Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    13 Sumilang Vs Ramagosa (Art. 838)

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Erik Madria
    1) Mariano Sumilang petitioned for the probate of Hilarion Ramagosa's will, which named Sumilang as the sole heir. 2) Saturnino and Santiago Ramagosa opposed the probate, alleging the will was made under duress and that they were entitled to inherit the estate. 3) The Court of First Instance allowed the probate of the will. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that an alleged sale of property described in the will did not revoke the will or merit dismissal of the probate petition.

    Copyright:

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

    13 Sumilang Vs Ramagosa (Art. 838)

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Erik Madria
    60 views1 page
    1) Mariano Sumilang petitioned for the probate of Hilarion Ramagosa's will, which named Sumilang as the sole heir. 2) Saturnino and Santiago Ramagosa opposed the probate, alleging the will was made under duress and that they were entitled to inherit the estate. 3) The Court of First Instance allowed the probate of the will. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that an alleged sale of property described in the will did not revoke the will or merit dismissal of the probate petition.

    Original Description:

    Sumilang vs Ramagosa (Art. 838) (1)

    Original Title

    13 Sumilang vs Ramagosa (Art. 838) (1)

    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) Mariano Sumilang petitioned for the probate of Hilarion Ramagosa's will, which named Sumilang as the sole heir. 2) Saturnino and Santiago Ramagosa opposed the probate, alleging the will was made under duress and that they were entitled to inherit the estate. 3) The Court of First Instance allowed the probate of the will. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that an alleged sale of property described in the will did not revoke the will or merit dismissal of the probate petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views1 page

    13 Sumilang Vs Ramagosa (Art. 838)

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Erik Madria
    1) Mariano Sumilang petitioned for the probate of Hilarion Ramagosa's will, which named Sumilang as the sole heir. 2) Saturnino and Santiago Ramagosa opposed the probate, alleging the will was made under duress and that they were entitled to inherit the estate. 3) The Court of First Instance allowed the probate of the will. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that an alleged sale of property described in the will did not revoke the will or merit dismissal of the probate petition.

    Copyright:

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

    TESTATE ESTATE OF HILARION RAMAGOSA.

    CFI = allowed the probate of the will


    MARIANO SUMILANG, petitioner- appellee
    SC = affirmed decision of CFI
    VS

    RAMAGOSA ET AL, oppositors- appellant


    Facts:
     Mariano Sumilang file din the CFI of Quezon a petition for a document alleged to be the last
    will and testament of Hilarion Ramagosa.
     The deceased instituted petitioner as the sole heir of the testator.
     The petition for probate was opposed by Saturnino and Santiago Ramagosa.
     They alleged that the execution was made under duress; and not intended to be the
    will of the deceased
     They claimed that they were entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased instead of
    the petitioner.
     The other depositors representing themselves as next of kin prayed for the disallowance of
    the will.
     On July 3, 1961 oppositors moved for the dismissal of the petition for probate mainly on the
    ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter because the last will and
    testament of the decedent was revoked by implication of law six years before his death.
     Oppositors alleged that after making the will, Hilarion Ramagosa sold to petitioner Mariano
    Sumilang and his brother Marion the parcels of land described in the will. Hence, at the time
    of the testator’s death, the titles to said lands were no longer in his name.
     Petitioner then filed opposition to the motion for dismissal stating that:a) that oppositors
    have no legal standing in court and they are bereft of personality to oppose the probate of
    the last will and testament of the testators; and b) that oppositors have no valid claim and
    interest in the distribution of the estate of the testator and no existing valid right
    whatsoever.

    Issue: Whether or not the Held: No.


    probate of the will of Hilarion
    Ramagosa be denied. The alleged sale is no ground for the dismissal of the petition for
    probate.

    The petition for probate goes to the extrinsic validity of the will
    which is in compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities
    required by law. The alleged sale of property goes to the intrinsic
    validity of the will and is not a ground for the dismissal of the
    petition for probate.

    The alleged revocation implied from the execution of the deeds of


    conveyance in favor of the testamentary heir is plainly irrelevant
    to and separate from the question of whether the testament was
    duly executed. For one, if the will is not entitled to probate, or its
    probate is denied, all questions of revocation become superfluous:
    in law, there is no such will and hence there would be nothing to
    revoke

    You might also like