Persons and Family Relations

Diaz vs Encanto Gr 171303, 2016

Failed to claim salary.

Q: Was there abuse of right by UP in denying Diaz request for sabbatical leave?
A: None. Elements of abuse of right, Art 19 NCC

California Clothing vs Quinones, GR 175822, 2013

Accused of not paying jeans bought in Rob store.

I: Abuse of right on California?
R: Yes. The sending of letters to the employer, on guise of asking assistance, they imputed bad faith on part of
Quinones. Accusing her of not being honest tarnishing her name and reputation. Entitled to damages.

Nikko Hotel Manila vs Reyes, GR 154259, 2005

Amay Bisaya, Gate Crasher

I: Abuse of right?
R: Volenti non fit injuria; self-inflicted injury; precludes recovery of damages.

Sps Hing vs Choachuy, 179736, 2013

Art 26, NCC

Prying into privacy of another’s residence. Installed CCTV over fences monitoring neighbors.

Marriage

Acebedo vs Arquero AM P-94-1054

Kasunduan consenting either of them to seek any partner and to live with them.
R: Kasunduan has no effect on validity of marriage between parties. Xxx Not subject to stipulation.

Espinosa vs Omana, AC 9081, 2011

Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay prepared by lawyer for the Sps.

R: Kasunduan not valid; Admin case vs Lawyer for extra-J dissolution of marriage which was void ab initio.

Vda de Avenido vs Avenido, GR 173540, 2014

Best evidence of Marriage is the marriage contract.

R: While marriage contract is best evidence, Jurisprudence teaches us that marriage may be proven other than
the marriage certificate. Ie. Testimonial evidence,

Republic vs Albios, Gr 198780, 2013

Essential requisites of Marriage.

Q: Is marriage contracted on sole purpose of acquiring US Citizenship void for lack of consent?
R: No. Consent not lacking best evidenced by conscious purpose of acquiring US Citizenship through marriage.

Santiago vs People, 200233, 2015

Formal Requisites of Marriage.

Marriage License
Bigamous marriage.
NO ML, void, used Art. 34 FC.
R: Penal laws on marriage such as bigamy, punish individual’s deliberate disregard of permanent and sacrosanct
character of this special bond between sps.

Ronulo vs People, 182438, 2014

Got married without ML, solemnizing officer knew but solemnized marriage.
Q: SO punishable for illegal marriage under 352 RPC?
R: Yes.

Ninal vs Bayadog, GR 133778, 2000

Exception to ML, Affidavit of Cohabitation

5 Year cohab period must be counted from the date of celebration of marriage and must be characterized by
exclusivity, no 3rd party involved at any time within 5 years and continuity – unbroken. 2nd marriage is void and
a void marriage may be attacked directly or collaterally even after death of sps.

Republic vs Dayot 175581, 2008

AOC takes place of a valid ML.

Falsity of allegation in affidavit cannot be a mere irregularity. IF the essential matter is a lie, then it is a mere
scrap of paper as if no affidavit at all.

Llave vs Tamano, GR 169766, 2011

Marriage of Muslims under civil rites; Muslim rites.

I: Was the marriage valid?
R: Marriage was solemnized under civil and Muslim rites, the only law governing such marriage during the
time was CC of 1950 where only one marriage can exist at any given time and divorce is not recognized.

PD 1083 took effect only on Feb 24, 1977 and does not retroact.

Uy vs Sps Lacsamana, GR 20622, 2015

Lot bought and TCT was in the name of Petra married to Uy.
Rosca contends that she was never married and ceremony was never consummated. She lawfully acquired all
properties using own paraphernal fund.
I: Was marriage valid which warranted written consent to the DOS to Sps. Lacsamana?
R: No, Uy was not able to present any copy of MC. No marriage took place between sps. No ceremony.

Words married to is only a presumption that it is conjugal; does not always conjugal. Merely descriptive of civil
status of person. What needs to be proven is that prop was acquired during the marriage.

Morigo vs People, 145226, 2004

Bigamy

R: No marriage ceremony was performed by an authorized SO. They merely signed a marriage contract on their
own. Mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and needs no
Judicial declaration of nullity.
SO must be present, Parties present, declare as H&W in presence of each other.
NON-existent marriage vs Void Marriage

Foreign divorce obtained by one spouse, Art 15

Art 26, p2, FC

Lavadia vs Heirs of Luna, 171914, 2014

148, actual contribution must be proven.

Republic vs Orbecido, 154380, 2005

R: Art 26 applies, Twin elements.

Reckoning point is not citizenship at time of celebration of marriage but at time a valid divorce is obtained by
alien spouse capacitating the latter to marry (Absolute divorce decree).

Medina vs Koike, LCR of QC & NSO, GR 215723, 2016

Divorce decree issued by mayor of Koike’s city.
Filed a Pet for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Decree before RTC, no one opposed the pet but RTC denied pet
since no other witness.
I: Did RTC err in denying Petition?
R: Yes. Do not deny but require expert witness to prove validity and authenticity of foreign law.
Foreign judgment must be proven as fact under our rules on evidence together with the alien’s applicable
national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself.

Psychological Incapacity

Matudan vs Republic, 2016

Is abandonment of wife of her family tantamount to PI to warrant declaration of nullity of marriage under Art
36?

R: No, PI should refer to no less than mental not merely physical incapacity to be truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. Must be
confined to the most serious of personality disorders demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability x x x

Kalaw vs Fernandez, 166357, 2015

36, FC must not be so strictly and too literally read and applied. Guidelines must not be too rigid. Case to case
basis for application of 36, FC.

Conditions for the malady of being grave, antecedent and incurable demand the in-depth diagnosis by experts.

Her willful exposing her children to gambling sessions was a very grave and serious act of subordinating their
needs for parenting to the gratification of her own personal escapist desires.

X x x 36, FC, no marriage to speak of.

Mallilin vs Jamesolamin and Republic, 192718, 2015

Filed annulment of marriage with church while petition for annulment was pending. It was subsequently
declared void by the church due to grave lack of due discretion.

R: 3 characteristics laid by Santos case. Incapacity must be grave and serious and must be rooted in history
antedating the marriage, although manifestations emerge after marriage x x x

Absence of one spouse under 41, FC, Presumptive Death

Republic vs Sarenogon, 199194, 2016

Live together as HW for only 1 month; W went to HK but was never heard of thereafter. H was a seaman and
did not receive any news about W.

Elements of JDofPresumptiveDeath

I: Is RTC correct in declaring W presumptively dead?

R: No, law did not define well-founded belief. TO be able to comply with this req., the present spouse must
prove that his belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse
and based on these efforts and inquiries he believes that the absent spouse is already dead. It requires exertion of
active effort, not a mere passive one.

H efforts were anemic below the required degree of stringent diligence prescribed by jurisprudence.

Santos vs Santos, 187061, 2014

W filed Annulment of Judgment due to extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction; CA denied petition contenting
42 FC.
R: The proper remedy for a judicial declaration of PD obtained by extrinsic fraud is an action for annulment of
judgment.
W was never absent and sought not only of the nullity of the marriage but also of its effects.
If by mere reappearance, the children concede shall still be considered legitimate and the property will be the
same as in a valid marriage. A judgment declaring presumptive death is a defense against prosecution against
bigamy.

Property relations

Domingo vs Sps Molina 200274, 2016

I: is sale of H interest valid despite no consent from wife?

R: Yes, CPG was dissolved when W died. It is valid with respect to his undivided interest but not the interest of
the other co-owners. The sale without the consent of the wife was not totally void. Sps Molina became co-
owner with recourse, as co-owner, for Partition.

PNB vs Garcia 182839, 2014

I: Is the lot subject of the dispute conjugal or exclusive property of Jose Sr?
R: Conjugal. What is material is the time when the property was acquired. It has inherent character of conjugal
property if it was acquired for valuable consideration during the marriage. It retains its conjugal nature, it must
be proven that it was acquired during the marriage for the presumption to apply.

*Words married to is merely descriptive of the civil status.

PNB vs Reyes 212483, 2016

Lots acquired during marriage, loan with rem on the lots, forgery of Venacio’s signature on the loan, REM and
PN, she failed to pay loan.

I: Did the CA err in declaring the REM void? Can the Conjugal Partnership of Sps be held liable for the loan
contracted unilaterllay by Lilia?

R: No, the rem is void of want of Venancio’s consent. 124, FC.

Yes, Rem is void but the loan remains valid and can be recovered from the CPG.
In Ayala vs CA, the SC held that where the husband or wife acts as surety, evidence that the family benefited
from the loan need to be presented before the conjugal partnership can be held liable. If the loan was taken out
to be used for the family business, there is no need to prove actual benefit. The law presumes the family
benefited from the loan and the conjugal partnership is held liable.

Carino vs Carino, 132529, 2001

JDN of first marriage before one may marry even if the marriage is void. PR is co-ownership under 147, first
marriage. 2nd marriage 148.

Family Home

Eulogio vs Bell, 186322, 2015

Sps bell executed sale over family home to buyers Eulogio. Children of Bell filed for annulment contending that
it was a family home.
I: Can it be subject of writ of execution under 160 of FC?
R: GR, 155 FC. Except x x x
To warrant execution under 160 FC, the pet must establish there was increase in actual value of FH, increase
because of voluntary improvements by persons constituting, it exceeds the maximum under 157 FC.

RTC erred since it already determined with finality that it was FH and no proof that its value had increase
beyond the statutory limit due to voluntary improvements.

Patrico vs Darrio III, 170829, 2006

159 FC
R: To avail of such benefits, the minor beneficiary must be actually living in the FH AND fully dependent on
the head of the family for legal support.

PCIB v OJ-Mark Trading, 165950, 2010

155 (3), debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution.

Sps De Mesa vs Sps Acero, 185064, 2012

The right of exemption is a personal privilege granted to the judgment debtor and must be claimed by him and
not by the sheriff at the time of levy or before the sale at public auction. It must be invoked as soon as possible
otherwise waiver. It must be proved and set-up to the sheriff.

Paternity, Filiation, Custody, Support

Aguilar vs Siasat, 200169, 2015

I: Based on documents, was Rodolfo able to prove he is the legitimate son of Sps. Aguilar? 172 FC
R: SSS from public instrument.
Yes, SSS form satisfies the requirement for proof of filiation and relationship to the Aguilar sps under 172 FC.
It constitutes public instrument.

Concepcion vs CA and Almonte, 123450, 2005

The father alone may impugn, heirs in exceptional cases.

R: The law and only the law determines who are leg or illeg for such cannot be compromised. It should be the
law and not what the parent says it is.

Beckett v Judge Sarmiento, AM RTJ-12-2326, 2013

Compromise agreement approved by court is tantamount to final judgment that the husband has full parental
authority and custody over the child.
I: Violation of res judicata, the compromise agreement?
R: The matter of custody is no permanent and unalterable. The welfare, the best interest and the good of the
child must be determined as of the time that either parent is chosen to be the custodian. A judgment involving
custody of a minor child cannot be accorded the force and effect of res judicata.

Arado Heirs v Alcoran, 163362, 2015

I: W/N Anacleto is illegitimate of Nicolas.

R: The father has duly acknowledged the child as his illegitimate son. Considering that the father had a direct
hand in the preparation of the BC.
Succesion, Iron Barrier Rule. 992 FC.

Grande vs Antonio, 206248, 2014

I: W Father may compel his ille children to use his surname upon recognition of their filiation.
176 FC as amended by RA 9255

Dela Cruz vs Gracia, 177728, 2009

R: The autobiography though unsigned by him was enough. It substantially satisfies the requirement of the law.
1. Private Handwritten instrument is the only evidence, there should be strict compliance with requirement
that it must be signed by the acknowledging parent;
2. If with other relevant competent evidence, it suffices to have been made and handwritten by ack parent
as it is merely corroborative of such evidence.

Del Socorro vs Val Wilsem, 193707, 2014

I: May a foreigner be obliged to support his minor child under Philippine Law.
NO, the obligation to give support is a matter under family rights and duties subject to the laws of his country,
not of Philippine Law, but such Law must be proven.

YES, may be held liable under 9262 for unjustly refusing or failing to give support to son.

PROPERTY

Hidden Treasure 439 NCC

Right to hidden treasure:

If finder is:
Owner = All
Not owner = ½, ½
Merely employed by owner = No share but paid wages, unless there is an agreement to contrary
Trespasser = No share
In interest of science or arts = State acquires at just price.

448, CC

Rights and Obligations of Landowner in GF v B/P/S in GF

1. Right of appropriation after payment of indemnity, 546, 548; 1. Reimbursement of necessary and useful
exp
2. Compel payment of price of land, rent: 2. Retention until full payment.
Forced Lease if land is more than building, trees, crops. 3. Right to buy land unless land is
more than x x x then FORCED
LEASE.

449-452, NCC

Sps. Benitez vs CA, 266 SCRA 242, 1997

The option is to sell and not to but the land and the choice belongs to the landowner; there is no pre-emptive
right to buy even as a compromise and no compulsion to sell on the part of the landowner.

Sps. Alviola vs CA, 117642, 1998

448 only applies if construction is of permanent character, attached to the soil in perpetuity. But if it is of
transitory character, no accession and the builder must remove the construction.

Verona Pada – Kilario vs CA, 134329, 2000

Mere promise to donate the land cannot convert the builder into one in GF. At the time the improvement was
built on the land, there was mere expectancy of ownership which may or may not be realized.

Occupancy by petitioner of the prop was merely tolerated hence possession cannot be considered in GF.
Possession by mere tolerance can never ripen into ownership.

No prescription will lie against the real owners who have title/TCT over the land. Title is conclusive evidence
of ownership.

Josefa v San Buenaventura, 163429, 2006

Lessees are not B in GF. They came into possession of the lot by virtue if a contract entered into with the lessor.
Right is not under 448 but under 1678, reimbursement ½ value of useful improvement if the lessor appropriates
the useful improvement. But if not, remove the improvements.

Accession Natural

Alluvium, 457 NCC

Avulsion, 459
461 NCC, Abandoned River bed

CO-OWNERSHIP

Victoria, Pidlaoan vs Pidlaoan, 196470, 2016

A and B living together, B bought land, TCT in the name of B, mortgaged it. A constructed on B’s lot. B loaned
from C and executed DOS/DOD on Lot. TCT was issued to C, C allowed B to occupy house.

I: Is A a co-owner of lot? Was DOD simulated? Was transaction between B and C a sale, donation, Equitable
Mort?
R: 1. No. B alone bought lot. Title issued solely on her name. C bought land relying only on the face of the
TCT. Mere construction of house on another’s land does not create a co-ownership regardless of the value of
the house. Remedy of A is to recover the house or its value based on 448 NCC.

2. Yes but only relative not absolutely simulated. Intention was to transfer ownership as sale but disguised as
donation.

3. No equitable mortgage was intended. Thus, supports the conclusion that it was a contract of sale, not a
donation, nor an equitable mortgage.

Rights of Co-owners

Tabasondra vs Sps Constantino, 196403, 2016

ABC, Co-owners of 3 lots. All died intestate. A had two valid marriages and heirs challenged the shares.

Q: Is CA correct in order of partition with respect to A’s share?

R: Yes, B and C may alienate even without consent of A since it covers only their ideal share and not the entire
property.

Rural Bank of Cabadbaran vs Melecio-Yap, 178451, 2014

I: If the entire prop subject of co-ownership was mort by co-owner using forged SPA, is it valid, void, voidable?
R: Valid but only with respect to the ideal share of one but not to the other co-owners. 493 NCC. One cannot
dispose of the property or mortgage it in their entirety without consent of other co-owners.

Arambulo vs Nolasco, 189420, 2014

I: May co-owner be compelled to give consent to sale of his share by the other co-owners?
R: NO, 493.
With the full ownership of the respondents remaining unaffected by sale of their parts, the nature of the property
as co-owned likewise stays. In lieu of the pet, their vendees shall be co-owners of the prop.

494, Partition

498, Legal Partition

Quintos vs Nicolas, 210252, 2014

I: May partition be barred by res judicata for failure to prosecute?

R: No. 494. 1079. X x x A substantive law cannot be amended by a procedural rule.

Sps Marcos vs Heirs of Bangi, 185745, 2014

I: Is an oral partition valid?

R: Yes, valid and effective. Every act intended to put an end to the indivision among co-heirs is deemed a
partition. Oral partition is effective when the parties have consummated it by the taking of possession in
severalty and the exercise of ownership.

538 Possession
Easement or Servitude
Negative vs Positive, Continuous vs Apparent

Alicia Reyes v Sps. Ramos, 194488, 15

Convenience is not the gauge in determining whether to impose a LEOROW over another’s property. It is
adequacy.

Chan vs CA, 105294, 1997

One who caused her own isolation is not entitled to LEOROW.

Unisource vs Chung, 173252, 2009

ROW based on agreement of parties = voluntary EOROW

I: Will the opening of a new road extinguish the ROW.

R: The opening of an adequate outlet to a highway can extinguish only a legal or compulsory easements not
voluntary easements. A VEOROW, like any other contract could be extinguished only by mutual agreement, or
renunciation of the dominant estate.

Sps. Salimbagon vs. Sps. Tan, 185240, 2010

I: What is the effect if the servient become owners of the dominant.

R: Easement is extinguished by operation of law.

EOLAV, 667-673 NCC

NUISANCE

Cruz vs Pandacan Hiker’s, 188213, 2016

Per se vs Per accidens

Q: Is the basketball ring a nuisance per se which may be summarily abated?
R: No, it is not Nuisance per se which may be summarily abated for it does not pose an immediate effect upon
the safety of persons and property.

PUBLIC NUISANCE

Perez vs Madrona, 184478, 2012

I: May the owners of a House and Lot who constructed a concrete fence with a steel gate on their property be
ordered by the chief of Demolition office to demolish said fence on the contention it was encroaching on the
sidewalk?

R: Respondent’s fence is not a Nuisance per se. x x x If it indeed proves to encroach on the sidewalk, it may be
proven in an action for the purpose

DONATION

Reyes vs Asuncion, 196083, 2015

Remuneratory donation. It is a charge or burden on the donation. X x x Profit sharing agreement.

Rules on contract governs the onerous donation as the burden is imposed upon the donee of a thing with an
undetermined value.

VOID DONATIONS, 739 NCC

Revocation 760, BAR, Birth, adoption, re-appearance within 4 years.

Reduction
Calanasan vs Dolorito, 171937, 2013

Donor has no factual and legal basis for the revocation of the donation. The ungrateful acts were committed not
by the donee but by the husband.

Formalities of DONATION INTER VIVOS

748, 749 NCC

Carinan vs Sps Cueto, 198636, 2014

Villanueva vs Branoco, 172804, 2011

Inter Vivos vs Mortis Causa

The donation is Inter Vivos, the statement “if the donee predeaceases me x x x, signaling the irrevocability of
the passage of title to the donee’s estate, waiving donor’s right to reclaim title.

The donee’s acceptance underscores its essence as a gift in presenti x x x

Del Rosario v Ferrer, 187056, 2010

Inter Vivos because of “irrevocable”. Intention is controlling.

R: The express irrevocability of the donation is the distinctive standard that makes the document a donation
inter vivos. The intent is clear by the proviso on irrevocability.

Sps Sicad v CA, 125888, 1998

Donation Mortis Causa but still void since non-compliance with formalities of a will.

Tan Queto v Pombuena, 35648, 1987

Oral donation of land is void. Not intervivos because not in a public instrument; not mortis causa because no
formalities of a will.

Roman Catholic v CA, 77425 & 450, 1991

Donation with restriction on alienation for 100 years still valid but only up to extent of 20 years.

Arcaba v Tabancura, 146683, 2001

R: Their public conduct indicated that theirs was not just a relationship of caregiver and patient but that of
exclusive partners akin to husband and wife, hence the inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by
Francisco in favor of Cirilia is void under art 87. Donation is void.

WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Ferrer v Sps Diaz, 165300, 2010

I: Is a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another person executed by a future heir while the parents are still
alive valid? Is an adverse claim annotated on the title of a lot based on such waiver likewise valid effective as to
bind the subsequent owners and hold them liable to the claimant?

NO, waiver of future inheritance is invalid.

NO, for inheritance to be considered future, the succession must not have been opened at the time of the
contract. Rena’s waiver is not valid. The adverse claim is without any basis and is invalid and ineffective and
must be cancelled. If the root is not valid, the fruit is also not valid.

In re Pet for Probate of Basilio Santiago, 179859, 2010

Provision in will for indivision is invalid. It is subject to the statutory prohibition to partition for only 20 years.
799, Soundness of mind

Baltazar vs Laxa, 174489, 2012, 799 & 800 NCC

The state of being forgetful does not mean unsound mind. It is enough that the testator at the time of making the
will, knows the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of her bounty, and the character of the
testamentary act.

800 NCC, presumption of sanity, of sound mind, burden is on oppositor to conclusively and clearly prove
otherwise.
EXCP Insanity
EXCP to EXCP if during a lucid interval

795, NCC Extrinsic Validity of the Will

As to time, 795.
As to place, 17 (1), 815, 816, 817, 818, 819

Joint wills are void with respect to Filipinos. If Foreigners, valid. But if executed in Phils, void for being against
public policy.

Intrinsic Validity of Wills

As to place, 16(2)
As to time, 2263

804, 805, 806. Formalities of Notarial Will

Caneda vs CA, 222 SCRA 781, 1983

Void will, no statement 3 credible witnesses signed in the presence of one another.

809, cannot cure the defect. It can only cure the defect in the form and language of the attestation clause. The
total absence is a fatal defect and renders the will void.

Gil vs Murciano, 88 Phil 260

Attestation without statement T signed in the presence of 3 witnesses renders the will void.

Azuela vs CA, 122880, 2006

Attestation did not contain number of pages will render will void. There are two requirements for witnesses,
marginal and attestation. Acknowledgment should be worded properly. Will is VOID.

A mere jurat instead of an acknowledgment is also fatally defective. Anyone of these defects is sufficient to
deny probate.

Abangan vs Abangan, 40 Phil 476

Attestation not signed by T, valid.

Cagro vs Cagro, 92, Phil 1032

3 witnesses signing attestation is mandatory.

 AC in language not known is

 AC in language not known to attesting witnesses is valid
 AC no number of pages is void as GR except when body mentions number of pages. Singson vs
Florentino, 92 Phil 161, Substantial Compliance.
 If entirely in English but knew only dialect will is void. (Acop vs Piraso, 52 Phil 660)
 5 paged will 1 page of which was not signed by witness is valid. (Icasiano vs Icasiano, 11 SCRA 423)
 6 paged will, first 5 pages signed at left hand by T but not by 3 witnesses is VOID (In re Will of Prieto
46 PHIL 700)
  1 paged will not signed by T and 3 witnesses at L margin is valid. (Abangan vs Abangan, 40 Phil 476)
 2 paged will, first not signed by T at L margin is void. (Tampoy vs Alberastine, 107 Phil 100)
 Marginal signatures of T and 3 witnesses were placed on R margin instead L. (Avera vs Garcia, 42 Phil
145) Whether left, right, upper, lower is considered substantial compliance.
 T name was written for the testator in is presence at his express direction by one of the 3 credible
witnesses = void.
 T signature is located below the signature of NP in Ack = Void, T must sign at the end thereof, the last
disposition.
 Jaboneta vs Gustilo, 5 Phil 541, Test of signing in the presence of T and 3 witnesses. Not the actual
seeing but the opportunity to see the signing. All must be in one room.
 Cruz vs Villasor, 54 SCRA 31, 1973, One of the 3 witnesses was the NP, will is void. No 3 witnesses

Echavez vs Dozen Construction, 192916, 2010

AC and Ack cannot be merged into one statement. 805 requires that AC must state all the details required.

810-814, Holographic Will

Ajero vs CA, 236 SCRA 488, 1994

Will and signature not in T’s handwriting; some dispositions signed but not dated; alterations not signed by T.
Only those dispositions not signed are void and not the entire will. As to the validity, 810 is controlling.
812, all dispositions in HW must be signed by T.
813, if last disposition is signed and dated, only those signed but not dated or dated but not signed are valid.
814, alterations must be authenticated by the full signature of the T, otherwise, void dispositions.

Codoy vs Calugay, contested will, 3 witnesses to prove is mandatory.

Kalaw vs Relova, 132 SCRA 237

One disposition, bequeathing all.

R: No one will inherit by will but by intestate succession.

Seangio vs Reyes, 140371-72, 2006

Law favors testacy over intestacy. Intestacy but will was found which contained only a disinheritance clause, no
preterition and will was valid even if there was no positive disposition.

The document even if a mere disinheritance instrument conforms to the formalities of a holographic will. It is
written, dated, signed by the T. The disinheritance results in the disposition of the T property in favor of the
other heirs who would succeed in the absence of the eldest son.

919, NCC
Maltreatment by word or deed, ground to disinherit in case.

830, revocation of wills.

Implication,
overt act (burning, tearing, cancelling, obliterating), clear intention to revoke, animus revocandi, done by T
himself, or by another by direction and in presence of T.
Capacity to revoke and capacity to make new will.
By another will, codicil, or any other instrument executed as a will.

837, express revocation.

1st will cannot be revived by an express revocatory clause in a second will, doctrine of instanter, but the
revoking will must be an extrinsically valid will.

*Doctrine of dependent relative revocation

Preterition

Total omission in inheritance of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs. Provided he survives the T.
Morales vs Olandriz, 198994, 2016