Case Digest: Gago vs. Mamuyac, G.R. No. L-26317, January 29, 1927

Succession, Revocation

Ponente:
Johnson, J.

Recit Version:

In 1918, Miguel Mamuyac executed a will (Exhibit A). He passed away in 1922. Francisco Gago sought to probate Exhibit but the court denied probate, citing a newer will executed on April 16, 1919. A subsequent attempt to probate the 1919 will (Exhibit 1) but the court determined that Exhibit A was a duplicate of the original will and that the original will was cancelled by Miguel Mamuyac before his death. 

The law doesn't require specific evidence of revocation; if a will cannot be found and was last seen in the testator's possession, it's presumed to be cancelled or destroyed. In this case, the original 1919 will couldn't be found after Miguel Mamuyac's death, and there was positive proof of its cancellation in 1920. The court found that the cancellation was established, and therefore, the lower court's decision to deny probate was upheld. 

Facts:

On July 27, 1918, Miguel Mamuyac executed a last will and testament (Exhibit A).

On January 2, 1922, Miguel Mamuyac died in the municipality of Agoo, Province of La Union.

On November 2, 1923, Francisco Gago petitioned for the probate of Exhibit A. It was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac.

The probate was denied by the court, on the ground that a new will was executed on April 16, 1919.

On February 21, 1925, new action was initiated to probate the April 16, 1919, will (Exhibit 1). It was again opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac.

CFI-La Union: Denied the probate.

The court established that Exhibit A, a copy of Miguel Mamuyac's will, was a duplicate of the original. Witnesses testified that the original will was cancelled by Miguel Mamuyac before his death. Jose Fenoy, who typed the will on April 16, 1919, and Carlos Bejar, who witnessed the cancellation on December 30, 1920, confirmed the revocation. Narcisa Gago, Miguel Mamuyac's sister, supported this account. Due to the cancellation of the original will, the court denied the probate of Exhibit A. The petitioner appealed this decision.

Issue:

WoN the will of Miguel Mamuyac was canceled before his death.

Held:

The appellant contends that the lower court committed an error in not finding from the evidence that the will in question had been executed with all the formalities required by the law; that the same had been revoked and cancelled in 1920 before his death; that the said will was a mere carbon copy and that the oppositors were not estopped from alleging that fact.

With reference to the said cancellation, it may be stated that there is positive proof, not denied, which was accepted by the lower court, that will in question had been cancelled in 1920. The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation of a will to be preserved. It therefore becomes difficult at times to prove the revocation or cancellation of wills. The fact that such cancellation or revocation has taken place must either remain unproved of be inferred from evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be found. Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. The force of the presumption of cancellation or revocation by the testator, while varying greatly, being weak or strong according to the circumstances, is never conclusive, but may be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it.

In view of the fat that the original will of 1919 could not be found after the death of the testator Miguel Mamuyac and in view of the positive proof that the same had been cancelled, we are forced to the conclusion that the conclusions of the lower court are in accordance with the weight of the evidence. In a proceeding to probate a will the burden of proofs is upon the proponent clearly to establish not only its execution but its existence. Having proved its execution by the proponents, the burden is on the contestant to show that it has been revoked. In a great majority of instances in which wills are destroyed for the purpose of revoking them there is no witness to the act of cancellation or destruction and all evidence of its cancellation perishes with the testator. Copies of wills should be admitted by the courts with great caution. When it is proven, however, by proper testimony that a will was executed in duplicate and each copy was executed with all the formalities and requirements of the law, then the duplicate may be admitted in evidence when it is made to appear that the original has been lost and was not cancelled or destroyed by the testator. (Borromeo vs. Casquijo, G.R. No. L-26063.)1

After a careful examination of the entire record, we are fully persuaded that the will presented for probate had been cancelled by the testator in 1920. Therefore the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed. And without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.