Case Digest (G.R. No. 30289)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 30289)
Facts:
Serapia de Gala v. Apolinario Gonzales and Sinforoso Ona, G.R. No. L-30289. March 26, 1929, the Supreme Court, Ostrand, J., writing for the Court.The testatrix, Severina Gonzales, executed a will on November 23, 1920, naming her niece Serapia de Gala as executrix. Severina died in November 1926 leaving no heirs by force of law. On December 2, 1926, Serapia de Gala (petitioner and appellant) presented the will for probate. Apolinario Gonzales (a nephew) opposed probate, contending the will was not executed in conformity with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645.
On April 2, 1927, Serapia was appointed special administratrix of the estate; the inventory was returned March 31, 1927. Serapia demanded delivery of the inventoried property from the surviving husband, Sinforoso Ona (opponent and appellant), who was then in possession. The trial court at one point ordered Ona to deliver the property to Serapia. Instead, Ona moved to have Serapia removed as special administratrix and for himself to be appointed in her stead; that motion, though opposed by both Apolinario and Serapia, was granted and Serapia was removed while Ona was appointed special administrator largely because he was in possession and his appointment would simplify proceedings.
After various continuances, the lower court, by an order dated January 20, 1928, declared the will valid and admitted it to probate. All parties appealed: Serapia appealed from her removal as special administratrix; Apolinario Gonzales and Sinforoso Ona appealed the probate order. The appeals reached the Supreme Court by the ordinary appellate route; the Court resolved both the propriety of Serapia’s removal and the validity of the will under Section 618, Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645.
Issues:
- Was the removal of Serapia de Gala as special administratrix an abuse of discretion by the trial court?
- Was the will of Severina Gonzales valid under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645 (in particular, as to the signing by a proxy, the testatrix’s thumb-mark, and the attestation clause)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)