G.R. No. L-11823; February 11, 1918
CRISTINA SAMSON, DELFINA NAVAL, and SOR CONSOLACION EUGENIO, petitioners-appellants, vs. MONICA NAVAL, ROSA NAVAL, and CELESTINA NAVAL, objectors-appellants.

FACTS:
Simeona F. Naval died in Manila on September 18, 1915. On September 20, 1915, a document dated February 13, 1915, purporting to be her last will and testament, was presented for probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Case No. 13386). The court disallowed this will because it was not executed in accordance with legal formalitiesspecifically, the testator did not sign in the presence of three witnesses, and the witnesses did not sign in each other’s presence.

Subsequently, the deceased’s nieces and legatees filed a petition for the probate of an earlier will executed by Simeona F. Naval on October 31, 1914 (Case No. 13579). The probate of this earlier will was opposed by Monica Naval, Rosa Naval, and Celestina Naval (opponents). The opponents argued that: (1) the 1914 will had been revoked by the later 1915 will; (2) the proceedings for the probate of the 1914 will were improper because final judgment had already been rendered in the earlier probate case (Case No. 13386); and (3) the trial court erred in denying their motion for continuance to submit the 1914 will’s signature to the Bureau of Science for analysis.

The trial court admitted the 1914 will to probate. The opponents appealed.

ISSUE:

2. Whether the institution of proceedings for the probate of the 1914 will was proper despite the prior final judgment in the probate case for the 1915 will.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the opponents’ motion for continuance to submit the 1914 will’s signature for expert analysis.

RULING:
1. No revocation of the 1914 will. Under Article 739 of the Civil Code and Section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prior will can only be revoked by a subsequent will, codicil, or writing executed with the same formalities required for a valid will. The 1915 will was disallowed precisely because it lacked these formalities. Since it was not a valid will, it could not effect a revocation of the earlier 1914 will. The Court cited the doctrine that a revocatory clause in a subsequent will is effective only if that subsequent will is itself validly executed.

2. The institution of probate proceedings for the 1914 will was proper. The Court held that there is no incongruity in presenting a prior will for probate after a later will has been disallowed. The allowance or disallowance of a will depends on whether the legal formalities were complied with, a matter for the court to determine based on evidence. The petitioners in the two cases were different (the executor in the first, the nieces in the second), and the disallowance of the later will did not preclude probate of an earlier valid will.

3. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for continuance. The opponents’ counsel made the request to send the will to the Bureau of Science only after stating he had no further evidence to present. The denial of a motion for continuance is discretionary under Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No abuse of discretion was shown, and no exception was properly taken to the court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order admitting the will dated October 31, 1914, to probate as the last will and testament of Simeona F. Naval. Costs were taxed against the appellants.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.