Testate Estate of the Late Adriana Maloto, Aldina MALOTO CASIANO, et al., petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, Panfilo MALOTO and Felino MALOTO, respondents. G.R. No. 76464, February 29, 1988
FACTS: Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs the parties (Aldina, Constantcio, Panfilo and Felino) in this case who are her niece and nephews. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, the four (4) heirs commenced an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunts estate which was instituted in the then CFI. However, while the case was still in progress, the heirs executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adrianas estate which provides for the division of the estate into four equal parts among themselves. When presented before the court, said agreement was approved. However, three years later, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adrianas counsel, discovered a document entitled KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento) and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much bigger and more valuable shares in the estate that what they have received by virtue of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement. The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties, among them being the petitioners. Thus, Aldino and Constancio joined by other devisees and legatees filed a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings therein and for the allowance of the will. Upon denial of the trial court, the petitioners came before the Supreme Court by way or petition for certiorari and mandamus which were dismissed because they were not the proper remedies. The appellate court found out that the will was burned by the househelper of Adriana and was at the possession of the lawyer in because Adriana was seeking the services of the lawyer in order to have a new will drawn up. ISSUE: Whether or not the will of Adriana Maloto had been efficiently revoked. RULING: Article 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases: 1. By implication of law; or 2. By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills; or 3. By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn, cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express direction of the testator, the will may still be established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court. In this case, while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke, may be conceded, for that is a state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice. Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under

his express direction. There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. For one, the document or papers burned by Adrianas maid was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the express direction of Adriana and was not done in her presence.