Case Digest: Suroza vs Honrado, A.M. No. 2026-CFI, December 19, 1981

Art. 804  | Succession, Language

Provision:

Art. 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.

Ponente:
Aquino, J.

Petitioner: Nenita de Vera

Respondent: Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado

Recit Version:

The complainant was the wife of the preterited heir.

She filed an administrative complaint in the Supreme Court against the respondent Judge alleging that the Judge had probated a fraudulent will of Marcelina Salvador Suroza, which named a supposed granddaughter as the sole heir, leaving nothing for her supposed living son.

The will was written in English, a language not known to the illiterate testatrix, and it was suspected of being forged because the testatrix and attesting witnesses did not appear before the notary, as admitted by the notary himself.

The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Judge was guilty of inexcusable negligence and dereliction of duty for his unproper disposition of the testate case which might have resulted in a miscarriage of justice and imposed upon him a fine equivalent to his salary for one month.

Facts:

In 1923, Mauro Suroza, a corporal in the 45th Infantry of the U.S. Army, married Marcelina Salvador. 

They were childless but they raised a boy named Agapito as their own. Agapito also became a soldier.

In 1942, Mauro died. Marcelina became a pensioner of the Federal Government.

In 1945, Agapito married Nenita de Vera.  They had a daughter named Lilia Suroza who became a medical technologist abroad.

In 1953, Agapito was declared incompetent and Nenita was appointed his guardian.

Arsenia de la Cruz, alleged to be a girl friend of Agapito, also sought guardianship over the latter. 

She claimed that Nenita was living separately from Agapito and that she was unfaithful to him.

Nenita's appointment as Agapito's guardian was confirmed. 

Agapito has been staying in a veteran's hospital abroad.

Antonio Sy and Hermogena Talan had a child named Marilyn Sy.

Marilyn was entrusted to Arsenia de la Cruz.

Marilyn was brought up by Marcelina Salvador Suroza as a supposed daughter of Agapito and as her granddaughter. Marilyn used the surname Suroza. She stayed with Marcelina but was not legally adopted by Agapito. 

Marilyn married Oscar Medrano, neighbor of Marina Paje.

Marina is alleged to be a laundry woman of Marcelina.

In 1973, Marcelina allegedly executed a notarial will bequeathing her estate to Marilyn.

In 1974, Marcelina died. 

In 1975, Marina filed a petition to probate Marcelina's will.

Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado appointed Marina as administratrix and issued orders for her to withdraw funds and eject occupants from Marcelina's house.

Nenita and other occupants of the house filed a motion to set aside the ejectment order, claiming that Marcelina's son Agapito was the sole heir and that Marilyn was not related to Marcelina.

Despite opposition, Judge Honrado issued an order probating Marcelina's will, naming Marilyn as the heir.

Nenita filed an omnibus petition to set aside proceedings, alleging undue influence and fraud.

She attached an affidavit from Marcelina's housemaid alleging that the will was falsified.

She contended the testatrix was illiterate as shown by the fact that she affixed her thumb mark to the will and that she did not know English, the language in which the will was written. 

Judge Honrado denied the motions due to nonappearance of the opposition counsel at the hearing.

In 1977, Judge Honrado closed the testamentary proceeding after estate delivery and tax payment.

In 1978, Nenita filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition praying that the will and all the proceedings in the probate case be declared void.

She attached an affidavit from the notary of the will, stating that the testatrix and attesting witnesses did not appear before him and that he notarized the will based on a commitment from a lawyer who failed to bring the testatrix and witnesses.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because Nenita’s remedy was an appeal and her failure to do so did not entitle her to resort to the special civil action of certiorari.

Issue: 

WoN Judge Honrado should be administratively liable. YES

Held:

Disciplinary action should be taken against respondent judge for his improper disposition of the testate case which might have resulted in a miscarriage of justice because the decedent’s legal heirs and not the instituted heiress in the void will should have inherited the decedent’s estate.

In this case, respondent judge, on perusing the will and noting that it was written in English and was thumb marked by an obviously illiterate testatrix, could have readily perceived that the will is void.

In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a language "understood and known" to the testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will was read to the testatrix "and translated into Filipino language." That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is void because of the mandatory provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code that every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.

The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is repeatedly referred to as the "testator" instead of "testatrix."

Had respondent judge been careful and observant, he could have noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will but also that there was something wrong in instituting the supposed granddaughter as sole heiress and giving nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive.

Furthermore, after the hearing conducted by respondent deputy clerk of court, respondent judge could have noticed that the notary was not presented as a witness.

In spite of the absence of an opposition, respondent judge should have personally conducted the hearing on the probate of the will so that he could have ascertained whether the will was validly executed.

Under the circumstances, we find his negligence and dereliction of duty to be inexcusable.

Penalty:

A fine equivalent to one month salary.