Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3272-73)
Facts:
Manuel Gonzales v. Manolita Gonzales de Carungcong, G.R. No. L-3272-73. November 29, 1951, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, C.J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose after the death on November 27, 1948, of Manuela Ibarra Vda. de Gonzales (the testatrix), who left an estate estimated at P150,000 and five children: Alejandro Gonzales, Jr., Manuel Gonzales, Leopoldo Gonzales, Manolita Gonzales de Carungcong, and Juan Gonzales. On December 22, 1948, Manuel Gonzales filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal Special Proceeding No. 837 to probate an alleged will dated November 16, 1942 (Exhibit B, favoring Manuel). On December 31, 1948, Manolita G. de Carungcong filed in the same court Special Proceeding No. 838 to probate a different alleged will dated May 5, 1945 (Exhibit 1, favoring Manolita).
On February 16, 1949, Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. filed an opposition seeking disallowance of both wills on the ground that they were revoked by an instrument dated November 18, 1948 (Exhibit 2, executed in favor of Alejandro and Juan Gonzales), which, if valid, would render the testatrix intestate. The other children (except Leopoldo) filed cross-oppositions contesting rival instruments. The CFI, after a joint hearing, rendered a judgment holding (1) Exhibit B (Nov. 16, 1942) had been validly executed but was revoked by Exhibit 1 (May 5, 1945) pursuant to section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (2) Exhibit 2 (Nov. 18, 1948) was null and void for want of testamentary capacity and for violating section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (3) Exhibit 1 was the true and last will and was admitted to probate.
Manuel Gonzales and oppositors Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. and Juan Gonzales...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Exhibit 1 (the May 5, 1945 instrument) comply with the formal attestation requirements to be admitted to probate despite its attestation language appearing as the testatrix’s recital (an attestation clause in the body of the will)?
- Was Exhibit 2 (the alleged revocation dated November 18, 1948) validly executed with testamentary capacity so as to revoke Exhibit 1?
- If Exhibit 1 is valid, did it effectively revoke...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)