Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    Dorotheo vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    karlonov
    Lourdes Dorotheo filed to probate Alejandro's will naming her as heir. The court found the will intrinsically void as Lourdes was not Alejandro's legal wife and the property was part of his conjugal partnership with his deceased wife. The court of appeals dismissed Lourdes' appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that a final decision on a will's validity cannot be reopened, even if erroneous. While the will was validly executed, its provisions giving property not legally owned by Alejandro to his concubine were intrinsically void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dorotheo vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    karlonov
    53 views1 page
    Lourdes Dorotheo filed to probate Alejandro's will naming her as heir. The court found the will intrinsically void as Lourdes was not Alejandro's legal wife and the property was part of his conjugal partnership with his deceased wife. The court of appeals dismissed Lourdes' appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that a final decision on a will's validity cannot be reopened, even if erroneous. While the will was validly executed, its provisions giving property not legally owned by Alejandro to his concubine were intrinsically void.

    Original Description:

    Succession

    Original Title

    Dorotheo Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lourdes Dorotheo filed to probate Alejandro's will naming her as heir. The court found the will intrinsically void as Lourdes was not Alejandro's legal wife and the property was part of his conjugal partnership with his deceased wife. The court of appeals dismissed Lourdes' appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that a final decision on a will's validity cannot be reopened, even if erroneous. While the will was validly executed, its provisions giving property not legally owned by Alejandro to his concubine were intrinsically void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    53 views1 page

    Dorotheo vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    karlonov
    Lourdes Dorotheo filed to probate Alejandro's will naming her as heir. The court found the will intrinsically void as Lourdes was not Alejandro's legal wife and the property was part of his conjugal partnership with his deceased wife. The court of appeals dismissed Lourdes' appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that a final decision on a will's validity cannot be reopened, even if erroneous. While the will was validly executed, its provisions giving property not legally owned by Alejandro to his concubine were intrinsically void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DOROTHEO VS.

    CA

    Aniceta Reyes died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Thereafter, her husband Alejandro also died. In 1977,
    Lourdes Dorotheo filed a special proceeding for the probate of Alejandros last will and testament. The children of
    spouses filed their opposition. The RTC ruled that Lourdes being not the wife of Alejandro the will is intrinsically
    void; the oppositors are the only heir entitled to the estate. Lourdes filed a Motion for Consideration arguing that
    she is entitled to some compensation since she took care of Alejandro prior to his death although they were not
    legally married to each other. This was denied by the trial court. The CA dismissed her appeal for her failure to wile
    the same within the extended period.

    ISSUE: May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in an order that has
    become final and executor still be given effect?

    RULING: NO.

    A final and executor decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsically valid but the intrinsic provisions thereof are
    void. Alejandro gave all the property to the concubine. Such is invalid because one cannot dispose what he does
    not own. In this case, the whole property is the conjugal property of Alejandro and Aniceta. Such has become final
    and executor. The only instance where a party interested in probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set
    aside is when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not
    imputable to negligence with circumstances do not concur herein.

    *It should be noted that probate proceedings deals generally with the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be
    probated, particularly on three aspects:
    whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedents last will and testament;
    compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of wills;
    the testamentary capacity of the testator;
    and the due execution of the last will and testament.

    Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of whether the testator was of sound and disposing
    mind at the time of its execution, that he had freely executed the will and was not acting under duress, fraud,
    menace or undue influence and that the will is genuine and not a forgery,that he was of the proper testamentary
    age and that he is a person not expressly prohibited by law from making a will.

    The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding the same may still be raised even after the will has
    been authenticated. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and testament is always
    intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for dispositions that deprives or
    impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to the laws on succession,the unlawful
    provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect.

    You might also like