Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Coja vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Chelsea Garcia
    The document discusses several cases related to succession rights and probate of wills under Philippine law. In COJA vs. CA, the court held that upon the death of spouses, their property is transmitted to their heirs according to law, and the surviving spouse is entitled to 1/3 as are the legitimate children. In AZUELA vs. CA, the court denied probate of a will that was defectively executed and not in accordance with formalities of law. In RODELAS vs. ARANZA, the court allowed a photostatic copy of a lost holographic will to determine authenticity of handwriting. In MERCADO vs. SANTOS, the court held that probate of

    Copyright:

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

    Coja vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Chelsea Garcia
    34 views3 pages
    The document discusses several cases related to succession rights and probate of wills under Philippine law. In COJA vs. CA, the court held that upon the death of spouses, their property is transmitted to their heirs according to law, and the surviving spouse is entitled to 1/3 as are the legitimate children. In AZUELA vs. CA, the court denied probate of a will that was defectively executed and not in accordance with formalities of law. In RODELAS vs. ARANZA, the court allowed a photostatic copy of a lost holographic will to determine authenticity of handwriting. In MERCADO vs. SANTOS, the court held that probate of

    Original Description:

    cases

    Original Title

    Cases Succession

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses several cases related to succession rights and probate of wills under Philippine law. In COJA vs. CA, the court held that upon the death of spouses, their property is transmitted to their heirs according to law, and the surviving spouse is entitled to 1/3 as are the legitimate children. In AZUELA vs. CA, the court denied probate of a will that was defectively executed and not in accordance with formalities of law. In RODELAS vs. ARANZA, the court allowed a photostatic copy of a lost holographic will to determine authenticity of handwriting. In MERCADO vs. SANTOS, the court held that probate of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views3 pages

    Coja vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Chelsea Garcia
    The document discusses several cases related to succession rights and probate of wills under Philippine law. In COJA vs. CA, the court held that upon the death of spouses, their property is transmitted to their heirs according to law, and the surviving spouse is entitled to 1/3 as are the legitimate children. In AZUELA vs. CA, the court denied probate of a will that was defectively executed and not in accordance with formalities of law. In RODELAS vs. ARANZA, the court allowed a photostatic copy of a lost holographic will to determine authenticity of handwriting. In MERCADO vs. SANTOS, the court held that probate of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    COJA vs.

    CA
    FACTS:
    -

    Feliciano Jr. and Luz were the legitimate


    children of Sps. Feliciano Sr. and
    Lorenza. During their marriage, they
    acquired a 120-square meter lot (subject
    property) located at Masbate, upon
    which they built their conjugal home.
    When Lorenza died, Feliciano married
    Paz Lachica. Before such marriage, Paz
    was able to purchase a 192-square
    meter lot.
    When
    Feliciano
    Sr.
    died,
    Paz
    appropriated the subject property to
    herself and had the tax declaration
    transferred to her name.
    Paz sold the subject property to Sps.
    Coja (petitioners).
    Charlito Coja filed an application for the
    issuance of title with the RTC but Luz,
    being one of the heirs of Feliciano Sr.
    opposed the application for registration.
    During the pendency of the case, Luz
    died. She was substituted by her spouse
    and 4 children (respondents).
    The petitioners alleged that they are
    buyers in good faith and for value and
    that the property in question was the
    paraphernal property of Paz and
    therefore, respondents have no right
    and interest therein.

    AZUELA vs. CA
    FACTS:
    -

    ISSUE:
    When
    transmitted?

    is

    the

    right

    to

    succession

    Article 996 of the Civil Code provides


    that the Right to Succession is transmitted from
    the moment of the death of the decedent.

    Eugenia Igsolo died leaving a will


    wherein she bequeathed all of her rights
    and properties to Felix Azuela
    (petitioner), who is the son of the cousin
    of the decedent.
    Petition filed a petition for probate.
    Geralda, who represented as Atty.-infact of the 12 legitimate heirs of Eugenia
    filed an opposition on the ground that
    the will was a forgery and was not
    executed and attested in accordance
    with the law.
    The attestation clause failed
    to state the number of
    pages of the will
    The attestation clause was
    not
    signed
    by
    the
    instrumental witnesses
    The
    will
    was
    not
    acknowledge by a notary
    public instead, there was
    only a jurat

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the will was executed in
    accordance with the formalities required by law.

    HELD:

    children, to the portion of 1/3 each.


    Thus, as a result of the death of
    Feliciano Sr., a regime of co-ownership
    exists among Feliciano Jr., Luz and Paz,
    with respect to the undivided 80-sqm of
    the property.
    Therefore, Paz could only validly sell the
    portion which rightfully belonged to her.

    Upon the death of Lorenza, of said


    property is transmitted to her heirs
    namely Feliciano Sr. and her 2
    children(20-sqm each), while the
    remaining (60-sqm) is transmitted to
    Feliciano Sr.
    Upon the death of Feliciano Sr., his
    rights over the property were transmitted
    to his heirs namely his 2 children and
    Paz.
    The surviving spouse is entitled to the
    same share as that of the legitimate

    HELD:
    No. A will whose Attestation clause does
    not contain the number of pages on which the
    will is written is fatally defective. A will whose
    Attestation clause is not signed by the
    instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And
    most importantly, a will which does not contain
    an acknowledgment, but mere jurat is fatally
    defective. These defects are sufficient to deny a
    probate.
    The number of pages requirement has
    been held to be mandatory as an effective
    safeguard against the possibility of interpolation

    or omission of some of the pages of the will to


    the prejudice of the heirs to whom the property
    is intended to be bequeathed.
    An Attestation clause is a memorandum
    of the facts attending the execution of the will
    required by law to be made by the attesting
    witnesses and it must necessarily bear their
    signatures. An unsigned Attestation clause
    cannot be considered as an act of the
    witnesses, since the omission of their signatures
    at the bottom thereof negates their participation.
    Signature to the Attestation clause establishes
    that the witnesses are referring to the
    statements contained in the Attestation clause
    itself.
    The acknowledgment made in a will
    provides for another all-important legal
    safeguard against spurious wills or those made
    beyond the free consent of the testator. The
    acknowledgment coerces the testator and the
    instrumental witnesses to declare before an
    officer of the law that they had executed and
    subscribed to the will as their own free act or
    deed.
    RODELAS vs. ARANZA
    FACTS:
    -

    Marcela Rodelas filed a petition for the


    probate of the Holographic will of
    Ricardo.
    The petition was opposed by Amparo
    Aranza, et al. alleging that a Lost or
    destroyed Holographic will cannot be
    proved by secondary evidence unlike
    ordinary wills.

    the Holographic will has been lost or destroyed


    and no other copy is available, the will cannot be
    probated because the best and only evidence is
    the handwriting of the testator in the said will. It
    is necessary that there be a comparison
    between the handwritten statements of the
    testator and the handwritten will. But a
    photostatic or Xerox copy of the Holographic will
    may be allowed because the comparison can be
    made with the standard writings of the testator.
    In the case of Gam vs. Yap, the Court
    ruled that the execution and the contents of
    both a lost or destroyed Holographic will may not
    be proved by the bare testimony of the
    witnesses who have seen and or read such will.
    The will itself must be presented; otherwise, it
    shall produce n9o effect. The law regards the
    document itself as material proof of authenticity.
    But in footnote 8 of said decision, it says that
    Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or
    photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or
    carbon copy or by other similar means, if any,
    whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of
    the deceased may be exhibited and tested
    before probate court. Evidently, the photostatic
    or Xerox copy of the l9ost or destroyed
    holographic will may be admitted because then,
    the authenticity of the handwriting of the
    deceased can be determined by the probate
    court.
    MERCADO vs. SANTOS
    FACTS:
    -

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not a Holographic will which
    was lost or cannot be found can be proved by
    means of a photostatic copy.

    HELD:
    Yes. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil
    code, probate of Holographic wills is the
    allowance of the will by the court after its due
    execution has been proved. The probate may be
    uncontested or not. If unconte3sted, at least one
    identifying witness is required and if no
    witnesses are available, experts may be
    resorted to. If contested, at least three
    identifying witnesses are required. However, if

    Petitioner Mercado filed a petition for


    probate of the will of his wife, Ines Basa.
    Without any opposition and upon the
    testimony of Benigno who is one of the
    attesting witnesses, the Trial Court
    granted the probate.
    16 months after, intervenors filed a
    complaint against the Petitioner for
    falsification or forgery of the will
    probated.

    ISSUE:
    May the petitioner be convicted,
    granting that he really had forged the duly
    probated will?
    HELD:
    No more, since the probate of the will
    rendered conclusive its due execution, and

    therefore conclusive as to the fact that the will


    was genuine and not a forgery.

    Whether or not the TC and the CA erred


    in disallowing the second will.

    The probate of the will by the probate


    court having jurisdiction thereof is usually
    considered as conclusive as to its due execution
    and validity, and is also conclusive that the
    testator was of sound mind at the time when he
    executed the will and was not acting under
    duress, menace, fraud or under influence, and
    that the will is genuine and not a forgery.

    HELD:

    REVILLA vs. CA
    FACTS:
    -

    ISSUE:

    Don Cayetano owned 2 parcels of land


    with buildings and another 6 parcels of
    land.
    Without any surviving ascendants, Don
    executed a will bequeathing all of his
    properties to his 9 nephews and nieces.
    He bequeathed 1/10 to each of them
    and the remaining tenth, for the care of
    the religious images which he kept in a
    chapel in San Miguel and also to pay for
    the holy masses for the repose of his
    soul.
    Don himself filed a petition for probate of
    the will-GRANTED.
    The City Hall of Manila was
    subsequently destroyed by fire. Thus a
    petition for reconstitution of the will was
    filed wherein Don testified againGRANTED.
    Don subsequently died.
    Petitioner who is the oldest nephew filed
    a petition for the probate of another will
    allegedly executed by Don on 09/13/82,
    wherein petitioner was instituted as the
    sole heir.
    The petition was denied.

    No. When Don Cayetano testified in the


    reconstitution proceedings, he was unaware of
    the second will which he supposedly made only
    two months previous on September 13, 1982.
    He identified his first will and declared that it was
    his true and only will. He denied having
    subsequently made another will.
    The execution of the second will is in an
    environment of secrecy and seclusion and the
    disinheritance of his 8 other nephews and
    nieces of whom he was equally fond justified the
    TCs and CAs belief that undue influence was
    exercised by Heracio over Don Cayetano to
    make him sign the second will in order to
    deprive his brothers and sisters of their rightful
    share in their uncles estate.
    That the dispositions in the second will
    were not made by Don Cayetano is proven by
    the omission therefrom of the latters reservation
    of 1/10 of his properties and the income thereof
    to pay for the holy masses for the repose of his
    soul and to be spent for the maintenance of his
    family chapel. That provision in his first will, for
    his personal benefit, would not have been
    deleted don cayetano if his only purpose in
    making a second will was to disinherit his 8
    nephews and nieces.
    (Article 839 provides that a will shall be
    disallowed if it was procured by undue and
    improper pressure and influence on the part of
    the beneficiary or some other person.)

    You might also like