Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MALOTO

    Uploaded by

    tantum ergum
    2 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Adriana Maloto, who died in 1963. The four heirs initially believed she died without a will and divided the estate equally among themselves. However, in 1967 a purported last will of Maloto from 1940 was discovered, leaving her estate to different beneficiaries. The lower court denied probating the will because it found the will was validly revoked when Maloto's house helper burned it under her instruction. The Supreme Court ruled there was no valid revocation because there was not sufficient evidence that the paper burned was the actual will, and the burning was not done in Maloto's presence, so the required intent to revoke was not established.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Adriana Maloto, who died in 1963. The four heirs initially believed she died without a will and divided the estate equally among themselves. However, in 1967 a purported last will of Maloto from 1940 was discovered, leaving her estate to different beneficiaries. The lower court denied probating the will because it found the will was validly revoked when Maloto's house helper burned it under her instruction. The Supreme Court ruled there was no valid revocation because there was not sufficient evidence that the paper burned was the actual will, and the burning was not done in Maloto's presence, so the required intent to revoke was not established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2 views1 page

    MALOTO

    Uploaded by

    tantum ergum
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Adriana Maloto, who died in 1963. The four heirs initially believed she died without a will and divided the estate equally among themselves. However, in 1967 a purported last will of Maloto from 1940 was discovered, leaving her estate to different beneficiaries. The lower court denied probating the will because it found the will was validly revoked when Maloto's house helper burned it under her instruction. The Supreme Court ruled there was no valid revocation because there was not sufficient evidence that the paper burned was the actual will, and the burning was not done in Maloto's presence, so the required intent to revoke was not established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Testate Estate of the Late Adriana Maloto, Aldina Maloto Casiano, CONSTANCIO

    MALOTO, Purificacion Miraflor, Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Asilo De Molo,
    petitioners,
    vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto, respondents.
    G.R. No. 76464, February 29, 1988, 158 SCRA 451

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

    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 house helper under the instruction
    of the deceased.

    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.

    You might also like