Vda. de Enriquez vs. Miguel Abadia, Et. Al.

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

IN RE: WILLS AND TESTAMENT OF REVEREND SANCHO ABADIA:

VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ VS. MIGUEL ABADIA, ET. AL.


DOCTRINE:
- To determine the law applicable to a will, the determining factor shall be at the time or date it was executed.
- Article 795 of the New Civil Code provides: “The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance
of the law in force at the time it is made.” The validity of a will is to be judged not by the law enforced at the
time of the testator’s death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the
petition is decided by the court but at the time the instrument is executed.
(1)
FACTS:
-Father Sancho Abadia, Parish Priest of Cebu executed a purported to be a will on 1923 ( Marked as Exh. A) He died on January
4, 1993 and left some properties estimated at around Php 8,000. Sometime in 1946, Andres Enriquez, one of the legatees filed
for its probate. Some nephews and cousins who would inherit however, filed an opposition. During the hearing, one of the
attesting witness testified that Father Sancho wrote out in longhand the Exh. A, that he signed on the left hand margin of front
page of each of the three folios, he numbered the same with Arabic numerals and that he signed his name at the last page in
the presence of three witnesses. The Court held that Exh. A is a holographic will and at the time it was executed, holographic
wills were not permitted by law.

ISSUE: WON the will executed by Father Sancho is valid?

RULING:
-No. The Supreme Court held that the validity of the will is to be judged not by the law enforced at the time of the testators
death but at the time the instrument was executed. Hence, when Father Sancho executed the purported will, holographic wills
were not allowed by the Civil Code and the requirements were also not complied with. The intention of the testator should be
the ruling and controlling factor. Although the wills operates upon and after the death of the testator, the wishes of the testator
about the disposition of his estate amonghis heirs and legatees is given solemn at the time the will is executed, and in reality,
the legacy and bequest becomes a completed act.

(2)
FACTS: In 1923, when holographic wills were not allowed, Sancho Abadia executed a holographic will. It was presented for
probate in 1946. In 1952, the RTC allowed the will on the ground that under the NCC, holographic wills are now allowed. The
case was appealed.

RULING: The will should not be allowed because under Art 795, the extrinsic validity of a will should be adjudged, not by the law
existing at the time of testator’s death nor the law at the time of probate, but by the law existing at the time of the execution of
the instrument. Because, although the will becomes operative only after testator’s death, still his wishes are given expression at
the time of execution.

(3)
Facts: September 6, 1923, father Sanchio Abadia, parish priest of Talisay executed a document purporting to be his last will and testament.
He died on October 2, 1946 leaving Andrea Enriquez as legatee to his properties with an estimated value of P8,000 who thereafter filed a
petition to probate the will. Some cousins and nephew of the deceased filed an opposition. During the hearings, the said will was known to
be a holographic will, which was prohibited at the time it was executed. However, Enriquez contended that, the NCC should apply wherein it
permits holographic wills because such was the law enforced at the time of death of Father Abadia.

Issue: whether the validity of the form of the will depend on the law enforced at the time it was presented for probate?

Held: The validity of a will as to form is to be judged not by the law enforce at the time of the testator’s death or at the time the supposed
will is presented in the court for probate or when the petition was decided by the court but at the time when the instrument was executed.
By party of reasoning, when one executes a will which is invalid for failure to obscure and follow the legal requirements at the time of its
execution then upon his death he should be regarded and declared as having died intestate, and his heirs will then inherit by intestate
succession; and no subsequent law with liberal requirements as to execution should be allowed to validate a defective will and thereby
divest the heirs of their vested rights in the estate by intestate succession. The general rule is that the legislative cannot validate void wills.

You might also like