will;2.
Testamentary Capacity referring to the fact testator is at least 18
years of age and is with sound mind.3. Thus depending on the
situation of the testator the year alone will do.
Labrador v CA (Position of the date) The case at bar involves a
holographic will that is not dated specifically but is nonetheless
the date can be found in the body of the will in the 2nd page.
Atty. Sebastian: Article 810 does not in any case prescribe where
the date should be, thus it is for all extensive purpose allowed.
The Secrecy of the holographic will is allowed Atty. Sebastian: the
purpose of the holographic will or any will is to create
preferences, such preferences makes it understandable to want to
keep the will secret. para yung mga ibang membro ng pamilya ninyo
hindi kayo gagaguhin kasi maskonti yung bibigay ninyo sa nila.
Gan v. Yap (Need the will itself) The holographic will was lost;
it was claimed that 5 people had read it and the testator wrote it
in secrecy since she was afraid of her husband. SC: The will itself
must be submitted in order that Article 810 be considered complied
with, it is needed to check the genuiness of the hand writing,
without such, its genuiness cannot be established. Atty Sebastian:
Mga Gago talaga, rehearsed pa yung testimony ng 5, parang they
tried to memorize everything. Lesson ditto always submit the will
for probate. Side comment: Decision cited photostatic copy, such
are not valid anymore, still need the original now.
Rodelas v. Aranza (Photocopy not allowed and why) In this case
the holographic will was also lost. SC cited in footnote 8 of the
Azola case which said a machine copy should be allowed, thus the SC
sent the case back to the trial court. Atty. Sebastian: Still need
the will itself to prove authenticity. How do you prove
authenticity? With the handwriting in the original copy What do you
look for in the original?1. The strokes;2. The pressure applied to
the document; and3. Speed applied in writing such. Such can only be
seen in the original, not in the photocopy! Action there is a
plaintiff and a defendant, where the results will declare one or
the either the winner of the case. Special Proceeding There is no
plaintiff and defendant here instead what you try to establish here
is the existence of a right, fact or status; thus there is no
winner necessarily; Atty. Sebastian: The Rodelas decision is
WRONG!!! They did not have to disturb the principle laid down in
Gan v. Yap; furthermore such was a special proceeding, they dint
have to decide the way they did to make a winner, mga bobo!
Azola v. Singson (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule
making such DIRECTORY only) Art. 811 is clear, if the holographic
will is contested 3 witnesses must be presented but if uncontested
only one is required. The issue in the case is whether the 3
witness rule directory or mandatory in nature. Atty. Sebastian: The
great JBL Reyes took pains to properly explain why the rule is
DIRECTORY, pointing out that is not as to the quantity of witnesses
but rather the quality of the witness that is important. What makes
or breaks such is the credibility of the witness. Thus if all but
one of the witnesses died, it would still be enough provided that
the remaining witness is credible.
Codoy v. Calugay (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule
making such MANDATORY only) In this case there 6 witnesses that
were presented, all of which were not credible at all, thus the SC
correctly ruled that it should be denied. Atty. Sebastian: The
Justice who decided the case, Justice Pardo whose background in law
comes from the fact he served in COMMELEC (kaya mahina sa civil
law), made an error in the manner of how the case was decided.
Pardo basically made the 3 witness rule mandatory based on the word
shall. His reasoning as compared to JBL Reyes in the Azola is out
classed (mahina talaga yan). Further comment: The rule or doctrine
of law on how the SC is to overturn a previous decision, is that it
must be En Banc, which in the case at bar did not happen, division
lang siya, bobo talaga ba!
Rivera v. Iac ( Joke time lang case) This was an attempt to look
into the 3 witness rule once again but was aborted when it was
found out the said illegitimate child was actually an imposter.
Probate is for Testamentary Succession There are 2 parts that
take place in a testamentary succession.
Part 1 Probate Proper (this and only this happens in a probate
court proceeding) Must satisfy the followingI. Capacity which
checks if the testator was 1st of proper Age and 2nd of sound
mind.II. Formalities As to Notarial Wills Art 804-806 As to
Holographic Wills Art. 810III. Credibility as to witnesses and
documentsIV. Free Will If all is satisfied, then the court shall
issue a probate order which in turn conclusively proves (items
I-IV). Note: all Items must be present in the will. Note: a probate
order is a FINAL order, thus the remedy for such will never be
certiorari but instead appeal.
Part 2 Partition Refers to the Substantive Portion of the
will.
Kalaw v. Relova ( must sign changes to a holographic will) Art
814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration
in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by
his full signature. (Note: only for holographic wills). In the case
at bar, testator wrote a will where Rosa was an heir but later due
to rumour mongering which did not put the testator the testator at
ease, the testator decided to cross her name off and write above it
Gregorio instead.Problem herein was that there was no signature as
toThe correction as provided for in Art 814. There is no question
that the hand writing is authentic,The issue here is whether or not
Rosa will get theInheritance since the alteration to the will was
Not signed by the testator. SC ruled: Rosa cannot inherit based on
the rules on Revocation (Article 830) and Gregorio cannot inherit
Based on Article 814.
Ajero v. Ca Ajero upholds the proposition that article 813 &
814 do not form part of the requisites for formal or extrinsic
validity of the holographic will, thus failure on the part of the
teatator to observe the requirements of Art. 813 & 814 will not
justify the disallowance of the will, but relevant provisions may
be disallowed Proof is not appropriate in Part 1 (Probate proper),
where only the 4 are looked into.
VDA. De Perez v. Tolete What was probated abroad under foreign
law, does not automatically become accepted here. Proof stated in
Art. 816 is required.
Joint Will A joint will is where 2 or more people make a will in
a single instrument. Such will is VOID, since the characteristic of
the will being purely personal is violated. Why? You run the risk
where one spouse over powers the other spouse with undue influence
if allowed.
Art. 819. Wills, prohibited by the proceeding article, executed
by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in the
Philippines even though authorized by the laws of the country where
they may have been executed.
Art. 16 of the New Civil Code. however, intestate and
testamentary succession and to the amount of successional rights
and to the intrinsic validity shall be regulated by National
law
Property Lex Situs law of the place where the thing is found.
Exception for testamentary and/or intestate sucession Order of
succession Amount of Successional Rights National laws of the
decendent; in Intrinsic Validity of testamentary provisions re to
this lex celebrasionis shall yield.
De La Cerna v. Rebaca (Joint will that got through) A joint will
of the spouse was accepted and probated, no one challenged such,
thus partition was and it became final and executory. When it was
submitted again the 2nd time around when the wife died for the
estate of said wife the court ruled that such will is null and void
for being a joint will. SC, the final judgement in the 1939 (the
first case) an error in judgement as it is, has obtained finality
thus cannot be disturbed , but said error does not bind the court
on account of the other spouse (the wife). Atty. Sebastian: This
will had to be resubmitted since the wife died under the New Civil
Code, but if it was somehow allowed to go through now (despite its
illegality but like the situation of the husband), you can have
both probated at the same time, since the new code allows probate
ante mortem, which the old code did not.
Qualifications of a witness to a notarial will1. Of sound mind;
For capacity and the age also for showing2. At least 18 years of
age;ones maturity3. Must not be blind, deaf or dumb;4. Must be able
to read and write; To help the proceeding move faster and 5. Must
be domiciled in the Philippines;for better witnesses6. Must not
have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or
false testimony; Credibility7. A witness who is NOT a notary at the
same time Cruz v. Villasor
Relate such to the 3 credible witness (Art. 805) and Competent
Witness (Art. 820 and 821)
Gonzales v. CA (Credibility is determined by the court) The
witnesses were objected despite their meeting the criteria of Art.
820 & 821, the argument is that they might be competent but
they are not credible. SC ruled, credibility does not need to be
proved by the witnesses; in fact that is the task of the trial
court to determine such, what may be proved is the competence (can
be inferred also) Sir: ang desperado naman yung atty. masaya siya!
Another example of a case that should have never gone all the way
to the Supreme Court.
Article 823. What happens when the witness is a beneficiary in
the will as well? When the witness is also a beneficiary, he will
remain a valid witness but the provision on the beneficiary is
void. Void as to the witness himself, his spouse, ascendants and
descendants, and anyone claiming under such person and ss, asc
&dsc. Why? The law considers it as an attempt to bribe the
witness, the witness may be tempted to do whatever to get the will
to pass probate. Exception: when there are 3 other witnesses not
including him in the 3. (4 or more duh!)
Article 1027 4 (Those who are incapable of succeeding) Any
attesting witness spouse, parents or children or anyone claiming
under such witness, spouse, parent or children. It does not provide
for an Exemption (conflicting laws) Art. 1027 4 is an attack on
ones capacity Art. 823 is an attack on the legacy or divise it self
Atty Sebastian: I am of the opinion the incapacity is absolute but
there is still no decision on such, so masaya kayo ulet!
Article 824. When the creditor is a beneficiary also, it is
allowed for him to be a witness to the will Atty. Sebastian: The
reason for such is that the interest is not due, the fact the debt
is secured through the debtors estate, thus no interest. (He will
get what is his no matter what, yun lang); BUT it must be under a
written stipulation, if it is not stipulated, tantamount to a
donation., then it cannot proceed anymore (Have no Idea what is
being discussed here, sorry had too much to drink)
Doctrine of Incorporation by Referrence The requisites as
provided by Art. 827 are as follows:1) The document or paper
referred to in the will must be in existence at the time of the
execution of the will;2) The will must clearly describe and
identify the same, stating among others the number of pages
thereof;3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as
the document or paper referred therein; and4) It must be signed by
the testator and the witnesses on each and every page, except in
cases of voluminous books of accounts or inventories.5) Atty.
Sebastians example: Yung mga bumbay, the 5/6 Everything he lent
is/are account receivables (AR), if there are 1,300 customers with
their own ARs, merely use the article to include the listahan into
the will.
------------------------------------------ MIDTERMS COVERAGE
END-----------------------------------------
Revocation
Testamentary capacity is required and it must be ambulatory Why
must it be ambulatory? Making a will is an act of liberality and
cannot be given effect until death, thus he should get to choose to
keep or remove some from the will.
How to Revoke a Will
FIRST, By Implication of Law needs a statutory provision (THERE
ARE ONLY 7)1) Art 936. Revoked if testator brings action for
payment of debts (READ!); must connect with Art 935 where: Inherit
a legacy of credit Accounts receivable legacy of remission
Condonation of debt2) Art 957. Provides 3 effects which make
legacies and devises ineffective:I. Change of form of the subject
(ex: Flour was left as a legacy but it was later made into
bread;II. Change of title (ex: A legacy of a car was stated but
later sold) exception though as to such is through the right of
repurchaseIII. Specific property is totally lost (ex: there was a
legacy of a car than ondoy happened) 3) Art 1032. Incapable of
succession by reason of unworthiness ( 4 does not apply since there
is no law)4) Art 43 5. Spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage
in bad faith, cannot inherit from the innocent spouse relate to Art
42- reappearance of absent spouse.5) Art 44. Where both spouse of
subsequent marriages acted in bad faith Marriage is void, thus
donations and testamentary dispositions made in favour of the other
are revoked by operation of law.6) Art 50. (Must be connected with
2,3,4 & 5 of Article 43 and Article 44) Splitting of
properties, legitimes and alike.7) Art 63 4. Legal separation,
offending spouse cannot inherit from the innocent spouse.
SECOND, By subsequent will or codicil (can be done in 2
ways)
1) Implied Revocation Example: 2001------ Will 1 made -------
Institutes A as universal heir2011------ Will 2 made -------
Institutes B as universal heir Being there is no reconciliation
based on the facts, thus the latter expression of intent is given
effect and the former is revoked
2) Express Revocation Example:2001 --- Will 1 made ------
Institutes A as universal heir2011 --- Will 2 made ------ States I
revoke 2001 will; all to B The 2nd will must be intrinsically valid
(as to form); If the 2nd will is denied probate the 1st will can be
submitted for probate (Theory of dependent relative revocation)
Requirements: A) it must be express and B) revocatory will must be
valid. The difference of the 2, in regards to a 3rd subsequent will
Implied2012 Will 3 made --- States I revoke will 2 such will make
will 1 operative again (it is revived) Express2012 --- Will 3 made
--- States I revoke will 2 Despite what is stated will 1 is not
revived, since will 2 in its revocating clause expressly revokes
will 1 (thus cannot be revived).
Third, Overt Acts Requisites for Overt acts ( as provided in the
Adriana Maloto Case)I. Intent to revoke;II. Testamentary
Capacity;III. Preformed the overt act which is authorized by law;
and IV. Substantive completion.
What are the overt acts mentioned by the codal? (only 4) 1)
Burning, 2) tearing, 3) cancelling, or 4) obliterating the will
with the intention of revoking it. Atty. Sebastian: Is scissoring
allowed? In a 1950s case the tribunal supremo or the Spanish
supreme court said yes but no case yet in the RP Is pouring acid
the same as burning, since the subjective phase is complied with?
NO, it should only be the four stated acts, but lucky for you there
is no authority on it yet. Subjective phase depends on the state of
mind of the testator.
Doctrine of Republication (To make the will valid) (2 ways to
republish) 1st, void as to form (Art. 804-806, 807 & 808 and
810) Remedy: Redo it again correctly the next time around or for
holographic wills rewrite the said will; ONLY IF IT IS VOID 2nd,
Lost its validity revoked Remedy: Execute a codicil;I revive the
(no. of pages) will which was revoked on (date) By mere
reference.
Art 832.2001 --- A is the universal heir2011--- I revoke will 1,
all to BBut B repudiates. What Article 832 says, A cannot get such
on the count of Bs repudiation or incapacity, will stays in effect.
Exception: If A is also an intestate heir, get from there.
Revocation based on False Cause There is a revoking will - what
you do is deny such, show that the testator fasely known such, to
which if he knew the truth he would not have done such This is hard
to do because of the parole evidence rule Thus it is important that
the 2nd will state the reason for revocation. But in overt acts, no
parole evidence rule unlike another will or codicil, parole
evidence is a must. Cannot rely on oral testimony Dean Mans
Statute
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (The need to probate a will) There was a
will, and following such will there was an inheritance and
partition wherein the heir took possession of what they were given
under the will but there was no probate the happened. The issue is
if a will not submitted to probate would support a claim of
ownership and get the title for the property. Article 838 requires
probate. Atty. Sebastian: Palpak yung pagkusulat ng decision. J.
Ynares Santiago attacked the issue incorrectly going after the
right to dispose in the case forgetting the fact the testator here
was still alive. Bobo.24