GAN vs YAPFACTS: On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of eart failure in te !niversit" of #anto $omas %ospital, leaving properties in &ulilan, 'ulacan, and in te (it" of )anila*On )arc 1+, 1952, Fausto E* ,an initiated tese proceedings in te )anila court of -rst instance .it a petition for te probate of a olograpic .ill allegedl" e/ecuted b" te deceased* Opposing te petition, er surviving usband 0ldefonso Yap asserted tat te deceased ad not left an" .ill, nor e/ecuted an" testament during er lifetime* After earing te parties and considering teir evidence, te %on* 1amon 1* #an 2ose, 2udge, refused to probate te alleged .ill* A sevent"3page motion for reconsideration failed* %ence tis appeal*ISSUE: 4ON a olograpic .ill be probated upon te testimon" of .itnesses .o ave allegedl" seen it and .o declare tat it .as in te and.riting of te testator5HELD: NO* $e court ruled tat te e/ecution and te contents of a lost or destro"ed olograpic .ill ma" not be proved b" te bare testimon" of .itnesses .o ave seen and6or read suc .ill* $e loss of te olograpic .ill entails te loss of te onl" medium of proof* Even if oral testimon" .ere admissible to establis and probate a lost olograpic .ill, .e tin7 te evidence submitted b" erein petitioner is so tainted .it improbabilities and inconsistencies tat it fails to measure up to tat 8clearand distinct 8proof re9uired b" 1ule ++, sec* :* 11*Rodelas v. Aranza Facts: $e appellant -led a petition for te probate of te olograpic .ill of 1icardo 'onilla in 19++* $e petition .as opposed b" te appellees on te ground tat te deceased did not leave an" .ill, olograpic or oter.ise, and te alleged ollograpic .ill itself, and not an alleged cop" tereof, mustbe produced, oter.ise it .ould produce no e;ect, as eld in ,am v* Yap, 10< &il* 509*$e lo.er court dismissed te petition for probate and eld tat since te original .ill .as lost, a potostatic cop" cannot stand in te place of te original*Isse: 4eter or not a olograpic .ill can be proved b" means of a potocop"RULING: Yes* 0f te olograpic .ill as been lost or destro"ed and no oter cop" is available, te .ill can not be probated because te best and onl" evidence is te and.riting of te testator in said .ill* 0t is necessar" tat tere be a comparison bet.een sample and.ritten statements of te testator andte and.ritten .ill* 'ut, a potostatic cop" or /ero/ cop" of te olograpic .ill ma" be allo.ed because comparison can be made .it te standard .ritings of te testator* 0n te case of ,am vs* Yap, 10< &%0=* 509, te (ourt ruled tat 8te e/ecution and te contents of a lost or destro"ed olograpic .ill ma" not be proved b" te bare testimon" of .itnesses .o ave seen and6or read suc .ill* $e .ill itself must be presented> oter.ise, it sall produce no e;ect* $e la. regards te document itself as material proof of autenticit"*8 'ut, in Footnote ? of said decision, it sa"s tat 8&eraps it ma" be proved b" a potograpic or potostatic cop"* Even a mimeograped or carbon cop"> or b" oter similar means, if an", .ereb" te autenticit" of te and.riting of te deceased ma" be e/ibited and tested before te probate court,8 Evidentl", te potostatic or /ero/ cop" of te lost or destro"ed olograpic .ill ma" be admitted because ten te autenticit" of te and.riting ofte deceased can be determined b" te probate court*Azaola v. S!n"sonFACTS: Fortunata #* @da* Ae Yance died in BueCon (it" on #eptember 9, 195+* &etitioner submitted forprobate er olograpic .ill, in .ic )aria ACaola .as made te sole eir as against te nepe., .ois te defendant* Onl" one .itness, Francisoco ACaola, .as presented to testif" on te and.riting of te testatri/* %e testi-ed tat e ad seen it one mont, more or less, before te deat of te testatri/, as it .as given to im and is .ife> and tat it .as in te testatri/Ds and.riting* %e presented documentar" evedences to reinforce is statement* $.o residence certi-cates so.ing te testatri/Ds signature .ere also e/ibited for comparison purposes* $e probate .as opposed on te ground tat8E1F $e e/ecution of te .ill .as procured b" undue and improper pressure and inGuence on te part of te petitioner and is .ife, andE2F $at te testatri/ did not seriousl" intend te instrument to be er last .ill, and tat te same .as actuall" .ritten eiter on te 5t or :tda" of August 195+ and not on November 20, 195: as appears on te .ill*$e probate .as denied on te ground tat under Article ?11 of te (ivil (ode, te proponent must present tree .itnesses .o could declare tat te .ill and te signature are in te .riting of te testatri/, te probate being contested*ISSUE: 4eter or not Article ?11 of te (ivil (ode is mandator" or permissive*HELD: Article ?11 is merel" permissive and not mandator"* #ince te autenticit" of te .ill .as not contested, petitioner .as not re9uired to produce more tan one .itness> but even if te genuineness of te olograpic .ill .ere contested, Article ?11 cannot be interpreted to re9uire te compulsor" presentation of tree .itnesses to identif" te and.riting of te testator, under penalt" of aving te probate denied* #ince no .itness ma" ave been present at te e/ecution of a olograpic .ill, none being re9uired b" la. EArt* ?10, ne. (ivil (odeF, it becomes obvious tat te e/istence of .itness possessing te re9uisite 9uali-cations is a matter be"ond te control of te proponent* For it is not merel" a 9uestion of -nding and producing an" tree .itnesses> te" must be .itnesses 8.o 7no. te and.riting and signature of te testator8 and .o can declare Etrutfull", of course, even if te la. does not so e/pressF8tat te .ill and te signature are in te and.riting of te testator8* $ere ma" be no available .itness of te testatorHs and> or even if so familiariCed, te .itnesses ma" be un.illing to give a positive opinion* (ompliance .it te rule of paragrap 1 of Article ?11 ma" tus become an impossibilit"* $is is te reason ." te 2nd paragrap of Article ?11 allo.s te court to resort to e/pert evidence* $e la. foresees te possibilit" tat no 9uali-ed .itness ma" be found Eor .at amounts to te same ting, tat no competent .itness ma" be .illing to testif" to te autenticit" of te .illF, and provides for resort to e/pert evidence to suppl" te de-cienc"* 4at te la. deems essential is tat te court sould be convinced of te .illHs autenticit"*Codo# vs Cal"a#Facts: 1espondents, Eugenia (aluga", 2osepine #alcedo and Eufemia &atigas, devisees and legatees in te olograpic .ill of te deceased )atilde #eno @da de 1amonal -led a petition for probate of te olograpic .ill of te deceased, claiming in te petition tat te deceased .as of sound and disposing mind .en se e/ecuted te .ill and tat no fraud or undue inGuence and duress .as emplo"ed in te person of te testator, and te .ill .as .ritten voluntaril"*&etitioners Eugenia (odo" and )anuel 1amonal -led an opposition to te probate stating tat te olograpic .ill .as a forger" and te same .as illegible, giving an impression tat a Itird andJ of an interested part" oter tan te Itrue andJ of )atilde #eKo @da* de 1amonal e/ecuted te olograpic .ill* $e respondents presented si/ .itnesses .it various documentar" evidence but all te : .itnesses tat te" presented onl" e/pressed familiarit" .it te deceasedDs signature but tere .as no mention of te fact tat te" .ere .itnesses during te e/ecution of te .ill* $e lo.er court denied te probatefor insuLcienc" of evidence and lac7 of merits* %o.ever, te (ourt Appeals, rel"ing on te #upreme (ourtDs previous ruling on ACaola vs #ingson ruling tat te re9uirement is merel" director" and not mandator", sustained te autenticit" of te olograpic .ill and allo.ed te probate* 0ssueM 4eter or not te provisions of Article ?11 of te (ivil (ode are permissive or mandator"*%eld* $e (ourt ruled tat it is mandator", stating tat te article provides, as a re9uirement for te probate of a contested olograpic .ill, tat at least tree .itnesses e/plicitl" declare tat te signature in te .ill is te genuine signature of te testator* $e .ord IsallJ connotes a mandator" order*$e (ourt ave ruled tat IsallJ in a statute commonl" denotes an imperative obligation and isinconsistent .it te idea of discretion and tat te presumption is tat te .ord Isall,J .en used ina statute is mandator"*J UY $IA% ENG vs N!&on LEEFacts: 1espondent Ni/on =ee -led a petition for mandamus .it damages against is moter !" Niao Eng, erein petitioner, before te 1$( of )anila to compel petitioner to produce te olograpic .ill of is fater so tat probate proceedings for te allo.ance tereof could be instituted* $e 1$( denied te petition but upon appeal $e (ourt of Appeals issued 4rit of )andamus and ordered te production ofte .ill* Isse: 4eter or not .rit mandamus can be used to compel te petitioner to produce of te original olograpic .ill* Held: NO* )andamus is not te proper remed", tus, te (ourt cannot sustain te (ADs issuance of te.rit* )andamus is a command issuing from a court of la. of competent Ourisdiction, in te name of testate or te sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person re9uiring te performance of a particular dut" terein speci-ed, .ic dut" results from te oLcial station of te part" to .om te .rit is directed or from operation of la.* $is de-nition recogniCes te public caracter of te remed", and clearl" e/cludes te idea tat it ma" be resorted to for te purpose of enforcing te performance of duties in .ic te public as no interest* ,enerall", mandamus .ill not lie to enforce purel" private contract rigts, and .ill not lie against an individual unless some obligation in te nature of a public or 9uasi3public dut" is imposed* )oreover, an important principle follo.ed in te issuance of te .rit is tat tere sould be no plain, speed" and ade9uate remed" in te ordinar" course of la. oter tan te remed" of mandamus being invo7ed* 0n oter .ords, mandamus can be issued onl" in cases .ere te usual modes of procedure and forms of remed" are po.erless to a;ord relief* 0n te instant case, te (ourt, .itout unnecessaril" ascertaining .eter te obligation involved erePte production of te original olograpic .illPis in te nature of a public or a private dut", rules tat te remed" of mandamus cannot be availed of b" respondent =ee because tere lies anoter plain, speed" and ade9uate remed" in te ordinar" course of la.* =et it be noted tat respondent as apotocop" of te .ill and tat e see7s te production of te original for purposes of probate* $e 1ules of (ourt, o.ever, does not prevent im from instituting probate proceedings for te allo.ance of te .ill .eter te same is in is possession or not*PALAGANAS vs PALAGANASFA($#M 1uperta (* &alaganas , a Filipino .o became a naturaliCed !nited #tates citiCen, died single and cildless*0n er last .ill and testament .ic se e/ecuted in (alifornia, se designated er broter, #ergio (* &alaganas, as te e/ecutor of er .ill for se ad left properties in te &ilippines and in te !*#* 1espondent Ernesto (* &alaganas , anoterbroter of 1uperta, -led .it te 1egional $rial (ourt of )alolos, 'ulacan, a petition for te probate of 1upertaDs .ill and for is appointment as special administrator of er estate* %o.ever, petitioners )anuel )iguel &alaganas and 'enOamin ,regorio &alaganas , nepe.s of 1uperta, opposed te petition on te ground tat 1upertaDs .ill sould not be probated in te &ilippines but in te !*#* .ere se e/ecuted it* Adding tat, assuming 1upertaDs .ill could be probated in te &ilippines, it is invalid noneteless for aving been e/ecuted under duress and .itout te testatorDs full understanding of te conse9uences of suc act, and tat Ernesto is not 9uali-ed to act as administrator of te estate*ISSUE: 4eter or not a .ill e/ecuted b" a foreigner abroad ma" be probated in te &ilippines altoug it as not been previousl" probated and allo.ed in te countr" .ere it .as e/ecuted*HELD: NO* $e (ourt 1uled tat, 8Our la.s do not proibit te probate of .ills e/ecuted b" foreigners abroad altoug te same ave not as "et been probated and allo.ed in te countries of teir e/ecution* A foreign .ill can be given legal e;ects in our Ourisdiction* Article ?1: of te (ivil (ode states tat te .ill of an alien .o is abroad produces e;ect in te &ilippines if made in accordance .it te formalities prescribed b" te la. of te place .ere e resides, or according to te formalitiesobserved in is countr"*0n tis connection, #ection 1, 1ule +Q of te 199+ 1ules of (ivil &rocedure provides tat if te decedent is an inabitant of a foreign countr", te 1$( of te province .ere e as an estate ma" ta7e cogniCance of te settlement of suc estate* #ections 1 and 2 of 1ule +: furter state tat te e/ecutor, devisee, or legatee named in te .ill, or an" oter person interested in te estate, ma", at an" time after te deat of te testator, petition te court aving Ourisdiction to ave te .ill allo.ed, .eter te same be in is possession or not, or is lost or destro"ed*Gallanosa v. Arcan"elFacts: Florentino ,allanosa e/ecuted a .ill in 19Q? .en e .as ?0 "ears old* %e o.ned :1 parcels of and at tat time* %e died in 19Q9 cildless and survived b" is broter =eon* 0n is .ill, e be9ueted is 162 sare of te conOugal estate to is second .ife $ecla and if se predecease im Eas .at occurredF, te said sare sall be assigned to te spouses ,allanosa E&edro R (oraConF* &edro is $eclaHs son b" er 1st marriage* %e also gave Q parcels of land to Adolfo, is protege*$e said .ill .as admitted to probate .it ,allanosa as e/ecutor* 0n 1952, tOe legal eirs -led an action for te recover" of said :1 parcels of land* $e action .as dismissed on te ground of res Oudicata* $en, 2? "ears after probate, anoter acton agaisnt ,allanosa for annulment of te .ill, recover" of te lands alleging fraud and deceit, .as -led* As a result, te lo.er court set aide te 19Q9decree of probate*Isse: 4eter or not a .ill .ic as been probated ma" still be annulledRULING: No* A -nal decree of probate is conclusive as to te due e/ecution of te .ill* Aue e/ecution means tat te testator .as of sound and disposing mind at te time of te e/ecution and tat e .as not acting under duress, menace, fraud or undue inGuence* Finall", tat it .as e/ecuted in accordance .it te formalities provided b" la.*$e period for see7ing relief under 1ule Q? as alread" e/pired, ence te Oudgment ma" onl" be set aside on te grounds of, 1F lac7 of Ourisdiction or lac7 of due process of la., and 2F te Oudgment .as obtained b" means of e/trinsic collateral fraud E.ic must be -led .itin < "ears from te discover"F*Finall", Art* 1 and tat te signature of te testatri/ .as obtained troug fraud*&robate court upeld te due e/ecution of te .ill and appointed Andres &ascual as e/ecutor and administrator of te estate, as provided in te .ill, .itout bond* Oppositors appealed to #( directl" Evalue of properties involved more tan &Q007FAela (ruC et al* claimM lo.er court erred in giving credence to te testimonies of te subscribing .itnesses and te notar" tat te .ill .as dul" e/ecuted, not.itstanding te e/istence of inconsistencies and contradictions in te testimonies, and in disregarding teir evidence tat te .ill .as not signed b" all te .itnesses in te presence of one anoter(F0Ds responseM alleged contradictions and inconsistencies .ere not substantial in nature suLcient to discredit te entire testimon" on te due e/ecution of te .ill* &lus lapse of ? "ears from e/ecution of te .ill to te testimon" in court* $ere is unanimit" and certaint" in teir testimon" regarding te identit" of te signatures of te testatri/, te attesting .itnesses, and te Notar" &ublic, and te fact tat te" .ere all present at te time tose signatures .ere aL/ed on te documentISSUES:1* 4eter or not te contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out b" Aela (ruC .ere substantial as to discredit te entire testimon" of te subscribing .itnesses2* 4eter or not te e/ecution of te .ill .as tainted b" fraud and undue inGuenceHELD:1* NO* For te purpose of determining te due e/ecution of a .ill, it is not necessar" tat te instrumental .itnesses sould give an accurate and detailed account of te proceeding, suc as recalling te order of te signing of te document b" te said .itnesses* 0t is suLcient tat te" ave seen or at least .ere so situated at te moment tat te" could ave seen eac oter sign, ad te" .anted to do so* $e contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in te testimonies of te .itnesses and te notar", pointed out b" te oppositors3appellants Esuc as te .eater condition at te time te .ill .as e/ecuted> te se9uence of te signing b" te .itnesses> and te lengt of time it too7 to complete te actF, relate to unimportant details of te impressions of te .itnesses about certain details .ic could ave been a;ected b" te lapse of time and te treacer" of uman memor", and .ic inconsistencies, b" temselves, .ould not alter te probative value of teir testimonies on te due e/ecution of te .ill2* NO* $o be suLcient to avoid a .ill, te inGuence e/erted must be of a 7ind tat so overpo.ers and subOugates te mind of te testator as to destro" is free agenc" and ma7e im e/press te .ill of anoter rater tan is o.n> tat te contention tat a .ill .as obtained b" undue inGuence or improper pressure cannot be sustained on mere conOecture or suspicion, as it is enoug tat tere .as opportunit" to e/ercise undue inGuence, or a possibilit" tat it ma" ave been e/ercised> tat te e/ercise of improper pressure and undue inGuence must be supported b" substantial evidence tat it .as actuall" e/ercised> tat te burden is on te person callenging te .ill to so. tat suc inGuence .as e/erted at te time of its e/ecution> tat mere general or reasonable inGuence is not suLcient to invalidate a .ill> nor is moderate and reasonable solicitation and entreat" addressed to te testator> or omission of relatives, not forced eirs, evidence of undue inGuenceR%SALES v. R%SALESFACTS: &etra 1osales died intestate* #e .as survived b" er usband Fortunato and teir 2 cildren )agna and Antonio* Anoter cild, (arterio, predeceased er, leaving beind a cild, )aci7e9uero/, and is .ido. 0renea, te petitioner* $e estate of te deceased as an estimated gross value of about&Q0,000* 0n te intestate proceedings, te trial court issued an Order declaring te follo.ing individualste legal eirs of te deceased and prescribing teir respective sare of te estateM Fortunato EusbandF, 16 )agna EdaugterF, 16 )aci7e9uero/ EgrandsonF, 16 and Antonio EsonF, 16 and second, it is te return to te ereditar" estate of propert" disposed of b" lucrative title b" te testator during is lifetime* $e purposes of collation are to secure e9ualit" among te compulsor" eirs in so far as is possible, and to determine te free portion, after -nding te legitime, so tat inoLcious donations ma" be reduced* (ollation ta7es place .en tere are compulsor" eirs, one of itspurposes being to determine te legitime and te free portion* 0f tere is no compulsor" eir, tere is no legitime to be safeguarded* $e decedent not aving left an" compulsor" eir .o is entitled to an"legitime, e .as at libert" to donate all is properties, even if noting .as left for is siblings3collateralrelatives to inerit* %is donation to petitioner, assuming tat it .as valid, is deemed as donation made to a Istranger,J cargeable against te free portion of te estate* $ere being no compulsor" eir, o.ever, te donated propert" is not subOect to collation* DI*IN+RI)ER% vs RI)ER% FACTS:$etestatri/, Agripina@aldeC, a.ido., diedand.assurvivedb"+compulsor"eirsM :legitimate cildren and a legitimate granddaugter* #i/ of te + compulsor" eirs are te oppositors3appellants* $e remaining 16+ is )arina, te e/ecutri/3appelle* 0n er .ill, @aldeC Icommanded tat erpropert"bedividedJinaccordance.iter testamentar"disposition, .ereb"sedevisedandbe9ueated speci-c real properties comprising practicall" te entire bul7 of er estate among er si/cildren and eigt grandcildren* $e e/ecutri/ -led er proOect of partitionM $e e/ecutri/ -led erproOect of partition dated Februar" 5, 19: tetestator,o.ever, stated in clause tree of is .ill, tat in case e as a dul" registered successor, is cild.ould be is sole and universal eir> but tat if, as .ould probabl" be te case, tere sould be nosuc eir, ten in clause four e named is said fater Francisco Escuin, and is .ife )aria $eresa&once de =eon and is universal eirs, te" to divide te estate in e9ual sares bet.een tem*$e testator died on te 20t of 2anuar", 1?99!ponte.ill avingbeenadmittedtoprobate, commissioners.ereappointedtoconsiderclaimsagainst te estateOn te 10t and 12t of 2ul" 190+, te attorne" for te .ido., &once de =eon, and te attorne"s .orepresented te guardian to te minor, Emilio Escuin " 'atac, appealed to te (ourt of First 0nstancefrom te -ndings of te aforesaid commissioners*0t appears in te proposed partition tat, according to te opinion of te administrator b" .om it .assignedinteresult of teproceedings, tepropert"left b"teestator, inaccordance.itteaccounts passed upon b" te court, amounted to &?,2:?*02Fromsaid sumte follo.ing must be deducted te credit alluded to be admitted b" tecommissioners,10T remuneration dueto te administrator, all legal e/penses paidandapproved*Aeducting te abovementioned amounts, tere remains a balance of &5,01 tat te said minor, aste onl" natural son of te same is is general eir> tat it be eld tat te said testator ad died.itout eiter la.ful ascendants or descendants> tat te designation of eirs made under is above3mentioned .ill be declared null and void> and tat te defendants be sentenced to pa" te costs incase te" did not conform to te complaint, .it an" furter remed" tat te court migt consider Oustand e9uitable*$e administrator, 1icardo #ummers, in ans.er to te complaint denied all and ever" one of te factsalleged in all and ever" one of its paragraps*$e court belo. found tat Escuin " 'atac .as te recogniCed natural cild of te late Emilio Escuin delos #antos, ad b" 2ulia 'atac> tat te testator .as also te natural son of te defendant FranciscoEscuin and Eugenia de los #antos, and .as recogniCed b" is fater> and tat te plainti; minor, EmilioEscuin " 'atac, is one of te eirs of te late testator*'" an order of te lo.er court, te Oudge e/pressed an opinion tat a natural cild is onl" entitled toone3fourt of te ereditar" propert", te clause in te .ill being annulled onl" in so far as te amountto be divided sould be reduced, ta7ing into account te sare due to te natural son and te rigt ofte fater and te .ido. of te testator, eac to one3alf of te remainder of te propert" of teestate*ISSUES:1* 4eter or not tere .as preterition2* 4eter or not te testator could be considered to ave died intestateHELD:1* YE#$ere is preterition to 16Q of te estate, .ic amount constitutes te legal portion of a natural cild>andfor te reason tat mino9r .as ignored in te .ill, te designation of eirs made terein .as, as amatter of factannulledb" force ofla., insofar as te legalportion of te said minor .as tereb"impaired* =egacies, and betterments sall be valid, insofar as te" are not illegal, for te reason tat atestator cannot deprive te eirs of teir legal portions, e/press in te cases e/pressl" indicated b"la.*2* NONot.itstanding te fact tat te said designation of eirs .as annulled and tat te la. recogniCeste title of te minor, Escuin " 'atac, to one3tird of te propert" of is natural fater, as is la.ful andgeneral eir, it is not proper to assert tat te late Emilio Escuin de los #antos died intestate in orderto establis te conclusion tat is said natural recogniCed cild is entitled to succeed to te entireestate under te provisions of article 9Q9 of te (ivil (ode, inasmuc in accordance .it te la. acitiCen ma" die partl" testate and partl" intestate Eart* +:EQF )ercedes All of te appellants are te relatives of te postumous son .itin te tird degree* %ence, te" are entiled as reservatarios to te propert" .ic came from te common ancestors*PADURA v (ALD%)IN%FACTS:Agustin &adura contracted t.o marriages during is lifetime* 4it is -rst .ife ,ervacia =andig, e ad one cild, )anuel &adura* 4it te second .ife, 'enita ,aring, e ad t.o cildren, Fortunato and (andelaria &adura* Agustin died on Apr 2:, 190?, leaving a last .ill and testament, dul" probated, .erein e be9ueated is properties among is tree cildren and is surviving spouse, 'enita ,aring* Fortunato .as adOudicated four parcels of land* %e died unmarried on )a" 2?, 190?, .itout aving e/ecuted a .ill> and not aving an" issue, te parcels of land .ere inerited e/clusivel" b" is moter 'enita*'enita .as issued a $orrens (erti-cate of $itle in er name, subOect to te condition tat te properties.ere reservable in favor of relatives .itin te tird degree belonging to te line from .ic said propert" came*On Aug 2:, 19Q