Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 265 views

    CASE DIGEST Trillana v. Crisostomo Et - Al - GR L-3378 (1951)

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the appellants failed to prove that the judgment admitting the October will was obtained through fraud. As the October will expressly revoked the August will, the lower court correctly did not set a date to prove the revoked August will since it could only be probated if the subsequent revoking October will was disallowed.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE DIGEST Trillana v. Crisostomo Et - Al - GR L-3378 (1951)

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    265 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the appellants failed to prove that the judgment admitting the October will was obtained through fraud. As the October will expressly revoked the August will, the lower court correctly did not set a date to prove the revoked August will since it could only be probated if the subsequent revoking October will was disallowed.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST Trillana v. Crisostomo Et.al - GR L-3378 (1951)

    Original Title

    CASE DIGEST Trillana v. Crisostomo Et.al - GR L-3378 (1951)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the appellants failed to prove that the judgment admitting the October will was obtained through fraud. As the October will expressly revoked the August will, the lower court correctly did not set a date to prove the revoked August will since it could only be probated if the subsequent revoking October will was disallowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    265 views2 pages

    CASE DIGEST Trillana v. Crisostomo Et - Al - GR L-3378 (1951)

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the appellants failed to prove that the judgment admitting the October will was obtained through fraud. As the October will expressly revoked the August will, the lower court correctly did not set a date to prove the revoked August will since it could only be probated if the subsequent revoking October will was disallowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED DAMASA CRISOSTOMO.

    NAZARIO TRILLANA, administrator-appellee,


    vs.
    CONSORCIA P. CRISOSTOMO, ET ALS, petitioners-appellants.

    G.R. No. L-3378 August 22, 1951


    FERIA, J.:

    FACTS: Damasa Crisostomo executed a will on August 16, 1948.


    However, she executed another will on October 19, 1948 revoking
    the former will. The appellants contend that the lower court erred in
    denying their petition for relief from the judgment of January 5, 1949,
    admitting to probate the will of October 19, 1948. They submit to the
    Court three propositions, to wit: (a) "The judgment of January 5, was
    obtained through fraud;" (b) "The lower court failed to perform its
    legal duty to set a date for proving the will of August 16, 1948;" and
    (c) "The failure to set aside a date for proving the will of August 16
    jointly with the will of October 19 was entirely due to the lower court's
    fault or negligence."

    ISSUE: Whether or not the revoked will of August 16, 1948 should be
    included in probate of the subsequent will of October 19, 1948.

    HELD: NO. The petitioners-appellants failed to show that the


    judgment of the lower court probating the October 1948 will of
    testatrix was obtained through fraud thus the lower court did not
    commit any error in denying the appellants' petition for relief under
    Sec. 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, and therefore it is not
    necessary for the court to discuss and pass upon the other
    propositions of the appellant.

    "Where a will is duly probated after publication pursuant to section


    630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order admitting the will is, in
    the absence of fraud, effective against all persons. The fact that an
    heir or other interested party lives so far away as to make it
    impossible for such party to be present at the date appointed for the
    probate of the will does not render the order of probate void for "lack
    of due process."

    Under Sec. 3 of Rule 77, the court shall set aside a date for proving a
    will even without petition when it is delivered to the court having
    jurisdiction. The lower court was right in not setting a date for proving
    the will of August 16, 1948, because this will was expressly and
    absolutely revoked by the subsequent will of October 19, 1948,
    executed by the same executrix, which was filed for allowance on
    November 1, 1948, with the same probate court. According to the
    attorneys for the appellant, the will dated August 16, 1948, was sent
    together with a writing called "Manifestation" by registered mail on
    October 30, 1948, from Manila to the probate court and said will must
    have been received by the Clerk of said Court on or after November
    1, 1948, the date when the subsequent will of October 19, was filed
    for probate. It stands to reason that if two wills are presented for
    allowance but one of them revokes expressly and absolutely the
    other, the revoked will cannot be included in the probate of the latter
    subsequent will, because it would be a waste of time to allow the
    revoked will if the subsequent revoking will is also allowed. The
    revoked will may be probated and allowed only if the subsequent
    revoking will is disallowed.

    In view of all the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed with
    costs against the appellants.

    You might also like