Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

CASIANO VS.

CA

FACTS:

Petitioners and respondents are the niece and nephews of Adriana Maloto who died in 1963. The four heirs believed that
the deceased did not leave a will, hence they filed an intestate proceeding before the then CFI of Iloilo. While the case was
still pending, the parties executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate dividing it into four equal parts.

In 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, ex-associate of the testatrix's counsel allegedly discovered her last will which was purportedly
dated 1940, inside a cabinet. Hence the annulment of the proceedings and a probate petition was filed by the petitioners
who were bequeathed with much valuable shares than what they got from the extrajudicial settlement. The respondent
nephews in this case averred that the said will was revoked as it was allegedly burned by the house helper under the
instruction of the deceased.

The lower court denied the probate on the ground that the will was validly revoked by the testatrix. The CA affirmed such
decision.

ISSUE:

WON the will was validly revoked by Adriana Maloto.

RULING:

The Supreme Court said that the will was not revoked by the testatrix citing Article 830 par 3 of the Civil Code:

Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:

(1) By implication of law; or

(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills; or

(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the
testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn,
cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express direction of the testator, the will
may still be established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due
execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established
according to the Rules of Court. (n)

The physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless
the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction
be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express direction and in the presence
of the testator. Of course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself.

“Animus revocandi” is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. The
intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will
carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction.

In this case, there is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. First, the document burned by helper,
Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. Second, the burning
was not proven to have been done under the express direction and in the presence of Adriana Maloto. Both witnesses
presented by the respondents, Guadalupe and Eladio, were one in stating that they were the only ones present at the place
where the stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which the papers proffered as a will were burned.

You might also like