Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 245 views

    Bustamante vs. Arevalo 73 Phil 635 Fact

    Uploaded by

    JohnRouenTorresMarzo
    The testatrix executed two wills, the first in 1936 and the second in 1937. The second will omitted two parcels of land that were devised in the first will. The court held that the two wills could be reconciled and the first will was only revoked as to provisions inconsistent with the second will. As the testatrix was of sound mind when executing the second will only 21 months later, she could not have forgotten the two omitted parcels. Both wills were entitled to probate to avoid partial intestacy of the estate.

    Copyright:

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

    Bustamante vs. Arevalo 73 Phil 635 Fact

    Uploaded by

    JohnRouenTorresMarzo
    245 views1 page
    The testatrix executed two wills, the first in 1936 and the second in 1937. The second will omitted two parcels of land that were devised in the first will. The court held that the two wills could be reconciled and the first will was only revoked as to provisions inconsistent with the second will. As the testatrix was of sound mind when executing the second will only 21 months later, she could not have forgotten the two omitted parcels. Both wills were entitled to probate to avoid partial intestacy of the estate.

    Original Description:

    3

    Original Title

    3

    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 testatrix executed two wills, the first in 1936 and the second in 1937. The second will omitted two parcels of land that were devised in the first will. The court held that the two wills could be reconciled and the first will was only revoked as to provisions inconsistent with the second will. As the testatrix was of sound mind when executing the second will only 21 months later, she could not have forgotten the two omitted parcels. Both wills were entitled to probate to avoid partial intestacy of the estate.

    Copyright:

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

    Bustamante vs. Arevalo 73 Phil 635 Fact

    Uploaded by

    JohnRouenTorresMarzo
    The testatrix executed two wills, the first in 1936 and the second in 1937. The second will omitted two parcels of land that were devised in the first will. The court held that the two wills could be reconciled and the first will was only revoked as to provisions inconsistent with the second will. As the testatrix was of sound mind when executing the second will only 21 months later, she could not have forgotten the two omitted parcels. Both wills were entitled to probate to avoid partial intestacy of the estate.

    Copyright:

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

    BUSTAMANTE VS.

    AREVALO
    73 Phil 635

    FACT:
    -The testatrix in this case executed two wills,

    - one on January 9, 1936, and the other on October 2, 1937.

    - In the first will, the testatrix specifically referred to seven parcels of land of considerable value and to certain
    personal properties.

    -Three of these parcels of land and all the personal properties are given to Amando Clemente,
    -another three to Ariston Bustamante,
    -and the seventh parcel to Petrona Arevalo and Carmen Papa.

    -In the second will, the testatrix particularly referred to only five parcels of land and certain personal properties,
    all of which are give to Ariston Bustamante, as her universal heir.

    -The second will does not make mention of two of the three parcels given to Amando Clemente under the first
    will.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the later will, whose probate is herein approved, has entirely revoked the earlier will.

    HELD
    -NO.

    - The two wills can be reconciled,

    -the first should be considered revoked only in so far as it is inconsistent with the second.

    -As the second will was executed only twenty-one months after the first, the testatrix, who has been
    conclusively shown to be of sound mind at the time of the execution of the later will, could not have forgotten
    that she owned two other parcels of land, especially if they are of considerable value.

    -Even the lawyer who drafted the second will was aware that the testatrix owned the said two parcels, because
    they were included in the inventory made of her properties in connection with the administration proceedings of
    the estate of her deceased husband.

    - This omission could have been made only on purpose, and, coupled with the circumstance that the section
    will does not expressly revoke the first which has not been burned, torn, cancelled or obliterated, inevitably
    leads to the inference that the testatrix in face intended to make the first will effective as to the two parcels of
    land above referred to.

    Section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:


    No will shall be revoked, except by implication of law, otherwise than by some will, codicil, or other
    writing executed as provided in case of wills; or by burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the same
    with the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by
    his express direction.
    xxx xxx xxx
    -If partially conflicting, that of the latter date will operate to revoke the former so far as the provisions of
    the two are conflicting or incompatible, and in such case both wills are entitled to probate. (68 Corpus
    Juris 805.)

    -Where there is no revocation in a later will of all former wills, two separate and distinct wills may be probated,
    -especially when the probating of one only of the instruments would leave an intestacy as to part of the estate.

    -This rule applies even though the later instrument states that it is the last will and testament of the testator, as
    the use of such words in a later instrument does not of itself revoke a prior will.

    You might also like