Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Yap Tua V Yap CA Kuan

    Uploaded by

    Casey Ibasco
    Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong executed a will before her death in 1909. After her death, Yap Tua presented the will for probate while Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu contested the will's validity. They claimed the signature was obtained through fraud and undue influence and that Tomasa had executed a different will days prior. The court found no undue influence and that Tomasa was of sound mind when signing the will. The key issue was whether Tomasa's name written on the will constituted a valid signature, which the court affirmed, ruling that a portion of one's name signed with intent is sufficient. Additionally, the court ruled that failing to expressly revoke a

    Copyright:

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

    Yap Tua V Yap CA Kuan

    Uploaded by

    Casey Ibasco
    71 views1 page
    Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong executed a will before her death in 1909. After her death, Yap Tua presented the will for probate while Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu contested the will's validity. They claimed the signature was obtained through fraud and undue influence and that Tomasa had executed a different will days prior. The court found no undue influence and that Tomasa was of sound mind when signing the will. The key issue was whether Tomasa's name written on the will constituted a valid signature, which the court affirmed, ruling that a portion of one's name signed with intent is sufficient. Additionally, the court ruled that failing to expressly revoke a

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Yap Tua v Yap CA Kuan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong executed a will before her death in 1909. After her death, Yap Tua presented the will for probate while Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu contested the will's validity. They claimed the signature was obtained through fraud and undue influence and that Tomasa had executed a different will days prior. The court found no undue influence and that Tomasa was of sound mind when signing the will. The key issue was whether Tomasa's name written on the will constituted a valid signature, which the court affirmed, ruling that a portion of one's name signed with intent is sufficient. Additionally, the court ruled that failing to expressly revoke a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    71 views1 page

    Yap Tua V Yap CA Kuan

    Uploaded by

    Casey Ibasco
    Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong executed a will before her death in 1909. After her death, Yap Tua presented the will for probate while Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu contested the will's validity. They claimed the signature was obtained through fraud and undue influence and that Tomasa had executed a different will days prior. The court found no undue influence and that Tomasa was of sound mind when signing the will. The key issue was whether Tomasa's name written on the will constituted a valid signature, which the court affirmed, ruling that a portion of one's name signed with intent is sufficient. Additionally, the court ruled that failing to expressly revoke a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    5. YAP TUA VS.

    YAP CA KUAN
    FACTS:
    Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong executed a will before she died on August 11, 1909. The
    will was signed by Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez as witnesses. Yap Tua
    presented a petition for the probate of the will. Then Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu presented a
    petition that they were interested in the matters of the will and asked for guardian ad litem to
    represent them. Gabriel La O was appointed as guardian ad litem. They averred that the
    signature in the will was obtained through fraud and undue influence and that Tomasa executed
    another will on August 6, 1909 with all the formalities required by law.
    During the rehearing, the court found that a preponderance of evidence showed that no
    undue influence had been used and that at the time the will was presented to Tomasa for her
    signature, she was of sound mind and memory and asked for a pen and ink and kept the will in
    her possession for 10 or 15 minutes and finally signed it.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the name Tomasa is considered as her signature.
    RULING:
    Yes. Several witnesses testified that they saw her write the name "Tomasa." One of the
    witnesses testified that she had written her full name. We are of the opinion, and we think the
    law sustains our conclusion, that if Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong signed any portion of her name
    tot he will, with the intention to sign the same, that the will amount to a signature. It has been
    held time and time again that one who makes a will may sign the same by using a mark, the
    name having been written by others. If writing a mark simply upon a will is sufficient indication
    of the intention of the person to make and execute a will, then certainly the writing of a portion
    or all of her name ought to be accepted as a clear indication of her intention to execute the will.
    *Additional:
    Issue: Whether or not failure to revoke a former will is tantamount to the ineffectiveness of the
    new will
    Ruling: No. There appears to be but little doubt that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong did execute the
    will of August 6, 1909. Several witnesses testified to that fact. The mere fact, however, that she
    executed a former will is no proof that she did not execute a later will. She had a perfect right, by
    will, to dispose of her property, in accordance with the provisions of law, up to the very last of
    moment her life. She had a perfect right to change, alter, modify or revoke any and all of her
    former wills and to make a new one. Neither will the fact that the new will fails to expressly
    revoke all former wills, in any way sustain the charge that she did not make the new will.

    You might also like