2. Testate Estate of Adriana Maloto vs. CA PDF

Preview

Summary

case digest of the case assigned. it contains several landmark decision of the supreme court with regard to the property of the deceased...

Description

Succession Law- In relation to Article 830 Article 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) TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ALDINA MALOTO CASIANO, CONSTANCIO MALOTO, PURIFICACION MIRAFLOR, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MOLO, AND ASILO DE MOLO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PANFILO MALOTO AND FELINO MALOTO, respondents. G.R. No. L-76464. February 29, 1988. Ponente: Sarmiento, J. Principles/Doctrine: “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. Nature of the case: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. Date of Death: October 20, 1963 – Adriana Maloto Kind of Succession: Intestate nung una the na-discover ang Notarial Will Cause of Death: Not mentioned Facts: On October 20, 1963, Adrinana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio Maloto, and the private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced on November 4, 1963 an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate. The case was instituted in the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo and was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 1736. However, while the case was still in progress, the parties—Aldina, Constancio, Panfilo, and Felino— executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate. The agreement provided for the division of the estate into four equal parts among the parties. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial court for approval which the court did on March 21, 1964. Three years later, Atty. Sulpico Palma, a former associate of Adriana's counsel, the late Atty. Eliseo Hervas, discovered a document entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBULUT-AN (Testamento)," dated January 3, 1940, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. Atty. Palma claimed to have found the testament, the original copy, while he was going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer formerly used by Atty. Hervas. The document was submitted to the office of the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on April 1, 1967. Incidentally, while Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much bigger and more valuable shares in the estate of Adriana than what they received by virtue of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed. The will likewise give devises and legacies to other parties, among them being the petitioners Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor. Thus, on May 24, 1967, Aldina and Constancio, joined by the other devisees and legatees named in the will, filed in Special Proceeding No. 1736 a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings therein and for the allowance of the will. However, the trial court denied their motion. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the orders of the trial court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and advised that a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will would be the appropriate vehicle to thresh out the matters raised by the petitioners. By that petitioner file a separate proceeding for probate of the will. Significantly, during the investigation the appellate court found out that the will was allegedly burned by the househelp of Adriana, Guadalupe Maloto Vda. de Coral, upon instructions of the testatrix, and found that the will had been revoked. The CA stated that the presence of animus revocandi in the destruction of the will had,

nevertheless, been sufficiently proven. The court concluded that Adriana Maloto s will had been effectively revoked. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not the will was revoked by Adriana....