Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
8. Santos vs Lumbao
GR No. 169129; March 28, 2007
Baylon
ISSUE: WON a co-owner can alienate, mortgage, or assign his
aliquot or undivided share in the property
so,
whether
the
attestation
clause
complies
with
the
HELD:
(1) Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932. The laws in force at
that time are the Civil Code of 1889 or the Old Civil Code, and
Act No. 190 or the Code of Civil Procedure which governed the
Held:
TO DETERMINE WHETHER DONATION IS INTER VIVOS OR
MORTIS CAUSA, INTENT OF DONOR MUST BE
ASCERTAINED. In ascertaining the intention of the donor, all of
the deed's provisions must be read together. In this case, it is a
donation inter vivos as shown by the acceptance clause of the
deed w/c the donee in this case accepted. In a donation Mortis
cause, acceptance is not required.
in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect
ISSUES:
(1) What laws apply to the probate of the last will of Abada;
notary public;
Spanish language.
G.R. 123486
De Veyra
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Article 811 of the Civil Code is permissive or
mandatory
2. Whether or not the witnesses presented sufficiently
establish the authenticity and due execution of the
deceaseds holographic will
HELD:
1. Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word
"shall" connotes a mandatory order. The court cannot eliminate
the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of
the testator, which is why if the holographic will is contested, that
law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the
handwriting of the deceased.
Proceedings No. 427 before said court and did not declare
explicitly that the signature appearing in the holographic was that
of the deceased. The election registrar was presented to identify
the signature of the deceased in the voter's affidavit, which was
not even produced as it was no longer available. What the
deceaseds niece saw were pre-prepared receipts and letters of
the deceased, which she either mailed or gave to her tenants,
and she did not even declare that she saw the deceased sign a
document or write a note. As for respondent Evangeline
Calugay, the only reason that she can give as to why she was
familiar with the handwriting of the deceased was because she
lived with her since birth. She never declared that she saw the
deceased write a note or sign a document. Also, there was no
opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the
handwriting of the deceased with other documents signed and
executed by her during her lifetime. Even the former lawyer of
the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the
signature in the holographic will. A visual examination of the
holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when
compared with other documents written by the testator.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will and the
signatures in several documents such as the application letter for
pasture permit and a letter dated June 16, 1978, the strokes are
different. The Court, therefore, cannot be certain that ruling
holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased.
21. Ajero vs. CA
Held:
No. The requirements of authentication of changes and signing
and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and
814) separate from that which provides for the necessary
conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810). The
distinction can be traced to Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish
Civil Code, from which the present provisions covering
holographic wills are taken. This separation and distinction adds
support to the interpretation that only the requirements of Article
810 of the New Civil Code and not those found in Articles 813
and 814 of the same Code are essential to the probate of a
holographic will. A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code
shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions
contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the
testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result
is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure,
however, does not render the whole testament void. Thus,
unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or
insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on
testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will
itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of
such changes.
will were contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our
Dulce
Issue:
1)Whether the restoration of the titles to the lots in question to
the estate of Maximino Sr.was proper
Held:
10
Held: Yes, the will is dated. The law does not specify a particular
location where the date should be placed in the will. The only
requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed
in the hand of the testator. The requirements are present in the
subject will.
GR NO. 140371-72
Gantuangco
ISSUE:
Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be
considered as a holographic will.
RULING:
A holographic will must be written, dated and signed by the
testator himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly
deducted from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not
make an affirmative deposition of the latters property, the
disinheritance of Alfredo, is an act of disposition in itself. The
disinheritance results in the disposition of the property in favor of
those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo. With regard
to the issue on preterition, the court believes that the compulsory
heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was
Issue:
WON the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the
instrumental witnesses before a notary public acting outside the
place of his commission satisfy the requirement under Article
806 of the Civil Code.
Held:
No. Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent
officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public. A
notary public's commission is the grant of authority in his favor to
perform notarial acts. A notary public is authorized to perform
notarial acts, including the taking of acknowledgments, within
that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of his
commission, he is bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he
is not a notary public. Any notarial act outside the limits of his
12
Yes. The earlier will can still be admitted to probate under the
principle of "dependent relative revocation. This doctrine is
usually applied where the testator cancels or destroys a will or
executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with a present
intention to make a new testamentary disposition as a substitute
for the old, and the new disposition is not made or, if made, fails
of effect for same reason. The doctrine is n limited to the
existence of some other document, however, and has been
applied where a will was destroyed as a consequence of a
mistake of law. . . . (68 C.J.P. 799). The court held that even in
the supposition that the destruction of the original will by the
testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to
produce it in court, such destruction cannot have the effect of
defeating the prior will of 1918 because of the fact that it is
founded on the mistaken belief that the will of 1939 has been
validly executed and would be given due effect. The theory on
which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not
intend to die intestate. And this intention is clearly manifest when
he executed two wills on two different occasion and instituted his
wife as his universal heir. There can therefore be no mistake as
to his intention of dying testate.
Held:
HELD:
15
falls under donation, the said donation is void due to the fact that
the law prohibits such donation because it was made between
persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the
donation, under Article 739 of the Civil Code. Moreover, Article
87 of the Family Code expressly provides that the prohibition
against donations between spouses now applies to donations
between persons living together as husband and wife without a
valid marriage.
38. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
Medrano
Millora
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in ruling that the Huling Habilin at
Testamento transmitted ownership of the specific apartments
disregarding the fact that the same is not probated yet and that
the testator changed or revoked his will by selling the property to
petitioner prior to his death.
HELD: The petition has merit.
Respondents failed to prove their right of possession, as the
Huling Habilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement have
no legal effect since the will has not been probated. Before any
will can have force or validity it must be probated. This cannot be
dispensed with and is a matter of public policy. Article 838 of the
Civil Code mandates that "[n]o will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance
with the Rules of Court." As the will was not probated, the
Partition Agreement which was executed pursuant thereto
cannot be given effect. Thus, the fact that petitioner was a party
to said agreement becomes immaterial in the determination of
the issue of possession. Moreover, at the time the deed of sale
was executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez
remained the owner thereof since ownership would only pass to
his heirs at the time of his death. Thus, as owner of the property,
he had the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime.
46. BORDALBA VS. CA
G.R. No. 112443. January 25, 2002.
TOPIC: Art. 840-856 (Institution of Heir)
Munez
ISSUE: WON petitioners claim that private respondents are not
legal heirs of Nicanor Jayme is tenable.
HELD: No. Likewise untenable is the claim of petitioner that
private respondents are not legal heirs of Nicanor Jayme and
20
Held:
23
54. Tison v. CA
Held:
According to Article 962 of the Civil Code, In every inheritance,
the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones,
saving the right of representation when it properly takes place.
Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares,
subject to the provisions of Article 1006 with respect to relatives
of the full and half blood, and of Article 987, paragraph 2,
concerning division between paternal and maternal lines.
The manner of determining the proximity of relationship are
provided by Articles 963 - 966 of the Civil Code. Petitioners
misappreciate the relationship between Justa and private
respondent. As already stated, private respondent is the son of
Justas half-sister Agatonica. He is therefore Justas nephew. A
nephew is considered a collateral relative who may inherit if no
descendant, ascendant, or spouse survive the decedent. That
private respondent is only a half-blood relative is immaterial.
24
60. Sanchez v. CA
G.R. No. 108947
Rome
Issue:
WON fraud attended the execution of the compromise and/or
collation of the properties rendering the compromise agreement
void.
Rodriguez
Ruling:
The petition is not meritorious. In opposing the validity and
enforcement of the compromise agreement, petitioners harp on
the minority of Florida Mierly, Alfredo and Myrna.although
denominated a compromise agreement, the document in this
case is essentially a deed of partition.the Civil Code provides
that [e]very act which is intended to put an end to indivision
among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a
partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
compromise, or any other transaction.
For a valid partition, it must be that 1) the decedent left no will;
(2) the decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had
been paid; (3) the heirs and liquidators are all of age, or if they
are minors, the latter are represented by their judicial guardian or
legal representatives; and (4) the partition was made by means
of a public instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register of
Deeds.The foregoing requisites are present in this case. It
affirms the validity of the parties partition in this case.
26
HELD:
YES. The partition of the properties shall be allowed.
Petitioners have consistently claimed that their father is one of
the vendees who bought the Properties. Vendees Elizabeth and
Ofelia both testified that the Roland A. Bravo in the Deed of Sale
is their father, although their brother, Roland Bravo, Jr., made
some of the mortgage payments. As Roland Bravo, Sr. is also
the father of respondent Edward Bravo, Edward is thus a
compulsory heir of Roland Bravo, and entitled to a share, along
with his brothers and sisters, in his fathers portion of the
Properties. In short, Edward and petitioners are co-owners of
the Properties.As such, Edward can rightfully ask for the partition
of the Properties. Any co-owner may demand at any time the
partition of the common property unless a co-owner has
repudiated the co-ownership. This action for partition does not
prescribe and is not subject to laches.
65. Figuracion-Guerilla vs. Vda De Figuracion
GR No. 154322
Topic: Partition
Untalan
ISSUE:
Is there a need for a prior settlement of Leandros intestate
estate before the properties can be partitioned or distributed?
HELD: YES; Petition denied. CA decision affirmed. Suffice it to
say that partition is premature when ownership of the lot is still in
dispute. In a situation where there remains an issue as to the
expenses chargeable to the estate, partition is inappropriate.
Thus, the heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to submit their
fathers estate to settlement because the determination of these
expenses cannot be done in an action for partition.
28