Facts:

Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners
Aldina Maloto-Casiano andConstancio, Maloto, and the private respondents
Panflo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that thedeceased did not
leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced an
intestateproceeding for the settlement of their aunts estate. !owever,
while the case was still in progress theparties - Aldina, Constancio, Panflo,
and Felino - e"ecuted an agreement of e"tra#udicial settlement of Adrianas
estate. $he agreement provided for the division of the estate into four e%ual parts
among theparties. $he Malotos then presented the e"tra#udicial settlement
agreement to the trial court for approvalwhich the court did approved.$hree &ears
later Att&. 'ulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adrianas counseldiscovered a
documententitled ()A$AP*'A+ +,A PA,B*B*-A$-A+ .$estamento/,( and
purporting to be the last will andtestament of Adriana. Att&. Palma claimed to
have found the testament, the original cop&, while he wasgoing through some
materials inside the cabinet drawer formerl& used b& Att&. !ervas.0ncidentall&,
while Panflo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and
Constancio arebe%ueathed much bigger and more valuable shares in the estate of
Adriana than what the& received b&virtue of the agreement of e"tra#udicial
settlement the& had earlier signed. $he will li1ewise gives devisesand legacies to
other parties.'ubse%uentl&, Aldina and Constancio, #oined b& the other devisees
and legatees named in the will, fledamotion for reconsideration and annulment of
the proceedings in the intestate proceedings of Adriana andfor the allowance of
the will.$rial court denied their motion,$he petitioner came to 'C b& wa& of a
petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of thetrial court. 'C
dismissed that petition and advised to fle a separate proceeding for the
probate of thealleged will. B& that petitioner fle a separate proceeding for
probate of the will.'ignifcantl&, during the investigation the appellate court found
out that the will was allegedl& burned b&the househelp of Adriana, ,uadalupe
Maloto 2da. de Coral, upon instructions of the testatri", and foundthat the will had
been revo1ed. $he CA stated that the presence of
animus revocandi
in the destruction of the will had, nevertheless, been su3cientl& proven.
Issue:
4hether or not the will was revo1ed b& Adriana
Principle:
Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:
(1 !" i#plication of law$ or
(% !" so#e will& codicil& or other writing exec'ted 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.
(ecision:
No, there was no revocation. For a valid revocation to occur,the 'corpus'and 'animus' must concur, one
without the other will not produce a valid revocation. The physical act of destruction of a will must come
with an intention to revoke (animus revocandi). In this case, there's paucity of evidence to comply with the
said requirement. The paper burned was not established to be the will and the burnin thouh done under
her e!press direction was not done in her presence.
"nder #rt. $%&, the physical act of destruction, in this case the burnin of the will, does not constitute an
effective revocation, unless it is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. 'ince animus is
a state of mind, it has to be accompanied by an overt physical act of burnin, tearin, obliteratin or
cancelin done by the testator himself or by another under his e!press direction and presence