ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45160   May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE<br /><br />068 Phil 128

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 45160. May 23, 1939.]

    In re Will of the deceased Rosario Fabie y Grey. JOSE GREY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. SERAFIN FABIE and JOSE FABIE, Oppositors-Appellants.

    Ramirez & Ortigas for Appellants.

    Crispin Oben and Jose Grey for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. WILLS; PROBATE; PARTIES. — Under article 943 of the Civil Code the oppositors, as natural children of R. F. y G. cannot succeed ab intestate their deceased cousin R. F. y G. Consequently, they are not entitled to intervene in the proceedings for the probate of her will. (Paras v. Narciso, 35 Phil., 241.)

    2. ID.; ID. — It does not appear expressly that the testatrix signed at the foot of the will and on the left margin of the page thereof in the presence of the witnesses; but the comparative conjunction "as well as by each of us in the presence of the testatrix . . .," sufficiently indicates that the testatrix signed in the presence of the witnesses just as the latter have signed in the presence of the testatrix. Moreover, at the end of the will, as shown by the paragraph quoted in the decision, the testatrix stated that "I have signed the same under my hand on the left margin of each of the pages of which the said will is composed, and at the foot of the fifth (5th) page which signatures I made in the presence of each and all of the three instrumental witnesses . . ." It is beyond doubt, therefore, that the testatrix signed the will in question in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and the argument is unavailing that the alleged defect in the attestation clause has been cured by evidence aliunde, because the evidence in the present case appears in the will itself.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    After the death of Rosario Fabie y Grey, her alleged will was presented to the court for probate. It was assailed two legal grounds by Serafin Fabie and Jose Fabie and the court, on September 19, 1935, resolving the question of lack of personality of the oppositors, held that, as the latter could not inherit intestate from their natural cousin, the testatrix, they had no interest in the will in question, hence, they have no right to impugn it, whereupon it ordered the continuation of the probate proceedings without the intervention, of the said oppositors. After trial, the court probated the said will of the deceased Rosario Fabie y Grey, and appointed the petitioner, Jose Grey, executor upon filing a bond for P10,000. The oppositors excepted to the order of September 19, 1935 as well as to the decision of the 23d of said month.

    They assign in their brief the following errors committed by the court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I. The court erred in holding that the oppositors cannot inherit intestate from their cousin Rosario Fabie Grey, in representation of the father who recognized them.

    "II. The court erred in not holding that the will presented by the administrator is not executed in accordance with law.

    "III. The court erred in not denying said will, independently of the rights which the oppositors may have."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the order denying the intervention of the oppositors, the court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "From the evidence and data given by the parties at the trial, it appears that Jose Fabie y Gutierrez, Ramon Fabie y Gutierrez, Miguel Fabie y Gutierrez, and Vicente Fabie y Gutierrez were legitimate brothers and sister; that the first, or Jose Fabie y Gutierrez, had a daughter called Rosario Fabie y Grey, who is the testatrix, and Ramon Fabie Gutierrez also had two acknowledged natural children named Jose Fabie and Serafin Fabie, who are the oppositors in these proceedings; and that Rosario Fabie in her will instituted as heirs her maternal cousins Jose, Juan and Francisco, surnamed Grey."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The pronouncement of the court that the oppositors cannot inherit intestate from the deceased Rosario Fabie Grey, on the assumption that the latter’s will should be annulled, is clearly borne out by the facts set out and by the law.

    Under article 943 of the Civil Code, the oppositors, as natural children of Ramon Fabie y Gutierrez, cannot succeed ab intestate their deceased cousin Rosario Fabie y Grey. Said article reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 943. A natural or legitimated child has no right to succeed ab intestate the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother who has acknowledged it; nor shall such children or relatives so inherit from the natural or legitimated child." (Italics ours.)

    Commenting on the aforequoted article, Manresa has this to say:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Between the natural child and the legitimate relatives of the father or mother who acknowledged it, the Code denies any right of succession. They cannot be called relatives and they have no right to inherit. Of course, there is a blood tie, but the law does not recognize it. In this, article 943 is based upon the reality of the facts and upon the presumptive will of the interested parties; the natural child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; the legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the natural child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former and the resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the natural child nothing but the product of sin, a palpable evidence of a blemish upon the family. Every relation is ordinarily broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment." (7 Manresa, 3d ed., p. 110.)

    But the oppositors contend that they do not attempt to succeed their cousin by their own right but by the right of representation. If Ramon Fabie were living, so they may, he would undeniably be entitled to succeed his niece Rosario Fabie y Grey, in which case, upon the death of Ramon Fabie, his natural children, the herein oppositors would succeed him, because Ramon Fabie had no legitimate children. They cite article 924 of the Civil Code which defines representation thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 924. The right which the relatives of a person have to succeed him in all the rights which he would have had, if alive, or if he had been capable of inheriting, is called the right of representation."cralaw virtua1aw library

    They also cite article 925 of the same Code reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 925. The right of representation shall always take place in the direct descending line, but never in the ascending."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In supporting their contention, however, the oppositors have omitted and put out of view the second paragraph of the said article 925 to this effect:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In the collateral line it shall take place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the whole or half blood."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The oppositors-appellants are not children of brothers or sisters of the deceased Rosario Fabie y Grey, but of the latter’s uncle, Ramon Fabie, hence, it is unnecessary to state that the right of representation does not lie in this case. From this it inevitably follows that the oppositors have no interest whatsoever in the will of the deceased Rosario Fabie y Grey, wherefore, they are not entitled to intervene in the proceedings for the probate of the said will. (Paras v. Narciso, 35 Phil., 244.)

    In view of this result, we find no occasion to discuss the second legal question raised by the oppositors in their second assigned error which states: "The court erred in not holding that the will presented by the administrator is not executed in accordance with law." If there is no true opposition, as we have seen, to the probate of the questioned will, the second assigned error does not call for refutation.

    Nonetheless, the courts being bound, before they can allow a will presented for probate, to examine whether or not the legal requirements for its execution have been obeyed, we now pass to inquire into this question.

    The will executed by Rosario Fabie y Grey closes with the paragraph literally reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In witness whereof, after reading and understanding this my said testament, I state that it represents my intention and will, and I have signed the same under my hand on the left margin of each of the pages of which the said will is composed, and at the foot of the fifth (5th) page, which signatures I made in the presence of each and also of the three instrumental witnesses, Mr. Halim Ysmael, Mr. B. G. Mañalac and Mr. Jose V. Concepcion, and they signed in my presence and in the presence of each other, in this City of Manila, Philippine Islands, today, October 26, of the year of our Lord nineteen hundred thirty-four (1934), at 6 o’clock p. m., in my residence."cralaw virtua1aw library

    After the signature of the testatrix follows the attestation clause reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "We, Mr. Halim Ysmael, residing on Second St., No. 3, San Juan, Rizal; Mr. B. G. Mañalac, residing on Evangelista St., No. 641, Manila, and Mr. Jose V. Concepcion. residing on Ayala St., No. 36, Manila; of age and with full capacity to witness this WILL, CERTIFY AND WITNESS that the testatrix, Doña ROSARIO FABIE Y GREY, stated to us that the said document is her last will and testament, which is written in the Spanish language which she knows; that the said will and this attestation contain five (5) pages correlatively numbered from one to five on the upper portion of each page in Arabic figures and in letters, each of which was signed by the testatrix on the left margin and at the foot of the fifth (5th) page, as well as by each of us in the presence of the testatrix and in the presence of each of the witnesses on the left margin of each of the five pages and at the foot of this fifth page containing the attestation, in one continuous and uninterrupted act, in this City of Manila, P. I., today, October 26, 1934."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The foregoing attestation clause does not show expressly that the testatrix signed at the foot of the will and on the left margin of the pages thereof in the presence of the witnesses; but the comparative conjunction "as well as by each of us in the presence of the testatrix . . .", sufficiently indicates that the testatrix signed in the presence of the witnesses just as the latter have signed in the presence of the testatrix.

    Moreover, at the end of the will, as shown by the aforequoted paragraph, the testatrix stated that "I have signed the same under my hand on the left margin of each of the pages of which the said will is composed, and at the foot of the fifth (5th) page, which signatures I made in the presence of each and all of the three instrumental witnesses

    . . . "It is beyond doubt, therefore, that the testatrix signed the will in question in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and the argument is unavailing that the alleged defect in the attestation clause has been cured by evidence aliunde, because the evidence in the present case appears in the will itself.

    The appealed order and decision are affirmed, with the costs to the oppositors. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45160   May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE<br /><br />068 Phil 128


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED