ADDITIONAL CASES (BASED ON ATTY Art. 838.

No will shall pass either real or

GRAVADOR’S PPT) personal property unless it is proved and
allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.
MODULE 6
An owner's intention to confer title in the future
N/A to persons possessing property by his tolerance
is not inconsistent with the owner's taking back
MODULE 7 possession in the meantime for any reason
deemed sufficient.
Cañiza vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 110427 | Feb. 24, 1997 In this case, there was sufficient cause for the
Caballes owner's resumption of possession – that is, she
needed to generate income from the house to
FACTS meet her expenses and medical treatment on
Cañiza, already 94 years old, was declared account of her physical infirmities due to
incompetent by a judgment instituted by her extreme age.
niece, who also commenced a suit to eject
Spouses Estrada (defendants) from Cañiza’s Samson vs. Naval
house and lot. G.R. No. 11823 | Feb. 11, 1918
Alcasid
The complaint alleged that Cañiza was the
absolute owner, and that the Spouses Estrada FACTS
and their children, grandchildren, and sons-in- ● There are 2 wills.
law were only temporarily residing there out of ● 2nd will was denied probate because
her kindness. It also alleged that Cañiza is in testator did not sign it in the presence
urgent need of the house in order to raise funds of three witnesses and the two
to meet her expenses for support, maintenance witnesses did not sign it in the presence
and medical treatment on account of her of each other.
advanced age and failing health. ○ Denied on the ground that it
was not executed in such form
Defendants contended that they had been living that it could transmit real and
in said property in consideration of their faithful personal property, according to
service, and that Cañiza executed a holographic section 618 of the Code of Civil
will by which she “bequeathed” to the Estradas Procedure
the subject property. ○ this will had a revocatory clause
in it
However, such will has not been submitted for ● Petition for allowance of the 1st will was
probate. contested on the ground that the will
could not be allowed because of the
ISSUE existence of another will of subsequent
Whether the alleged will may be given effect. date and because said will has been
(No) revoked by another executed
subsequently by her during her lifetime
RULING and because said will has not been
A will is essentially ambulatory. At any time executed with the formalities required
prior to the testator's death, it may be changed by existing laws. – court ordered the
or revoked; and, until admitted to probate, it allowance of this will
has no effect whatsoever and no right can be
claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit:

ISSUE
WON an invalid subsequent will have an effect and of course what is invalid in law can
of revoking a previously executed will produce no effect whatever

RULING
NO. MODULE 8
● Civil Code provides that a former will is
by operation of law revoked by another Manahan vs. Manahan
valid subsequent will, if the testator 58 Phil. 448
does not state in the later will his desire Abella
that the former should subsist wholly or
partly. In harmony with this provision of FACTS
substantive law, we find section 623 of This is an appeal taken by Engracia Manahan,
the Code of Civil Procedure, which from the order of the CFI of Bulacan in the
provides that no will shall be revoked, matter of the will of the deceased Donata
except by implication of law, otherwise Manahan, denying her motion for
than by some will, codicil, or other reconsideration and new trial.
writing executed as provided in case of
wills. The deceased left a will. Engracia, her niece and
● In order that the 2nd will could have the the named executor, filed a petition for the
effect of revoking the 1st will, it was probate of the will. Proper notice and publication
necessary and indispensable that the were done. Petition was granted.
later will should be perfect or valid, that
is, executed as provided by law in case One year and seven months later, Tiburcia,
of wills. sister of Donata, filed a motion for
● A subsequent will containing a clause reconsideration and new trial contending the
revoking an earlier will must, as a following:
general rule, be admitted to probate (1) That she was an interested party in
before the clause of revocation can have the testamentary proceedings and, as such, was
any effect, and the same kind, quality, entitled to and should have been notified of the
and method of proof is required for the probate of the will;
establishment of the subsequent will as (2) that the court, in its order of
was required for the establishment of September 22, 1930, did not really probate the
the former will. will but limited itself to decreeing its
● There is such relation between the authentication; and
revocatory clause and the will which (3) that the will is null and void ab initio
contains it, that if the will does not on the ground that the external formalities
produce legal effects, because it has not prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure have
been executed in accordance with the not been complied with in the execution thereof.
provisions of the law, neither would the
revocatory clause therein produce legal
effects It was denied. Hence, this appeal.
● The disallowance of the 2nd will
produced the effect of annulling the
revocatory clause because it was proved ISSUE
that said will was not executed or signed 1. Whether or not Tiburcia is an interested party
with the formalities and requisites in the testamentary proceedings and, as such,
required by section 618 of the Code of should have been notified of the probate of the
Civil Procedure, a cause which also will?
produces the nullity of the same will, 2. Whether or not the authentication is
according to section 634 of said law; synonymous to probate?
RULING ISSUE
1. NO. She was not entitled to notification of the WON Flora may still question the voluntariness
probate of the will and neither had she the right in the execution of the will after it had already
to expect it, inasmuch as she was not an become final and executory NO
interested party, not having filed an opposition
to the petition for the probate thereof. Her
allegation that she had the status of an heir,
being the deceased's sister, did not confer on RULING
her the right to be notified on the ground that ● Appellant would thereby be assailing the
the testatrix died leaving a will in which the very basis of the right she is asserting
appellant has not been instituted heir. as devisee, for if the will was not a
Furthermore, not being a forced heir, she did voluntary act of the testatrix as she
not acquire any successional right. would contend, the devise in question
would suffer the same defect.
2. YES. In the phraseology of the procedural ● It should be remembered also that the
law, there is no essential difference between the will has already been admitted to
authentication of a will and the probate thereof. probate, so that its due execution and
The words authentication and probate are authenticity are already deemed
synonymous in this case. All the law requires is established for purposes of this
that the competent court declared that in the proceeding.
execution of the will the essential external ● After the finality of the allowance of a
formalities have been complied with and that, in will, the issue as to the voluntariness of
view thereof, the document, as a will, is valid its execution cannot be raised anymore
and effective in the eyes of the law.

Palacios vs. Palacios

58 O.G. 220
Santos vs. De Buenaventura L.R Villanueva
G.R. No. L-22797 | Sep. 22, 1966
Yang
FACTS
Juan Palacios executed his last will and
FACTS testament on June 25, 1946 and he filed on May
● Rosalina, an heir and niece, filed a 23, 1956 before CFI Batangas a petition for its
petition for probate of the will of the approval.
deceased Maxima. Among the devisees
named in the will is Flora who is not a In said will, he instituted as his sole heirs his
blood relative of Maxima natural children Antonio C. Palacios and Andrea
● Flora filed an opposition on will arguing C. Palacios.
that the will was not executed in
accordance with law. Maria Catimbang filed an opposition to the
● Subsequently, however, Flora filed a probate of the will alleging that she is the
manifestation withdrawing her acknowledged natural daughter of petitioner but
opposition to the probate. that she was completely ignored in said will thus
● The court issued an order allowing the impairing her legitime.
probate of the will.
● After the order became final and The lower court entertained her opposition and
executory, Flora filed a motion for issued another order declaring her to be the
reconsideration arguing that fraud was natural child of petitioner and annulling the will
committed in the execution of the will.
insofar as it impairs her legitime, with costs Topic: Probate Limited to Determination of Due
against petitioner. Execution

ISSUE Doctrine:
Whether the trial court erred in entertaining the The jurisdiction of the RTC as a probate court
opposition of Maria Catimbang, alleged relates only to matters having to do with the
acknowledged natural daughter of testator settlement of the estate and probate of a will of
a deceased person, and does not extend to the
RULING determination of a question of ownership that
Yes, the lower court erred in entertaining such arises during the proceedings.
opposition to the intrinsic validity of the will.
Facts:
Legal principles: · Spouses Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto
● Opposition to the intrinsic validity or to Jardeleza commenced Civil Case
the legality of the provisions of the will 23499 against respondents
cannot be entertained in probate respecting several parcels of their
proceeding because its only purpose is conjugal lands.
merely to determine if the will has been · During the pendency of the case,
executed in accordance with the Ernesto died. Hence, administration
requirements of the law, much less if proceedings were commenced in
the purpose of the opposition is to show the RTC and Teodoro was appointed
that the oppositor is an acknowledged as the administrator of the estate.
natural child who allegedly has been · The other heirs questioned the
ignored in the will for such issue cannot appointment in the Court of Appeals
be raised here but in a separate action. (CA).
This is especially so when the testator, · Teodoro, in his capacity as the
as in the present case, is still alive and administrator, filed a motion to
has merely filed a petition for the dismiss in Civil Case No. 23499 on
allowance of his will leaving the effects the ground that because Melecio,
thereof after his death. one of the defendants, was also an
● "After a will has been probated during heir of Ernesto, the properties
the lifetime of a testator it does not subject of the action for
necessarily mean that he cannot alter or reconveyance should be considered
revoke the same before his death. as "advances in the inheritance,"
Should he make a new will, it would also and, accordingly, the claim for
be allowable on his petition, and if he reconveyance should be heard in
should die before he had a chance to Special Proceedings.
present such petition, the ordinary · RTC grants motion to dismiss.
probate proceedings after the testator's · Gilda sought reconsideration,
death would be in order" arguing that:
> she had a personal cause of
action of her own distinct from
that of Ernesto;
> that she neither signed nor
consented to the dismissal of
Civil Case No. 23499;
> that Teodoro should have first
Jardeleza vs. Spouses Jardeleza sought the approval of the RTC
G.R. No. 167975 | Jun. 17, 2015 as the intestate court
J.N Villanueva considering that the estate
 could potentially recover a deceased person, and does not extend to the
properties belonging to it. determination of a question of ownership that
arises during the proceedings.
Issue: WON the dismissal is proper. (NO)
This is true whether or not the property is
Rulings: alleged to belong to the estate, unless the
claimants to the property are all heirs of the
The dismissal is improper on the grounds of: deceased and they agree to submit the question
for determination by the probate or
1st: Misrepresentation of Teodoro administration court and the interests of third
parties are not prejudiced; or unless the
Although RTC based its dismissal on the fact purpose is to determine whether or not certain
that the motion to dismiss filed by Teodoro, in properties should be included in the inventory,
his capacity as administrator, bore the in which case the probate or administration
signatures of all the parties and their respective court may decide prima facie the ownership of
counsel, the records show that the motion to the property, but such determination is not final
dismiss carried only the and is without prejudice to the right of
conformity of Teodoro. interested parties to ventilate the question of
ownership in a proper action. Otherwise put, the
2nd: Action for Reconveyance is separate determination is provisional, not conclusive, and
and independent with the Special is subject to the final decision in a separate
Proceedings. action to resolve title by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Gilda correctly posits that the action for
reconveyance, which survived the intervening
death of Ernesto as co-plaintiff, should be
maintained independently of Special
Proceedings. Indeed, whether an action
survives or not depends on its nature. In a
cause of action that survives, the wrong
complained of primarily and principally affects
property and property rights, the injuries to the
person being merely incidental; in a cause of
action that does not survive, the injury
complained of is to the person, the property and
rights of property affected being incidental. This
rule is applicable regardless of whether it is the
plaintiff or the defendant who dies, or whether
the case is in the trial or in the appellate courts.
Verily, Civil Case No. 23499 survived the death
of Ernesto.

3rd: RTC as probate court relates only to

matters having to do with the settlement
of the estate and probate of a will of a
deceased person. (This is the part
mentioned in Atty. G’s slides)

The jurisdiction of the RTC as a probate court

relates only to matters having to do with the
settlement of the estate and probate of a will of