Wills - 3 Digest

Marcela Rodelas v. Amparo Aranza

G.R. No. 106720; September 15, 1994

G.R. No. L-58509; December 7, 1982

Facts:

Facts:

The decedent names as devisees Roberto and Thelma Ajero, private respondent Clemente

Petitioner-appellant filed a petition with the CFI-Rizal for the probate of the holo will of

Sand, Meriam Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe Sand, Lisa Sand, and Dr. Jose

Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. The petition was

Ajero and their children.

opposed by appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes, Expedita Bonilla

The petitioners filed a petition for the allowance of decendent's holo will.

Frias and Ephraim Bonilla. The grounds of their opposition are as follows:

Private Respondnet opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament's

1. Appellant was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will by failing to produce

body nor the signature therein was in decendent's handwriting; it contained alterations

the will within twenty days of the death of the testator.

and corrections which were not duly signed by the decedent; and the will was procured by

2. The alleged copy of the will did not contain a disposition of property after death and was

pets through improper pressure and undue influence. Dr. Jose Ajero also opposed the

not intended to take effect.

petition. He contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran,

3. The original must be presented and not the copy thereof.

Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its

4. The deceased did not leave any will.

entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

The appellees also moved for the dismissal of the petition for the probate of the will. The

The trial court admitted the holo will to probate. On appeal, the said decision was reversed

appellees' motions were denied. They filed a Motion for recon. Motion for Recon was

and the pet for probate was dismissed. The CA found that the holo will failed to meet the

approved. Appellant's motion for recon was denied. Appellant appealed the case to the CA

requirements for its validity. I held that the decedent did not comply with Arts 813 and

which certified the case to the SC on hte ground that the appeal does not involve questions

814.It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated,

of fact.

or signed but not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made

Issue:

thereon had not been authenticated by decedent.

Whether or not a holo will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a

Ruling:

photostatic copy.

1. Refer to Art. 839.

Ruling:

These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. 5 Thus, in a petition

Yes. a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because

to admit a holographic will to probate, the only issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the

comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator. In the case of Gam vs.

instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will and testament;

Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and the contents of a lost or

(2) whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law;

destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who

(3) whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was

have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented; otherwise, it shall

executed; and,

produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity."

(4) whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of the

But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved by a

decedent.

photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other

A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its requirement affects the

similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be

validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the

exhibited and tested before the probate court," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of

testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions

the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of

cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament

the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.

void.Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-

Spouses Roberto and Thelma Ajero v. Court of Appeals and Clemente Sand

compliance with the provisions of Article 814.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Kalaw vs. Relova: Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not been noted under his signature, . . . the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined. 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. It is also proper to note that 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).

2. The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie Sand could not validly dispose of the house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, in its entirety. This is correct and must be affirmed.As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. However, in exceptional instances, courts are not powerless to do what the situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will. In the case at bench, decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic will that the Cabadbaran property is in the name of her late father, John H. Sand (which led oppositor Dr. Jose Ajero to question her conveyance of the same in its entirety). Thus, as correctly held by respondent court, she cannot validly dispose of the whole property, which she shares with her father's other heirs. --

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Sofia Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, Rufina Gomez, Oscar Jugo Ang, Carmelita Jugo

In view of certain unusual provisions of the will, which are of dubious legality, and because

G.R. No. L-62952; October 9, 1985

of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court assumed to have

Facts:

been filed with the petitioner's authorization) the trial court acted correctly in passing

Martin Jugo named and appointed herein petitioner Sofia Nepomuceno as his sole and only

upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. The

executor of his estate. The will clearly stated that the testator was legally married to a

probate of a will might become an Idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically

certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita. He stated

void. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be

that since 1952 he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living

passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue.

with petitioner as husband and wife. The testator and the petitioner herein were married in Victoria, Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace. The testator devised to his forced heirs,

2. Invalid. Refer to Art. 739.

namely his legal wife and his children (Oscar & Carmelita) his entire estate. He devised the

In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the

free portion thereof to herein petitioner.

spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by

The pet filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased. The

preponderance of evidence in the same action.

legal wife and her children filed an opposition.

Article 1028 of the Civil Code provides:

The lower court denied the probate of the will on the ground that the testator admitted to

The prohibitions mentioned in Article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to

cohabiting with the pet. The Will's admission to probate will be an Idle exercise because on

testamentary provisions.

the face of the Will, the invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident. The respondent

The records do not sustain a finding of innocence or good faith. As argued by the private

court set aside the decision of the CFI. It declared the will to be valid except the devise in

respondents:

favor of the pet pursuant to Art, 739 in relation with Art. 1028.

First. The last will and testament itself expressly admits indubitably on its face the

Pet filed a motion for recon - denied.

meretricious relationship between the testator and petitioner, the devisee.

Issues:

Second. Petitioner herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged ignorance

1. Whether or not the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after

of the true civil status of the testator, which led private respondents to present contrary

declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo validly drawn, it went on

evidence.

to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of herein

In short, the parties themselves dueled on the intrinsic validity of the legacy given in the

petitioner.

will to petitioner by the deceased testator at the start of the proceedings.

2. Validity of hte disposition in favor of the pet.

Whether or not petitioner knew that testator Martin Jugo, the man he had lived with as

Ruling:

man and wife, as already married, was an important and specific issue brought by the

1. No. The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when after declaring the Will to be

parties before the trial court, and passed upon by the Court of Appeals.

validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the Will and declared the

Instead of limiting herself to proving the extrinsic validity of the will, it was petitioner who

devise in favor of the petitioner null and void.

opted to present evidence on her alleged good faith in marrying the testator.

The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will. The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Will.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Polly Cayetano v. Hon. Tomas Leonidas and Nenita Campos Paguia

Vda. De Molo v. Molo

G.R. No. L-54919; May 30, 1984

90 Phil 37

Facts: Adoracion Campos died, leaving her father, petitioner Hermogenes Campos and her sisters,

Facts:

private respondent Nenita Paguia, Remedios Lopez, and Marieta Medina as surviving heirs.

The proponent of the will is the widow of the testator, while the opponents are nephews

Hermogenes Campos adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the

and nieces of the testator. Petitioner filed a pet for the probate of a will executed by the

deceased. Eleven months after, Nenita filed a pet for the reprobate of a will of the deceased

deceased on June 20, 1939. The will was denied probate on the ground that it did not

which was allegedly executed un the US.

comply with the formalities prescribed by law. In view of the disallowance, the widow filed

Nenita alleged that after the testatrix death, her last will and test was presented, probated,

another petition for the probate of a copy of another will executed on August 17, 1918. The

allowed, and registered in Philly.

will was admitted to probate in spite of the opposition of the appellants. The will of 1939

The pet for the reprobate of the will was opposed. Pet filed a motion to dismiss opposition

contains a revocatory clause expressly revoking the will of 1918.

stating that he has been able to verify the veracity of the will and now confirms the same to be truly the probated will of his daughter.

Ruling:

The lower court admitted the will to probate. Hermogenes filed a pet for relief, praying

The will can still be admitted to probate under the principle of ‘dependent relative

that the order allowing the will to be set aside was secured through fraudulent means.

revocation.’ Under this doctrine, the rule is established that where the act of destruction is

Motion for recon denied.

connected with the making of another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the

Meanwhile, pet died and left a will, which incidentally has been questioned by the

testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition

respondent.

intended to be substituted, the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the

Issues:

efficacy of the new disposition; and if for any reason, the new will intended to be made as a

Validity of the provisions of the will.

substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the original will remains in force.

Ruling: Petitioner maintains that since the respondent judge allowed the reprobate of Adoracion's will, Hermogenes C. Campos was divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law for him. - Without merit. Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus, the respondent judge should have denied its reprobate outright, the private respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion was, at the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. -Art. 16, 1039. The law which governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the petitioner argues that such law should not apply because it would be contrary to the sound and established public policy and would run counter to the specific provisions of Philippine Law.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Teodora Caneda v. Court of Appeals and William Cabrera

While the will recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the

G.R. No. 103554; May 28, 1993

presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were

Facts:

used, the same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses

Mateo Caballero executed a last will and testament in Talisay, Cebu before three attesting

subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of

witnesses. The said testator was duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public. It was

each other.

declared that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal

The phrase "and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for

properties to Presentacion Gaviola, Angel Abatayo, Rogelio Abatayo, Isabelito Abatayo,

his signature and on the left hand margin," obviously refers to the testator and not the

Benoni G. Cabrera and Marcosa Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be related to the

instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words "as his Last Will and

testator.

Testament." On the other hand, although the words "in the presence of the testator and in

Four months after the execution of the will, Mateo himself filed a petition seeking the

the presence of each and all of us" may, at first blush, appear to likewise signify and refer

probate of his will. The testator passed away before his petition could be heard.

to the witnesses, it must, however, be interpreted as referring only to the testator signing

One of the legatees named in his will sought appointment as special administrator of the

in the presence of the witnesses since said phrase immediately follows the words "he has

estate. The estimated value of the estate was 24K. Petitioners, claiming to be nephews and

signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on

nieces of the testator, instituted a 2nd petition for the intestate proceeding of the estate

the left hand margin." What is then clearly lacking, in the final logical analysis , is the

and opposed thereat the probate of the testator's will.

statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the

Benoni Cabrera died, hence, the probate court appointed William Cabrera as special

testator and of one another.

administrator. Petitioners opposed the probate on the ground that the testator was

It is our considered view that the absence of that statement required by law is a fatal defect

already in poor health when the will was executed. Petitioners likewise question the

or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here

genuineness of the testator's signature.

sought to be admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the

One of the attesting witness and the notary public testified that the testator was of sound

aforestated defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely

mind. The probate court rendered a decision declaring the will as the last will and

involving the form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the

testament of the deceased.

application of the substantial compliance rule, as contemplated in the pertinent provision

The pets elevated the case to the CA on the ground that the will in question is null and void

thereon in the Civil Code(Refer to Art, 809)

for the reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective. The appellate court affirmed

While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed at the end thereof and

the decision of the trial court. MR denied.

at the left margin of each page by the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be

Issue:

conclusively inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed their respective signatures in

Validity of the attestation clause.

the presence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly observed, the

Ruling:

presence of said signatures only establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does

Invalid. It is contended by petitioners that the aforequoted attestation clause, in

not prove that the attesting witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the

contravention of the express requirements of the third paragraph of Article 805 of the Civil

testator and of each other. The execution of a will is supposed to be one act so that where

Code for attestation clauses, fails to specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses

the testator and the witnesses sign on various days or occasions and in various

the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses,

combinations, the will cannot be stamped with the imprimatur of effectivity.

likewise signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Erlinda Agapay v. Carlina Palang and Herminia Dela Cruz

Manuel Reyes v. Court of Appeals and Julio Vivares

G.R. No. 116668; July 28, 1997

G.R. No. 12099; October 30, 1997

Facts:

Facts:

Miguel Palang contracted his first marraige(1949) with Carlina Vallesterol. They had one

On January 3, 1992, Torcuato Reyes executed his last will and testament. He bequeathed all

child, Hermina Palang(1950). Miguel left to work in Hawaii a few months after the

his prop to his wife Asuncion (Oning) and his brother Jose. The will consisted of two pages

wedding. He returned in 1954 for a year. His next visit was in 1964. The trial court found

and was signed by Torcuato Reyes in the presence of three witnesses: Antonio Veloso,

evidence that as early as 1957, Miguel attempted to divorce Carlina in Hawaii. When he

Gloria Borromeo, and Soledad Gaputan. Private respondent Julio A. Vivares was designated

came back for good in 1972, he refused to live with the PRs.

the executor and in his default or incapacity, his son Roch Alan S. Vivares. PR filed a

Miguel contracted a 2nd marriage with Erlinda Aglipay (1973). Two months earlier, M and

petition for probate of the will. The recognized natural children of Torcuato with Estebana

E jointly purchased an agricultural land. They also bought a res. lot. In 1975, M and C

Galolo and Celsa Agape filed an opposition. The court declared that the will was exec

executed a Deed of of all their conjugal prop to Herminia Palang. M and E produced a

according w/ the forma prescribed by law. However, it ruled that Asuncion was never

son(Kristofer). In 1979, they were convicted of concubinage. Miguel died 2 yrs later. RPs

married to the deceased (Hence, dispo made in will is invalid). Julio Vivares filed an

instituted an action for the recovery of ownership and poss with damages against pet in

appeals before the CA with the allegation that the oppositos failed to present ay comp.

the RTC of Urdaneta. PRs sought to get back the riceland and the house and lot allegedly

evidence taht Asuncion was legally married to another person. The CA affirmed the trial

purchased by Miguel during his cohabitation with the pet. The trial court dismissed the

court's decision but with the modification that dispo in favor of Oning was valid.

complaint. On appeal, the respondent court reversed the trial court's decision.

Ruling:

Issues:

As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic

1. Ownership of the two pieces of property subject of this action;

validity of the will sought to be probated. Thus, the court merely inquires on its due

2. Kristofer's heirship and filiation.

execution, whether or not it complies with the formalities prescribed by law, and the

Ruling:

testamentary capacity of the testator. It does not determine nor even by implication

1. In the case at bar, Erlinda tried to establish by her testimony that she is engaged in the

prejudge the validity or efficacy of the will's provisions. The intrinsic validity is not

business of buy and sell and had a sari-sari store but failed to persuade us that she actually

considered since the consideration thereof usually comes only after the will has been

contributed money to buy the subject Riceland. On the date of conveyance, petitioner was

proved and allowed. There are, however, notable circumstances wherein the intrinsic

only around twenty years of age and Miguel Palang was already sixty-four and a pensioner

validity was first determined as when the defect of the will is apparent on its face and the

of the U.S. Government. Considering her youthfulness, it is unrealistic to conclude that she

probate of the will may become a useless ceremony if it is intrinsically invalid. The

contributed P3,750.00 as her share in the purchase price. Petitioner now claims that the

intrinsic validity of a will may be passed upon because "practical considerations"

riceland was bought two months before Miguel and Erlinda actually cohabited. In the

demanded it as when there is preterition of heirs or the testamentary provisions are of

nature of an afterthought, said added assertion was intended to exclude their case from the

doubtful legality. Parenthetically, the rule on probate is not inflexible and absolute. Under

operation of Article 148 of the Family Code.

exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation

2. "inasmuch as questions as to who are the heirs of the decedent, proof of filiation of

constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the will. The lower court was not

illegitimate children and the determination of the estate of the latter and claims thereto

asked to rule upon the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will. As a result,

should be ventilated in the proper probate court or in a special proceeding instituted for

the declaration of the testator that Asuncion "Oning" Reyes was his wife did not have to be

the purpose and cannot be adjudicated in the instant ordinary civil action which is for

scrutinized during the probate proceedings. The propriety of the institution of Oning Reyes

recovery of ownership and possession."

as one of the devisees/legatees already involved inquiry on the will's intrinsic validity and which need not be inquired upon by the probate court.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Ursulina Ganuelas v. Robert Cawed

In the donation subject of the present case, there is nothing therein which indicates that

G.R. No. 123968; April 24, 2003

any right, title or interest in the donated properties was to be transferred to Ursulina prior

Facts:

to the death of Celestina.

Celestina Ganuelas executed a Deed of Donation of real prop covering seven parcels of land

The phrase "to become effective upon the death of the DONOR" admits of no other

in favor of her niece Ursulina Ganuelas .Celestina executed a docu purporting to set aside

interpretation but that Celestina intended to transfer the ownership of the properties to

the deed of donation. More than a month later, Celestina died(1967) without issue and any

Ursulina on her death, not during her lifetime. More importantly, the provision in the deed

surviving ascendants and siblings. After Celestina's death, Ursulina had been sharing the

stating that if the donee should die before the donor, the donation shall be deemed

produce of the donated properties with private respondents Leocadia G. Flores, et al.,

rescinded and of no further force and effect shows that the donation is a postmortem

nieces of Celestina. In 1982, Ursulina secured tax decs in her name over the donated props

disposition.

and since then, she refused to give private respondents any share in the produce. PRs filed

As stated in a long line of cases, one of the decisive characteristics of a donation mortis

a complaint against Ursulina. The complaint alleged that the Deed of Donation executed by

causa is that the transfer should be considered void if the donor should survive the donee.

Celestina in favor of Ursulina was void. The trial court rendering judgment declaring null

More. The deed contains an attestation clause expressly confirming the donation as mortis

and void the Deed of Donation and ordered the partition of the estate of Celestina.

causa. As the subject deed then is in the nature of a mortis causa disposition, the

Issue:

formalities of a will under Article 728 of the Civil Code should have been complied with,

Donation inter vivos or mortis causa??

failing which the donation is void and produces no effect.

Ruling: TC decision affirmed! Donation inter vivos differs from donation mortis causa in that in the former, the act is immediately operative even if the actual execution may be deferred until the death of the donor, while in the latter, nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the donee until the death of the donor-testator. If the donation is inter vivos, it must be executed and accepted with the formalities prescribed by Articles 748 and 749 of the Civil Code, except when it is onerous in which case the rules on contracts will apply. If it is mortis causa, the donation must be in the form of a will, with all the formalities for the validity of wills, otherwise it is void and cannot transfer ownership. The distinguishing characteristics of a donation mortis causa are the following: 1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or, what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the property while alive; 2. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed; 3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Spouses Ernesto and Evelyn Sicad v. Court of Appeals

The Incompetent Carmen Caniza v. Court of Appeals, Pedro and Leonora Estrada

G.R. No. 125888; August 13, 1998

G.R. No. 110427; February 24, 1997

Facts:

Facts:

A deed of donation was executed by Aurora Montinola. It named as donees her

Carmen Caniza (94), a spinster, a retired pharmacist, and former professor of the College

grandchildren. The deed also contained the signatures of the donees in acknowledgment of

of Chemistry and Pharmacy of the University of the Philippines, was declared incompetent

their acceptance of the donation. Aurora drew up a deed of revocation and caused it to be

by judgment of the QC RTC in a guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo A.

annotated as an adverse claim on hte title. She filed a petition in court for the cancellation

Evangelista. She was so adjudged because of her advanced age and physical infirmities

of the transfer on the ground that the transfer was mortis causa - thus, void because it did

which included cataracts in both eyes and senile dementia. Amparo A. Evangelista was

not comply with the formalities of a will. The donees opposed the pet. The trial court

appointed legal guardian of her person and estate. Amparo commenced a suit to eject the

judgment holding that the donation was one inter vivos. She elevated the case to the CA.

spouses Estrada from the said premises. In their Answer, the defendants declared that they

Meanwhile, Aurora died. Shortly after A's demise, a manifestation and motion was filed by

had been living in Cañiza's house since the 1960's; that in consideration of their faithful

Ernesto Sicad and Evelyn Sicad alleged taht they had become the owners of the prop by

service they had been considered by Cañiza as her own family, and the latter had in fact

virtue of a deed of definite sale. The CA affirmed the TC's decision.

executed a holographic will by which she "bequeathed" to the Estradas the house and lot in

Issue:

question.The MTC rendered judgment in favor of Caniza. The RTC reversed said decision.

Character of the deed of donation.

The appellate court affirmed the RTC's judgment.

Ruling:

Issue:

The evidence establishes that Montinola expressed her wish that the donation take effect

Evangelista's authority.

only after ten (10) years from her death, and that the deed include a prohibition on the sale

Ruling:

of the property for such period. Accordingly, a new proviso was inserted in the deed

The Estradas insist that the devise of the house to them by Cañiza clearly denotes her

reading: "however, the donees shall not sell or encumber the properties herein donated

intention that they remain in possession thereof, and legally incapacitated her judicial

within 10 years after the death of the donor." The actuality of the subsequent insertion of

guardian, Amparo Evangelista, from evicting them therefrom, since their ouster would be

this new proviso is apparent on the face of the instrument: the intercalation is easily

inconsistent with the ward's will.

perceived and identified — it was clearly typed on a different machine, and is crammed

A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the testator's death, it may be changed

into the space between the penultimate paragraph of the deed and that immediately

or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right can be

preceding it.

claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit: "No will shall pass either real or personal

Not only did Aurora Montinola order the insertion in the deed of that restrictive proviso,

property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court" (ART. 838,

but also, after recordation of the deed of donation, she never stopped treating the property

id.). An owner's intention to confer title in the future to persons possessing property by

as her own. She continued, as explicity authorized in the deed itself, to possess the

his tolerance, is not inconsistent with the former's taking back possession in the meantime

property, enjoy its fruits and otherwise exercise the rights of dominion, paying the

for any reason deemed sufficient. And that in this case there was sufficient cause for the

property taxes as they fell due — all these she did until she transferred the Property to the

owner's resumption of possession is apparent: she needed to generate income from the

Sicad Spouses on July 10, 1990.

house on account of the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her extreme age.

As already intimated, the real nature of a deed is to be ascertained by both its language and

Amparo Evangelista was appointed by a competent court the general guardian of both the

the intention of the parties as demonstrated by the circumstances attendant upon its

person and the estate of her aunt, Carmen Cañiza. Her Letters of Guardianship clearly

execution. In this respect, case law has laid down significant parameters.

installed her as the "guardian over the person and properties of the incompetent CARMEN CANIZA with full authority to take possession of the property of said incompetent in any

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

province or provinces in which it may be situated and to perform all other acts necessary for the management of her properties . . " By that appointment, it became Evangelista's duty to care for her aunt's person, to attend to her physical and spiritual needs, to assure her well-being, with right to custody of her person in preference to relatives and friends. It also became her right and duty to get possession of, and exercise control over, Cañiza's property, both real and personal, it being recognized principle that the ward has no right to possession or control of his property during her incompetency. That right to manage the ward's estate carries with it the right to take possession thereof and recover it from anyone who retains it, and bring and defend such actions as may be needful for this purpose. --

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Heirs of Jesus Fran v. Hon. Bernardo LL. Salas

respondents did not receive a formal notice of the decision as they claim in their Omnibus

G.R. No. L-53546; June 25, 1992

Motion for Reconsideration, these acts nevertheless constitute indubitable proof of their

Facts:

prior actual knowledge of the same. A formal notice would have been an idle ceremony. In

Remedios Tiosejo died with neither descendants nor ascendants; she left real and personal

testate proceedings, a decision logically precedes the project of partition, which is

properties located in Cebu City, Ormoc City and Puerto Bello, Merida, Leyte. She left a last

normally an implementation of the will and is among the last operative acts to terminate

will and testament wherein she bequeathed to her collateral relatives(b,s,n,n) all her

the proceedings. If private respondents did not have actual knowledge of the decision, they

properties. She designated Rosario Tan or, upon the latter's death, Jesus Fran, as executor.

should have desisted from performing the above acts and instead demanded from

Jesus Fran filed a pet for the probate of Remedios' will. The pet alleged that Rosario was

petitioner Fran the fulfillment of his alleged promise to show them the will. The same

not physically well. Tan signed a waiver in favor of Fran on hte third page of the pet.

conclusion refutes and defeats the plea that they were not notified of the order authorizing

The PRs (sisters of the deceased) filed a manifestation, alleging that they needed time to

the Clerk of Court to receive the evidence and that the Clerk of Court did not notify them of

study the petition bec. some heirs have been intentionally omitted. PRs did not file any

the date of the reception of evidence. Besides, such plea must fail because private

opposition. The pet thus became uncontested. The probate court rendered a decision

respondents were present when the court dictated the said order.

admitting the will to probate. Pet filed an Inventory of the Estate, copies thereof were furnished to the PRs. A Project of Partition was submitted by hte exec to the court. The PRs still did not make any objections. TC issued its Order approving the partition. Thereafter, the aforesaid branch(which issued the order) was converted to a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. PRs filed with the new branch a MR of the probate judgment and the order of partition. Pets challenged the juris of the court. Respondent Judge issued an order declaring the testamentary dispos as void.

Issue: 1. GAD of respondent Judge.

Ruling: 1. Yes. Respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he granted the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and thereafter set aside the probate judgment of 13 November 1972 in Sp. Proc. No. 3309-R, declared the subject will of the testatrix a forgery, nullified the testamentary dispositions therein and ordered the conversion of the testate proceedings into one of intestacy. After the probate court rendered its decision on 13 November 1972, and there having been no claim presented despite publication of notice to creditors, petitioner Fran submitted a Project of Partition which private respondent Maria M. Vda. de Gandiongco voluntarily signed and to which private respondent Espina expressed her conformity through a certification filed with the probate court. Assuming for the sake of argument that private Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Joseph Cua v. Gloria Vargas

the filing of the present complaint. Following Rule 74, these extrajudicial settlements do

G.R. No. 156536; October 31, 2006

not bind respondents, and the partition made without their knowledge and consent is

Facts:

invalid insofar as they are concerned.

A parcel of land(99 sqm) was left behind by the late Paulina Vargas. The heirs executed a

*This is not to say, though, that respondents' co-heirs cannot validly sell their hereditary

notarized extrajudicial settlement among themselves, partitioning and adjudicating unto

rights to third persons even before the partition of the estate. The heirs who actually

themselves the lot in question, each of them getting a share of 11 sq meters. Among the

participated in the execution of the extrajudicial settlements, which included the sale to

heirs, only Ester, Visitacion, Juan, Zenaida and Rosario signed it. Florentino, Andres,

petitioner of their pro indiviso shares in the subject property, are bound by the same.

Antonina, and Gloria did not sign the document. The document was published for three

Nevertheless, respondents are given the right to redeem these shares pursuant to Article

consecutive weeks. An extra-j settlement with sale was again executed. Once more, only

1088 of the Civil Code. The right to redeem was never lost because respondents were

E,V,J,Z, and R signed and their shares were sold to Joseph Cua. According to Gloria, she

never notified in writing of the actual sale by their co-heirs.

came to know of hte settlement only when the original house was being demolished. She also claimed that she was unaware of the first document. She sent a letter to petitioner in

2. Written notice is indispensable and mandatory, actual knowledge of the sale acquired in

order to redeem the property.

some other manner by the redemptioner notwithstanding. It cannot be counted from the

When Gloria and Jose failed to reach an amicable settlement, the former filed a case for

time advance notice is given of an impending or contemplated sale. The law gives the co-

annulment of the EJS and legal redemption of the lot. After trial on the merits, the MTC

heir thirty days from the time written notice of the actual sale within which to make up his

rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. The MTC upheld the sale to petitioner because

or her mind and decide to repurchase or effect the redemption.

the transaction purportedly occurred after the partition of the property among the co-

It should be kept in mind that the obligation to serve written notice devolves upon the

owner heirs. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision.

vendor co-heirs because the latter are in the best position to know the other co-owners

On appeal, the CA reversed the ruling of both lower courts. MR denied.

who, under the law, must be notified of the sale. This will remove all uncertainty as to the fact of the sale, its terms and its perfection and validity, and quiet any doubt that the

Issues:

alienation is not definitive. As a result, the party notified need not entertain doubt that the

1. Whether heirs are deemed constructively notified and bound, regardless of their failure

seller may still contest the alienation.

to participate therein, by an extrajudicial settlement and partition of estate when the

Considering, therefore, that respondents' co-heirs failed to comply with this requirement,

extrajudicial settlement and partition has been duly published;

there is no legal impediment to allowing respondents to redeem the shares sold to

2. Whether the written notice required to be served by an heir to his co-heirs in connection

petitioner given the former's obvious willingness and capacity to do so.

with the sale of hereditary rights to a stranger before partition under Article 1088 of the Civil Code can be dispensed with when such co-heirs have actual knowledge of the sale.

Ruling: 1. The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution. The requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate. In this connection, the records of the present case confirm that respondents never signed either of the settlement documents, having discovered their existence only shortly before Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Cresencia Tubo Rodriguez v. Evangeline Rodriguez

--> Being a summary proceeding intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting

G.R. No. 175720; September 11, 2007

actual possession or right to possession of property, the question of title is not involved

Facts:

and should be raised by the affected party in an appropriate action in the proper court.

Juanito Rodriguez owned a 5-door apartment. In 1983, he executed a "Huling habilin at testamento' giving petitioner Cresencia Tubo Rodriguez, his live-in partner, apartments D

2. However, when the issue of ownership is raised the court is not ousted of its jurisdiction.

and E, and his children Benjamin(deceased husband of respondent), apartment A;

Section 16 of Rule 70.(ROC)  All that the trial court can do is to make an initial

respondent Buenaventura, aprtment B; and Belen, apartment C.

determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to

However, in 1984, the deceased executed a deed of absolute sale over the property in favor

its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership. But this adjudication is only

of the petitioner.

provisional and does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving

In 2001, petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the respondents,

title to the property.

alleging that she is the lawful and registered owner of the property, and that in 1984, she allowed respondents to occupy hte units. However, without her knowlege and consent, the

*Wills - The lower courts considered the following documentary evidence in arriving at

respondents separately leased the units to Magpantay, Navarro, and Escota.

their respective decisions: 1) Huling Habilin at Testamento 2) Deed of Sale 3) TCT No. in

Respondents claimed ownership of hte property by succession. They alleged that the deed

the name of the petitioner; and 4) Partition Agreement executed by both the respondents

of sale was simulated and void. The MTC rendered judgment in favor of the respondents.

and the petitioner.

The RTC reversed the decision of the MTC. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC. MR

Based on the foregoing documentary evidence, we find that there is preponderance of

denied.

evidence in favor of the petitioner’s claim. Respondents failed to prove their right of possession, as the Huling Habilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement have no legal

Issue:

effect since the will has not been probated. Before any will can have force or validity it

1.

Possession of the property.

must be probated. This cannot be dispensed with and is a matter of public policy. Article

2.

Ownership

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

Ruling:

probated, the Partition Agreement which was executed pursuant thereto cannot be given

1. *Petitioner alleges that as the registered owner of the subject property, she enjoys the

effect. Thus, the fact that petitioner was a party to said agreement becomes immaterial in

right of possession thereof and that question of ownership cannot be raised in an

the determination of the issue of possession.

ejectment case unless it is intertwined with the issue of possession. While the court may

Moreover, at the time the deed of sale was executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito

look into the evidence of title or ownership and possession de jure to determine the nature

Rodriguez remained the owner thereof since ownership would only pass to his heirs at the

of possession, it cannot resolve the issue of ownership because the resolution of said issue

time of his death. Thus, as owner of the property, he had the absolute right to dispose of it

would effect an adjudication on ownership which is not proper in the summary action for

during his lifetime.

unlawful detainer. Petitioner insists that the Court of Appeals 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. -ya! duh!

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

Teresita Bordalba v. Court of Appeals

Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 112443; January 25, 2002

G.R. No. 118464; Decemebr 21, 1998

Facts:

Facts:

A lot located in Mandaue City was originally owned by the late Carmeno Jayme and

Lourdes Sampayo and Ignacio Conti, married to Rosario Cuario, were the co-owners of a

Margarita de Jayme. In 1947, an EJP was executed. Distributed as follows:

lot in Lucena City. Lourdes died without issue. PRs, claiming to be the collateral relatives of

1. 1/3 in favor of - (a) their grandchild Nicanor Jayme, the deceased spouse of private

the deceased Lourdes, filed an action for partition. Conti refused the partition on the

respondent Candida Flores and the father of private respondents Emmanuel, Dina, Evelia

ground that PRs failed to produce any document to prove that they were the rightful heirs

and Gesila, all surnamed Jayme; and (b) their grandchild Asuncion Jayme-Baclay, whose

of Lourdes. When Ignacio died, he was substituted as party-defendant by his kids.

heirs are private respondents Angelo Baclay, Elnora Baclay and Carmen Jayme-Daclan;

PR Lydia Sampayo presented an original copy of her cert. of live birth to prove that she

2. 1/3 to their daughter Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez, mother of petitioner Teresita P.

was one of the nieces of Lourdes. Josefina, Remedios, Luis and Manuel tried to prove that

Bordalba; and

they were the siblings of Lourdes by presenting their baptismal certs together with the

3. 1/3 to an unidentified party.

birth cert of Manuel.

Nicanor's house stands on the land adjudicated to the heirs. Sometime in 1964, pets

Rosario claimed that Lourdes agreed to leave her share of the property to them. However,

mother, filed with the RTC an amended application for the registration of the lot. Nicanor

no will, either testamentary of holo, was presented by pets to substantiate this claim. The

and Asuncion filed their opposition contending that said application included the 1/3

TC declared PRs as the rightful heirs of Lourdes. It further ordered PRs and pets to submit

portion inherited by them in the extra-judicial partition. The case was dismissed.

a project of partition. Pets elevated the case to the CA, which affirmed the assailed decision.

Subsequently, pet filed with the Bureau of Lands an application for a free patent. Pet was

MR denied.

successfullly granted a free patent. Thereafter, pet caused the subdivision of the lot into 6 lots. The private respondents filed with the RTC, the instant complaint against the

Issues:

petitioner and the director of the BOL. The trial court, finding that fraud was employed by

1. WON the settlement of the estate is a condition precedent before the commencement of

pet, declared said patent and title void and ordered its cancellation. However, it declared

any action pertaining to hte deceased.

that spouses Genaro U. Cabahug and Rita Capala as well as the Rural Bank of Mandaue are

2. WON PRs are the rightful heirs of the deceased.

purchasers and mortgagee in good faith, respectively; and consequently upheld as valid the sale of the lot. Both petitioner and private respondents appealed to the CA which

Ruling:

affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court.

1. No. The title to the property owned by a person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such transmission is, under the present law, subject to the claims of administration

Wills Issue:(ito lang ata)

and the property may be taken from the heirs for the purpose of paying debts and

WON the PRs are the legal heirs of the deceased.

expenses, but this does not prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the death of the intestate, from himself to his heirs.

Ruling:

Petitioners' theory as to the requirement of publication would have been correct had the

Other than their bare allegations to dispute their heirship, no hard evidence was presented

action been for the partition of the estate of Lourdes Sampayo, or if we were dealing with

by them to substantiate their allegations. Besides, in order that an heir may assert his right

extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs and the summary settlement of

to the property of a deceased, no previous judicial declaration of heirship is necessary.

estates of small value. But what private respondents are pursuing is the mere segregation of Lourdes' one-half share which they inherited from her through intestate succession. This is a simple case of ordinary partition between co-owners. Rule 69, Sec. 1)

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

2. Yes. Altogether, the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted are competent and adequate proofs that private respondents are collateral heirs of Lourdes Sampayo. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. Legal or intestate succession takes place if a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one which has subsequently lost its validity. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the decedent. It was established during the trial that Lourdes died intestate and without issue. Private respondents as sister, nephews and nieces now claim to be the collateral relatives of Lourdes.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

[G.R. No. 156819. December 11, 2003]

Raul E. Gala

6,640

66,400.00

ALICIA E. GALA, GUIA G. DOMINGO and RITA G. BENSON, petitioners, vs. ELLICE

Ofelia E. Gala

6,640

66,400.00

AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MARGO MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

Guia G. Domingo

6,640

66,400.00

CORPORATION, RAUL E. GALA, VITALIANO N. AGUIRRE II, ADNAN V. ALONTO, ELIAS

Virgilio Galeon

40

40.00

N. CRESENCIO, MOISES S. MANIEGO, RODOLFO B. REYNO, RENATO S. GONZALES,

Julian Jader

40

40.00

VICENTE C. NOLAN, NESTOR N. BATICULON, respondents.

TOTAL

DECISION

On November 10, 1982, Manuel Gala sold 13,314 of his shares in Ellice to Margo. [10]

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Alicia Gala transferred 1,000 of her shares in Ellice to a certain Victor de Villa on March 2,

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the

1983. That same day, de Villa transferred said shares to Margo. [11] A few months later,

decision dated November 8, 2002 [1] and the resolution dated December 27, 2002 [2] of

on August 28, 1983, Alicia Gala transferred 854.3 of her shares to Ofelia Gala, 500 to Guia

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71979.

Domingo and 500 to Raul Gala. [12]

On March 28, 1979, the spouses Manuel and Alicia Gala, their children Guia Domingo,

Years later, on February 8, 1988, Manuel Gala transferred all of his remaining holdings in

Ofelia Gala, Raul Gala, and Rita Benson, and their encargados Virgilio Galeon and Julian

Ellice, amounting to 2,164 shares, to Raul Gala. [13]

Jader formed and organized the Ellice Agro-Industrial Corporation. [3] The total

On July 20, 1988, Alicia Gala transferred 10,000 of her shares to Margo. [14]

subscribed capital stock of the corporation was apportioned as follows:

Thus, as of the date on which this case was commenced, the stockholdings in Ellice were

Name

allocated as follows:

Number of Shares Amount

20,000

P200,000.00 [9]

Manuel R. Gala

11, 700 1,170,000.00

Name

Number of Shares Amount

Alicia E. Gala

23,200

Margo

24,312.5 2,431,250.00

2,320,000.00

Guia G. Domingo

16

1,600.00

Alicia Gala

Ofelia E. Gala

40

4,000.00

Raul Gala

2,704.5

270,450.00

Ofelia Gala

980.8

98,080.00

516

51,600.00

Raul E. Gala

40

4,000.00

21,480.2 2,148,020.00

Rita G. Benson

2

200.00

Gina Domingo

Virgilio Galeon

1

100.00

Rita Benson

2

200.00

Virgilio Galeon

1

100.00

Julian Jader

1

100.00

As payment for their subscriptions, the Gala spouses transferred several parcels of land

Adnan Alonto

1

100.00

located in the provinces of Quezon and Laguna to Ellice. [5]

Elias Cresencio

1

100.00

In 1982, Manuel Gala, Alicia Gala and Ofelia Gala subscribed to an additional 3,299 shares,

TOTAL

10,652.5 shares and 286.5 shares, respectively. [6]

On June 23, 1990, a special stockholders’ meeting of Margo was held, where a new board of

On June 28, 1982, Manuel Gala and Alicia Gala acquired an additional 550 shares and 281

directors was elected. [15] That same day, the newly-elected board elected a new set of

shares, respectively. [7]

officers. Raul Gala was elected as chairman, president and general manager. During the

Subsequently, on September 16, 1982, Guia Domingo, Ofelia Gala, Raul Gala, Virgilio Galeon

meeting, the board approved several actions, including the commencement of proceedings

and Julian Jader incorporated the Margo Management and Development Corporation

to annul certain dispositions of Margo’s property made by Alicia Gala. The board also

(Margo). [8] The total subscribed capital stock of Margo was apportioned as follows:

resolved to change the name of the corporation to MRG Management and Development

Name

Corporation. [16]

Julian Jader TOTAL

1 35,000

P3,500,000.00 [4]

Number of Shares Amount

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

100.00

50,000

P5,000,000.00

Similarly, a special stockholders’ meeting of Ellice was held on August 24, 1990 to elect a

(c)

Ordering the respondent Raul Gala to return all the titles of real properties in the

new board of directors. In the ensuing organizational meeting later that day, a new set of

names of Ellice and Margo which were unlawfully taken and held by him.

corporate officers was elected. Likewise, Raul Gala was elected as chairman, president and

(d)

general manager.

records of both Ellice and Margo which are in their possession and control.

On March 27, 1990, respondents filed against petitioners with the Securities and Exchange

SO ORDERED. [22]

Commission (SEC) a petition for the appointment of a management committee or receiver,

Respondents appealed to the SEC En Banc, which, on July 4, 2002, rendered its Decision,

accounting and restitution by the directors and officers, and the dissolution of Ellice Agro-

the decretal portion of which reads:

Industrial Corporation for alleged mismanagement, diversion of funds, financial losses and

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Hearing Officer dated November 3, 1998 is hereby

the dissipation of assets, docketed as SEC Case No. 3747. [17] The petition was amended

REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one hereby rendered granting the appeal, upholding

to delete the prayer for the appointment of a management committee or receiver and for

the Amended Petition in SEC Case No. 3747, and dismissing the Petition with Prayer for

the dissolution of Ellice. Additionally, respondents prayed that they be allowed to inspect

Issuance of Preliminary Restraining Order and granting the Compulsory Counterclaim in

the corporate books and documents of Ellice. [18]

SEC Case No. 4027.

In turn, petitioners initiated a complaint against the respondents on June 26, 1991,

Accordingly, appellees Alicia Gala and Guia G. Domingo are ordered as follows:

docketed as SEC Case No. 4027, praying for, among others, the nullification of the elections

(1)

of directors and officers of both Margo Management and Development Corporation and

representing the consideration for the unauthorized sale of a parcel of land to Lucky

Ellice Industrial Corporation; the nullification of all board resolutions issued by Margo

Homes and Development Corporation (Exhs. “N” and “CCC”);

from June 23, 1990 up to the present and all board resolutions issued by Ellice from

(2)

August 24, 1990 up to the present; and the return of all titles to real property in the name

products averaging P120,000.00 per month from February 17, 1988;

of Margo and Ellice, as well as all corporate papers and records of both Margo and Ellice

(3)

jointly and severally indemnify the appellants P90,000.00 as attorney’s fees;

which are in the possession and control of the respondents. [19]

(4)

jointly and solidarily pay the costs of suit;

The two cases were consolidated in an Order dated November 23, 1993. [20]

(5)

turn over to the individual appellants the corporate records of ELLICE and

Meanwhile, during the pendency of the SEC cases, the shares of stock of Alicia and Ofelia

MARGO in their possession; and

Gala in Ellice were levied and sold at public auction to satisfy a judgment rendered against

(6)

them by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 66, in Civil Case No. 42560, entitled

SO ORDERED. [23]

“Regines Condominium v. Ofelia (Gala) Panes and Alicia Gala.” [21]

Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals which dismissed the

On November 3, 1998, the SEC rendered a Joint Decision in SEC Cases Nos. 3747 and 4027,

petition for review and affirmed the decision of the SEC En Banc. [24]

the dispositive portion of which states:

Hence, this petition, raising the following issues:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:

I

1.

Dismissing the petition in SEC Case No. 3747,

WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING AS ILLEGAL AND

2.

Issuing the following orders in SEC Case No. 4027;

CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY THE PURPOSES AND MANNER IN WHICH RESPONDENT

(a)

Enjoining herein respondents to perform corporate acts of both Ellice and Margo,

CORPORATIONS WERE ORGANIZED – WHICH WERE, E.G. TO (1) “PREVENT THE GALA

Directing the respondents to return to herein petitioners all corporate papers,

jointly and solidarily pay ELLICE and/or MARGO the amount of P700,000.00

jointly and severally pay ELLICE and MARGO the proceeds of sales of agricultural

desist and refrain from interfering with the management of ELLICE and MARGO.

as directors and officers thereof.

ESTATE FROM BEING BROUGHT UNDER THE COVERAGE (SIC)” OF THE COMPREHENSIVE

(b)

AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP) AND (2) PURPORTEDLY FOR “ESTATE

Nullifying the election of the new sets of Board of Directors and Officers of Ellice

and Margo from June 23, 1990 to the present, and that of Ellice from August 24, 1990 to

PLANNING.”

the present.

II

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ERRED (1) IN SUSPICIOUSLY RESOLVING THE

SEC has no authority to inquire whether the corporation has purposes other than those

CASE WITHIN TWO (2) DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF RESPONDENTS’ COMMENT; AND (2) IN

stated, and mandamus will lie to compel it to issue the certificate of incorporation. [30]

NOT MAKING A DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES OF FACTS AND INSTEAD RITUALLY

Assuming there was even a grain of truth to the petitioners’ claims regarding the legality of

CITING THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION A QUO WITHOUT DISCUSSION

what are alleged to be the corporations’ true purposes, we are still precluded from

AND ANALYSIS;

granting them relief. We cannot address here their concerns regarding circumvention of

III

land reform laws, for the doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes a court from

WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ORGANIZATION OF

arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is

RESPONDENT CORPORATIONS WAS NOT ILLEGAL FOR DEPRIVING PETITIONER RITA G.

initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. [31] Since primary

BENSON OF HER LEGITIME.

jurisdiction over any violation of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3844 that may have been

IV

committed is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB),

WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT PIERCING THE VEILS OF

[32] then it is with said administrative agency that the petitioners must first plead their

CORPORATE FICTION OF RESPONDENTS CORPORATIONS ELLICE AND MARGO. [25]

case. With regard to their claim that Ellice and Margo were meant to be used as mere tools

In essence, petitioners want this Court to disregard the separate juridical personalities of

for the avoidance of estate taxes, suffice it say that the legal right of a taxpayer to reduce

Ellice and Margo for the purpose of treating all property purportedly owned by said

the amount of what otherwise could be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which

corporations as property solely owned by the Gala spouses.

the law permits, cannot be doubted. [33]

The petitioners’ first contention in support of this theory is that the purposes for which

The petitioners’ allegation that Ellice and Margo were run without any of the typical

Ellice and Margo were organized should be declared as illegal and contrary to public

corporate formalities, even if true, would not merit the grant of any of the relief set forth in

policy. They claim that the respondents never pursued exemption from land reform

their prayer. We cannot disregard the corporate entities of Ellice and Margo on this

coverage in good faith and instead merely used the corporations as tools to circumvent

ground.

land reform laws and to avoid estate taxes. Specifically, they point out that respondents

administrative case before the SEC. [34]

have not shown that the transfers of the land in favor of Ellice were executed in

Thus, even if Ellice and Margo were organized for the purpose of exempting the properties

compliance with the requirements of Section 13 of R.A. 3844. [26] Furthermore, they

of the Gala spouses from the coverage of land reform legislation and avoiding estate taxes,

alleged that respondent corporations were run without any of the conventional corporate

we cannot disregard their separate juridical personalities.

formalities. [27]

Next, petitioners make much of the fact that the Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed

At the outset, the Court holds that petitioners’ contentions impugning the legality of the

Decision a mere two days from the time the respondents filed their Comment. They

purposes for which Ellice and Margo were organized, amount to collateral attacks which

alleged that the appellate court could not have made a deliberate study of the factual

are prohibited in this jurisdiction. [28]

questions in the case, considering the sheer volume of evidence available. [35] In support

The best proof of the purpose of a corporation is its articles of incorporation and by-laws.

of this allegation, they point out that the Court of Appeals merely adopted the factual

The articles of incorporation must state the primary and secondary purposes of the

findings of the SEC En Banc verbatim, without deliberation and analysis. [36]

corporation, while the by-laws outline the administrative organization of the corporation,

In People v. Mercado, [37] we ruled that the speed with which a lower court disposes of a

which, in turn, is supposed to insure or facilitate the accomplishment of said purpose. [29]

case cannot thus be attributed to the injudicious performance of its function. Indeed,

In the case at bar, a perusal of the Articles of Incorporation of Ellice and Margo shows no

magistrates are not supposed to study a case only after all the pertinent pleadings have

sign of the allegedly illegal purposes that petitioners are complaining of. It is well to note

been filed. It is a mark of diligence and devotion to duty that jurists study a case long

that, if a corporation’s purpose, as stated in the Articles of Incorporation, is lawful, then the

before the deadline set for the promulgation of their decision has arrived. The two-day

At most, such allegations, if proven to be true, should be addressed in an

period between the filing of petitioners’ Comment and the promulgation of the decision Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

was sufficient time to consider their arguments and to incorporate these in the decision.

reserved for them in their capacity as compulsory heirs, then they should simply exercise

As long as the lower court does not sacrifice the orderly administration of justice in favor

their actio ad supplendam legitimam, or their right of completion of legitime. [44] Such

of a speedy but reckless disposition of a case, it cannot be taken to task for rendering its

relief must be sought during the distribution and partition stage of a case for the

decision with due dispatch. The Court of Appeals in this intra-corporate controversy

settlement of the estate of Manuel Gala, filed before a court which has taken jurisdiction

committed no reversible error and, consequently, its decision should be affirmed. [38]

over the settlement of said estate. [45]

Verily, if such swift disposition of a case is considered a non-issue in cases where the life or

Finally, the petitioners pray that the veil of corporate fiction that shroud both Ellice and

liberty of a person is at stake, then we see no reason why the same principle cannot apply

Margo be pierced, consistent with their earlier allegation that both corporations were

when only private rights are involved.

formed for purposes contrary to law and public policy. In sum, they submit that the

Furthermore, well-settled is the rule that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are

respondent corporations are mere business conduits of the deceased Manuel Gala and thus

conclusive on the parties and are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. They carry even

may be disregarded to prevent injustice, the distortion or hiding of the truth or the “letting

more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of a lower fact-finding

in” of a just defense. [46]

body. [39] Likewise, the findings of fact of administrative bodies, such as the SEC, will not

However, to warrant resort to the extraordinary remedy of piercing the veil of corporate

be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of

fiction, there must be proof that the corporation is being used as a cloak or cover for fraud

said agencies, or unless the aforementioned findings are not supported by substantial

or illegality, or to work injustice, [47] and the petitioners have failed to prove that Ellice

evidence. [40]

and Margo were being used thus. They have not presented any evidence to show how the

However, in the interest of equity, this Court has reviewed the factual findings of the SEC

separate juridical entities of Ellice and Margo were used by the respondents to commit

En Banc, which were affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, and has found no cogent

fraudulent, illegal or unjust acts. Hence, this contention, too, must fail.

reason to disturb the same. Indeed, we are convinced that the arguments raised by the

On June 5, 2003, the petitioners filed a Reply, where, aside from reiterating the contentions

petitioners are nothing but unwarranted conclusions of law. Specifically, they insist that

raised in their Petition, they averred that there is no proof that either capital gains taxes or

the Gala spouses never meant to part with the ownership of the shares which are in the

documentary stamp taxes were paid in the series of transfers of Ellice and Margo shares.

names of their children and encargados, and that all transfers of property to these

Thus, they invoke Sections 176 and 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code, which

individuals are supposedly void for being absolutely simulated for lack of consideration.

would bar the presentation or admission into evidence of any document that purports to

[41] However, as correctly held by the SEC En Banc, the transfers were only relatively

transfer any benefit derived from certificates of stock if the requisite documentary stamps

simulated, inasmuch as the evident intention of the Gala spouses was to donate portions of

have not been affixed thereto and cancelled.

their property to their children and encargados. [42]

Curiously, the petitioners never raised this issue before the SEC Hearing Officer, the SEC En

In an attempt to bolster their theory that the organization of the respondent corporations

Banc or the Court of Appeals. Thus, we are precluded from passing upon the same for, as a

was illegal, the petitioners aver that the legitime pertaining to petitioners Rita G. Benson

rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below,

and Guia G. Domingo from the estate of their father had been subject to unwarranted

for points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower

reductions as a result thereof. In sum, they claim that stockholdings in Ellice which the late

court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they

Manuel Gala had assigned to them were insufficient to cover their legitimes, since Benson

cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process

was only given two shares while Domingo received only sixteen shares out of a total

impel this rule. [48] Furthermore, even if these allegations were proven to be true, such

number of 35,000 issued shares. [43]

facts would not render the underlying transactions void, for these instruments would not

Moreover, the reliefs sought by petitioners should have been raised in a proceeding for

be the sole means, much less the best means, by which the existence of these transactions

settlement of estate, rather than in the present intra-corporate controversy. If they are

could be proved. For this purpose, the books and records of a corporation, which include

genuinely interested in securing that part of their late father’s property which has been

the stock and transfer book, are generally admissible in evidence in favor of or against the

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)

corporation and its members. They can be used to prove corporate acts, a corporation’s financial status and other matters, including one’s status as a stockholder.

Most

importantly, these books and records are, ordinarily, the best evidence of corporate acts and proceedings. [49] Thus, reference to these should have been made before the SEC Hearing Officer, for this Court will not entertain this belated questioning of the evidence now. It is always sad to see families torn apart by money matters and property disputes. The concept of a close corporation organized for the purpose of running a family business or managing family property has formed the backbone of Philippine commerce and industry. Through this device, Filipino families have been able to turn their humble, hard-earned life savings into going concerns capable of providing them and their families with a modicum of material comfort and financial security as a reward for years of hard work. A family corporation should serve as a rallying point for family unity and prosperity, not as a flashpoint for familial strife. It is hoped that people reacquaint themselves with the concepts of mutual aid and security that are the original driving forces behind the formation of family corporations and use these tenets in order to facilitate more civil, if not more amicable, settlements of family corporate disputes. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED.

The Decision dated

November 8, 2002 and the Resolution dated December 27, 2002, both of the Court of Appeals, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β (1932)