Articles 820-824, Witnesses to Wills

Cases
Gonzales vs CA, 90 SCRA 183

Gonzales v CA
GR. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979
Justice Guerrero

Facts:

Private respondents and petitioner are nieces of the testator Isabel Gabriel. The testator
executed a will assigning all her nieces and nephews and brothers and sisters as
legacies and naming the private respondent as her universal heir of the estate. The
petitioner opposed the probate of the will stating that the will is invalid for the following
grounds: 1) that the same is not genuine; and in the alternative; 2) that the same was
not executed and attested as required by law; 3) that, at the time of the alleged
execution of the purported wilt the decedent lacked testamentary capacity due to old
age and sickness; and in the second alternative; and 4) that the purported WW was
procured through undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
principal beneficiary, and/or of some other person for her benefit. Specifically, petitioner
contends that the requirement of law that the will be executed with three instrumental
witnesses has not been complied with. Petitioner claims that before a person may be an
instrumental witness to a will, evidence must be given to prove that they are competent
and credible witnesses prior to the execution of the will and that the witnesses in the will
of the testator have failed to do so.

Issue:

Whether or not evidence to prove the competence and credibility of a person is needed
prior to the execution of a will in order to be an instrumental witness in the execution
thereof

Ruling:

Article 820 and 821 provides for the qualification and disqualifications, respectively, of
an instrumental witness in the execution of a notarial will. the rule that the instrumental
witnesses in Order to be competent must be shown to have the qualifications under
Article 820 of the Civil Code and none of the disqualifications under Article 821 and for
their testimony to be credible, that is worthy of belief and entitled to credence, it is not
mandatory that evidence be first established on record that the witnesses have a good
standing in the community or that they are honest and upright or reputed to be
trustworthy and reliable, for a person is presumed to be such unless the contrary is
established otherwise.

1
Articles 828-837, Revocation of Wills and Testamentary Dispositions
Cases
a. Testate Estate of Adriana Maloto vs CA, 158 SCRA 451
b. Gago vs Mamuyac, 49 Phil 902
c. Molo vs Molo, 90 Phil 37
d. Diaz vs De Leon, 43 Phil 413

Maloto v. CA Digest
Maloto v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988
Sarmiento, J. (Ponente)

Facts:
1. Petitioners and respondents are the neices/nephews or Adriana Maloto who died in
1963. The four heirs believed that the deceased did not leave a will, hesnce they filed an
intestate proceeding. However, the parties executed an extrajudicial settlement of the
estate dividing it into four equal parts.

2. In 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, ex-associate of the deceased's counsel allegedly

discovered her last will which was purportedly dated 1940, inside a cabinet. Hence the
annulment of the proceedings and a probate petition was filed by the devisees and
legatees. The said will was allegedly burned by the househelp under the instruction of
the deceased

3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground that the animus revocandi in the
burning of the will was sufficiently proven.

Issue: Whether or not there was valid revocation of the will

RULING: No, there was no revocation. For a valid revocation to occur,the 'corpus' and
'animus' must concur, one without the other will not produce a valid revocation. The
physical act of destruction of a will must come with an intention to revoke (animus
revocandi). In this case, there's paucity of evidence to comply with the said requirement.
The paper burned was not established to be the will and the burning though done under
her express direction was not done in her presence.

Under Art. 830, the physical act of destruction, in this case the burning of the will, does
not constitute an effective revocation, unless it is coupled with animus revocandi on the
part of the testator. Since animus is a state of mind, it has to be accompanied by an overt
physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating or cancelling done by the testator himself or
by another under his express direction and presence.

Gago v Mamuyac
G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927

2
Justice Johnson

Facts:

Previously, Francisco Gago filed a petition for the probate of a will of Miguel Mamuyac
executed on July 27, 1918. The oppositors alleged that the said will was already
annulled and revoked. It appeared that on April 16, 1919, the deceased executed
another will. The lower court denied the probate of the first will on the ground of the
existence of the second will. Another petition was filed to seek the probate of the
second will. The oppositors alleged that the second will presented was merely a copy.
According to the witnesses, the said will was allegedly revoked as per the testimony of
Jose Tenoy, one of the witnesses who typed the document. Another witness testified
that on December 1920 the original will was actually cancelled by the testator. The
lower court denied the probate and held that the same has been annulled and revoked.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a valid revocation of the will

Ruling:

Yes. The will was already cancelled in 1920. This was inferred when after due search,
the original will cannot be found. When the will which cannot be found in shown to be in
the possession of the testator when last seen, the presumption is that in the absence of
other competent evidence, the same was deemed cancelled or destroyed. The same
presumption applies when it is shown that the testator has ready access to the will and
it can no longer be found after his death.

Molo v. Molo
G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951
Justice Bautista- Angelo

Facts:

Marcos Molo executed 2 wills, one in August 1918 and another in June 1939. The latter
will contained a revocation clause which expressly revoked the will in 1918. He died
without any forced heirs but he was survived by his wife, herein petitioner Juana. The
oppositors to the probate were his nephews and nieces.Only a carbon copy of the
second will was found. The widow filed a petition for the probate of the 1939 will. It was
admitted to probate but subsequently set aside on ground that the petitioner failed to
prove its due execution. As a result, the petitioner filed another petition for the probate
of the 1918 will this time. Again the oppositors alleged that said will had already been
revoked under the 1939 will. They contended that despite the disallowance of the 1939
will, the revocation clause is valid and thus effectively nullified the 1918 will.

Issue:

3
Whether or not the 1918 will can still be valid despite the revocation in the subsequent
disallowed 1939 will.

RULING:

Yes.The court applied the doctrine laid down in Samson v. Naval that a subsequent will,
containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the reason that
it was not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of annulling the
previous will, inasmuch as the said revocatory clause is void. There was no valid
revocation in this case. No evidence was shown that the testator deliberately destroyed
the original 1918 will because of his knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in
the will executed in 1939.The earlier will can still be probated under the principle of
dependent relative revocation. The doctrine applies when a testator cancels or destroys
a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with the intention to make a
new testamentary disposition as substitute for the old, and the new disposition fails of
effect for some reason.

Diaz v. De Leon Digest

Diaz v. De Leon
G.R. No. 17714 May 31, 1922

Facts:
1. Jesus de Leon executed 2 wills, the second will was not deemed in conformance to
the requirements under the law. After executing his first will, he asked it to be
immediately returned to him. As it was returned, he instructed his servant to tear it. This
was done in the testator's presence and his nurse. After sometime, he was asked by his
physician about the incident wherein he replied that the will has already been destroyed.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation of the will

RULING: Yes. His intention to revoke is manifest from the facts that he was anxious to
withdraw or change the provisions he made in the first will. This fact was shown from his
own statements to the witnesses and the mother superior of the hospital where he was
subsequently confined. The original will which was presented for probate is deemed
destroyed hence, it cannot be probated as the last will and testament of testator.