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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    In Re Will of Riosa

    Uploaded by

    Eunice Valeriano Guadalope
    The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order disallowing Jose Riosa's will. The will was executed in 1908 and was valid under the laws at that time, but additional formalities were subsequently added by a 1916 law. The Supreme Court held that the law to be applied is that in force at the time the will is made, not at the time of the testator's death. As Riosa's will complied with the law in 1908, it remained valid despite his death after the law was amended. The Court also noted the general principle that statutes are not to be given retrospective effect unless clearly intended by the legislature.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re Will of Riosa

    Uploaded by

    Eunice Valeriano Guadalope
    101 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order disallowing Jose Riosa's will. The will was executed in 1908 and was valid under the laws at that time, but additional formalities were subsequently added by a 1916 law. The Supreme Court held that the law to be applied is that in force at the time the will is made, not at the time of the testator's death. As Riosa's will complied with the law in 1908, it remained valid despite his death after the law was amended. The Court also noted the general principle that statutes are not to be given retrospective effect unless clearly intended by the legislature.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order disallowing Jose Riosa's will. The will was executed in 1908 and was valid under the laws at that time, but additional formalities were subsequently added by a 1916 law. The Supreme Court held that the law to be applied is that in force at the time the will is made, not at the time of the testator's death. As Riosa's will complied with the law in 1908, it remained valid despite his death after the law was amended. The Court also noted the general principle that statutes are not to be given retrospective effect unless clearly intended by the legislature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    101 views3 pages

    In Re Will of Riosa

    Uploaded by

    Eunice Valeriano Guadalope
    The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order disallowing Jose Riosa's will. The will was executed in 1908 and was valid under the laws at that time, but additional formalities were subsequently added by a 1916 law. The Supreme Court held that the law to be applied is that in force at the time the will is made, not at the time of the testator's death. As Riosa's will complied with the law in 1908, it remained valid despite his death after the law was amended. The Court also noted the general principle that statutes are not to be given retrospective effect unless clearly intended by the legislature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    In the matter of the probation of the will of Jose Riosa.

    Marcelino Casas, applicant and appellant


    Malcolm, J.
    Nov. 7, 1918
    No. 14074
    Doctrine
    Law governing form: All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the
    purpose and intention of the Legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is
    necessarily implied from the language used. In every case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved against the
    restrospective effect.
    Summary
    Riosa executed a will in 1908 in accordance with the law then in force, but said law was amended by Act No.
    2645 in 1916. The latter added formalities for the signing and attestation of the will. Riosa died in 1917,
    however, without having left a will that conformed to the new requirements. Thus, the trial court disallowed
    the will. The Supreme Court reversed the order and held that whats controlling is the law existing on the date
    of the execution of the will, not that which was existing at the death of the testator. The will was declared as
    valid.
    Facts
    - Jose Riosa executed a will on January 1908 in which he disposed his estate worth P35,000. It was in
    conformity with Sec. 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1
    - Act No. 2645 took effect after July 1,1916, amending Sec. 618, and it added additional formalities for
    the signing and attestation of wills.
    - Thus, the will was in writing, signed by the testator, and attested and subscribed by three credible
    witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other; but was not signed by the testator and the
    witnesses on the left margin of each and every page, nor did the attestation state these facts.
    - Riosa died on April 17, 1917, without having left a will which conformed to the new law. The trial
    court disallowed the will.
    Ratio/
    1. Whether the law existing on the date of the execution of a will or that existing at the death of the
    Issues
    testator controls (The date of the wills execution)
    COURT: a. The instant case presents a situation wherein the will was made prior to the new law and the
    testator died after said law took effect. However, there is a cleavage of authority among the cases and textwriters as to the effect of the change in the statutes. Three rules were considered, but in deciding which was to
    be applied, the Court depended more on reason than technicality.
    b. First rule was that the statutes in force at the testator's death are controlling, and that a will not executed in
    conformity with such statutes is invalid, although its execution was sufficient at the time it was made.
    The reason for its application in other jurisdictions was that as until the testators death, the paper
    executed by him, expressing his wishes, is not a will, but a mere inchoate act which may or may not
    be a will.
    c. Second rule states that the validity of the execution of a will must be tested by the statutes in force at the
    time of its execution and that statutes subsequently enacted have no retrospective effect.
    This was the old English view, as held in English cases, but also a modern view. On ruling out the
    retrospective effect of the law, it was held that retrospective laws generally work injustice and ought
    to be construed only when the mandate of the legislature is imperative.
    When a testator makes a will, formally executed according to the requirements of the law existing at
    1 No will, except as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid to pass any estate, real or
    personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be in writing and signed by the testator, or by
    the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction,
    and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator
    and of each other. The attestation shall state the fact that the testator signed the will, or caused
    it to be signed by some other person, at his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses,
    and that they attested and subscribed it in his presence and in the presence of each other. But
    the absence of such form of attestation shall not render the will invalid if it is proven that the will
    was in fact signed and attested as in this section provided.

    the time of its execution, it would unjustly disappoint his lawful right of disposition to apply to it a
    rule subsequently enacted, though before his death.
    It is true, that every will is ambulatory until the death of the testator, and the disposition made by it
    does not actually take effect until then. General words apply to the property of which the testator dies
    possessed, and he retains the power of revocation as long as he lives. The act of bequeathing or
    devising, however, takes place when the will is executed, though to go into effect at a future time.
    This was applied by the Court. In doing so, it held that, citing the general rule of statutory
    construction, all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the
    purpose and intention of the Legislature is to give them retrospective effect.
    The language of Act No. 2645 did not indicate a retrospective effect. Also, section 634 of the Code of
    Civil Procedure states that a will shall be disallowed if not executed and attested as provided by this
    Code.

    d. Third rule states that statutes relating to the execution of wills, when they increase the necessary
    formalities, should be construed so as not to impair the validity of a will already made and, when they lessen
    the formalities required, should be construed so as to aid wills defectively executed according to the law in
    force at the time of their making.
    HELD

    Order reversed

    Prepared by: Eunice V Guadalope [Succession]

    You might also like