Incomplete Sebastian Succession Reviewer
up to revocation of will only...
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
Art 774. Succession is a mode of Acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligation to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by will or by operation of law.
What are the modes of acquisition? (OLD TIPS)
O – Occupation L – Law D – Donation T – Tradition I – Intellectual property P – Prescription S – Succession
Inheritance of a person consists of property, transmissible rights and obligations that survive the person’s death.
In the old code such was a virtual subrogation, there was no limit as to Property, Transmissible Right and Obligations (PRO); but under the NCC the obligations will be to the extent of the hereditary share.
Art 391. (Presumption of death for purposes of succession) 1. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage or on aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane; 2. A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years; and 3. A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years; 4. BUT (Under ART 390) IF SUCH IS AN ABSENTEE it is 10 years to open up succession, unless he disappeared after 75 years of age, 5 years will be sufficient.
Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety; Article 774 provides that by succession, the properties, rights and obligations of a deceased person are transmitted through his death to his heirs either by his will or by operation of law. Hemady holds that the contingent liabilities of the decedent are part of the obligations transmitted by his death to his heirs. Accordingly, contingent claims against the estate of a deceased person arising from the decedent's contractual undertakings under various indemnity agreements executed in favor of various persons and entities are money claims which may be proved against his estate and/or heirs. These contingent claims may be proved during settlement proceedings by an indemnified surety even if in the meantime, no actual liability on the part of an indemnified surety has arisen by reason of actual payment made under the suretyship agreement. Accordingly, Hemady holds that the contingent obligations of a deceased person arising from his personal guaranty are not extinguished by his death. 1
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian Thus, GR: Contracts are binding on the heirs as well due to NCC Art. 1311, which refers to the “Principle of Relativity of Contracts”; Exception: When the obligation becomes intransmissible by the following 1) The nature of the obligation; 2) Stipulation of Law; or 3) Stipulation of the parties
Pacio v. Billon; Properties not validly conveyed by a person during his lifetime will form part of his estate upon his demise. Pacio holds that a parcel of land which was not validly donated (propter nuptias) by the husband to the wife did not leave his patrimony, and therefore formed part of his inheritance upon his demise. (it must be remembered in this case the mistake here was the application of the codes)
Uson v. Del Rosario; Article 777 provides that the right to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. Accordingly, Uson holds that the inheritance pertains to the heirs from the moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to the heirs a deed for the same before his death. This transmission takes place by operation of law; NCC was to be applied retroactively but could not impair vested rights. Since Faustino died before the NCC took effect, the illegitimate children could not inherit because the recognized family had a vested right in the properties. (Art 2253.)
Bonilla v. Barcena; The transmission of the hereditary estate from the decedent to the heirs takes place from the moment of the death of the decedent. A prior judicial declaration of heirship is not necessary to perfect the transmission. Bonilla holds that claims to or rights over property which were initiated by the decedent during his lifetime by appropriate court proceedings are not extinguished by his death. These claims or rights over property are transmitted to his heirs upon his death, thus may substitute the decedent in the said case.
Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons Inc. (Yung small portion that ended up getting the whole- mayaman toh) The right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code is property. Thus, where a decedent dies without having exercised a right of redemption (and provided it has not expired), the said right shall be transmitted to his heirs upon his death. In this event, the right of redemption is part of the inheritance. However, where the right of redemption was acquired after the death of the decedent, the same pertains to the heirs directly in their individual capacities, and not derivatively from the decedent. Butte makes a clear distinction as to when the right of redemption is part of the hereditary estate, and when it is not. Accordingly, Butte clarifies the issue as to who may exercise the right of redemption. 2
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
De Borja v. De Borja; The right to the inheritance is transferred to the heirs precisely at the moment of the death of the decedent. From such time, the heirs are deemed to be the owners of the same. De Borja confirms that from the moment of death of the decedent, the heirs begin to enjoy all the attributes of ownership, including the right to dispose (jus disponendi). De Borja holds that the pendency of the probate proceeding is no bar to the exercise of such proprietary rights, since ownership over the hereditary estate has vested in the heirs from the time of the death of the testator. De Borja must be distinguished from the prohibition against disposicion captatoria in Article 875 of the Civil Code. Likewise, it must be reconciled with the provision of Article 784 which states that the making of a will is a strictly personal act of the testator.
NHA v. Almedia; (skipped)
Go Ong v. CA (model case of how things should be) She took out a loan based on certain land from the ACP after her husband died, now she claims that the loan is void since there was no judicial notice. As per the SC: the mortgage is valid up to the conjugal share and hereditary rights of the surviving spouse. (nothing more than your suppose to get) Important principle: we can dispose from the moment of death. *Theoretically you can mortgage part of your undivided share, but in reality no one would do that.
Reganon v. Imperial (new law patterned to this case) You can garnish or attach share of an heir BUT you cannot garnish or attach a specific property, since the hereditary share has not been liquidated and you don’t know if he will get that specific property. But we must also distinguish between heir and legatee, who can be subject to garnishment or attachment.
Salvador v. Sta. Maria (a case borne out of stupidity and laziness) Sale is contended to be void, due to simulation and no payment actually made. There are two cases here in the same court house but different branches; The seller/owner dies. Seller/Owner ----------------------- Buyer Branch II 1) Handled probate of the will (23 people involved in the will) 3) Decision of the court is to give them property reconveyed
Branch I 1) Action for reconveyance (21 people as substitutes) 2) went to the CA, who had the
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian The land contract is void
to the 21 substitute, since supposedly the
6) 21 did not want to give land, since the court is final and executor
decision of the and they have valid title The problem here 9 people in the will where not substituted and the decision was final & executor. SC said “21, your rights are derived from the owner or better yet his estate; subs lang kayo, thus no ownership * As per sir: Tanga ang CA, they should have it ordered it back to the estate and not o the 21 substitutes
Ramirez v. Baltazar ( Rights of the heirs) The creditors initiated settlement proceedings against the estate; Diawan, the deputy clerk of court was made administrator of the estate since Ramirez failed to qualify. Diawan initiated a trial by commissioners which was allowed by the court without providing notice to the heirs, heirs in turn was not present since they had no idea of such proceeding. Diawan was receiving uncontested evidence from the creditors as commissioner. The duty of the administrator is to defend the estate, what Diawan was doing was receiving evidence against estate that he is suppose to defend. SC: IF the administrator does not want to do the job as he should, the heirs have a right to assert and protect their interest despite their being an administrator assigned.
Requisites for extra judicial settlement 1. No will 2. No debts 3. Heirs are of legal age In any case, if such gets questioned, you still bring it to court.
ART 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
Puno v. Puno Enterprises (Art. 777 not applied) The illegitimate child succeeding from his father’s death, has rights over the property of his father upon the moment of death of said father. The father had shares of stock within Puno Enterprises. Now the child wishes to inspect the company’s books. The SC held: Despite Art. 777, which is inherent from the point of death, one still cannot obtain the right to the property right away in certain instances. The illegitimate child got his right over the property BUT his right as a shareholder is something else, thus he cannot check the books of the company and until properly registered as a shareholder as per the Corporation Code. 4
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian Lesson: though he may have under Art. 777 acquired rights to the stock, he may not inspect the books for the corporation code provides those who could inspect are stockholders of record, meaning those names listed in the “Stock & Transfer Book”; thus until your name is listed there, there is no rights to such
Reyes v RTC (Art 777 not applied even if shareholder) Almost the same facts as Puno, but here the son who has a stockholder himself in the company wanted to look into the records of the mother. Naturally the company denied the son’s request for inspection, since the share he requested to inspect was his mothers. The SC decision was: Your (PRO) that you inherit are inchoate. As per SC, the estate has to go through liquidation first to pay the debts. As per Atty. Sebastian: The use of Inchoate is WRONG!!! Remember the case of Butte? You do not need to pay the obligations with the property and rights that you inherited, thats why Angela was able to get the whole property!!! Thus the property and rights are not inchoate until you pay the obligations since you can choose to pay out such in order to maintain the property as a whole. This is also wrong for tax and debt reasons. (For Bar purposes unless you can properly defend don’t use).
Santos v. Lumbao (difference of ideal share from specific prop ) They bought an ideal share or proindiviso share of the property from Rita and then spouses Lumbao built a house on a portion of the property they bought. The SC held: what they bought was an ideal share and not a specific portion of the property, they should have not done that but in any case they cannot be denied to a portion of the property. An approved project of partition is required.
Blas v. Santos (Future Inheritance) read the case before exams (pg.55 ng scra?) When the 1st wife died, the property was not divided thus when he remarried the PR of wife 1 was infused with the PR of wife 2. To make sure there would be no quarrel in the family of the testator between his kids from his 1st marriage and wife 2, a compromise agreement was made. The wife gets half and then her half will go back to the kids upon her death. Wife 2 agreed to such. The relatives of wife 2 questioned such as an agreement to future inheritance which by law is void. SC Held: that what wife 2 compromised where her own shares that she rightfully received.
Example of future inheritance
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian Henry C --------------- Big Boy such becomes a future inheritance and is VOID Worth $6 Billion Can inherit $1 Billion Takes out a loan based on the $1 Billion he can inherit for 10M a year ₊ 5% Interest
Art. 781 (relate to Art 440 “accrue”) Under Art. 440, the accession follows the principal. Succession is a mode of acquisition, once you acquire the property you own such, and with it its’ fruits as an owner. Which is why you file the fruits not as an amended estate tax but rather as part of your income tax return. Art 781 has a purpose nonetheless For 1) Taxes & 2) for the creditors Objects Meaning they cannot claim the fruits unless the creditors are paid As per Atty. Sebastian: “is it a stupid provision? NO stupid lang ang pagsulat”
Art. 793 (Property acquired after making the will) As per Atty. Sebastian: Para no problem: “if any other property not listed to be divided this way” The Difference between Art 781 and Art 793. 781
No other application except to ensure payment of debt
Is to still give the testator the opportunity to decide
When it takes place
After the Succession
Refers to properties gain after making the will during the testator’s lifetime
In relation to Art 793, application How can you still distribute the totality of your estate? Institution of heirs ---- fractional parts Requests (Legacy or Devise) – Specific personal prop or specific real prop respectively
Characteristics of a valid will (usual bar question) 1. Purely Personal – What can be and cannot be delegated; (the what, the who, and the determination of the portions to give are dispositions which cannot be delegated; 2. Moris Causa; 3. Dispositive of Properties – must dispose of P&R, if not it is not a valid will; 6
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian 4. Ambulatory – it is an act of liberality, thus it can be revocable any time; 5. Free Act – done without duress; Under Obligations and Contracts what are the essential requisites for a valid contract (a) Consent - characteristics of a valid consent 1. FREE a. There is no undue influence (Art. 1337) b. There is no violence (Art. 1335) c. There is no intimidation (Art. 1335) 2. INTELIGENCE; and All required for consent a. There is no mistake (Art. 1331) to be proper 3. SPONTANEOUS a. There is no Fraud (Art. 1338) (b) Subject; and (c) Cause 6. Unilateral Act – there is only one person talking and what he wants is what should happen; as compared to a contract which requires 2 or more for a meeting of the minds; 7. Formal – follows the formalities provided by the code in Art. 804-808 and Art 810; 8. Statutory Right – you can make a will only since the law allows you to do so. As per Atty. Sebastian: no need human rights and& crap daw to explain it.
Art 785 (what can be and cannot be delegated) What can be delegated to a 3rd person is the (1) the distribution of specific property or sums of money that he may leave in general to specified classes or causes and also (2) the designation of the persons, institutions or establishments to which such property or sums are to be given or applied. If a 3rd person is disqualified, since he is not a reputable person, the “trinity of corruption” will take his place. Municipal Mayor, Municipal Judge of the same Municipality & the Municipal Treasurer.
Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon (Testamentary Preference) The testatrix purposely divided her property so that there can be no coownership, thus no project partition was done. The heirs fought since the distribution was not even. The estate was assessed at 1.8M and what was given to Marina was 1,148,000.00, thus the legitimes of the other 7 were affected. Marina wanted to pay-off missing amounts to complete the legitimes of her siblings, other heirs wanted more, SC agreed with Marina. SC said, Control of disposition, the testator wanted to favour one of the heirs over the others, who are we to question such, the testamentary preference of 7
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian the testatrix must be preserved, missing in the legitime.
furthermore, Art. 906 to add to what is
Art. 789 (Ambiguities) Patent Ambiguity (Apparent) – by reading the will, you see the problem; Latent Ambiguity (Non-Apparent) – it is in the execution of the will that you will then see the problem. How do you cure the ambiguity Rule 130 sec. 9 of the Rules of Court; “Parole Evidence Rule” What is written in the agreement of the parties cannot be over-tuned by oral proclamation. There are exemptions Extrinsic Evidences to such Thus we must first look into the will in its totality, then when there is no chance to resolve such, we go to extrinsic evidence (intention first) What is extrinsic evidence All kinds of evidence except oral declarations or testimonies of the testator. Why no oral testimonies are allowed Testatrix cannot refute such, being dead – (Dead man’s statute rule in Evidence)
Testate Estate of Adruna Maloto v. Ca (Extrinsic Evidence) Made a will but later got angry with the heirs, had the will burned by the maid, in doing so the requisites for revoking a will by burning was not met, thus no actual revocation; thus a working draft of the said will submitted by the Atty for probate was accepted as extrinsic evidence of the said will. Villafor v. Juico Don Nicholas left his properties to Fausta with a condition that if she would ever remarry after his death, the said properties would go to Leonor. Fausta on her part never remarried and when she died left everything to Juico (the supposed lover). Leonor laid claim to the properties to which Juico contended that when the properties were transferred to Fausta she became absolute owner and had the right to do whatever she pleased with the said properties SC: what she got was a usufruct being what she got was the right to use and possess and not naked title, if Nicholas wanted to give it to Fausta, he could have done so without conditions, thus the interpretation that is to be followed is what gives effect.
What you look for in a will in terms of validity. Extrinsic (as to FORM) – form, capacity, due execution WILL Intrinsic (as to SUBSTANCE) – substantive provision 8
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian Probate only looks at the extrinsic Form 1) Time – Law in place (what the law is) at the time of the execution of the will. 2) Place – Philippine law or Law of where your located Substance 1) Time – What the law is at the time of death 2) Place – National Law.
Bellis v Bellis (Law in play – making of the will vs. when the testatrix died) The formal validity of a will depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time of execution of the will. On the other hand the substantive validity of the dispositions therein are governed by the laws in force at the time of death of the testator.
Who can write a will? Natural person, 18 years of age and of sound mind Requisites for sound mind: 1) He knows the nature of his estate; though because of Art 2) Proper objects of his bounty (knows who is going to get such); and 799 not necessary req 3) The character of the testamentary act anymore (need not in perfect mental health
De Guzman v. Intestate of Franciso Benitez The important factor here is that the medical records of the testator influenced the factual findings of the probate court.
Lee v. Tambago ( 3 fold objective of the formalities of a will) Lee accused Tambago of notarizing the will without the formalities of law being followed. Lee claims that there is no actual will, since no residence certificate was obtained, no copy of the will can be found in the archive and the signatures of the witnesses may be forged. Residence Certificate use to be a valid form of identification, under new law gov’t id with picture is needed. (pero TIN is allowed, WTF?) The Atty. Herein denied such but by blanket denial (Thus under RoC becomes admission) SC agreed with Lee and gave the 3 FOLD DOCTRINE OF THE FORMALITIES OF A WILL as provided, which are as follows: 1) To close the door on fraud; 2) To prevent substitution of pages; and 9
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
3) To guaranty the will’s authenticity. Why do we have so many stringent rules for succession that are not applied in other form of documents such as contracts? Lesson: “A will is actually a dead man speaking to us”, since the testatrix is dead he cannot challenge authenticity duh! As per Atty. Sebastian there are 2 things wrong with the decision 1) The only actual issue in the case was if the will was actually notarized, Justice Corona did not answer the said question instead he gave out a definition of a will and the requirements of such. What is the relation to the issue? I don’t know but thanks for the 3 fold objective that came from interpreting such. 2) Tanga! How can anyone say that as a rule, if there is no residence certificate and was written in the acknowledgement was the testatrix old residence certificate, the will is not valid? The purpose of a residence certificate is for identification of those who are witnesses in front of the notary only? Magisip-isip naman sila. Atty. herein should have been disbarred, bobo kasi! Definition of “acknowledgement” before a notary public Jurat – sworn statement/ affidavits This is what the notary should Acknowledgement – Deed/ Contracts attach or affix. Thus must be remembered a will is not a statement but rather a deed (disposition of prop)
Suroza v Honrado (language must be understood) The opening paragraph of the will it was stated in English that the testator understood English but in the concluding paragraph it stated the will was read and translated to Filipino for the testatrix. This coupled with the fact that she did not sign such will but rather thumbmarked it, infers that she was actually illiterate. Atty Sebastian: The reason for the language or the dialect must be known to the testator is because of the 3 fold rule held in Tambago. Because of the bad faith or fraud, how can you now be sure of its authenticity? The judge here made a stupid decision, the heir lost out, thus only correct to go after him, dapat ma disbar din toh, isa pa tong tanga!
Reyes v. De Vidal ( Disputable presumption) Testatrix died and a will, there was no descendants or ascendants only sibling involved, where one got and the other did not. Lower court ruled against the probate citing language not known to the testator, since there was no admission that the testatrix knew the language in the will. SC: you do not need to state if the language is known to the testatrix since there is a disputable presumption that they do in deed know. In the case at hand, first of all it should have been presumed that testator knew Spanish and the other siblings who contest such, must now bare the burden of proof to show otherwise. But what really killed this case was the 10
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian fact the atty. was “bobo” submitting a letter that showed the testator had written such in Spanish, who submits contrary evidences to your own claim?
Balonan v. Abellana (for 3rd persons, where to put testators name) The will here in was written at the bottom Juan Abello and not Anacelto Abellana who happens to be the testator. The will is then denied probate since it was void for not following Art 805; which requires that the testator himself shall affix his signature or by the writing of the testators name for a 3rd person. Atty Sebastian: the reason for such is technical; It is to clarify who’s will it is or better said who is the actual testator of the will (substantial compliance cannot apply herein); it does not matter who signed such, what matters is the name of the testator, it can always be clarified as to who signed such anyway in the attestation clause.
Garcia v Lacuesta ( Don’t lie, admit mistakes) What was written in the will is simply his name. The problem came about in relation with the attestation clause which said it was signed by the testator himself as accompanied to what was stated in the will under the testator’s name, which said at the request of the testator. This created doubt if the testator did actual sign such. Because of the doubt and “+” mark beside the name of the testator that is claimed to be his signature, there can be no assumption of compliance. Atty. Sebastian: To better understand this case you have to look into historical aspects of such, which first in the 40’s and 50’s people were more trustworthy thus it was accepted the “+” mark was a mark of an illiterate and was accepted as their signature. Secondly the testator was not an illiterate, the lawyer only claimed such to say there was no doubt, which is wrong; SC took it out on the testator will being that the lawyer lied, so don’t lie, if you made a mistake admit it and they might show favour upon you.
Nera v. Rimando (Test of Presence) There was 2 rooms, a big room and a small room that could not Accommodate everyone. Thus all but one of the witnesses were In the small room with the testator. Thus a question if the third Witness actually witness the execution of such will. SC: The test of presence does not ask whether they actually saw each The others sign, but whether they might have seen each other sign; in the case at bar, though the 3rd witness was in a separate room such in itself would not be necessarily the factor for the failure of the test, it is that, coupled with the fact that there was a curtain that blocked his view that caused the failure of the test of vision and proximity. 11
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian It must be remembered a witness has 2 capacities: 1) to attest and 2) to subscribe; both of which must be done in the presence of the testator, witnesses and of one another.
Taboada v. Rosal (Attestation v. Subscription) There is a will which consist of 2 pages. The 1 st page contained the entire testamentary disposition which was signed at the bottom by the testatrix alone and by the 3 witnesses on the left margin. The 2 nd page contained the attestation clause and the acknowledgement. The Issue herein is the fact it must be subscribed at the bottom of the will. SC: The denial of probate was wrong and emphasized the difference of attestation and subscription and their purpose as well. Attestation – consist in the witnessing of the execution of the will and to take note mentally that the requisites of the will were followed. Subscription – is the signing of the paper for the purpose of identification.
Icasiano v. Icasiano (good idea to keep a copy) One of the pages of the will was not signed by one of the witnesses, thus the will’s authenticity was questioned. SC: There is a duplicate original which has all the signatures on all pages of the will, the said duplicate cures the defect, furthermore this case was a mere oversight, witness could be correct in saying that she might have lifted it and flipped 2 pages by accident. Carbon copy – used carbon completely Duplicate copy - the documents are copied but the signatures are all original Note: no computers pa back then! Atty Sebastian: emphasized that “fraud and undue influence are mutual repugnant and exclude Each other, their joining as grounds for opposing probate (as like in this case), shows an absence of definite evidence against the validity of the will.” Art. 1338 – provides for what is fraud – voluntary act Art. 1337 – for undue influence – non-voluntary act In other words BOBO ang lawyer, can’t be the same.
Cargo v. Cargo (Attestation Clause must be signed below) This case must be correlated with the Taboada case wherein The placing of the signature was at question. The difference in this case is what is concerned was the Attestation page, which serves a different purpose as Explained in the Taboada case Since the signature was on the left margin and not at the Bottom of the page, the will is void for the formalities of the Law must be followed. Atty. Sebastian: An attestation is a statement of a witness that 12
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian If it is not signed, then it is as if there is no attestation for in turn there is no actual statement made because of the lack of the signature. The purpose of an attestation clause is for the witness to admit that the formalities of law was without a doubt followed.
Lopez v Liboro ( 2 page sequence) The will consists of 2 pages. The first page for the Dispositions, the other for the attestation Art. 805 requires that the pages be numbered, in order To prevent pagination/substitution of the pages. It must be noted: this case was covered under the old Code, which does not require a notary public but the Reasoning is still sound nonetheless. (If there is a notary there will be other ways to redeem the said defects. As per the SC: the 1st page clearly follows the 2nd, thus there is no pagination and possible fraud was avoided.
Samaniego-Celada v. Abena (Attestation Clause is part of the will) It is being argued that the will consist of 2 pages but the attestation clause state 3 pages. Error in the attestation clause as to the number of pages is not necessarily fatal. Atty. Sebastian: Bobo! Don’t even know how this got to the SC or even why it is assumed the attestation clause is not part of the will. There are really 3 pages, and without the 3 page which is the attestation clause, the will is void, so duh kasama yan!
Abada v. Abaja ( no. of witnesses need not be stated on the attestation clause) The facts are too long, the main point as to succession is even if the attestation clause does not state the number of witnesses, if it can be seen in the will that there was 3, then there is substantial compliance (seen in the sense 3 signed duh!) Lesson: Art 809 provides for the liberalization of interpretation in the Attestation Clause, thus it must be remembered substantial compliance only happens in regards to the attestation clause. Reason for such: Is the fact that the Attestation Clause is not an act of the testator but of the witnesses combined, thus should not fault the testator as much as possible.
Azuela v. Ca (Stupidity/bayaran) There are 3 defects in the case at bar that the court overlooked. 1st the AC did not state the no. of pages – As per SC, cannot apply Taboada since in Taboada the number of pages is stated elsewhere in the will, in this case it is not. 13
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian 2nd AC, witness did not sign at the bottom – Completely forgot or ignored the principle laid down in Cargo. 3rd The notary attached a mere jurat instead of an acknowledgment – Atty Sebastian, “ first of all “nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayon 10 ng Hunyo” is not even enough to be a jurat, being in a jurat there is a statement the such is to “certify that such is the truth” as you know it. Furthermore, In the will everything was left to Felix the nephew who supposedly took care of the decendent, despite the fact the decendent had a daughter in the states and the grandchildren, meaning the will should have been set aside since the decendants were petirited. (thus obvious bayaran).
De Ramos v. CA (credibility) Main issue is if the testimony of the 2 witnesses who opposes to what they have attested to, will be good enough to deny probate of the will. Decision of the SC; Since the attestation clause is placed there to ensure that all formalities be complied with and beyond such the lawyer was involved in every stage before passing it to another lawyer who notarized such, both lawyers gain nothing, nor is there any showing of mischief on their part. – Relate to function of notary. As per Atty. Sebastian, there was 2 problems: (1st) is the credibility of the 2 witnesses; and (2nd) Parole Evidence Rule – when the terms of an agreement (includes wills) have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successor in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of a written agreement. (Rule 130 sec. 19 of the rules of court – there are exemption also).
Garcia v. Gatchalan (Article 806 is a must) Art 806 must be followed, the will must be notarized before a notary public by the testator and instrumental witnesses. This is to make sure the will is authentic but void for non-compliance.
Cruz v. Villasor (Notary as a witness also – stupid if notarizes such) Issue here stems from the fact that one of the instrumental witnesses is also the notary who notarized the will, thus there is a question now as to the fact of whether there was a lack of witnesses to the execution of the will. Lesson: A notary cannot be a witness to what he is suppose to notarize himself. Atty. Sebastian: “Bobo, claro ng 806 notarized before the notary public; to notarize is an act of swearing that such is the truth, how do swear under oath to yourself? Bobo talaga!” Moreso the function of a notary public is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements, in the said case such purpose was defeated. 14
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
Guerero v. Bihis (It is the responsibility of the testator to check the authority of the notary) The will was notarized in QC but the notary was commissioned only for Caloocan City. SC: the will is void despite the fact it could be authentic, for lack of authority of the notary to notarize such, the testator should have checked the credentials. Atty. Sebastian: Mga tanga what part of “before a notary” don’t people understand, wag magtamadtamd at puntahan na lang yung notario sa office niya to notarize.
Gabucan v. Manta (Doc Stamps) Atty. Sebastian: Court should have just ordered the doc stamp requirement to be complied with instead of denying probate Lesson: get doc stamps for what documents need doc stamps, mura lang naman yun!
-------------------------------------------- End Art 804 – 806 ----------------------------------------------------
Art 807. (Deaf or Deaf-Mute Testator) If the testator be deaf, or deaf-mute, he must personally read the will, if able to do so; otherwise, he shall designate two persons to read it and communicate to him, some practicable manner, the contents thereof.
Art 808. (Blind Testator) If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.
Garcia v. Vasquez (what is blind in the legal sense) The issue herein is to determine is whether or not the testator is blind for purposes of Art. 808. The witness said she saw the testator read the will silently but the doctor on the otherhand testified that because of her glaucoma she would not have been capable to read the will, despite being able to relatively see things. … (lost portion)
Alvarado v. Gaviola (Substantial Compliance – blind) Like the previous case, testator had glaucoma, SC ruled though that there was substantial compliance despite the fact the provision of law as provided in Art 808 were not complied with, specifically the two readings, 1 by a 15
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian subscribing witness and by the notary; SC used Art 809. As basis for the substantial compliance. Atty. Sebastian: Substantial compliance should only be in regards to the Attestation Clause, as provided by Article 809. Article 1234 of the NCC (law on substantial compliance) As per Tolentino, The following are the requirements of substantial Compliance: 1. Attempt in good faith to apply such; 2. No wilful deviation; 3. Deviation must be slight; and 4. Deviation must be technical or unimportant. Atty. Sebastian comment: the ruling was most likely made because of the illegitmate son, to ensure that he would not inherit just like the testator wanted; but the manner of how the SC did it was still wrong.
Gil v. Murciano Art. 809 enunciates the doctrine of liberal interpretation; Absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud or undue influence or other defects, such will not render the attestation clause invalid and if the will is in fact proven to be executed and attested, substantial compliance will do. In the case at bar, it was not stated in the attestation clause if the testator signed in the presence of the witness but was stated that such happened in the body of which, thus the SC allowed such under substantial compliance.
Caneda v. Ca Affirmed the ruling in Gil v. Murciano but denied probate; the circumstances of the case play a vital part. The involves a reconstituted will that was obtained from the records of appeal (from the CA), since the original was lost due to the war. SC did not allow such due to the lack of the original copy of the will.
Roxas v. De Jesus (Holographic will and the date requirement) The holographic will is being questioned in the case since what was written in the said will was “FEB/61’” as the date instead of the required format which is “MM/DD/YR”, as stated by the old code. The said will was also in a form of a letter to her children. Atty. Sebastian: The decision is correct pero tang-ina substantial compliance ulit! Why is the date important? 1. To check if there is testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will; 2. Testamentary Capacity referring to the fact testator is at least 18 years of age and is with sound mind. 3. Thus depending on the situation of the testator the year alone will do. 16
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
Labrador v CA (Position of the date) The case at bar involves a holographic will that is not dated specifically but is nonetheless the date can be found in the body of the will in the 2 nd page. Atty. Sebastian: Article 810 does not in any case prescribe where the date should be, thus it is for all extensive purpose allowed. The Secrecy of the holographic will is allowed Atty. Sebastian: the purpose of the holographic will or any will is to create preferences, such preferences makes it understandable to want to keep the will secret. “para yung mga ibang membro ng pamilya ninyo hindi kayo gagaguhin kasi maskonti yung bibigay ninyo sa nila”.
Gan v. Yap (Need the will itself) The holographic will was lost; it was claimed that 5 people had read it and the testator wrote it in secrecy since she was afraid of her husband. SC: The will itself must be submitted in order that Article 810 be considered complied with, it is needed to check the genuiness of the hand writing, without such, its genuiness cannot be established. Atty Sebastian: Mga Gago talaga, rehearsed pa yung testimony ng 5, parang they tried to memorize everything. Lesson ditto always submit the will for probate. Side comment: Decision cited photostatic copy, such are not valid anymore, still need the original now.
Rodelas v. Aranza (Photocopy not allowed and why) In this case the holographic will was also lost. SC cited in footnote 8 of the Azola case which said a machine copy should be allowed, thus the SC sent the case back to the trial court. Atty. Sebastian: Still need the will itself to prove authenticity. How do you prove authenticity? With the handwriting in the original copy What do you look for in the original? 1. The strokes; 2. The pressure applied to the document; and 3. Speed applied in writing such. - Such can only be seen in the original, not in the photocopy! Action – there is a plaintiff and a defendant, where the results will declare one or the either the winner of the case. Special Proceeding – There is no plaintiff and defendant here instead what you try to establish here is the existence of a right, fact or status; thus there is no winner necessarily; Atty. Sebastian: The Rodelas decision is WRONG!!! They did not have to disturb the principle laid down in Gan v. Yap; furthermore such was a special proceeding, they din’t have to decide the way they did to make a winner, mga bobo!
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
Azola v. Singson (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule making such DIRECTORY only) Art. 811 is clear, if the holographic will is contested 3 witnesses must be presented but if uncontested only one is required. The issue in the case is whether the 3 witness rule directory or mandatory in nature. Atty. Sebastian: The great JBL Reyes took pains to properly explain why the rule is DIRECTORY, pointing out that is not as to the quantity of witnesses but rather the quality of the witness that is important. What makes or breaks such is the credibility of the witness. Thus if all but one of the witnesses died, it would still be enough provided that the remaining witness is credible.
Codoy v. Calugay (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule making such MANDATORY only) In this case there 6 witnesses that were presented, all of which were not credible at all, thus the SC correctly ruled that it should be denied. Atty. Sebastian: The Justice who decided the case, Justice Pardo whose background in law comes from the fact he served in COMMELEC (kaya mahina sa civil law), made an error in the manner of how the case was decided. Pardo basically made the 3 witness rule mandatory based on the word “shall”. His reasoning as compared to JBL Reyes in the Azola is out classed (mahina talaga yan). Further comment: The rule or doctrine of law on how the SC is to overturn a previous decision, is that it must be En Banc, which in the case at bar did not happen, division lang siya, bobo talaga ba!
Rivera v. Iac ( Joke time lang case) This was an attempt to look into the 3 witness rule once again but was aborted when it was found out the said illegitimate child was actually an imposter.
Probate is for Testamentary Succession There are 2 parts that take place in a testamentary succession.
Part 1 – Probate Proper (this and only this happens in a probate court proceeding) Must satisfy the following I. Capacity – which checks if the testator was 1 st of proper Age and 2nd of sound mind. II. Formalities As to Notarial Wills – Art 804-806 As to Holographic Wills Art. 810 III. Credibility – as to witnesses and documents IV. Free Will 18
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian If all is satisfied, then the court shall issue a probate order which in turn conclusively proves (items I-IV). Note: all Items must be present in the will. Note: a probate order is a FINAL order, thus the remedy for such will never be certiorari but instead appeal.
Part 2 – Partition Refers to the Substantive Portion of the will.
Kalaw v. Relova ( must sign changes to a holographic will) Art 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. (Note: only for holographic wills). In the case at bar, testator wrote a will where Rosa was an heir but later due to rumour mongering which did not put the testator the testator at ease, the testator decided to cross her name off and write above it Gregorio instead. Problem herein was that there was no signature as to The correction as provided for in Art 814. There is no question that the hand writing is authentic, The issue here is whether or not Rosa will get the Inheritance since the alteration to the will was Not signed by the testator. SC ruled: Rosa cannot inherit based on the rules on Revocation (Article 830) and Gregorio cannot inherit Based on Article 814.
Ajero v. Ca Ajero upholds the proposition that article 813 & 814 do not form part of the requisites for formal or extrinsic validity of the holographic will, thus failure on the part of the teatator to observe the requirements of Art. 813 & 814 will not justify the disallowance of the will, but relevant provisions may be disallowed Proof is not appropriate in Part 1 (Probate proper), where only the 4 are looked into.
VDA. De Perez v. Tolete What was probated abroad under foreign law, does not automatically become accepted here. Proof stated in Art. 816 is required.
Joint Will A joint will is where 2 or more people make a will in a single instrument. 19
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian Such will is VOID, since the characteristic of the will being purely personal is violated. Why? You run the risk where one spouse over powers the other spouse with undue influence if allowed.
Art. 819. Wills, prohibited by the proceeding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in the Philippines even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been executed.
Art. 16 of the New Civil Code. … however, intestate and testamentary succession… and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity… shall be regulated by National law
Property – Lex Situs – law of the place where the thing is found. Exception for testamentary and/or intestate sucession Order of succession Amount of Successional Rights National laws of the decendent; in Intrinsic Validity of testamentary provisions re to this lex celebrasionis shall yield.
De La Cerna v. Rebaca (Joint will that got through) A joint will of the spouse was accepted and probated, no one challenged such, thus partition was and it became final and executory. When it was submitted again the 2nd time around when the wife died for the estate of said wife the court ruled that such will is null and void for being a joint will. SC, the final judgement in the 1939 (the first case) an error in judgement as it is, has obtained finality thus cannot be disturbed , but said error does not bind the court on account of the other spouse (the wife). Atty. Sebastian: This will had to be resubmitted since the wife died under the New Civil Code, but if it was somehow allowed to go through now (despite its illegality but like the situation of the husband), you can have both probated at the same time, since the new code allows probate ante mortem, which the old code did not.
Qualifications of a witness to a notarial will 1. Of sound mind; for showing 2. At least 18 years of age; 3. Must not be blind, deaf or dumb; 4. Must be able to read and write; faster and
For capacity and the age also one’s maturity To help the proceeding move 20
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian 5. Must be domiciled in the Philippines; 6. Must not have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony; 7. A witness who is NOT a notary at the same time
for better witnesses Credibility Cruz v. Villasor
Relate such to the 3 credible witness (Art. 805) and Competent Witness (Art. 820 and 821)
Gonzales v. CA (Credibility is determined by the court) The witnesses were objected despite their meeting the criteria of Art. 820 & 821, the argument is that they might be competent but they are not credible. SC ruled, credibility does not need to be proved by the witnesses; in fact that is the task of the trial court to determine such, what may be proved is the competence (can be inferred also) Sir: ang desperado naman yung atty. masaya siya! Another example of a case that should have never gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
Article 823. What happens when the witness is a beneficiary in the will as well? When the witness is also a beneficiary, he will remain a valid witness but the provision on the beneficiary is void. Void as to the witness himself, his spouse, ascendants and descendants, and anyone claiming under such person and ss, asc &dsc. Why? The law considers it as an attempt to bribe the witness, the witness may be tempted to do whatever to get the will to pass probate. Exception: when there are 3 other witnesses not including him in the 3. (4 or more duh!)
Article 1027 ¶4 (Those who are incapable of succeeding) … Any attesting witness … spouse, parents or children or anyone claiming under such witness, spouse, parent or children. It does not provide for an Exemption (conflicting laws) Art. 1027 ¶ 4 is an attack on one’s capacity Art. 823 is an attack on the legacy or divise it self Atty Sebastian: I am of the opinion the incapacity is absolute but there is still no decision on such, so masaya kayo ulet!
Article 824. When the creditor is a beneficiary also, it is allowed for him to be a witness to the will Atty. Sebastian: The reason for such is that the interest is not due, the fact the debt is secured through the debtor’s estate, thus no interest. (He will get what is his no matter what, yun lang); 21
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian BUT it must be under a written stipulation, if it is not stipulated, tantamount to a donation., then it cannot proceed anymore (Have no Idea what is being discussed here, sorry had too much to drink)
Doctrine of Incorporation by Referrence The requisites as provided by Art. 827 are as follows: 1) The document or paper referred to in the will must be in existence at the time of the execution of the will; 2) The will must clearly describe and identify the same, stating among others the number of pages thereof; 3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred therein; and 4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every page, except in cases of voluminous books of accounts or inventories. 5) Atty. Sebastian’s example: Yung mga bumbay, the 5/6 Everything he lent is/are account receivables (AR), if there are 1,300 customers with their own AR’s, merely use the article to include the listahan into the will.
------------------------------------------ MIDTERMS COVERAGE END-----------------------------------------
Revocation Testamentary capacity is required and it must be ambulatory Why must it be ambulatory? Making a will is an act of liberality and cannot be given effect until death, thus he should get to choose to keep or remove some from the will. 22
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
How to Revoke a Will FIRST, By Implication of Law – needs a statutory provision (THERE ARE ONLY 7) 1) Art 936. Revoked if testator brings action for payment of debts (READ!); must connect with Art 935 where: Inherit a “legacy of credit” – Accounts receivable “legacy of remission” – Condonation of debt 2) Art 957. Provides 3 effects which make legacies and devises ineffective: I. Change of form of the subject (ex: Flour was left as a legacy but it was later made into bread; II. Change of title (ex: A legacy of a car was stated but later sold) – exception though as to such is through the right of repurchase III. Specific property is totally lost (ex: there was a legacy of a car than ondoy happened) 3) Art 1032. Incapable of succession by reason of unworthiness (¶ 4 does not apply since there is no law) 4) Art 43 ¶5. Spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage in bad faith, cannot inherit from the innocent spouse – relate to Art 42reappearance of absent spouse. 5) Art 44. Where both spouse of subsequent marriages acted in bad faith – Marriage is void, thus donations and testamentary dispositions made in favour of the other are revoked by operation of law. 6) Art 50. (Must be connected with ¶ 2,3,4 & 5 of Article 43 and Article 44) Splitting of properties, legitimes and alike. 7) Art 63 ¶ 4. Legal separation, offending spouse cannot inherit from the innocent spouse. SECOND, By subsequent will or codicil (can be done in 2 ways) 1) Implied Revocation Example: 2001------ Will 1 made ------- Institutes A as universal heir 2011------ Will 2 made ------- Institutes B as universal heir - Being there is no reconciliation based on the facts, thus the latter expression of intent is given effect and the former is revoked 2) Express Revocation Example: 2001 --- Will 1 made ------ Institutes A as universal heir 2011 --- Will 2 made ------ States “I revoke 2001 will; all to B” - The 2nd will must be intrinsically valid (as to form); If the 2 nd will is denied probate the 1st will can be submitted for probate (Theory of dependent relative revocation) 23
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian -
Requirements: A) it must be express and B) revocatory will must be valid. The difference of the 2, in regards to a 3 rd subsequent will - Implied 2012 – Will 3 made --- States “I revoke will 2” such will make will 1 operative again (it is revived) - Express 2012 --- Will 3 made --- States “I revoke will 2” Despite what is stated will 1 is not revived, since will 2 in its revocating clause expressly revokes will 1 (thus cannot be revived).
Third, Overt Acts o Requisites for Overt acts ( as provided in the Adriana Maloto Case) I. Intent to revoke; II. Testamentary Capacity; III. Preformed the overt act which is authorized by law; and IV. Substantive completion. o
What are the overt acts mentioned by the codal? (only 4) 1) Burning, 2) tearing, 3) cancelling, or 4) obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it. Atty. Sebastian: Is “scissoring” allowed? In a 1950’s case the tribunal supremo or the Spanish supreme court said yes but no case yet in the RP Is “pouring acid” the same as burning, since the subjective phase is complied with? NO, it should only be the four stated acts, but lucky for you there is no authority on it yet. Subjective phase – depends on the state of mind of the testator.
Doctrine of Republication (To make the will valid) (2 ways to republish) 1st, void as to form (Art. 804-806, 807 & 808 and 810) Remedy: Redo it again correctly the next time around or for holographic wills rewrite the said will; ONLY IF IT IS VOID 2nd, Lost its validity – revoked Remedy: Execute a codicil; “I revive the (no. of pages) will which was revoked on (date)” – By mere reference.
Art 832. 2001 --- A is the universal heir 2011--- “I revoke will 1, all to B” But B repudiates. What Article 832 says, A cannot get such on the count of B’s repudiation or incapacity, will stays in effect. Exception: If A is also an intestate heir, get from there. 24
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
Revocation based on False Cause There is a revoking will - what you do is deny such, show that the testator fasely known such, to which if he knew the truth he would not have done such This is hard to do because of the parole evidence rule - Thus it is important that the 2nd will state the reason for revocation. But in overt acts, no parole evidence rule unlike another will or codicil, parole evidence is a must. Cannot rely on oral testimony – Dean Man’s Statute
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (The need to probate a will) There was a will, and following such will there was an inheritance and partition wherein the heir took possession of what they were given under the will but there was no probate the happened. The issue is if a will not submitted to probate would support a claim of ownership and get the title for the property. Article 838 requires probate. Atty. Sebastian: Palpak yung pagkusulat ng decision. J. Ynares – Santiago attacked the issue incorrectly going after the right to dispose in the case forgetting the fact the testator here was still alive. Bobo.