7/30/15 12:21 AM

71

G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927Estate of Miguel Mamuyac, deceased. FRANCISCO GAGO, petitioner-appellant, vs.CORNELIO MAMUYAC, AMBROSIO LARIOSA, FELICIANA BAUZON, and CATALINA MAMUYAC, opponents-appellees.Nicanor Tavora for appellant.Jose Rivera for appellees.JOHNSON, J.:The purpose of this action was to obtain the probation of a last will and testament of Miguel Mamuyac, who died on the 2d day of January, 1922, in the municipality of Agoo of the Province of La Union. It appears from the record that on or about the 27th day of July, 1918, the said Miguel Mamuyac executed a last will and testament (Exhibit A). In the month of January, 1922, the said Francisco Gago presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union for the probation of that will. The probation of the same was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac (civil cause No. 1144, Province of La Union). After hearing all of the parties the petition for the probation of said will was denied by the Honorable C. M. Villareal on the 2d day of November, 1923, upon the ground that the deceased had on the 16th day of April, 1919, executed a new will and testament.On the 21st day of February, 1925, the present action was commenced. Its purpose was to secure the probation of the said will of the 16th day of April, 1919 (Exhibit 1). To said petition Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac presented their oppositions, alleging (a) that the said will is a copy of the second will and testament executed by the said Miguel Mamuyac; (b) that the same had been cancelled and revoked during the lifetime of Miguel Mamuyac and (c) that the said will was not the last will and testament of the deceased Miguel Mamuyac.Upon the issue thus presented, the Honorable Anastacio R. Teodoro, judge, after hearing the respective parties, denied the probation of said will of April 16, 1919, upon the ground that the same had been cancelled and revoked in the year 1920. Judge Teodoro, after examining the evidence adduced, found that the following facts had been satisfactorily proved:That Exhibit A is a mere carbon of its original which remained in the possession of the deceased testator Miguel Mamuyac, who revoked it before his death as per testimony of witness Jose Fenoy, who typed the will of the testator on April 16, 1919, and Carlos Bejar, who saw on December 30, 1920, the original Exhibit A (will of 1919) actually cancelled by the testator Miguel Mamuyac, who assured Carlos Bejar that inasmuch as he had sold him a house and the land where the house was built, he had to cancel it (the will of 1919), executing thereby a new testament. Narcisa Gago in a way corroborates the testimony of Jose Fenoy, admitting that the will executed by the deceased (Miguel Mamuyac) in 1919 was found in the possession of father Miguel Mamuyac. The opponents have successfully established the fact that father Miguel Mamuyac had executed in 1920 another will. The same Narcisa Gago, the sister of the deceased, who was living in the house with him, when cross-examined by attorney for the opponents, testified that the original Exhibit A could not be found. For the foregoing consideration and for the reason that the original of Exhibit A has been cancelled by the deceased father Miguel Mamuyac, the court disallows the probate of Exhibit A for the applicant." From that order the petitioner appealed.The appellant contends that the lower court committed an error in not finding from the evidence that the will in question had been executed with all the formalities required by the law; that the same had been revoked and cancelled in 1920 before his death; that the said will was a mere carbon copy and that the oppositors were not estopped from alleging that fact.With reference to the said cancellation, it may be stated that there is positive proof, not denied, which was accepted by the lower court, that will in question had been cancelled in 1920. The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation of a will to be preserved. It therefore becomes difficult at times to prove the revocation or cancellation of wills. The fact that such cancellation or revocation has taken place must either remain unproved of be inferred from evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be found. Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. The force of the presumption of cancellation or revocation by the testator, while varying greatly, being weak or strong according to the circumstances, is never conclusive, but may be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it.In view of the fat that the original will of 1919 could not be found after the death of the testator Miguel Mamuyac and in view of the positive proof that the same had been cancelled, we are forced to the conclusion that the conclusions of the lower court are in accordance with the weight of the evidence. In a proceeding to probate a will the burden of proofs is upon the proponent clearly to establish not only its execution but its existence. Having proved its execution by the proponents, the burden is on the contestant to show that it has been revoked. In a great majority of instances in which wills are destroyed for the purpose of revoking them there is no witness to the act of cancellation or destruction and all evidence of its cancellation perishes with the testator. Copies of wills should be admitted by the courts with great caution. When it is proven, however, by proper testimony that a will was executed in duplicate and each copy was executed with all the formalities and requirements of the law, then the duplicate may be admitted in evidence when it is made to appear that the original has been lost and was not cancelled or destroyed by the testator. (Borromeo vs. Casquijo, G.R. No. L-26063.)1After a careful examination of the entire record, we are fully persuaded that the will presented for probate had been cancelled by the testator in 1920. Therefore the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed. And without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988TESTATE 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.SARMIENTO, J.:This is not the first time that the parties to this case come to us. In fact, two other cases directly related to the present one and involving the same parties had already been decided by us in the past. In G.R. No. L-30479, 1 which was a petition for certiorari and mandamus instituted by the petitioners herein, we dismissed the petition ruling that the more appropriate remedy of the petitioners is a separate proceeding for the probate of the will in question. Pursuant to the said ruling, the petitioners commenced in the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Special Proceeding No. 2176, for the probate of the disputed will, which was opposed by the private respondents presently, Panfilo and Felino both surnamed Maloto. The trial court dismissed the petition on April 30, 1970. Complaining against the dismissal, again, the petitioners came to this Court on a petition for review by certiorari. 2 Acting on the said petition, we set aside the trial court's order and directed it to proceed to hear the case on the merits. The trial court, after hearing, found the will to have already been revoked by the testatrix. Adriana Maloto, and thus, denied the petition. The petitioners appealed the trial court's decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court which, on June 7, 1985, affirmed the order. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the adverse decision proved to be of no avail, hence, this petition.For a better understanding of the controversy, a factual account would be a great help.On October 20, 1963, Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and the private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced on November 4, 1963 an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate. The case was instituted in the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo and was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 1736. However, while the case was still in progress, or to be exact on February 1, 1964, the parties Aldina, Constancio, Panfilo, and Felino executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate. The agreement provided for the division of the estate into four equal parts among the parties. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial court for approval which the court did on March 21, 1964. That should have signalled the end of the controversy, but, unfortunately, it had not.Three years later, or sometime in March 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adriana's counsel, the late Atty. Eliseo Hervas, discovered a document entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," dated January 3,1940, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. Atty. Palma claimed to have found the testament, the original copy, while he was going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer formerly used by Atty. Hervas. The document was submitted to the office of the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on April 1, 1967. Incidentally, while Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much bigger and more valuable shares in the estate of Adriana than what they received by virtue of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed. The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties, among them being the petitioners Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor.Thus, on May 24, 1967, Aldina and Constancio, joined by the other devisees and legatees named in the will, filed in Special Proceeding No. 1736 a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings therein and for the allowance of the will When the trial court denied their motion, the petitioner came to us by way of a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of the trial court . 3 As we stated earlier, we dismissed that petition and advised that a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will would be the appropriate vehicle to thresh out the matters raised by the petitioners.Significantly, the appellate court while finding as inconclusive the matter on whether or not the document or papers allegedly burned by the househelp of Adriana, Guadalupe Maloto Vda. de Coral, upon instructions of the testatrix, was indeed the will, contradicted itself and found that the will had been revoked. The respondent court stated that the presence of animus revocandi in the destruction of the will had, nevertheless, been sufficiently proven. The appellate court based its finding on the facts that the document was not in the two safes in Adriana's residence, by the testatrix going to the residence of Atty. Hervas to retrieve a copy of the will left in the latter's possession, and, her seeking the services of Atty. Palma in order to have a new will drawn up. For reasons shortly to be explained, we do not view such facts, even considered collectively, as sufficient bases for the conclusion that Adriana Maloto's will had been effectively revoked.There is no doubt as to the testamentary capacity of the testatrix and the due execution of the will. The heart of the case lies on the issue as to whether or not the will was revoked by Adriana.The provisions of the new Civil Code pertinent to the issue can be found in Article 830.Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:(1) By implication of law; or(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills: or(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express direction of the testator, the will may still be established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court. (Emphasis Supplied.)It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. Of course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself.In this case, while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke, may be conceded, for that is a state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice. "Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. For one, the document or papers burned by Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the express direction of Adriana. And then, the burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses, Guadalupe and Eladio, were one in stating that they were the only ones present at the place where the stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which the papers proffered as a will were burned.The respondent appellate court in assessing the evidence presented by the private respondents as oppositors in the trial court, concluded that the testimony of the two witnesses who testified in favor of the will's revocation appear "inconclusive." We share the same view. Nowhere in the records before us does it appear that the two witnesses, Guadalupe Vda. de Corral and Eladio Itchon, both illiterates, were unequivocably positive that the document burned was indeed Adriana's will. Guadalupe, we think, believed that the papers she destroyed was the will only because, according to her, Adriana told her so. Eladio, on the other hand, obtained his information that the burned document was the will because Guadalupe told him so, thus, his testimony on this point is double hearsay.At this juncture, we reiterate that "(it) is an important matter of public interest that a purported win is not denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its very foundations ...." 4The private respondents in their bid for the dismissal of the present action for probate instituted by the petitioners argue that the same is already barred by res adjudicata. They claim that this bar was brought about by the petitioners' failure to appeal timely from the order dated November 16, 1968 of the trial court in the intestate proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 1736) denying their (petitioners') motion to reopen the case, and their prayer to annul the previous proceedings therein and to allow the last will and testament of the late Adriana Maloto. This is untenable.The doctrine of res adjudicata finds no application in the present controversy. For a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case, the following requisites must concur: (1) the presence of a final former judgment; (2) the former judgment was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the former judgment is a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is, between the first and the second action, Identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action. 5 We do not find here the presence of all the enumerated requisites.For one, there is yet, strictly speaking, no final judgment rendered insofar as the probate of Adriana Maloto's will is concerned. The decision of the trial court in Special Proceeding No. 1736, although final, involved only the intestate settlement of the estate of Adriana. As such, that judgment could not in any manner be construed to be final with respect to the probate of the subsequently discovered will of the decedent. Neither is it a judgment on the merits of the action for probate. This is understandably so because the trial court, in the intestate proceeding, was without jurisdiction to rule on the probate of the contested will . 6 After all, an action for probate, as it implies, is founded on the presence of a will and with the objective of proving its due execution and validity, something which can not be properly done in an intestate settlement of estate proceeding which is predicated on the assumption that the decedent left no will. Thus, there is likewise no Identity between the cause of action in intestate proceeding and that in an action for probate. Be that as it may, it would be remembered that it was precisely because of our ruling in G.R. No. L-30479 that the petitioners instituted this separate action for the probate of the late Adriana Maloto's will. Hence, on these grounds alone, the position of the private respondents on this score can not be sustained.One last note. The private respondents point out that revocation could be inferred from the fact that "(a) major and substantial bulk of the properties mentioned in the will had been disposed of: while an insignificant portion of the properties remained at the time of death (of the testatrix); and, furthermore, more valuable properties have been acquired after the execution of the will on January 3,1940." 7 Suffice it to state here that as these additional matters raised by the private respondents are extraneous to this special proceeding, they could only be appropriately taken up after the will has been duly probated and a certificate of its allowance issued.WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the Decision dated June 7, 1985 and the Resolution dated October 22, 1986, of the respondent Court of Appeals, and a new one ENTERED for the allowance of Adriana Maloto's last will and testament. Costs against the private respondents.This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.SO ORDERED.Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, and Paras JJ., concur.Padilla, J., took no part.

EN BANCG.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951Testate Estate of the Deceased MARIANO MOLO Y LEGASPI. JUANA JUAN VDA. DE MOLO, petitioner-appellee, vs.LUZ, GLICERIA and CORNELIO MOLO, oppositors-appellants.Claro M. Recto and Serafin C. Dizon for appellants. Delgado & Flores for appellee.BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal admitting to probate the last will and testament of the deceased Mariano Molo y Legaspi executed on August 17, 1918. The oppositors-appellants brought the case on appeal to this Court for the reason that the value of the properties involved exceeds P50,000.Mariano Molo y Legaspi died on January 24, 1941, in the municipality of Pasay, province of Rizal, without leaving any forced heir either in the descending or ascending line. He was survived, however, by his wife, the herein petitioner Juana Juan Vda. de Molo, and by his nieces and nephew, the oppositors-appellants, Luz Gliceria and Cornelio, all surnamed Molo, who were the legitimate children of Candido Molo y Legaspi, deceased brother of the testator. Mariano Molo y Legaspi left two wills, one executed on August 17, 1918, (Exhibit A) and another executed on June 20, 1939. (Exhibit I). The later will executed in 1918.On February 7, 1941, Juana Juan Vda. de Molo, filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition, which was docketed as special proceeding No. 8022 seeking the probate of the will executed by the deceased on June 20, 1939. There being no opposition, the will was probated. However, upon petition filed by the herein oppositors, the order of the court admitting the will to probate was set aside and the case was reopened. After hearing, at which both parties presented their evidence, the court rendered decision denying the probate of said will on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the same was executed in accordance with law.In view of the disallowance of the will executed on June 20, 1939, the widow on February 24, 1944, filed another petition for the probate of the will executed by the deceased on August 17, 1918, which was docketed as special proceeding No. 56, in the same court. Again, the same oppositors filed an opposition to the petition based on three grounds: (1) that petitioner is now estopped from seeking the probate of the will of 1918; (2) that said will has not been executed in the manner required by law and (3) that the will has been subsequently revoked. But before the second petition could be heard, the battle for liberation came and the records of the case were destroyed. Consequently, a petition for reconstitution was filed, but the same was found to be impossible because neither petitioner nor oppositors could produce the copies required for its reconstitution. As a result, petitioner filed a new petition on September 14, 1946, similar to the one destroyed, to which the oppositors filed an opposition based on the same grounds as those contained in their former opposition. Then, the case was set for trial, and on May 28, 1948, the court issued an order admitting the will to probate already stated in the early part of this decision. From this order the oppositors appealed assigning six errors, to wit.I. The probate court erred in not holding that the present petitioner voluntarily and deliberately frustrated the probate of the will dated June 20, 1939, in special proceeding No. 8022, in order to enable her to obtain the probate of another alleged will of Molo dated 191.II. The court a quo erred in not holding that the petitioner is now estopped from seeking the probate of Molo's alleged will of 1918.III. The lower court erred in not holding that petitioner herein has come to court with "unclean hands" and as such is not entitled to relief.IV. The probate court erred in not holding that Molo's alleged will of August 17, 1918 was not executed in the manner required by law.V. The probate court erred in not holding that the alleged will of 1918 was deliberately revoked by Molo himself.VI. The lower court erred in not holding that Molo's will of 1918 was subsequently revoked by the decedent's will of 1939.In their first assignment of error, counsel for oppositors contend that the probate court erred in not holding that the petitioner voluntarily and deliberately frustrated the probate of the will dated June 20, 1939, in order to enable her to obtain the probate of the will executed by the deceased on August 17, 1918, pointing out certain facts and circumstances with their opinion indicate that petitioner connived with the witness Canuto Perez in an effort to defeat and frustrate the probate of the 1939 will because of her knowledge that said will intrinsically defective in that "the one and only testamentory disposition thereof was a "disposicion captatoria". These circumstances, counsel for the appellants contend, constitute a series of steps deliberately taken by petitioner with a view to insuring the realization of her plan of securing the probate of the 1918 will which she believed would better safeguard her right to inherit from the decease.These imputations of fraud and bad faith allegedly committed in connection with special proceedings No. 8022, now closed and terminated, are vigorously met by counsel for petitioner who contends that to raise them in these proceedings which are entirely new and distinct and completely independent from the other is improper and unfair as they find no support whatsoever in any evidence submitted by the parties in this case. They are merely based on the presumptions and conjectures not supported by any proof. For this reason, counsel, contends, the lower court was justified in disregarding them and in passing them sub silentio in its decision.A careful examination of the evidence available in this case seems to justify this contention. There is indeed no evidence which may justify the insinuation that petitioner had deliberately intended to frustrate the probate of the 1939 will of the deceased to enable her to seek the probate of another will other than a mere conjecture drawn from the apparently unexpected testimony of Canuto Perez that he went out of the room to answer an urgent call of nature when Artemio Reyes was signing the will and the failure of petitioner later to impeach the character of said witness in spite of the opportunity given her by the court to do so. Apart from this insufficiency of evidence, the record discloses that this failure has been explained by petitioner when she informed the court that she was unable to impeach the character of her witness Canuto Perez because of her inability to find witnesses who may impeach him, and this explanation stands uncontradicted. Whether this explanation is satisfactory or not, it is not now, for us to determine. It is an incident that comes within the province of the former case. The failure of petitioner to present the testimony of Artemio Reyes at the hearing has also been explained, and it appears that petitioner has filed because his whereabouts could not be found. Whether this is true or not is also for this Court to determine. It is likewise within the province and function of the court in the former case. And the unfairness of this imputation becomes more glaring when we stock of the developments that had taken place in these proceedings which show in bold relief the true nature of the conduct, behavior and character of the petitioner so bitterly assailed and held in disrepute by the oppositors.It should be recalled that the first petition for the probate of the will executed on June 20, 1939, was filed on February 7, 1941, by the petitioner. There being no opposition, the will was probated. Subsequently, however, upon petition of the herein oppositors, the order of the court admitting said will to probate was set aside, over the vigorous opposition of the herein petitioner, and the case was reopened. The reopening was ordered because of the strong opposition of the oppositors who contended that he will had not been executed as required by law. After the evidence of both parties had been presented, the oppositors filed an extensive memorandum wherein they reiterated their view that the will should be denied probate. And on the strenght of this opposition, the court disallowed the will.If petitioner then knew that the 1939 will was inherently defective and would make the testamentary disposition in her favor invalid and ineffective, because it is a "disposicion captatoria", which knowledge she may easily acquire through consultation with a lawyer, there was no need her to go through the order of filing the petition for the probate of the will. She could accomplish her desire by merely suppressing the will or tearing or destroying it, and then take steps leading to the probate of the will executed in 1918. But for her conscience was clear and bade her to take the only proper step possible under the circumstances, which is to institute the necessary proceedings for the probate of the 1939 will. This she did and the will was admitted to probate. But then the unexpected happened. Over her vigorous opposition, the herein appellants filed a petition for reopening, and over her vigorous objection, the same was granted and the case was reopened. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. Is it her fault that the case was reopened? Is it her fault that the order admitting the will to probate was set aside? That was a contingency which petitioner never expected. Had appellants not filed their opposition to the probate of the will and had they limited their objection to the intrinsic validity of said will, their plan to defeat the will and secure the intestacy of the deceased would have perhaps been accomplished. But they failed in their strategy. If said will was denied probate it is due to their own effort. It is now unfair to impute bad faith petitioner simply because she exerted every effort to protect her own interest and prevent the intestacy of the deceased to happen.Having reached the foregoing conclusions, it is obvious that the court did not commit the second and third errors imputed to it by the counsel for appellants. Indeed, petitioner cannot be considered guilty or estoppel which would prevent her from seeking the probate of the 1918 will simply because of her effort to obtain the allowance of the 1939 will has failed considering that in both the 1918 and 1939 wills she was in by her husband as his universal heir. Nor can she be charged with bad faith far having done so because of her desire to prevent the intestacy of her husband. She cannot be blamed being zealous in protecting her interest.The next contention of appellants refers to the revocatory clause contained in 1939 will of the deceased which was denied probate. They contend that, notwithstanding the disallowance of said will, the revocatory clause is valid and still has the effect of nullifying the prior of 1918.Counsel for petitioner meets this argument by invoking the doctrine laid down in the case of Samson vs. Naval, (41 Phil., 838). He contends that the facts involved in that case are on all fours with the facts of this case. Hence, the doctrine is that case is here controlling.There is merit in this contention. We have carefully read the facts involved in the Samson case we are indeed impressed by their striking similarity with the facts of this case. We do not need to recite here what those facts are; it is enough to point out that they contain many points and circumstances in common. No reason, therefore, is seen by the doctrine laid down in that case (which we quote hereunder) should not apply and control the present case.A subsequent will, containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed, for the reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the making of wills, cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will, inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void. (41 Phil., 838.)Apropos of this question, counsel for oppositors make the remark that, while they do not disagree with the soundness of the ruling laid down in the Samson case, there is reason to abandon said ruling because it is archaic or antiquated and runs counter to the modern trend prevailing in American jurisprudence. They maintain that said ruling is no longer controlling but merely represents the point of view of the minority and should, therefore, be abandoned, more so if we consider the fact that section 623 of our Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the revocation of wills, is of American origin and as such should follow the prevailing trend of the majority view in the United States. A long line of authorities is cited in support of this contention. And these authorities hold the view, that "an express revocation is immediately effective upon the execution of the subsequent will, and does not require that it first undergo the formality of a probate proceeding". (p. 63, appellants' brief .While they are many cases which uphold the view entertained by counsel for oppositors, and that view appears to be in controlling the states where the decisions had been promulgated, however, we are reluctant to fall in line with the assertion that is now the prevailing view in the United States. In the search we have made of American authorities on the subject, we found ourselves in a pool of conflicting opinions perhaps because of the peculiar provisions contained in the statutes adopted by each State in the subject of revocation of wills. But the impression we gathered from a review and the study of the pertinent authorities is that the doctrine laid down in the Samson case is still a good law. On page 328 of the American Jurisprudence Vol. 57, which is a revision Published in 1948, we found the following passages which in our opinion truly reflect the present trend of American jurisprudence on this matter affecting the revocation of wills:SEC. 471. Observance of Formalities in Execution of Instrument. Ordinarily, statutes which permit the revocation of a will by another writing provide that to be effective as a revocation, the writing must be executed with the same formalities which are required to be observed in the execution of a will. Accordingly, where, under the statutes, attestation is necessary to the making of a valid will, an unattested non testamentary writing is not effective to revoke a prior will. It has been held that a writing fails as a revoking instrument where it is not executed with the formalities requisite for the execution of a will, even though it is inscribed on the will itself, although it may effect a revocation by cancellation or obliteration of the words of the will. A testator cannot reserve to himself the power to modify a will by a written instrument subsequently prepared but not executed in the manner required for a will.SEC, 472. Subsequent Unexecuted, Invalid, or Ineffective Will or Codicil. A will which is invalid because of the incapacity of the testator, or of undue influence can have no effect whatever as a revoking will. Moreover, a will is not revoked by the unexecuted draft of a later one. Nor is a will revoked by a defectively executed will or codicil, even though the latter contains a clause expressly revoking the former will, in a jurisdiction where it is provided by a controlling statute that no writing other than a testamentary instrument is sufficient to revoke a will, for the simple reason that there is no revoking will. Similarly where the statute provides that a will may be revoked by a subsequent will or other writing executed with the same formalities as are required in the execution of wills, a defectively executed will does not revoke a prior will, since it cannot be said that there is a writing which complies with the statute. Moreover, a will or codicil which, on account of the manner in which it is executed, is sufficient to pass only personally does not affect dispositions of real estate made by a former will, even though it may expressly purport to do so. The intent of the testator to revoke is immaterial, if he has not complied with the statute. (57 Am. Jur., 328, 329.)We find the same opinion in the American Law Reports, Annotated, edited in 1939. On page 1400, Volume 123, there appear many authorities on the "application of rules where second will is invalid", among which a typical one is the following:It is universally agreed that where the second will is invalid on account of not being executed in accordance with the provisions of the statute, or where the testator who has not sufficient mental capacity to make a will or the will is procured through undue influence, or the such, in other words, where the second will is really no will, it does not revoke the first will or affect it in any manner. Mort vs. Baker University (193-5) 229 Mo. App., 632, 78 S.W. (2d), 498.These treaties cannot be mistaken. They uphold the view on which the ruling in the Samson case is predicated. They reflect the opinion that this ruling is sound and good and for this reason, we see no justification for abondoning it as now suggested by counsel for the oppositors.It is true that our law on the matter (sec. 623, Code Civil Procedure) provides that a will may be some will, codicil, or other writing executed as proved in case of wills" but it cannot be said that the 1939 will should be regarded, not as a will within the meaning of said word, but as "other writing executed as provided in the case of wills", simply because it was denied probate. And even if it be regarded as any other writing within the meaning of said clause, there is authority for holding that unless said writing is admitted to probate, it cannot have the effect of revocation. (See 57 Am. Jur. pp. 329-330).But counsel for oppositors contemned that, regardless of said revocatory clause, said will of 1918 cannot still be given effect because of the presumption that it was deliberately revoked by the testator himself. The oppositors contend that the testator, after executing the 1939 will, and with full knowledge of the recovatory clause contained said will, himself deliberately destroyed the original of the 1918 will, and for that reason the will submitted by petitioner for probate in these proceedings is only a duplicate of said original.There is no evidence which may directly indicate that the testator deliberately destroyed the original of the 1918 will because of his knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in the will he executed in 1939. The only evidence we have is that when the first will was executed in 1918, Juan Salcedo, who prepared it, gave the original and copies to the testator himself and apparently they remained in his possession until he executed his second will in 1939. And when the 1939 will was denied probate on November 29, 1943, and petitioner was asked by her attorney to look for another will, she found the duplicate copy (Exhibit A) among the papers or files of the testator. She did not find the original.If it can be inferred that the testator deliberately destroyed the 1918 will because of his knowledge of the revocatory clause of the 1939 will, and it is true that he gave a duplicate copy thereof to his wife, the herein petitioner, the most logical step for the testator to take is to recall said duplicate copy in order that it may likewise be destroyed. But this was not done as shown by the fact that said duplicate copy remained in the possession of petitioner. It is possible that because of the long lapse of twenty-one (21) years since the first will was executed, the original of the will had been misplaced or lost, and forgetting that there was a copy, the testator deemed it wise to execute another will containing exactly the same testamentary dispositions. Whatever may be the conclusion we may draw from this chain of circumstances, the stubborn fact is that there is no direct evidence of voluntary or deliberate destruction of the first will by the testator. This matter cannot be inference or conjectur.Granting for the sake of argument that the earlier will was voluntarily destroyed by the testator after the execution of the second will, which revoked the first, could there be any doubt, under this theory, that said earlier will was destroyed by the testator in the honest belief that it was no longer necessary because he had expressly revoked it in his will of 1939? In other words, can we not say that the destruction of the earlier will was but the necessary consequence of the testator's belief that the revocatory clause contained in the subsequent will was valid and the latter would be given effect? If such is the case, then it is our opinion that the earlier will can still be admitted to probate under the principle of "dependent relative revocation".This doctrine is known as that of dependent relative revocation, and is usually applied where the testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with a present intention to make a new testamentary disposition as a substitute for the old, and the new disposition is not made or, if made, fails of effect for same reason. The doctrine is n limited to the existence of some other document, however, and has been applied where a will was destroyed as a consequence of a mistake of law. . . . (68 C.J.P. 799).The rule is established that where the act of destruction is connected with the making of another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of a new disposition intended to be substituted, the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new disposition; and if, for any reason, the new will intended to be made as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the original will remains in full force. (Gardner, pp. 232, 233.)This is the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. The failure of a new testamentary disposition upon whose validity the revocation depends, is equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive conditions, and hence prevents the revocation of the original will. But a mere intent to make at some time a will in the place of that destroyed will not render the destruction conditional. It must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will. (1 Alexander, p. 751; Gardner, p. 253.)We hold therefore, that even in the supposition that the destruction of the original will by the testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to produce it in court, such destruction cannot have the effect of defeating the prior will of 1918 because of the fact that it is founded on the mistaken belief that the will of 1939 has been validly executed and would be given due effect. The theory on which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not intend to die intestate. And this intention is clearly manifest when he executed two wills on two different occasion and instituted his wife as his universal heir. There can therefore be no mistake as to his intention of dying testate.The remaining question to be determined refers to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the due execution of the will.The will in question was attested, as required by law, by three witnesses, Lorenzo Morales, Rufino Enriquez, and Angel Cuenca. The first two witnesses died before the commencement of the present proceedings. So the only instrumental witness available was Angel Cuenca and under our law and precedents, his testimony is sufficient to prove the due execution of the will. However, petitioner presented not only the testimony of Cuenca but placed on the witness stand Juan Salcedo, the notary public who prepared and notarized the will upon the express desire and instruction of the testator, The testimony of these witnesses shows that the will had been executed in the manner required by law. We have read their testimony and we were impressed by their readiness and sincerity. We are convinced that they told the truth.Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.1wphl.nt

PhilippineLaw.info Jurisprudence 1922 May PhilippineLaw.info Jurisprudence Phil. Rep. Vol. 43 G.R. No. 17714, In re Estate of De Leon. Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil. 413Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCMay 31, 1922G.R. No. 17714In the mater of the estate of Jesus de Leon.IGNACIA DIAZ,petitioner-appellant,vs.ANA DE LEON,opponent-appellee.Montinola, Montinola & Hontiveros and Jose Lopez Vito for appellant.Francisco A. Delgado, Powell & Hill and Padilla & Treas for appellee.ROMUALDEZ,J.:The only question raised in this case is whether or to the will executed by Jesus de Leon, now, was revoked by him.The petitioner denies such revocation, while the contestant affirms the same by alleging that the testator revoked his will by destroying it, and by executing another will expressly revoking the former.We find that the second will Exhibit 1 executed by the deceased is not cloth with all the necessary requisites to constitute a sufficient revocation.But according to the statute governing the subject in this jurisdiction, the destruction of a will animo revocandiconstitutes, in itself, a sufficient revocation. (Sec. 623, Code of Civil Procedure.)From the evidence submitted in this case, it appears that the testator, shortly after the execution of the first will in question, asked that the same be returned to him. The instrument was returned to the testator who ordered his servant to tear the document. This was done in his presence and before a nurse who testified to this effect. After some time, the testator, being asked by Dr. Cornelio Mapa about the will, said that it had been destroyed.The intention of revoking the will is manifest from the established fact that the testator was anxious to withdraw or change the provisions he had made in his first will. This fact is disclosed by the testator's own statements to the witnesses Canto and the Mother Superior of the Hospital where he was confined.The original will herein presented for probate having been destroyed withanimo revocandi, cannot now be probated as the will and last testament of Jesus de Leon.Judgement is affirmed with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avancea, Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.Villamor, J., took no part.

September 22, 1933G.R. No. 38050In the matter of the will of Donata Manahan. TIBURCIA MANAHAN, petitioner-appellee, vs.ENGRACIA MANAHAN, opponent-appellant.J. Fernando Rodrigo for appellant.Heraclio H. del Pilar for appellee.IMPERIAL, J.:This is an appeal taken by the appellant herein, Engracia Manahan, from the order of the Court of the First Instance of Bulacan dated July 1, 1932, in the matter of the will of the deceased Donata Manahan, special proceedings No. 4162, denying her motion for reconsideration and new trial filed on May 11, 1932.The fact in the case are as follows:On August 29, 1930, Tiburcia Manahan instituted special proceedings No. 4162, for the probate of the will of the deceased Donata Manahan, who died in Bulacan, Province of Bulacan, on August 3, 1930. The petitioner herein, niece of the testatrix, was named the executrix in said will. The court set the date for the hearing and the necessary notice required by law was accordingly published. On the day of the hearing of the petition, no opposition thereto was filed and, after the evidence was presented, the court entered the decree admitting the will to probate as prayed for. The will was probated on September 22, 1930. The trial court appointed the herein petitioner executrix with a bond of P1,000, and likewise appointed the committed on claims and appraisal, whereupon the testamentary proceedings followed the usual course. One year and seven months later, that is, on My 11, 1932, to be exact, the appellant herein filed a motion for reconsideration and a new trial, praying that the order admitting the will to probate be vacated and the authenticated will declared null and void ab initio. The appellee herein, naturally filed her opposition to the petition and, after the corresponding hearing thereof, the trial court erred its over of denial on July 1, 1932. Engracia Manahan, under the pretext of appealing from this last order, likewise appealed from the judgment admitting the will to probate.In this instance, the appellant assigns seven (7) alleged errors as committed by the trial court. Instead of discussing them one by one, we believe that, essentially, her claim narrows down to the following: (1) That she was an interested party in the testamentary proceedings and, as such, was entitled to and should have been notified of the probate of the will; (2) that the court, in its order of September 22, 1930, did not really probate the will but limited itself to decreeing its authentication; and (3) that the will is null and void ab initio on the ground that the external formalities prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure have not been complied with in the execution thereof.The appellant's first contention is obviously unfounded and untenable. She was not entitled to notification of the probate of the will and neither had she the right to expect it, inasmuch as she was not an interested party, not having filed an opposition to the petition for the probate thereof. Her allegation that she had the status of an heir, being the deceased's sister, did not confer on her the right to be notified on the ground that the testatrix died leaving a will in which the appellant has not been instituted heir. Furthermore, not being a forced heir, she did not acquire any successional right.The second contention is puerile. The court really decreed the authentication and probate of the will in question, which is the only pronouncement required of the trial court by the law in order that the will may be considered valid and duly executed in accordance with the law. In the phraseology of the procedural law, there is no essential difference between the authentication of a will and the probate thereof. The words authentication and probate are synonymous in this case. All the law requires is that the competent court declared that in the execution of the will the essential external formalities have been complied with and that, in view thereof, the document, as a will, is valid and effective in the eyes of the law.The last contention of the appellant may be refuted merely by stating that, once a will has been authenticated and admitted to probate, questions relative to the validity thereof can no more be raised on appeal. The decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution thereof and it cannot impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except that of fraud, in any separate or independent action or proceedings (sec. 625, Code of Civil Procedure; Castaeda vs. Alemany, 3 Phil., 426; Pimentel vs. Palanca, 5 Phil., 436; Sahagun vs. De Gorostiza, 7 Phil., 347; Limjuco vs. Ganara, 11 Phil., 393; Montaano vs. Suesa, 14 Phil., 676; In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil., 156; Riera vs. Palmaroli, 40 Phil., 105; Austria vs. Ventenilla, 21 Phil., 180; Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855; and Chiong Joc-Soy vs. Vao, 8 Phil., 119).But there is another reason which prevents the appellant herein from successfully maintaining the present action and it is that inasmuch as the proceedings followed in a testamentary case are in rem, the trial court's decree admitting the will to probate was effective and conclusive against her, in accordance with the provisions of section 306 of the said Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows:SEC. 306. EFFECT OF JUDGMENT. . . . .1. In case of a judgment or order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or relation of a particular person the judgment or order is conclusive upon the title of the thing, the will or administration, or the condition or relation of the person: Provided, That the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate; . . . .On the other hand, we are at a loss to understand how it was possible for the herein appellant to appeal from the order of the trial court denying her motion for reconsideration and a new trial, which is interlocutory in character. In view of this erroneous interpretation, she succeeded in appealing indirectly from the order admitting the will to probate which was entered one year and seven months ago.Before closing, we wish to state that it is not timely to discuss herein the validity and sufficiency of the execution of the will in question. As we have already said, this question can no more be raised in this case on appeal. After due hearing, the court found that the will in question was valid and effective and the order admitting it to probate, thus promulgated, should be accepted and respected by all. The probate of the will in question now constitutes res judicata.Wherefore, the appeal taken herein is hereby dismissed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.Avancea, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, and Hull, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-29300 June 21, 1978PEDRO D. H. GALLANOSA, CORAZON GRECIA-GALLONOSA and ADOLFO FORTAJADA, the deceased Pedro Gallanosa being substituted by his legal heirs, namely his above-named widow and his children, ISIDRO GALLANOSA and LEDY GALLANOSA, and grandchildren named IMELDA TECLA GALLANOSA and ROSARIO BRIGIDA GALLANOSA, children of the late SIKATUNA GALLANOSA, son of Pedro D.H. GALLONOSA, petitioners, vs.HON. UBALDO Y. ARCANGEL, Judge of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon and FLORENTINO G. HITOSIS, CASIANO G. HITOSIS, TEOTIMO G. HITOSIS, VICTORIO G. HITOSIS, EMILIA G. HITOSIS VDA. DE CRUZ, JOAQUIN R. HITOSIS VDA. DE CRUZ, JOAQUIN R. HITOSIS, FLORENTINO R. HITOSIS, VIRGINIA R. MITOSIS, DEBORAH R. HITOSIS, EDILBERTO R. HITOSIS, LEONOR R. HITOSIS, NORMA R. HITOSIS-VILLANUEVA, LEONCIO R. HITOSIS, minors ANGEL R. HITOSIS and RODOLFO R. HITOSIS, represented by their legal guardian and mother LOURDES RELUCIO VDA. DE HITOSIS, PETRONA HITOSIS-BALBIDO, MODESTO HITOSIS-GACILO, CLETO HITOSIS, AGUSTIN HITOSIS-FORTES, TOMASA HITOSIS-BANARES VDA. DE BORRAS, CONRADA HITOSIS-BANARES FRANCHE, RESTITUTO HITOSIS-BANARES, DAMIAN HITOSIS-BANARES, FIDEL HITOSIS-BANARES, SUSANA HITOSIS-BANARES RODRIGUEZ, JOSE HITOSIS, LOLITA HITOSIS-BANEGA, minors MILAGROS HITOSIS-BANEGA, ALICIA HITOSIS-BANEGA AND ELISA HITOSIS-BANEGA, represented by their legal guardian and father ERNESTO BANEGA, FELICITAS HITOSIS-PENAFLOR, GENOVEVA HITOSIS-ADRIATICO, MANUEL HITOSIS, PEDRO HITOSIS, LIBRATA HITOSIS-BALMES, JUANITA HITOSIS-GABITO VDA. DE GABAS, MAURA HITOSIS-GABITO VDA. DE GANOLA and LEONA HITOSIS-GABITO GAMBA, respondents.Haile Frivaldo for petitioners.Joaquin R Mitosis for private respondents.AQUINO, J.:In this special civil action of certiorari, filed on July 29, 1968, the petitioners seek to annul the orders of respondent Judge dated May 3 trial June 17, 1968, wherein he reconsidered his order of January 10, 1968, dismissing, on the ground of prescription, the complaint in Civil Case No. 2233 of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon.The case involves the sixty-one parcels of land in Sorsogon left by Florentino Hitosis, with an estimated value of P50,000, trial claims for damages exceeding one million pesos. The undisputed facts are as follows:1. Florentino Hitosis executed a will in the Bicol dialect on June 19, 1938 when he was eighty years old. He died on May 26, 1939 at Irosin, Sorsogon. A childless widower, he as survived by his brother, Leon Hitosis. His other brothers, named Juan, Tito (Juancito), Leoncio (Aloncio) trial Apolonio and only sister, Teodora, were all dead.2. On June 24, 1939 a petition for the probate of his will was filed in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon (Special Proceeding No. 3171). The notice of hearing was duly published. In that will, Florentino bequeathed his one-half share in the conjugal estate to his second wife, Tecla Dollentas, and, should Tecla predecease him, as was the case, his one-half share would be assigned to the spouses Pedro Gallanosa and Corazon Grecia, the reason being that Pedro, Tecla's son by her first marriage, grew up under the care of Florentino; he had treated Pedro as his foster child, and Pedro has rendered services to Florentino and Tecla. Florentino likewise bequeathed his separate properties consisting of three parcels of abaca land and parcel of riceland to his protege (sasacuyang ataman), Adolfo Fortajada, a minor.3. Opposition to the probate of the will was registered by the testator's legal heirs, namely, his surviving brother, Leon, trial his nephews trial nieces. After a hearing, wherein the oppositors did not present any evidence in support of their opposition, Judge Pablo S. Rivera, in his decision of October 27, 1939, admitted the will to probate and appointed Gallanosa as executor. Judge Rivera specifically found that the testator executed his last will "gozando de buena salud y facultades mentales y no obrando en virtud de amenaza, fraude o influencia indebida."4. On October 24, 1941, the testamentary heirs, the Gallanosa spouses trial Adolfo Fortajada, submitted a project of partition covering sixty-one parcels of land located in various parts of Sorsogon, large cattle trial several pieces of personal property which were distributed in accordance with Florentino's will. The heirs assumed the obligations of the estate amounting to P7,129.27 in the portion of P2,376.42 for Adolfo Fortajada and P4,752.85 for the Gallanosa spouses. The project of partition was approved by Judge Doroteo Amador in his order of March 13, 1943, thus confirming the heirs' possession of their respective shares. The testator's legal heirs did not appeal from the decree of probate trial from the order of partition trial distribution.5. On February 20, 1952, Leon Hitosis trial the heirs of Florentino's deceased brothers trial sisters instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon against Pedro Gallanosa for the recovery of the said sixty-one parcels of land. They alleged that they, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in continuous possession of those lands en concepto de dueo trial that Gallanosa entered those lands in 1951 trial asserted ownership over the lands. They prayed that they be declared the owners of the lands trial that they be restored to the possession thereof. They also claimed damages (Civil Case No. 696).6. Gallanosa moved to dismiss the above complaint for lack of cause of action trial on the ground of bar by the prior judgment in the probate proceeding. Judge Anatolio C. Maalac dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata in his order of August 14, 1952 wherein he said:It also appears that the plaintiffs and/or their predecessors-in-interest had intervened in the testate proceedings in Civil Case No. 3171 of this Court for- the purpose of contesting the probate of the will of (the) late Florentino Hitosis; trial had their opposition prospered trial the will denied of probate, the proceedings would have been converted into one of intestacy (Art. 960 Civil Code) and the settlement of the estate of the said deceased would have been made in accordance with the provisions of law governing legal or intestate succession ... , in which case the said plaintiffs, as the nearest of kin or legal heirs of said Florentino Mitosis, would have succeeded to the ownership and possession of the 61 parcels of land in question forming part of his estate (art. 1003, Civil Code).However, the derision of the Court was adverse to them, when it their opposition trial ordered the probate of his will. From this decision (Annex K) legalizing the said will, the oppositors did not file any appeal within the period fixed by law, despite the fact that they were duly notified thereof, so that the said decision had become final trial it now constitutes a bar to any action that the plaintiffs may institute for the purpose of a redetermination of their rights to inherit the properties of the late Florentino Hitosis.In other words, the said decision of this Court in Civil Case special ) No. 3171, in which the herein plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest had intervened as parties oppositors, constitutes a final judicial determination of the issue that the said plaintiffs, as ordinary heirs, have no legal rights to succeed to any of the properties of the late Florentino Hitosis; consequently, their present claim to the ownership trial possession of the 61 parcels of land in question is without any legal merit or basis.7. The plaintiffs did not appeal from that order of dismissal which should have set the matter at rest. But the same plaintiffs or oppositors to the probate of the will, trial their heirs, with a persistence befitting a more meritorious case, filed on September 21, 1967, or fifteen years after the dismissal of Civil Case No. 696 trial twenty-eight years after the probate of the will another action in the same court against the Gallanosa spouses trial Adolfo Fortajada for the "annulment" of the will of Florentino Hitosis trial and for the recovery of the same sixty-one parcels of land. They prayed for the appointment of a receiver.8. As basis of their complaint, they alleged that the Gallanosa spouses, through fraud trial deceit, caused the execution trial simulation of the document purporting to be the last will trial testament of Florentino Hitosis. While in their 1952 complaint the game plaintiffs alleged that they were in possession of the lands in question, in their 1967 complaint they admitted that since 1939, or from the death of Florentino Hitosis, the defendants (now the petitioners) have been in possession of the disputed lands (Par. XIV of the complaint, p. 70, Rollo in Civil Case No. 555, Gubat Branch, which was transferred to Branch I in Sorsogon town where Special Proceeding No. 3171 trial Civil Case No. 696 were decided trial which was re-docketed as Civil Case No. 2233).9. As already stated, that 1967 complaint, upon motion of the defendants, now the petitioners, was dismissed by respondent Judge. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration Respondent Judge. granted it trial set aside the order of dismissal. He denied defendants' motion for the reconsideration of his order setting aside that dismissal order.The petitioners or the defendants below contend in this certiorari case that the lower court has no jurisdiction to set aside the 1939 decree of probate trial the 1952 order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 696 trial that it acted with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private respondents' 1967 complaint.The issue is whether, under the facts set forth above, the private respondents have a cause of action the "annulment" of the will of Florentino Hitosis trial for the recovery of the sixty-one parcels of land adjudicated under that will to the petitioners.We hold that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in reconsideration its order of dismissal trial in ignoring the 1939 testamentary case trial the 1952 Civil Case No. 696 which is the same as the instant 1967 case.A rudimentary knowledge of substantive law trial procedure is sufficient for an ordinary lawyer to conclude upon a causal perusal of the 1967 complaint that it is baseless trial unwarranted.What the plaintiffs seek is the "annulment" of a last will trial testament duly probated in 1939 by the lower court itself. The proceeding is coupled with an action to recover the lands adjudicated to the defendants by the same court in 1943 by virtue of the probated will, which action is a resuscitation of The complaint of the same parties that the same court dismissed in 1952.It is evident from the allegations of the complaint trial from defendants' motion to dismiss that plaintiffs' 1967 action is barred by res judicata, a double-barrelled defense, trial by prescription, acquisitive trial extinctive, or by what are known in the jus civile trial the jus gentium as usucapio, longi temporis possesio and praescriptio (See Ramos vs. Ramos, L-19872, December 3, 1974, 61 SCRA 284).Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the "annulment" of a will. In order that a will may take effect, it has to be probated, legalized or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of the will is mandatory (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, formerly sec. 1, Rule 76, Rules of Court; Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479; Guevara vs. Guevara, 98 Phil. 249).The testamentary proceeding is a special proceeding for the settlement of the testator's estate. A special proceeding is distinct trial different from an ordinary action (Secs. 1 trial 2, Rule 2 trial sec. 1, Rule 72, Rules of Court).We say that the defense of res judicata, as a ground for the dismissal of plaintiffs' 1967 complaint, is a two-pronged defense because (1) the 1939 trial 1943 decrees of probate trial distribution in Special Proceeding No. 3171 trial (2) the 1952 order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 696 of the lower court constitute bars by former judgment, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:SEC. 49. Effect of judgments. The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court or judge of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or order, may be as follows:(a) In case of a judgment or order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or order is conclusive upon the title to the thing the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate;(b) In other cases the judgment or order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties trial their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating of the same thing trial under the same title trial in the same capacity;(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually trial necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity of the will (Sec. 625, Act 190, sec. 1, Rule 76, now sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court; Last par. of art. 838, Civil Code).That means that the testator was of sound trial disposing mind at the time when he executed the will and was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; that the will was signed by him in the presence of the required number of witnesses, and that the will is genuine trial is not a forgery. Accordingly, these facts cannot again be questioned in a subsequent proceeding, not even in a criminal action for the forgery of the will. (3 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Edition, p. 395; Manahan vs. Manahan, 58 Phil. 448).After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution cannot be raised anymore (Santos vs. De Buenaventura, L-22797, September 22, 1966, 18 SCRA 47).In Austria vs. Ventenilla, 21 Phil. 180, a "petition for annulment of a will" was not entertained after the decree of probate had become final. That case is summarized as follows:Wills; Probate; Alledged Fraudulent Will; Appeal. V. died. His will was admitted to probate without objection. No appeal was taken from said order. It was admitted that due trial legal notice had been given to all parties. Fifteen months after the date of said order, a motion was presented in the lower court to have said will declared null and void, for the reason that fraud had been practised upon the deceased in the making of his will.Held: That under section 625 of Act No. 190, the only time given parties who are displeased with the order admitting to probate a will, for an appeal is the time given for appeals in ordinary actions; but without deciding whether or not an order admitting a will to probate will be opened for fraud, after the time allowed for an appeal has expired, when no appeal is taken from an order probating a will, the heirs can not, in subsequent litigation in the same proceedings, raise questions relating to its due execution. The probate of a will is conclusive as to its due execution trial as to the testamentary capacity of The testator. (See Austria vs. Heirs of Ventenilla. 99 Phil. 1069).On the other hand, the 1943 decree of adjudication rendered by the trial court in the testate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Florentino Hitosis, having been rendered in a proceeding in rem, is under the abovequoted section 49(a), binding upon the whole world (Manalo vs. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; De la Cerna vs. Potot, 120 Phil. 1361, 1364; McMaster vs. Hentry Reissmann & Co., 68 Phil. 142).It is not only the 1939 probate proceeding that can be interposed as res judicata with respect to private respondents' complaint, The 1952 order of dismissal rendered by Judge Maalac in Civil Case No. 696, a judgment in personam was an adjudication on the merits (Sec. 4, Rule 30, old Rules of Court). It constitutes a bar by former judgment under the aforequoted section 49(b) (Anticamara vs. Ong, L-29689. April 14, 1978).The plaintiffs or private respondents did not even bother to ask for the annulment of the testamentary proceeding trial the proceeding in Civil Case No. 696. Obviously, they realized that the final adjudications in those cases have the binding force of res judicata and that there is no ground, nor is it timely, to ask for the nullification of the final orders trial judgments in those two cases.It is a fundamental concept in the organization of every jural system, a principle of public policy, that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law. Interest rei publicae ut finis sit litum. "The very object for which the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies." (Dy Cay vs. Crossfield and O'Brien, 38 Phil. 521: Pealosa vs. Tuason, 22 Phil, 303; De la Cerna vs. Potot, supra).After the period for seeking relief from a final order or judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court has expired, a final judgment or order can be set aside only on the grounds of (a) lack of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law or (b) that the judgment was obtained by means of extrinsic or collateral fraud. In the latter case, the period for annulling the judgment is four years from the discovery of the fraud (2 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Edition, pp. 245-246; Mauricio vs. Villanueva, 106 Phil. 1159).To hurdle over the obstacle of prescription, the trial court, naively adopting the theory of plaintiffs' counsel, held that the action for the recovery of the lands had not prescribed because the rule in article 1410 of the Civil Code, that "the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe", applies to wills.That ruling is a glaring error. Article 1410 cannot possibly apply to last wills trial testaments. The trial court trial plaintiffs' counsel relied upon the case of Dingle vs. Guillermo, 48 0. G. 4410, allegedly decided by this Court, which cited the ruling in Tipton vs. Velasco, 6 Phil. 67, that mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to void contracts, a ruling elevated to the category of a codal provision in article 1410. The Dingle case was decided by the Court of Appeals. Even the trial court did not take pains to verify the misrepresentation of plaintiffs' counsel that the Dingle case was decided by this Court. An elementary knowledge of civil law could have alerted the trial court to the egregious error of plaintiffs' counsel in arguing that article 1410 applies to wills.WHEREFORE, the lower court's orders of May 3 trial June 17, 1968 are reversed trial set aside trial its order of dismissal dated January 10, 1968 is affirmed. Costs against the private respondents.SO ORDERED.Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, and Santos, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-62952 October 9, 1985SOFIA J. NEPOMUCENO, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RUFINA GOMEZ, OSCAR JUGO ANG, CARMELITA JUGO, respondents.GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:This is a petition for certiorari to set aside that portion of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals (now intermediate Appellate Court) dated June 3, 1982, as amended by the resolution dated August 10, 1982, declaring as null and void the devise in favor of the petitioner and the resolution dated December 28, 1982 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. He left a last Will and Testament duly signed by him at the end of the Will on page three and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof in the presence of Celestina Alejandro, Myrna C. Cortez, and Leandro Leano, who in turn, affixed their signatures below the attestation clause and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 of the Will in the presence of the testator and of each other and the Notary Public. The Will was acknowledged before the Notary Public Romeo Escareal by the testator and his three attesting witnesses.In the said Will, the testator named and appointed herein petitioner Sofia J. Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the testator was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, Oscar and Carmelita, but since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. In fact, on December 5, 1952, the testator Martin Jugo and the petitioner herein, Sofia J. Nepomuceno were married in Victoria, Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace. The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina Gomez and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free portion thereof to herein petitioner. The Will reads in part:Art. III. That I have the following legal heirs, namely: my aforementioned legal wife, Rufina Gomez, and our son, Oscar, and daughter Carmelita, both surnamed Jugo, whom I declare and admit to be legally and properly entitled to inherit from me; that while I have been estranged from my above-named wife for so many years, I cannot deny that I was legally married to her or that we have been separated up to the present for reasons and justifications known fully well by them:Art. IV. That since 1952, 1 have been living, as man and wife with one Sofia J. Nepomuceno, whom I declare and avow to be entitled to my love and affection, for all the things which she has done for me, now and in the past; that while Sofia J. Nepomuceno has with my full knowledge and consent, did comport and represent myself as her own husband, in truth and in fact, as well as in the eyes of the law, I could not bind her to me in the holy bonds of matrimony because of my aforementioned previous marriage;On August 21, 1974, the petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXIV, Caloocan City and asked for the issuance to her of letters testamentary.On May 13, 1975, the legal wife of the testator, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition alleging inter alia that the execution of the Will was procured by undue and improper influence on the part of the petitioner; that at the time of the execution of the Will, the testator was already very sick and that petitioner having admitted her living in concubinage with the testator, she is wanting in integrity and thus, letters testamentary should not be issued to her.On January 6, 1976, the lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that as the testator admitted in his Will to cohabiting with the petitioner from December 1952 until his death on July 16, 1974, the Will's admission to probate will be an Idle exercise because on the face of the Will, the invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident.The petitioner appealed to the respondent-appellate court.On June 2, 1982, the respondent court set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal denying the probate of the will. The respondent court declared the Will to be valid except that the devise in favor of the petitioner is null and void pursuant to Article 739 in relation with Article 1028 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:WHEREFORE, the decision a quo is hereby set aside, the will in question declared valid except the devise in favor of the appellant which is declared null and void. The properties so devised are instead passed on in intestacy to the appellant in equal shares, without pronouncement as to cost.On June 15, 1982, oppositors Rufina Gomez and her children filed a "Motion for Correction of Clerical Error" praying that the word "appellant" in the last sentence of the dispositive portion of the decision be changed to "appellees" so as to read: "The properties so devised are instead passed on intestacy to the appellees in equal shares, without pronouncement as to costs." The motion was granted by the respondent court on August 10, 1982.On August 23, 1982, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. This was denied by the respondent court in a resolution dated December 28, 1982.The main issue raised by the petitioner is whether or not the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of herein petitioner.The petitioner submits that the validity of the testamentary provision in her favor cannot be passed upon and decided in the probate proceedings but in some other proceedings because the only purpose of the probate of a Will is to establish conclusively as against everyone that a Will was executed with the formalities required by law and that the testator has the mental capacity to execute the same. The petitioner further contends that even if the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 739 of the Civil Code of the Philippines were applicable, the declaration of its nullity could only be made by the proper court in a separate action brought by the legal wife for the specific purpose of obtaining a declaration of the nullity of the testamentary provision in the Will in favor of the person with whom the testator was allegedly guilty of adultery or concubinage.The respondents on the other hand contend that the fact that the last Will and Testament itself expressly admits indubitably on its face the meretricious relationship between the testator and the petitioner and the fact that petitioner herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged ignorance of the true civil status of the testator, which led private respondents to present contrary evidence, merits the application of the doctrine enunciated in Nuguid v. Felix Nuguid, et al. (17 SCRA 449) and Felix Balanay, Jr. v. Hon. Antonio Martinez, et al. (G.R. No. L- 39247, June 27, 1975). Respondents also submit that the admission of the testator of the illicit relationship between him and the petitioner put in issue the legality of the devise. We agree with the respondents.The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when after declaring the Will to be validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the Will and declared the devise in favor of the petitioner null and void.The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will. The rule is expressed thus:xxx xxx xxx... It is elementary that a probate decree finally and definitively settles all questions concerning capacity of the testator and the proper execution and witnessing of his last Will and testament, irrespective of whether its provisions are valid and enforceable or otherwise. (Fernandez v. Dimagiba, 21 SCRA 428)The petition below being for the probate of a Will, the court's area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic validity thereof. The testators testamentary capacity and the compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law are the only questions presented for the resolution of the court. Any inquiry into the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will or the legality of any devise or legacy is premature.xxx xxx xxxTrue or not, the alleged sale is no ground for the dismissal of the petition for probate. Probate is one thing; the validity of the testamentary provisions is another. The first decides the execution of the document and the testamentary capacity of the testator; the second relates to descent and distribution (Sumilang v. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 1369)xxx xxx xxxTo establish conclusively as against everyone, and once for all, the facts that a will was executed with the formalities required by law and that the testator was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose of the proceedings under the new code for the probate of a will. (Sec. 625). The judgment in such proceedings determines and can determine nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass upon the validity of any provisions made in the will. It can not decide, for example, that a certain legacy is void and another one valid. ... (Castaneda v. Alemany, 3 Phil. 426)The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Will.In Nuguid v. Nuguid (17 SCRA 449) cited by the trial court, the testator instituted the petitioner as universal heir and completely preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of this nature, no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically, would be null and void. Separate or latter proceedings to determine the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions would be superfluous.Even before establishing the formal validity of the will, the Court in Balanay .Jr. v. Martinez (64 SCRA 452) passed upon the validity of its intrinsic provisions.Invoking "practical considerations", we stated:The basic issue is whether the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling on its allowance or formal validity, and in declaring it void.We are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual provisions of the will, which are of dubious legality, and because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's authorization) the trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. The probate of a will might become an Idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue (Nuguid v. Nuguid, 64 O.G. 1527, 17 SCRA 449. Compare with Sumilang vs. Ramagosa L-23135, December 26, 1967, 21 SCRA 1369; Cacho v. Udan L-19996, April 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 693).There appears to be no more dispute at this time over the extrinsic validity of the Will. Both parties are agreed that the Will of Martin Jugo was executed with all the formalities required by law and that the testator had the mental capacity to execute his Will. The petitioner states that she completely agrees with the respondent court when in resolving the question of whether or not the probate court correctly denied the probate of Martin Jugo's last Will and Testament, it ruled:This being so, the will is declared validly drawn. (Page 4, Decision, Annex A of Petition.)On the other hand the respondents pray for the affirmance of the Court of Appeals' decision in toto.The only issue, therefore, is the jurisdiction of the respondent court to declare the testamentary provision in favor of the petitioner as null and void.We sustain the respondent court's jurisdiction. As stated in Nuguid v. Nuguid, (supra):We pause to reflect. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted. And for aught that appears in the record, in the record, in the event of probate or if the court rejects the will, probability exists that the case will come up once again before us on the same issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. Result, waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief that we might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in question. (Section 2, Rule 1, Rules of Court. Case, et al. v. Jugo, et al., 77 Phil. 517, 522). After all, there exists a justiciable controversy crying for solution.We see no useful purpose that would be served if we remand the nullified provision to the proper court in a separate action for that purpose simply because, in the probate of a will, the court does not ordinarily look into the intrinsic validity of its provisions.Article 739 of the Civil Code provides:The following donations shall be void:(1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation;(2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense, in consideration thereof;(3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants, by reason of his office.In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action.Article 1028 of the Civil Code provides:The prohibitions mentioned in Article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions.In Article III of the disputed Will, executed on August 15, 1968, or almost six years before the testator's death on July 16, 1974, Martin Jugo stated that respondent Rufina Gomez was his legal wife from whom he had been estranged "for so many years." He also declared that respondents Carmelita Jugo and Oscar Jugo were his legitimate children. In Article IV, he stated that he had been living as man and wife with the petitioner since 1952. Testator Jugo declared that the petitioner was entitled to his love and affection. He stated that Nepomuceno represented Jugo as her own husband but "in truth and in fact, as well as in the eyes of the law, I could not bind her to me in the holy bonds of matrimony because of my aforementioned previous marriage.There is no question from the records about the fact of a prior existing marriage when Martin Jugo executed his Will. There is also no dispute that the petitioner and Mr. Jugo lived together in an ostensible marital relationship for 22 years until his death.It is also a fact that on December 2, 1952, Martin Jugo and Sofia J. Nepomuceno contracted a marriage before the Justice of the Peace of Victoria, Tarlac. The man was then 51 years old while the woman was 48. Nepomuceno now contends that she acted in good faith for 22 years in the belief that she was legally married to the testator.The records do not sustain a finding of innocence or good faith. As argued by the private respondents:First. The last will and testament itself expressly admits indubitably on its face the meretricious relationship between the testator and petitioner, the devisee.Second. Petitioner herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged ignorance of the true civil status of the testator, which led private respondents to present contrary evidence.In short, the parties themselves dueled on the intrinsic validity of the legacy given in the will to petitioner by the deceased testator at the start of the proceedings.Whether or not petitioner knew that testator Martin Jugo, the man he had lived with as man and wife, as already married, was an important and specific issue brought by the parties before the trial court, and passed upon by the Court of Appeals.Instead of limiting herself to proving the extrinsic validity of the will, it was petitioner who opted to present evidence on her alleged good faith in marrying the testator. (Testimony of Petitioner, TSN of August 1, 1982, pp. 56-57 and pp. 62-64).Private respondents, naturally, presented evidence that would refute the testimony of petitioner on the point.Sebastian Jugo, younger brother of the deceased testator, testified at length on the meretricious relationship of his brother and petitioner. (TSN of August 18,1975).Clearly, the good faith of petitioner was by option of the parties made a decisive issue right at the inception of the case.Confronted by the situation, the trial court had to make a ruling on the question.When the court a quo held that the testator Martin Jugo and petitioner 'were deemed guilty of adultery or concubinage', it was a finding that petitioner was not the innocent woman she pretended to be.xxx xxx xxx3. If a review of the evidence must be made nonetheless, then private respondents respectfully offer the following analysis:FIRST: The secrecy of the marriage of petitioner with the deceased testator in a town in Tarlac where neither she nor the testator ever resided. If there was nothing to hide from, why the concealment' ? Of course, it maybe argued that the marriage of the deceased with private respondent Rufina Gomez was likewise done in secrec