Tamayo digests

ALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS

Lopez vs. Gonzaga

ROMULO LOPEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
LUIS GONZAGA, ET AL., defendants,
LUIS GONZAGA and ASUNCION GONZAGA, defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
Antecedent: Soledad Gonzaga Vda. de Ferrer died intestate on 11 April 1935 without
any issue and leaving real and personal properties worth P400,000.00; that she was
survived by the plaintiffs, who are her nearest of kin, being her brother sisters,
nephews, and nieces; that during the lifetime the deceased, she expressed the wish
that as long as her brother, Luis Gonzaga, the principal defendant, was engaged in
his coconut oil experimentation he could use products and rentals of her properties
in furtherance his experiments; that the said scientific venture by said defendant
was discontinued when he became totally blind in October, 1955 in view of which
the plaintiffs now ask a partition of the estate and the cancellation of titles of lands
allegedly fraudulently transferred by, and in the name of, the defendant.
Procedural: The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata
and non-inclusion of indispensable parties. The plainttiffs amended their petition to
include the omitted parties. After hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court denied
the said motion. Thereupon, the defendant filed their answer, pleading a denial as
to intestacy of deceased, and alleging, among others, that a will of Soledad
Gonzaga Vda. de Ferrer instituted Luis Gonzaga as the sole heir estate, and that the
will was duly allowed and probated.
The trial court (CFI Negros Occidental) dismissed the petition of plaintiffs
(appellants) for partition and cancellation of titles of registered lands and ordered
them to pay defendants (appellees) P1,000.00 by way of attorney's fees, but
refused to award moral damages in favor of the defendants.
Due to the destruction of the court and property record of Iloilo as a result of the
last war, as attested by the Clerk of Court, no will or probate order was produce and
neither were attested copies registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Negros Occidental leave little room for doubt that Doa Soledad Gonzaga died
leaving a will instituting her nephew the appellee Luis Gonzaga y Jesena, as her sole
testamentary heir.
A certain Atty. Hortillas testified twice that deceased Dona Soledad made Luis the
sole heir. The court took his testimony as conclusive because he himself was
married to Monserrat Gonzaga, a sister of Soledad, who would have been one of the
latter's heirs intestate had it not been for the testament in favor of the appellee.

There was a joint appeal by both the plaintiffs and the defendants straight to the SC
because the properties involved was valued at more than P200,000.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Luis Gonzaga may be declared as the sole testamentary heir despite
the absence of a will (all copies were destroyed during the war)
HELD:
Yes. Luis Gonzaga was declared by testimony as the sole testamentary heir. He paid
the inheritance taxes. He administered the properties as his own for more than 20
years in open and adverse possession. All of these factors taken in consideration,
Luis Gonzaga was deemed the sole testamentary heir despite the lack of a copy of
the will as all are indicative of the fact of conveyance of the inheritance to him and
his exercise of ownership over the properties.
*sorry Malabo talaga case na to.

Caiza vs. Evangelista

The Incompetent, CARMEN CAIZA, represented by her legal guardian, AMPARO

EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION),
PEDRO ESTRADA and his wife, LEONORA ESTRADA, respondents.
FACTS:
Antecedent: On November 20, 1989, being then ninety-four (94) years of age,
Carmen Caiza, a spinster, a retired pharmacist, and former professor of the College
of Chemistry and Pharmacy of the University of the Philippines, was declared
incompetent by judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in a
guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo A. Evangelista. She was so
adjudged because of her advanced age and physical infirmities which included
cataracts in both eyes and senile dementia. Amparo A. Evangelista was appointed
legal guardian of her person and estate.
Caiza was the owner of a house and lot in Quezon City. On September 17, 1990, her
guardian Amparo Evangelista commenced a suit in the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MetroTC) of Quezon City to eject the spouses Pedro and Leonora Estrada from said
premises. The complaint was later amended to identify the incompetent Caiza as
plaintiff, suing through her legal guardian, Amparo Evangelista.
Procedural: The Complaint alleged that plaintiff Caiza was the absolute owner of
the property in question, that out of kindness, she had allowed the Estrada Spouses,
their children, grandchildren and sons-in-law to temporarily reside in her house,
rent-free; that Caiza already had urgent need of the house on account of her
advanced age and failing health, "so funds could be raised to meet her expenses for
support, maintenance and medical treatment;" that through her guardian, Caiza had
asked the Estradas verbally and in writing to vacate the house but they had refused

to do so; and that they were enriching themselves at the expense of the
incompetent, because they lived there rent-free.
In their Answer with Counterclaim, the defendants declared that they had
been living in Caiza's house since the 1960's; that in consideration of their faithful
service they had been considered by Caiza as her own family, and the latter had in
fact executed a holographic will on September 4, 1988 by which she
"bequeathed" to the Estradas the house and lot in question.

Judgment was rendered by the MetroTC in Caiza's favor, the Estradas

being ordered to vacate the premises and pay Caiza P5,000.00 by way of attorney's
fees.

On appeal, the decision was reversed by the Quezon City Regional

Trial Court: the RTC held that the "action by which the issue of defendants'
possession should be resolved is accion publiciana, the obtaining factual and legal
situation demanding adjudication by such plenary action for recovery of possession
cognizable in the first instance by the Regional Trial Court."
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's judgment in toto.
Carmen Caiza died on March 19, 1994 and her heirs, Amparo Evangelista, and
Ramon C. Nevado, her niece and nephew, were substituted for her
ISSUE:
There are 2 issues in the case.
(a) whether or not an ejectment action is the appropriate judicial remedy for
recovery of possession of the property in dispute;
(b) Whether or not the devise of the house to the Estradas by Caiza denotes her
intention that they remain in possession thereof, and legally incapacitated
her guardian, Evangelista from evicting them.
HELD:
First issue: Yes. There is cause of action for an ejectment suit. It is settled that it is
sufficient that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the land from
the plaintiff for an action for unlawful detainer to lie. Caiza's act of allowing the
Estradas to occupy her house, rent-free, did not create a permanent and
indefeasible right of possession in the latter's favor. Tolerated lang ang stay nila.
Proper action is ejectment, not accion publiciana because the latter is an action for
recovery of right to possession de jure.
Second issue: No. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the testator's
death, it may be changed or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no effect
whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit: "No
will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in
accordance with the Rules of Court" (ART. 838) In this case there was sufficient
cause for the owner's resumption of possession is apparent: she needed to generate
income from the house on account of the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising

from her extreme age. As to legal capacity of Evangelista, she can bring the suit on
behalf of the deceased Caiza. Substituted party nga eh.

Spouses Pascual vs. CA

SPOUSES RICARDO PASCUAL and CONSOLACION SIOSON,petitioners,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS and REMEDIOS S. EUGENIO-GINO, respondents.
FACTS:
Antecedent: Petitioner Consolacion Sioson (CONSOLACION) and respondent
Remedios S. Eugenio-Gino (REMEDIOS) are the niece and granddaughter,
respectively, of the late Canuto Sioson (CANUTO). CANUTO and 11 other individuals,
including his sister Catalina Sioson (CATALINA) and his brother Victoriano Sioson
(VICTORIANO), were co-owners of a parcel of land in Tanza, Navotas, Metro Manila.
CATALINA, CANUTO, and VICTORIANO each owned an aliquot 10/70 share or 1,335
square meters of Lot 2.
CANUTO had Lot 2 surveyed and subdivided into eight lots. CANUTO got 2 lots
under his name and 3 other individuals got the remaining 6 lots.
CANUTO and CONSOLACION executed a Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan
(KASULATAN). Under the KASULATAN, CANUTO sold his 10/70 share in Lot 2 in favor
of CONSOLACION for P2,250.00. CONSOLACION immediately took possession of Lot
Nos. 2-A and 2-E. She later declared the land for taxation purposes and paid the
corresponding real estate taxes.
CANUTO died and the surviving children of CANUTO, namely, Felicidad and Beatriz,
executed a joint affidavit (JOINT AFFIDAVIT) affirming the KASULATAN in favor of
CONSOLACION.
CONSOLACION registered the KASULATAN and the JOINT AFFIDAVIT with the Office of
the Register of Deeds of Rizal (Register of Deeds). Based on these documents, the
Register of Deeds issued to CONSOLACION Transfer Certificate of Title.
Procedural: REMEDIOS filed a complaint against CONSOLACION and her spouse
Ricardo Pascual in the Regional Trial Court of Malabon for Annulment or Cancellation
of Transfer Certificate of Title and Damages. REMEDIOS claimed that she is the
owner of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E because CATALINA devised these lots to her in
CATALINAs last will and testament
REMEDIOS prayed for the cancellation of CONSOLACIONs title, the issuance of
another title in her name, and the payment to her of damages. Petitioners sought to
dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription. Petitioners claimed that the
basis of the action is fraud, and REMEDIOS should have filed the action within four
years from the registration of CONSOLACIONs title on 28 October 1968 and not
some 19 years later on 4 February 1988. REMEDIOS opposed the motion, claiming
that she became aware of CONSOLACIONs adverse title only in February 1987.

CONSOLACION maintained that she had timely filed her complaint within the fouryear prescriptive on 4 February 1988.

The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the case and ordering
REMEDIOS to pay petitioners P10,000 as attorneys fees and the cost of suit. The
trial court held that the action filed by REMEDIOS is based on fraud, covered by the
four-year prescriptive period. The trial court also held that REMEDIOS knew of
petitioners adverse title on 19 November 1982 when REMEDIOS testified against
petitioners. The trial court further ruled that REMEDIOS has no right of action
against petitioners because CATALINAs LAST WILL from which REMEDIOS claims to
derive her title has not been admitted to probate. Under Article 838 of the Civil
Code, no will passes real or personal property unless it is allowed in probate in
accordance with the Rules of Court.

The Court of Appeals rendered judgment reversing the decision of

the trial court. The appellate court held that what REMEDIOS filed was a suit to
enforce an implied trust allegedly created in her favor when CONSOLACION
fraudulently registered her title over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E. Consequently, the
prescriptive period for filing the complaint is ten years, not four. Further, CATALINAs
unprobated LAST WILL does not preclude REMEDIOS from seeking reconveyance of
Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E as the LAST WILL may subsequently be admitted to probate.
ISSUE:
(1) whether prescription bars the action filed by REMEDIOS, and
(2) whether REMEDIOS is a real party-in-interest to bring suit due to the devise of
theses lots to her under Catalinas last will
HELD:
1. ACTION IS BARRED. What REMEDIOS filed was an action to enforce an implied
trust (tama ang CA) but the same is already barred by prescription.
REMEDIOS filed her complaint on 4 February 1988 or more than 19 years
after CONSOLACION registered her title over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E on 28
October 1968. Hindi marunong magbilang si REMEDIOS
2. REMEDIOS is also not a real party-in-interest who can file the complaint, as
the trial court correctly ruled. (Civ pro: every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest) REMEDIOS anchored her
claim over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E (or over its one-half portion) on the devise of
these lots to her under CATALINAs LAST WILL. However, the trial court found
that the probate court did not issue any order admitting the LAST WILL to
probate. REMEDIOS does not contest this finding. Indeed, during the trial,
REMEDIOS admitted that Special Proceedings Case No. C-208 is still pending.
a. Article 838 of the Civil Code states that: No will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with
the Rules of Court. This Court has interpreted this provision to mean,
until admitted to probate, a will has no effect whatever and no right
can be claimed thereunder