sic itur ad astra

Art. 815.   When a Filipino is in a foreign country,  he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms  established by the  law of the country  in which he may be.  Such will  may be probated in the Philippines . Art. 816.  The will of an  alien  who is abroad produces  effect in the Philippines  if made with  the  formalities prescribed by the law of the place  in which he resides,  or according to the  formalities observed in his country ,  or in  conformity with those which this Code prescribes . Art. 817. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country,  which is executed in accordance with the  law of the country  of which he is a citizen or subject,  and which might be proved and  allowed by the law of his own country,  shall have the same  effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines.  Art. 818. ...

   Succession   | Lost Will Ponente: Bengzon, J. Recit Version: - Facts: On  January 25, 1962 ,  Ricardo B. Bonilla allegedly executed a holographic will. On May 13, 1976 , Ricardo died. Marcela Rodelas files a petition in the CFI-Rizal for the probate of Ricardo's holographic will and requests letters testamentary. Amparo Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes, Expedita Bonilla Frias and Ephraim Bonilla opposed the petition on the following grounds: Appellant failed to produce the will within twenty days of the testator's death, as required by Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court. The alleged copy of the holographic will did not contain a disposition of property after death and was not intended to take effect after death, therefore it is not a valid will. The actual holographic will, not a copy, must be produced; otherwise, it would have no legal effect, referencing the Gan v. Yap . The deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise. CFI-Ri...

  Succession   | Lost Will Ponente: Bengzon, J. Recit Version: In 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap passed away. A petition for the probate of her alleged holographic will was filed by her nephew. The will purportedly listed beneficiaries of her estate. Felicidad's husband, Ildefonso Yap, contested the will's existence. Witnesses testified that Felicidad had confided in her cousin Vicente Esguerra about making a secret will. Allegedly, she wrote the will in the presence of relatives but the original holographic will was never presented in court. The trial court refused to probate the will. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court. The courts will not distribute the property of the deceased in accordance with his holographic will, unless they are shown his handwriting and signature. The loss of the holographic is fatal. The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or...

  Succession   | Res Judicata Ponente: Fernan, CJ. Recit Version: Leonardo Jimenez and Consolacion Ungson had four children. Lino Jimenez acquired five parcels of land during their marriage. After Consolacion's death, Lino married Genoveva Caolboy and had seven more children. When Lino and Genoveva passed away, Virginia Jimenez filed a petition to administer their properties.  Leonardo Jimenez, Jr. sought to exclude his father and siblings from the petition, claiming they were not Lino and Genoveva's children and had received their inheritance. The Probate Court excluded the disputed land based on Leonardo's evidence. In 1984, the heirs filed a complaint to recover the land, arguing that the probate court's decision was not conclusive and their claim was not barred by prescription or laches.  The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' present action for recovery of possession and ownership is appropriately filed because as a general rule, a probate court can only ...

Succession   | Appeal Ponente: Plana, J. Recit Version: After the death of Alvaro Pastor, Sr., his illegitimate son, Lewellyn Barlito Quemada, sought to probate Pastor Sr.'s alleged holographic will, claiming a 30% legacy from mining claims. The legitimate children of Pastor, Sr., Pastor, Jr. and Sofia, filed an opposition. In 1972, the probate court allowed the holographic, affirmed by CA, and remanded to probate court by the Supreme Court . In 1980, the probate court granted Quemada 42% royalties from Pastor, Sr.'s estate. Quemada retained 75%, and 25% was deposited for estate obligations. Pastor, Jr.'s 33% share was garnished for Quemada's legacy. The petitioners raised whether before the provisions of the holographic win can be implemented, the questions of ownership of the mining properties and the intrinsic validity of the holographic will must first be resolved with finality. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners that the probate court's order d...