Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sux Til Baltazar
Sux Til Baltazar
perty under litigation by prescription. We cannot agree with such of the appellee to file an action to recover possession based on its Torrens
conclusion, because there is one very marked and important difference Title is imprescriptible and not barred under the doctrine of laches."
[G.R. No. L-46364. April 6, 1990.] between the case at bar and that of the Arcuino case, and that is, that since
1933 petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez was a title holder, the property then being
SULPICIA JIMENEZ and TORIBIO MATIAS, Petitioners , v. VICENTE registered in her and her uncle Carlos Jimenez name. In the Arcuino case,
DECISION
FERNANDEZ alias HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ and TEODORA this Supreme Court held." (I)t is true that lands registered under the Torrens
GRADO, Respondents . System may not be acquired by prescription but plaintiffs herein are not the
registered owners." (Rollo, p. 38) Even in the said case the principle of
Antonio E. Bengzon III, for Petitioners . imprescriptibility of Torrens Titles was respected. Melecia Cayabyabs PARAS, J. :
possession or of her predecessors-in-interest would be unavailing against the
Agustin U. Cruz for Private Respondents . petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez who was the holder pro-indiviso with Carlos
Jimenez of the Torrens Certificate of Title covering a tract of land which Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari of the following Decision 1 and
includes the portion now in question, from February 28, 1933, when the Resolution 2 of the Honorable Court of Appeals: (1) Decision, dated March 1,
Original Certificate of Title No. 50 933 (Exhibit 8) was issued. "No possession 1977 in C.A.-G.R. No. 49178-R entitled "Sulpicia Jimenez, Et Al., v. Vicente
SYLLABUS
by any person of any portion of the land covered by said original certificate of Fernandez, Et. Al." affirming in toto the judgment of the Court of First
titles, could defeat the title of the registered owner of the land covered by the Instance of Pangasinan, Third Judicial District in Civil Case No. 14802-I
certificate of title." (Benin v. Tuason, L-26127, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 531) between the same parties and (2) Resolution dated June 3, 1977 denying
1. CIVIL LAW; SUCCESSION; CIVIL CODE OF 1889; GOVERNS RIGHTS Sulpicias title over her one-half undivided property remained good and plaintiffs-appellants motion for reconsideration.
TO INHERITANCE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY OF CIVIL CODE (R.A. continued to be good when she segregated it into a new title (T.C.T No.
No. 386). It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that the rights to the 82275, Exhibit "A") in 1969. Sulpicias ownership over her one-half of the As gathered from the records, the factual background of this case is as
succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent land and which is the land in dispute was always covered by a Torrens title, follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
(Art. 777, Civil Code). Moreover, Art. 2263 of the Civil Code provides as and therefore, no amount of possession thereof by the respondents, could
follows: "Rights to the inheritance of a person who died with or without a will, ever defeat her proprietary rights thereon. It is apparent, that the right of The land in question is the Eastern portion with an area of Four Hundred
before the effectivity of this Code, shall be governed by the Civil Code of plaintiff (now petitioner) to institute this action to recover possession of the Thirty Six (436) square meters of that parcel of residential land situated in
1889, by other previous laws, and by the Rules of Court . . ." (Rollo, p. 17). portion of the land in question based on the Torrens Title of Sulpicia Jimenez, Barrio Dulig (now Magsaysay), Municipality of Labrador, Pangasinan actually
Thus, since Carlos Jimenez, owner of one-half pro-indiviso portion of that T.C.T. No. 82275 (Exhibit "A") is imprescriptible and not barred under the covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 82275 (Exhibit A) issued in the
parcel of land then covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 50933, died on doctrine of laches. (J.M. Tuason & Co. v. Macalindong, L-15398, December name of Sulpicia Jimenez.
July 9, 1936 (Exhibit "F") way before the effectivity of the Civil Code of the 29, 1962, Francisco v. Cruz, Et Al., 43 O.G. 5105) Rollo, p. 39).
Philippines, the successional rights pertaining to his estate must be
The entire parcel of land with an area of 2,932 square meters, formerly
determined in accordance with the Civil Code of 1889. 5. ID.; LACHES; APPLICATION THEREOF; CONTROLLED BY EQUITABLE belonged to Fermin Jimenez. Fermin Jimenez has two (2) sons named
CONSIDERATION. The respondent Court of Appeals declared the Fortunato and Carlos Jimenez. This Fortunato Jimenez who predeceased his
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DISQUALIFIED CHILDREN; ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez guilty of laches and citing the ruling in the case of father has only one child, the petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez. After the death of
BAR. Citing the case of Cid v. Burnaman (24 SCRA 434) wherein this Heirs of Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan (65 SCRA 605), held that, since Fermin Jimenez, the entire parcel of land was registered under Act 496 in the
Court categorically held that: "To be an heir under the rules of Civil Code of petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez executed her Affidavit of Self-Adjudication only in name of Carlos Jimenez and Sulpicia Jimenez (uncle and niece) in equal
1889 (which was the law in force when Carlos Jimenez died and which 1969, she lost the right to recover possession of the parcel of land subject of shares pro-indiviso. As a result of the registration case Original Certificate of
should be the governing law in so far as the right to inherit from his estate the litigation. In this instance, again We rule for the petitioner. There is no Title No. 50933 (Exhibit 8) was issued on February 28, 1933, in the names of
was concerned), a child must be either a child legitimate, legitimated, or absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each Carlos Jimenez and Sulpicia Jimenez, in equal shares pro-indiviso.
adopted, or else an acknowledged natural child for illegitimate not natural case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances. The
are disqualified to inherit." (Civil Code of 1889, Art. 807, 935). Even assuming question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and since Carlos Jimenez died on July 9, 1936 and his illegitimate daughter, Melecia
that Melecia Cayabyab was born out of the common-law-relationship laches is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable Cayabyab, also known as Melecia Jimenez, took possession of the eastern
between her mother (Maria Cayabyab) and Carlos Jimenez, she could not considerations. It cannot be worked to defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud portion of the property consisting of 436 square meters.
even be considered an acknowledged natural child because Carlos Jimenez and injustice. It would be rank injustice and patently inequitous to deprive the
was then legally married to Susana Abalos and therefore not qualified to lawful heirs of their rightful inheritance. Petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez is entitled On January 20, 1944, Melecia Jimenez sold said 436 square-meter-portion of
marry Maria Cayabyab and consequently Melecia Cayabyab was an to the relief prayed for, declaring her to be the sole and absolute owner of the the property to Edilberto Cagampan and defendant Teodora Grado executed
illegitimate spurious child and not entitled to any successional rights in so far land in question with right to its possession and enjoyment. Since her uncle a contract entitled "Exchange of Real Properties" whereby the former
as the estate of Carlos Jimenez was concerned. Carlos Jimenez died in 1936, his pro-indiviso share in the properties then transferred said 436 square-meter-portion to the latter, who has been in
owned in co-ownership with his niece Sulpicia descended by intestacy to occupation since.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NO RIGHT TO TRANSFER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Sulpicia Jimenez alone because Carlos died without any issue or other heirs.
IN THE ABSENCE OF VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE BY DECEDENT.
On August 29, 1969, plaintiff Sulpicia Jimenez executed an affidavit
Melecia Cayabyab in the absence of any voluntary conveyance to her by 6. ID.; ID.; ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION BASED ON TORRENS adjudicating unto herself the other half of the property appertaining to Carlos
Carlos Jimenez or Sulpicia Jimenez of the litigated portion of the land could TITLE; NOT BARRED. The professed objective of Act No. 496, otherwise Jimenez, upon manifestation that she is the only heir of her deceased uncle.
not even legally transfer the parcel of land to Edilberto Cagampan who known as the Land Registration Act or the law which established the Torrens Consequently Transfer Certificate of Title No. 82275 was issued on October
accordingly, could not also legally transfer the same to herein private System of Land Registration in the Philippines is that the stability of the 1, 1969 in petitioners name alone over the entire 2,932 square meter-
respondents. landholding system in the Philippines depends on the confidence of the property.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
people in the titles covering the properties. And to this end, this Court has
4. ID.; ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION, NOT APPLICABLE TO LAND invariably upheld the indefeasibility of the Torrens Title and in, among others, On April 1, 1970, Sulpicia Jimenez, joined by her husband, instituted the
REGISTERED UNDER TORRENS SYSTEM. The respondent court J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. Macalindong (6 SCRA 938), held that "the right present action for the recovery of the eastern portion of the property
relying on the Arcuino case, concluded that respondents had acquired the
consisting of 436 square meters occupied by defendant Teodora Grado and
her son. NOT BE DEFEATED BY THE ADVERSE OPEN AND NOTORIOUS
POSSESSION OF APPELLEE TEODORA GRADO. Even assuming that Melecia Cayabyab was born out of the common-law-
After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered judgment, the dispositive VI relationship between her mother (Maria Cayabyab) and Carlos Jimenez, she
portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph could not even be considered an acknowledged natural child because Carlos
Jimenez was then legally married to Susana Abalos and therefore not
"WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint and THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE APPELLEE qualified to marry Maria Cayabyab and consequently Melecia Cayabyab was
holding the defendant, Teodora Grado, the absolute owner of the land in TEODORA GRADO IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE LAND IN an illegitimate spurious child and not entitled to any successional rights in so
question; ordering the plaintiffs to pay to the defendant the amount of QUESTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT far as the estate of Carlos Jimenez was concerned.chanrobles.com.ph :
P500.00 as damages, as attorneys fees, and to pay the costs of suit. IN THE CASE OF LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL., V. RUFINA APARIS AND virtual law library
CASIANO PURAY, G.R. NO. L-23424, PROMULGATED JANUARY 31, 1968,
"SO ORDERED." (Rollo, p. 20) WHICH CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR. Melecia Cayabyab in the absence of any voluntary conveyance to her by
VII Carlos Jimenez or Sulpicia Jimenez of the litigated portion of the land could
Petitioner appealed the above judgment to the respondent Court of Appeals not even legally transfer the parcel of land to Edilberto Cagampan who
and on March 1, 1977, respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision accordingly, could not also legally transfer the same to herein private
affirming the same in toto. Said decision was rendered by a special division THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND respondents.
of five (5) justices, with the Hon. Lourdes San Diego, dissenting. ORDERING THE APPELLANTS TO PAY THE APPELLEES THE SUM OF
P500.00 AS ATTORNEYS FEES PLUS THE COSTS. Analyzing the case before Us in this manner, We can immediately discern
Petitioners within the reglementary period granted by the Honorable Court of another error in the decision of the respondent court, which is that the said
Appeals, filed therewith a motion for reconsideration. But said motion for From the foregoing, this petition for review was filed. court sustained and made applicable to the case at bar the ruling in the case
reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated of Arcuino, Et Al., v. Aparis and Puray, No. L-23424, January 31, 1968, 22
June 3, 1977. We find merit in the petition. SCRA 407, wherein We held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
In their appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals from the aforequoted From the start the respondent court erred in not declaring that Melecia ". . . it is true that the lands registered under the Torrens System may not be
decision of the trial court, herein petitioner raised the following assignments Jimenez Cayabyab also known as Melecia Jimenez, is not the daughter of acquired by prescription but plaintiffs herein are not the registered owners.
of error to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Carlos Jimenez and therefore, had no right over the property in question. They merely claim to have acquired by succession, their alleged title or
Respondents failed to present concrete evidence to prove that Melecia interest in lot No. 335. At any rate plaintiffs herein are guilty of laches."cralaw
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Cayabyab was really the daughter of Carlos Jimenez. Nonetheless, virtua1aw library
I assuming for the sake of argument that Melecia Cayabyab was the
illegitimate daughter of Carlos Jimenez there can be no question that Melecia The respondent court relying on the Arcuino case, concluded that
Cayabyab had no right to succeed to the estate of Carlos Jimenez and could respondents had acquired the property under litigation by prescription. We
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT MELECIA not have validly acquired, nor legally transferred to Edilberto Cagampan that cannot agree with such conclusion, because there is one very marked and
CAYABYAB, ALSO KNOWN AS MELECIA JIMENEZ, IS NOT THE portion of the property subject of this petition.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law important difference between the case at bar and that of the Arcuino case,
DAUGHTER OF CARLOS JIMENEZ. library and that is, that since 1933 petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez was a title holder, the
II property then being registered in her and her uncle Carlos Jimenez name. In
It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that the rights to the succession are the Arcuino case, this Supreme Court held." (I)t is true that lands registered
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent (Art. 777, Civil under the Torrens System may not be acquired by prescription but plaintiffs
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT MELECIA Code). Moreover, Art. 2263 of the Civil Code provides as herein are not the registered owners." (Rollo, p. 38) Even in the said case the
CAYABYAB, ALSO KNOWN AS MELECIA JIMENEZ, HAS NO RIGHT TO follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph principle of imprescriptibility of Torrens Titles was respected.
SELL THE LAND IN QUESTION TO EDILBERTO CAGAMPAN.
III "Rights to the inheritance of a person who died with or without a will, before Melecia Cayabyabs possession or of her predecessors-in-interest would be
the effectivity of this Code, shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by unavailing against the petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez who was the holder pro-
other previous laws, and by the Rules of Court . . ." (Rollo, p. 17) indiviso with Carlos Jimenez of the Torrens Certificate of Title covering a tract
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT EDILBERTO of land which includes the portion now in question, from February 28, 1933,
CAGAMPAN DID NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF THE LAND IN Thus, since Carlos Jimenez, owner of one-half pro-indiviso portion of that when the Original Certificate of Title No. 50 933 (Exhibit 8) was
QUESTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DEED OF SALE (EXH. "1") EXECUTED parcel of land then covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 50933, died on issued.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
BY MELECIA CAYABYAB, ALIAS MELECIA JIMENEZ, IN HIS FAVOR. July 9, 1936 (Exhibit "F") way before the effectivity of the Civil Code of the
IV Philippines, the successional rights pertaining to his estate must be "No possession by any person of any portion of the land covered by said
determined in accordance with the Civil Code of 1889. original certificate of titles, could defeat the title of the registered owner of the
land covered by the certificate of title." (Benin v. Tuason, L-26127, June 28,
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT TEODORA Citing the case of Cid v. Burnaman (24 SCRA 434) wherein this Court 1974, 57 SCRA 531)
GRADO DID NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION categorically held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
BY VIRTUE OF THE DEED OF EXCHANGE (EXH. "7") EXECUTED BY Sulpicias title over her one-half undivided property remained good and
HER AND EDILBERTO CAGAMPAN. "To be an heir under the rules of Civil Code of 1889 (which was the law in continued to be good when she segregated it into a new title (T.C.T No.
V force when Carlos Jimenez died and which should be the governing law in so 82275, Exhibit "A") in 1969. Sulpicias ownership over her one-half of the
far as the right to inherit from his estate was concerned), a child must be land and which is the land in dispute was always covered by a Torrens title,
either a child legitimate, legitimated, or adopted, or else an acknowledged and therefore, no amount of possession thereof by the respondents, could
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE TITLE OF natural child for illegitimate not natural are disqualified to inherit." (Civil ever defeat her proprietary rights thereon. It is apparent, that the right of
APPELLANT SULPICIA JIMENEZ OVER THE LAND IN QUESTION CAN Code of 1889, Art. 807, 935) plaintiff (now petitioner) to institute this action to recover possession of the
portion of the land in question based on the Torrens Title of Sulpicia Jimenez,
T.C.T. No. 82275 (Exhibit "A") is imprescriptible and not barred under the
doctrine of laches. (J.M. Tuason & Co. v. Macalindong, L-15398, December
29, 1962, Francisco v. Cruz, Et Al., 43 O.G. 5105) Rollo, p. 39)
In this instance, again We rule for the petitioner. There is no absolute rule as
to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be
determined according to its particular circumstances. The question of laches
is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and since laches is an
equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It
cannot be worked to defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice. It
would be rank injustice and patently inequitous to deprive the lawful heirs of
their rightful inheritance.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
Petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez is entitled to the relief prayed for, declaring her to
be the sole and absolute owner of the land in question with right to its
possession and enjoyment. Since her uncle Carlos Jimenez died in 1936, his
pro-indiviso share in the properties then owned in co-ownership with his
niece Sulpicia descended by intestacy to Sulpicia Jimenez alone because
Carlos died without any issue or other heirs.
After all, the professed objective of Act No. 496, otherwise known as the
Land Registration Act or the law which established the Torrens System of
Land Registration in the Philippines is that the stability of the landholding
system in the Philippines depends on the confidence of the people in the
titles covering the properties. And to this end, this Court has invariably upheld
the indefeasibility of the Torrens Title and in, among others, J.M. Tuason and
Co., Inc. v. Macalindong (6 SCRA 938), held that "the right of the appellee to
file an action to recover possession based on its Torrens Title is
imprescriptible and not barred under the doctrine of laches."cralaw virtua1aw
library
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are the instituted legatees must respect the testators will to distribute his
void as being in violation of article 10 of the Civil Code which, among other property, not in accordance with the laws of his nationality, but in accordance
[G.R. No. 22595. November 1, 1924. ] things, provides the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph with the laws of the Philippines.
"Testate Estate of Joseph G. Brimo. JUAN MICIANO, "Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of If this condition as it is expressed were legal and valid, any legatee who fails
administrator, Petitioner-Appellee , v. ANDRE BRIMO, opponent- succession as well as to the amount of the successional rights and the to comply with it, as the herein oppositor who, by his attitude in these
appellant. intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of proceedings has not respected the will of the testator, as expressed, is
the person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of prevented from receiving his legacy.
Ross, Lawrence & Selph for Appellant . the property or the country in which it may be situated."cralaw virtua1aw
library The fact is, however, that the said condition is void, being contrary to law, for
Camus & Delgado for Appellee . article 792 of the Civil Code provides the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testamentary
SYLLABUS dispositions are not in accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did "Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good morals shall be
1. FOREIGN LAWS; PRESUMPTION. In the absence of evidence to the not present any evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any
contrary foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as and in the absence of evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the manner whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise provide."cralaw
those of the Philippines. (Lim and Lim v. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil., 472.) same as those of the Philippines. (Lim and Lim v. Collector of Customs, 36 virtua1aw library
Phil., 472.)
2. POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDING; DISCRETION. It is discretionary And said condition is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the
on the part of the court to postpone or not to postpone a particular It has not been proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws are. He, testators national law when, according to article 10 of the Civil Code above
proceeding in a case, and when the person applying for it has already been himself, acknowledges it when he desires to be given an opportunity to quoted, such national law of the testator is the one to govern his
given ample opportunity to present the evidence that he wishes to introduce, present evidence on this point; so much so that he assigns as an error of the testamentary dispositions.
the court commits no abuse of discretion in denying it. court in not having deferred the approval of the scheme of partition until the
receipt of certain testimony requested regarding the Turkish laws on the Said condition then, in the light of the legal provisions above cited, is
3. SUCCESSIONS; CONDITIONAL LEGACY; CONDITION CONTRARY TO matter. considered unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said will is
LAW; NULLITY OF. If the condition imposed upon the legatee is that he unconditional and consequently valid and effective even as to the herein
respect the testators order that his property be distributed in accordance with The refusal to give the oppositor another opportunity to prove such laws does oppositor.
the laws of the Philippines and not in accordance with the laws of his nation, not constitute an error. It is discretionary with the trial court, and, taking into
said condition is illegal, because, according to article 10 of the Civil Code, consideration that the oppositor was granted ample opportunity to introduce It results from all this that the second clause of the will regarding the law
said laws govern his testamentary disposition, and, being illegal, shall be competent evidence, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the court in which shall govern it, and to the condition imposed upon the legatees, is null
considered unwritten, thus making the institution unconditional. this particular. and void, being contrary to law.
There is, therefore, no evidence in the record that the national law of the All of the remaining clauses of said will with all their dispositions and requests
testator Joseph G. Brimo was violated in the testamentary dispositions in are perfectly valid and effective it not appearing that said clauses are
DECISION
question which, not being contrary to our laws in force, must be complied contrary to the testators national laws.
with and executed.
Therefore, the orders appealed from are modified and it is directed that the
ROMUALDEZ, J. : Therefore, the approval of the scheme of partition in this respect was not distribution of this estate be made in such a manner as to include the herein
erroneous. appellant Andre Brimo as one of the legatees, and the scheme of partition
submitted by the judicial administrator is approved in all other respects,
The partition of the estate left by the deceased Joseph G. Brimo is in In regard to the first assignment of error which deals with the exclusion of the without any pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
question in this case. herein appellant as a legatee, inasmuch as he is one of the persons
designated as such in the will, it must be taken into consideration that such
The judicial administrator of this estate filed a scheme of partition. Andre exclusion is based on the last part of the second clause of the will, which
Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. The court, however, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
approved it.
"Second. I likewise desire to state that although, by law, I am a Turkish
The errors which the oppositor-appellant assigns are: (1) The approval of citizen, this citizenship having been conferred upon me by conquest and not
said scheme of partition; (2) the denial of his participation in the inheritance; by free choice, nor by nationality and, on the other hand, having resided for a
(3) the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the order approving the considerable length of time in the Philippine Islands where I succeeded in
partition; (4) the approval of the purchase made by Pietro Lanza of the acquiring all of the property that I now possess, it is my wish that the
deceaseds business and the deed of transfer of said business; and (5) the distribution of my property and everything in connection with this, my will, be
declaration that the Turkish laws are impertinent to this cause, and the failure made and disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine
not to postpone the approval of the scheme of partition and the delivery of Islands, requesting all of my relatives to respect this wish, otherwise, I annul
the deceaseds business to Pietro Lanza until the receipt of the depositions and cancel beforehand whatever disposition found in this will favorable to the
requested in reference to the Turkish laws. person or persons who fail to comply with this request."cralaw virtua1aw
library
The appellants opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question
puts into effect the provisions of Joseph G. Brimos will which are not in The institution of legatees in this will is conditional, and the condition is that
FIRST DIVISION suspended; (2) they would dissolve their marital union in accordance with real or personal properties, shall not be disposed of, ceded, sold and
judicial proceedings; (3) they would make a separate agreement regarding conveyed to any other persons, but could only be sold, ceded, conveyed and
[G.R. No. 124371. November 23, 2000.] their conjugal property acquired during their marital life; and (4) Lorenzo disposed of by and among themselves;
would not prosecute Paula for her adulterous act since she voluntarily
PAULA T. LLORENTE, Petitioner , v. COURT OF APPEALS and admitted her fault and agreed to separate from Lorenzo peacefully. The "(5) I designate my wife ALICIA R. FORTUNO to be the sole executor of this
ALICIA F. LLORENTE, Respondents . agreement was signed by both Lorenzo and Paula and was witnessed by my Last Will and Testament, and in her default or incapacity of the latter to
Paulas father and stepmother. The agreement was notarized by Notary act, any of my children in the order of age, if of age;
DECISION Public Pedro Osabel. 10
"(6) I hereby direct that the executor named herein or her lawful substitute
Lorenzo returned to the United States and on November 16, 1951 filed for should served (sic) without bond;
divorce with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
PARDO, J. :
County of San Diego. Paula was represented by counsel, John Riley, and "(7) I hereby revoke any and all my other wills, codicils, or testamentary
actively participated in the proceedings. On November 27, 1951, the Superior dispositions heretofore executed, signed, or published, by me;
Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego found all factual
The Case allegations to be true and issued an interlocutory judgment of divorce. 11 "(8) It is my final wish and desire that if I die, no relatives of mine in any
degree in the Llorentes Side should ever bother and disturb in any manner
On December 4, 1952, the divorce decree became final. 12 whatsoever my wife Alicia R. Fortunato and my children with respect to any
The case raises a conflict of laws issue.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary real or personal properties I gave and bequeathed respectively to each one
In the meantime, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw of them by virtue of this Last Will and Testament." 17
What is before us is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 1ibrary
modifying that of the Regional Trial Court, Camarines Sur, Branch 35, Iriga On December 14, 1983, Lorenzo filed with the Regional Trial Court, Iriga,
City 2 declaring respondent Alicia F. Llorente (hereinafter referred to as On January 16, 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila. 13 Camarines Sur, a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and
"Alicia"), as co-owners of whatever property she and the deceased Lorenzo Apparently, Alicia had no knowledge of the first marriage even if they resided testament wherein Lorenzo moved that Alicia be appointed Special
N. Llorente (hereinafter referred to as "Lorenzo") may have acquired during in the same town as Paula, who did not oppose the marriage or cohabitation. Administratrix of his estate. 18
the twenty-five (25) years that they lived together as husband and wife. 14
The Facts On January 18, 1984, the trial court denied the motion for the reason that the
From 1958 to 1985, Lorenzo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife. testator Lorenzo was still alive. 19
15 Their twenty-five (25) year union produced three children, Raul, Luz and
The deceased Lorenzo N. Llorente was an enlisted serviceman of the United Beverly, all surnamed Llorente. 16 On January 24, 1984, finding that the will was duly executed, the trial court
States Navy from March 10, 1927 to September 30, 1957. 3 admitted the will to probate. 20
On March 13, 1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament. The will
On February 22, 1937, Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente (hereinafter was notarized by Notary Public Salvador M. Occiano, duly signed by Lorenzo On June 11, 1985, before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo
referred to as "Paula") were married before a parish priest, Roman Catholic with attesting witnesses Francisco Hugo, Francisco Neibres and Tito Trajano. died. 21
Church, in Nabua, Camarines Sur. 4 In the will, Lorenzo bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three
children, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph On September 4, 1985, Paula filed with the same court a petition 22 for
Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo departed for the United letters of administration over Lorenzos estate in her favor. Paula contended
States and Paula stayed in the conjugal home in barrio Antipolo, Nabua, "(1) I give and bequeath to my wife ALICIA R. FORTUNO exclusively my (1) that she was Lorenzos surviving spouse, (2) that the various property
Camarines Sur. 5 residential house and lot, located at San Francisco, Nabua, Camarines Sur, were acquired during their marriage, (3) that Lorenzos will disposed of all his
Philippines, including ALL the personal properties and other movables or property in favor of Alicia and her children, encroaching on her legitime and
On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States citizenship belongings that may be found or existing therein; 1/2 share in the conjugal property. 23
and Certificate of Naturalization No. 5579816 was issued in his favor by the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York. 6 "(2) I give and bequeath exclusively to my wife Alicia R. Fortuno and to my On December 13, 1985, Alicia filed in the testate proceeding (Sp. Proc. No.
children, Raul F. Llorente, Luz F. Llorente and Beverly F. Llorente, in equal IR-755), a petition for the issuance of letters testamentary. 24
Upon the liberation of the Philippines by the American Forces in 1945, shares, all my real properties whatsoever and wheresoever located,
Lorenzo was granted an accrued leave by the U. S. Navy, to visit his wife and specifically my real properties located at Barangay Aro-Aldao, Nabua, On October 14, 1985, without terminating the testate proceedings, the trial
he visited the Philippines. 7 He discovered that his wife Paula was pregnant Camarines Sur; Barangay Paloyon, Nabua, Camarines Sur; Barangay Baras, court gave due course to Paulas petition in Sp. Proc. No. IR-
and was "living in" and having an adulterous relationship with his brother, Sitio Puga, Nabua, Camarines Sur; and Barangay Paloyon, Sitio Nalilidong, 888.25cralaw:red
Ceferino Llorente. 8 Nabua, Camarines Sur;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
On November 6, 13 and 20, 1985, the order was published in the newspaper
On December 4, 1945, Paula gave birth to a boy registered in the Office of "(3) I likewise give and bequeath exclusively unto my wife Alicia R. Fortuno "Bicol Star." 26
the Registrar of Nabua as "Crisologo Llorente," with the certificate stating that and unto my children, Raul F. Llorente, Luz F. Llorente and Beverly F.
the child was not legitimate and the line for the fathers name was left blank. Llorente, in equal shares, my real properties located in Quezon City On May 18, 1987, the Regional Trial Court issued a joint decision,
9 Philippines, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 188652; and my thus:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
lands in Antipolo, Rizal, Philippines, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her. In fact, on February 2, Nos. 124196 and 165188, both of the Registry of Deeds of the province of "Wherefore, considering that this court has so found that the divorce decree
1946, the couple drew a written agreement to the effect that (1) all the family Rizal, Philippines; granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void and inapplicable in the
allowances allotted by the United States Navy as part of Lorenzos salary and Philippines, therefore the marriage he contracted with Alicia Fortunato on
all other obligations for Paulas daily maintenance and support would be "(4) That their respective shares in the above-mentioned properties, whether January 16, 1958 at Manila is likewise void. This being so the petition of
Alicia F. Llorente for the issuance of letters testamentary is denied. Likewise, American law. There is no such law governing the validity of testamentary
she is not entitled to receive any share from the estate even if the will On March 21, 1996, the Court of Appeals, 34 denied the motion for lack of provisions in the United States. Each State of the union has its own law
especially said so her relationship with Lorenzo having gained the status of merit. applicable to its citizens and in force only within the State. It can therefore
paramour which is under Art. 739 (1). refer to no other than the law of the State of which the decedent was a
Hence, this petition. 35 resident. 39 Second, there is no showing that the application of the renvoi
"On the other hand, the court finds the petition of Paula Titular Llorente, The Issue doctrine is called for or required by New York State law.chanrob1es virtua1
meritorious, and so declares the intrinsic disposition of the will of Lorenzo 1aw 1ibrary
Llorente dated March 13, 1981 as void and declares her entitled as conjugal
partner and entitled to one-half of their conjugal properties, and as primary Stripping the petition of its legalese and sorting through the various The trial court held that the will was intrinsically invalid since it contained
compulsory heir, Paula T. Llorente is also entitled to one-third of the estate arguments raised, 36 the issue is simple. Who are entitled to inherit from the dispositions in favor of Alice, who in the trial courts opinion was a mere
and then one-third should go to the illegitimate children, Raul, Luz and late Lorenzo N. Llorente? paramour. The trial court threw the will out, leaving Alice, and her two
Beverly, all surname (sic) Llorente, for them to partition in equal shares and children, Raul and Luz, with nothing.
also entitled to the remaining free portion in equal shares. We do not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals. We remand the
case to the trial court for ruling on the intrinsic validity of the will of the The Court of Appeals also disregarded the will. It declared Alice entitled to
"Petitioner, Paula Llorente is appointed legal administrator of the estate of the deceased. one half (1/2) of whatever property she and Lorenzo acquired during their
deceased, Lorenzo Llorente. As such let the corresponding letters of cohabitation, applying Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
administration issue in her favor upon her filing a bond in the amount (sic) of The Applicable Law
P100,000.00 conditioned for her to make a return to the court within three (3) The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of the will,
months a true and complete inventory of all goods, chattels, rights, and The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen long already probated as duly executed in accordance with the formalities of
credits, and estate which shall at any time come to her possession or to the before and at the time of: (1) his divorce from Paula; (2) marriage to Alicia; Philippine law, is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legal
possession of any other person for her, and from the proceeds to pay and (3) execution of his will; and (4) death, is duly established, admitted and circumstances here obtaining.
discharge all debts, legacies and charges on the same, or such dividends undisputed.
thereon as shall be decreed or required by this court; to render a true and Validity of the Foreign Divorce
just account of her administration to the court within one (1) year, and at any Thus, as a rule, issues arising from these incidents are necessarily governed
other time when required by the court and to perform all orders of this court by foreign law. In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. 40 we held that owing to the nationality principle
by her to be performed. embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are
The Civil Code clearly provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered
"On the other matters prayed for in respective petitions for want of evidence contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. In the same case, the
could not be granted.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary "ARTICLE 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the according to their national law.
"SO ORDERED." 27 Philippines, even though living abroad.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals, 41 that
In time, Alicia filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration of the "ARTICLE 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law once proven that respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he
aforequoted decision. 28 of the country where it is situated. obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in Van Dorn would become
applicable and petitioner could "very well lose her right to inherit" from
On September 14, 1987, the trial court denied Alicias motion for "However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the him.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
reconsideration but modified its earlier decision, stating that Raul and Luz order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the
Llorente are not children "legitimate or otherwise" of Lorenzo since they were intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, 42 we recognized the divorce obtained by the
not legally adopted by him. 29 Amending its decision of May 18, 1987, the law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be respondent in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. There, we
trial court declared Beverly Llorente as the only illegitimate child of Lorenzo, the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said stated that divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines
entitling her to one-third (1/3) of the estate and one-third (1/3) of the free property may be found." (Emphasis ours) insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our
portion of the estate. 30 civil law on the status of persons.
True, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts
On September 28, 1987, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. 31 are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals must
must be alleged and proved. 37 be reversed. 43 We hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente
On July 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision, affirming from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a
with modification the decision of the trial court in this While the substance of the foreign law was pleaded, the Court of Appeals did matter of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the succession to the
wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph not admit the foreign law. The Court of Appeals and the trial court called to estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the determination of the trial
the fore the renvoi doctrine, where the case was "referred back" to the law of court.
"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the the decedents domicile, in this case, Philippine law.
MODIFICATION that Alicia is declared as co-owner of whatever properties Validity of the Will
she and the deceased may have acquired during the twenty-five (25) years of We note that while the trial court stated that the law of New York was not
cohabitation. sufficiently proven, in the same breath it made the categorical, albeit equally The Civil Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
unproven statement that "American law follows the domiciliary theory hence,
"SO ORDERED." 32 Philippine law applies when determining the validity of Lorenzos will. 38 "ARTICLE 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public
instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are
On August 25, 1995, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for First, there is no such thing as one American law. The "national law" executed.
reconsideration of the decision. 33 indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to general
"When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular
officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities
established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution."
(Emphasis ours)
The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife and
children by her is glaringly shown in the will he executed. We do not wish to
frustrate his wishes, since he was a foreigner, not covered by our laws on
"family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity." 44
Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo are
issues best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and proved.
Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required is
answered by referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly
probated.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
As a guide however, the trial court should note that whatever public policy or
good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress did not
intend to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress
specifically left the amount of successional rights to the decedents national
law. 45
Having thus ruled, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other issues
raised.
The Fallo
In lieu thereof, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Regional Trial Court
and RECOGNIZES as VALID the decree of divorce granted in favor of the
deceased Lorenzo N. Llorente by the Superior Court of the State of California
in and for the County of San Diego, made final on December 4, 1952.
Further, the Court REMANDS the cases to the court of origin for
determination of the intrinsic validity of Lorenzo N. Llorentes will and
determination of the parties successional rights allowing proof of foreign law
with instructions that the trial court shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch
to settle the estate of the deceased within the framework of the Rules of
Court.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION Order directing the issuance of the writ of execution, on the ground that the had freely executed the will and was not acting under duress, fraud, menace
order was merely "interlocutory", hence not final in character. The court or undue influence and that the will is genuine and not a forgery, 10 that he
[G.R. No. 108581. December 8, 1999.] added that the dispositive portion of the said Order even directs the was of the proper testamentary age and that he is a person not expressly
distribution of the estate of the deceased spouses. Private respondents filed prohibited by law from making a will. 11
LOURDES L. DOROTHEO, Petitioner , v. COURT OF APPEALS, a motion for reconsideration which was denied in an Order dated February 1,
NILDA D. QUINTANA, for Herself and as Attorney-in-Fact of 1991. Thus, private respondents filed a petition before the Court of Appeals, The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding the same may
VICENTE DOROTHEO and JOSE DOROTHEO, Respondents . which nullified the two assailed Orders dated November 29, 1990 and still be raised even after the will has been authenticated. 12 Thus, it does not
February 1, 1991. necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and testament is always
DECISION intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides
Aggrieved, petitioner instituted a petition for review arguing that the case filed for dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or
by private respondents before the Court of Appeals was a petition under Rule rightful inheritance according to the laws on succession, 13 the unlawful
65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. This is specially so
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. :
contends that in issuing the two assailed orders, Judge Angas cannot be said when the courts had already determined in a final and executory decision
to have no jurisdiction because he was particularly designated to hear the that the will is intrinsically void. Such determination having attained that
case. Petitioner likewise assails the Order of the Court of Appeals upholding character of finality is binding on this Court which will no longer be disturbed.
May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically the validity of the January 30, 1986 Order which declared the intrinsic Not that this Court finds the will to be intrinsically valid, but that a final and
void in an order that has become final and executory still be given effect? invalidity of Alejandros will that was earlier admitted to probate. executory decision of which the party had the opportunity to challenge before
This is the issue that arose from the following antecedents:chanrobles the higher tribunals must stand and should no longer be reevaluated. Failure
lawlibrary : rednad Petitioner also filed a motion to reinstate her as executrix of the estate of the to avail of the remedies provided by law constitutes waiver. And if the party
late Alejandro and to maintain the status quo or lease of the premises does not avail of other remedies despite its belief that it was aggrieved by a
Private respondents were the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and thereon to third parties. 3 Private respondents opposed the motion on the decision or court action, then it is deemed to have fully agreed and is
Aniceta Reyes. The latter died in 1969 without her estate being settled. ground that petitioner has no interest in the estate since she is not the lawful satisfied with the decision or order. As early as 1918, it has been declared
Alejandro died thereafter. Sometime in 1977, after Alejandros wife of the late Alejandro. that public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional
death, Petitioner, who claims to have taken care of Alejandro before he died, errors, judgments of courts must at some point of time fixed by law 14
filed a special proceeding for the probate of the latters last will and The petition is without merit. A final and executory decision or order can no become final otherwise there will be no end to litigation. Interes rei publicae
testament. In 1981, the court issued an order admitting Alejandros will to longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. In ut finis sit litium the very object of which the courts were constituted was to
probate. Private respondents did not appeal from said order. In 1983, they setting aside the January 30, 1986 Order that has attained finality, the trial put an end to controversies. 15 To fulfill this purpose and to do so speedily,
filed a "Motion To Declare The Will Intrinsically Void." The trial court granted court in effect nullified the entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals. It certain time limits, more or less arbitrary, have to be set up to spur on the
the motion and issued an order, the dispositive portion of which is well settled that a lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or slothful. 16 The only instance where a party interested in a probate
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph orders of a superior court, for to do so would be to negate the hierarchy of proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by
courts and nullify the essence of review. It has been ruled that a final reason of circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Order is hereby issued declaring judgment on probated will, albeit erroneous, is binding on the whole world. 4 inadvertence not imputable to negligence, 17 which circumstances do not
Lourdes Legaspi not the wife of the late Alejandro Dorotheo, the provisions of concur herein.
the last will and testament of Alejandro Dorotheo as intrinsically void, and It has been consistently held that if no appeal is taken in due time from a
declaring the oppositors Vicente Dorotheo, Jose Dorotheo and Nilda judgment or order of the trial court, the same attains finality by mere lapse of Petitioner was privy to the suit calling for the declaration of the intrinsic
Dorotheo Quintana as the only heirs of the late spouses Alejandro Dorotheo time. Thus, the order allowing the will became final and the question invalidity of the will, as she precisely appealed from an unfavorable order
and Aniceta Reyes, whose respective estates shall be liquidated and determined by the court in such order can no longer be raised anew, either in therefrom. Although the final and executory Order of January 30, 1986
distributed according to the laws on intestacy upon payment of estate and the same proceedings or in a different motion. The matters of due execution wherein private respondents were declared as the only heirs do not bind
other taxes due to the government." 1 of the will and the capacity of the testator acquired the character of res those who are not parties thereto such as the alleged illegitimate son of the
judicata and cannot again be brought into question, all juridical questions in testator, the same constitutes res judicata with respect to those who were
Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to some connection therewith being for once and forever closed. 5 Such final order parties to the probate proceedings. Petitioner cannot again raise those
compensation since she took care of Alejandro prior to his death although makes the will conclusive against the whole world as to its extrinsic validity matters anew for relitigation otherwise that would amount to forum-shopping.
she admitted that they were not married to each other. Upon denial of her and due execution. 6 It should be remembered that forum shopping also occurs when the same
motion for reconsideration, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but issue had already been resolved adversely by some other court. 18 It is clear
the same was dismissed for failure to file appellants brief within the extended It should be noted that probate proceedings deals generally with the extrinsic from the executory order that the estates of Alejandro and his spouse should
period granted. 2 This dismissal became final and executory on February 3, validity of the will sought to be probated, 7 particularly on three be distributed according to the laws of intestate succession.
1989 and a corresponding entry of judgment was forthwith issued by the aspects:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
Court of Appeals on May 16, 1989. A writ of execution was issued by the Petitioner posits that the January 30, 1986 Order is merely interlocutory,
lower court to implement the final and executory Order. Consequently, private whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedents last will and testament; hence it can still be set aside by the trial court. In support thereof, petitioner
respondents filed several motions including a motion to compel petitioner to argues that "an order merely declaring who are heirs and the shares to which
surrender to them the Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) covering the compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of wills; set of heirs is entitled cannot be the basis of execution to require delivery of
properties of the late Alejandro. When petitioner refused to surrender the shares from one person to another particularly when no project of partition
TCTs, private respondents filed a motion for cancellation of said titles and for the testamentary capacity of the testator; 8 has been filed." 19 The trial court declared in the January 30, 1986 Order that
issuance of new titles in their names. Petitioner opposed the petitioner is not the legal wife of Alejandro, whose only heirs are his three
motion.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph and the due execution of the last will and testament. 9 legitimate children (petitioners herein), and at the same time it nullified the
will. But it should be noted that in the same Order, the trial court also said
An Order was issued on November 29, 1990 by Judge Zain B. Angas setting Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of whether the that the estate of the late spouses be distributed according to the laws of
aside the final and executory Order dated January 30, 1986, as well as the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of its execution, that he intestacy. Accordingly, it has no option but to implement that order of intestate
distribution and not to reopen and again re-examine the intrinsic provisions of
the same will.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
It can be clearly inferred from Article 960 of the Civil Code, on the law of
successional rights that testacy is preferred to intestacy. 20 But before there
could be testate distribution, the will must pass the scrutinizing test and
safeguards provided by law considering that the deceased testator is no
longer available to prove the voluntariness of his actions, aside from the fact
that the transfer of the estate is usually onerous in nature and that no one is
presumed to give Nemo praesumitur donare. 21 No intestate distribution
of the estate can be done until and unless the will had failed to pass both its
extrinsic and intrinsic validity. If the will is extrinsically void, the rules of
intestacy apply regardless of the intrinsic validity thereof. If it is extrinsically
valid, the next test is to determine its intrinsic validity that is whether the
provisions of the will are valid according to the laws of succession. In this
case, the court had ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsically valid but
the intrinsic provisions thereof were void. Thus, the rules of intestacy apply
as correctly held by the trial court.
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
EN BANC DECISION respective oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory
[G.R. No. L-23678. June 6, 1967.] heirs of the deceased.
BENGZON, J.P., J. :
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased, PEOPLES Amos Bellis, Jr. interposed no opposition despite notice to him, proof of
BANK & TRUST COMPANY, executor, MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and service of which is evidenced by the registry receipt submitted on April 27,
MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, v. EDWARD A. 1964 by the executor. 1
BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees. This is a direct appeal to us, upon a question purely of law, from an order of
the Court of First Instance of Manila dated April 30, 1964, approving the After the parties filed their respective memoranda and other pertinent
Vicente R. Macasaet and Jose D. Villena for oppositors-appellant. project of partition filed by the executor in Civil Case No. 37089 therein. pleadings, the lower court, on April 30, 1964, issued an order overruling the
oppositions and approving the executors final account, report and
Paredes, Poblador, Cruz & Nazareno for heirs-appellees E.A. Bellis, The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library administration and project of partition. Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code,
Et. Al. it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law,
Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the which did not provide for legitimes.
Quijano and Arroyo for heirs-appellees W. S. Bellis, Et. Al. United States." By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had
five legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceased Their respective motions for reconsideration having been denied by the lower
J .R. Balonkita for appellees Peoples Bank & Trust Company. him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman; by court on June 11, 1964, oppositors-appellants appealed to this Court to raise
his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate the issue of which law must apply Texas law or Philippine law.
Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta for appellee A. B. Allsman. children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he
had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and In this regard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even discuss, the
Miriam Palma Bellis. doctrine of renvoi, applied by this Court in Aznar v. Christensen Garcia, L-
16749, January 31, 1963. Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the
SYLLABUS
On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which decedent is a national of one country, and a domicile of another. In the
he directed that after all taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration present case, it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of
are paid for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death. 2 So that even
1. PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW; LAW APPLICABLE WITH REFERENCE following order and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary
TO THE INTESTATE AND TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION OF AN ALIEN; (b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria system (law of the domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a
SCOPE OF ARTS. 16 (2) AND 1039, CIVIL CODE. Article 16, par. 2, and Cristina Bellis, and Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each and (c) after the reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law.
Article 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflict of law rule adopting the situs theory (lex
decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: surviving children by his first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, rei sitae) calling for the application of the law of the place where the
(a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (c) the Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis, and Anna Bellis Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis, properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis, in equal shares. are found in the Philippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the
conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours. 3
2. ID.; LEGITIMATES; FOREIGN NATIONALS. It is evident that whatever Subsequently, or on July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died, a resident of San Appellants position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As
public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimates, Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was admitted to probate in the Court of First stated, they never invoked nor even mentioned it in their arguments. Rather,
Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign Instance of Manila on September 15, 1958. they argue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the
nationals. For its has chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional third paragraph of Article 17 in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code.
rights, to the decedents national law. Specific provisions must prevail over The Peoples Bank and Trust Company, as executor of the will, paid all the
general ones. bequests therein including the amount of $240,000.00 in the form of shares Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the
of stock to Mary E. Mallen and to the three (3) illegitimate children, Amos national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FOREIGNERS WILL; CASE AT BAR. Appellants point out Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis, various amounts regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of
that the decedent executed two wills one to govern his Texas estate and totalling P40,000.00 each in satisfaction of their respective legacies, or a total successional rights; (c) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and
the other his Philippine estate arguing from this that he intended Philippine of P120,000.00, which it released from time to time according as the lower (d) the capacity to succeed. They provide that
law to govern his Philippine estate. Assuming that such was the decedents court approved and allowed the various motions or petitions filed by the latter
intention in executing a separate Philippine will, it would not alter the law, for three requesting partial advances on account of their respective legacies. "Art 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
as this Court ruled in the Miciano v. Brimo (50 Phil., 867) case, a provision in country where it is situated.
a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in On January 8, 1964, preparatory to closing its administration, the executor
accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and submitted and filed its "Executors Final Account, Report of Administration "However", intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the
void for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that and Project of Partition" wherein it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the
Article 10 now Article 16 of the Civil Code states said national law legacy of Mary E. Mallen by the delivery to her of shares of stock amounting intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national
should govern. The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a to $240,000.00, and the legacies of Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be
citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there Miriam Palma Bellis in the amount of P40,000.00 each or a total of the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said
are no forced heirs or legitimates. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of P120.000.00. In the project of partition, the executor pursuant to the property may be found."cralaw virtua1aw library
the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be "Twelfth" clause of the testators Last Will and Testament divided the
determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be residuary estate into seven equal portions for the benefit of the testators "Art. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis. seven legitimate children by his first and second marriages. decedent."cralaw virtua1aw library
On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their Appellants would however counter that Article 17, paragraph three, of the
Civil Code, stating that
"Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which
have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws, or judgments promulgated, or by determinations
or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country."cralaw virtua1aw library
prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code aforequoted. This
is not correct. Precisely, Congress deleted the phrase, "notwithstanding the
provisions of this and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art.
11 of the old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the new Civil Code, while reproducing
without substantial change the second paragraph of Art. 10 of the old Civil
Code as Art. 16 in the new. It must have been their purpose to make the
second paragraph of Art. 16 a specific provision in itself which must be
applied in testate and intestate successions. As further indication of this
legislative intent, Congress added a new provision, under Art. 1039, which
decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the
decedent.
Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two wills one
to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate arguing from
this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. Assuming
that such was the decedents intention in executing a separate Philippine will,
it would not alter the law, for as this Court ruled in Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil.
867, 870, a provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall
be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law,
is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those
matters that Article 10 now Article 16 of the Civil Code states said
national law should govern.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the
State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced
heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of
the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under
Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of
Amos G. Bellis.
Wherefore, the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto, with
costs against appellant. So ordered.
FIRST DIVISION
The basis of the opposition to the probation of the will is that the same was Florentino Ramos, although not an attesting witness, stated that he was
[G.R. No. 6801. March 14, 1912. ] not executed according to the formalities and requirements of the law present when the will was executed and his testimony was cumulative in
touching wills, and further that the testator was not in the full enjoyment and corroboration of the manner in which the will was executed and as to the fact
JULIANA BAGTAS, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. ISIDORO PAGUIO ET use of his mental faculties and was without the mental capacity necessary to that the testator signed the will. This witness also stated that he had
AL., Defendants-Appellants . execute a valid will. frequently transacted matters of business for the decedent and had written
letters and made inventories of his property at his request, and that
Salas & Kalaw, for Appellants . The record shows that the testator, Pioquinto Paguio, for some fourteen or immediately before and after the execution of the will he had performed
fifteen years prior to the time of his death suffered from a paralysis of the left offices of this character. He stated that the decedent was able to
Jose Santiago, for Appellee . side of his body; that a few years prior to his death his hearing became communicate his thoughts by writing. The testimony of this witness clearly
impaired and that he lost the power of speech. Owing to the paralysis of indicates the presence of mental capacity on the part of the testator. Among
SYLLABUS certain muscles his head fell to one side, and saliva ran from his mouth. He other witnesses for the opponents were two physicians, Doctor Basa and
1. WILLS; FORMALITIES OF EXECUTION. Where notes are made by a retained the use of his right hand, however, and was able to write fairly well. Doctor Viado. Doctor Basa testified that he had attended the testator some
testator of the disposition he desires to make of his property, from which an Through the medium of signs he was able to indicate his wishes to his wife four or five years prior to his death and that the latter had suffered from a
attorney prepares a formal will which is read to the testator, who assents to it and to other members of his family. cerebral congestion from which the paralysis resulted. The following question
section by section, after which the whole will is read in a loud voice and is was propounded to Doctor Basa:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
then signed by the testator and four witnesses in the presence of each other, At the time of the execution of the will there were present the four
Held: That the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure are fully complied testamentary witnesses, Agustin Paguio, Anacleto Paguio, Francisco Paguio, "Q. Referring to the mental condition in which you found him the last time you
with. and Pedro Paguio, an attorney, Seor Marco, and one Florentino Ramos. attended him, do you think he was in his right mind? A. I can not say
Anacleto Paguio and the attorney have since died, and consequently their exactly whether he was in his right mind, but I noted some mental disorder,
2. ID.; PRESUMPTION OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. When a testator testimony was not available upon the trial of the case in the lower court. The because when I spoke to him he did not answer me."cralaw virtua1aw library
has never been adjudged insane by a court of competent jurisdiction, there is other three testamentary witnesses and the witness Florentino Ramos
a presumption of mental soundness which must be overcome by competent testified as to the manner in which the will was executed. According to the Doctor Basa testified at more length, but the substance of his testimony is
proof. uncontroverted testimony of these witnesses the will was executed in the that the testator had suffered a paralysis and that he had noticed some
following manner:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library mental disorder. He does not say that the testator was not in his right mind at
3. ID.; ID.; SOUND MIND AND MEMORY. To constitute a sound mind and the time of the execution of the will, nor does he give it as his opinion that he
disposing memory it is not necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken, Pioquinto Paguio, the testator, wrote out on pieces of paper notes and items was without the necessary mental capacity to make a valid will. He did not
unimpaired, and unshattered by disease or otherwise, or that the testator be relating to the disposition of his property, and these notes were in turn state in what way this mental disorder had manifested itself other than that he
in full possession of all his reasoning faculties. Failure of memory is not delivered to Seilor Marco, who transcribed them and put them in form. The had noticed that the testator did not reply to him on one occasion when he
sufficient unless it be total or extends to his immediate family or property. witnesses testify that the pieces of paper upon which the notes were written visited him.
were delivered to the attorney by the testator; that the attorney read them to
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; INFIRMITIES. For some fourteen or fifteen years prior to the testator asking if they were his testamentary dispositions; that the testator Doctor Viado, the other physician, had never seen the testator, but his
his death, the testator suffered from a paralysis of the left side of his body. A assented each time with an affirmative movement of his head; that after the answer was in reply to a hypothetical question as to what would be the
few years prior to his death, his hearing became impaired and he lost the will as a whole had been thus written by the attorney, it was read in a loud mental condition of a person who was 79 years old and who had suffered
power of speech. Owing to the paralysis of certain muscles, his head fell to voice in the presence of the testator and the witnesses; that Seor Marco from a malady such as the testator was supposed to have had according to
one side and saliva ran from his mouth. He retained the use of his right hand, gave the document to the testator; that the latter, after looking over it, signed the testimony of Doctor Basa, whose testimony Doctor Viado had heard. He
however, and was able to write fairly well. Through the medium of signs he it in the presence of the four subscribing witnesses; and that they in turn replied and discussed at some length the symptoms and consequences of
was able to indicate his wishes to his wife and to other members of his family. signed it in the presence of the testator and of each other. the disease from which the testator had suffered; he read in support of his
Held: Not sufficient evidence to overthrow the legal presumption of a sound statements from a work by a German physician, Dr. Herman Eichost. In
mind and disposing memory. These are the facts of record with reference to the execution of the will and answer, however, to a direct question, he stated that he would be unable to
we are in perfect accord with the judgment of the lower court that the certify to the mental condition of a person who was suffering from such a
formalities of the Code of Civil Procedure have been fully complied with. disease.
DECISION
This brings us now to a consideration of appellants second assignment of We do not think that the testimony of these two physicians in any way
error, viz, the testators alleged mental incapacity at the time of the execution strengthens the contention of the appellants. Their testimony only confirms
of the will. Upon this point considerable evidence was adduced at the trial. the fact that the testator had been for a number of years prior to his death
TRENT, J. : One of the attesting witnesses testified that at the time of the execution of the afflicted with paralysis, in consequence of which his physical and mental
will the testator was in his right mind, and that although he was seriously ill, strength was greatly impaired. Neither of them attempted to state what was
he indicated by movements of his head what his wishes were. Another of the the mental condition of the testator at the time he executed the will in
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of the Province attesting witnesses stated that he was not able to say whether decedent had question. There can be no doubt that the testators infirmities were of a very
of Bataan, admitting to probate a document which was offered as the last will the full use of his mental faculties or not, because he had been ill for some serious character, and it is quite evident that his mind was not as active as it
and testament of Pioquinto Paguio y Pizarro. The will purports to have been years, and that he (the witness) was not a physician. The other subscribing had been in the earlier years of his life. However, we can not conclude from
executed in the pueblo of Pilar, Province of Bataan, on the 19th day of April, witness, Pedro Paguio, testified in the lower court as a witness for the this that he was wanting in the necessary mental capacity to dispose of his
1908. The testator died on the 28th of September, 1909, a year and five opponents. He was unable to state whether or not the will was the wish of the property by will.
months following the date of the execution of the will. The will was testator. The only reasons he gave for his statement were the infirmity and
propounded by the executrix, Juliana Bagtas, widow of the decedent, and the advanced age of the testator and the fact that he was unable to speak. This The courts have been called upon frequently to nullify wills executed under
opponents are a son and several grandchildren by a former marriage, the witness stated that the testator signed the will, and he verified his own such circumstances, but the weight of authority is in support of the principle
latter being the children of a deceased daughter. signature as a subscribing witness. that it is only when those seeking to overthrow the will have clearly
established the charge of mental incapacity that the courts will intervene to
set aside a testamentary document of this character. In the case of Bugnao v. In Wilson v. Mitchell (101 Penn., 495), the following facts appeared upon the
Ubag (14 Phil. Rep., 163l, the question of testamentary capacity was trial of the case: The testator died at the age of nearly 102 years. In his early
discussed by this court. The numerous citations there given from the years he was an intelligent and well informed man. About seven years prior
decisions of the United States courts are especially applicable to the case at to his death he suffered a paralytic stroke and from that time his mind and
bar and have our approval. In this jurisdiction the presumption of law is in memory were much enfeebled. He became very dull of hearing and in
favor of the mental capacity of the testator and the burden is upon the consequence of the shrinking of his brain he was affected with senile cataract
contestants of the will to prove the lack of testamentary capacity. (In the causing total blindness. He became filthy and obscene in his habits, although
matter of the will of Cabigting, 14 Phil. Rep., 463; in the matter of the will of formerly he was observant of the proprieties of life. The court, in commenting
Butalid, 10 Phil. Rep., 27; Hernaez v. Hernaez, 1 Phil. Rep., 689.) upon the case, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
The rule of law relating to the presumption of mental soundness is well "Neither age, nor sickness, nor extreme distress, nor debility of body will
established, and the testator in the case at bar never having been adjudged affect the capacity to make a will, if sufficient intelligence remains. The failure
insane by a court of competent jurisdiction, this presumption continues, and it of memory is not sufficient to create the incapacity, unless it be total, or
is therefore incumbent upon the opponents to overcome this legal extend to his immediate family or property. . . .
presumption by proper evidence. This we think they have failed to do. There x x x
are many cases and authorities which we might cite to show that the courts
have repeatedly held that mere weakness of mind and body, induced by age
and disease do not render a person incapable of making a will. The law does "Dougal (the testator) had lived over one hundred years before he made the
not require that a person shall continue in the full enjoyment and use of his will, and his physical and mental weakness and defective memory were in
pristine physical and mental powers in order to execute a valid will. If such striking contrast with their strength in the meridian of his life. He was blind;
were the legal standard, few indeed would be the number of wills that could not deaf, but hearing impaired; his mind acted slowly, he was forgetful of
meet such exacting requirements. The authorities, both medical and legal, recent events, especially of names, and repeated questions in conversation;
are universal in the statement that the question of mental capacity is one of and sometimes, when aroused from sleep or slumber, would seem
degree, and that there are many gradations from the highest degree of bewildered. It is not singular that some of those who had known him when he
mental soundness to the lowest conditions of diseased mentality which are was remarkable for vigor and intelligence, are of the opinion that his reason
denominated as insanity and idiocy. was so far gone that he was incapable of making a will, although they never
heard him utter an irrational expression."cralaw virtua1aw library
The right to dispose of property by testamentary disposition is as sacred as
any other right which a person may exercise and this right should not be In the above case the will was sustained. In the case at bar we might draw
nullified unless mental incapacity is established in a positive and conclusive the same contrast as was pictured by the court in the case just quoted. The
manner. In discussing the question of testamentary capacity, it is stated in striking change in the physical and mental vigor of the testator during the last
volume 28, page 70, of the American and English Encyclopedia of Law, that years of his life may have led some of those who knew him in his earlier days
to entertain doubts as to his mental capacity to make a will, yet we think that
the statements of the witnesses to the execution of the will and the
"Contrary to the very prevalent lay impression, perfect soundness of mind is statements of the conduct of the testator at that time all indicate that he
not essential to testamentary capacity. A testator may be afflicted with a unquestionably had mental capacity and that he exercised it on this occasion.
variety of mental weaknesses, disorders, or peculiarities and still be capable At the time of the execution of the will it does not appear that his conduct was
in law of executing a valid will." (See the numerous cases there cited in irrational in any particular. He seems to have comprehended clearly what the
support of this statement.) nature of the business was in which he was engaged. The evidence shows
that the writing and execution of the will occupied a period of several hours
The rule relating to testamentary capacity is stated in Buswell on Insanity, and that the testator was present during all this time, taking an active part in
section 365, and quoted with approval in Campbell v. Campbell (130 Ill., all the proceedings. Again, the will in the case at bar is perfectly reasonable
466), as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph and its dispositions are those of a rational person.
"To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind For the reasons above stated, the order probating the will should be and the
shall be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease or same is hereby affirmed, with costs of this instance against the appellants.
otherwise, or that the testator should be in the full possession of his
reasoning faculties."cralaw virtua1aw library
"The question is not so much, what was the degree of memory possessed by
the testator, as, had he a disposing memory? Was he able to remember the
property he was about to bequeath, the manner of distributing it, and the
objects of his bounty? In a word, were his mind and memory sufficiently
sound to enable him to know and understand the business in which he was
engaged at the time when he executed his will." (See authorities there cited.)
FIRST DIVISION properties to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his wife Corazon F. properties subject of Paciencias Will belong to Nicomeda Regala
Laxa and their children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine Ross Laxa, thus: Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia had no right to
[G.R. No. 174489 : April 07, 2012] xxxx bequeath them to Lorenzo.[23]
ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO L. Fourth - In consideration of their valuable services to me since then up to the Barely a month after or on July 20, 2000, Antonio, now joined by petitioners
MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, present by the spouses LORENZO LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA, I hereby Sebastian M. Baltazar, Virgilio Regala, Jr., Nenita A. Pacheco, Felix B.
VIRGILIO REGALA, JR., AND RAFAEL TITCO, PETITIONERS, VS. BEQUEATH, CONVEY and GIVE all my properties enumerated in parcels 1 Flores, Rafael Titco, Rosie M. Mateo (Rosie) and Antonio L. Mangalindan
LORENZO LAXA, RESPONDENT. to 5 unto the spouses LORENZO R. LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA and filed a Supplemental Opposition[24] contending that Paciencias Will was null
their children, LUNA LORELLA LAXA and KATHERINE LAXA, and the and void because ownership of the properties had not been transferred
DECISION spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa both of legal age, Filipinos, and/or titled to Paciencia before her death pursuant to Article 1049,
presently residing at Barrio Sta. Monica, [Sasmuan], Pampanga and their paragraph 3 of the Civil Code.[25] Petitioners also opposed the issuance of
DEL CASTILLO, J .: children, LUNA LORELLA and KATHERINE ROSS LAXA, who are still not of Letters of Administration in Lorenzos favor arguing that Lorenzo was
legal age and living with their parents who would decide to bequeath since disqualified to be appointed as such, he being a citizen and resident of the
It is incumbent upon those who oppose the probate of a will to clearly they are the children of the spouses; USA.[26] Petitioners prayed that Letters of Administration be instead issued in
establish that the decedent was not of sound and disposing mind at the time favor of Antonio.[27]
of the execution of said will. Otherwise, the state is duty-bound to give full xxxx
effect to the wishes of the testator to distribute his estate in the manner Later still on September 26, 2000, petitioners filed an Amended
provided in his will so long as it is legally tenable.[1]cralaw [Sixth] - Should other properties of mine may be discovered aside from the Opposition[28] asking the RTC to deny the probate of Paciencias Will on the
properties mentioned in this last will and testament, I am also bequeathing following grounds: the Will was not executed and attested to in accordance
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] of the June 15, 2006 and giving the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa with the requirements of the law; that Paciencia was mentally incapable to
Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 80979 which and their two children and I also command them to offer masses yearly for make a Will at the time of its execution; that she was forced to execute the
reversed the September 30, 2003 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court the repose of my soul and that of D[]a Nicomeda Regala, Epifania Regala Will under duress or influence of fear or threats; that the execution of the Will
(RTC), Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga in Special Proceedings No. G-1186. and their spouses and with respect to the fishpond situated at San Antonio, I had been procured by undue and improper pressure and influence by
The assailed CA Decision granted the petition for probate of the notarial will likewise command to fulfill the wishes of D[]a Nicomeda Regala in Lorenzo or by some other persons for his benefit; that the signature of
of Paciencia Regala (Paciencia), to wit: accordance with her testament as stated in my testament. x x x[12] Paciencia on the Will was forged; that assuming the signature to be genuine,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the appeal to be impressed with it was obtained through fraud or trickery; and, that Paciencia did not intend
merit, the decision in SP. PROC. NO. G-1186 dated 30 September 2003, is The filial relationship of Lorenzo with Paciencia remains undisputed. Lorenzo the document to be her Will. Simultaneously, petitioners filed an Opposition
hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered GRANTING the petition for the is Paciencias nephew whom she treated as her own son. Conversely, and Recommendation[29] reiterating their opposition to the appointment of
probate of the will of PACIENCIA REGALA. Lorenzo came to know and treated Paciencia as his own mother.[13] Lorenzo as administrator of the properties and requesting for the
Paciencia lived with Lorenzos family in Sasmuan, Pampanga and it was she appointment of Antonio in his stead.
SO ORDERED.[5] who raised and cared for Lorenzo since his birth. Six days after the
execution of the Will or on September 19, 1981, Paciencia left for the United On January 29, 2001, the RTC issued an Order[30] denying the requests of
Also assailed herein is the August 31, 2006 CA Resolution[6] which denied States of America (USA). There, she resided with Lorenzo and his family both Lorenzo and Antonio to be appointed administrator since the former is a
the Motion for Reconsideration thereto. until her death on January 4, 1996. citizen and resident of the USA while the latters claim as a co-owner of the
properties subject of the Will has not yet been established.
Petitioners call us to reverse the CAs assailed Decision and instead affirm In the interim, the Will remained in the custody of Judge Limpin.
the Decision of the RTC which disallowed the notarial will of Paciencia. Meanwhile, proceedings on the petition for the probate of the Will continued.
More than four years after the death of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000, Dra. Limpin was recalled for cross-examination by the petitioners. She
Factual Antecedents Lorenzo filed a petition[14] with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate testified as to the age of her father at the time the latter notarized the Will of
of the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of Letters of Administration in his Paciencia; the living arrangements of Paciencia at the time of the execution
Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and favor, docketed as Special Proceedings No. G-1186. of the Will; and the lack of photographs when the event took place. [31]
testament entitled Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia
Regala[7] (Will) in the Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. The Will, There being no opposition to the petition after its due publication, the RTC Aside from Dra. Limpin, Lorenzo and Monico Mercado (Monico) also took
executed in the house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin (Judge Limpin), issued an Order on June 13, 2000[15] allowing Lorenzo to present evidence the witness stand. Monico, son of Faustino, testified on his fathers
was read to Paciencia twice. After which, Paciencia expressed in the on June 22, 2000. On said date, Dra. Limpin testified that she was one of the condition. According to him his father can no longer talk and express himself
presence of the instrumental witnesses that the document is her last will and instrumental witnesses in the execution of the last will and testament of due to brain damage. A medical certificate was presented to the court to
testament. She thereafter affixed her signature at the end of the said Paciencia on September 13, 1981.[16] The Will was executed in her fathers support this allegation. [32]
document on page 3[8] and then on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 (Judge Limpin) home office, in her presence and of two other witnesses,
thereof.[9] Francisco and Faustino.[17] Dra. Limpin positively identified the Will and her For his part, Lorenzo testified that: from 1944 until his departure for the USA
signatures on all its four pages.[18] She likewise positively identified the in April 1980, he lived in Sasmuan, Pampanga with his family and his aunt,
The witnesses to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin (Dra. Limpin), signature of her father appearing thereon.[19] Questioned by the prosecutor Paciencia; in 1981 Paciencia went to the USA and lived with him and his
Francisco Garcia (Francisco) and Faustino R. Mercado (Faustino). The three regarding Judge Limpins present mental fitness, Dra. Limpin testified that family until her death in January 1996; the relationship between him and
attested to the Wills due execution by affixing their signatures below its her father had a stroke in 1991 and had to undergo brain surgery.[20] The Paciencia was like that of a mother and child since Paciencia took care of
attestation clause[10] and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof,[11] in judge can walk but can no longer talk and remember her name. Because of him since birth and took him in as an adopted son; Paciencia was a spinster
the presence of Paciencia and of one another and of Judge Limpin who this, Dra. Limpin stated that her father can no longer testify in court.[21] without children, and without brothers and sisters; at the time of Paciencias
acted as notary public. death, she did not suffer from any mental disorder and was of sound mind,
The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar (Antonio) was not blind, deaf or mute; the Will was in the custody of Judge Limpin and
Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her filed an opposition[22] to Lorenzos petition. Antonio averred that the was only given to him after Paciencias death through Faustino; and he was
already residing in the USA when the Will was executed.[33] Lorenzo by law is apparent from the face of the Will.
positively identified the signature of Paciencia in three different documents On September 30, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision[56] denying the
and in the Will itself and stated that he was familiar with Paciencias signature petition thus: Courts are tasked to determine nothing more than the extrinsic validity of a
because he accompanied her in her transactions.[34] Further, Lorenzo belied WHEREFORE, this court hereby (a) denies the petition dated April 24, 2000;
and denied having used force, intimidation, violence, coercion or trickery and (b) disallows the notarized will dated September 13, 1981 of Paciencia Will in probate proceedings.[64] This is expressly provided for in Rule 75,
upon Paciencia to execute the Will as he was not in the Philippines when the Regala. Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which states:
same was executed.[35] On cross-examination, Lorenzo clarified that Rule 75
Paciencia informed him about the Will shortly after her arrival in the USA but SO ORDERED. [57] Production of Will. Allowance of Will Necessary.
that he saw a copy of the Will only after her death.[36]
The trial court gave considerable weight to the testimony of Rosie and Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. No will shall
As to Francisco, he could no longer be presented in court as he already died concluded that at the time Paciencia signed the Will, she was no longer pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
on May 21, 2000. possessed of sufficient reason or strength of mind to have testamentary proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be
capacity.[58] conclusive as to its due execution.
For petitioners, Rosie testified that her mother and Paciencia were first
cousins.[37] She claimed to have helped in the household chores in the house Ruling of the Court of Appeals Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the
of Paciencia thereby allowing her to stay therein from morning until evening testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the
and that during the period of her service in the said household, Lorenzos On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and granted the probate of the formalities prescribed by law.[65] These formalities are enshrined in Articles
wife and his children were staying in the same house.[38] She served in the Will of Paciencia. The appellate court did not agree with the RTCs 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code, to wit:
said household from 1980 until Paciencias departure for the USA on conclusion that Paciencia was of unsound mind when she executed the Will. Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the
September 19, 1981.[39] It ratiocinated that the state of being magulyan does not make a person end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some
mentally unsound so [as] to render [Paciencia] unfit for executing a Will.[59] other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
On September 13, 1981, Rosie claimed that she saw Faustino bring Moreover, the oppositors in the probate proceedings were not able to subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the
something for Paciencia to sign at the latters house.[40] Rosie admitted, overcome the presumption that every person is of sound mind. Further, no testator and of one another.
though, that she did not see what that something was as same was placed concrete circumstances or events were given to prove the allegation that
inside an envelope.[41] However, she remembered Paciencia instructing Paciencia was tricked or forced into signing the Will.[60] The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the
Faustino to first look for money before she signs them.[42] A few days after or instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and
[61]
on September 16, 1981, Paciencia went to the house of Antonios mother Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by the CA every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall
and brought with her the said envelope.[43] Upon going home, however, the in its Resolution[62]dated August 31, 2006. be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page.
envelope was no longer with Paciencia.[44] Rosie further testified that
Paciencia was referred to as magulyan or forgetful because she would Hence, this petition. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is
sometimes leave her wallet in the kitchen then start looking for it moments Issues written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof,
later.[45] On cross examination, it was established that Rosie was neither a or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction,
doctor nor a psychiatrist, that her conclusion that Paciencia was magulyan Petitioners come before this Court by way of Petition for Review in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed
was based on her personal assessment,[46] and that it was Antonio who on Certiorari ascribing upon the CA the following errors: and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator
requested her to testify in court.[47] I. and of one another.
In his direct examination, Antonio stated that Paciencia was his aunt.[48] He THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall
identified the Will and testified that he had seen the said document before ALLOWED THE PROBATE OF PACIENCIAS WILL DESPITE be interpreted to them.
because Paciencia brought the same to his mothers house and showed it to RESPONDENTS UTTER FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 11, RULE
him along with another document on September 16, 1981.[49] Antonio alleged 76 OF THE RULES OF COURT; Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
that when the documents were shown to him, the same were still unsigned. II. testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a
[50]
According to him, Paciencia thought that the documents pertained to a copy of the will, or file another with the Office of the Clerk of Court.
lease of one of her rice lands,[51] and it was he who explained that the THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN MAKING
documents were actually a special power of attorney to lease and sell her CONCLUSIONS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE ON Here, a careful examination of the face of the Will shows faithful compliance
fishpond and other properties upon her departure for the USA, and a Will RECORD; with the formalities laid down by law. The signatures of the testatrix,
which would transfer her properties to Lorenzo and his family upon her death. III. Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all present
[52]
Upon hearing this, Paciencia allegedly uttered the following words: Why and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation clause explicitly states the
will I never [return], why will I sell all my properties? Who is Lorenzo? Is he THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING critical requirement that the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses signed
the only [son] of God? I have other relatives [who should] benefit from my THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT PACIENCIA WAS NOT OF the Will in the presence of one another and that the witnesses attested and
properties. Why should I die already?[53] Thereafter, Antonio advised SOUND MIND AT THE TIME THE WILL WAS ALLEGEDLY EXECUTED[63] subscribed to the Will in the presence of the testator and of one another. In
Paciencia not to sign the documents if she does not want to, to which the fact, even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Will
latter purportedly replied, I know nothing about those, throw them away or it The pivotal issue is whether the authenticity and due execution of the notarial may be authentic although they question her state of mind when she signed
is up to you. The more I will not sign them.[54] After which, Paciencia left the Will was sufficiently established to warrant its allowance for probate. the same as well as the voluntary nature of said act.
documents with Antonio. Antonio kept the unsigned documents Our Ruling
The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound
and eventually turned them over to Faustino on September 18, 1981.[55] We deny the petition. mind at the time of the execution of the will lies on
the shoulders of the petitioners.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court Faithful compliance with the formalities laid down
Petitioners, through their witness Rosie, claim that Paciencia was magulyan contested. If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the
or forgetful so much so that it effectively stripped her of testamentary Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear notary in the case of wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, if
capacity. They likewise claimed in their Motion for Reconsideration[66] filed or threats, undue and improper influence and present in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined,
with the CA that Paciencia was not only magulyan but was actually suffering pressure, fraud and trickery cannot be used as and the death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily
from paranoia.[67] basis to deny the probate of a will. shown to the court. If all or some of such witnesses are present in the
Philippines but outside the province where the will has been filed, their
We are not convinced. An essential element of the validity of the Will is the willingness of the testator deposition must be taken. If any or all of them testify against the due
or testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her earthly execution of the will, or do not remember having attested to it, or are
We agree with the position of the CA that the state of being forgetful does not possessions upon his/her death. Petitioners claim that Paciencia was forced otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may nevertheless, be allowed if the
necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to to execute the Will under duress or influence of fear or threats; that the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the
execute a Will.[68] Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. execution of the Will had been procured by undue and improper pressure evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner
Besides, Article 799 of the New Civil Code states: and influence by Lorenzo or by some other persons for his benefit; and that required by law.
Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full assuming Paciencias signature to be genuine, it was obtained through fraud
possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, or trickery. These are grounded on the alleged conversation between If a holographic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if at least three
unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. Paciencia and Antonio on September 16, 1981 wherein the former (3) witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare that
purportedly repudiated the Will and left it unsigned. the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator; in the
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to absence of any competent witnesses, and if the court deem it necessary,
know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his We are not persuaded. expert testimony may be resorted to. (Emphasis supplied.)
bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
We take into consideration the unrebutted fact that Paciencia loved and They insist that all subscribing witnesses and the notary public should have
In this case, apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining to Paciencias treated Lorenzo as her own son and that love even extended to Lorenzos been presented in court since all but one witness, Francisco, are still living.
forgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that wife and children. This kind of relationship is not unusual. It is in fact not
would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution unheard of in our culture for old maids or spinsters to care for and raise their We cannot agree with petitioners.
of the Will. On the other hand, we find more worthy of credence Dra. nephews and nieces and treat them as their own children. Such is a
Limpins testimony as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter prevalent and accepted cultural practice that has resulted in many family We note that the inability of Faustino and Judge Limpin to appear and testify
went to Judge Limpins house and voluntarily executed the Will. The discords between those favored by the testamentary disposition of a testator before the court was satisfactorily explained during the probate proceedings.
testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning the testators mental and those who stand to benefit in case of intestacy. As testified to by his son, Faustino had a heart attack, was already bedridden
condition is entitled to great weight where they are truthful and intelligent.[69] and could no longer talk and express himself due to brain damage. To prove
More importantly, a testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of In this case, evidence shows the acknowledged fact that Paciencias this, said witness presented the corresponding medical certificate. For her
the execution of the Will and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the relationship with Lorenzo and his family is different from her relationship with part, Dra. Limpin testified that her father, Judge Limpin, suffered a stroke in
oppositor. Article 800 of the New Civil Code states: petitioners. The very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo and lived 1991 and had to undergo brain surgery. At that time, Judge Limpin could no
Art. 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the with him both here and abroad, even if the latter was already married and longer talk and could not even remember his daughters name so that Dra.
absence of proof to the contrary. already has children, highlights the special bond between them. This Limpin stated that given such condition, her father could no longer testify. It
unquestioned relationship between Paciencia and the devisees tends to is well to note that at that point, despite ample opportunity, petitioners neither
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of support the authenticity of the said document as against petitioners interposed any objections to the testimonies of said witnesses nor challenged
making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; allegations of duress, influence of fear or threats, undue and improper the same on cross examination. We thus hold that for all intents and
but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly influence, pressure, fraud, and trickery which, aside from being factual in purposes, Lorenzo was able to satisfactorily account for the incapacity and
known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must nature, are not supported by concrete, substantial and credible evidence on failure of the said subscribing witness and of the notary public to testify in
prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval. record. It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no matter how forceful, if court. Because of this the probate of Paciencias Will may be allowed on the
not based on concrete and substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the basis of Dra. Limpins testimony proving her sanity and the due execution of
Here, there was no showing that Paciencia was publicly known to be insane Court to uphold said allegations.[71] Furthermore, a purported will is not [to the Will, as well as on the proof of her handwriting. It is an established rule
one month or less before the making of the Will. Clearly, thus, the burden to be] denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of that [a] testament may not be disallowed just because the attesting
prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind lies upon the shoulders of testamentary succession will be shaken to its foundation, for even if a will has witnesses declare against its due execution; neither does it have to be
petitioners. However and as earlier mentioned, no substantial evidence was been duly executed in fact, whether x x x it will be probated would have to necessarily allowed just because all the attesting witnesses declare in favor
presented by them to prove the same, thereby warranting the CAs finding depend largely on the attitude of those interested in [the estate of the of its legalization; what is decisive is that the court is convinced by evidence
that petitioners failed to discharge such burden. deceased].[72] before it, not necessarily from the attesting witnesses, although they must
testify, that the will was or was not duly executed in the manner required by
Furthermore, we are convinced that Paciencia was aware of the nature of her Court should be convinced by the evidence law.[73]
estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of her bounty and the character presented before it that the Will was duly
of the testamentary act. As aptly pointed out by the CA: executed. Moreover, it bears stressing that [i]rrespective x x x of the posture of any of
A scrutiny of the Will discloses that [Paciencia] was aware of the nature of the the parties as regards the authenticity and due execution of the will x x x in
document she executed. She specially requested that the customs of her Petitioners dispute the authenticity of Paciencias Will on the ground that question, it is the mandate of the law that it is the evidence before the court
faith be observed upon her death. She was well aware of how she acquired Section 11 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court was not complied with. It and/or [evidence that] ought to be before it that is controlling. [74] The very
the properties from her parents and the properties she is bequeathing to provides: existence of [the Will] is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed [testatrix]
LORENZO, to his wife CORAZON and to his two (2) children. A third child RULE 76 has willed that [her] estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and
was born after the execution of the will and was not included therein as Allowance or Disallowance of Will it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given full
devisee.[70] effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby.[75]This,
Section 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will coupled with Lorenzos established relationship with Paciencia, the evidence
and the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, as opposed to the total lack of
evidence presented by petitioners apart from their self-serving testimonies,
constrain us to tilt the balance in favor of the authenticity of the Will and its
allowance for probate.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 15, 2006
and the Resolution dated August 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 80979 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.