Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Based From The Syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare

    Uploaded by

    Shiva
    80 views1 page
    This case involved two parties - Jose Rivera and Adelaido Rivera - claiming to be the legitimate son and heir of the deceased Venancio Rivera. Jose filed a petition for letters of administration, arguing Venancio died intestate, while Adelaido opposed and filed a petition for probate of two holographic wills. The trial court ruled in favor of Adelaido, finding Jose was the son of a different Venancio Rivera and admitting the wills to probate. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court also ruled for Adelaido, agreeing Jose's parents in the marriage certificate did not match Adelaido's evidence of Venancio's parents, so Jose had

    Original Description:

    x

    Original Title

    Rivera-vs.-IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved two parties - Jose Rivera and Adelaido Rivera - claiming to be the legitimate son and heir of the deceased Venancio Rivera. Jose filed a petition for letters of administration, arguing Venancio died intestate, while Adelaido opposed and filed a petition for probate of two holographic wills. The trial court ruled in favor of Adelaido, finding Jose was the son of a different Venancio Rivera and admitting the wills to probate. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court also ruled for Adelaido, agreeing Jose's parents in the marriage certificate did not match Adelaido's evidence of Venancio's parents, so Jose had

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views1 page

    Based From The Syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare

    Uploaded by

    Shiva
    This case involved two parties - Jose Rivera and Adelaido Rivera - claiming to be the legitimate son and heir of the deceased Venancio Rivera. Jose filed a petition for letters of administration, arguing Venancio died intestate, while Adelaido opposed and filed a petition for probate of two holographic wills. The trial court ruled in favor of Adelaido, finding Jose was the son of a different Venancio Rivera and admitting the wills to probate. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court also ruled for Adelaido, agreeing Jose's parents in the marriage certificate did not match Adelaido's evidence of Venancio's parents, so Jose had

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Based from the syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare, CPA LLM, ESQ.

    | 3rd Year- Sanchez Roman | 2020-2021

    JOSE RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and


    ADELAIDO RIVERA
    [GR No. 75005-06 | [February 15, 1990]

    FACTS: On May 30, 1975, Venancio Rivera died.

    [1] Jose Rivera claims to be the only surviving legitimate son


    of Venancio, filed a petition for the issuance of the letters of
    administration. Adelaido Rivera opposed the petition arguing
    that Jose was not the son of Venancio and that Venancio had
    in fact left two holographic wills; Hence, he did not die
    intestate.

    [2] Adelaido filed a petition for the probate of the holographic


    wills. Jose opposed this and reiterated that he was the sole
    heir of Venancio’s intestate estate.

    RTC ruling: The petitions were consolidated. It ruled that:


     Jose was the son of a different Venancio Rivera.
    Hence, he had no claim to the estate.
     Adelaido was the son of the decedent whose estate
    was in question. Hence, the holographic wills were
    admitted to probate.

    IAC ruling: It affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It found that:


     The holographic wills are valid as it was written,
    dated and signed by the testator himself.
     No need to present the 3 witnesses as a
    requirement for probate because the
    authenticity of the wills had not been
    questioned.

    Arguments: Jose argues that he is the legitimate son of


    Venancio and presented evidences: (1) marriage certificate of
    his mother and Venancio, (2) birth certificate, (3) Domingo
    Santos’ testimony testifying that he is indeed the son, (4) His
    own testimony that Adelaido considered him as his half-
    brother.

    Adelaido argues that he is the son and presented evidences:


    (1) Certification that the marriage cert. of his parents were
    destroyed when the town was burned during the war, (2)
    birth certificate, as well as that of Zenaida and Venancio Jr.
    [his brother and sister] (3) testimony of one Atty. Morales
    who testified he knew Venancio’s parents and Venancio and
    his wife; (4) Venancio’s baptismal cert. which showed his
    grandparents.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the holographic wills should be


    admitted for probate? Yes.

    RULING: The SC ruled in favor of Adelaido. Although Jose


    presented his parents’ marriage certificate, the court found
    that it was a different Venancio married to his mother
    because Venancio’s parents’ (or his grandparents) therein
    were also different from what Adelaido had established to be
    his grandparents. Hence, Jose was the son of a different
    Venancio Rivera.

    As to the Holographic Wills


    The SC held that the existence and the authenticity of the
    holographic wills were actually questioned by Jose when he
    claims that Venancio died intestate and when he opposed the
    petition for probate filed by Adelaido.

    Hence, the IAC should have applied the Art. 811 of the Civil
    Code which provides that in a probate of a holographic
    will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who
    knows the handwriting and signature of the testator
    explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in
    the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested,
    at least three of such witnesses shall be required.

    However, since Jose is now declared as not being the son of


    the Venancio Rivera whose estate is in question, he had no
    personality to contest the will. Having no personality to
    contest the will, his “opposition” did not have the legal
    effect of requiring the three witnesses under Art. 811.
    Hence, the testimony of Zenaida and Venancio Jr. who
    authenticated the will as having been written and signed by
    their father, was sufficient.

    1
    Digested by: Ampog | Ballos | Ebuen | Mahusay | Malicay | Paclibar | Peñamante | Picot | Sinsuat | Sosoban | Teng 

    You might also like