Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2538)
Allegations of Fraud and Bad Faith
Oppositors claimed petitioner deliberately frustrated probate of the 1939 will—characterized as a “disposición captatoria”—to secure the older will’s advantage. They relied on conjectural testimony of a single witness who left the room during execution. The Court found no direct evidence of collusion or bad faith; explanations for witness-impeachment failures were uncontradicted and fell within prior proceedings’ province.
Estoppel and Unclean Hands
The Court rejected estoppel and unclean-hands claims: petitioner consistently sought probate for whichever will was validly executed to avoid intestacy. Both wills named her universal heir, so unsuccessful probate of one could not bar pursuit of the other. Zealous protection of her inheritance interest did not constitute inequitable conduct.
Effect of Revocatory Clause in Defective Subsequent Will
Oppositors argued the 1939 will’s revocatory clause invalidly annulled the 1918 will despite denial of probate. Relying on Samson v. Naval (41 Phil. 838), the Court held that a revocation clause in a will disallowed for non-compliance with execution formalities is void and cannot nullify a prior valid will.
American Authorities on Revocation Formalities
Surveying American Jurisprudence and A.L.R. annotations, the Court confirmed the prevailing rule: a writing to revoke must meet will-execution formalities; an improperly executed will or unexecuted draft cannot revoke a prior testament. Divergent state rules do not alter the principle that absence of probate renders any revocation clause ineffective.
Dependent Relative Revocation Doctrine
Even if it were presumed the testator destroyed the 1918 original believing the 1939 will valid, the doctrine of dependent relative revocation applies: destruction intended to effect a substitute testament fa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-2538)
Procedural History
- Petition by Juana Juan Vda. de Molo in CFI of Rizal to probate the June 20, 1939 will (SP No. 8022); initially admitted without opposition
- Oppositors moved to set aside admission; court reopened proceedings and denied probate for failure to prove legal execution
- Petitioner then sought probate of the August 17, 1918 will (SP No. 56); oppositors opposed on estoppel, improper execution, and revocation grounds
- Original records destroyed during WWII; petitions refiled in 1946 with identical oppositions; trial culminated in an order admitting the 1918 will to probate (May 28, 1948)
- Oppositors appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning six errors
Facts
- Mariano Molo y Legaspi died January 24, 1941, in Pasay, Rizal, leaving no forced heirs in ascending or descending line
- Survived by his widow, Juana Juan Vda. de Molo (petitioner), and his nieces/nephew Luz (Lira), Gliceria, and Cornelio Molo (opposors)
- Two testamentary documents by the decedent:
• Will dated August 17, 1918 (Exhibit A)
• Will dated June 20, 1939 (Exhibit I) containing an express revocation of the 1918 will
Issues
- Did the petitioner deliberately frustrate probate of the 1939 will to secure the 1918 will?
- Is the petitioner estopped or barred by “unclean hands” from probating the 1918 will?
- Was the 1918 will executed in compliance with statutory formalities?
- Was the 1918 will revoked by the subsequent 1939 will or by the decedent’s own act?
Arguments of Oppositors
- Allegation of fraud and connivance with