Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aznar Vs Garcia
Aznar Vs Garcia
Aznar v. Garcia
Facts Preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted
Edward E. Christensen, an American citizen from California and
and filed its “Executor’s Final Account, Report of Administration
domiciled in the Philippines, left a will executed in the Philippines
in which he bequeathed Php 3,600.00 to Maria Helen Christensen and Project of Partition” where it reported, inter alia, the
("Helen") and the remainder of his estate to his daughter, Maria satisfaction of the legacy of Mary Mallen by the shares of stock
Lucy Christensen Daney. The laws of California allows the testator amounting to $240,000 delivered to her, and the legacies of the 3
to dispose of his estate in any manner he pleases. However, illegitimate children in the amount of P40,000 each or a total of
California law also provides that the personal property of a person P120,000. In the project partition, the executor divided the
is governed by the laws of his domicile. The executor, Adolfo C.
residuary estate into 7 equal portions
Aznar, drew a project of partition in conformity with the will.
for the benefit of the testator’s 7 legitimate children by his 1st
Helen opposed the project of partition arguing that Philippine
laws govern the distribution of the estate and manner proposed and 2nd marriages.
in the project deprived her of her legitime.
Among the 3 illegitimate children, Mari Cristina and Miriam Palma
Issue Bellis filed their respective opposition to the project partition on
Whether or not the succession is governed by Philippine laws. the ground that they were deprived of their legitimates as
illegitimate children.
Held
Yes. Philippine law governs.
The lower court denied their respective motions for
Ratio reconsideration.
Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that the intrinsic validity of
testamentary dispositions are governed by the national law of the ISSUE:
decedent, in this case, California law. The provision in the laws of Whether Texan Law of Philippine Law must apply.
California giving a testator absolute freedom in disposing of his
estate is the internal law which applies only to persons domiciled
within the said estate. On the other hand, the provision in the RULING:
laws of California stating that personal property is governed by It is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas
the laws of the domicile of its owner is the conflict of laws rule and a domicile thereof at the time of his death. So that even
that applies to persons not domicile in the said state. Accordingly, assuming Texan has a conflict of law rule providing that the same
the laws of the Philippines, in which the testator is domiciled would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine Law,
governs the succession and the regime of legitimes must be
but would still refer to Texas Law.
respected.
FACTS: The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a citizen of
Amos Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State of Texas and the State of Texas, USA and that under the Laws of Texas, there
of the United States. He had 5 legitimate children with his wife, are no forced heirs or legitimates. Accordingly, since the intrinsic
Mary Mallen, whom he had divorced, 3 legitimate children with validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional
his 2nd wife, Violet Kennedy and finally, 3 illegitimate children. rights has to be determined under Texas Law, the Philippine Law
on legitimates can not be applied to the testate of Amos Bellis.
Prior to his death, Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines in
which his distributable estate should be divided in trust in the Dorotheo v. CA
following order and manner: GR No. 108581, December 8, 1999
When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate,
An acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a deed Cesar Alvarado filed his opposition as he said that the will was not
in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was
to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken insane or mentally incapacitated due to senility and old age; that
whereby the signore actually declares to the notary that the the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear or
threats; that it was procured by undue pressure and influence on
the part of the beneficiary; and that the signature of the testator Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
was procured by fraud or trick. requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity of the will,
the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do
ISSUE: not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may
only defeat the testator’s will.
W/N notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be admitted to
probate despite allegations of defects in the execution and Vda de perez vs Tolete
attestation thereof as testator was allegedly blind at the time of
execution and the double-reading requirement under Art. 808 of FACTS:
the NCC was not complied with.
Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who
HELD: became American citizens and residents of New York, each
executed a will also in New York, containing provisions on
YES. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was presumption of survivorship (in the event that it is not known
not. Although there should be strict compliance with the which one of the spouses died first, the husband shall be
substantial requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity presumed to have predeceased his wife). Later, the entire family
of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside perished in a fire that gutted their home. Thus, Rafael, who was
when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into named trustee in Jose’s will, filed for separate probate
account, may only defeat the testator’s will. proceedings of the wills.
Cesar Alvardo was correct in asserting that his father was not Later, Evelyn’s mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for reprobate
totally blind (of counting fingers at 3 feet) when the will and in Bulacan. Rafael opposed, arguing that Salud was not an heir
codicil were executed, but he can be so considered for purposes according to New York law. He contended that since the wills
of Art. 808. were executed in New York, New York law should govern. He
further argued that, by New York law, he and his brothers and
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil.
sisters were Jose’s heirs and as such entitled to notice of the
reprobate proceedings, which Salud failed to give.
However, in the case at bar, there was substantial compliance
where the purpose of the law has been satisfied: that of making
For her part, Salud said she was the sole heir of her daughter,
the provisions known to the testator who is blind or incapable of
Evelyn, and that the two wills were in accordance with New York
reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) and enabling him
law. But before she could present evidence to prove the law of
to object if they do not accord with his wishes.
New York, the reprobate court already issued an order,
Rino read the testator’s will and codicil aloud in the presence of disallowing the wills.
the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary
public. ISSUE: Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be
allowed
Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being
asked, that the contents read corresponded with his instructions.
Only then did the signing and acknowledgment take place. HELD:
There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil Extrinsic Validity of Wills of Non-Resident Aliens
were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the
testator. The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American
citizens, will only be effective in this country upon compliance
With four persons, mostly known to the testator, following the with the following provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines:
reading word for word with their own copies, it can be safely
concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the
was read to him were the terms actually appearing on the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of
typewritten documents. the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities
observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the Code prescribes.
testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will to himself (as
when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities
him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance prescribed by New York laws or by Philippine laws is imperative.
with his wishes.
Evidence for Reprobate of Wills Probated outside the Philippines
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills Garcia v. Lacuesta
which have been probated outside of the Philippines are as 90 P 489
follows: (1) the due execution of the will in accordance with the
foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign FACTS:
country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted
to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is This case involves the will of Antero Mercado, which among other
a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on defects was signed by the testator through a cross mark (an “X”).
procedure and allowance of wills (III Moran Commentaries on the The will was signed by Atty. Javier who wrote the name of
Rules of Court, 1970 ed., pp. 419-429; Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. Mercado as testator and the latter allegedly wrote a cross mark
after his name. The CFI allowed the will but the CA disallowed it
500 [1954]; Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610 [1930]). Except for the
because its attestation clause was defective for failing to certify 1)
first and last requirements, the petitioner submitted all the that the will was signed by Atty. Javier at the express direction of
needed evidence. the testator, 2) that the testator wrote a cross at the end of his
name after Atty. Javier signed for him, and 3) that the 3 witnesses
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.
which the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by
the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them. ISSUE:
On Lack of Notice to Jose’s Heirs Whether the will should be allowed despite the defect of the
attestation clause since the testator had placed a cross mark
This petition cannot be completely resolved without touching on a himself as his signature.
very glaring fact - petitioner has always considered herself the
sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez Cunanan and because she does not HELD:
consider herself an heir of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably
failed to notify his heirs of the filing of the proceedings. Thus, The attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that
even in the instant petition, she only impleaded respondent Mercado directed Javier to write the testator’s name under his
Judge, forgetting that a judge whose order is being assailed is express direction. Petitioner’s argument that such recital is
merely a nominal or formal party (Calderon v. Solicitor General, unnecessary because the testator signed the will himself using a
cross mark which should be considered the same as a thumb-
215 SCRA 876 [1992]).
mark (which has been held sufficient in past cases) is not
acceptable. A cross mark is not the same as a thumb mark,
The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a because the cross mark does not have the same trustworthiness
will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original of a thumb mark.
will presented for allowance" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27,
Section 2) means that with regard to notices, the will probated
abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will
that is presented for probate for the first time. Accordingly, Yap Tua vs Kuan
compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, which require
publication and notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, Abangan v. Abangan
legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines"
and to the executor, if he is not the petitioner, are required. Facts:
1. On September 1917, the CFI of Cebu admitted to probate Ana
Abangan's will executed on July 1916. It is from this decision
The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to which the opponent appealed. It is alleged that the records do not
petitioner's claim, are entitled to notices of the time and place for show the testatrix knew the dialect in which the will was written.
proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of the Revised Rules
of Court, the "court shall also cause copies of the notice of the Issue: Whether or not the will was validly probated
time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the
designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the YES. The circumstance appearing on the will itself, that it was
executed in Cebu City and in the dialect of the place where the
testator, . . . "
testarix is a resident is enough to presume that she knew this
dialect in the absence of any proof to the contrary. On the
WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is SET ASIDE. Respondent authority of this case and that of Gonzales v Laurel, it seems that
Judge shall allow petitioner reasonable time within which to for the presumption to apply, the following must appear: 1) that
submit evidence needed for the joint probate of the wills of the the will must be in a language or dialect generally spoken in the
Cunanan spouses and see to it that the brothers and sisters of Dr. place of execution, and, 2) that the testator must be a native or
resident of the said locality
Jose F. Cunanan are given all notices and copies of all pleadings
pertinent to the probate proceedings.
TESTACY OF SIXTO LOPEZ, JOSE LOPEZ VS. LIBORO(GR No. L-1787; the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the
Aug. 27, 1978) three (3) instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains
the attestation clause and the acknowledgment is signed at the
FACTS: The will subject of the controversy is the last will and end of the attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses
testament of Don Sixto Lopez who died at the age of 83 in and at the left hand margin by the testatrix.
Balayan, Batangas on March 3, 1947. Only one of the objections
raised in the lower court was raised on appeal: that the said will
(Exhibit A) was not executedin accordance with requirements
under the law. The fatal defect pertained to by theoppositor is the ISSUE
absence of a page in the first sheet, either in letters or in Arabic
numerals. In the case of Abangan, the purpose of the law in
prescribing the paging of wills is to guard against fraud, and to
afford means of preventing the substitution or of detecting the Whether or not the will is void for failure to state the number of
loss of any of its pages. Another, the Supreme Court dwelled on pages used in writing the will.
the issue also of putting his thumb mark by the testator instead of
RULING
a signature. Lastly, Supreme Court raised that appellant impugns
the will because of its silence on the testator’s understanding of
NO. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact
the language used in the testament which is Spanish.
that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire will that it is
really and actually composed of only two pages duly signed by the
testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. [T]he first page which
Issues: (1) WON the will was validly executed despite the absence contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions is signed by
of a page number.(2) WON the thumbmark used by the testator is the testatrix at the end or at the bottom while the instrumental
sufficient in lieu of his signature.(3) WON the testator’s witnesses signed at the left margin. The other page which is
knowledge of the Spanish language used in the will is material marked as “Pagina dos” comprises the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment. The acknowledgment itself states that “This
.Held: (1) Yes. The will is still valid despite the absence of a page Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including this
number on the first sheet.The omission to put a page number on page”.
the first sheet, if that be necessary, is supplied by other forms of
identification more trustworthy than the conventional numeral Nera v. Rimando
G.R. L-5971 February 27, 1911
words or characters. The Supreme Court determined the first
Ponente: Carson, J.:
sheet as the first page by virtue of the document’s (will) contents
for which the said sheet was logically and coherently a precedent 'Test of Presence'
of the second one and the two cannot be interchanged since
there were only two sheets. Facts:
1. At the time the will was executed, in a large room connecting
(2) Yes. The thumb mark was sufficient in lieu of his signature. The with a smaller room by a doorway where a curtain hangs across,
one of the witnesses was in the outside room when the other
Court took noticeof the fact that the testator was suffering from
witnesses were attaching their signatures to the instrument.
partial paralysis. The Court added that it was a matter of taste or
preference. A statute requiring a will to be "signed" issatisfied if 2. The trial court did not consider the determination of the issue
the signature is made by the testator's mark. (De Gala vs. as to the position of the witness as of vital importance in
Gonzales andOna, 53 Phil., 108) determining the case. It agreed with the ruling in the case of
Jaboneta v. Gustillo that the alleged fact being that one of the
(3) No. The knowledge of Spanish language of the testator is subscribing witnesses was in the outer room while the signing
immaterial according to the Supreme Court. There is no occurred in the inner room, would not be sufficient to invalidate
the execution of the will.
statutory requirement that such knowledge be expressly stated in
the will itself. Citing Gonzales vs. Laurel (46 Phil 781), there is a 3. The CA deemed the will valid.
presumption that the testator knew the language
Issue: Whether or not the subscribing witness was able to see the
Toboada vs Rosal testator and other witnesses in the act of affixing their signatures.
The position of the parties must be such that with relation to each
RTC: considering that this court has so found that the divorce
other at the moment of the attaching the signatures, they may
decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void and
see each other sign if they chose to.
inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage he
contracted with Alicia Fortunato on January 16, 1958 at Manila is
In the Jaboneta case, the true test of presence is not whether or
likewise void. CA Affirmed
not they actualy saw each other sign but whether they might have
seen each other sign if they chose to doso considering their
physical, mental condition and position in relation to each other ISSUE:
at the moment of the inscription of the signature.
Who are entitled to inherit?
Lorenzo returned to the United States and on November 16, 1951 Cayetano v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984.
filed for divorce with the Superior Court of the State of California
in and for the County of San Diego. Paula was represented by The testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and
counsel, John Riley, and actively participated in the proceedings. was a permanent resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that the
On November 27, 1951, the Superior Court of the State of testatrix died in Manila while temporarily residing with her sister;
California, for the County of San Diego found all factual allegations that during her lifetime, the testatrix made her last will and
to be true and issued an interlocutory judgment of divorce.[11]
testament according to the laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that after
the testatrix death, her last will and testament was presented,
Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her. On December probated, allowed, and registered with the Registry of Wills at the
4, 1952, the divorce decree became final. In the meantime,
County of Philadelphia, U.S.A. An opposition to the reprobate of
Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. Lorenzo married Alicia F.
Llorente in Manila.[13] Apparently, Alicia had no knowledge of the the will was filed by herein petitioner alleging among other things
first marriage even if they resided in the same town as Paula, who that the intrinsic provisions of the will are null and void. The
did not oppose the marriage or cohabitation. petitioner maintains that since the respondent judge allowed the
reprobate of Adoracion’s will, Hermogenes C. Campos was
Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament. The will was divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law for him.
notarized by Notary Public Salvador M. Occiano, duly signed by
Lorenzo with attesting witnesses Francisco Hugo, Francisco
Neibres and Tito Trajano. In the will, Lorenzo bequeathed all his
property to Alicia and their three children. ISSUES
Lorenzo filed with the Regional Trial Court, Iriga, Camarines Sur, a [1]Whether or not the Philippine law will apply to determine the
petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and intrinsic validity of a will executed by an undisputed foreigner.
testament wherein Lorenzo moved that Alicia be appointed
Special Administratrix of his estate.
[2] Whether or not Philippine law will apply to determine the executrix. The will was typewritten in Tagalog and was executed 2
capacity to succeed of Adoracion’s heirs. months prior to death of Isabel.
The petition was opposed by Rizalina Gonzales (petitioner), also a
niece of Isabel, on the following grounds: 1. the will is not
genuine, 2. will was not executed and attested as required by law,
3. the decedent at the time of the making of the will did not have
RULING
testamentary capacity due to her age and sickness, and 4. the will
was procured through undue influence.
[1] NO. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of The trial court disallowed the probate of the will but the Court
the provisions of the will, as provided for by Article 16(2) and of Appeals Reversed the said decision of the trial court. The
1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent must petitioner filed a petition for review with SC claiming that the CA
apply. This was squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 erred in holding that the will of the decedent was executed and
SCRA 358).“It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or attested as required by law when there was absolutely no proof
that the 3 instrumental witnesses are credible.
good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes,
Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession
of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter ISSUE:
alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s national
law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.” 1. 1. Can a witness be considered competent under Art 820-821
and still not be considered credible as required by Art. 805?