G.R. No. A.M. No. 2026-CFI December 19, 1981
NENITA DE VERA SUROZA, complainant, vs. JUDGE REYNALDO P. HONRADO of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch 25 and EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO, Deputy Clerk of Court, respondents.

FACTS

Marcelina Salvador Suroza, an illiterate pensioner, died in 1974. A notarial will dated July 23, 1973, written in English and thumbmarked by her, was presented for probate. The will instituted Marilyn Sy Suroza, a child reared by Marcelina but not legally adopted, as the sole heir, completely omitting Marcelina’s long-reared son, Agapito Suroza. The petition, filed by the executrix Marina Paje, was unopposed initially. Respondent Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado delegated the hearing to his Deputy Clerk of Court, Evangeline S. Yuipco, and subsequently admitted the will to probate on April 23, 1975. Prior to this, the judge had issued orders allowing the withdrawal of bank funds and the ejectment of occupants, including complainant Nenita de Vera Suroza (Agapito’s wife and guardian), from Marcelina’s property. Upon learning of the proceedings, Nenita filed motions to set aside, opposing probate on grounds including fraud, undue influence, improper execution, and the preterition of the compulsory heir Agapito. She attached an affidavit from Marcelina’s housemaid alleging the will was falsified.

ISSUE

Should disciplinary action be taken against Judge Honrado for admitting the will to probate despite glaring defects apparent on its face?

RULING

Yes, Judge Honrado was administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and dereliction of duty. The Supreme Court found his actions constituted inexcusable negligence. The will was void on its face as it was written in English, a language not known to the illiterate testatrix, which directly violates the mandatory requirement of Article 804 of the Civil Code. The document itself contained internal inconsistencies, stating English was “understood and known” to Marcelina but also that it was “translated into Filipino language.” A judge of ordinary competence should have immediately discerned this fatal defect. Furthermore, Judge Honrado exhibited carelessness by failing to note the suspicious institution of a sole heiress to the exclusion of a compulsory heir, and by not personally conducting the hearing to ascertain the validity of the will’s execution, especially given the notary’s absence as a witness. His hasty probate of the will, despite being alerted to conflicting claims, demonstrated a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. The Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary. The case against respondent Yuipco was dismissed as moot, as she was no longer in the judiciary and beyond its disciplinary jurisdiction.