Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    Araujo vs. Celis

    Uploaded by

    AngelRea
    1) Rosario Araujo inherited land from her mother and later married Jose Celis. When Rosario died without descendants, her collateral relatives claimed the land. However, Gregoria Celis, Jose's mother, had taken possession of the land after Jose's death. 2) Gregoria claimed that Rosario had left a will bequeathing all her property to Jose, and since Jose died without a will, the property passed to Gregoria. However, the original will could not be found, allegedly destroyed by insurgents. 3) The court ruled that the secondary evidence provided was insufficient to prove the contents of Rosario's alleged will, as several details of the witness testimony were inconsistent or contrary

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Araujo vs. Celis

    Uploaded by

    AngelRea
    82 views1 page
    1) Rosario Araujo inherited land from her mother and later married Jose Celis. When Rosario died without descendants, her collateral relatives claimed the land. However, Gregoria Celis, Jose's mother, had taken possession of the land after Jose's death. 2) Gregoria claimed that Rosario had left a will bequeathing all her property to Jose, and since Jose died without a will, the property passed to Gregoria. However, the original will could not be found, allegedly destroyed by insurgents. 3) The court ruled that the secondary evidence provided was insufficient to prove the contents of Rosario's alleged will, as several details of the witness testimony were inconsistent or contrary

    Original Description:

    SUCCESSION

    Original Title

    11. Araujo vs. Celis

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Rosario Araujo inherited land from her mother and later married Jose Celis. When Rosario died without descendants, her collateral relatives claimed the land. However, Gregoria Celis, Jose's mother, had taken possession of the land after Jose's death. 2) Gregoria claimed that Rosario had left a will bequeathing all her property to Jose, and since Jose died without a will, the property passed to Gregoria. However, the original will could not be found, allegedly destroyed by insurgents. 3) The court ruled that the secondary evidence provided was insufficient to prove the contents of Rosario's alleged will, as several details of the witness testimony were inconsistent or contrary

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views1 page

    Araujo vs. Celis

    Uploaded by

    AngelRea
    1) Rosario Araujo inherited land from her mother and later married Jose Celis. When Rosario died without descendants, her collateral relatives claimed the land. However, Gregoria Celis, Jose's mother, had taken possession of the land after Jose's death. 2) Gregoria claimed that Rosario had left a will bequeathing all her property to Jose, and since Jose died without a will, the property passed to Gregoria. However, the original will could not be found, allegedly destroyed by insurgents. 3) The court ruled that the secondary evidence provided was insufficient to prove the contents of Rosario's alleged will, as several details of the witness testimony were inconsistent or contrary

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Araujo v.

    Celis

    Facts:
    Rosario Araujo inherited from her mother, Asuncion, the hacienda known as Pangpang. She
    subsequently married Jose Celis, Gregoriass son. Rosario died leaving no descendants or
    ascendants, but only collateral relatives. Such relatives asked that the property inherited by
    Rosario from her mother be delivered to them. The property, however, is held by the Gregoria,
    who took possession of the same after the death of her son Jose. He died a year after the death
    of Rosario in l889.

    The defendant claims that Rosario died leaving a will in which she bequeathed all of her property
    to her husband, Jose, and that the latter having died without a will, she, therefore, succeeded to
    all of his property, rights, and actions, thereby lawfully acquiring all the property that had formerly
    belonged to her daughter-in-law. The problem, however, is that the will could not be found alleging
    that insurgents had burned the Court of Pototan where the will was kept. She instead offered
    secondary parol evidence as to its contents. CFI allowed the evidence over the objection of the
    collateral relatives of Rosario and ruled in favor of Gregoria. Hence this appeal.

    Issue:
    W/N secondary parol evidence is sufficient to prove Rosarios will?

    Held:
    NO. The loss of the alleged original will has not been sufficiently established. The principal
    witness, Calixto Delgado testified that he had acted as procurador for Gregoria in an action
    brought against her by one Jose involving the hacienda of Pangpang, and that as such there
    came into his possession a copy of the will of Rosario which was introduced in evidence in that
    action. However, he likewise testified that he never saw the original of that will because the same
    was retained by the notary. He likewise failed to affirm whether the copy in question was a simple
    or certified copy. More importantly, he further testified that the will was signed by two witnesses
    only. A will signed by two witnesses only could not under any circumstances be valid under the
    law in force at the time referred to by the witness, and legally speaking such will could not then
    have been probated or recorded.

    As to the loss of the will, there is nothing to show that at the time these records were burned by
    the insurgents there existed in the court-house of Pototan the copy of the will referred to.
    Moreover, the testimony that all the notarial records were likewise burned as they were kept in
    the same courthouse is inconclusive as the same is plainly and manifested contrary to the royal
    decree concerning the organization of notaries, which provided that: Notaries shall keep the
    protocols and books in the same building where they live, in their custody, and shall be
    responsible therefor.

    Their testimony is absolutely insufficient to establish in a satisfactory manner the loss of the
    alleged will of Rosario Darwin, and the court below should not have, therefore, allowed the
    secondary evidence introduced by her as to the contents of the will, particularly in view of the fact
    that, as it appears from the record, there had been pending since 1889 an action to declare this
    very will null and void.

    You might also like