Pecson V Mediavillo

Pecson v Mediavillo (G.R. NO.
7890)
Facts:
The last will and testament of Florencio Pecson was presented to the Court of First
Instance of the Province of Albay for probate. Mr. Tomas Lorayes, an attorney at law,
opposed the legislation of the will on the ground that it had not been authorized nor
signed by the deceased. After hearing the respective parties, the Honorable Percy
M. Moir (judge) found that the will had been signed and executed in accordance
with the provisions of law, and denied the opposition .
Lorayes, representing Basiliso Mediavillo and Rosario Mediavillo, presented a
motion averring:
That Rosario is and Joaquin was the grandchild of the testator, Florencio Pecson
That Rosario, was disinherited by Florencio, according to clause 3 of the will,
because she failed to show him due respect and on a certain occasion raised her
hand against him
Paragraph 3 of the will disinherited Rosario Mediavillo states:
I declare that one of my daughters, named Teresa, now deceased, left a legitimate
daughter named Rosario Mediavillo. I also declare that I disinherit my
granddaughter, Rosario, because she was grossly disrespectful to me and because
on one occasion, when it was I do not remember, she raised her hand against me.
Therefore, it is my will that the said Rosario Mediavillo shall have no share in my
property.
That the interested party did not commit such an act, and if perhaps she did, it was
due to the derangement of her mental faculties which occurred a long time ago and
from which she now suffers in periodical attacks.
It also appears from the evidence that Teresa (daughter of Florencio, mother of
Rosario) also died. Her son Joaquin died, unmarried and childless, before the death
of
the
testator.
The lower court found out that the evidence shows that Rosario became insane in
1895, when she went to Nueva Caceres to study in college, and it has been proved
that it was previous to this date that she disobeyed her grandfather and raised her
hand against him. But since she was 14 years old, and shortly afterwards became
insane, she was not responsible for her acts and should not have been disinherited
by her grandfather.
The court therefore decreed that clause 3 of the will is contrary to law and is set
aside for being of no force or value whatever.
Issue:
Whether or not the courts, when a parent disinherits his children, may inquire into
the cause of the disinheritance and decide that there was or was not ground for
such disinheritance.
Held:
Yes. The Civil Code (Art. 848) provides that disinheritance shall only take place for
one of the causes expressly fixed by law. Article 849 of the Civil Code provides that
the disinheritance can only be effected by the testament, in which shall be
mentioned the legal grounds or causes for such disinheritance. The right of the
courts to inquire into the causes and whether there was sufficient cause for the
disinheritance or not, seems to be supported by express provisions of the Civil
Code. Disinheritance made without statement of the reason, or for a cause the truth
of which, if contradicted, should not be proven shall annul the designation of
heirship, in so far as it prejudices the person disinherited.
In the case, It appears from the record that when Rosario Mediavillo was about 14
years of age, she had received some attentions from a young man that she had
received a letter from him and that her grandfather, Florencio, took occasion to
talk to her about the relations between her and the said young man. It was upon
that occasion when the disobedience and disrespect were shown to her grandfather,
and that was the cause for her disinheritance by her grandfather. The record shows
that after said event, she lost the use of her mental powers and that she has never
regained them, except for very brief periods, up to the present time.
The lower court is correct in taking into consideration her tender years, that she was
probably not responsible for the disrespect and disobedience shown to her
grandfather in the year 1894 or 1895.
77
DY YIENG SEANGIO, et. al., vs. HON. AMOR A. REYES
G.R. Nos. 140371-72, November 27, 2006
Facts:
Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate
of the late Segundo Seangio before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioners
opposed contending that Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting one of the
private respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause, thus, the intestate proceedings are
to be automatically suspended and replaced by the proceedings for the probate of
the will. A petition for the probate of the holographic will of Segundo was
subsequently filed by petitioners before the RTC. Private respondents moved for its
dismissal on the ground that the document purporting to be the holographic will of
Segundo does not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus
does not meet the definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code as the will
only shows an alleged act of disinheritance and nothing else. Petitioners filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss contending that disinheritance constitutes a
disposition of the estate of a decedent and that the rule on preterition does not
apply because Segundos will does not constitute a universal heir or heirs to the
exclusion of one or more compulsory heirs. The RTC issued its order dismissing the
petition for probate proceedings as the will clearly shows that there is preterition
since the other heirs were omitted, Article 854 of the New Civil Code thus applies.
Petitioner filed for motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Issue: WON the will executed is a holographic will.
Ruling:
Segundos document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance
instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is
written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to
dispose mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and
while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latters property, the
disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other
words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator
Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.
Holographic wills, therefore, should be construed in a manner where the
circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument and the intention of the
testator should be taken into account. Considering that the questioned document is
Segundos holographic will, and that the law favors testacy over intestacy, the
probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. It is settled that testate proceedings
for the settlement of the estate of the decedent take precedence over intestate
proceedings for the same purpose.

Pecson V Mediavillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pecson V Mediavillo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Pecson V Mediavillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pecson v Mediavillo (G.R. NO.

You might also like