Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 674 views

    Casiano vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Karen Gina Dupra
    - The case involved a dispute over the estate of Adriana Maloto who died in 1963 without a will. Her four heirs divided the estate through an extrajudicial settlement. - In 1967, a last will of Maloto from 1940 was discovered, leaving unequal shares to the heirs. The nephews claimed the will was revoked when the house helper burned it under Maloto's instruction. - The Supreme Court ruled the will was not validly revoked. For a will to be revoked by burning, the burning must be done by the testator or another under the testator's express direction and presence. There was no evidence this occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    Casiano vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Karen Gina Dupra
    674 views1 page
    - The case involved a dispute over the estate of Adriana Maloto who died in 1963 without a will. Her four heirs divided the estate through an extrajudicial settlement. - In 1967, a last will of Maloto from 1940 was discovered, leaving unequal shares to the heirs. The nephews claimed the will was revoked when the house helper burned it under Maloto's instruction. - The Supreme Court ruled the will was not validly revoked. For a will to be revoked by burning, the burning must be done by the testator or another under the testator's express direction and presence. There was no evidence this occurred.

    Original Description:

    Casiano vs. CA - Succession Law

    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 case involved a dispute over the estate of Adriana Maloto who died in 1963 without a will. Her four heirs divided the estate through an extrajudicial settlement. - In 1967, a last will of Maloto from 1940 was discovered, leaving unequal shares to the heirs. The nephews claimed the will was revoked when the house helper burned it under Maloto's instruction. - The Supreme Court ruled the will was not validly revoked. For a will to be revoked by burning, the burning must be done by the testator or another under the testator's express direction and presence. There was no evidence this occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    Casiano vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Karen Gina Dupra
    - The case involved a dispute over the estate of Adriana Maloto who died in 1963 without a will. Her four heirs divided the estate through an extrajudicial settlement. - In 1967, a last will of Maloto from 1940 was discovered, leaving unequal shares to the heirs. The nephews claimed the will was revoked when the house helper burned it under Maloto's instruction. - The Supreme Court ruled the will was not validly revoked. For a will to be revoked by burning, the burning must be done by the testator or another under the testator's express direction and presence. There was no evidence this occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    CASIANO VS.

    CA

    FACTS:

    Petitioners and respondents are the niece and nephews of Adriana Maloto who died in 1963. The four heirs believed that
    the deceased did not leave a will, hence they filed an intestate proceeding before the then CFI of Iloilo. While the case was
    still pending, the parties executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate dividing it into four equal parts.

    In 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, ex-associate of the testatrix's counsel allegedly discovered her last will which was purportedly
    dated 1940, inside a cabinet. Hence the annulment of the proceedings and a probate petition was filed by the petitioners
    who were bequeathed with much valuable shares than what they got from the extrajudicial settlement. The respondent
    nephews in this case averred that the said will was revoked as it was allegedly burned by the house helper under the
    instruction of the deceased.

    The lower court denied the probate on the ground that the will was validly revoked by the testatrix. The CA affirmed such
    decision.

    ISSUE:

    WON the will was validly revoked by Adriana Maloto.

    RULING:

    The Supreme Court said that the will was not revoked by the testatrix citing Article 830 par 3 of the Civil Code:

    Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:

    (1) By implication of law; or

    (2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills; or

    (3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the
    testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn,
    cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express direction of the testator, the will
    may still be established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due
    execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established
    according to the Rules of Court. (n)

    The physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless
    the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction
    be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express direction and in the presence
    of the testator. Of course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself.

    “Animus revocandi” is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. The
    intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will
    carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction.

    In this case, there is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. First, the document burned by helper,
    Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. Second, the burning
    was not proven to have been done under the express direction and in the presence of Adriana Maloto. Both witnesses
    presented by the respondents, Guadalupe and Eladio, were one in stating that they were the only ones present at the place
    where the stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which the papers proffered as a will were burned.

    You might also like