Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Molo vs. Molo G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951 (Art. 832) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Abraham
    This case involves two wills executed by Mariano Molo y Legaspi in 1918 and 1939. Molo's widow sought to probate the 1939 will but it was denied for failing to comply with legal requirements. She then sought to probate the 1918 will but the nieces and nephew claimed it was revoked by the 1939 will. The court ruled that the revocation clause in the invalid 1939 will was void and could not revoke the 1918 will. For the doctrine of dependent relative revocation to apply, there must be evidence the testator intended to revoke the prior will only if the later will took effect, which was not present in this case. The 1918 will remained valid as Molo's intention was clearly to die

    Copyright:

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

    Molo vs. Molo G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951 (Art. 832) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Abraham
    37 views2 pages
    This case involves two wills executed by Mariano Molo y Legaspi in 1918 and 1939. Molo's widow sought to probate the 1939 will but it was denied for failing to comply with legal requirements. She then sought to probate the 1918 will but the nieces and nephew claimed it was revoked by the 1939 will. The court ruled that the revocation clause in the invalid 1939 will was void and could not revoke the 1918 will. For the doctrine of dependent relative revocation to apply, there must be evidence the testator intended to revoke the prior will only if the later will took effect, which was not present in this case. The 1918 will remained valid as Molo's intention was clearly to die

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    3-Molo-v.-Molo.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves two wills executed by Mariano Molo y Legaspi in 1918 and 1939. Molo's widow sought to probate the 1939 will but it was denied for failing to comply with legal requirements. She then sought to probate the 1918 will but the nieces and nephew claimed it was revoked by the 1939 will. The court ruled that the revocation clause in the invalid 1939 will was void and could not revoke the 1918 will. For the doctrine of dependent relative revocation to apply, there must be evidence the testator intended to revoke the prior will only if the later will took effect, which was not present in this case. The 1918 will remained valid as Molo's intention was clearly to die

    Copyright:

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

    Molo vs. Molo G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951 (Art. 832) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Abraham
    This case involves two wills executed by Mariano Molo y Legaspi in 1918 and 1939. Molo's widow sought to probate the 1939 will but it was denied for failing to comply with legal requirements. She then sought to probate the 1918 will but the nieces and nephew claimed it was revoked by the 1939 will. The court ruled that the revocation clause in the invalid 1939 will was void and could not revoke the 1918 will. For the doctrine of dependent relative revocation to apply, there must be evidence the testator intended to revoke the prior will only if the later will took effect, which was not present in this case. The 1918 will remained valid as Molo's intention was clearly to die

    Copyright:

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

    Molo vs.

    Molo

    G.R. No. L-2538            

    September 21, 1951

    (Art. 832)

    Facts

    Mariano Molo y Legaspi died without leaving any forced heir either in the descending or
    ascending line. He was survived, however, by his wife, the herein petitioner Juana Juan Vda. de
    Molo, and by his nieces and nephew, the oppositors-appellants, Luz Gliceria and Cornelio Molo,
    who were the legitimate children of the deceased brother of the testator. Mariano Molo y
    Legaspi left two wills, one executed on 1918, and another executed on 1939.

    Juana Juan Vda. de Molo, filed a petition seeking the probate of the will executed by the
    deceased on 1939. There being no opposition, the will was probated. However, upon petition
    filed by the herein oppositors, the order of the court admitting the will to probate was set aside
    and the case was reopened. After hearing, at which both parties presented their evidence, the
    court rendered decision denying the probate of said will on the ground that the petitioner failed
    to prove that the same was executed in accordance with law.

    In view of the disallowance of the will executed on 1939, the widow filed another petition
    for the probate of the 1918 will executed by the deceased in the same court. The probate court
    erred in not holding that the alleged will of 1918 was deliberately revoked by Molo himself
    through the decedent's will of 1939.

    Issues

    Whether or not the revocatory clause in the 1939 will is valid and still has the effect of
    nullifying the prior of 1918 despite the fact that its execution is not in accordance with law.

    Ruling

    No. A subsequent will, containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been
    disallowed, for the reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of the Code
    of Civil Procedure as to the making of wills, cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous
    will, inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void. There is no evidence which may directly
    indicate that the testator deliberately destroyed the original of the 1918 will because of his
    knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in the will he executed in 1939.

    The doctrine of dependent relative revocation is usually applied where the testator
    cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with a present
    intention to make a new testamentary disposition as a substitute for the old, and the new
    disposition is not made or, if made, fails of effect for same reason. The rule is established that
    where the act of destruction is connected with the making of another will so as fairly to raise the
    inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of a new
    disposition intended to be substituted, the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the
    efficacy of the new disposition; and if, for any reason, the new will intended to be made as a
    substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the original will remains in full force. The theory
    on which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not intend to die intestate. And this
    intention is clearly manifest when he executed two wills on two different occasion and instituted
    his wife as his universal heir. There can therefore be no mistake as to his intention of dying
    testate.

    You might also like