70 - Rivera vs. IAC

JOSE RIVERA petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ADELAIDO J. RIVERA, respondents. [G.R. Nos. 75005-06 !
"#$%a$& '5, '((0 CRU), J.:* To+,- Probate of a Holographic will Do-.$,n" A mere stranger, he had no personality to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have the legal effect of requiring the three witnesses. Na.%$" subject of this petition, which urges the reversal of the respondent court. !a-.s 1. !. A prominent and wealthy resident of that town named Venancio ivera died. Jos" R,/"$a, claiming to be the only surviving legitimate son of the deceased, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over Venancio"s estate. a. Do-0"."d as SP No. '076, .1,s +".,.,on 2as o++os"d #& Ad"3a,do J. R,/"$a, 21o d"n,"d .1a. Jos" 2as .1" son o4 .1" d"-"d"n..
#. $. (.
Adelaido averred that Venancio was his father and did not die intestate but in fact left two holographic wills. Adelaido %. ivera filed, also with the egional &rial 'ourt of Angeles 'ity, a petition for the probate of the holographic wills. &he petition was in turn opposed by %ose ivera, who reiterated that he was the sole heir of Venancio"s intestate estate. a. .Adelaido %. ivera was later appointed special administrator.
).
After joint trial, %udge *liodoro +. ,uinto found that %ose ivera was not the son of the decedent but of a different Venancio ivera who was married to -aria Vital. T1" V"nan-,o R,/"$a 21os" "s.a." 2as ,n 5%"s.,on 2as 6a$$,"d .o Ma$,a Jo-son, #& 21o6 1" 1ad s"/"n -1,3d$"n, ,n-3%d,n7 Ad"3a,do. Jos" R,/"$a 1ad no -3a,6 .o .1,s "s.a." #"-a%s" .1" d"-"d"n. 2as no. 1,s 4a.1"$. T1" 1o3o7$a+1,2,33s 2"$" a3so ad6,.."d .o +$o#a.". /n support of %ose0s claim that he was the sole heir of the late Venancio ivera, %ose sought to show that the said person was married in 11!. to -aria Vital, who was his mother. He submitted for this purpose *2hibit A, the marriage certificate of the couple, and *2hibit +, his own baptismal certificate where the couple was indicated as his parents. &he petitioner also presented 3omingo 4antos, who testified that %ose was indeed the son of the couple and that he saw Venancio and %ose together several times. a. As Venancio"s legitimate wife 5 if indeed she was 5 she should have objected when her husband abandoned her and founded another family by another woman, and in the same town at that. -aria Vital did not file a complaint for bigamy or concubinage against Venancio partners in crime and sin. -aria Vital was completely passive and complaisant. ivera and -aria %ocson, the alleged
7.
..
b.
1.
%ose insists that -agno and 6lorencio are one and the same person, arguing that it is not uncommon for a person to be called by different names. &he 'ourt is not convinced.
17. &here is no evidence that Venancio"s father was called either -agno or 6lorencio. 11. 8hat is more li9ely is that two or more persons may live at the same time and bear the same name, even in the same community. &hat is what the courts below found in the cases at bar. 1!. 8hat this 'ourt considers particularly intriguing is why, if it is true that he was the legitimate son of Venancio not assert his right as such when his father was still alive. ivera, %ose did
a.
+y his own account, %ose supported himself 5 and presumably also his mother -aria Vital 5 as a gasoline attendant and driver for many years. All the time, his father was residing in the same town 5 and obviously prospering 5 and available for support. His alleged father was openly living with another woman and raising another family, but this was apparently accepted by %ose without protest, ta9ing no step whatsoever to invo9e his status /f, as he insists, he and Venancio ivera were on cordial terms, there is no reason why the father did not help the son and instead left %ose to fend for himself as a humble wor9er while his other children by -aria %ocson enjoyed a comfortable life. 4uch paternal discrimination is difficult to understand, especially if it is considered 5 assuming the claims to be true 5 that %ose was the oldest and, by his own account, the only legitimate child of Venancio ivera.
b.
Iss%" 3oes %ose 8"3d T1" +".,.,on ,s DENIED and .1" -1a33"n7"d d"-,s,on ,s A!!IRMED 1. &he flaw in this argument is that, as we have already determined, %ose ivera is not the son of the deceased Venancio ivera whose estate is in question. 8"n-", #",n7 a 6"$" s.$an7"$, 1" 1ad no +"$sona3,.& .o -on."s. .1" 2,33s and 1,s o++os,.,on .1"$".o d,d no. 1a/" .1" 3"7a3 "44"-. o4 $"5%,$,n7 .1" .1$"" 2,.n"ss"s. a. 8e find from the evidence of record that the respondent court did not err in holding that the Venancio ivera who married -aria %ocson in 11$! was not the same person who married -aria Vital, %ose"s legitimate mother, in 11!.. %ose belonged to a humbler family which had no relation whatsoever with the family of Venancio ivera and -aria Vital. &his was more prosperous and prominent. ;ow for the holographic wills. &he respondent court considered them valid because it found them to have been written, dated and signed by the testator himself in accordance with Article .17 of the 'ivil 'ode. a. /t also held there was no necessity of presenting the three witnesses required under Article .11 because the authenticity of the wills had not been questioned. ivera have a personality to contest the wills:
!.
9. $.
T1" ":,s."n-" and .1"$"4o$" a3so .1" a%.1"n.,-,.& o4 .1" 1o3o7$a+1,- 2,33s 2"$" 5%"s.,on"d #& Jos" R,/"$a. /n his own petition in 4P ;o. 17<), he declared that Venancio ivera died intestate= and in 4P ;o. 1711, he denied the e2istence of the holographic wills presented by Adelaido ivera for probate. In #o.1 +$o-""d,n7s, Jos" R,/"$a o++os"d .1" 1o3o7$a+1,- 2,33s s%#6,.."d #& Ad"3a,do R,/"$a and -3a,6"d .1a. .1"& 2"$" s+%$,o%s. 'onsequently, it may be argued, the respondent court should have applied Article .11 of the 'ivil 'ode, providing as follows> i. /n the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who 9nows the handwriting and signature of the testator e2plicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. I4 .1" 2,33 ,s -on."s."d, a. 3"as. .1$"" o4 s%-1 2,.n"ss"s s1a33 #" $"5%,$"d.
(.
).
<.
&he testimony of ?enaida and Venancio ivera, %r., who authenticated the wills as having been written and signed by their father, was sufficient.

70 - Rivera vs. IAC

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

70 - Rivera vs. IAC

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

70 - Rivera vs. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOSE RIVERA petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ADELAIDO J. RIVERA, respondents. [G.R. Nos. 75005-06 !

You might also like