Ramos v.

Ramos
G.R. No. 144294.
11 March 2003.
Panganiban, J.:
Facts:
Petitioners are children of the late Chanliongco, Jr., the latter being the coowner of a parcel of land together with sister Narcisa and brothers Mario and
Antonio. The co-owners executed a special power of attorney in favor of
Narcisa by virtue of which her daughter sold the lot to respondents.
Due to the conflicting stand of the co-owners concerning the validity of the
sale, respondents filed an action for interpleader.
The Regional Trial Court upheld the validity of the sale insofar as Narcisa is
concerned but the other portions as void for lack of authority. The Court of
Appeals, however, declared the sale as valid stating that Narcisas daughter
was authorized as a sub-agent. Not appealed from, the decision became final
and executory.
The petitioners questioned this decision contending that it is violative of due
process since it disposes of the property to which they are entitled to as heirs
of the deceased co-owner without them being served summons and
impleaded in the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners should have been impleaded in the case as
heirs of one of the co-owners.
Ruling:
No.
The petitioners were not the registered owners of the land, but represented
merely an inchoate interest thereto as heirs of one of the co-owners. They
had no standing in court with respect to actions over a property of the
estate, because the latter was represented by an executor or administrator.
Thus, there was no need to implead them as defendants in the case,
inasmuch as the estates of the deceased co-owners had already been made
parties. As it was, there was no need to include petitioners as defendants.
Not being parties, they were not entitled to be served summons.
1/8

Testate Estate of Abada v. Abaja

G.R. No. 147145.
31 January 2005.
Carpio, J.:
Facts:
Abada died, followed by his widow Toray, without legitimate children. A
certain Alipio sought for the probate of the last will and testament of Abada
purportedly naming as heirs his natural children Eulogio and Rosario. Eulogio
is Alipios father. Caponong opposed the petition alleging that there was no
will left or, if ever there was, that it was tainted with defects as to consent
and not done in accordance with the law. The same happened to the
purported will of Toray.
Subsequently, both wills were allowed for probate by the court. The only
issue raised by the oppositors then pertains to the attestation clause of
Abadas will.
Issue:
Whether or not the defects in the attestation clause of Abadas will was fatal
that would be sufficient for it to be disallowed for probate.
Ruling:
No.
A closer look into the will would show that the number of pages was
indicated. The attestation clause also clearly stated that Abada signed the
will and its every page in the presence of the witnesses.
The Court also applied the rule on substantial compliance as to the defect
that such clause did not indicate the number of witnesses. While it does not
state the number of witnesses, a close inspection of the will shows that three
witnesses signed it.
Citing a previous case to elucidate on this matter, it reiterated:
More than anything else, the facts and circumstances of record are to be
considered in the application of any given rule. If the surrounding
circumstances point to a regular execution of the will, and the instrument
appears to have been executed substantially in accordance with the
requirements of the law, the inclination should be, in the absence of any
suggestion of bad faith, forgery or fraud, lean towards its admission to
2/8

probate, although the document may suffer from some imperfection of

language, or other non-essential defect XXX.

Perez v. Garchitorena
G.R. No. 31703.
3/8

13 February 1930.
Romualdez, J.:
Facts:
There was a deposit in the plaintiffs name as the final payment of the
liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara, deceased, whose heiress is also said
plaintiff, against Andres Garchitorena, also deceased and represented by his
son who is the defendant, Mariano.
Defendant held a judgment against plaintiffs husband and, the sheriff,
pursuant to the writ of execution issued by the court, levied an attachment
on the said deposit.
Plaintiff alleged that the deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs of
decedent and secured a preliminary injunction restraining the execution. The
court ruled in her favour, which was affirmed by the appellate court.

Issue:
Whether or not fideicommissary heirs were instituted in the last will and
testament of Alcantara.

Ruling:
Yes.
The disposition that the said heiress shall receive and enjoy the estate is not
incompatible with a fideicommissary substitution. In fact, the enjoyment of
the inheritance is in conformity with it, by virtue of which the heir instituted
receives the inheritance and enjoys it, although at the same time she
preserves it in order to pass it on to the second heir. The same clause also
vests in the heiress the right to enjoy but not to dispose the estate. This is an
indication of usufruct inherent in a fideicommissary substitution.
Taken in the proper context, it appears that the testator intended to have a
fideicommissary substitution since she limits the transmission of the estate
to the children of the heiress.

4/8

Another indication is the provision that the whole estate shall pass
unimpaired to the heiresss children, that is to say the heiress is required to
preserve the whole estate, without diminution, in order to pass it on to the
fideicommissary heirs in due time.
Lastly, a provision was also included in the event that the heiress should die
after the testatrix. That said clause anticipates the case where the instituted
heiress should die after the testatrix and after receiving and enjoying the
inheritance.
All the provisions ultimately lead to the conclusion that, if taken as a whole,
what the testatrix intended to make was, in fact, a fideicommissary
substitution, all its requisites being present in the clauses on the will.

5/8

Labrador v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 83843-44.
5 April 1995.
Paras, J.:
Facts:
Melecio Labrador died in Zambales sometime in 1972, leaving behind a
parcel of land, several heirs, and a holographic will.
One of the heirs filed a petition for the probate of the will while two others
filed their opposition thereto, alleging that, even before the testators death,
the parcel of land was already sold in their favor and, subsequently, they
already sold the said land.
The petition for probate was granted and the Deed of Sale was ordered to be
annulled, asking respondents to reimburse petitioners representing the
redemption price of the property. Upon appeal, however, the Court of
Appeals reversed the said decision, disallowing the probate stating that it
was undated and also reversing the order of reimbursement.
Issue:
Whether or not the holographic will of Melecio was dated pursuant to Article
810 of the New Civil Code.
Ruling:
Yes. The holographic will is dated, although the date is not in its usual place.
The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be
placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself
and and executed in the hand of the testator. These requirements are
present in the subject will.

6/8

Caiza v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 110427.
24 February 1997.
Narvasa, C.J.:
Facts:
Carmen Caiza was declared an incompetent by the Regional Trial Court in a
guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo Evangelista. This
was due to her advanced age and physical infirmities involving cataracts in
both eyes and senile dementia.
As the appointed guardian, Evangelista filed an ejectment suit against
spouses Estrada who have been living in Caizas property by mere
tolerance. This is in order to raise funds to finance for the expenses being
incurred due to her health condition. The spouses refused to do so and, in a
counterclaim, interposed that they were allowed to live in the house owned
by Caiza in consideration of their faithful service and asserted that the
house and lot in question was bequeathed to them by virtue of a holographic
will she executed. In the course of the proceedings, Caiza died.
The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Evangelista as guardian but the
decision was reversed by the Regional Trial Court, and affirmed by the Court
of Appeals on the ground that the remedy sought was improper anchoring
their decision on what purports to be the holographic will of Caiza
bequeathing the property to them.
Issue:
Whether or not the alleged disposition in the holographic will in favor of
respondents would be determinative of the proper action to be filed in court.
Ruling:
No.
The respondents cannot assert any right of possession flowing from their
ownership of the house; their status as owners is dependent on the probate
of the holographic will by which the property had allegedly been bequeathed
to them an event which still has to take place. Prior to the probate of the
will, any assertion of possession would be premature and inefficacious.

7/8

A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the testators death, it

may be changed or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no effect
whatever, and no right can be claimed thereunder.

8/8