La Clase adaptadora no necesita envolver objetos porque here- here-da comportamientos tanto de la clase cliente como de la clase

LLB III – B

Ernesto Guevara vs. Rosario Guevara 98 Phil. 249/G.R. No. L-48840

December 29, 1943

Topic/Doctrine: Subsection 8. – Allowance and Disallowance of Wills FACTS:

This case is a sequel and aftermath of the aftermath of the case of Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil.

479. A Motion to dismiss was filed by Ernesto on the ground, among others, that the petition for probate is barred by the Statute of Limitations considering that the testator died on Sept. 27, 1933, and that petition was filed 12 years after on Oct. 5, 1945. As a consequence, the lower court dismissed the petition. The petitioner thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the order of the Lower Court. The case thereafter was elevated to the Supreme Court for review by Certiorari.

ISSUE:

WON the Statute of Limitations is applicable to the Probate of the Wills.

HELD:

The Court failed to notice, that its Doctrine, was destructive of the right of testamentary disposition and violative of the owner’s right to control his property within the legal limits. The appeal ordered in fact leaves wills at the mercy and whim of custodians and heirs interested in

their suppression. The Lower Court would in effect abdicate the tutelary power that passed to the Republic from the former sovereigns, that ‘potestad suprema que en mi reside para velarpor un punctual cumplimento de las ultimas voluntades,’ asserted as one of the royal prerogatives in the

‘Real Cedula’ of March 18, 1776.

These decisions are of high persuasive value; they represent the trend of authority, and enable us to conclude that reason and precedent reject the applicability of the Statute of

Limitations to probate proceedings because these are not exclusively established in the interest of the surviving heirs, but primarily for the protection of the testator’s expressed wishes that are entitled to respect as an effect of his ownership and right of disposition. If the probate of validly executed will is required by public policy, as declared by the Supreme Court in the previous case, the state could not have intended the statute of limitations to defeat the policy.

LAGBAS, HJA. LORMALYN B.

LLB III – B

Mercado vs. Santos 66 Phil. 215/G.R. No. 45629

September 22, 1938 Topic/Doctrine: Allowance and Disallowance of Wills FACTS:

The records show that the petitioner had presented a will purporting to the last will and testament of his deceased wife for probate. The will was admitted to probate without any opposition.

Sixteen months after the allowance of the will, a complaint for forgery of the probated will was instituted by the brothers and sisters of the deceased against the petitioner. The latter moved to dismiss claiming that the will alleged to have been forged had already been probated and that the order of allowance is conclusive as to its due execution. The motion was overruled. Whereupon, the petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the petition.

As a result, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review by certiorari.

ISSUE:

WON the probate of the will is a bar to the subsequent criminal prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged forgery of the said will.

HELD:

The aggrieved party may file an application for relief with the proper court within a reasonable time, but in no case exceeding six months after said court has rendered the judgment of probate, on the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. An appeal lies to review

allowing a will to be probated has become final and unappealable, and after the period fixed by law has expired, the law as an expression of the legislative wisdom goes to further and the case ends there.

The court held that, that the criminal action will not lie in this jurisdiction against the forger of a will which has been duly admitted to probate by a court of competent jurisdiction.

LAGBAS, HJA. LORMALYN B.

LLB III – B

NERI v. AKUTIN GR No.L-47799

May 21, 1943 Topic/Doctrine: Institution of Heirs

FACTS:

This is a case where the testator AgripinoNeri in his will left all his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage, the herein respondents, with omission of the children by his first marriage, the herein petitioner. The omission of the heirs in the will was contemplated by the testator with the belief that he had already given each of the children portion of the inheritance, particularly a land he had abandoned was occupied by the respondents over which registration was denied for it turned out to be a public land, and an aggregate amount of money which the respondents were indebted to their father.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the will shall be cancelled in view of the omission of heirs. Whether or not there was disinheritance.

HELD:

Yes. The Court annulled the institution of heirs and declared a total intestacy on the ground that testator left all his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage, without expressly disinheriting the children by his first marriage but upon the erroneous belief that he had given them already more shares in his property than those given to the children by his second marriage. Disinheritance made without a statement of the cause, if contested, shall annul the institution of heirs in so far as it is prejudicial to the disinherited person. This is but a case of preterition which annuls the institution of heirs.