Sulong, Quen Rio B.

LLB-3

June 24, 2013

CASE ANALYSIS
Mondonido V. De Roda Barreto V. Tuazon Tordilla V. Tordilla These three cases involve the sale of Inheritance. It lay down the difference between inheritance and succession. Accordingly, Succession is the mode of transfer and creation of ownership, while Inheritance is the thing being acquired. Such that, when it comes to ownership you cannot be expected to dispose what you own if your right is still inchoate. The court the resolve the issue in accordance with the provision of the law which provides that all things, even future ones which are not out of the commerce of man, maybe entered into with respect to future inheritance, except those object of which is to make division inter-vivos of the estate . Moreover, any service not contrary to law or good morals may also be a subject-matter of a contract. In the case of Mondonido V. De Roda the sale of Ricardo of a portion of land which was to be inherited from their grandparents was declared void on the grounds that the sale is a sale of future inheritance and the object is yet to be determined. While in the case of Barreto V. Tuazon there has been a prior partition before the sale is contracted, thus the court upheld the sale of the estate. It further provides that when there has been partition the object then is definite and therefore allowed to be the subject of a sale. Lastly, in Tordilla V. Tordilla the court said that the contract is invalid because the agreement of the proposal is the division of the future inheritance of the heirs upon the death of their father which violates the law. Court further explain that the death of someone maybe certain but its specific time cannot be known as such, it cannot be made as condition in the contract of sale since death would become suspensive condition and when something is not certain the consummation of sale which is the delivery may be indefinite which is contrary to a contract of sale.

Generally, these cases give the idea that you cannot dispose future inheritance if the same is under co ownership, or if a specific quality or amount is not yet determined. Moreover, it also qualify the word inheritance as to its validity when it comes to sale such that, there is inheritance and future inheritance the former is one that is existing right, known and demandable while the latter depends on the occurrence or non-occurrence of death of their predecessor during the time of the sale.

Jaboneta V. Gustilo Nera V. Rimando These cases talk about the making of will such that, the law requires that it must be in the presence of at least three witnesses not withstanding whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might have seen each other sign had they chosen to do so in consideration of their mental and physical condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature. What is important is that the would-be-witness affixes its signature and was present during the will making upon such; it would be assumed that the witness indeed signed and attested. As to the case of Jaboneta V. Gustilo the court admitted the will to probate. Accordingly, the fact that he was in the act of leaving and his back was turned while a portion of the name of the witness was being written was given no credence. In this case, when the witness signed the document he was physically and actually present and with relation to each other moreover he could see everything that took place by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction without any physical obstruction that would prevent him from seeing. On the other hand, in Nera V. Rimando the court ruled that the signing of the instrument in the presence of each other does not depend upon the proof of the fact that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the moment it was written but that of the moment existing conditions and their position with relation to each other so that by the mere casting of the eyes in the proper direction they could have seen each other sign. Thus court also admitted the will probate.

De Gala V. Gonzales Garcia V. Lacuesta This case tackles about the importance of the signature in a will. It points out that in every will the signature of the testator and witness must appear in the face of the will such that, in holographic wills, the penmanship and the signature are very important to such extent that the law provides that no will, except as provided in the preceding section shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor change or affect the same, unless it be written in the language or dialect known by the testator and signed by him, to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will shall also sign as aforesaid, each and every pages thereof, on the left margin and shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet. attestation shall also state the number of sheets or pages used upon which the will is written also, the fact that the testator signed the will in every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name under his express direction. In the case of De Gala V. Gonzalez, it appeared in the attestation clause that the signature was affixed in the presence of the witnesses and the form of the signature sufficiently described in the last clause of the will. Thus, the court ruled that the will is valid to such extent that the court further explain that even if we say that the attestation clause standing alone does not meet the requirements of the statute but the last clause of the body of the will was taken into consideration as it fairly clear and sufficiently carries out its intent. While in the case of Garcia V. Lacuesta the court denied the probate because accordingly when the testator expressly caused another to sign the formers name, this fact must be stated in the attestation clause which is absent in the said case and otherwise be considered as fatally defective will. Further, a signature that is a very important must not be missed or delegated or other circumstance be availed.

Ajero V. Court of Appeals Kalaw V. Relova In Ajero V. Court of Appeals the court ruled that the requirements under articles 813 and 814 on the authentication of changes and signing and dating of disposition refer only to the validity of the disposition not on the probate. Such that, if the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions the result of the dispositions cannot be affected and failure however does not render the whole testament void to such extent that if some pages were not signed the particular content of the page that is not signed will not be probated but the rest of the pages are still probate. While in Kalaw V. Relova the court rendered the will void since nothing else in the will is considerably valid as there was only one disposition in it which was altered by the substitution of the original heir with another. The court further provides that to rule that the first will should be given effect is to disregard the testatrix change of mind. However, this change of mind could not be given effect either as she failed to authenticate in accordance with the provisions in article 814 or by simply affixing her full signature. Thus, the two cases provide the idea that a holographic will by penmanship is allowed by law as long as it was the wish of the testator in his act of disposing the property mortis causa. More importantly, when not all pages are signed the last signature with date will be conclusive of the preceding pages and if in any case others will claim that the in-between-pages were fraudulently inserted then the consistency of the paper and penmanship of testator must be ascertained.

Gan V. Yap Rodelas V. Aranza As to the case of Gan V. Yap the court ruled that the execution and the contents of the lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. Notably, it entails the loss of the only medium of proof such as even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost holographic will. Under this case the evidence submitted by the petitioners is tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies and it fails to measure up to the clear and distinct proof as provided by rule 77, section 6 and 11. On the other hand, in Rodelas V. Aranza the court held that a photocopy or Xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writing of the testator. Therefore, it could be admitted because the authenticity of the hand writing of the deceased can be determined by the probate court. With those foregoing cases, it clearly talks about a situation where in if the will was lost or damage when would the court allow to admit its replacement.