Ramos v.Ramos G.R. No. 144294. 11 March 2003. Panganiban, J.: Facts: Petitioners are children of the late Chanliongco, Jr., the latter being the coowner of a parcel of land together with sister Narcisa and brothers Mario and Antonio. The co-owners executed a special power of attorney in favor of Narcisa by virtue of which her daughter sold the lot to respondents. Due to the conflicting stand of the co-owners concerning the validity of the sale, respondents filed an action for interpleader. The Regional Trial Court upheld the validity of the sale insofar as Narcisa is concerned but the other portions as void for lack of authority. The Court of Appeals, however, declared the sale as valid stating that Narcisa’s daughter was authorized as a sub-agent. Not appealed from, the decision became final and executory. The petitioners questioned this decision contending that it is violative of due process since it disposes of the property to which they are entitled to as heirs of the deceased co-owner without them being served summons and impleaded in the case. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners should have been impleaded in the case as heirs of one of the co-owners. Ruling: No. The petitioners were not the registered owners of the land, but represented merely an inchoate interest thereto as heirs of one of the co-owners. They had no standing in court with respect to actions over a property of the estate, because the latter was represented by an executor or administrator. Thus, there was no need to implead them as defendants in the case, inasmuch as the estates of the deceased co-owners had already been made parties. As it was, there was no need to include petitioners as defendants. Not being parties, they were not entitled to be served summons. 1/8 The Court also applied the rule on substantial compliance as to the defect that such clause did not indicate the number of witnesses. 147145. The only issue raised by the oppositors then pertains to the attestation clause of Abada’s will. Caponong opposed the petition alleging that there was no will left or. followed by his widow Toray. J. While it does not state the number of witnesses. without legitimate children. Issue: Whether or not the defects in the attestation clause of Abada’s will was fatal that would be sufficient for it to be disallowed for probate. Abaja G. the inclination should be. A certain Alipio sought for the probate of the last will and testament of Abada purportedly naming as heirs his natural children Eulogio and Rosario. Carpio. that it was tainted with defects as to consent and not done in accordance with the law. Subsequently. lean towards its admission to 2/8 . if ever there was. both wills were allowed for probate by the court. Citing a previous case to elucidate on this matter.: Facts: Abada died. forgery or fraud. The same happened to the purported will of Toray. If the surrounding circumstances point to a regular execution of the will. in the absence of any suggestion of bad faith. the facts and circumstances of record are to be considered in the application of any given rule. No. 31 January 2005. Eulogio is Alipio’s father. and the instrument appears to have been executed substantially in accordance with the requirements of the law.R. Ruling: No. The attestation clause also clearly stated that Abada signed the will and its every page in the presence of the witnesses. A closer look into the will would show that the number of pages was indicated.Testate Estate of Abada v. a close inspection of the will shows that three witnesses signed it. it reiterated: “More than anything else. ” Perez v. or other non-essential defect XXX. Garchitorena G. 31703. although the document may suffer from some imperfection of language.R. 3/8 . No.probate. Taken in the proper context. Issue: Whether or not fideicommissary heirs were instituted in the last will and testament of Alcantara. the sheriff. also deceased and represented by his son who is the defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs of decedent and secured a preliminary injunction restraining the execution. The same clause also vests in the heiress the right to enjoy but not to dispose the estate. the enjoyment of the inheritance is in conformity with it.13 February 1930. pursuant to the writ of execution issued by the court. levied an attachment on the said deposit. Ruling: Yes. against Andres Garchitorena. Mariano. deceased. Romualdez.: Facts: There was a deposit in the plaintiff’s name as the final payment of the liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara. This is an indication of usufruct inherent in a fideicommissary substitution. it appears that the testator intended to have a fideicommissary substitution since she limits the transmission of the estate to the children of the heiress. The court ruled in her favour. In fact. Defendant held a judgment against plaintiff’s husband and. 4/8 . The disposition that the said heiress shall receive and enjoy the estate is not incompatible with a fideicommissary substitution. although at the same time she preserves it in order to pass it on to the second heir. by virtue of which the heir instituted receives the inheritance and enjoys it. whose heiress is also said plaintiff. J. which was affirmed by the appellate court. a provision was also included in the event that the heiress should die after the testatrix. in order to pass it on to the fideicommissary heirs in due time. a fideicommissary substitution. if taken as a whole.Another indication is the provision that the whole estate shall pass unimpaired to the heiress’s children. That said clause anticipates the case where the instituted heiress should die after the testatrix and after receiving and enjoying the inheritance. 5/8 . without diminution. All the provisions ultimately lead to the conclusion that. what the testatrix intended to make was. all its requisites being present in the clauses on the will. in fact. Lastly. that is to say the heiress is required to preserve the whole estate. Upon appeal.Labrador v. however. leaving behind a parcel of land. and a holographic will. Paras. 5 April 1995. 83843-44. 6/8 . subsequently. they already sold the said land. Court of Appeals G. even before the testator’s death. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and and executed in the hand of the testator. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. disallowing the probate stating that it was undated and also reversing the order of reimbursement. several heirs. the Court of Appeals reversed the said decision.R. The petition for probate was granted and the Deed of Sale was ordered to be annulled. J. No. These requirements are present in the subject will. the parcel of land was already sold in their favor and. One of the heirs filed a petition for the probate of the will while two others filed their opposition thereto. Ruling: Yes. although the date is not in its usual place.: Facts: Melecio Labrador died in Zambales sometime in 1972. asking respondents to reimburse petitioners representing the redemption price of the property. alleging that. Issue: Whether or not the holographic will of Melecio was dated pursuant to Article 810 of the New Civil Code. The holographic will is dated. In the course of the proceedings. their status as owners is dependent on the probate of the holographic will by which the property had allegedly been bequeathed to them – an event which still has to take place. 110427. interposed that they were allowed to live in the house owned by Cañiza in consideration of their faithful service and asserted that the house and lot in question was bequeathed to them by virtue of a holographic will she executed. Court of Appeals G. Prior to the probate of the will. and affirmed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the remedy sought was improper anchoring their decision on what purports to be the holographic will of Cañiza “bequeathing” the property to them.J. Issue: Whether or not the alleged disposition in the holographic will in favor of respondents would be determinative of the proper action to be filed in court. Amparo Evangelista. in a counterclaim. This is in order to raise funds to finance for the expenses being incurred due to her health condition. 7/8 .: Facts: Carmen Cañiza was declared an incompetent by the Regional Trial Court in a guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece. Ruling: No. Cañiza died. any assertion of possession would be premature and inefficacious. 24 February 1997. This was due to her advanced age and physical infirmities involving cataracts in both eyes and senile dementia.Cañiza v. Narvasa. No. Evangelista filed an ejectment suit against spouses Estrada who have been living in Cañiza’s property by mere tolerance. The respondents cannot assert any right of possession flowing from their ownership of the house.R. C. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Evangelista as guardian but the decision was reversed by the Regional Trial Court. As the appointed guardian. The spouses refused to do so and. 8/8 . at any time prior to the testator’s death.A will is essentially ambulatory. it may be changed or revoked. it has no effect whatever. and until admitted to probate. and no right can be claimed thereunder.