molo et al

7/24/2019 molo et al

1/10

Molo v. Molo Digest

Molo vs. Molo

G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951Bautista Angelo, J. (Ponente)

Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation

Facts:

1. Marcos Molo executed 2 wills, one in August 1918and another in u!e 1939. The latter willcontained a revocation clause which expressly revoked the will in 11!. "e died without any

forced heirs #ut he was survived #y his wife, herein petitioner $uana. The oppositors to the

pro#ate were his nephews and nieces.

2. %nly a car#on copy of the second will was found. The widow filed a petition for the pro#ate ofthe 1& will. 't was ad(itted to pro#ate #ut su#se)uently set aside on *round that the petitioner

failed to prove its due execution.

&. +s a result, the petitioner filed another petition for the pro#ate of the 11! will this ti(e.

+*ain the oppositors alle*ed that said will had already #een revoked under the 1& will. Theycontended that despite the disallowance of the 1& will, the revocation clause is valid and thus

effectively nullified the 11! will.

"ssue# $%et%er or !ot t%e 1918 &ill '(! still be v(li) )espite t%e revo'(tio! i! t%e

subse*ue!t )is(llo&e) 1939 &ill

R+L"NG# es.The court applied the doctrine laid down in Samson v. Navalthat a su#se)uentwill,containin* a clause revokin* a previous will, havin* #een disallowed for the reason that it

was not executed in accordance with law cannot produce the effect of annullin* the previous

will, inas(uch as the said revocatory clause is void.

There was no valid revocation in this case. o evidence was shown that the testator deli#erately

destroyed the ori*inal 11! will #ecause of his knowled*e of the revocatory clause contained inthe will executed in 1&.%e e(rlier &ill '(! still be prob(te) u!)er t%e pri!'iple o

)epe!)e!t rel(tive revo'(tio!.%e )o'tri!e (pplies &%e! ( test(tor '(!'els or )estro/s (

&ill or e0e'utes (! i!strume!t i!te!)e) to revoe ( &ill &it% t%e i!te!tio! to m(e ( !e&

test(me!t(r/ )ispositio! (s substitute or t%e ol), (!) t%e !e& )ispositio! (ils o ee't orsome re(so!.

- ee (ore at: http://lawsandfound.#lo*spot.co(/201&/02/(olo-v-(olo-

di*est.ht(lsthash.(T!rxoDc.dpuf


2/10

Ro)el(s v. Ar(!( Digest

Ro)el(s v. Ar(!(

G.R. No. L-5859 De'ember 4, 1982Relova, J. (Ponente)

Facts:

1. The appellant filed a petition for the pro#ate of the holo*raphic will of Ricardo onilla in133. The petition was opposed #y the appellees on the *round that the deceased did not leave

any will, holo*raphic or otherwise.

2. The lower court dis(issed the petition for pro#ate and held that since the ori*inal will was

lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the ori*inal.

'ssue: 4hether or not a holo*raphic will can #e proved #y (eans of a photocopy

R56'7: 8es. + photocopy of the lost or destroyed holo*raphic will (ay #e ad(itted #ecause

the authenticity of the handwritin* of the deceased can #e deter(ined #y the pro#ate court withthe standard writin*s of the testator.

- ee (ore at: http://lawsandfound.#lo*spot.co(/201&/02/rodelas-v-aran9a-

di*est.ht(lsthash.%+1o&;4.dpuf


3/10

Codoy v. Calugay

&12 van*eline ufe(ia ?ati*as, devisees and

le*atees of the holo*raphic will of the deceased Matilde e@o Ada. de Ra(onal, filed a petitionfor pro#ate of the said will. They attested to the *enuineness and due execution of the will on &0

+u*ust 13!.

>u*enio Ra(onal


4/10

2. 4hether or not the witnesses sufficiently esta#lish the authenticity and due execution of the

deceasedBs holo*raphic will.

7LD#

1. 8>. The word Cshall connotes a (andatory order, an i(perative o#li*ation and isinconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presu(ption is that the word Cshall, when

used in a statute, is (andatory.

'n the case at #ar, the *oal to #e achieved #y the law, is to *ive effect to the wishes of the

deceased and the evil to #e prevented is the possi#ility that unscrupulous individuals who fortheir #enefit will e(ploy (eans to defeat the wishes of the testator.

The para(ount consideration in the present petition is to deter(ine the true intent of the

deceased.

2. %. 4e cannot #e certain that the holo*raphic will was in the handwritin* of the deceased.

The clerk of court was not presented to declare explicitly that the si*nature appearin* in theholo*raphic will was that of the deceased.

The election re*istrar was not a#le to produce the voterBs affidavit for verification as it was no

lon*er availa#le.

The deceasedBs niece saw pre-prepared receipts and letters of the deceased and did not declarethat she saw the deceased si*n a docu(ent or write a note.

The will was not found in the personal #elon*in*s of the deceased #ut was in the possession ofthe said niece, who kept the fact a#out the will fro( the children of the deceased, puttin* in issue

her (otive.

>van*eline


5/10

authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this su#Gect should #e interpreted in such a way as to attain

these pri(ordial ends. ut, on the other hand, also one (ust not lose si*ht of the fact that it is not

the o#Gect of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise the ri*ht to (ake a will.

"owever, we cannot eli(inate the possi#ility of a false docu(ent #ein* adGud*ed as the will of

the testator, which is why if the holo*raphic will is contested, the law re)uires three witnesses todeclare that the will was in the handwritin* of the deceased.

+rticle !11, para*raph 1. provides: C'n the pro#ate of a holo*raphic will, it shall #e necessarythat at least one witness who knows the handwritin* and si*nature of the testator explicitly

declare that the will and the si*nature are in the handwritin* of the testator. 'f the will is

contested, at least three of such witnesses shall #e re)uired.

The word Cshall connotes a (andatory order, an i(perative o#li*ation and is inconsistent withthe idea of discretion and that the presu(ption is that the word Cshall, when used in a statute, is

(andatory.


6/10

Roberts v. Leonidas

12


7/10

4e hold that respondent Gud*e did not co((it any *rave a#use of discretion, a(ountin* to lack

of Gurisdiction, in denyin* >thelBs (otion to dis(iss.

+ testate proceedin* is proper in this case #ecause 7ri(( died with two wills and Cno will shallpass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed E+rt. !&!,


8/10

Nepomu'e!o v. 6A Digests

Nepomu'e!o v. 6ourt o Appe(ls

Facts:

1. Martin "u*o died on 13H and he left a will wherein he instituted ofia epo(uceno as the

sole and only executor. 't was also provided therein that he was (arried to Rufina 7o(e9 with

who( he had & children.

2. ?etitioner Eofia filed for the pro#ate of the will #ut the le*al wife and her children opposed

alle*in* that the will was procured throu*h i(proper and undue influence and that there was anad(ission of concu#ina*e with the petitioner.

&. The lower court denied the pro#ate on the *round of the testatorJs ad(ission of coha#itation,

hence (akin* the will invalid on its face. The


9/10

575'D A 575'D

7R 6-2&HH 13 2&, 1==

+


10/10

%n the second issue, the case is for the pro#ate of the will and the courtBs area of in)uiry

is li(ited to the extrinsic validity of the will co(es after the will has #een duly authenticated.

"owever if the case is to #e re(anded for pro#ate of the will, nothin* will #e *ained. Thepractical conditions: ti(e, effort, expenses and added anxiety, induced us to a #elief that we

(i*ht as well (eat head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in )uestion.

molo et al

Documents