WILLS IN GENERAL (ARTS 783-795)

1. SANTOS VS MANARANG
G.R. No. L-8235
March 19, 1914
Title/Doctrine: Legacies and Devises
FACTS:
Don Lucas de Ocampo died on November 18, 1906, possessed of certain real
and personal property which, by his last will and testament dated July 26,
1906, he left to his three children. The fourth clause of this will reads as
follows:
I also declare that I have contracted the debts detailed below, and it is
my desire that they may be religiously paid by my wife and executors
in the form and at the time agreed upon with my creditors.
Among the debts, two in favor of the plaintiff, Isidro Santos. In his petition,
asking that the committee be reconvened to consider his claims, plaintiff
states that his failure to present the said claims to the committee was due to
his belief that it was unnecessary to do so because of the fact that the
testator, in his will, expressly recognized them and directed that they should
be paid.
He alleges that the committee on claims should have been reconvened to
pass upon his claim against the estate. It is clear that this committee has
nothing to do with legacies. It is true that a debt may be left as a legacy,
either to the debtor, or to a third person. But this case can only arise when
the debt is an asset of the estate.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testator intended to leave the plaintiff a legacy or a debt?
HELD:
The creation of a legacy depends upon the will of the testator, is an act of
pure beneficence, has no binding force until his death, and may be avoided
in whole or in part by the mere with whim of the testator, prior to that time.
A debt arises from an obligation recognized by law and once established, can
only be extinguished in a lawful manner. Debts are demandable and must be
paid in legal tender. Legacies may, and often do, consist of specific articles of
personal property and must be satisfied accordingly. In order to collect as
legacy the sum mentioned in the will as due him, the plaintiff must show that

it is in fact a legacy and not a debt. As he has already attempted to show

that this sum represents a debt.
The testator left the total net assets of his estate, without reservation of any
kind, to his children per capita. There is no indication that he desired to leave
anything by way of legacy to any other person. These considerations clearly
refute the suggestion that the testator intended to leave plaintiff any thing
by way of legacy. His claim against the estate having been a simple debt, the
present action was improperly instituted against the administratrix.
But it is said that the plaintiff's claims should be considered as partaking of
the nature of a legacy and disposed of accordingly. If this be perfect then the
plaintiff would receive nothing until after all debts had been paid and the
heirs by force of law had received their shares. From any point of view the
inevitable result is that there must be a hearing sometime before some
tribunal to determine the correctness of the debts recognized in the wills of
deceased persons. This hearing, in the first instance, cannot be had before
the court because the law does not authorize it. Such debtors must present
their claims to the committee; otherwise their claims will be forever barred.

2. ANCHETA VS. GUERSEY-DALAYGON

GR No. 139868
June 8, 2006
Facts:
2 American citizens have resided in the Philippines. They have an adopted
daughter. The wife died and left a will where she left her entire estate to her
husband. 2 years after the wife's death, the husband married a Candelaria. 4
years after, Richard died and left a will where he left his entire estate to
Candelaria except for some of his shares in a company which he left to his
adopted daughter. Audreys will was admitted to probate in CFI Rizal.
Inventory was taken on their conjugal properties. Ancheta, as the
administrator, filed for a partition of the first wife's estate. The will was also
admitted in a court in her native land (Maryland).
Issue: Whether or not the properties in issue should be governed by the law
where the property is situated
Ruling:
Yes, properties in issue should be governed by the law where the property is
situated. However, since the first wife is a foreign national, the intrinsic
validity of her will is governed by her national law. The national law of the
person who made the will shall regulate whose succession is in consideration
whatever the nature of the property and regardless of the country where the
property maybe found (Art 16 CC). The first wife's properties may be found in
the Philipppines, however the successional rights over those properties are
governed by the national law of the testator.

3. CASTANEDA vs. ALEMANY

3 PHIL 426
March 19, 1904
FACTS:
The appellant contends that the court erred inholding that all legal
formalities had been complied with in the execution of the will of Dona Juana
as the proof shows that the said will was not written by the testatrix.
ISSUE:
WON the will is valid.
HELD:
The mechanical act of drafting the will can be left to a third person. What is
important is the testator signs the will or he let another person to sign but
under his direction. ARTICLE 785. The duration or efficacy of the designation
of heirs, devisees or legatees, or the determination of the portions which
they are to take, when referred to by name, cannot be left to the discretion
of a third person. ARTICLE 786. The testator may entrust to a third person
the distribution of specific property or sums of money that he may leave in
general to specified classes or causes, and also the designation of the
persons, institutions or establishments to which such property or sums are to
be given or applied. ARTICLE 787. The testator may not make a testamentary
disposition in such manner that another person has to determine whether or
not it is to be operative. ARTICLE 788. If a testamentary disposition admits of
different interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by which the
disposition is to be operative shall be preferred.

4. IN RE WILL OF RIOSA
G.R. No. L-14074
November 7, 1918

Topics/Doctrines: The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the

observance of the law in force at the time it is made (Art. 795, NCC).
FACTS:
The issue which this appeal presents is whether in the Philippine Islands the
law existing on the date of the execution of a will, or the law existing at the
death of the testator, controls. Jose Riosa died on April 17, 1917. He left a will
made in the month of January, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary , in which he
disposed of an estate valued at more than P35,000. The will was duly
executed in accordance with the law then in force, namely, section 618 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The will was not executed in accordance with Act
No. 2645, amendatory of said section 618, prescribing certain additional
formalities for the signing and attestation of wills, in force on and after July 1,
1916. In other words, the will was in writing, signed by the testator, and
attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in the presence of the
testator and of each other; but was not signed by the testator and the
witnesses on the left margin of each and every page, nor did the attestation
state these facts. The new law, therefore, went into effect after the making of
the will and before the death of the testator, without the testator having left
a will that conforms to the new requirements.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will is valid?
HELD:

This court has heretofore held in a decision handed down by the Chief
Justice, as to a will made after the date Act No. 2645 went into effect, that it
must comply with the provisions of this law. (Caraig vs Tatlonghari, R. G. No.
12558, dated March 23, 1918 [not published].) The court has further held in
a decision handed down by Justice Torres, as to will executed by a testator
whose death took place prior to the operative date of Act No. 2645, that the
amendatory act is inapplicable. (Bona vs. Briones, [1918], 38 Phil., 276.) The
instant appeal presents an entirely different question. The will was execute
prior to the enactment of Act No. 2645 and the death occurred after the
enactment of this law. The rule prevailing in many other jurisdictions is that
the validity of the execution of a will must be tested by the statutes in force
at the time of its execution and that statutes subsequently enacted have no
retrospective effect. Retrospective laws generally if not universally work
injustice, and ought to be so construed only when the mandate of the
legislature is imperative. When a testator makes a will, formally executed
according to the requirements of the law existing at the time of its execution,
it would unjustly disappoint his lawful right of disposition to apply to it a rule
subsequently enacted, though before his death. (Taylor vs. Mitchell [1868],
57 Pa. St., 209)
This court, under such circumstances, should naturally depend more on
reason than on technicality. Above all, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
the testator has provided in detail for the disposition of his property and that
his desires should be respected by the courts. The act of bequeathing or
devising is something more than inchoate or ambulatory. In reality, it
becomes a completed act when the will is executed and attested according
to the law, although it does not take effect on the property until a future
time. The will of Jose Riosa is valid and section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is the applicable law.

5. BONA vs. BRIONES

G.R. No. L-10806
July 6, 1918

Topic/Doctrine: Forms of Wills

FACTS:
Counsel for Monica Bona, the widow by the second marriage of the deceased
Francisco Briones who died on August 14, 1913, applied for the probate of
the will which the said deceased husband on September 16, 1911. The
petition was granted on January 20, 1915.
The counsel of the legitimate children by the first marriage of the testator,
opposed the probate of the will alleging that the said will was executed
before two witnesses only and under unlawful and undue pressure or
influence exercised upon the person of the testator who thus signed through
fraud and deceit; and prayed that for that reason the said will be declared
null and of no value.
On March 27, 1915, the judge rendered judgment, denied probate to the will.
dated March 27, 1915, denying probate to the will. Counsel for Monica Bona
appealed On March 31, 1915, the judge admitted the appeal, ordered the

original records to be brought up, and reiterated his order of December 28,
1913, declaring Bona as a pauper, for the purposes of the appeal interposed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not in the execution of the will in question the solemnities
prescribed by section 618 of Act No. 190 have been observed.

HELD:
Yes. It is indispensable to note that the will in question was executed by
Francisco Briones on September 16, 1911, the order denying probate was
rendered on March 27, 1915, both dated being prior to that of Act No. 2645
amending said section 618 and promulgated on February 24, 1916, which
took effect only from July first of the last named year: so that, in order to
explain whether or not the above-mentioned will was executed in accordance
with the law then in force, the last named law cannot be applied and the will
in question should be examined in accordance with, and under the rules of,
the law in force at the time of its execution.
The oft-repeated section 618 of Act No. 190 says:
No will, except as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid to pass
any estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be in
writing and signed by the testator, or 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 each other. But the
absence of such form of attestation shall not render the will invalid if it is
proven that the will was in fact signed and attested as in this section
provided.
A mere reading of the
clear manner that the
shadow of doubt the
solemnities prescribed
have been observed.

last four paragraphs or parts of the will shows in a

said will in its form and contents expresses without
will of the testator; and that in its execution the
by the above-mentioned section 618 of Act No. 190

Moreso, it is not proper to just invalidate the will of Francisco Briones merely
because of some small defect in form which are not essential or of great
importance, such as the failure to state therein that Domingo de la Fuente
was also a witness to the said will when he signed it twice. As a matter of

act, he understood the contents of the will better than the two other
attesting witnesses, for he really was a witness and he attested the
execution of the will during its making until it was terminated and signed by
the testator, by the witnesses, and by himself, even though he did it in the
capacity of a notary.
The requisites established by Act No. 2645, which amended the oft-repeated
section 618 cannot be required in the probate of the will here, inasmuch as
this document was executed in September, 1911, five years before said
amendatory law began to take effect (July 1, 1916), while the testator died
on August 14, 1913, two years and some months before the enforcement of
the said law; and so, the only law applicable to the present case is the
provision contained in section 618 of Act No. 190, and in accordance with the
provisions of this section, the said will should be probated; for it has been
presented to the court many months before the amendatory act went into
effect.
It is well-known that the principle that a new law shall not have retroactive
effect only governs the rights arising from acts done under the rule of the
former law; but if the right be declared for the first time by a subsequent law
it shall take effect from that time even though it has arisen from acts subject
to the former laws, provided that it does not prejudice another acquired right
of the same origin.
The judgment appealed from should be reversed and it should be declared
that the will has been executed in due form by Francisco Briones on
September 16, 1911, and that the said will contains and expresses the last
will and testamentary wishes of the deceased testator. Without any special
ruling as to costs.So ordered.