46503538 Jen Succession Reviewera

8/12/2019 46503538 Jen Succession Reviewera

1/170

SUCCESSION REVIEWERSUCCESSION REVIEWER 11STSTSEM 2006-2007SEM 2006-2007

Based on Jottings and Jurisprudence on the Law onSuccession by Prof. Balane and Cases according to the

200 Syllabus of Justice !ofile"a

CHAPTER 1GENERAL PROVISIONS

ART. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisiion !"#i$ue of %&ic& &e '$o'e$"( $i)&s ando!*i)aions o &e e+en of &e #a*ue of &ein&e$iance( of a 'e$son a$e $ansmied&$ou)& &is dea& o ano&e$ o$ o&e$s ei&e$!" &is %i** o$ !" o'e$aion of *a%.

The Code has simplified the concept of succession andtreats it simply as one of the 7 Modes of Acquiring

Ownership as enumerated in Art712 of the NCC.

7 ,O-ES O AC/0IRING ONERSHIP1. Occupation2. ntellectual Creation!. "aw#. $onation%. &state and ntestate 'uccession(. Tradition7. )rescription

O*erlap of Codal $efinition with Art77(

Article 77# tal+s of ,property- rights and oligationsto the e/tent of the *alue of the inheritance.0

Article 77( tal+s of the ,inheritance0 as including,all the property- rights and oligations of a personwhich are not e/tinguished y his death.0

or clarity and etter correlation- )rof. alaneopines that Art77# should rather read3

Succession is a mode of acquisition byvirtue of which the inheritance of a personis transmitted through his death to anotheror others either by his will or by operation oflaw.

And the inheritance which is transmitted through aperson4s death is defined y Article 77( to include,all the property- rights and oligations of a personwhich are not e/tinguished y his death.0

5hat are Transmitted y 'uccession6

Only Transmissile ights and Oligations.

8eneral ule 9 if the right or oligation is strictly

personal :intuitu personae;- it is intransmissileday period had lapsed so that the agreement had ceased toe *alid.

#Tasiana cited $ue8ara 8. $ue8ara which did not allow an

e/traDudicial settlement of a decedent4s estate if there haseen left a will- stating that it was against the law and pulicpolicy.

# Thus- pending proate of rancisco4s will when theagreement was made- it was in*alid.

5hether or not the compromise agreement was in*alid withoutfirst proating the will of rancisco.# NO. The compromise agreement was *alid.

# $ue8ara 8. $ue8ara was inapplicale.# ollowing a re*iew of the pro*ision in the agreement where

full and complete payment was made to Tasiana in theamount of )?-- it was clear that there was no attemptto settle or distriute rancisco4s estate efore the proate ofhis will.

# ts oDect was con*eyance y Tasiana of her indi*idualshare and interest- actual or e*entual- in the estates ofrancisco and osefa.

# A hereditary share in a decedent4s estate is transmitted or*ested immediately from the moment of the death of suchcausante or predecessor in interest GArt. 777- NCC.E

# Thus- there is no legal ar to a successor Gwith requisitecontracting capacityE disposing of his or her hereditary shareimmediately after such death- e*en if the actual e/tent ofsuch share is not determined until the susequent liquidationof the estate.

# The effect of such alienation is limited to what is ultimatelyadDudicated to the *endor heir.

# Moreo*er- as sur*i*ing spouse of rancisco4s- Tasiana wasa compulsory heir so that her successional interest e/istedindependent of rancisco4s will and testament and woulde/ist e*en if such were not proated at all.

# Also- the agreement ound the partiesin their indi*idualcapacities- upon the perfection of the contract- e*en asenta pre*ious authority from the Court.

# The only difference etween an e/traDudicial compromiseand one sumitted and appro*ed y the court is that thelatter is enforceale y e/ecution proceedings.

5hether or not the agreement compromises the status and*alidity of the marriage etween rancisco and Tasiana.

# NO. n the *ery opening paragraph of the agreement itself-she was descried as the heir and sur*i*ing spouse ofrancisco $e orDa which was a definite admission of herci*il status.

5hether or not the compromise agreement had ceased to e*alid.# NO. ose4s act of see+ing a court order for the appro*al and

enforcement of the agreement is Dustified as said agreementhad not een aandoned and not in*alidated y the inailityof the parties to reach a no*atory accord in a quest for amore satisfactory compromise following Tasiana4s unilateralattempts to ac+ out from the same.

# A hereditary share in a decedent4s estate is transmitted or*ested immediately from the moment of the death of suchcausante or predecessor in interest GArt. 777- NCC.E

# Thus- there is no legal ar to a successor Gwith requisitecontracting capacityE disposing of his or her hereditary shareimmediately after such death- e*en if the actual e/tent ofsuch share is not determined until the susequent liquidationof the estate.

# The effect of such alienation is limited to what is ultimatelyadDudicated to the *endor heir.

# The only difference etween an e/traDudicial compromiseand one sumitted and appro*ed y the court is that thelatter is enforceale y e/ecution proceedings.

Bonilla v. Bar#ena=eirs ha*e right to e sustituted for deceased

in an action that sur*i*es.

- On March !1- 1@7% ortunata arcena- mother of minorsosalio onilla and 'al*acion onilla and wife of )oncianoonilla- instituted a ci*il action in the Court of irst nstanceof Ara- to quiet title o*er certain parcels of land located inAra.

- On August #- 1@7%- the defendants filed a motion to dismissthe complaint on the ground that ortunata arcena is deadand- therefore- has no legal capacity to sue.

- $uring the hearing- counsel for the plaintiff confirmed thedeath of ortunata arcena and as+ed for sustitution y herminor children and her husand- the petitioners herein< utthe court after the hearing immediately dismissed the caseon the ground that a dead person cannot e a real party ininterest and has no legal personality to sue.

- 5hether the court acted correctly in dismissing thecomplaint on the ground that the plaintiff- who had diedpending the proceedings- has no more personality to sue.

- 5hile it is true that a person who is dead cannot sue incourt- yet he can e sustituted y his heirs in pursuing the

case up to its completion.- The court had acquired Durisdiction o*er the person of the

deceased. f thereafter she died- 'ection 1(- ule ! of theules of Court pro*ides that whene*er a party to a pendingcase dies . . . it shall e the duty of his attorney to inform thecourt promptly of such death . . . and to gi*e the name andresidence of his e/ecutor- administrator- guardian or otherlegal representati*es. This duty was complied with y thecounsel for the deceased plaintiff when he manifestedefore the respondent Court that ortunata arcena died on

Jen Laygo 3DJen Laygo 3DDigests c/o 3C !"#!$% &lvin Saga' Cecille (atividad' C) *an' )ulie Domingo' +ars ,ongo' -ea +ateo' (ina ,ances ,yan uan 66


7/170


uly @- 1@7% and as+ed for the proper sustitution of partiesin the case.

- Article 777 of the Ci*il Code pro*ides that the rights to thesuccession are transmitted from the moment of the death ofthe decedent. -ro6 the 6o6ent of the death of thedecedent< the heirs beco6e the absolute owners of hisproperty< sub>ect to the rights and obligations of thedecedent< and they cannot be depri8ed of their rights thereto

e?cept by the 6ethods pro8ided for by law. ,he 6o6ent ofdeath is the deter6ining factor when the heirs ac=uire adefinite right to the inheritance whether such right be pure orcontingent. ,he right of the heirs to the property of thedeceased 8ests in the6 e8en before >udicial declaration oftheir being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings.5hen ortunata arcena- therefore- died her claim or rightto the parcels of land in litigation was not e/tinguished yher death ut was transmitted to her heirs upon her death.=er heirs ha*e thus acquired interest in the properties inlitigation and ecame parties in interest in the case. Thereis- therefore- no reason for the Court to disallow theirsustitution as parties in interest for the deceased plaintiff.

- "i+ewise- when counsel as+ed that the minor children esustituted for the deceased and suggested that the unclee appointed as guardian ad litem for them ecause theirfather is usy earning a li*ing for the family- it is gra*e errorfor the court to refuse the request for sustitution on theground that the children were still minors and cannot sue-ecause it ought to +now that 'ection 17- ule ! of theules of Court- directs the Court to appoint a guardian adlitem for the minor.

- rom the moment of the death of the decedent- the heirsecome the asolute owners of his property- suDect to therights and oligations of the decedent- and they cannot edepri*ed of right thereto e/cept y the methods pro*ided fory law. The moment of death is the determining factor wherethe heirs acquire a definite right to the inheritance whethersuch right to e pure or contingent. The right of the heirs tothe property of the deceased *ests in them e*en eforeDudicial declaration of their eing heirs in the testate or

intestate proceedings.

Cases for Arti#les $$%&$$$

Heirs of S'ouses Sande"as v. Lina

# &liosoro 'andeDas was appointed administrator for thesettlement of the estate of his wife- emedios.

# =e e*entually sold parcels of land to Ale/ "ina- who agreedto uy it for )1M.

# &liosoro e*entually died and Ale/ "ina was appointed newadministrator of the estate of emedios.

# The heirs of 'andeDas now filed a M for the appointment ofa new administrator.

# "ina filed a Motion to appro*e the deed of conditional sale.

5hether or not &liosoro is legally oligated to con*ey title tothe property which is found y the lower court to e a contractto sell.# NO. ecause the condition is the procurement of court

appro*al and not the payment of the purchase price.

5hether or not the proate court has Durisdiction o*er theappro*al of the sale.

# I&'. 'C held that proate court has Durisdiction o*er it sinceit co*ers all matters relating to the settlement of estates andthe proate of wills of deceased persons- including theappointment and remo*al of administrators and e/ecutors. talso e/tends to incidental and collateral matters such asselling- mortgaging or otherwise encumering real propertyelonging to the estate.

# The stipulation requiring court appro*al does not affect the*alidity and the effecti*ity of the sale as regards the sellingheirs. t merely implies that that the property may e ta+enout of custodia legis- only with court4s permission.

5hether or not "ina can apply to the court for the appro*al ofthe sale.# ecause the other heirs did not consent to the sale of their

ideal shares in the disputed lots- it is only limited to the pro>indi*iso share of &liosoro.

# The proper party must e the one who is to e enefited orinDured y the Dudgment- or one who is to e entitled to thea*ails of the suit.

5hether or not &liosoro is in ad faith# NO. 'C held that he is not in ad faith ecause3 G1E he

informed "ina of the need to secure court appro*al prior tothe sale of the lots- and G2E he did not promise he couldotain the appro*al.

=ow much is &liosoro4s share in the property6# 'C held that his share is 11L2 of the entire property

ecause he owned of these lots plus a further 1L1 of theremaining half- in his capacity as one of the legal heirs.

Lim"o#o v. Intestate of (la)rante

- Assailed is the decision of the )ulic 'er*ice Commission

granting a certificate of pulic con*enience to install-maintain and operate an ice plant in 'an uan to thentestate &state of )edro O. ragrante.

- ragrante died pending the conclusion of his application toCommission.

- The Commission granted the application in *iew of thefinancial aility of the estate to maintain and operate the iceplant

5hether the sustitution of the legal representati*e of the&state of ragante for the latter as party applicant in the casepending efore the Commission e allowed.- Ies. =ad ragante not died- he would ha*e the right to

prosecute his application to its final conclusion. This rightdid not lapse through his death. =ence- it constitutes a part

of the assets of his estate- for such a right was propertydespite the possiility that the application may e denied. Acertificate of pulic con*enience once granted shoulddescend to the estate as an asset. 'uch certificate wouldcertainly e property and the right to acquire such elongedto the decedent in his lifetime and sur*i*ed to his estate andDudicial administrator after his death.

5hether the &state of ragante is a person within the meaningof the )ulic 'er*ice Act.



8/170


- Ies. The 'upreme Court of ndiana declared that acollection of property to which the law attriutes the capacityof ha*ing rights and duties- such as the estate of adeceased- is an artificial person- and to rule otherwise wouldresult in a failure of Dustice. n this case- there would also ea failure of Dustice if the estate would not e regarded as aperson as it would preDudice ragante4s in*estment of )hp.!%T.

5hether the &state of ragante can e considered as a citiHenof the )hilippines.- Ies. The fiction of e/tension of the citiHenship of ragante

is grounded upon the same principle as that of the e/tensionof his personality.

- The decedent4s rights which y their nature are note/tinguished y death go to ma+e up a part and parcel ofthe assets of his estate- which- eing placed under thecontrol and management of the administrator- can not ee/ercised ut y him in representation of the estate for theenefit of the creditors- de*isees or legatees and heirs.

- eal property- as estate or interest- ha*e also een declaredto include e*ery species of title- inchoate or complete andemrace rights which lie in contract- whether e/ecutory ore/ecuted.

- t is the estate or mass of property- rights and assets left ythe decedent- instead of the heirs directly- that ecomes*ested and charged with his rights and oligations whichsur*i*e after his demise. This doctrine is an arogation ofart. ((1 of the Ci*il Code rought aout y the enactment ofthe Code of Ci*il )rocedure.

ART. 77@? Le)a* o$ Inesae( o$>? ,i+ed

ART. 77B. Tesamena$" succession is &a %&ic&$esu*s f$om &e desi)naion of an &ei$( madein a %i** e+ecued in &e fo$m '$esc$i!ed !"*a%.

ART. 7


9/170


2. ,%S,('%),(&1 3(rt. AA5

'uccession y will

. *),%S,(,%

'uccession in default of a will

. '*D%@ 3(rt. AE05

Not a distinct +ind really- ut acomination of any two or all of the first

three.

ART. 7


10/170


# 5hether the Contract of "ease with Option to uy enteredinto y the late &ncarnacion artolome with $FC wasterminated upon her death or whether it inds her sole heir-Kictor- e*en after her demise.

# The 'C held that Kictor is ound y the Contract of "easewith Option to uy.

# Article 1!11 of the NCC pro*ides3 Contracts ta+e effect onlyetween the parties- their assigns and heirs- e/cept in case

where the rights and oligations arising therefrom are nottransmissile y G1E their nature- G2E stipulation or G!Epro*ision of law.

# n this case- there is neither contractual stipulation nor legalpro*ision ma+ing the rights and oligation under the contractintransmissile. More importantly- the nature of the rightsand oligations therein are- y their nature- transmissile.

# 5here the ser*ice or act is of such a character that it may eperformed y another- or where the contract- y its terms-shows the performance y others was contemplated- deathdoes not terminate the contract or e/cuse nonperformance.

# n this case- there is no personal act required from the late&ncarnacion. ather- the oligation of &ncarnacion todeli*er possession of the property may *ery well eperformed y Kictor.

# Also- the suDect matter of the contract is a lease- a property

right. The death of a party does not e/cuse nonperformanceof a contract which in*ol*es a property right- and the rightsand oligations thereunder pass to the personalrepresentati*es of the deceased.

# 'ince $FC e/ercised its option in accordance with thecontract- the 'C held that Kictor has the oligation tosurrender possession of and lease of premises for ( years.=owe*er- 'C held that the issue of tenancy should e*entilated in another proceeding.

# The )ene$a* $u*e- therefore- is that heirs are ound ycontracts entered into y their predecessors>in>intereste,#e'twhen the rights and oligations arising therefrom arenot transmissile y G1E their nature- G2E stipulation or G!Epro*ision of law.

# 5here acts stipulated in a contract require the e/ercise of

special +nowledge- genius- s+ill- taste- aility- e/perience-Dudgment- discretion- integrity- or other personal qualificationof one or oth parties- the agreement is of personal nature-and terminates on the death of the party who is required torender such ser*ice.

# There is pri*ity of interest etween an heir and his deceasedpredecessor 9 he only succeeds to what rights hispredecessor had and what is *alid and inding against thelatter is also *alid and inding against the former.

# The death of a party does not e/cuse nonperformance of acontract which in*ol*es a property right- and the rights andoligations thereunder pass to the personal representati*esof the deceased. 'imilarly- nonperformance is not e/cusedy the death of the party when the other party has a propertyinterest in the suDect matter of the contract.

CHAPTER @TESTA,ENTARF S0CCESSION

SEC-I/ 0 1 2ILLS

Subse#tion 0 1 2ills in 3eneral

ART. 7ma+ing is purely statutory.

!. OMA"T&' )&'C&$ I "A5

The requirement of form prescriedrespecti*ely for attested and holographicwills.

#. CONTO" TO A C&TAN $&8&&

The testator4s power of testamentarydisposition is limited y the rules on legitimes.

%. AT& =' $&AT=

Testamentary succession- li+e all other

+inds of succession in our Code- is 6ortiscausa.



11/170


CCHARACTERISTICSHARACTERISTICS OO ILLSILLS

1. P&%L1 P%&S+)(L Articles 7?#- 7?% and 7?7

2. -&%% ()@ *),%LL*$%),

Article ?!@

The testator4s consent should not e

*itiated y the causes mentioned in Article ?!@paragraphs 2>( on nsanity- Kiolence-ntimidation- Bndue nfluence- raud andMista+e.

. S+L%') ()@ -+&'(L

Articles ?#>?1# and ?2>?21

The requirements of form depend onwhether the will is attested or holographic.

Articles ?%>?? and ?2>?21 go*ernattested wills. Articles ?1>?1# go*ernholographic wills. Article ?# applies to oth.

. &%/+C(BL% ()@ ('BL(,+&1

Article ?2?

F. '+&,*S C(S(

Article 7?!

This is a necessary consequence ofArticles 77# and 777.

. *)@*/*@(L

Article ?1?

oint wills are prohiited in thisDurisdiction.

A. %D%C,%@ 4*,! ()*'S ,%S,()@*

This characteristic is implied in Article7?!

iHal4s *aledictory poem ,Bltimo

Adios0 was not a will. An instrument which

merely e/presses a last wish as a thought orad*ice ut does not contain a disposition ofproperty and was not e/ecuted with ani6ustestandi- cannot e legally considered a will.

E. %D%C,%@ 4*,! ,%S,('%),(&1 C(P(C*,1

Articles 7@( 9 ?! on testamentarycapacity and intent

. )*L(,%&(L

This characteristic is implied in Article7?!

#0. @*SP+S*,*/% +- P&+P%&,1

Article 7?! seems to consider the

disposition of the testator4s estate 6ortis causa

The present Ci*il Code seems to limit the concept of awill to a disposition of property to ta+e effect upon andafter death.

t is only when the will disposes of property- witherdirectly or indirectly- that it has to e proated. 5henthere is no disposition of property- it is sumitted that-although the instrument may e considered as a will- itdoes not ha*e to e proated< its dispositions which are

pro*ided y law- such as the ac+nowledgment of anatural child or the order that thepatria potestas of thewidow shall continue after her remarriage- can e gi*eeffect e*en without proating the will.

Questions

5ould a document merely appointing an e/ecutor-not containing any dispositi*e pro*ision- ha*e to

comply with the formal requirements of a will inorder to e effecti*e6 5ould such a documentha*e to e proated6

ustice =ofilena says NO- ecause thereis no disposition and such appointmentwould not e under the category of a will.Therefore- the formal requirements of awill do not apply.

5ould a document containing only a disinheritingclause ha*e to e in the form of a will and eproated6 :Article @1(;

I&'. According to Art@1(- disinheritancecan e effected only through a willwherein the legal cause therefore shall e

specified. A *alid disinheritance is in effect a

disposition of the property of the testatorin fa*or of those who would succeed inthe asence of the disinherited heir.Bnless the will is proated- thedisinheritance cannot e gi*en effect.

CA'&'4itu) v. CA

- omarico Kitug and Nenita Alonte were co>administrators of$olores Kitug4s GdeceasedE estate. owena Corona was thee/ecutri/.

- omarico- the deceased4s husand- filed a motion with the

proate court as+ing for authority to sell certain shares ofstoc+ and real properties elonging to the estate to co*eralleged ad*ances to the estate- which he claimed aspersonal funds.

- The ad*ances were used to pay estate ta/es.- Corona opposed the motion on ground that the ad*ances

came from a sa*ings account which formed part of theconDugal partnership properties and is part of the estate.Thus- there was no ground for reimursement.

- omarico claims that the funds are his e/clusi*e property-ha*ing een acquired through a sur*i*orship agreemente/ecuted with his late wife and the an+.

- The agreement stated that after the death of either one ofthe spouses- the sa*ings account shall elong to and e thesole property of the sur*i*or- and shall e payale to andcollectile or withdrawale y such sur*i*or.

- The lower court upheld the *alidity of the agreement andgranted the motion to sell.

- CA re*ersed stating that the sur*i*orship agreementconstitutes a con*eyance 6ortis causawhich did not complywith the formalities of a *alid will. Assuming that it was adonation inter 8i8os- it is a prohiited donation Gdonationetween spousesE.

- 5ON the sur*i*orship agreement was *alid.- I&'.



12/170


- The con*eyance is not 6ortis causawhich should eemodied in a will. A will is a personal- solemn- re*ocaleand free act y which a capacitated person disposes of hisproperty and rights and declares or complies with duties tota+e effect after his death. The equest or de*ise mustpertain to the testator.

- n this case- the sa*ings account in*ol*ed was in the natureof conDugal funds.

- 'ince it was not shown that the funds elonged e/clusi*elyto one party- it is presumed to e conDugal.

- t is also not a donation inter 8i8osecause it was to ta+eeffect after the death of one party. t is also not a donationetween spouses ecause it in*ol*ed no con*eyance of aspouse4s own properties to the other.

- t was an error to include the sa*ings account in thein*entory of the deceased4s assets ecause it is theseparate property of omarico.

- Thus- omarico had the right to claim reimursement.

- A will is a personal- solemn- re*ocale and free act y whicha capacitated person disposes of his property and rights anddeclares or complies with duties to ta+e effect after hisdeath.

- 'ur*i*orship agreements are permitted y the NCC.=owe*er- its operation or effect must not e *iolati*e of thelaw Gi.e. used as a cloa+ to hide an inofficious donation or totransfer property in fraud of creditors or to defeat the legitimeof a forced heirE.

ART. 71%7 of the NCC that the



13/170


heir is free to accept or reDect the testamentarydisposition.

5hat this article prohiits is the delegation to a rd

person of the power to decide whether a dispositionshould taGe effect or not.

Case for Arts. $*5&$*$

el !osario v. el !osario

- $on Nicolas left a will awarding parts of his estate to hisnephews- $on &nrique and plaintiff- $on amon suDect tocertain conditions. G'ee case page !22E

- =e also left a part of his estate to his silings- one of whichis $ona "uisa. And upon the latter4s death- her share shalle di*ided etween her two nephews after )1- has eengi*en to $ona "uisa4s male children.

- $oSa =onorata- $on Nicolas4 wife- left her estate to hishusand. Bpon the husand4s death- it shall e passed on toher husand4s silings. =owe*er- upon the death of hersister>in>law- $ona "uisa- same pro*isions shall apply aswhat is stated in her husand4s will.

- )laintiff now institutes this present case against thee/ecutor- who is one of his uncles- $on Clemente. =e see+sto e entitled to a certain part of the share of the estates leftto $ona "uisa during her life- and he as+s that the e/ecutore directed to render accounts and to proceed to thepartition of the estate.

5hether or not he is entitled to any share of the estate left ythe spouses.- )laintiff is not entitled to any allowance under the will of $on

Nicolas ecause3a. =e is only allowed such amount if widow

remarries and he is still continuing studies-which are not present in this case.

. =is interest in the share of $ona "uisa in $onNicolas4 will was gi*en to him as an heir and notas a legatee.

- =e is not entitled to li*e in the widow4s house ecause suchwas terminated upon the widow4s death.

- =e is entitled to e paid the sum of )1% gi*en to $on&nrique in addition to the )1% pesos already recei*ed yplaintiff under the @th clause of $ona =onorata4s willecause3

a. The will specifically awarded the said amountsto him as a legatee and the fact that they werecalled natural sons of $on Clemente only ser*esas a further description and needs no proof to e

gi*en.. y *irtue of the right of accretion- plaintiff is alsoentitled to the other )1% share of $on &nriquesince the latter died efore $on =onorata.

- =e is entitled to the share of the estate left y the will of$ona =onorata to $ona "uisa during her life- after deducting)1- ecause3

a. The share of plaintiff from $ona "uisa4s share isgi*en to him whether or not $ona "uisa diesefore or after $ona =onorata.

. =is right in the share of $ona "uisa is e/presslyleft to him as a legacy.

- The reser*ation of property in a will to the name of specificpersons shall e considered as a legacy.

- 5here the will authoriHes the e/ecutor to pay the legacies-e/pressly or y natural inference- action will lie y thelegatee against the e/ecutor to compel allowance andpayment hereof. f the e/ecutor is not authoriHed- action will

lie against the heirs. An heir on the other hand- can maintainno such action against the e/ecutor.

ART. 7


14/170


o/as City0 and the testator hasmore than one fishpond in o/asCity.

2. P(,%),9 o*ious on the face of the will 5hen an uncertainty arises upon the faceof the will- as to the application of any of itspro*isions

a) )atent as to )&'ON 9 , institute Rof my estate to so6e of my firstcousins.

b) )atent as to )O)&TI 9 ,equeath to my cousin )acifico so6eof my cars.0

n oth cases- the amiguity is e*ident

from a reading of the testamentarypro*isions themsel*es< the amiguity is

patent:patere9 to e e/posed;

HO TO -EAL ITH A,IG0ITIES 9

The pro*isions of this article do not ma+e a

distinction in the solution of the prolem ofamiguities 9 whether latent or patent.

=ence- the distinction etween the 2 +indsof amiguity is- in the light of the codalpro*isions- an all ut theoretical one.

,he a6biguity should< as far as possible< be

cleared up or resol8ed< in order to gi8e effect to thetesta6entary disposition.

ased on principle that testacy ispreferred to intestacy.

(6biguity 6ay be resol8ed using any e8idence

ad6issible and rele8ant< e?cluding the oral

declarations of the testator as to his intention. eason for the statutory e/clusion is that

a dead man cannot refute a tale.

ART. 7B. T&e %o$ds of a %i** a$e o !e a2en in&ei$ o$dina$" and )$ammaica* sense( un*essa c*ea$ inenion o use &em in ano&e$ sensecan !e )a&e$ed( and &a o&e$ can !easce$ained.

Tec&nica* %o$ds in a %i** a$e o !e a2enin &ei$ ec&nica* sense( un*ess &e cone+c*ea$*" indicaes a con$a$" inenion( o$

un*ess i saisfaco$i*" a''ea$s &a &e %asunacquained %i& suc& ec&nica* sense.

'imilar rules are laid down in ule 1! 'ections 1 and1# of the ules of Court 9

Sec0!. 2nterpretation of a writing accordingto its legal meaning *he language of a writingis to be interpreted according to the legalmeaning it bears in the place of its e1ecution'unless the parties intended otherwise.

Sec04. 5eculiar signification of terms *heterms of a writing are presumed to have beenused in their primary and general application'but evidence is admissible to show that theyhave a local' technical' or otherwise peculiarsignification' and were so used and understoodin the particular instance' in which case the

agreement must be construed accordingly.

n contractual interpretation- a similar principle ise/pressed in Article 1!7 par13

&rt03$!. 2f the terms of a contract are clearand leave no doubt upon the intention of thecontracting parties' the literal meaning of itsstipulations shall control.

ART. 7B1. T&e %o$ds of a %i** a$e o $ecei#e anine$'$eaion %&ic& %i** )i#e o e#e$"

e+'$ession some effec( $a&e$ &an one%&ic& %i** $ende$ an" of &e e+'$essionsino'e$ai#e; and of %o modes of ine$'$ein)a %i**( &a is o !e '$efe$$ed %&ic& %i**'$e#en inesac".

A similar rule is found in ule 1! 'ec11 of the oC 9Sec00. 2nstrument construed so as to give

effect to all provisions 2n the construction of aninstrument where there are several provisions orparticulars' such a construction is' if possible' tobe adopted as will give effect to all.

n contractual interpretation- Articles 1!7! and 1!7# lay

down similar principles 9&rt03$3. 2f some stipulation of any contract

should admit of several meanings' it shall beunderstood as bearing that import which is mostadequate to render it effectual.

&rt03$4. *he various stipulations of acontract shall be interpreted together'attributing to the doubtful one that sense whichmay result from all of them ta6en 7ointly.

ART. 7B@. T&e in#a*idi" of one of se#e$a*dis'osiions conained in a %i** does no$esu* in &e in#a*idi" of &e o&e$

dis'osiions( un*ess i is o !e '$esumed &a&e esao$ %ou*d no &a#e made suc& o&e$dis'osiions if &e fi$s in#a*id dis'osiion &adno !een made.

This article ma+es applicale to wills theS%/%&(B*L*,1 +& S%P(&(B*L*,1 P&*)C*PL% instatutory construction frequently e/pressly pro*ided in aseparaility clause.



15/170


The source of this article is Art2?% of the 8erman Ci*ilCode which pro*ides that the in*alidity of one of se*eraldispositions contained in a will results in the in*alidity ofthe other dispositions only if it is to e presumed thatthe testator would not ha*e made these if the in*aliddisposition had not een made.

ART. 7B. P$o'e$" acqui$ed afe$ &e ma2in) of a%i** s&a** on*" 'ass &e$e!"( as if &e esao$&ad 'ossessed i a &e ime of ma2in) &e%i**( s&ou*d i e+'$ess*" a''ea$ !" &e %i**&a suc& %as &is inenion.

This article creates prolems which would not ha*ee/isted had it not een so nonchalantly incorporated inthe Code- an implant from the Code of Ci*il )rocedureand ultimately from American law.

The prolem springs from the fact that this articlema+es the will spea+ as of the time it is made- ratherthan at the time of the decedent4s death :which is more

logical ecause that is when the will ta+es effectaccording to Article 777;.

llustration 9 P e/ecutes a will in 1@?% containing alegacy3 , gi*e to M all my shares in ).0 The testatordies in 1@@- owning at the time of his death ten timesas many ) shares as he did when he made the will.

Bnder Article 7@!- the shares acquired

after the will was e/ecuted are NOT included inthe legacy.

A$ic*e 7B &e$efo$e de'a$s f$om &e coda*'&i*oso'&" of A$ic*es 774 and 778 and consiuesan ECEPTION o &e conce' of succession as

*in2ed o dea& and $ende$ed *e)a**" effeci#e !"dea&.

)rof. alane suggests the pro*isions e reworded as3,)roperty acquired after the ma+ing of a will passestherey unless the contrary clearly appears from thewords or the conte/t of the will.0

n the meantime- it is suggested that a lieralapplication of the article e allowed.

Can the word ,e/pressly0 in this article einterpreted to mean ,clearly0 e*en if it might estretching a point6

ART. 7B4. E#e$" de#ise o$ *e)ac" s&a** co#e$ a**&e ine$es %&ic& &e esao$ cou*d de#ice o$!equea& in &e '$o'e$" dis'osed of( un*essi c*ea$*" a''ea$s f$om &e %i** &a &einended o con#e" a *ess ine$es.

This article should e read together with Art@2@- whichpro*ides that ,if the testator- heir- or legatee owns onlya part of or an interest in the thing equeathed- thelegacy or de*ise shall e understood limited to such

part or interest- unless the testator e/pressly declaresthat he gi*es the thing in its entirety.

8&N&A" B"& 9 in a legacy or de*ise the testatorgi*es e/actly the interest he has in the thing.

&PC&)TON' 9 he can gi*e a less interest :Art7@#; or agreater interest :Art@2@; than he has.

n the latter case- if the person owning the interestto e acquired does not wish to part with it- thesolution in Art@!1 can e applied wherein thelegatee or de*isee shall e entitled only to theB'T KA"B& O T=& NT&&'T that shouldha*e een acquired.



16/170


RREECCAP O THEAP O THE RR0LES ON0LES ONIINTERPRETATIONNTERPRETATION

AN-AN- CCONSTR0CTION OONSTR0CTION O ILLSILLS

2. n case of dout- testacy is preferred anddisposition should e interpreted in manner whichwould ma+e it operati*e.

!. Two +inds of Amiguities "atent 9 imperfect description orwhen no person or property e/actly answersto description.

)atent 9 ased on the face of thewill as to the application of any of itspro*isions

#. n case of amiguity- may resort to any e*idence-e*en e/trinsic e*idence- ut may not resort tooral declarations of the testator as to hisintention.

%. 5ords of a will shall e ta+en in their ordinaryand grammatical sense- unless3

Another sense or meaning is clearly

intended to e used- and That other sense or meaning can eascertained

(. Technical words shall e ta+en in technicalsense- e/cept3

5hen conte/t clearly indicatesotherwise

5ill was drawn solely y the testatorand he was not acquainted with the technicalmeaning of such word.

7. 5ords are to recei*e interpretation which will gi*eit some effect.

?. n*alidity of one disposition in a will does notmean the other dispositions are also in*alid.

ut in*alidity of one pro*ision

affects the other if it is to e presumed thatthe testator would not ha*e made such otherdisposition if the first in*alid disposition hadnot een made.

@. )roperty that is acquired y the testator after thewill was e/ecuted shall only e transmitted alongwith those in the will- if the testator e/presslystates in the will that such is his intention.

1. A de*ise of legacy shall transmit the whole e/tent4

ART. 7B5. T&e #a*idi" of a %i** as o is fo$mde'ends u'on &e o!se$#ance of &e *a% info$ce a &e ime i is made.

ASPECTS O VALI-ITF O ILLSA. ETRINSIC 9 $efe$s o &e $equi$emen of fo$m

fo$ma* #a*idi"

#. $o8erning law as to ,*'%a. ilipinos 9 law in force when the will wase/ecuted :Art7@%;

.oreigners 9 same rile. The assumptionhere is that the will is eingproated in the )hilippines.

2. $o8erning law as to PL(C%

ilipinos or oreignersa. "aw of citiHenship. "aw of domicilec. "aw of residenced. "aw of place of e/ecution- ore. )hilippine law

Articles ?1%>?17 > ules of formal *aliditya. ilipino Aroad > According to thelaw in the country in which he may eand may e proated in the )hilippines. Alien aroad > =as effect in the)hilippines if made according to3 "awof place where he resides- "aw of hisown country or )hilippine lawc. Alien in the phils. > Kalid in )hils.as if e/ecuted according to )hil. laws-if3 Made according to law of countrywhich he is a citiHen or suDect- andMay e pro*ed and allowed y law ofhis own country.

. INTRINSIC 9 $efe$s o &e su!sance of &e'$o#isions su!sani#e #a*idi"

#. $o8erning law as to ,*'%a. ilipinos 9 law at the time of death-

in connection with Art22(!.. oreigners 9 depends on their

personal law :Art1(- par2 andArt1!@;

2. $o8erning law as to PL(C%a. ilipinos 9 )hilippine law :Art1( par2

and Art1!@;. oreigners 9 their national law :Art1(

par2 and Art1!@;

Art22(! pro*ides that ,ights to the inheritance of aperson who died- with or without a will- before theeffecti*ity of this Code :August !- 1@%;- shall ego*erned y the Ci8il Code of #EE< by other pre8iouslaws< and by the &ules of Court. The inheritance ofthose who- with or without a will- die afterthe eginningof the effecti*ity of this Code- shall e adDudicated anddistriuted in accordance with this new body of lawsand by the &ules of Court< ut the testamentarypro*isions shall e carried out insofar as they may e



17/170


permitted y this Code. Therefore- legiti6esects of bounty< andcharacter of testa6entary act5< he hastesta6entary capacity< whate8er else he 6ay be6edically.

PRES0,PTION GENERAL R0LE 9 $e!ua!*eP$esum'ion of Sani" unde$ A$


22/170


# I&'. The is no sufficient e*idence to o*erthrow the legalpresumption of a sound mind and disposing memory.

# 5itnesses testified that- at the time of the e/ecution of thewill- the testator was in his right mind and that althoughserious ill- he indicated y the mo*ements of his head whathis wishes were.

# The e*idence shows that the writing and the e/ecution of thewill occupied a period of se*eral hours and that the testator

was ta+ing an acti*e part in all the proceedings.# The 'C held that that the testimony of the two physicians donot in any way strengthens the argument that the testatorwas mentally incapacitated. The 'C said that their testimonyonly confirms the fact that the testator had een afflicted withparalysis ut neither of them attempted to state what themental condition of the testator was at the time he e/ecutedthe will in question.

# The 'C held that it cannot conclude from this that he waswanting of the necessary mental capacity to dispose of hisproperty y will.

# The 'C affirmed the order proating the will.# n our Durisdiction- the presumption of law is in fa*or of the

mental capacity of the testator and the urden is upon thecontestants of the will to pro*e the lac+ of testamentarycapacity.

# 5hen a testator has ne*er een adDudged insane y a courtof competent Durisdiction- there is a presumption of mentalsoundness which must e o*ercome y competent proof.

# To constitute a sound mindand disposing memory- it is notnecessary that the mind shall e wholly unro+en-unimpaired- and unshattered y disease or otherwise- orthat the testator e in full possession of all his reasoningfaculties.

# )erfect soundness of mind is not essential to testamentarycapacity.

# ailure of memory is not sufficient unless it e total ore/tends to his immediate family or property.

# The question is that- were his mind and memory sufficientlysound to enale him to +now and understand the usinessin which he was engaged at the time when he e/ecuted his

will.

>a' -ua v. >a' Ca Kuan ? >a' Ca Llu

- Iap Tua- through a representati*e- filed a petition for theproate of the will of Tomasa &liHaga Iap Caong- thedeceased.

- The will dated 11 August 1@@ was signed y Tomasa and #other witnesses.

- After due hearing- the Dudge ordered that Tomasa4s will eallowed and admitted to proate.

- "ater- Iap Ca Fuan and Iap Ca "lu Gthe minorsE appearedand were interested in the matters of the will. A guardian adlite6G8arielE was then appointed.

- 8ariel then filed a petition alleging that the will admitted to

proate was null ecause31. t was not e/ecuted in accordance with the law

Gspecifically with the signing of the witnessesE2. Tomasa was not mentally capacitated to e/ecute the

will due to her sic+ness!. Tomasa4s signature was otained through fraud and

illegal influence#. Tomasa had earlier e/ecuted another will dated (

August 1@@ with all the formalities required y law- A rehearing was then ordered y the Dudge.

5ON the will dated 11 August 1@@ e/ecuted y Tomasa was*alid.- I&'.

1. A plan of the room where the will was signed waspresented. t was shown that from the ed whereTomasa was lying- it was possile for her to see thetale on which the witnesses signed the will.

2. As regard the issue of the soundness of Tomasa4s

mind when she e/ecuted the will- 'C held that in*iew of the conflicting testimonies and the findings ofthe lower court- it upheld the conclusion of the lowercourt that Tomasa had clear +nowledge and +newwhat she was doing at the time she signed the will.

!. Although it was contended that the signature ofTomasa in the latter will *aried from the one found inthe earlier will- 'C held that if Tomasa signed anyportion of her name to the will- with the intention tosign the same- that will amount to a signature. Thelower court found that no undue influence wase/ercised o*er Tomasa when she e/ecuted the will.The findings of the lower court- which had theopportunity to see- hear and note the witnessedduring e/amination is accorded great weight. 'Cupheld the lower court4s findings.

#. On the issue of the e/ecution of an earlier will- the'C held that the e/ecution of a former will is no proofthat she did not e/ecute a later one. 'he had theperfect right to alter- modify- or re*o+e any and all ofher former wills and to ma+e a new one.

- 5hile it is an asolute rule that one who ma+es a will mustsign the same in the presence of the witnesses and thewitnesses must sign in the presence of each other and of thetestator- yet the actual seeing of the signatures made ins notnecessary.

- t is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possilefor the necessary parties- if they desire to see- may see thesignatures placed upon the will.

- A signature containing only the first name is ne*ertheless asignature and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of thelaw.

- f the writing of a mar+ simply upon a will is sufficientindication of the intention of the person to ma+e and e/ecutea will- then certainly the writing of a portion or all of the nameshould e accepted as a clear indication of an intention toe/ecute the will.

Samson v. -an

- The Testator was suffering from diaetes and had een in acomatose condition for se*eral days prior to his death. =edied at aout ?3pm and the will is alleged to ha*e eene/ecuted in the noon of the same day.

- Oppositor in this case alleges that at the time of thee/ecution of the will- testator is not of sound and disposingmind.

5hether or not testator is of unsound mind- 'C held that he was not. Although the attending physician

testified that he was in a state of coma- he also stated thatcoma has *arying degrees of coma ad in its lighter forms thepatient may e aroused and ha*e lucid inter*als.

- The petitioner presented % witnesses who all testified that hewas conscious and could her and understand what was saidto him and was ale to indicate his desires. =e could spea+distinctly or mo*e his head to answer questions. This wasgi*en greater weight y the court as against the two



23/170


witnesses presented y oppositor- one of which was theoppositor4s mother who was not considered as adisinterested witness.

- Mere professional speculation cannot pre*ail o*er thepositi*e statements of % apparently credile witnesseswhose testimony does not seen unreasonale.

-orres v. Lo'ez

- The contro*ersy on this case is centered on the allowanceor the disallowance of the will of Tomas odrigueH.

- Kicente "opeH acted as the administrator of the properties ofthe decedent. A year efore Tomas4s death- the latter wasalso suDected to a guardianship proceeding- where thecourt found the decedent incapacitated to ta+e care ofhimself and his property. or this reason- Kicente wasnamed also as the guardian of the deceased.

- y *irtue of the court4s finding- the decedent was committedin the )hilippine 8eneral =ospital where he e*entually died.

- Tomas e/pressed his desire to ma+e a will during one of the*isits of 'antiago "opeH and accordingly- theycommissioned Atty. Mina to ascertain the wishes of thedecedent.

- The same will prepared y the attorney was the same

document signed y the testator and the other witnesses atthe 8eneral =ospital on anuary !- 1@2#.

- After the decedent died- some of the relati*es of Tomas- theMargarita "opeH faction- wanted the will in*alidated on theground that the testator was of unsound mind- and that thelatter was induced due to fraud on the e/ecution of the will.

- $uring the trial- the "uH "opeH faction presented doctorswhose medical findings re*eal that the testator was of soundmind though wea+ on memory during the e/ecution of thewill. The doctors on the Margarita faction howe*er ha*e theopposite conclusion- that in fact the decedent is sufferingfrom senile deility or of mental impairment.

5hether or not the will of Tomas odrigueH should e allowed- I&'. The 'C held that the will should e allowed.

- The allegation of fraud was not pro*ed y the e*idence.- As to the soundness of the mind of Tomas- the Court firstdeclared that what is necessary is that the decedent mustha*e a disposing mind. This means that the circumstancesof ad*anced age- health or wea+ memory alone are notconclusi*e of the capacity of a person to ma+e a will.

- urthermore- the fact that a person is adDudged y a court toe incapacitated in a guardianship proceeding is notconclusi*e. Our laws do not ha*e any statute pro*iding forthe conclusi*eness of the Dudgments of a court on incapacityof a person. A person placed under guardianship ispresumed to e incapale ut this presumption is refutaley contrary e*idence.

- n this case- since there were conflicting testimonies of well>regarded physicians the court decided to ase the capacityof Tomas odrigueH to ma+e a will on the nature of the will

itself.- As the will was simple and can e easily understood.- Also- the fact that the testator was ale to confer with Atty.

Mina and disclose to him his interests- that he generallyrememered close relati*es and that he was still ale to signthe document properly shows that the deceased hadtestamentary capacity.

- Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend thenature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged atthe time- to recollect the property to e disposed of and thepersons who would naturally ha*e claims upon the testator-

and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument willdistriute his property.

San#@o v. Abella

- Matea Aella- sometime prior to her death- as+ed her nieceto accompany her to a reputale physician for consultation.

- $uring her *isit- Matea stayed in one of the con*ents in 'an

ernando "a Bnion.- 'aid physician- $r. Antonio Querol- diagnosed her to e

suffering from dyspepsia and cancer of the stomach.- As such- Matea- immediately as+ed her attorney to come to

the con*ent so that she may ma+e her will. The will wasaccordingly drafted and signed y the testator in thepresence of the witnesses.

- Months after- Matea died.- The opponent claims that Matea did not ha*e capacity to

ma+e the will at the time she e/ecuted the same as Matewas deaf- has defecti*e eyesight and is suffering fromse*ere impairment of memory.

5hether or not Matea had testamentary capacity- The 'c held in the affirmati*e.- The mental capacity of the testator was estalished y the

fact that she was ale to lea*e home and tra*el to "A Bnionto consult with the doctor- that she was ale to gi*e hermedical history to her physician- that she in fact called anattorney to ma+e her will- and that in fact she rought withher the deeds to her properties.

- All these show that Matea was intelligent enough to ma+ethe dispositions.

- The allegation that Mateo was induced y the fact that shedonated one her properties to the ishop of said diocesewas not sufficiently pro*en y the e*idence.

- Neither senile deility- nor lindness- nor poor memory- is yitself sufficient to incapacitate a person for ma+ing his will.

3onzales v. Carun#on)

- On No*emer 27- 1@#?- Manuela arra Kda. de 8onHalesGtestatri/E died lea*ing fi*e children namely AleDandro8onHales- r.- Manuel 8onHales- "eopoldo 8onHales-Manolito 8onHales de Carungcong- and uan 8onHales. =erestate is estimated at )1%-.

- Thereafter- one of the children of the testatri/- Manuel8onHales filed in C iHal for the proate of an alleged willy the testatri/ e/ecuted on No*emer 1(- 1@#2- de*ising toManuel 8onHales the greater portion of the estate wLoimpairing the legitimes of the other children.

- On the other hand- Manolita de Carungcong filed in thesame court a petition for the proate of another alleged wille/ecuted y the testatri/ on May %- 1@#% de*ising to him thegreater portion of the estate.

- AleDandro 8onHales- r- one of the silings then sought thedisallowance of the wills presented y his two other silings-

assuming that e*en if they are *alid- such were alreadyre*o+ed y the testatri/ in an instrument e/ecuted y her onNo*emer 1?- 1@#? with the result that the testatri/4s estateshould e distriuted as if she died intestate.

- Thereafter- the C of iHal upheld the proate of the willpresented y Manolita Carungcong. And said that the willManuel 8onHales presented for proate was re*o+edalready y the one Manolita presented and that theinstrument presented y AleDandro was e/ecuted without the+nowledge and testamentary capacity of the testatri/.

- =ence this appeal.



24/170


5ON- the will presented y Manolita Carungcong was *aliddespite the fact that it allegedly has no attestation clause- The will is *alid.- The appellants contest that the will is not *alid ecause it

does not contain any attestation clause< that the concludingparagraph to e the attestation clause- it is not *alidecause it is the act of the testatri/ and not of the witnesses-

and ecause it does not state the numer of sheets or pagesof the will.- =owe*er- in a precedent case- the high court had already

sustained an attestation clause made y the testator andforming part of the ody of the will.

- n that case- it was said that- ,The only apparent anomaly wefind is that it appears to e an attestation made y thetestator himself more than y the instrumental witnesses.This apparent anomaly howe*er is not in our opinion seriousnor sustantial as to affect the *alidity of the will- appearingthat right under the signature of the testator- there appearthe signatures of the three instrumental witnesses.0

- And such is a sufficient compliance with requirements setout y the law. t is significant that the law does not requirethe attestation to e contained in a single clause. Thatunsustantial departure from the usual forms should e

ignored- especially where the authenticity of the will is notassailed.

- Now- with respect to the instrument presented y AleDandro8onHales- it can e shown that the instrument was preparedwhen the testatri/ lac+ed the testamentary capacity as thiswas pro*ed y the attending physician. 5hen the allegedinstrument was prepared- the testatri/ was already sufferingand was in a comatose and unconscious state and could nottal+ or understand.

- An attestation clause made y the testator and signed y thewitnesses sustantially complies with law.

- 'tatement of sheets of pages in ody of will held sufficientwhen considered in connection with attestation clause.

He$naeK #. He$naeK

Subse#tion 5 1 (orms of 2ills

ART. ?? lays down special requirements for attestedwills. Articles ?1>?1# lays down special requirementsfor holographic wills.

TO CO,,ON RE/0IRE,ENTS#. *) 4&*,*)$

Oral wills :the testa6entu6 nuncupati8u6

of the nstitutes; are not recogniHed in theCi*il Code.

=owe*er- oral wills are allowed under theCode of Muslim )ersonal "aws or )$1?! inrelation to Art12G2E.

2. *) ( L()$($% +& @*(L%C, M)+4) ,+,!% ,%S,(,+&

The pro*isions of Article ?# areMAN$ATOI and failure to comply with thetwo requirements nullifies the will.

Neither the will nor the attestation clauseneed state compliance with Art?#. This cane pro*ed y &/trinsic &*idence.

)resumption of Compliance 9 it maysometimes e presumed that the testator+new the language in which the will waswritten.

aE 5ill must e in a language or dialectgenerally spo+en in the place ofe/ecution- and

E The testator must e a nati*e orresident of said locality.

CA'&'Suroza v. Honrado

# This is a complaint against udge =onrado for admitting toproate a will which- on its face is *oid.

# Mauro 'uroHa- a corporal in the B' army married Marcelina'al*ador. They reared a oy named Agapito 'uroHa- whoconsidered them as his parents. Mauro died and Marcelinagot pension from the ederal go*4t.

- Agapito married Nenita and had a child named "ilia.Agapito ecame a soldier. 5hen he was disaled Nenitaecame his guardian.

- Agapito allegedly had a girlfriend- Arsenia dela CruH whoalso tried to ecome his guardian ut was denied y thecourt. A child- Marilyn 'y was thereafter entrusted toArsenia y the 'pouses 'y. Arsenia deli*ered the child toMarcelina 'al*ador- who rought up the child as a supposeddaughter of Agapito and her granddaughter- ut was ne*erlegally adopted y Agapito.

- 5hen Marcelina died- her laundrywoman- Marina )eDe- fileda petition for proate of Marcelina4s will- which was written in&nglish and thum mar+ed y Marcelina- naming Marina as

the e/ecutri/ and Marilyn as the sole heir.- The case was assigned to =onrado who appointed Marina

as the administrator and allowed her to withdraw sums ofmoney from Marcelina4s sa*ing4s account. Bpon motion ofMarina- an order was issued to eDect the occupants ofMarcelina4s house. This order alerted Nenita to thee/istence of the testamentary proceeding for the settlementof Marcelina4s estate.

# Nenita opposed the proceedings ut to no a*ail.

5hether disciplinary action should e ta+en against =onrado# Ies. The testatri/ was illiterate. n the opening paragraph

of the will- it was stated that &nglish was a languageunderstood and +now to the testatri/. ut in its concludingparagraph- it was stated that the will was read to the testatri/and translated into ilipino. That could only mean that the

will was written in a language not +nown to the illiterate and-therefore- *oid ecause of the mandatory pro*ision of art.?# of the CC that e*ery will must e e/ecuted in alanguage +nown to the testator.

- =ad =onrado een careful and oser*ant- he could ha*enoted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will utalso that there was something wrong in instituting thesupposed granddaughter as sole heiress and gi*ing nothingat all to her supposed father who was still ali*e.

- =e should also ha*e noted that the notary was notpresented as witness.



25/170


# A will written in a language that is not +nown to the testatoris *oid.

Aban)an v. Aban)an

# The C admitted to proate Ana Aangan4s will.# The said document- duly proated as Ana Aangan4s will-

consists of two sheets- the first of which contains all the

disposition of the testatri/- duly signed at the ottom ofMartin Montalan Gin the name and under the direction of thetestatri/E and y ! witnesses.

# The second sheet contains only the attestation clause dulysigned at the ottom y the three instrumental witnesses.

# Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin y thetestatri/ and the three witnesses- nor numered y letters.

5hether the asence of the signature on the left margin of willin*alidate Aangan4s will.# NO. The 'C held that in a will consisting of two sheets- the

first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions andis signed at the ottom y the testator and ! witnesses andthe second contains only the attestation clause and issigned also at the ottom y the ! witnesses- it is notnecessary that oth sheets e further signed on theirmargins y the testator and the witnesses- or e paged.

5hether the failure to numer y the letters will in*alidate thewill of Aangan.# NO. n requiring that each and e*ery page of a will must e

numered correlati*ely in letters placed on the upper part ofthe sheet- the oDect of the law is to +now whether any sheetof the will has een remo*ed.

# ut- when all the dispositi*e parts of a will are written on onesheet only- the oDect of the statute disappears ecause theremo*al of this single sheet- although unnumered- cannote hidden.

5hether the will was written in the dialect that the testatri/+new.

# I&'. The circumstances appearing in the will itself that thesame was e/ecuted in Ceu and in the dialect of this localitywhere the testatri/ was a neighor is enough- in theasence of any proof to the contrary- to presume that she+new this dialect in which the will was written.

# The testator4s signature is not necessary in the attestationclause ecause this- as its name implies- appertains only tothe witnesses and not to the testator.

# n requiring the signature on the margin- the statute too+ intoconsideration the case of a will written on se*eral sheetsand must ha*e referred to the sheets which the testator andthe witnesses do not ha*e to sign at the ottom.

,endoKa # Pi*a'i*

ART.

0. Subs#ribed by t@e testator or @is a)ent in@is 'resen#e and by @is e,'ress dire#tion att@e end t@ereof9 in t@e 'resen#e of t@eitnesses

'uscried y the testator 9 To suscrie

denotes writing- more precisely to writeunder. To 'ign means to place adistinguishing mar+.

Thus signing has a roader meaning thansuscriing. Not e*ery signature is asuscription and not e*ery distinguishingmar+ is a writing.

T=BMMAF A' '8NATB&

a) s the placing of the testator4sthumprint a signature within thecontemplation of the article6 I&'- on theauthority of )ayad *. Tolentino andMatias *. 'alud- the testator7s thu6bprint

is always a 8alid and sufficient signaturefor the purpose of co6plying with there=uire6ent of (rtE0F.E There is no asis for limiting the*alidity of thumprints only to cases ofillness or infirmity.

A CO'' A' '8NATB& 9 a sign of thecross placed y the testator does not complywith the statutory requirement of signature-



26/170


BN"&'' it is the testator4s usual manner ofsignature or one of his usual styles of signing.

'8NN8 I AN A8&NT O T=&T&'TATO 9

,wo &e=uisitesi. Must sign in the testator4s

presence- andii. y the testator4s e/press direction

5hat the agent must write 9 need not ealleged in the will itself that agent wrotethe testator4s name under the latter4se/press direction

The essential thing- for *alidity- is that theagent write the testator7s na6e- nothingmore. t would e a good thing- ut notrequired- for the agent to indicate the factof agency or authority.

May the agent e one of the attestingwitnesses6

aE f there are more than ! witnesses 9I&'

E f there are only ! witnesses 9Bncertain.

'8NN8 AT T=& &N$

f the will contains only dispositi*epro*isions- there will e no amiguity asto where the end of the will is. f howe*erthe will contains non>dispositi*eparagraphs after the testamentarydispositions- one can refer to two +inds of

end 91. )hysical &nd 9 where the writing

stops2. "ogical &nd 9 where the last

testamentary disposition ends

'igning at either the physical end orlogical end is equally permissile. Thenon>dispositi*e portions are not essentialparts of the will.

Signing before the end in8alidates notonly the dispositions that co6e after< butthe entire will< because then one of thestatutory re=uire6ents would not ha8e

been co6plied with.

'8NN8 N T=& )&'&NC& O5TN&''&'

Actual seeing is not required- ut theaility to see each other :the testator andthe witnesses; y merely casting theireyes in the proper direction.

+. Attested and subs#ribed by at least t@ree#redible itnesses in t@e 'resen#e of t@etestator and of one anot@er.

Two distinct things are required of thewitnesses here 9

aE Attesting 9 which is the act ofwitnessing

E 'uscriing 9 which is the act of

signing their names in the properplaces of the will

oth must e done.

May the witness- li+e the testator- affi/ histhummar+ in lieu of writing his name6 Art?2requires a witness to e ale to read andwrite- ut this does not answer the querydefiniti*ely. The point is deatale.

'igning in the presence of the testator andof one another > Actual seeing is not required-ut the aility to see each other :the testatorand the witnesses; y merely casting theireyes in the proper direction.

5. -estator9 or @is a)ent9 must si)n every'a)e9 e,#e't t@e last9 on t@e left mar)in in t@e'resen#e of t@e itnesses

The last page need not e signed y thetestator on the margin ecause- eing thepage where the end of the will isit alreadycontains the testator4s signature.

There is a Mandatory and a $irectory partto this requirement 9

aE MAN$ATOI 9 the signing on e*erypage in the witnesses4 presence

E $&CTOI 9 place of the signing-the left margin- the signature can eaffi/ed anywhere on the page.

'igning in the presence > Actual seeing is

not required- ut the aility to see each other:the testator and the witnesses; y merelycasting their eyes in the proper direction

%. -@e itnesses must si)n every 'a)e9e,#e't t@e last9 on t@e left mar)in in t@e

'resen#e of t@e testator and of one anot@er.

Order of 'igning 9 immaterial- pro*ided

e*erything is done in a single transaction.=owe*er- if the affi/ation of the signatures isdone in se*eral transactions- then it isrequired for *alidity that the T&'TATO affi/his signature ahead of the witnesses.

7. All 'a)es numbered #orrelatively in letterson t@e u''er 'art of ea#@ 'a)e.

Mandatory and $irectory partaE MAN$ATOI 9 pagination y means

of a con*entional system. Thepurpose is to pre*ent insertion orremo*al of pages

E $&CTOI 9 pagination in letterson the upper part of each page.



27/170


;. Attestation #lause9 statin)a /umber of 'a)es of t@e illb (a#t t@at t@e testator or @is a)entunder @is e,'ress dire#tion si)ned t@eill and every 'a)e t@ereof9 in t@e

'resen#e of t@e itnesses# -@e fa#t t@at t@e itnessesitnessed and si)ned t@e ill and every

'a)e t@ereof in t@e 'resen#e of t@etestator and of one anot@er.

The attestation clause is the affair ofwitnesses therefore- it need not e signed ythe testator.

The signatures of the witnesses must eat the OTTOM of the attestation clause.

f the entire document consists only of 2sheets- the first containing the will and thesecond the attestation clause- there need note any marginal signatures at all :Aangan *.

Aangan;

The fact that the attestation clause waswritten on a separate page has een held to

e a matter of minor importance andapparently will not affect the *alidity of thewill.

$. A#knoled)ement before a notary 'ubli#.

Code does not re=uire that the signing ofthe testator< witnesses and notary should beacco6plished in one single act.

All that is required in this article is that thetestator and witnesses should a*ow to thenotary the authenticity of their signatures andthe *oluntariness of their actions in e/ecutingthe testamentary disposition. :a*ellana *."edesma;

aE atio 9 Certification ofac+nowledgement need not e signed ynotary in the presence of testator andwitnesses.E Art?( does not require that testatorand witnesses must ac+nowledge on thesame day that it was e/ecuted.cE "ogical nference 9 neither does thearticle require that testator and witnessesmust ac+nowledge in one another4spresence. f ac+nowledgement is doney testator and witness separately- all ofthem must retain their respecti*ecapacities until the last one hasac+nowledged.

)otary cannot be counted as one of theattesting witnesses.

(ffi?ing of docu6entary sta6p is notre=uired for 8alidity.

'ome $iscrepancies

)ar1 Art?% 9 No statement that the testator mustsign in the presence of the witnesses

)ar2 Art?% 9 No statement that the testator andthe witnesses must sign e*ery page in oneanother4s presence.

ut these two things are required to estated in the attestation clause.Conclusion is that they should ecomplied with as requirements.

Attestation clause is not required to state that theagent signed in the testator4s presence > acircumstance mandated y the 1st and 2nd

paragraphs of the article.

ndication of $ate 9 there is no requirement that anattested will should e dated- unli+e a holographic will.

CA'&=ayad v. -olentino

# The lower court denied proate on the will of deceasedTolentino on the ground that the attestation clause was notin conformity with the requirements of law in that it is notstated therein that the testatri/ caused Atty. Almario to write

her name at her e/press direction.# 5hether or not the will should e denied proate.# 'C held that it should not e denied ecause3

1. The deceased placed her thum mar+ on each ande*ery page of the will and the attorney merely wroteher name to indicate the place where she placed herthum mar+. Thus- the attorney did not really sign forher.

2. t was not necessary that the attestation clauseshould state that the testatri/ requested Atty.Alamario to sign her name since she signed it inaccordance with law.

A statute requiring a will to e signed is satisfied if thesignature is made y the testator4s mar+.

:atias v. Salud

# The C denied proate of the will of 8aina aquel.

# t must e noted that 8aina aquel was suffering fromherpes 9osterthat afflicted the right arm and shoulder of thetestatri/- which made writing difficult and a painful act.

# Thus- upon the insistence of the attorney- 8aina attemptedto sign- ut since it was so painful she Dust managed tothummar+ed the foot of the document and the left margin ateach page.

# The parties opposing the proate of the will contended thatthe will was *oid due to the irregularities in the e/ecutionthereof.

# One of the points raised y the oppositors was that thefinger mar+ can not e regarded as the decedent4s *alidsignature as it does not show distinct identifying ridgelines.

# And since the finger mar+ was an in*alid signature- theremust appear in the attestation clause that another personwrote the testator4s name at his request.

5hether or not the will was *alid# The 'C held that the will was *alid.# As to the clarity of the ridge impressions- it is so dependent

on aleatory requirements as to require de/terity that can e



28/170


e/pected of *ery few persons< testators should not erequired to possess the s+ill of trained officers.

# And as to the *alidity of the thumprints as signature- the 'Cheld that it has een held in a long line of cases that athumprint is always a *alid and sufficient signature for thepurpose of complying with the requirement of the article.

# urthermore- the *alidity of thumprints should not e limitedin cases of illness or infirmity.

# A thumprint is considered as a *alid and sufficientsignature in complying with the requirements of the article.

3ar#ia v. La#uesta

# This case purports to the *alidity of the will e/ecuted yAntero Mercado.

# The will is said to e irregularly e/ecute as the attestationclause did not mention that it was Atty. a*ier who signed forthe decedent under the latter4s e/press direction.

# The other party howe*er argued that such fact need not ementioned ecause although Atty. a*ier wrote the name ofMercado- Mercado ne*ertheless put a cross and that suchcross amounts to a signature y the decedent himself.

5hether or not the will was *alid

# The 'C held that it was not.# Although there ha*e een cases considering mar+s- such as

a cross- as sufficient signature- there is nothing in therecords that shows that Mercado usually uses a cross as hissignature.

# As such- the will was disallowed.# Mar+s- such as a cross- can only e considered as a

signature if there is showing that the decedent wasaccustomed to using such mar+ as signature.

Barut v. Caba#un)an

- arut applied for the proate of the last will and testament ofMaria 'alomon.

- n the will- 'alomon re*o+ed all former wills she made. 'healso stated that eing unale to read and write- sheinstructed Concepcion and noselda to read the will to her.'he also instructed Agayan to sign her G'alomonE name to itas testator.

- The proate court found that the will was not entitled toproate ecause the signed name of the testatri/ on her

ehalf loo+ed more li+e the handwriting of one of the otherwitnesses that that of the person whose handwriting it wasalleged to e.

5ON the will was *alid. 'pecifically- is the signature of theperson instructed y the testator to sign the will *alid.- I&'. 5ith respect to the *alidity of the will- it is unimportant

whether the person who writes the name of the testatri/signs his name or not.

- The important thing is that it clearly appears that the name ofthe testatri/ was signed at her e/press direction in the

presence of ! other witnesses and that they attested andsuscried it in her presence and in the presence of oneanother. That is all the statute requires.

- The cases relied upon y the oppositors are not in point. nthose cases- the reason for the in*alidation of the willsconcerned was that the persons instructed to sign for thetestator signed their own names instead of the names of thetestators in each case.

- The will must e in writing and signed y the testator- or thetestator4s name written y some other person in hispresence- and y his e/press direction- and attested andsuscried y ! or more credile witnesses in the presenceof the testator and of each other.

- The fact that the testator signed the will or that he caused itto e signed y another person at his e/press direction andthat the same was signed y the witnesses must e includedin the attestation.

/era v. !imando

# Only questioned raised y the e*idence in this case as tothe due e/ecution of the instrument propounded as a will iswhether the one of the suscriing witnesses was present inthe small room where the will was e/ecuted at the time

when the testator and the other suscriing witnessesattached their signatures.

5ON- the will was *alidly witnessed y one of the suscriingwitnesses to ma+e the will *alid.# Ies. The suscriing witness *alidly witnessed the signing.# MaDority of the memers of the court is of the opinion that the

suscriing witness was indeed in the small room to e aleto oser*e the signing of the will e the testator and othersuscriing witnesses.

# The trial court decided when it said that the fact that one ofthe alleged witnesses signed the instrument in the outerroom when the others were inside would not e sufficient initself to in*alidate the e/ecution of the will.

# ut this Court is of the opinion that had this suscriing

witness een pro*en to ha*e een in the outer room- itwould ha*e een in*alid as a will.

- ut it is especially to e noted that the position of the partieswith relation to each other at the moment of the suscriptionof each signature must e such that they may see eachother sign if they choose to do so.

- t is enough that when the witness- if he chose to loo+ at theactual signing he could ha*e done so y Dust merely castinghis eyes in the proper direction- such would e consideredalready as a proper witnessing of the said e/ecution of thewill.

- =owe*er- to e/tend to e/tend this doctrine further wouldopen the door to the possiility of all manner of fraud-sustitution and the li+e and would defeat the purpose forwhich this particular condition is prescried in the code asone of the requisites in the e/ecution of a will.

- =ence the will is to e admitted to proate.- Actual seeing is not required- ut the aility to see each

other- i.e. the testator and the witnesses- ,y merely castingeyes in the proper direction.0

I#asiano v. I#asiano

# osefa Killacorte died in Manila on 'eptemer 12- 1@%?< onune 2- 1@%(- Killacorte e/ecuted a last will and testament induplicate at the house of her daughter Mrs. elisa casiano



29/170


efore three instrumental witnesses- namely< attorneys usto). Torres- r. and ose K. Nati*idad- and $r. Kinicio . $iy.

# The records show that the original of the will- consists of fi*epages- and while signed at the end and in e*ery page- itdoes not contain the signature of one of the attestingwitnesses- Atty. ose K. Nati*idad- on page three G!E thereofKisayan dialect- the will consists of 2

pages. The first page contains the entire testamentarydispositions and is signed at the end or ottom of the pagey the testatri/ alone and at the left hand margin y the !witnesses. The second page which contains the attestationclause and the ac+nowledgement is signed at the end of theattestation clause y the ! witnesses and at the left handmargin y the testatri/.

- The lower court denied proate of deceased )ereH.

5hether or not the law requires that the testatri/ and !witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence of thetestatri/ and of one another.- 'C held that the will should e admitted ecause3

1. The signatures of the witnesses in the left handmargin of the 1st page attested not only to the

genuineness of the signature of the testatri/ ut alsothe due e/ecution of the will as emodied in theattestation clause.

2. Bnsustantial departure from the usual forms shoulde ignored esp. where the authenticity of the will isnot assailed.

!. The oDects of the attestation and suscription werefully met when the witnesses signed at the sole pagewhere the testamentary

- $ispositions were contained- esp. so when the will wasproperly identified y the suscriing witness to e the samewill e/ecuted y the testatri/. There was no question of fraudor sustitution ehind the questioned order.

- 'C held that this would ha*e een a fatal defect were it notfor the fact that- in this case- it is discernile from the entirewill that it is really and actually composed of only 2 pages

duly signed y the testatri/ and her witnesses.- The ac+nowledgement itself in the second page states that

,This "ast 5ill and Testament consists of two pagesincluding this page.0

5hether or not it should e in*alidated due to the attestationclause4s failure to state the numer of pages used in writing thewill.- Attestation consists in witnessing the testator4s e/ecution of

the will in order to see and ta+e note mentally that thosethings are done which the statute requires for the e/ecutionof a will and that the signature of the testator e/ists as a fact.

- 'uscription is the signing of the witnesses4 names upon thesame paper for the purpose of identification of such paperas the will which was e/ecuted y the testator.

ART.


31/170


only distant oDects and is not capale of reading printedarticles.

5hether or not the decedent is considered ,lind0 pursuant tothe pro*isions of Art ??# Ies. The 'C held that for all intents and purposes of the

rules on proate- the decedent is li+e a lind testator- andthe due e/ecution of her will would ha*e required faithful

oser*ance of the pro*isions of Art ?? of the CC.# Also- The 'C found it worthy to mention the fact that that thewill was e/ecuted without any regard for the defecti*e *isionof the decedent. The testament was cramped in a singlepage and was aundant with typographical errors. This onlystrengthens the proposition that the decedent could not ha*eread or understood the alleged testament.

5hether or not the will was duly e/ecuted# No. Considering that the testator is within the term ,lind0 as

contemplated under Art ??- the due e/ecution of thedecedent4s will would ha*e required the reading of the willtwice Gonce y one of the witnesses- and once y thenotaryE.

# =owe*er- no such reading was pro*ed or shown in thiscase. Thus- the will should e declared in*alid.

# The rationale ehind the reading of the will to the lindtestator is to ma+e the pro*isions thereof +nown to him- sothat he may e ale to oDect if they are not in accordancewith his wishes.

# A person who is not lind ut is similarly incapacitated toread the will is within the amit of Art ??.

Alvarado v. 3aviola9 Dr.

# On % No*emer 1@77- 7@>year old rigido Al*aradoe/ecuted a notarial will entitled ,=uling =ailin0 wherein hedisinherited an illegitimate son- petitioner Cesar Al*arado-and e/pressly re*o+ed a pre*iously e/ecuted holographicwill at the time awaiting proate efore the TC of "aguna.

# According to ayani Ma. ino- pri*ate respondent- he was

present when the said notarial will was e/ecuted- togetherwith three instrumental witnesses and the notary pulic-where the testator did not read the will himself- suffering ashe did from glaucoma.

# ino- a lawyer- drafted the eight>page document and readthe same aloud efore the testator- the three instrumentalwitnesses and the notary pulic- the latter four following thereading with their own respecti*e copies pre*iouslyfurnished them.

# Thereafter- a codicil entitled ,Fasulatan ng )agaago nglang )agpapasiya na Nasasaad sa =uling =ailin na May)etsa Noiemre %- 1@77 ni rigido Al*arado0 was e/ecutedchanging some dispositions in the notarial will to generatecash for the testator4s eye operation.

# 'aid codicil was li+ewise not read y rigido Al*arado andwas read in the same manner as with the pre*iously

e/ecuted will.# 5hen the notarial will was sumitted to the court for proate-

Cesar Al*arado filed his opposition as he said that the willwas not e/ecuted and attested as required y law< that thetestator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to senilityand old age< that the will was e/ecuted under duress- orinfluence of fear or threats< that it was procured y unduepressure and influence on the part of the eneficiary< andthat the signature of the testator was procured y fraud ortric+.

5hether or not notarial will of rigido Al*arado should eadmitted to proate despite allegations of defects in thee/ecution and attestation thereof as testator was allegedlylind at the time of e/ecution and the doule>readingrequirement under Art. ?? of the NCC was not complied with.# I&'. The spirit ehind the law was ser*ed though the letter

was not. Although there should e strict compliance with thesustantial requirements of law in order to insure the

authenticity of the will- the formal imperfections should erushed aside when they do not affect its purpose andwhich- when ta+en into account- may only defeat thetestator4s will.

# Cesar Al*ardo was correct in asserting that his father wasnot totally lind Gof counting fingers at ! feetE when the willand codicil were e/ecuted- ut he can e so considered forpurposes of Art. ??.

# That Art. ?? was not followed strictly is eyond ca*il.

# =owe*er- in the case at ar- there was sustantialcompliance where the purpose of the law has een satisfied3that of ma+ing the pro*isions +nown to the esao$ %&o is!*ind o$ inca'a!*e of $eadin) &e %i** &imse*f >as %&en&e is i**ie$ae?and enaling him to oDect if they do notaccord with his wishes.

# ino read the testator4s will and codicil aloud in the presenceof the testator- his three instrumental witnesses- and thenotary pulic.

# )rior and susequent thereto- the testator affirmed- uponeing as+ed- that the contents read corresponded with hisinstructions.

# Only then did the signing and ac+nowledgment ta+e place.# There is no e*idence that the contents of the will and the

codicil were not sufficiently made +nown and communicatedto the testator.

# 5ith four persons- mostly +nown to the testator- followingthe reading word for word with their own copies- it can esafely concluded that the testator was reasonaly assuredthat what was read to him were the terms actually appearingon the typewritten documents.

# Art. ?? of the New Ci*il Code pro*ides3 ,f the testator is

lind- the will shall e read to him twice< once- y one of thesuscriing witnesses- and again- y the notary pulicefore whom the will is ac+nowledged.0

# The rationale ehind the requirement of reading the will tothe testator if he is lind or incapale of reading the will tohimself Gas when he is illiterateE- is to ma+e the pro*isionsthereof +nown to him- so that he may e ale to oDect ifthey are not in accordance with his wishes.

# Although there should e strict compliance with thesustantial requirements of law in order to insure theauthenticity of the will- the formal imperfections should erushed aside when they do not affect its purpose andwhich- when ta+en into account- may only defeat thetestator4s will.

# 'ee(bangan 8. (bangan.

ART.


32/170


aesed in su!sania* com'*iance %i& a** &e$equi$emens of A$ic*e


33/170


- Therefore- the proate of the will is set aside and the casefor the intestate proceedings shall e re*i*ed.

- Article ?@ cannot e used to cure the defects of the willwhen it does not pertain to the form or language of the will.This is ecause there is not sustantial compliance withArticle ?%.

Cases for Arts. *Nole was named as 'pecial Administrati/of the estate of Aada and Toray. Caponong>Nole mo*edfor the dismissal of the petition for proate of the will ofAada ut such motion was denied.

- 5hen the case was sumitted for decision- a esolutionwas rendered where it was held that there was a sustantialcompliance with the formalities of the will. n the saidesolution- the trial court only determined whether the will ofAada has an attestation clause as req

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	danielo-ponce
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

46503538 Jen Succession Reviewera

Documents