Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Maloto vs CA,
Held:No, the physical destruction of a will may be done by the testator himself or it may be performed by
another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator.
In this case, the document or papers burned by Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily
established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For another, the burning was not
proven to have been done under the express direction of Adriana. And then, the burning was not in her
presence. Both witnesses, 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.
4. Gago vs Mamuyac
Held: Yes, where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator,
when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was
cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access
to the will and it cannot be found after his death.
In this case, the original will of 1919 could not be found after the death of the testator Miguel Mamuyac
5. Molo vs Molo
Mariano Molo y Legaspi ang testator, died without any forced heir either sa ascending or descending line.
2nd will-June 20, 1939- may clause revoking the 1918 will.
Juana filed the petition for probate of the 2nd will in CFI Rizal
Naprobate na ang will pero nagpetition ang oppositors. .Tapos gidisallow na lang kay failure to prove that
the will was executed in accordance with law. May diposicion captatoria, naging conditional na siya.
Nag opposed na pud sila kay narevoke na daw ang 1st will.
Held: No, valid dyapon. The rule is established that where the act of destruction is connected with the
making of another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old
to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition intended to be substituted, the revocation will be
conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new disposition; and if, for any reason, the new will
intended to be made as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the original will remains in full
force.
The destruction of the earlier will was but the necessary consequence of the testator's belief that the
revocatory clause contained in the subsequent will was valid and the latter would be given effect? If such
is the case, then it is our opinion that the earlier will can still be admitted to probate under the principle
of "dependent relative revocation.
6. Diaz vs de Leon
After execute ni Jose Diaz sa first will, gipabalik dayon niya unya gisugo niya iyang servant to tear the will
in front of the nurse.
Nag ask pa si Dr. Cornelio about the will pero ana siya destroyed na.
Held: Yes, the destruction animo revocandi of a will constitutes, in itself, a sufficient revocation.
The intention of revoking the will is manifest from the established fact that the testator was anxious to
withdraw or change the provisions he h&d made in his first will. This fact is disclosed by the testator's own
statements to the witnesses Canto and the Mother Superior of the Hospital where he was confined.