213) in Re Estate of Piraso, Deceased. SIXTO ACOP, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SALMING PIRASO, ET AL., Opponents-Appellees. 52 PHIL 660

213) In re estate of Piraso, deceased.
SIXTO ACOP, petitioner-appellant,
vs. SALMING PIRASO, ET AL., opponents-appellees.
52 PHIL 660
FACTS:
The proponent Acop appeals the judgment of the CFI Benguet, denying the probate of last will and
testament of the deceased Piraso. The will was written in English; that Piraso knew how to speak the
Ilocano dialect, although imperfectly, and could make himself understood in that dialect, and the court is
of the opinion that his will should have been written in that dialect.
ISSUE: WAS THE WILL VALIDLY EXECUTED?
HELD: CFI AFFIRMED

Section 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure, strictly provides that:
"No will, except as provides in the preceding section" (as to wills executed by a Spaniard or a resident of
the Philippine Islands, before the present Code of Civil Procedure went into effect), "shall be valid to pass
any estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be written in the language or dialect
known by the testator,"
Nor can the presumption in favor of the will established by this court in Abangan vs. Abangan (40 Phil.,
476), to the effect that the testator is presumed to know the dialect of the locality where he resides, unless
there is proof to the contrary, even he invoked in support of the probate of said document as a will,
because, in the instant case, not only is it not proven that English is the language of the City of Baguio
where the deceased Piraso lived and where the will was drawn, but that the record contains positive proof
that said Piraso knew no other language than the Igorrote dialect, with a smattering of Ilocano; that is, he
did not know the English language in which then will is written. So that even if such a presumption could
have been raised in this case it would have been wholly contradicted and destroyed.
Such a result based upon solidly established facts would be the same whether or not it be technically held
that said will, in order to be valid, must be written in the Ilocano dialect; whether or not the Igorrote or
Inibaloi dialect is a cultivated language and used as a means of communication in writing, and whether or
not the testator Piraso knew the Ilocano dialect well enough to understand a will written in said dialect.
The fact is, we repeat, that it is quite certain that the instrument Exhibit A was written in English which the
supposed testator Piraso did not know, and this is sufficient to invalidate said will according to the clear
and positive provisions of the law, and inevitably prevents its probate.
238) PEREZ VS. GARCHITORENA

G.R. No. L-31703, 13 February 1930
FACTS:
Ana Maria Alcantara died testate. The pertinent provisions of her will are as follows:
NINTH. Being single and without forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen
Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara xxx as my sole and universal
heiress to the remainder of my estate xxx
TENTH. Should my heiress Carmen Garchitorena dies, I order that my whole estate shall passu
unimpaired to her surviving children; and should any of these die, his share shall serve to increase the
portions of his surviving brothers (and sisters) by accretion, xxx the estate shall never pass out of the
hands of my heiress or her children insofar as it is legally permissible.
Among Ana Maria’s properties is a deposit amounting to Php 21,428.23 with La Urbana. Mariano
Garchitorena held a judgment for Php 7, 872.23 against Joaquin, Carmen’s husband. He attached the La
Urbana deposit to satisfy his claims. Carmen secured an injunction restraining the execution.
Garchitorena contends that the same can be levied because Carmen is a universal heiress.
Carmen contends that the deposit belongs to Carmen’s children as fideicommissary heirs of Ana Maria.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the instant case is a fideicommissary substitution?
RULING: Yes. Manresa provides 3 requisites for fideicommissary:
1. First heir called primarily to the enjoyment of the estate;
2. An obligation clearly imposed upon him to preserve and transmit to a 3 rd person the whole or a
part of the estate;
3. Second heir.
Applying the foregoing to the case, Carmen was called to the enjoyment of the estate according to the 9 th
clause of the will. Clause 10th which provides that the “whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her
(Carmen’s) surviving children,” thus, instead of leaving Carmen at liberty to dispose of the estate by will,
or by living the law to take its course in case she dies intestate, the said clause not only disposes of the
estate in favour of the disposition thereof in case she should die after the testatrix. The children of
Carmen are referred to as second heirs. Hence, the deposit does not belong to Carmen as her absolute
property, but also to her children, from the moment of death of Ana Maria. It cannot be attached by
Mariano.

213) in Re Estate of Piraso, Deceased. SIXTO ACOP, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SALMING PIRASO, ET AL., Opponents-Appellees. 52 PHIL 660

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

213) in Re Estate of Piraso, Deceased. SIXTO ACOP, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SALMING PIRASO, ET AL., Opponents-Appellees. 52 PHIL 660

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

213) in Re Estate of Piraso, Deceased. SIXTO ACOP, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SALMING PIRASO, ET AL., Opponents-Appellees. 52 PHIL 660

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

213) In re estate of Piraso, deceased.

HELD: CFI AFFIRMED

238) PEREZ VS. GARCHITORENA

You might also like