Você está na página 1de 2

3.

Maloto vs CA,

 ang gipamanahan ni adriana maloto is iyang mga niece and nephew.


 Abi nila walay will si adriana so nagkaroon ng intestate proceedings
 Gidivide nila equally into 4 then after 3 years nadiscover sa associate sa counsel ni adriana ang
iyahang will.
 Mas dako ang share nina aldina and constancio(petitioners) kesa kina Panfilo and Felino (private
respondents)
 trial court denied motion of aldina and constancio
 CA:revoked ang will enough na daw ang animus revocandi

Issue:W/N the will was revoked

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

 Will ni Miguel Mamuyac


 Si Francisco Mamuyac ang nag file ng petition for probate para sa July 27, 1918 na will sa CFI La
union (SURFING sa black sand)
 Ang nag oppose kay sina Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina
 Judge Villareal denied the probate kay may new will daw made on April 16, 1919
 Gi oppose dyapon sa mga Mamuyac ang April 1919 na will kay gicancel na daw to ni Miguel.

Issue: W/N the will was cancelled by the testator?

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.

Pero may wife siya(petitioner) and pamangkins (oppositors).

1st will-August 17, 1918

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 petition for probate usab si Juana para sa 1st will.

Nag opposed na pud sila kay narevoke na daw ang 1st will.

Gi-admit ang probate then nag appeal ang oppositors.

Issue: W/N narevoke na ang first 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.

Petitioner denies such revocation.

Issue: W/N narevoke na ang will.

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.

Você também pode gostar