BALANAY, JR. vs. MARTINEZ 64 SCRA 452 FACTS: Leodegaria Julian died.

She was survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and six legitimate children. Felix Balanay, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of his mothers notarial will, which was written in English. In that will, Leodegaria declared that it was her desire her properties should not be divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime and that their legitimes should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties. She devised and partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all owned by her. She disposed of in the will her husband's one-half share of the conjugal assets. Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the probate of the will. Thereafter, Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument waiving and renouncing his right in Leodegarias estate in favor of their 6 children. ISSUE: Whether or not the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling on its allowance or formal validity, and in declaring it void. RULING: The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. But the probate court erred in declaring that the will was void and in converting the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding. The will is intrinsically valid and the partition therein may be given effect if it does not prejudice the creditors and impair the legitimes. The distribution and partition would become effective upon the death of Felix Balanay, Sr. In the meantime, the net income should be equitably divided among the children and the surviving spouse. (Relate to Articles 779 and 780 : In this case, there is testamentary succession because it resulted from the designation of heirs by the testatrix, made in a will executed in the form prescribed by law. It can be considered as a mixed succession because there is partly by will (execution of the will and execution of the waiver) and by operation of law (as to the share of the husband of the conjugal party of which he eventually waived buot buot ni na answer ha )

VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs. JUICO 4 SCRA 550 FACTS: Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor of his wife, Dona Faustina of all his real and personal properties giving the other half to his brother Don Fausto. Petitioner filed an action against the administrator contending that upon the widows death, she became vested with th the ownership of the properties bequeathed under clause 7 pursuant to its 8 clause of the will. ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the death of Dona Faustina. HELD: The intention of the testator here was to merely give usufructuary right to his wife Doa Fausta because in his will he provided that Doa Fausta shall forfeit the properties if she fails to bear a child and because she died without having begotten any children with the deceased then it means that Doa Fausta never acquired ownership over the property. Upon her death, because she never acquired ownership over the property, the said properties are not included in her estate. Those properties actually belong to Villaflor. That was the intention of the testator. Otherwise, if the testator wanted to give the properties to Doa Fausta then he should have specifically stated in his will that ownership should belong to Doa Fausta without mentioning any condition. .