Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    199 Testate Estate of Maloto Vs

    Uploaded by

    Joselle Mariano
    1) Adriana Maloto died intestate and her estate was divided equally among her heirs through an extrajudicial settlement. 2) Years later, a will from 1940 was discovered naming different devisees. 3) The court ruled the will was not validly revoked when Adriana's househelp burned some papers under instruction from Adriana because it was not proven the papers burned were the will, the burning was under Adriana's express direction, or done in her presence as required by law.

    Copyright:

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

    199 Testate Estate of Maloto Vs

    Uploaded by

    Joselle Mariano
    111 views2 pages
    1) Adriana Maloto died intestate and her estate was divided equally among her heirs through an extrajudicial settlement. 2) Years later, a will from 1940 was discovered naming different devisees. 3) The court ruled the will was not validly revoked when Adriana's househelp burned some papers under instruction from Adriana because it was not proven the papers burned were the will, the burning was under Adriana's express direction, or done in her presence as required by law.

    Original Title

    199 Testate Estate of Maloto vs

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Adriana Maloto died intestate and her estate was divided equally among her heirs through an extrajudicial settlement. 2) Years later, a will from 1940 was discovered naming different devisees. 3) The court ruled the will was not validly revoked when Adriana's househelp burned some papers under instruction from Adriana because it was not proven the papers burned were the will, the burning was under Adriana's express direction, or done in her presence as required by law.

    Copyright:

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

    199 Testate Estate of Maloto Vs

    Uploaded by

    Joselle Mariano
    1) Adriana Maloto died intestate and her estate was divided equally among her heirs through an extrajudicial settlement. 2) Years later, a will from 1940 was discovered naming different devisees. 3) The court ruled the will was not validly revoked when Adriana's househelp burned some papers under instruction from Adriana because it was not proven the papers burned were the will, the burning was under Adriana's express direction, or done in her presence as required by law.

    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 Maloto vs.

    CA
    G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988

    Facts:

    Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners Aldina
    Maloto-Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and the private respondents Panfilo Maloto and
    Felino Maloto.

    Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, the heirs
    commenced an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate.

    However, while the case was still in progress, parties — Aldina, Constancio, Panfilo,
    and Felino — executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate. The
    agreement provided for the division of the estate into four equal parts among the parties.
    The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial court for
    approval which the court did on March 21, 1964. That should have signalled the end of the
    controversy, but, unfortunately, it had not.

    Three years later, or sometime in March 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former
    associate of Adriana's counsel, the late Atty. Eliseo Hervas, discovered a document entitled
    "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," and purporting to be the last will and
    testament of Adriana.

    In 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, ex-associate of the deceased's counsel allegedly


    discovered her last will which was purportedly dated 1940, inside a cabinet. Hence the
    annulment of the proceedings and a probate petition was filed by the devisees and legatees.
    The said will was allegedly burned by the househelp under the instruction of the deceased

    RTC: Denied their motion. Went directly to the CA by way of a petition for certiorari
    and mandamus assailing the orders of the trial court .

    Issue: Whether or not there was valid revocation of the will

    RULING:

    No, there was no revocation.

    Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:

    (1) By implication of law; or

    (2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills: or

    (3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it,
    by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express
    direction. If burned, torn cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the
    express direction of the testator, the will may still be established, and the estate distributed
    in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution, and the fact of its unauthorized
    destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court.
    (Emphasis Supplied.)

    It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does
    not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with animus
    revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be
    done by the testator himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express
    direction and in the presence of the testator.

    In this case, while intention to revoke, may be conceded, for that is a state of mind,
    yet that requisite alone would not suffice. "Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary
    elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament.

    The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning,
    tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person
    in his presence and under his express direction.

    Why not revoked?


     The document or papers burned by Adriana's maid, Guadalupe, was not
    satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto.
     For another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the express
    direction of Adriana. And then, the burning was not in her presence.
    o Both witnesses, Guadalupe and Eladio, were one in stating that they were the
    only ones present at the place where the stove (presumably in the kitchen)
    was located in which the papers proffered as a will were burned.

    You might also like