View full case

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL v. JOSE M. COSICO

FACTS:

The case involves the probate of the last will and testament of Cecilia Esguerra Cosico. Cecilia executed her will in 1996 with the assistance of her balae and a lawyer. The will consisted of several pages and listed properties that Cecilia wished to be distributed upon her death.

Cecilia passed away in 2006, and her designated beneficiary, Mercedes Esguerra Guia, obtained a copy of the will. Mercedes subsequently died in 2009. In 2010, Thelma Guia Estiva filed a petition for the probate of Cecilia's will and for her appointment as the administrator of Cecilia's estate.

Respondents, who are Cecilia's half siblings, opposed the probate of the will. They argued that the formalities for the execution of a valid will were not complied with and that Cecilia lacked mental capacity and signed the will under duress.

The trial court admitted the will to probate and appointed Thelma as the executor and sole heir of Cecilia's estate. The court found that Cecilia was of sound mind during the execution of the will and that the document complied with the formal and essential requirements of the Civil Code.

The opposition's argument that the will was fatally defective for not being read twice due to Cecilia's illiteracy was not deemed meritorious by the trial court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Cecilia's Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya complied with the formal and essential requirements of the Civil Code.

  2. Whether the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya violated Article 808 of the Civil Code.

  3. Was the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya executed in compliance with Article 808 of the Civil Code?

  4. Should the Segregation Agreement be approved?

  5. Whether the requirement under Article 808 of the Civil Code, which mandates the reading of the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself, applies to illiterate testators.

  6. Whether substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 808 is acceptable.

  7. Whether the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya complied with the requirements under Article 808 of the Civil Code for a valid will.

  8. Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to approve the Segregation Agreement.

  9. Whether the approval of the Segregation Agreement is proper in a petition for probate.

  10. Whether the last will and testament of Cecilia Esguerra Cosico should be admitted to probate.

RULING:

  1. The Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya complied with the formal and essential requirements of the Civil Code. Cecilia was of sound mind when she executed the will, it was written in a language known to her, she affixed her thumbmark to it, and it was attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in her presence and the presence of one another. The alleged failure to read the will twice was rendered superfluous by the circumstances surrounding its execution.

  2. The Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya violated Article 808 of the Civil Code. Although not strictly required for blind testators like Cecilia, the court ruled that the requirement of reading the will twice, once by an instrumental witness and again by the notary public, should be applied by analogy to those incapable of reading their wills. Therefore, the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya was deemed void on this basis.

  3. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.

  4. The Court found that the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya was not executed in compliance with Article 808 of the Civil Code. It was undisputed that the testator, Cecilia, was an illiterate and the will was only read to her by the notary public. The Court emphasized the importance of Article 808 in ensuring that the provisions of the will are properly communicated and understood by the testator. Therefore, the will should not have been admitted to probate.

  5. Since the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya was disallowed for probate, the Segregation Agreement, which was based on the will, becomes devoid of basis. The properties of Cecilia should be passed on to her heirs by intestate succession.

  6. The Court held that the requirement under Article 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who are incapable of reading their wills, such as illiterate individuals.

  7. The Court recognized an exception to the requirement of strict compliance with Article 808, which is substantial compliance. In this case, the Court found that there was substantial compliance because the testator had the will and codicil read aloud in his presence and affirmed that the contents corresponded with his instructions. The testator also acknowledged the truth and authenticity of the contents prior to the execution of the will.

  8. The Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya substantially complied with the requirements under Article 808 of the Civil Code for a valid will. The court emphasized that the purpose of the law is to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the draft of his will, and if such purpose has been served, substantial compliance suffices. In this case, Atty. Bueser read and explained the contents of the will to the testator, and witnesses heard and understood the explanation. Furthermore, Atty. Bueser handed copies of the will to the notarial witnesses for their signatures, allowing them to read the contents of the will and negating any possibility of fraud, trickery, or misrepresentation.

  9. The trial court does not have jurisdiction to approve the Segregation Agreement. The jurisdiction of the probate court is limited to matters involving the probate of the will, and does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings.

  10. The approval of the Segregation Agreement is not proper in a petition for probate. The probate court's jurisdiction is limited to determining the validity of a will for its allowance. The distribution of the estate and the resolution of conflicting claims of title should be determined in an ordinary action before a court exercising general jurisdiction.

  11. The last will and testament of Cecilia Esguerra Cosico should be admitted to probate. Thelma Esguerra Guia shall be the executor of and the sole heir to the estate of Cecilia Esguerra Cosico.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A will must comply with the formal and essential requirements of the Civil Code, including the soundness of the testator's mind, understanding of the contents of the will, subscription or thumbmark, and attestation by credible witnesses.

  • The requirement of reading the will twice, once by an instrumental witness and again by the notary public, is strictly applicable to blind testators but may be analogously applied to those incapable of reading their wills.

  • Article 808 of the Civil Code requires the contents of a last will and testament to be read to the testator twice, once by one of the subscribing witnesses and again by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.

  • The requirement of reading the will to the testator serves the purpose of making the provisions known to the testator and allowing them to object if they are not in accordance with their wishes.

  • The requirement of reading the will is not limited to blind testators but also applies to illiterate testators.

  • Substantial compliance with Article 808 is not sufficient; strict compliance is required to ensure that the will is not exposed to the possibility of fraud.

  • In order to claim substantial compliance with Article 808, the notary public and the notarial witnesses must have their own copy of the will and read it silently while the lawyer reads it out loud.

  • The requirement under Article 808 of the Civil Code, which mandates the reading of the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself, applies not only to blind testators but also to illiterate individuals.

  • Substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 808 is acceptable when the purpose of the law has been satisfied and when the formal imperfections do not affect the testator's will. The solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from fraud and trickery but should not be so rigid as to destroy the testamentary privilege.

  • The purpose of a will is to grant the wishes of a person upon his/her death, especially with respect to the disposition of his/her worldly possessions.

  • Both law and jurisprudence allow for a degree of flexibility with the requirements in the execution of wills, especially as to the formal aspect.

  • Substantial compliance with the requirements under the law for a valid will is sufficient, where the purpose of the law has been served.

  • The jurisdiction of the probate court is limited to matters involving the probate of the will and does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings.

  • The jurisdiction of a probate court is limited to determining the validity of a will for its allowance. The distribution of the estate and the resolution of conflicting claims of title should be determined in an ordinary action before a court exercising general jurisdiction.

  • In a petition for probate, the court's role is to determine the validity of the will and the appointment of the executor or administrator. The distribution of the estate and other related matters, such as the approval of segregation agreements, are beyond the scope of the probate court's jurisdiction.