G.R. No. 21164 - Batiquin vs. Batiquin

The case involves an action for the partition of seven parcels of land located in the municipality of Danao, Province of Cebu.
The parcels were originally community property acquired during the marriage of Braulio Gonzales and Dominga Batiquin.

In August 1896, both Braulio Gonzales and Dominga Batiquin executed their respective last wills and testaments.
Each will designated the other as their universal heir.
The wills were executed separately and in conformity with the laws in force at the time.

Dominga Batiquin died in May 1898.
Braulio Gonzales passed away in September 1901.
Neither spouse left any heirs by operation of law, making their testamentary dispositions critical.

Plaintiffs/Appellants: The potential collateral heirs of Dominga Batiquin, asserting a right to a share in the property.
Defendants/Appellees: The collateral heirs of Braulio Gonzales, who have been in possession of the property.

After the death of Dominga Batiquin, Braulio Gonzales maintained possession of the lands until around 1900.
Gonzales appears to have subsequently surrendered possession to the defendants, who have retained possession ever since.

The plaintiffs made repeated demands for their share of the property from the defendants over a period of time.
Their persistent demands culminated in the filing of the present action for partition.

The trial court found that the defendants were the rightful owners of the lands.
Consequently, it absolved the defendants from the complaint filed by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs contended that the notary public’s attestation in Dominga Batiquin’s will did not comply with the requirement to have personal knowledge of the testatrix as stipulated in Article 699 of the Civil Code.
Plaintiffs also argued that the will was of no evidentiary value due to its lack of submission for probate, a system introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1901.
The court addressed these issues by examining the attestation clause and the applicable laws at the time of the will’s execution.

Does the attestation clause of Dominga Batiquin’s will, which states that all legal formalities were complied with, suffice despite the alleged non-certification regarding the testatrix’s identification?
Is the will rendered inadmissible as evidence simply because it was not submitted for probate, given that the probate system was introduced later under a different legal regime?

Can the introduction of the probate system by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1901 affect the title conveyed by a will executed under the Spanish law of the time?
How does the automatic vesting of property rights in the surviving spouse under Civil Code Articles 657 and 661 influence the dispute?

Does the evidence of continuous possession by the defendants since Braulio Gonzales’s death substantiate their claim to the title?
What is the legal effect of any alleged recognition by the defendants of the plaintiffs’ purported rights or offers of compromise?