Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 294 views

    HACBANG Vs ALO - CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Quejarra De Asis
    The case involved a dispute over a property titled under respondent Basilio Alo's name that was claimed to be part of Bishop Sofronio Hacbang's estate. Sofronio left a will leaving half his estate to his parents and half to his sister, petitioner Dolores Hacbang. Dolores claimed the titled property was part of the estate. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had no right over the property and no legal standing to challenge Alo's title, as Sofronio was free to dispose of his estate through the will without impairing his compulsory heirs' legitime shares. The will was found to be valid, and Sofronio's identification of the specific

    Copyright:

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

    HACBANG Vs ALO - CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Quejarra De Asis
    294 views2 pages
    The case involved a dispute over a property titled under respondent Basilio Alo's name that was claimed to be part of Bishop Sofronio Hacbang's estate. Sofronio left a will leaving half his estate to his parents and half to his sister, petitioner Dolores Hacbang. Dolores claimed the titled property was part of the estate. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had no right over the property and no legal standing to challenge Alo's title, as Sofronio was free to dispose of his estate through the will without impairing his compulsory heirs' legitime shares. The will was found to be valid, and Sofronio's identification of the specific

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    HACBANG vs ALO_CASE DIGEST

    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 case involved a dispute over a property titled under respondent Basilio Alo's name that was claimed to be part of Bishop Sofronio Hacbang's estate. Sofronio left a will leaving half his estate to his parents and half to his sister, petitioner Dolores Hacbang. Dolores claimed the titled property was part of the estate. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had no right over the property and no legal standing to challenge Alo's title, as Sofronio was free to dispose of his estate through the will without impairing his compulsory heirs' legitime shares. The will was found to be valid, and Sofronio's identification of the specific

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    294 views2 pages

    HACBANG Vs ALO - CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Quejarra De Asis
    The case involved a dispute over a property titled under respondent Basilio Alo's name that was claimed to be part of Bishop Sofronio Hacbang's estate. Sofronio left a will leaving half his estate to his parents and half to his sister, petitioner Dolores Hacbang. Dolores claimed the titled property was part of the estate. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners had no right over the property and no legal standing to challenge Alo's title, as Sofronio was free to dispose of his estate through the will without impairing his compulsory heirs' legitime shares. The will was found to be valid, and Sofronio's identification of the specific

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DOLORES HACBANG and BERNARDO HACBANG vs. ATTY.

    BASILIO ALO
    G.R. No., 191031. Otober 5, 2015

    Facts:

    In the case at bar, Bishop SofronioHacbang died and left a will, which he denominated as
    UltimaVoluntad y Testamento, to his parents with one-half of his properties and the other half to his sister
    Dolores. A petition for probation proceeding was filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
    During the proceedings, it was found out that the Register of Deeds of Quezon appears to have issued a
    TCT over the subject lot in this case, Lot No. 8-A locates in San Juan Rizal, in the name of the respondent
    BasilioAlo.

    Meanwhile, Dolores HacbangAlo moved to revive the settlement proceedings due to the incomplete
    adjudication of properties by the CFI but was denied. Eventually, the petitioners filed a petition to cancel
    the TCT on the ground that it was fraudulently secured but the RTC dismissed the petition since they
    hadno right to prosecute the case on the subject lot since Dolores is neither a compulsory nor testamentary
    heirs of the decedent. Further, the RTC rendered that since the probate proceedings has been granted the
    issue of the intrinsic validity of the will is settled and cannot be questioned anymore.

    The petitioners appealed to the CA but affirmed the RTC’s decision of dismissal. They moved for
    reconsideration but were denied as well. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the petitioners have a right over the property.

    Ruling:

    No, the petitioners do not have a right over the property. The petitioners came to the court praying for the
    annulment of the respondent’s title but should not be entitled thereto since they have no right over the
    subject lot as well as the respondent having no obligation to them with respect to the subject lot. They
    have no legal standing to sue for the cancellation of the title of the subject lot because the right only
    belongs to the rightful owner of the lot.

    The Civil Code has great respect over the decedent’s freedom to freely dispose of his estate. Wherein a
    provision of the law provides that person may dispose his estate in favor of anyone capacitated to succeed
    him provided no compulsory heirs; otherwise, he still can dispose but should not impair their legitimes.
    Hence, testator’s will in a testate succession is preferred over intestacy.Further, there is no reason to
    disturb nor to doubt the intrinsic validity of the will since there is no indication that the CFI declared any
    of the dispositions in the will invalid.

    The decedent, Sofronio, was free to dispose his estate without prejudice to the legitimes of his
    compulsory heirs which are only his parents. Their legitime was one-hlaf of Sofonio’s estate and the other
    half was a free portion which he gave to his sister, Dolores. Hence, making the will intrinsically valid.

    Moreover, the petitioner’s contention on the CFI’s failure to adjuidicate the specific properties is
    irrelevant because Sofronio named his heirs and identified the specific properties that formed part in their
    inheritiance.

    Therefore, the petition is denied for lack of merit.


    Discussion:
    Determine first the law in force at the time of the decedent’s death which will determine the applicable
    laws over the settlement of his estate.

    You might also like