TORDILLA VS TORDILLA

FACTS:
Francisco Tordilla died intestate, leaving as his only heirs his widow, a
legitimate son, the defendant and appellant, and a recognized natural daughter,
petittioner and appellee.
The lower court adjudicated to the natural daughter the same share or amount
of properties as that adjudicated to the legitimate son.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the share of a natural child is the same as the share as that of a
legitimate child.

RULING:
In the case of Tad-Y, Article 840 of the Civil Code is explained as follows:
“ to determine the share that pertains to the natural hild which is but one-half
of the portion that in quality and quantity belongs to the legitmate child not
bettered, the latter’s portion must first be ascertained. If a widow shares in
the inheritance, together with only one legitamate child, as in the instatnt case,
the child gets, according to the law, the third constituting the legitime in full
ownership, and the third available for betterment in naked ownership, the
susfruct of which goes to the widow. Then the natural child must get one-half
of the free third in full ownership and the other half of this third in naked
ownership, from which third his portion must be taken, so far as possible, after
deducting the funeral and burial expenses.”

JABONETA VS GUSTILO VS. NERA VS RIMANDO

JABONETA VS GUSTILO

FACTS:
The testator executed a will with 3 witnesses present, which included Javellana.
The testator and the witnesses were ll together in the room of the testator, and
were present when the testator signed the same, and so as his witnesses.
When the third and last witness was about to sign the will, the other witness
was in a hurry and left the house, who in turn did not see teh actual signing of
the document, but nevertheless, the said third witness signed as a witness after
the other witness left the room.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the last will and testament cannot be granted for failure to
comply with the requirement that the signature should be in the presence of
the other witnesses.

RULING:
The should be granted.

The purpose of a statutory requirement that the witness sign in the presence of
the testator is said to be that the testator may have ocular evidence to the
identity of the instrument subscribed by the witness and himself, and the
generally accepted tsts of presence are vision and mental apprehension.

In the matter of Bedel, it was held that it is sufficient if the witnesses are
together for hte puropose of witnesseing the exectuion of the will, and in a
position to actually see the testator write, if they choose to do so; and there are
many cases whcih lay down the rule that the true test of vision is not whter the
testator acutally saw the witness sign, but whether he might have seen him
sign, considering his mental and physical condidtion and position at the time of
the subscription.

NERA VS RIMANDO

FACTS:
At the time of the when the testator and other subscribing witnesses attached
their respective signatures in the will, one of the subscribing witnesses was
outside, which gives the doubt whether he saw the testator and other
subscribing witnesses signed the said will.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the last will and testament may be admitted for probate
proceedings.

RULING:
Yes. The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the
execution of a will is not whether they acutally saw each other sign, but whter
they might have been seen each other sign, had they chosen to do so,
considering their mental and physical condidtion and position with relation to
each other at the moment of inscription of each signature.

The question whether the testator and the subscribing witnesses to an alleged
will sign the instrument in the presence of each other does not depend upon
proof of the fact that their eyes were actually cast upon he paper at the
moment of its subscription by each of them, but that at that moment existing
conditions and their position with relation to each other were such that by
merely casting the eyes in the proper direction they could have seen each other
sign.

DEGALA VS GONZALES VS. GARCIA VS LACUESTA

DEGALA VS GONZALES

FACTS:
The descedent Severina Gonzales (Severina) executed a will in which her niece
Serapia de Gala (Serapia) was designated as the executor. Severina died
without any heirs (by law). After her death, the will was presented for probate
thru her counsel, however, Apolinario Gonzales (nephew of the descedent) filed
an opposition to the will on the ground that it was wthout conformity as
required by law. Serapia was appointed as special administrator, she
demanded the husband of the descendent for the delivery of the property to
her.

The husband filed for the cancellation of the appointment which was granted
by the Court and removed Serapia being the administrator and appointed the
husband in her place. After the Court declared the will valid, the husband and
Apolinario appealed from the order probating the will contending that: a) the
person requested to sign the name of the testator signed only the testator’s
name and not her own; b) the attestation clause does not mention the placing
of the thumb-mark of the testator in the will; and c) the fact that the will had
been signed in the presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation
clause but only in the last paragraph of hte body of the will; and Serapia
appealed from removing her from being the special administrator.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the court was correct in removing Serapia as special
administrator;
2. Whether or not the will was invalid as it was not executed in the form
prescribed by law.

RULINGS:
1. As to the appointment and removal of a special adminstator, it is
discretionary upon the Court, in the present case, the court probably prevented
useless litigation.

A) Although the law states that the will shall be signed by the testator, it is
fulfilled not only by the customary written signature but by the testator’s
thumb-mark. The construction put upon the word signed by most courts is
the original meaning of a sign, rather than the derivative meaning of a sign
manual or handwriting.

B&C) The will is valid. Though it is not mentioned in the attestation clause of
the will that the testator signed by thumb-mark, but it does there appear that
the signature was affixed in the presence of the witnesses, and the form of the
signatre is sufficiently described and explained in the last clause of the body of
the will, it maybe conceded that the attestation clause is not artistically drawn
and that, standing alone, it does not quite meet the requirements of hte statute,
but taken in connection with the last clause of hte body of the will, it is fairly
clear and sufficiently carries out the legislative intent; it leaves no possible
doubt as to the authenticity of the document.
GARCIA VS LUCUESTA

FACTS:
In the attestation clause of the will of the descedent appears that it was signed
by his counsel, Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antenero
Mercado (descedent), followed by “A reugo del testator” and the name of Javier,
and a written cross immediately after the name of Mercado allegedly written by
him.

The lower court declared the will valid, however, upon appeal, it was reversed,
stating that the attestation clause 1)failed to certify that the will was signed on
all the left margins of hte 3 pages and at the testator and each and every one fo
the witnesses; 2) to certify that after the signeing of the name of the testator
by Atty. Javier at the descedent’s request said testator has wirtten a cross at
hte end of his name and on the left margin of hte 3 pages of which the will
consists and at the end thereof; 3) to certify that the 3 witnesses signed the
will in all the pages thereon in the presence of the testator and of each other.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the attestation clause was defective for failure to comply with
what is prescribed by law.

RULING.

The attestation clause is fatally defective for failure to state that the descedent
caused Atty. Javier to write the testator’s name under his express direction.
The Court disagrees with the contention of the petitioner that there is no need
for such recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is a
sufficient signature and the signature fo Atty. Javier is a surplusage. It is their
theory that the cross is as much as the signaure as a thumbmark, which was
held in the case of de Gala vs Gonzales.

The Court cannot liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the
reason is obvious, the cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a
thumbmark.
 GAN VS YAP VS. RODELAS VS ARANZA

GAN VS YAP

FACTS:
The wife-descendent, died of heart failure. Petitioner Gan initiated a probate
proceeding on the holographic will allegedly executed by the descedent. The
husband of the descendent opposed, who asserted that his wife had not left
any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime.

During trial, petiitoner alleged that the testator made a holographic will, with
wintesses- relatives who had read the same, during her lifetime, but hid it from
her husband, fearing that he might tear the will. They presented three
witnesses, however failed to present the said document.

The trial court ruled denying the petition, and that the descedent could not
have executed such holographic will.

ISSUE:
Whether or not such testimonies of witnesses are enough proof of a valid
holographic will even though the will was not presented.

RULING:
No. The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may
not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read
such will.

The difference between an ordinary will and a holographic will lies in the nature
of the wills. In holographic wills, the only guarantee of authenticity is the
handwriting itself; the loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only
medium of proof. Unlike in an ordinary will,the testimony of the subscribing or
instrumental witnesses (and of the notary, now); and if the will is lost, the
subscribing witneeses are available to authenticate.
In fine, even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost
holographic will, it is tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails
to measure up to that clear and distinct proof required under the law.

RODELAS VS ARANZA

FACTS:
Appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo
Bonilla and the issuance of testamentary letters in her favor. The appellees
filed its opposition on the ground taht appellant is estopped from claiming that
the descedent left a will by failiing to produce the will within 20 days from the
death of the testator; there is no dispostion of a property after death and was
not intended to take effect after date; the original copy of the willl must be
produced, otherwise it is without effect; and that the deceased did not leave
any will.

The Court denied the petition for the probate of the will, stated therein that
once the original copy of the holographic will is lost, a copy thereof cannot
stand in lieu of the origiinal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a lost will may not be proved by a copy thereof.

RULING:
A lost or destroyed holographic will may be proved by a photostatic or xerox
copy of the will because then the authenticity of the handwriting of hte
deceased can be determined by the probate court. This is in the case of Gan
vs Yap, in its footnote, wehre it says that “perhaps it may be proved by a
photographic or photostatic copy, even a mimeographed or carbon copy, or by
other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity and handwriting of the
deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court.”
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7170: AN ACT AUTHORIZING LEGACY OR
DONATION OF ALL OR PART OF A HUMAN BODY AFTER DEATH FOR
SPECIFIED PURPOSES

SECTIONS RELATED TO SUCCESSION:

SEC. 3. Person Who May Execute A Legacy. – Any individual, at least eighteen
(18) years of age and of sound mind, may give by way of legacy, to take effect
after his death, all or part of his body for any purpose specified in Section 6
hereof.

SEC. 6. Persons Who May Become Legatees or Donees. – The following persons
may become legatees or donees of human bodies or parts thereof for any of the
purposes stated hereunder:
a) Any hospital, physician or surgeon – For medical or dental education,
research, advancement of medical or dental science, therapy or transplantation;
b) Any accredited medical or dental school, college or university – For
education, research, advancement of medical or dental science, or therapy;
c) Any organ bank storage facility – For medical or dental education, research,
therapy, or transplantation; and
d) Any specified individual – For therapy or transplantation needed by him.

SEC. 8. Manner of Executing a Legacy. –

a) Legacy of all or part of the human body under Section 3 hereof may be made
by will. The legacy becomes effective upon the death of the testator without
waiting for probate of the will. If the will is not probated, or if it is declared
invalid for testamentary purposes, the legacy, to the extent that it was executed
in good faith, is nevertheless valid and effective.
b) A legacy of all or part of the human body under Section 3 hereof may also be
made in any document other than a will. The legacy becomes effective upon
death of the testator and shall be respected by and binding upon his executor or
administrator, heirs, assigns, successors-in-interest and all members of the
family. The document, which may be a card or any paper designed to be carried
on a person, must be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses
who must sign the document in his presence. If the testator cannot sign, the
document may be signed for him at his discretion and in his presence, in the
presence of two witnesses who must, likewise, sign the document in the
presence of the testator. Delivery of the document of legacy during the
testator’s lifetime is not necessary to make the legacy valid.
c) The legacy may be made to a specified legatee or without specifying a
legatee. If the legacy is made to a specified legatee who is not available at the
time and place of the testator’s death, the attending physician or surgeon, in the
absence of any expressed indication that the testator desired otherwise, may
accept the legacy as legatee. If the legacy does not specify a legatee, the legacy
may be accepted by the attending physician or surgeon as legatee upon or
following the testator’s death. The physician who becomes a legatee under this
subsection shall not participate in the procedures for removing or transplanting
a part or parts of the body of the decedent.
d) The testator may designate in his will, card or other document, the surgeon
or physician who will carry out the appropriate procedures. In the absence of a
designation, or if the designee is not available, the legatee or other persons
authorized to accept the legacy may authorize any surgeon or physician for the
purpose.
SEC. 11. Delivery of Document of Legacy or Donation. – If the legacy or
donation is made to a specified legatee or donee, the will, card or other
document, or an executed copy thereof, may be delivered by the testator or
donor, or his authorized representative, to the legatee or donee to expedite the
appropriate procedures immediately after death. The will, card or other
document, or an executed copy thereof, may be deposited in any hospital or
organ bank storage facility that accepts it for safekeeping or for facilitation or
procedures after death. On the request of any interested party upon or after the
testator’s death, the person in possession shall produce the document of legacy
or donation for verification.
SEC. 12. Amendment or Revocation of Legacy or Donation. –
a) If the will, card or other document, or an executed copy thereof, has been
delivered to a specific legatee or donee, the testator or donor may amend or
revoke the legacy or donation either by:
1) The execution and delivery to the legatee or donee of a signed statement to
that effect; or
2) An oral statement to that effect made in the presence of two other persons
and communicated to the legatee or donee; or
3) A statement to that effect during a terminal illness or injury addressed to an
attending physician and communicated to the legatee or donee; or
4) A signed card or document to that effect found on the person or effects of the
testator or donor.
b) Any will, card or other document, or an executed copy thereof, which has not
been delivered to the legatee or donee may be revoked by the testator or donor
in the manner provided in subsection (a) of this section or by destruction,
cancellation or mutilation of the document and all executed copies thereof.
Any legacy made by a will may also be amended or revoked in the manner
provided for amendment or revocation of wills, or as provided in subsection (a)
of this section.