Succession New

Joshua Adrian S.
Cericos
JD -3
1. G.r. No. 93980 June 27, 1994
Facts: On October 30, 1972, Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang left a Last Will and Testament,
a codicil which dated July 24, 1973 and nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00) worth of
property. Both the will and the codicil contained her thumb marks, signed by three
attesting witnesses each, and acknowledged before the Municipal Judge and Notary
Public Ex-Officio of Mt. Province. The executor named in the will filed a petition for its
allowance in the RTC of Bontoc Mt. Province Brgy. 36. However, he died during the
pendency of the proceeding and was duly substituted by the petitioner. On the contrary,
the respondents who were the relatives of the decedent oppsed the petition on the
following grounds: that the will and codicil were written in Ilocano, a dialect that decedent
did not know; that decedent was mentally incapacitated to execute the two documents
because of her advanced age, illness and deafness; that decedent’s thumbmarks were
procured through fraud and undue influence; and that the codicil was not executed in
accordance with law. The RTC approved and allowed the will and its codicil. They
appealed to the CA and the CA reversed the RTC’s decision. The CA held that both the
will and codicil were not signed by them in their presence but on different occasions
since the same ballpen used by them supposedly in succession, as testified by the
instrumental witnesses, could not have produced a different color from blue to black and
from black to blue. If the witnesses and testatrix used the same ballpen, then their
signatures would have been in only one color, not in various ones as shown in the will
and codicil. Petitioner moved to reconsider, but was denied. Hence this petition.
ch
Issue: Whether or not, respondent appellate court erred in concluding that both
decedent’s Last Will and Testament, and its Codicil based on the evidence submitted
were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses on separate occasions.
Ruling: Yes. As a general rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are considered
final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this court. In the present
instance, however, there is reason to make an exception to that rule, since the finding of
the respondent court is contrary to that of the trial court. It is accepted that there are
three sources from which a tribunal may properly acquire knowledge for making its
decisions, namely: circumstantial evidence, testimonial evidence, and real evidence or
autoptic proference. In the case at bench, the autoptic proference contradicts the
testimonial evidence produced by petitioner. The will and its codicil, upon inspection by
the respondent court, show in black and white — or more accurately, in black and blue
— that more than one pen was used by the signatories thereto. Thus, it was not
erroneous nor baseless for respondent court to disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both
testamentary documents in question were subscribed to in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 805 of the Civil Code. Neither did respondent court err when it did not
accord great weight to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. Tolete. It is true that his
testimony contains a narration of how the two testamentary documents were subscribed
and attested to, starting from decedent’s thumbmarking thereof, to the alleged signing of
the instrumental witnesses thereto in consecutive order. Nonetheless, nowhere in Judge
Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of explanation for the different-colored signatures on
the testaments.
2. G.r. No. 189776 December 15, 2010
Facts: On January 2, 1999 Angel N. Pascual Jr. died intestate which leaves his
siblings as his heirs. Consequently, On April 28, 2000 respondents filed a petition for
"Judicial Settlement of Intestate Estate and Issuance of Letters of Administration before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, alleging therein that a parcel of land located in
Teresa Village, Makati, which was, by Deed of Donation, transferred by the decedent to
petitioner the validity of which donation respondents assailed, "may be considered as an
advance legitime" of petitioner. Respondent’s nephew Victor was, as they prayed for,
appointed as Administrator of the estate by Branch 135 of the Makati RTC. Respecting
the donated property, the trial court, acting as probate court, held that it was precluded
from determining the validity of the donation. Provisionally passing the the probate court
found the Deed of Donation valid in light of the presumption of validity of notarized
documents. It thus went on to hold that it is subject to collation following Article 1061 of
the New Civil Code which reads: Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other
compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he
may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
donation, or any other gratuitous title in order that it may be computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition. Thereafter,
the probate court partitioned the properties of the interstate estate. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the property donated to petitioner subject to collation.
Ruling: No. The term collation has two distinct concepts: first, it is a mere
mathematical operation by the addition of the value of donations made by the testator
to the value of the hereditary estate; and second, it is the return to the hereditary
estate of property disposed of by lucrative title by the testator during his lifetime. The
purposes of collation are to secure equality among the compulsory heirs in so far as is
possible, and to determine the free portion, after finding the legitime, so that
inofficious donations may be reduced. It is evident that Collation takes place when
there are compulsory heirs, one of its purposes being to determine the legitime and the
free portion. If there is no compulsory heir, there is no legitime to be safeguarded.
Moreover, the records do not show that the decedent left any primary, secondary, or
concurring compulsory heirs. He was only survived by his siblings, who are his collateral
relatives and, therefore, are not entitled to any legitime – that part of the testator’s
property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for compulsory
heirs. The decedent not having left any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime,
he was at liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his siblings-
collateral relatives to inherit. His donation to petitioner, assuming that it was valid,18 is
deemed as donation made to a "stranger," chargeable against the free portion of the
estate.19 There being no compulsory heir, however, the donated property is not subject
to collation.

Succession New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession New

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joshua Adrian S.

1. G.r. No. 93980 June 27, 1994

2. G.r. No. 189776 December 15, 2010

Issue: Whether or not the property donated to petitioner subject to collation.

You might also like