Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 552 views

    40 - Reyes v. CA S.C. L-5620 July 31, 1954

    Uploaded by

    November Lily Opleda
    Benedicta owned a parcel of land since 1910 and sold it to her niece Ismaela in 1943 and 1944. After Benedicta's death, Ismaela submitted Benedicta's will for probate naming herself as sole heir. Benedicta's heirs opposed the probate, arguing the land sales revoked the will. The court ruled the land was no longer part of the inheritance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled (1) the land sales could not deprive the heirs of their legal shares since no consideration was paid, and (2) while courts usually only examine the will's extrinsic validity in probate, examining intrinsic validity was allowed here to resolve issues apparent from the will's text.

    Copyright:

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

    40 - Reyes v. CA S.C. L-5620 July 31, 1954

    Uploaded by

    November Lily Opleda
    552 views2 pages
    Benedicta owned a parcel of land since 1910 and sold it to her niece Ismaela in 1943 and 1944. After Benedicta's death, Ismaela submitted Benedicta's will for probate naming herself as sole heir. Benedicta's heirs opposed the probate, arguing the land sales revoked the will. The court ruled the land was no longer part of the inheritance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled (1) the land sales could not deprive the heirs of their legal shares since no consideration was paid, and (2) while courts usually only examine the will's extrinsic validity in probate, examining intrinsic validity was allowed here to resolve issues apparent from the will's text.

    Original Title

    40- Reyes v. CA S.C. L-5620 July 31, 1954

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Benedicta owned a parcel of land since 1910 and sold it to her niece Ismaela in 1943 and 1944. After Benedicta's death, Ismaela submitted Benedicta's will for probate naming herself as sole heir. Benedicta's heirs opposed the probate, arguing the land sales revoked the will. The court ruled the land was no longer part of the inheritance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled (1) the land sales could not deprive the heirs of their legal shares since no consideration was paid, and (2) while courts usually only examine the will's extrinsic validity in probate, examining intrinsic validity was allowed here to resolve issues apparent from the will's text.

    Copyright:

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

    40 - Reyes v. CA S.C. L-5620 July 31, 1954

    Uploaded by

    November Lily Opleda
    Benedicta owned a parcel of land since 1910 and sold it to her niece Ismaela in 1943 and 1944. After Benedicta's death, Ismaela submitted Benedicta's will for probate naming herself as sole heir. Benedicta's heirs opposed the probate, arguing the land sales revoked the will. The court ruled the land was no longer part of the inheritance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled (1) the land sales could not deprive the heirs of their legal shares since no consideration was paid, and (2) while courts usually only examine the will's extrinsic validity in probate, examining intrinsic validity was allowed here to resolve issues apparent from the will's text.

    Copyright:

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

    Reyes vs.

    Court of Appeals
    L- 5620 July 31, 1954 JANUARY 05, 2011

    FACTS:

    Benedicta had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of


    the 16,240 sq. m. unregistered parcel of agricultural land, located at Barrio
    Pintog, Plaridel, Bulacan, under a bona fide claim of ownership since 1910.
    Benedicta sold the said property to Ismaela Dimagiba, her niece, manifested by
    allegedly two deeds of conveyance: in 1943 and 1944.

    After the death of Benedicta delos Reyes, Ismaela Dimagib a submitted to the
    CFI a petition for the probate of the purported will of her late aunt. The will
    instituted Dimagiba as the sole heir of the estate. The petition was set for
    hearing, and in due time, Dionisio Fernandez, Eusebio Reyes and Luisa Reyes,
    and one month later, Mariano, Cesar, Leonor and Paciencia, all surnamed
    Reyes, all claiming to be the heirs of the decedent, filed oppositions to the
    probate asked.

    Grounds advanced for the opposition were forgery, vices of consent of the
    testatrix, estoppel by laches of the proponent and revocation of the will by two
    deeds of conveyance of the major portion of the estate made by the testatrix in
    favor of the proponent in 1943 and 1944. They alleged that the property sold
    prior to Benedicta’s death should form part of what they should inherit.

    The Court ruled that said property is no longer part of the inheritance. The Court
    of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.

    ISSUE:

    1.WON the properties form part of the inheritance, of which the heirs are entitled
    to? (Yes)

    2. WON it was proper for the heirs to question the intrinsic validity of the will, on
    the ground that her compulsory heir cannot be one, as theirs was an illicit
    relationship? (No)

    RULING:

    1. Even if they are sold, they still form part of the object of succession, and of the
    estate. In the case at bar, the sale cannot be considered as valid as the purpose
    for entering into such contract is to deprive the heirs of their legitimes. No
    consideration whatever was paid by Dimagiba on account of the transfers,
    thereby rendering it even more doubtful whether in conveying
    the property to her legatee.

    The testatrix merely intended to comply in advance with what she ordained in her
    testament, rather than an alteration or departure
    therefrom.

    2. As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon
    the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated.
    There are, however, notable circumstances wherein the intrinsic validity was first
    determined as when the defect of the will is apparent on its face and the probate
    of the will may become a useless ceremony if it is intrinsically invalid.

    The intrinsic validity of a will may be passed upon because “practical


    considerations” demanded it as when there is preterition of heirs or the
    testamentary provisions are doubtful legality.

    In this case however, there was never an open admission of any illicit
    relationship. Thus, there was no need to go beyond the face of the will.

    You might also like