Hofilena Succession Digests September 10, 2019

Unson v. Abella, GR No. 17857

Facts:
- On July 19, 1918, Doña Josefa Abella, single, 60 years old, residing in Laguna, executed her last
will and testament with an attached inventory of her properties, in the presence of 3 witnesses,
who signed w/ her all the pages of said documents.
- Doña Abella died on January 6, 1921. The record shows that she appointed Pedro Unson as
executor.
- This was filed in CFI Laguna on the same year an application for probate of such will was done.
- An opposition was presented by Antonio Abella, Ignacia Abella, Avicencia Abella and Santiago
Vito alleging that such will was not executed in conformity w/ the law, that it was not paged
correctly in letter, nor was there any attestation clause, nor was it signed by the testator and
witnesses in the presence of each other.
- CFI Laguna overruled the opposition and ordered the probate of the will.
- The oppositors appealed alleging 3 errors:
- 1) The contestants also contend that the court erred in admitting the probation of the will despite
the omission of the proponent to produce one of the attesting witness.
- 2) The paging of the will was done in (A,B,C..) instead of the customary way of putting in
numbers.
- 3) The appellants content that there was no attestation clause in regards to the attached
inventory.

Issue: WON the will is vald

Held: Yes, Will is VALID

1) The failure to produce of one of the attesting witness, Pedro de Jesus does not change
the decision of the court. Although the general rule, that where opposition is made to the probate of
the will, the attesting witnesses must be produced. But there are exceptions to this rule: if the witness
is dead, his reputation for truth has been questioned or he appears to be hostile to the cause of the
proponent. In such cases, the will may be admitted for probate if the Court is satisfied that the will
has been duly executed. More so, Sec 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a will can
be admitted to probate, notwithstanding that one or more witnesses do not remember having attested
it, provided that the court is satisfied that the will has been duly executed.

2) As to the paging of the will in A,B,C, the court mentions the doctrine in Aldaba v. Roque,
where it was held the numbering of A,B,C of a will is in compliance with the spirit of the law. The
difficulty of applying fraud would still be the same as if it was numbered normally.

3) As to the error that no attestation clause was attached, the Court does not give due course.
The investory referred to in the will is an integral part of it, the Court finds it in compliance with the
law.
Hofilena Succession Digests September 10, 2019

Austria v. Reyes, GR L-23079

Facts:
- On Jull 7, 1956, Basilia Austra filed w/ CFI Rizal a petition for probate of her will.
- The probate was contested by present petitioners Ruben Austria, Consuela Benta and Lauro
Mozo and others like the petitioner, are nephews & nieces of Basilia. This was dimissed and
probate of will was allowed.
- The bulk of the estate was to pass on to respondents Perfecto Cruz, Benita Menez, Isagani Cruz,
Alberto Cruz, Leo Salong, all of whom had been declared by Basilia as her own legally adopted
children.
- Two years after the will was allowed to probate, Basilia died and Perfecto Cruz was appointed as
executor.
- On Nov 5, 1959, the present petitioners filed a petition for intervention for partition alleging that
they are the nearest of kin of Basilia and that the 5 respondents had not in fact been adopted in
accordance w/ law.
- The court allowed the petitioners intervention.
- Both sides debated the matter of genuineness of the adoption papers. The NBI affirmed the
genuineness. Thus, petitioners sought the help of a Constabulary examiner whose views
undermine the genuineness of the documents.
- After 3 years after they were allowed to intervene, the petitioner Austria moved the lower court to
set for hearing the matter of the genuineness of the adoption of the respondents. Respondent
Benita Menez entered a separate appearance and filed a motion to confine the petitioners
intervention to properties not disposed of in the will. The court granted the motion.
- Petitioners Austria filed an MR but was denied. A second MR was also denied.
- Hence, this petition for Certiorari to annul the order which restricted petitioners intervention to
properties not included in the will.

Issue: WON the institution of the heirs is valid

Held: YES.

The lower court must have thought that the validity or invalidity of the adoption is immaterial
on the efficacy of the institution of the heirs because even though if the adoption was false, the
respondents would nevertheless be testamentary heirs.

More so, the statement of the petitioners Austria that the entire estate should go to them
since the adoption is false and cite article 850 of the CC which reads: “The statement of a false
cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as not written..”. The requisites of such article
are: 1) the cause for institution of the heirs must be stated in the will, 2) the cause must be shown to
be false and 3) must appear that the testator would not have made such institution if he knew it to
be false.

However, the use of the phrases “sapilitang tagapagmana and sapilitang mana” were merely
borrowed from the language of the law on succession. They offer no absolute indication that the
decedent would have willed her estate other than the way she did. To grant the intervention of the
petitioners Austria, would only undermine the clear wishes of the testator.
Hofilena Succession Digests September 10, 2019
The CC states: “The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every
expression some effect, rather than one which will render it inoperative”. Testacy is favored and
doubts should be resolved on its side.

Petition DENIED.