Reyes vs. Ca
Reyes vs. Ca
*
G.R. No. 124099. October 30, 1997.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e9794bc2279ce81ac000a0094004f00ee/p/AJV936/?username=Guest 1/12
7/16/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME281
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
278
probate of the will of the late Torcuato Reyes. Perforce, the only
issues to be settled in the said proceeding were: (1) whether or not
the testator had animus testandi (2) whether or not vices of
consent attended the execution of the will and (3) whether or not
the formalities of the will had been complied with. Thus, the lower
court was not asked to rule upon the intrinsic validity or efficacy
of the provisions of the will. As a result, the declaration of the
testator that Asuncion Oning Reyes was his wife did not have to
be scrutinized during the probate proceedings. The propriety of
the institution of Oning Reyes as one of the devisees/legatees
already involved inquiry on the wills intrinsic validity and which
need not be inquired upon by the probate court.
Same Same Same Same Same Words and Phrases A will
is the testator speaking after his death.In the elegant language
of Justice Moreland written decades ago, he saidA will is the
testator speaking after death. Its provisions have substantially
the same force and effect in the probate court as if the testator
stood before the court in full life making the declarations by word
of mouth as they appear in the will. That was the special purpose
of the law in the creation of the instrument known as the last will
and testament. Men wished to speak after they were dead and the
law, by the creation of that instrument, permitted them to do so. x
x x All doubts must be resolved in favor of the testators having
meant just what he said.(Santos vs. Manarang, 27 Phil. 209).
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e9794bc2279ce81ac000a0094004f00ee/p/AJV936/?username=Guest 2/12
7/16/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME281
279
reads:
_______________
280
x x x
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e9794bc2279ce81ac000a0094004f00ee/p/AJV936/?username=Guest 4/12
7/16/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME281
_______________
3 Exhibit F, Records, p. 4.
281
_______________
282
_______________
283
_______________
7 Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 488 Cayetano vs. Leonidas, 129
SCRA 522.
8 Palacios vs. Palacios, 106 Phil. 739.
9 Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 206 Nuguid vs. Nuguid,
17 SCRA 499.
10 Balanay vs. Martinez, 64 SCRA 452 Cayetano vs. Leonidas, 129
SCRA 522.
11 Nuguid vs. Nuguid, supra.
12 Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
284
plied with. Thus, the lower court was not asked to rule
upon the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of
the will. As a result, the declaration of the testator that
Asuncion Oning Reyes was his wife did not have to be
scrutinized during the probate proceedings. The propriety
of the institution of Oning Reyes as one of the
devisees/legatees already involved inquiry on the wills
intrinsic validity and which need not be inquired upon by
the probate court.
The lower court erroneously invoked the ruling in
Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals (139 SCRA 206) in the
instant case. In the case aforesaid, the testator himself,
acknowledged his illicit relationship with the devisee, to
wit:
Art. IV. That since 1952, I have been living, as man and wife,
with one Sofia J. Nepomuceno, whom I declare and avow to be
entitled to my love an [sic] affection, for all the things which she
has done for me, now and in the past that while Sofia J.
Nepomuceno has with my full knowledge and consent, did comfort
and represent myself as her own husband, in truth and in fact, as
well as in the eyes of the law, I could not bind her to me in the
holy bonds of matrimony because of my aforementioned previous
marriage.
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e9794bc2279ce81ac000a0094004f00ee/p/AJV936/?username=Guest 9/12
7/16/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME281
13 Ibid.
285
_______________
286
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e9794bc2279ce81ac000a0094004f00ee/p/AJV936/?username=Guest 11/12
7/16/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME281
o0o
_______________
15 Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 98, G.R. No. 108802. July
12, 1994.
287
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e9794bc2279ce81ac000a0094004f00ee/p/AJV936/?username=Guest 12/12