Title
Ferdez vs. Dimagiba
Case
G.R. No. L-23638
Decision Date
Oct 12, 1967
A 1930 will's probate was contested, alleging forgery and implied revocation via 1943-44 deeds. Courts upheld the will, ruling deeds did not revoke it, and probate decree was final.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183161)

Applicable Law

– Rule 109, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (appealable orders in special proceedings)
– Revised Rule 75 (duty to deposit a will with the court)
– Civil Code of 1889, Article 869; Civil Code of 1950, Article 957(2) (presumed revocation of legacy by alienation)
– Constitution in force at the time: 1935 Philippine Constitution

Factual Background

On October 22, 1930, Benedicta de los Reyes executed a will naming Ismaela Dimagiba as sole heir. On January 19, 1955, Dimagiba filed for probate. Petitioners timely opposed, alleging:

  1. Forgery and vitiated consent;
  2. Estoppel by laches;
  3. Implied revocation by deeds of conveyance dated March 26, 1943 and April 3, 1944, which had since been annulled by this Court for undue influence (G.R. Nos. L-5618 & L-5620, July 31, 1954).

Procedural History

– June 20, 1958: Court of First Instance admitted the will as genuine and properly executed, but deferred resolution of estoppel and revocation.
– July 27, 1959: Same court overruled the estoppel defense and reserved the revocation issue.
– January 11, 1960: Administrator appointed; inventory submitted February 9, 1960.
– February 27, 1962: After additional evidence, the trial court held the 1943–1944 conveyances did not revoke the 1930 will.
– Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling the probate decree final for lack of timely appeal and rejecting both estoppel and implied revocation.
– Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Did the decree admitting the will to probate become final for lack of timely appeal?
  2. Did the July 27, 1959 order overruling estoppel become final?
  3. Was the 1930 will impliedly revoked by the 1943 and 1944 conveyances under Civil Code Article 957(2)?

Finality of Probate Decree

A probate decree conclusively determines testator capacity and will formalities. Under Rule 109, §1(a), an order admitting a will is appealable. Petitioners’ failure to appeal within the prescribed period rendered the probate decree final and precluded further review.

Estoppel Defense

Public policy mandates the deposit and probate of wills to effectuate the testator’s expressed wishes. Estoppel cannot obstruct this policy. The trial and appellate courts correctly found the estoppel defense legally baseless.

Implied Revocation of the Will

Article 957(2) presumes revocation only when a testator voluntarily alienates the legacy with demonstrable change


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.