ALSUA-BETTS VS CA

FACTS: (1)Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Doa Tinay, together with all their living children, entered into a duly notarized
agreement, (escritura de particion extrajudicial/extra judicial partition) for the inventory and partition of all the spouses
present and existing properties. In the provision of said extra judicial partition, each of the four children was allotted with the
properties considered as their share in the estate or as inheritance left by the deceased where they will be the absolute owner
of the properties assigned in case of death of one of the spouses. (2)Don Jesus and Do a Tinay also separately executed
holographic will with exactly the same terms and conditions in conformity with the executed extra judicial partition naming
each other as an executor without having to post any bond. That in case new properties be acquired same shall be
partitioned one half to the surviving spouse and the other half to children of equal parts.
(3).Spouses subsequently executed separately a codicil of exactly the same terms and conditions, amending and
supplementing their holographic wills stating that they reserved for themselves the other half not disposed of to their
legitimate heirs under the agreement of partition and mutually and reciprocally bequeathed each other their participation as
well all properties which might be acquired subsequently. Doa Tinay died in effect Don Jesus by order of the probate court
was name as executor.
Before Don Jesus died he cancelled his holographic will in the presence of his bookkeeper and secretary and instructed his
lawyer to draft a new will. This was a notarial will and testament of 3 essential features as follows;
1. It expressly cancelled revoked and annulled all the provisions of his holographic will and codicil.
2. It provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four living children by virtue of the Escritura de Partition
Extra judicial.
3. It instituted his children as legatees / devisees of specific properties, and as to the rest of the properties and whatever
may be subsequently acquired in the future, before his death, were to be given to Francisca and Pablo naming Francisca as
executor to serve without a bond.

ISSUE:
1.W/N oppositors to the probate of the will, are in estoppel to question the competence of testator Don Jesus Alsua.
2.Whether testator Don Jesus can or cannot revoke his previous will.

HELD: 1.The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings ( case of Testate Estate of the Late Procopia
Apostol Benedicta Obispo, et al vs. Remedios Obispo, Probate proceedings involve public interest, and the application
therein of the rule of estoppel, when it will block the ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances surrounding the
execution of a testament, would seem inimical to public policy. Over and above the interest of private parties is that of the
state to see that testamentary dispositions be carried out if, and only if, executed conformably to law.

2. We rule that Don Jesus was not forever bound of his previous holographic will and codicil as such, would remain
revokable at his discretion. Art. 828 of the new Civil Code is clear: "A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before
his death. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void." There can be no restriction that may be made on his absolute
freedom to revoke his holographic will and codicil previously made. This would still hold true even if such previous will had as
in the case at bar already been probated (Palacios v. Palacios, 106 Phil. 739). For in the first place, probate only
authenticates the will and does not pass upon the efficacy of the dispositions therein. And secondly, the rights to the
succession are transmitted only from the moment of the death of the decedent (Article 777, New Civil Code). In fine, Don
Jesus retained the liberty of disposing of his property before his death to whomsoever he chose, provided the legitime of the
forced heirs are not prejudiced, which is not herein claimed for it is undisputed that only the free portion of the whole Alsua
estate is being contested.

FRANCISCA ALSUA-BETTS, JOSEPH O. BETTS, JOSE MADARETA, ESTEBAN P.

RAMIREZ, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ALBAY PROVINCE, petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, AMPARO ALSUA BUENVIAJE, FERNANDO BUENVIAJE,

FERNANDO ALSUA, represented by his guardian, CLOTILDE S. ALSUA and PABLO
ALSUA, respondents.

FACTS:
 Nov. 25, 1949- Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Do;a Florentina Rella, together with all
their living children, Francisca, Pablo ,Fernando Alsua thru this judicial guardian Clotilde
Samson, and Amparo Alsua de Buenviaje, entered into a duly notarized agreement, over
the existing. abaca and cacao lands and urban lands registered in the Province of Albay
and in the City of Manila. On January 5, 1955, Don Jesus and Doa Florentina( Doa
Tinay )separately executed their respective holographic wills in which were in conformity
and in implementation of the extrajudicial partition of November 25, 1949.
Their holographic wills similarly provided for the institution of the other to his or her share
in the conjugal properties, the other half of the conjugal assets having been partitioned
to constitute their legitime among their four living children in the Extrajudicial Partition of
1949. The wigs also declared that in the event of future acquisitions of other properties
by either of them, one-half would belong to the other spouse, and the other half shall be
divided equally among the four children. Don Jesus Alsua executed a separate but
similar holographic will on the same day, Jan. 5, 1955 in exactly the same terms and
conditions of the will of his wife. Spouses Don Jesus and Doa Tinay filed before the CFI
of Albay their respective petitions for the probate of their respective holographic wins in
two separate special proceedings.
Spouses then executed their mutual and reciprocal codicils amending and
supplementing their holographic wills in which the codicil also provided that one half of
all the properties( conjugal and paraphernal) is being conveyed to and portioned among
the legitimate heirs, but they are reserving the other half and they reciprocally
bequeathed to each other as well as the properties they are to acquire subsequently and
that the surviving spouse would be named executor in properties or administrator. Dona
Tinay died, Upon the death of Doa Tinay Don Jesus was named executor. Don Jesus
cancelled his holographic will in the presence of his bookkeeper/secretary He instructed
his new lawyer to draft a new will duly signed by Don Jesus and the attesting witnesses .
The will had three essential features: (a) it expressly cancelled, revoked and annulled all the
provisions of Don Jesus' holographic will of January 5, 1955 and his codicil of August 14, 1956; (b) it
provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four living children by virtue of Extrajudicial
Agreement of 1949, and that such properties be taken into account in the partition of his estate among the
children; and (c) it instituted his children as legatees/devisees of certain specific properties, and as to the
rest of the properties and whatever may be subsequently acquired in the future, before his death, were to be
given to Francisca and Pablo, naming Francesca as executrix to serve without a bond.
After all debts, funeral charges and other expenses of the estate of Doa Tinay had
been paid, all her heirs including Don Jesus, submitted to the probate court for approval
a deed of partition, the court approved the partition of 1959 and on January 6, 1961
declared the termination of the proceedings on the estate of Doa Tinay. Don Jesus
Alsua died.

Francisca filed a petition for the probate of the new will. It was opposed by her siblings
Pablo and Fernando, on the ground that Don Jesus was not of sound mind at the time of
the execution of the will. The will was disallowed. The daughter argued that the other
children, Pablo and Fernando, are in estoppel to question the competence of Don Jesus
by virtue of the agreement previously entered.

ISSUE: WON Estoppel is applicable in probate proceedings?

HELD: NO. The principle of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings.

 Probate proceedings involve public interest, and the application therein of the rule of estoppel,
when it will block the ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances, surrounding the
execution of a testament, would seem inimical to public policy.

The controversy as to the competency of Don Jesus to execute his will cannot be determined by
the acts of his sons to the will in formally agreeing in writing with Francisca that their father be
appointed by the court executor of the will of their mother.

The SC allowed the probate of the will upon finding that Don Jesus complied with the
requirements of law as to the execution of the will.

FRANCISCA ALSUA-BETTS, JOSEPH O. BETTS, JOSE MADARETA, ESTEBAN P. RAMIREZ AND

THE REGISTER OF DEEDS (ALBAY), PETITIONERS
V.
COURT OF APPEALS, AMPARO ALSUA BUENVIAJE, FERNANDO BUENVIAKE, FERNANDO ALSUA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN, CLOTILDE S. ALSUA AND PABLO ALSUA, RESPONDENTS.
GR nos. L-46430-31 July 30, 1979
Guerrero, J.

- On November 25, 1949, Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Don a Florentina Rella, both of Ligao, Albay,
together with all their living children, Francisca Alsua-Betts, Pablo Alsua, Fernando Alsua thru this
judicial guardian Clotilde Samson, and Amparo Alsua de Buenviaje, entered into a duly notarized
agreement, Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial , over the then present and existing properties of
the spouses Don Jesus and Don a Florentina.

o of the total properties of the spouses were partitioned between the 4 children (roughly
equally). That the other half, which the spouses hold will belong to the surviving spouse and
the heirs (the children) waive their claim over the said against the surviving spouse in the
event one of the spouses died (ito yung pagkakaintindi ko)

- On Jan. 5, 1955, Don Jesus and Doa Florentina, also known as Don a Tinay separately executed their
respective holographic wills, the provisions of which were in conformity and in implementation of
the extrajudicial partition of Nov. 25, 1949. Also any future acquisitions of property will be divided
the same way (1/2 to the children equally, to the surviving spouse). They filed petitions for the
probate of their respective holographic wills.

- On Aug.14, 1956, the spouses Don Jesus and Don a Tinay executed their mutual and reciprocal codicils
amending and supplementing their respective holographic wills. On Feb. 19, 1957, their respective
holographic wins and the codicils thereto were duly admitted to probate. It reflected the agreed
partition before but added that should one spouse be the surviving spouse, whatever belongs to hi or
her or would pertain to him or her, would be divided equally among the four children (after
death). It was also added that the surviving spouse would be the executor or administrator of all
the properties reserved for themselves

- Don a Tinay died in October 1959. In early Nov. 1959, Don Jesus cancelled his holographic and
instructed his attorney to draft a new will. This subsequent last Will and Testament of Don Jesus
executed on Nov. 14, 1959 contained 3 essential features
 o an express revocation of his holographic will of Jan. 5, 1955 and the codicil of Aug.14,
1956;
o a statement requiring that all of his properties donated to his children in the Deed of 1949 be
collated and taken into account in the partition of his estate;
o the institution of all his children as devisees and legatees to certain specific properties; a
statement bequeathing the rest of his properties and all that may be acquired in the future,
before his death, to Pablo and Francesca; and a statement naming Francesca as executrix
without bond.

- Don Jesus Alsua died in 1964. Petitioner Francisca Alsua Betts, as the executrix named in the new
will, filed a petition for the probate of said new will of Don Jesus Alsua.

- Pablo, Amparo and Fernando opposed on the ff grounds

o Don Jesus was not of sound and dispoing mind at the time of the execution of the alleged will
o Will was executed under duress or influence of fear or threats; or procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of the main beneficiaries; or signature of Don
Jesus was secure by or through fraud
o That the will was not executed according to the formal requirements of the law and
o Alleged will contravened the extrajudicial partition agreed upon by the family, the
holographic will and codicil of Don Jesus. Allegedly, the 1949 partition was already partially
executed

- CFI allowed the probate of the will of Don Jesus Alsua despite the argument of the oppositors that
some of the properties were not included to which Alsua-Betts answered by saying that these were
sold to her by their father. CA reversed: denied the probate of the will, declared null and void the two
sales subject of the complaint and ordered the defendants-petitioners, to pay damages to the
plaintiffs-private respondents. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/s:
1. WON the oppositors were estopped from questioning the competence of Don Jesus Alsua. NO
2. WON CA erred in denying the probate of the will. YES

1. Although the court held that this issue was of no moment, it clarified that estoppel is not applicable in
probate proceedings. Probate proceedings involve public policy and applying estoppel when it will block the
ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances of the execution of the testament would be inimical to
public policy.

2.

- Art. 839 provide the instances where a will may be disallowed. The CA affirmed the findings of
the CFI that the new will complied with the requirements of Arts. 804-806 CC. But CA denied the
probate of the will after noting certain details which were a little bit difficult to reconcile with the
ordinary course of things and of life. CA held that the partiion of 1949 was an enforceable contract
which was binding on Don Jesus. Said contract barred him from violating the partition agreement,
barring him from revoking his will, and further barring him from executing his new will.

o SC: the extrajudicial partition of 1949 was null and void under article 1056 1 in relation to
12712 of the old civil code which are applicable. 1056 refers to a testator or one who has
already made a will and such testator is given the privilege of partitioning ones estate by

1
Art. 1056. If the testator should make a partition of his property by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall
stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs. ...
2
Art. 1271. All things, even future ones, which are not excluded from the commerce of man, may be the subject-matter of
contracts.
 acts inter vivos3, 1056 being an exception cannot include in the exception any person
whether he has made a will or not. Otherwise a partition by acts inter vivos would be
tantamount to making a will which does not subscribe to the forms

o CA cited the same article but held that one can partition his properties by acts inter vivos,
even before the execution of the will as long as the fact is mentioned in the will. It also cited
Legasto v. Verzosa to prove its point but the SC does not agree with this.

o In fact, in Legasto v. Verzosa, the SC categorically declared the necessity of a prior will before
the testator can partition his properties by acts inter vivos among his heirs. The supreme
court of Spain and Manresa are of the same opinion with this interpretation of 1056. A
person who disposes of his property gratis inter vivos is not called a testator, but a donor. In
employing the word "testator," the law evidently desired to distinguish between one who
freely donates his property in life and one who disposes of it by will to take effect after his
death.

o The partition was not ratified by the execution of the will as how the CA ruled. CA erred in
denying the probate of the will just because of the partition which according to it bound Don
Jesus; it was void as a partition and unenforceable because it involved future inheritance. It
was only valid as a donation inter vivos of specific properties to the heirs made by
their parents.

- The court found that there was substantial compliance with the rules on donations inter vivos under
the old civil code in relation to the 1949 donation. But the other half remained as the free portion of
the spouses and no valid donation to the children of this other half.

- When Tinay died, her free portion was distributed in accordance with her holographic will and
codicil. Her children werent instituted as heirs to this free portion since the holographic will (as well
as the codicil)only mentioned that should she acquire more properties then the new properties
would be divided 50/50, one half to the children, the other to her husband. This partition does not
apply to the free portion reserved by the spouses for themselves. Also the court held that Don Jesus
was not bound to partition this free portion bequeathed to him by his wife equally between the
children.

- In fact, the court also held that he was not bound by his holographic will and codicil forever. It would
remain revocable. Art. 828 provides that the testator can revoke the will at any time before his death
even if the previous will had already been probated.

o Probate only authenticates the will and does not pass upon the efficacy of the dispositions in
it

o The rights to the succession are transmitted only from the moment of death.

- Examining the provisions of the will, the court found that those properties distributed under the deed
of 49 were not included in the distribution under the new will of Don Jesus. What he was
redistributing was his remaining estate or that portion of the conjugal assets left to his free disposal.
The court cant do about the motives and sentiments of Don Jesus in favoring Francesca more than his
other children.

Nevertheless, no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritances, except those the object of which is to
make a division inter vivos of an estate, in accordance with Article 1056.
All services not contrary to law or to good morals may also be the subject- matter of contract.
3
This is important for a later topic (partition and distribution by will or by inter vivos)
 - The CA in denying the probate considered that Don Juan might have had diminished mental faculties
during the execution of the new will and the administration of the properties had been left to his
assistant who received instructions from Alsua-Betts and husband.

o SC disagreed with this since under Art. 799 mere weakness of the mind during the making of
the will (which is the time that should be the basis for measuring the mental capacity of the
testator) does not render a person incapable of making a will.

o Also sound mind is presumed under Art. 800 until there is proof to the contrary (which was
absent in this case)

o In fact it was Don Jesus himself who gave detailed instructions to his lawyer as to how he
wanted to divide his properties; that the semi final draft was even corrected by Don Jesus;
that on the day of the signing, Don Jesus even engaged in conversation about farming and
French-made wines; and that on the day of the signing of the will, he himself disclosed to the
witnesses why they were meeting

- The CA also used as basis for denying probate details which were a little bit difficult to reconcile with
the ordinary course of things and of life

o It appeared that he had no intention to probate the new will

o That it was redundant to sell to Francisca the properties which were already bequeathed to
her in the new will
o And that they cant find any reason why Don Jesus would favor Francisca (echoserang CA)

- SC: These circumstances do not warrant or justify disallowance of the probate of the will of Don Jesus.

o The law does not require that a will be probated during the lifetime of the testator and for
not doing so there cannot arise any favorable or unfavorable consequence therefrom
o Parties cannot correctly guess or surmise the motives of the testator and neither can the
courts. Same can be said on the sale of properties to Francisca

- There was a discussion on the annulment of the sale between Francisco And Don Jesus. SC found that
the declaration of nullity by the CA was not supported by evidence. No forgery, fraud, force or threat.
The consideration was paid. The alleged inadequacy of the consideration does not vitiate a contract
unless it is proven which in this case was not.

Decision Appealed from SET ASIDE. CFI ruling REINSTATED.

Justin Benedict A. Moreto

DOROMAL V. CA (September 5, 1975)

FACTS:
A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5 of the siblings gave a
SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez, who succeeded her father as a co-owner, for the sale of the land to
father and son Doromal. One of the co-owner, herein petitioner, Filomena Javellana however did not
gave her consent to the sale even though her siblings executed a SPA for her signature. The co-
owners went on with the sale of 6/7 part of the land and a new title for the Doromals were issued.

Respondent offered to repurchase the land for 30K as stated in the deed of sale but petitioners
declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase. Petitioner also contend that the 30K price
was only placed in the deed of sale to minimize payment of fees and taxes and as such, respondent
should pay the real price paid which was P115, 250.
ISSUE:
WON the period to repurchase of petitioner has already lapsed.

HELD:
Period of repurchase has not yet lapsed because the respondent was not notified of the sale. The
30-day period for the right of repurchase starts only after actual notice not only of a perfected sale
but of actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale.

The letter sent to the respondent by the other co-owners cannot be considered as actual notice
because the letter was only to inform her of the intention to sell the property but not its actual sale.
As such, the 30-day period has not yet commenced and the respondent can still exercise his right to
repurchase.

The respondent should also pay only the 30K stipulated in the deed of sale because a
redemptioners right is to be subrogated by the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract