Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 614 views

    Ajero Vs CA Succession Digest

    Uploaded by

    CJ
    1. The document is a Supreme Court case regarding the probate of Annie Sand's holographic will. 2. Annie Sand died in 1982 and her will left a house and lot in Cabadbaran to certain parties. However, private respondents opposed the will, arguing alterations were not signed by Annie. 3. The Court of Appeals denied the will's probate, finding unsigned and undated alterations. However, the Supreme Court ruled the will was validly executed under Philippine law, and only the unsigned portions could not be enforced. The disposition of the entire Cabadbaran property was also invalid, as Annie did not solely own it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ajero Vs CA Succession Digest

    Uploaded by

    CJ
    614 views1 page
    1. The document is a Supreme Court case regarding the probate of Annie Sand's holographic will. 2. Annie Sand died in 1982 and her will left a house and lot in Cabadbaran to certain parties. However, private respondents opposed the will, arguing alterations were not signed by Annie. 3. The Court of Appeals denied the will's probate, finding unsigned and undated alterations. However, the Supreme Court ruled the will was validly executed under Philippine law, and only the unsigned portions could not be enforced. The disposition of the entire Cabadbaran property was also invalid, as Annie did not solely own it.

    Original Description:

    Ajero vs Court of Appeals Succession Law Digest

    Original Title

    Ajero vs CA Succession Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The document is a Supreme Court case regarding the probate of Annie Sand's holographic will. 2. Annie Sand died in 1982 and her will left a house and lot in Cabadbaran to certain parties. However, private respondents opposed the will, arguing alterations were not signed by Annie. 3. The Court of Appeals denied the will's probate, finding unsigned and undated alterations. However, the Supreme Court ruled the will was validly executed under Philippine law, and only the unsigned portions could not be enforced. The disposition of the entire Cabadbaran property was also invalid, as Annie did not solely own it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    614 views1 page

    Ajero Vs CA Succession Digest

    Uploaded by

    CJ
    1. The document is a Supreme Court case regarding the probate of Annie Sand's holographic will. 2. Annie Sand died in 1982 and her will left a house and lot in Cabadbaran to certain parties. However, private respondents opposed the will, arguing alterations were not signed by Annie. 3. The Court of Appeals denied the will's probate, finding unsigned and undated alterations. However, the Supreme Court ruled the will was validly executed under Philippine law, and only the unsigned portions could not be enforced. The disposition of the entire Cabadbaran property was also invalid, as Annie did not solely own it.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    106720 September 15, 1994


    SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, petitioners,
    vs.
    THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents.

    Facts: The instrument submitted for probate is the holographic will of the late Annie
    Sand, who died on November 25, 1982. Petitioners instituted a special proceeding
    for allowance of decedent's holographic will and alleged that at the time of its
    execution, she was of sound and disposing mind, not acting under duress, fraud or
    undue influence. Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that the
    will contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent.
    The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He contested the disposition in
    the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that
    said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its
    sole owner.

    The Court of Appeals found that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and
    814 of the New Civil Code. It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were
    either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated. It also found that the
    erasures, alterations and cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated by
    decedent.

    Issues: 1. Whether or not said will was executed in accordance with formalities
    prescribed in law.
    2. Whether or not the decedent could validly dispose of the house and lot
    located in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, in its entirety.

    Ruling: 1. Yes. The will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed
    in law. In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement
    that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, as provided
    under Article 810 of the New Civil Code.

    A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its requirement affects the
    validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If
    the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these
    dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole
    testament void, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected
    or interlined.

    Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made
    on the date of the holographic will or on testator's signature, their presence does
    not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in
    disallowance of such changes.

    Moreover, the list enumerated in Article 839 of the New Civil Code is exclusive; no
    other grounds can serve to disallow a will.

    2. No. Decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic will that the
    Cabadbaran property is in the name of her late father, John H. Sand. Thus, as
    correctly held by respondent court, she cannot validly dispose of the whole
    property, which she shares with her father's other heirs.

    You might also like