Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22797)
Facts:
Testacy of Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, Rosalina Santos (Executrix), Petitioner and Appellee, vs. Flora Blas de Buenaventura (Legatee), Oppositor and Appellant, G.R. No. L-22797, September 22, 1966, Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J.P., writing for the Court. (A subsequent Resolution amending the decision was promulgated November 29, 1966, Bengzon, J.P., writing.)The testatrix, Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, a resident of Malabon, Rizal (died October 5, 1956), allegedly executed a will dated September 22, 1956. On October 22, 1956 Rosalina Santos filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to probate that will; Rosalina is the executrix and petitioner-appellee here. Among the devisees named in the 1956 will was Flora Blas de Buenaventura, a non-blood relative.
On November 28, 1956 Flora Blas and Justo Garcia filed oppositions to probate, alleging invalid execution, undue influence, fraud in procuring the testatrix’s signature, and lack of testamentary capacity. After both sides presented evidence but before the oppositors closed, Flora filed a manifestation on November 6, 1957 withdrawing her opposition and recording that, as a legatee, she would join the proponent to legalize the will. The record discloses circumstances surrounding that withdrawal (sale of Flora’s house to pay stenographic notes, a settlement party at the Manila Hotel, and counsel’s advice), though the probate proceedings continued as to Justo Garcia.
The trial court allowed probate on December 24, 1957. Thereafter, on February 27, 1958 Flora petitioned for delivery of a fishpond specifically devised to her (Item No. 3, Clause No. 6). Rosalina Santos opposed delivery, invoking a “no-contest and forfeiture” clause (Paragraph Fourteen) in the will that declared any heir who “contests or opposes the probate of my will or the carrying out of its provisions” would lose rights to any inheritance, forfeitable to other heirs. The probate court, in orders dated April 30, 1958 and March 7, 1959, sustained forfeiture and denied delivery.
Flora appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on March 25, 1964 certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as raising questions purely of law. The Supreme Court first decided the appeal on September 22, 1966 (Bengzon, J.P.), reversing the trial court and ordering delivery of the devise to Flora. By resolution dated November 29, 1966 the Court amended its dispositive paragraph to award Flora the devised fishpond with fruits and rents accruing from the testatrix’s death until delivery, required the executrix to render an accounting, denied moral and exemplary damages, and awarded attorney’s fees of P5,000 against the executrix.
Evidentiary background relevant to the Court’s factual assessment: Flora knew of an earlier 1953 will favoring her more; the 1956 will addressed her by the name “Flora Buendia” though she used “Flora Blas”; the attesting witnesses were lawyers and compadres connected to beneficiaries; a hospital nurse testified there were no witnesses in the testatrix’s room at the time the witnesses and notary said they were present; and the testat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Flora Blas de Buenaventura’s opposition and subsequent withdrawal amount to a violation of the will’s “no-contest and forfeiture” clause?
- Is a “no-contest and forfeiture” provision in a will valid and enforceable ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)