G.R. No. L-22797 September 22, 1966
TESTACY OF MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS. ROSALINA SANTOS (Executrix), petitioner and appellee, vs. FLORA BLAS DE BUENAVENTURA (Legatee), oppositor and appellant.

FACTS

On October 22, 1956, Rosalina Santos filed a petition for the probate of the last will of the deceased Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, executed on September 22, 1956. Flora Blas de Buenaventura, a legatee not related by blood to the deceased, and Justo Garcia filed an opposition on November 28, 1956, alleging the will was not executed in accordance with law, was procured by undue pressure and fraud, and that the testatrix was mentally incapable. On November 6, 1957, Flora Blas filed a manifestation withdrawing her opposition and joining the petition for probate. The probate court issued an order allowing the probate on December 24, 1957. After the order became final, Flora Blas petitioned for the delivery of a fishpond specifically devised to her. Rosalina Santos opposed, citing a “no-contest and forfeiture” clause in the will (Item Fourteenth), which provided that any heir, devisee, or legatee who contests or opposes the probate shall lose any right under the will, with the forfeited share going to the others. The probate court sustained the validity of this clause and declared Flora Blas’s devise forfeited. Flora Blas appealed.

ISSUE

1. Did Flora Blas’s actions, under the facts and circumstances, amount to a violation of the “no-contest and forfeiture” clause of the will?
2. Is the “no-contest and forfeiture” provision of the will valid?

RULING

1. No, Flora Blas’s actions did not amount to a violation. The Supreme Court found her initial opposition was justified based on circumstances that engendered reasonable doubt about the will’s execution and the testatrix’s capacity. These included: the existence of a prior 1953 will where she received a larger devise; the testatrix addressing her by a different name (Buendia) despite her lifelong use of “Blas” with the testatrix’s acquiescence; the attesting witnesses being lawyers and compadres of the executrix; a nurse’s testimony contradicting the presence of witnesses at the time of signing; and the testatrix’s advanced age, serious illnesses, and medical treatments (including multiple blood transfusions) around the execution date. The Court held her opposition was in good faith to ascertain the truth. Furthermore, her timely withdrawal of the opposition before the close of evidence and her joining the probate petition rectified her initial action and precluded a violation of the clause, as the testatrix’s intentions were ultimately fulfilled and the will was probated without prolonged litigation.
2. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to rule on the general validity of such clauses, as it resolved the case on the first issue. The dispositive portion of the amended decision reversed the appealed orders and remanded the case with instructions for the executrix to deliver the specific devise to Flora Blas, along with all fruits or rents from the testatrix’s death until delivery, and to render an accounting. The Court also awarded attorney’s fees of P5,000 in favor of Flora Blas against the appellee executrix.