Title: Aluad v.

Aluad

Facts:

-Petitioners filed for recovery of ownership for Lots 674 (given to respondent by Matilde in her Last Will)
and 676 (bought by respondent from Matilde) from respondent.
-Petitioners allege that all 6 lots of Matilde were donated by Matilde to Maria (Donation Inter Vivos)

Trial Court: ruled in favor of Petitioners; Matilde could not have alienated subject properties to
respondent because she already donated them to Maria (Petitioner’s mother)
Trial court ordered issuance of writ of Fexecution pending appeal and petitioners took possession of the
subject properties

Court of Appeals reserved Trial Court

CA: donation is MORTIS CAUSE and not inter vivos, as such must follow formalities of will, which it did
not
The Deed of Donation only has 2 witnesses instead of 3 and had no attestation
-Lot 676 declared as respondent’s
-Lot 674 cannot be declared because Matilde’s Last Will still needed to be probated

Issue: Whether the Donation is Inter Vivos or Mortis Causa

SC Ruling:
-Donation is MORTIS CAUSA
(1) It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor;
(2) That before the death of the transferor, the transfer should be revocable
(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee

Will was not notarized

DENIED
Title: In re Alvarado

Facts:

Testator Alvarado, in his Last Will, disinherited his illegitimate son (petitioner).
A codicil was added to the Will for the operation of testator’s glaucoma.
The provision on the disinheritance was not changed.
Respondent read the Will in the presence of three instrumental witnesses and public notary.
Respondent filed a Petition for Probate of the Will which was opposed by Petitioner stating that testator
was BLIND and that his signature was obtain through fraud or trick.

CFI issued Probate Order

CA ruled testator was not blind, but assuming he was, the Will complied with all the requirements of
law, there was substantial compliance

Issue: Whether or not testator was blind. If he was, is double-reading still required given the
circumstances?

Held:

Art 808 if testator is blind, will must be read two times: (1) before witnesses & (2) before notary public

Although testator was no actually blind, he could not read the will because of his poor eye sight. ART
808 applies not only to blind people, but also to those incapable of reading.

There was substantial compliance

Title: In the Matter of the Petition for Probate of the Will of Dorotea Perez

Facts:

-first page of Will of testatrix was signed by her at the end and by the 3 subscribing witnesses at the left
margin
-second page which is the attestation was signed by the 3 witnesses at the end, and by the testatrix at
the left margin
-petitioner filed for probate, no opposition, 1 witness presented
-trial court judge denied petition for probate and ordered that intestate heirs be named and their
address given so they may be notified
-trial court judge required that the witnesses also sign at the end of the will and not merely at the left
margin, because the witnesses not only attest to the will but also to the signature of testator
-petitioner (proponent of will) allege that there was substantial compliance

Issue: Whether or not there was substantial compliance of Art 805

Held: YES

Insofar as the requirement of subscription is concerned, it is our considered view that the will in this
case was subscribed in a manner which fully satisfies the purpose of identification.

The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will attested not
only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as
embodied in the attestation clause.

While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms
should be ignored, especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed.
Title: Dy Yieng Seangio vs. Reyes

Facts:

-Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Segundo Seangio.
-Petitioners allege that there is a holographic will which must undergo probate
-Private respondents allege that the holographic will is not valid on the ground of preterition

Issue: Whether or not the instrument left by Segundo constitutes as a Will

Held: YES

-the disinheritance of the eldest son by Segundo is valid.

-there is no preterition
-holographic wills must be construed liberally in favor of the testator’s intention
-disinheritance is a form of disposition
-
Title: Conde v. Abaya

Facts:

Petitioner Paula Conde claims that she inherited her deceased child’s right to be acknowledged as
Casiano’s natural children.

Issue: WON the acknowledgement of natural children may be brought in special probate proceedings?
YES

WON the rights of an deceased child to be acknowledge as a natural child may be inherited? NO
Art. 118 legitimacy
-child may claim legitimacy during his lifetime and such claim may be inherited by his heirs if he died
during minority or insanity (not yet instituted)
-heirs may only inherited right to claim legitimacy if it was already instituted during the lifetime of the
illegitimate child
Art. 137 acknowledgement of natural children
-may be brought only during the lifetime of the parents except when the parents died during minority of
the child, the child may bring the action within 4 years after his majority; if an unknown document
acknowledging the child is discovered
Title: Pamplona v. Moreto

Facts:

Herein respondents are heirs of Monica Maniega, wife of Floviano Moreto, who survived the Monica.
Petitioners are vendees of the subject property, sold to them by Floviano Moreto.
Respondents claim that Floviano had no right to sell the subject property to petitioners because they
were the heirs and the estate of Monica was not yet liquidated (conjugal property)
Petitioners mistakenly built their house of the wrong lot (one half should be returned to respondents)

Trial Court: one half should be returned to respondents

CA: affirmed trial court

Issue: Whether petitioners are entitled to the full property or only one-half thereof.

Held:

When Monica died, the estate became a community property between Floviano and his children as co-
owners.

Respondents are guilty of estoppel by laches because they lived right next to the subject property for 9
years and did not lift a finger to protect their rights.