Art. 777

Alfonso'v.'Sps.'Andres'!

• Succession; Administration of Property; The title of the property owned by a person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs; Such transmission is subject to the claims of administration and the property may be taken from the heirs for the purpose of paying debts and expenses, but this does not prevent an immediate passage of the title, upon the death of the intestate, from himself to his heirs.—The title of the property owned by a person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. The deed of extrajudicial settlement executed by Filomena Santos Vda. de Alfonso and Jose evidences their intention to partition the inherited property. It delineated what portion of the inherited property would belong to whom.

• Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate; The sale to respondents was made after the execution of the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate; The extrajudicial settlement of estate, even though not published, being deemed a partition of the inherited property, Jose could validly transfer ownership over the specific portion of the property that was assigned to him.!!

Republic'v.'Marcos'!

• Inheritance; The property rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted to another through the decedent’s death.—Under the rules of succession, the heirs instantaneously became co-owners of the Marcos properties upon the death of the President. In this concept, nothing prevents the heirs from exercising their right to transfer or dispose of the properties that constitute their legitimes, even absent their declaration or absent the partition or the distribution of the estate.

• Since the pending case before the Sandiganbayan survives the death of Ferdinand E. Marcos, it is imperative therefore that the estate be duly represented. The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of every party to a litigation who may be affected by the intervening death. The deceased litigant is himself protected, as he continues to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate.

• While it was not proven that respondents conspired in accumulating ill- gotten

wealth, they may be in possession, ownership or control of such ill-gotten properties or the proceeds thereof as heirs of the Marcos couple. Thus, their lack of participation in any illegal act does not remove the character of the property as ill-gotten and, therefore, as rightfully belonging to the State.

Ining v. Vega 703 SCRA 406 !

• Succession; Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death.―Since Leon died without issue, his heirs are his siblings, Romana and Gregoria, who thus inherited the property in equal shares. In turn, Romana’s and Gregoria’s heirs ― the parties herein ― became entitled to the property upon the sisters’ passing.

• Under the Family Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for succession, exclude relations by affinity.―What escaped the trial and appellate courts’ notice, however, is that while it may be argued that Lucimo Sr. performed acts that may be characterized as a repudiation of the co-ownership, the fact is, he is not a co-owner of the property. Indeed, he is not an heir of Gregoria; he is merely Antipolo’s son-in-law, being married to Antipolo’s daughter Teodora. Under the Family Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for succession, exclude relations by affinity. Art. 150. Family relations include those: (1) Between husband and wife; (2) Between parents and children; (3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and (4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. In point of law, therefore, Lucimo Sr. is not a co-owner of the property; Teodora is. Consequently, he cannot validly effect a repudiation of the co-ownership, which he was never part of. For this reason, prescription did not run adversely against Leonardo, and his right to seek a partition of the property has not been lost.

Art. 781

Balus v. Balus • Succession; Inheritance; What consists inheritance; The rights to a

person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death;

The inheritance of a person consists of the property and transmissible

rights and obligations existing at the time of his death as well as those

which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. • Since Rufo lost ownership of the subject property during his lifetime, it only

follows that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim. Stated differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject lot from their father.

Article 783 Seangio v. Reyes (art. 783)

• Disinheritance constitutes a disposition of the estate of a decedent;

• Although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa[9] can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.10

Art. 799-800

Ortega'v.'Valmonte'!

• The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of fraud at the time of its execution; The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.

• The omission of some relatives does not affect the due execution of a will.— That the testator was tricked into signing it was not sufficiently established by the fact that he had instituted his wife, who was more than fifty years his junior, as the sole beneficiary; and disregarded petitioner and her family, who were the ones who had taken “the cudgels of taking care of [the testator] in his twilight years.”

• The conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the document because the law does not even require that a notarial will be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion.— More important, the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of the testator and of one another. Furthermore, the testator and the witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public. In any event, we agree with the CA that “the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.”

• The testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and the notary are credible evidence of its due execution.—Petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a “grand conspiracy” in the commission of a fraud. There was no showing that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any benefit from the allowance of the will. Their testimony favoring it and the finding that it was executed in accordance with the formalities required by law should be affirmed, absent any showing of ill motives.

• To be considered of sound mind, things that the testator must have the ability to know.—According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows:

o (1) the nature of the estate to be disposed of, o (2) the proper objects of the testator’s bounty, and o (3) the character of the testamentary act.

• Applying this test to the present case, we find that the appellate court was correct in holding that Placido had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of his will.

• Testamentary incapacity does not necessarily require that a person shall

actually be insane or of unsound mind.—Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory which unquestionably carries with it full testamentary capacity, and that degrees of mental aberration generally known as insanity or idiocy, there are numberless degrees of mental capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it has been held that mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from age, will not render a person incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded person may make a valid will, provided he has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him to know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered by disease or otherwise.

• The law favors the probate of a will. Upon those who oppose it rests the burden of showing why it should not be allowed. In the present case, petitioner has failed to discharge this burden satisfactorily. For this reason, the Court cannot attribute any reversible error on the part of the appellate tribunal that allowed the probate of the will.

• Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds of

property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and even their locations. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. As we have stated earlier, the omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.

Baltazar'v.'Laxa'!

• Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.

• These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code, to wit: Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and

subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another….

• The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally

unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Will.—Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. Besides, Article 799 of the New Civil Code states: Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.

• A purported will is not to be denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise,

the very institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its foundation, for even if a will has been duly executed in fact, whether it will be probated would have to depend largely on the attitude of those interested in the estate of the deceased.—It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no matter how forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the Court to uphold said allegations.

• The very existence of the Will is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed testatrix has willed that her estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given full effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby.— “[i]rrespective x x x of the posture of any of the parties as regards the authenticity and due execution of the will x x x in question, it is the mandate of the law that it is the evidence before the court and/or [evidence that] ought to be before it that is controlling.”

• Those who oppose the probate of a will to clearly establish that the

decedent was not of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of said will. Otherwise, the state is duty-bound to give full effect to the wishes of the testator to distribute his estate in the manner provided in his will so long as it is legally tenable.

• Testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the execution of the Will

and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor.

• No showing that Paciencia was publicly known to be insane one month or less before the making of the Will.

• The very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo and lived with him both here

and abroad, even if the latter was already married and already has children, highlights the special bond between them.

Article 805

Azuela'v.'CA'!

• Notarial Will; Attestation Clause; The enactment of the Civil Code in 1950 did put in force a rule of interpretation of the requirements of wills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned.—Both Uy Coque and Andrada were decided prior to the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950, at a time when the statutory provision governing the formal requirement of wills was Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance on these cases remains apropos, considering that the requirement that the attestation state the number of pages of the will is extant from Section 618. However, the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950 did put in force a rule of interpretation of the requirements of wills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned, that may vary from the philosophy that governed these two cases. Article 809 of the Civil Code states: “In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805.”

• A failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can be liberally construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual examination, while a failure by the attestation clause to state that the witnesses signed in one another’s presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the only textual guarantee of compliance.—“[I]t may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omission which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.”

• Purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which

the will is written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages; There is substantial compliance with this requirement if the will states elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised of.

• Instrumental Witnesses; Article 805 particularly segregates the requirement that

the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the will, from the requisite that the will be “attested and subscribed by [the instrumental witnesses]”—the respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct from each other; Even if instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the unsigned clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses’ undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on the page were

directed towards a wholly different avowal.—The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause itself.

• Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses’ undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal.

• It is the attestation clause which contains the utterances reduced into writing of the testamentary witnesses themselves—it is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are required under Article 805 to state the number of pages used upon which the will was written.—The Court may be more charitably disposed had the witnesses in this case signed the attestation clause itself, but not the left-hand margin of the page containing such clause.

• Acknowledgment; An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a

deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed; It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the executor of the document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.—Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition should also hinge. The requirement under Article 806 that “every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses” has also not been complied with.

• The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it had been

segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and entrusted into a separate provision, Article 806. The non-observance of Article 806 in this case is equally as critical as the other cited flaws in compliance with Article 805, and should be treated as of equivalent import.

• The express requirement of Article 806 is that the will is to be “acknowledged,”

and not merely subscribed and sworn to; The acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed.

• A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public.

• “The purpose of requiring the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause is obvious; the document might easily be so prepared that the removal of a sheet would completely change the testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence of a statement of the total number of sheets

such removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and changing the numbers at the top of the following sheets or pages.

• But the total number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign did

so in the presence of each other must substantially appear in the attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings.”

Ortega'v.'Valmonte''!

• The conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the document because the law does not even require that a notarial will be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion. The will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of the testator and of one another. Furthermore, the testator and the witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public. In any event, we agree with the CA that “the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.”

• The testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and the notary are credible evidence of its due execution.—Petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a “grand conspiracy” in the commission of a fraud. There was no showing that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any benefit from the allowance of the will. The testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and the notary are credible evidence of its due execution. Their testimony favoring it and the finding that it was executed in accordance with the formalities required by law should be affirmed, absent any showing of ill motives.

Lee'v.'Tambago'!

• A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death. A will may either be notarial or holographic.

• Notarial Law; The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.—The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

• A notarial will attested by only two witnesses is void.—The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and Grajo. On this circumstance alone, the will must be considered void. This is in consonance with the rule that acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.

• An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going

before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed; The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose—(1) to safeguard the testator’s wishes long after his demise, and (2) to assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.—The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and embodied in a distinct and separate provision. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to the notary public that the same is his or her own free act and deed. The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the testator’s wishes long after his demise and (2) to assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.

• Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid.—Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined. Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its contents. Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for his acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty.

Art. 806

Guerrero'v.'Bihis'• A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the

testator and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for probate; An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer and declaring it to be his act or deed, and in the case of a notarial will, that competent officer is the notary public.

• The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed;

Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.—Such declaration is under oath and under pain of perjury, thus paving the way for the criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free consent of the testator. It also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of a certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to the persons instituted as heirs or designated as devisees or legatees in the will.

• Outside the place of his commission, a notary public is bereft of power to perform any notarial act—he is not a notary public; An acknowledgment taken outside the territorial limits of the officer’s jurisdiction is void as if the person taking it were wholly without official character. An acknowledgment taken outside the territorial limits of the officer’s jurisdiction is void as if the person taking it were wholly without official character.

!Art. 809

Azuela'v.'CA'(^)'

Lopez'v.'Lopez''• Attestation Clause; The law is clear that the attestation must state the

number of pages used upon which the will is written. The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in the pages.— While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form of the attestation clause, Richard likewise failed in this respect. The statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the subject last will and testament that it “consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written” cannot be deemed substantial compliance. The will actually consists of 8 pages including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by mere examination of the will itself but through the presentation of evidence aliunde.

• Notes.—That the requirements of attestation and acknowledgement are embodied in two separate provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 805 and 806, respectively) indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that serve different purposes.