jaan lacaya case digest

1.SEANGIO V. SEANGIO

Facts:

This is a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio.

Segundo left a holographic will, dated September 20, 1995, disinheriting one of the private respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause.

Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings^[5] primarily on the ground that the document purporting to be the holographic will of Segundo does not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus does not meet the definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code. According to private respondents, the will only shows an alleged act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as heir, devisee or legatee, hence, there is preterition which would result to intestacy.

Issue:

Whether the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will.

Ruling:

YES. The document, entitled Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, unmistakably showed Segundo's intention of excluding his eldest son, Alfredo, as an heir to his estate for the reasons that he cited therein. In effect, Alfredo was disinherited by Segundo.

For disinheritance to be valid, Article 916 of the Civil Code requires that the same must be effected through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. With regard to the reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by Segundo in his document, the Court believes that the incidents, taken as a whole, can be considered a form of maltreatment of Segundo by his son, Alfredo, and that the matter presents a sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant under Article 919 of the Civil Code:

Article 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate:

(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;

(2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has been found groundless;

(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;

(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made;

(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parents or ascendant who disinherit such child or descendant;

(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child or descendant;^[8]

(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life;

(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction.

A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Segundo's document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa^[9] can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter's property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.^[10]

Holographic wills, therefore, being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law, as illustrated in the present case, should be construed more liberally than the ones drawn by an expert, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument and the intention of the testator.^[12] In this regard, the Court is convinced that the document, even if captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was intended by Segundo to be his last testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of a holographic will. Unless the will is probated,^[13] the disinheritance cannot be given effect.^[14]

2.LABRADOR V. LABRADOR

Facts:

On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died in the Municipality of Iba, province of Zambales, where he was residing, leaving behind a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 1916 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652, and the following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and a holographic will.

On July 28, 1975, Sagrado Labrador (now deceased but substituted by his heirs), Enrica Labrador and Cristobal Labrador, filed in the court a quo a petition for the probate docketed as Special Proceeding No. 922-I of the alleged holographic will of the late Melecio Labrador.

Subsequently, on September 30, 1975, Jesus Labrador (now deceased but substituted by his heirs), and Gaudencio Labrador filed an opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by implication of law, alleging therein that on September 30, 1971, that is, before Melecio's death, for the consideration of Six Thousand (P6,000) Pesos, testator Melecio executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying in favor of oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio Lot No. 1916.

Sagrado thereupon filed, on November 28, 1975, against his brothers, Gaudencio and Jesus, for the annulment of said purported Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land, which Sagrado allegedly had already acquired by devise from their father Melecio Labrador under a holographic will executed on March 17, 1968.

Issue:

Whether or not the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is dated, as provided for in Article 810^[2] of the New Civil Code.

Ruling:

YES. The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810. It is worthy of note to quote the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz:

"And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father."

The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. These requirements are present in the subject will.

The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning was the testator’s instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means to control the disposition of his estate.

3.NHA V. CA

Facts:

On 24 October 1968, Proclamation No. 481 issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos set aside a 120-hectare portion of land in Quezon City owned by the NHA^[4] as reserved property for the site of the National Government Center ("NGC"). On 19 September 1977, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1670, which removed a seven-hectare portion from the coverage of the NGC. Proclamation No. 1670 gave MSBF usufructuary rights over this segregated portion

This parcel of land, which shall embrace 7 hectares, shall be determined by the future survey based on the technical descriptions found in Proclamation No. 481, and most particularly on the original survey of the area, dated July 1910 to June 1911, and on the subdivision survey dated April 19-25, 1968. (Emphasis added)

MSBF occupied the area granted by Proclamation No. 1670. Over the years, MSBF's occupancy exceeded the seven-hectare area subject to its usufructuary rights. By 1987, MSBF occupied approximately 16 hectares. By then the land occupied by MSBF was bounded by Epifanio de los Santos Avenue ("EDSA") to the west, Agham Road to the east, Quezon Avenue to the south and a creek to the north.

On 18 August 1987, MSBF leased a portion of the area it occupied to BGC and other stallholders. BGC leased the portion facing EDSA, which occupies 4,590 square meters of the 16-hectare area.

On 11 November 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. 127 ("MO 127") which revoked the reserved status of "the 50 hectares, more or less, remaining out of the 120 hectares of the NHA property reserved as site of the National Government Center." MO 127 also authorized the NHA to commercialize the area and to sell it to the public.

Issue:

Whether BCG, as lessee of MSBF, the usufructury, should vacate the area.

Ruling:

NO. A usufruct may be constituted for a specified term and under such conditions as the parties may deem convenient subject to the legal provisions on usufruct.^[9] A usufructuary may lease the object held in usufruct.^[10] Thus, the NHA may not evict BGC if the 4,590 square meter portion MSBF leased to BGC is within the seven-hectare area held in usufruct by MSBF. The owner of the property must respect the lease entered into by the usufructuary so long as the usufruct exists.^[11] However, the NHA has the right to evict BGC if BGC occupied a portion outside of the seven-hectare area covered by MSBF's usufructuary rights.

ART. 565. The rights and obligations of the usufructuary shall be those provided in the title constituting the usufruct; in default of such title, or in case it is deficient, the provisions contained in the two following Chapters shall be observed.

In the present case, Proclamation No. 1670 is the title constituting the usufruct. Proclamation No. 1670 categorically states that the seven-hectare area shall be determined "by future survey under the administration of the Foundation subject to private rights if there be any."

Proclamation No. 1670 authorized MSBF to determine the location of the seven-hectare area. This authority, coupled with the fact that Proclamation No. 1670 did not state the location of the seven-hectare area, leaves no room for doubt that Proclamation No. 1670 left it to MSBF to choose the location of the seven-hectare area under its usufruct.

On the other hand, this Court cannot countenance MSBF's act of exceeding the seven-hectare portion granted to it by Proclamation No. 1670. A usufruct is not simply about rights and privileges. A usufructuary has the duty to protect the owner's interests.

MSBF's encroachment of its benefactor's property gave birth to the confusion that attended this case. To put this matter entirely to rest, it is not enough to remind the NHA to respect MSBF's choice of the location of its seven-hectare area. MSBF, for its part, must vacate the area that is not part of its usufruct. MSBF's rights begin and end within the seven-hectare portion of its usufruct. This Court agrees with the trial court that MSBF has abused the privilege given it under Proclamation No. 1670. The direct corollary of enforcing MSBF's rights within the seven-hectare area is the negation of any of MSBF's acts beyond it.

A final point. Article 605 of the Civil Code states:

ART. 605. Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town, corporation, or association for more than fifty years. If it has been constituted, and before the expiration of such period the town is abandoned, or the corporation or association is dissolved, the usufruct shall be extinguished by reason thereof. (Emphasis added)

The law clearly limits any usufruct constituted in favor of a corporation or association to 50 years. A usufruct is meant only as a lifetime grant. Unlike a natural person, a corporation or association's lifetime may be extended indefinitely. The usufruct would then be perpetual. This is especially invidious in cases where the usufruct given to a corporation or association covers public land. Proclamation No. 1670 was issued 19 September 1977, or 28 years ago. Hence, under Article 605, the usufruct in favor of MSBF has 22 years left.

4.CHINA BANKING V. LOZADA

Facts:

On 25 June 1995, the spouses Lozada entered into a Contract to Sell^[7] with PPGI. PPGI, the developer of Makati Prime City Condominium Townhomes Project (Project), agreed to sell to the spouses Lozada Unit No. 402 of Cluster 1 of the Project, a two-bedroom residential unit with an area of 42.90 square meters, covered by CCT No. 34898, for the total price of P1,444,014.04, payable as follows:

30% Downpayment (including the Residential Fee)	P 402,803.92	- Payable in 15 months, beginning 2 October 1995
70% Balance	P 1,010,809.83	- Payable upon completion or turn-over of the unit

About six months later, or on 7 December 1995, PPGI, represented by its President Kenneth T. Yap and Treasurer Gilbert Y. Yap, and with Mortgage Clearance^[8] from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), executed two Deeds of Real Estate Mortgage^[9] in favor of CBC to secure the credit facilities granted by CBC to PPGI in the combined maximum amount of P37,000,000.00. The real estate mortgages covered 51 units of the Project, including Unit No. 402.

PPGI availed itself of the said credit facilities and incurred a total principal obligation of P29,067,708.10 to CBC. When PPGI failed to pay its indebtedness despite repeated demands, CBC filed with the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff of the Makati City RTC a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure^[10] of the real estate mortgages on 31 July 1998.

On 25 April 2000, CBC Chief Executive Officer Peter S. Dee executed an Affidavit of Consolidation^[14] stating… xxx …the period for redemption of the remaining foreclosed properties (which included Unit No. 402) had already expired without having been redeemed; the titles to the remaining foreclosed properties had already been consolidated in the name of CBC…xxx

Issue:

Whether the writ of possession may be granted and issued by the Makati City RTC ex parte or without notice to other parties.

Ruling:

YES. Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, which provides:

SEC. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form or an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety six as amended by Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately. (Emphasis supplied.)

The Court expounded on the application of the foregoing provision in De Gracia v. San Jose,^[44] thus:

As may be seen, the law expressly authorizes the purchaser to petition for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose in the corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of property with Torrens title; and upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the law also in express terms directs the court to issue the order for a writ of possession. Under the legal provisions above copied, the order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the court. And any question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale (and the consequent cancellation of the writ) is left to be determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in section 8. Such question is not to be raised as a justification for opposing the issuance of the writ of possession, since, under the Act, the proceeding for this is ex parte. (Emphasis supplied.)

The purchaser, therefore, in the public auction sale of a foreclosed property is entitled to a writ of possession; and upon an ex parte petition of the purchaser, it is ministerial upon the RTC to issue such writ of possession in favor of the purchaser.

Under Sec. 35, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which was made applicable to the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages by Sec. 6 Act No. 3135, the possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in extrajudicial foreclosures unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor.

The spouses Lozada acquired possession of Unit No. 402 pursuant to the Contract to Sell executed in their favor by PPGI. According to the Contract to Sell, PPGI shall deliver Unit No. 402 to the spouses Lozada upon the completion thereof, and the spouses Lozada, in turn, shall already be bound at that point to pay the 70% balance of the purchase price for the said property. The records do not establish the date when the spouses Lozada actually entered into possession of Unit No. 402. However, it is undisputed that they were already in possession thereof at the time CBC filed its Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Makati City RTC on July 2001.

Given the foregoing, it is apparent that the spouses Lozada's possession of Unit No. 402 cannot be considered adverse to that of PPGI. Their right to possess the said property was derived from PPGI under the terms of the Contract to Sell executed by the latter in their favor. It was because PPGI contractually agreed to deliver Unit No. 402 to them even prior to the transfer of ownership and title over the same that they came into its possession. They cannot assert that said right of possession is adverse or contrary to that of PPGI when they have no independent right of possession other than what they acquired from PPGI. The spouses Lozada can be more appropriately considered the transferee of or successor to the right of possession of PPGI over Unit No. 402.

It is true that in the case presently before this Court, PPGI executed in favor of the spouses Lozada the Contract to Sell covering Unit No. 402 before it constituted in favor of CBC the real estate mortgages on 51 Project units including Unit No. 402. Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that what PPGI executed in favor of the spouses Lozada was a Contract to Sell,^[58] a mere promise to sell,^[59] which, at the moment of its execution, did not yet transfer possession, much less, title to Unit No. 402 from PPGI to the spouses Lozada. When PPGI constituted the real estate mortgage on Unit No. 402 in favor of CBC six months later, possession of and title to the property still resided in PPGI. And when PPGI subsequently ceded possession of Unit No. 402, upon its completion, to the spouses Lozada, such right was already burdened by the terms and conditions of the mortgage constituted thereon. By merely stepping into the shoes of PPGI, the spouses Lozada's right of possession to Unit No. 402 cannot be less or more than PPGI's.

5.RAMIREZ V. RAMIREZ

Facts:

The case was about partitioning the testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez among the principal beneficiaries, namely: his widow Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez; his two grandnephews Roberto and Jorge Ramirez; and his companion Wanda de Wrobleski.

The widow Marcelle is a French who lives in Paris, while the companion Wanda is an Austrian who lives in Spain. Moreover, the testator provided for substitutions.

Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964, with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the estate.

On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to the widow "en pleno dominio" in satisfaction of her legitime; the other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez "en nuda propriedad." Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with the widow's usufruct and the remaining two-third (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda.

Issue:

Whether the usufruct in favor of Wanda valid.

Ruling:

YES. The 1935 Constitution which is controlling provides as follows:

"SEC. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines." (Art. XIII.)

The court a quo upheld the validity of the usufruct given to Wanda on the ground that the Constitution covers not only succession by operation of law but also testamentary succession. We are of the opinion that the Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land.

This opinion notwithstanding, We uphold the usufruct in favor of Wanda because a usufruct, albeit a real right, does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.

6.KALAW V. RELOVA

Facts:

On September 1, 1971, private respondent GREGORIO K. KALAW, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch VI, Lipa City, for the probate of her holographic Will executed on December 24, 1968.

The holographic Will, as first written, named ROSA K. Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her sole heir. Hence, on November 10, 1971, petitioner ROSA K. Kalaw opposed probate alleging, in substance, that the holographic Will contained alterations, corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code reading:

"Art. 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature."

The NBI reported that the handwriting, the signature, the insertions and/or additions and the initial were made by one and the same person. Consequently, Exhibit 'C' was the handwriting of the decedent, Natividad K. Kalaw.

Issue:

Whether the will, Exhibit ‘C’, should be admitted to probate although the alterations and/or insertions or additions above-mentioned were not authenticated by the full signature of the testatrix pursuant to Art. 814 of the Civil Code.

Ruling:

NO. Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not been noted under his signature, x x x the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined.

However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature.