Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Caniza V CA

    Uploaded by

    Russell Marquez Manglicmot
    The incompetent Carmen Caniza, through her legal guardian Amparo Evangelista, filed a case to eject Pedro and Leonora Estrada from a house and lot owned by Caniza. The Estradas claimed that Caniza had executed a holographic will leaving them the property. The court ruled that the alleged will could not be given effect since a will has no legal force until admitted to probate, and an owner's future intention to give a gift does not prevent the owner from resuming possession if needed, such as to cover living expenses due to old age, as was the situation here.

    Copyright:

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

    Caniza V CA

    Uploaded by

    Russell Marquez Manglicmot
    40 views1 page
    The incompetent Carmen Caniza, through her legal guardian Amparo Evangelista, filed a case to eject Pedro and Leonora Estrada from a house and lot owned by Caniza. The Estradas claimed that Caniza had executed a holographic will leaving them the property. The court ruled that the alleged will could not be given effect since a will has no legal force until admitted to probate, and an owner's future intention to give a gift does not prevent the owner from resuming possession if needed, such as to cover living expenses due to old age, as was the situation here.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Caniza v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The incompetent Carmen Caniza, through her legal guardian Amparo Evangelista, filed a case to eject Pedro and Leonora Estrada from a house and lot owned by Caniza. The Estradas claimed that Caniza had executed a holographic will leaving them the property. The court ruled that the alleged will could not be given effect since a will has no legal force until admitted to probate, and an owner's future intention to give a gift does not prevent the owner from resuming possession if needed, such as to cover living expenses due to old age, as was the situation here.

    Copyright:

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

    Caniza V CA

    Uploaded by

    Russell Marquez Manglicmot
    The incompetent Carmen Caniza, through her legal guardian Amparo Evangelista, filed a case to eject Pedro and Leonora Estrada from a house and lot owned by Caniza. The Estradas claimed that Caniza had executed a holographic will leaving them the property. The court ruled that the alleged will could not be given effect since a will has no legal force until admitted to probate, and an owner's future intention to give a gift does not prevent the owner from resuming possession if needed, such as to cover living expenses due to old age, as was the situation here.

    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

    The Incompetent, CARMEN CANIZA, represented by her legal guardian, AMPARO

    EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), PEDRO


    ESTRADA and his wife, LEONORA ESTRADA
    G.R. No. 110427. February 24, 1997, Narvasa, J.

    FACTS:
    Being then ninety-four (94) years of age, Carmen Caniza was declared incompetent by
    judgment in a guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo A. Evangelista. Caniza
    was the owner of a house and lot. Her guardian Amparo Evangelista commenced a suit to eject the
    spouses Pedro and Leonora Estrada from said premises.

    The complaint was later amended to identify the incompetent Caniza as plaintiff, suing
    through her legal guardian, Amparo Evangelista. The amended Complaint pertinently alleged that
    plaintiff Caniza was the absolute owner of the property in question; that out of kindness, she had
    allowed the Estrada Spouses, their children, grandchildren, and sons-in-law to temporarily reside
    in her house, rent-free; that Caniza already had urgent need of the house on account of her
    advanced age and failing health, “so funds could be raised to meet her expenses for support,
    maintenance and medical treatment;” among others.

    The defendants declared that they had been living in Caniza’s house since the 1960’s; that
    in consideration of their faithful service they had been considered by Caniza as her own family,
    and the latter had in fact executed a holographic will by which she “bequeathed” to the Estradas
    the house and lot in question. The Estradas insist that the devise of the house to them by Caiza
    clearly denotes her intention that they remain in possession thereof, and legally incapacitated her
    judicial guardian, Amparo Evangelista, from evicting them therefrom, since their ouster would be
    inconsistent with the ward’s will. Such will have not been submitted for probate.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the alleged will may be given effect (NO).

    RULING:

    No. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the testator’s death, it may be
    changed or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right can be
    claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit: “No will shall pass either real or personal property
    unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court”

    An owner’s intention to confer title in the future to persons possessing property by his
    tolerance, is not inconsistent with the former’s taking back possession in the meantime for any
    reason deemed sufficient. And that, in this case, there was sufficient cause for the owner’s
    resumption of possession is apparent: she needed to generate income from the house on account
    of the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her extreme age.

    You might also like