Macam vs. Gatmaitan

The final probate of a will does not bar the subsequent probate of a codicil, provided the codicil complies with the statutory formalities for executing a will; nor does an interested party's failure to oppose the probate of the will bar her from opposing the probate of the codicil.

Leonarda Macam y Capili executed a will dated July 12, 1932 and a codicil dated February 17, 1933. Nicolasa Macam and Juana Gatmaitan were among the persons interested in her estate; Juana was a legatee instituted in the will. The governing statutory framework included Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which makes probate allowance necessary and conclusive as to due execution, and the Civil Code provisions on the revocability of wills.

Leonarda Macam y Capili executed a will dated July 12, 1932 and a codicil dated February 17, 1933. She died on March 18, 1933 in Calumpit, Bulacan. Nicolasa Macam filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for probate of both instruments and for her appointment as executrix without bond. Juana Gatmaitan was a legatee instituted in the will.

When the petition was called for hearing on April 24, 1933, the judge was absent. The clerk of court, upon the judge's instructions, took evidence relative to the probate of the will because no opposition had been filed. Because Juana Gatmaitan filed opposition to the probate of the codicil, the clerk deemed himself unauthorized to take evidence relative to the codicil and refrained from doing so. The will and the evidence for its probate were submitted to the court, and on April 28, 1933, vacation Judge M. Rosauro entered an order allowing the will and appointing Nicolasa Macam as executrix.

On July 6, 1933, after notice to the parties, the codicil was called for hearing. Juana Gatmaitan, one of the legatees instituted in the will already allowed by final and executory judgment, had filed opposition. After hearing counsel, Judge Francisco Enage entered an order dismissing the petition for probate of the codicil and the opposition thereto, without prejudice to whatever right Juana Gatmaitan might have in an appropriate proceeding before the committee on claims and appraisal. The order stated that the interested parties had neglected or abandoned their claims during the proceedings for probate of the will and that, the order allowing the will having become final and executory, it was too late to consider the codicil and the instrument from which Juana Gatmaitan derived her alleged right.

Both Nicolasa Macam and Juana Gatmaitan appealed from the order. The appeals raised the questions whether the final probate of the will barred probate of the codicil and whether failure to oppose the will barred presentation of the codicil for probate.

• Abandonment of Claims: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in holding that the parties had abandoned their respective claims during the proceedings for the probate of the will.
• Timeliness of Codicil Challenge: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in declaring that it was already too late to raise the question of the legal efficacy of the codicil executed by the deceased.
• Dismissal Without Evidence: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for the probate of the codicil before any of the parties had presented evidence pertinent to the matter.

• Duty to Oppose Will: Respondent/oppositor argued that the lower court erred in holding that, to preserve her rights to oppose the probate of the codicil, she had the duty to oppose the probate of the will, and that having opposed only the codicil she could no longer avail herself of the document in her favor so as to affect the testamentary dispositions of the deceased.
• Dismissal of Opposition: Respondent/oppositor argued that the lower court erred in dismissing her opposition to the probate of the alleged codicil.

• Effect of Final Probate of Will: Whether the probate of a will by final judgment prior to that of a codicil is a bar to the probate of the codicil.
• Effect of Failure to Oppose Will: Whether the failure to file opposition to the probate of a will constitutes a bar to the presentation of the codicil for probate.

• Effect of Final Probate of Will: No. The final probate of a will is not a bar to the subsequent probate of a codicil, provided the codicil complies with the formalities required for executing a will under Section 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 1934.
• Effect of Failure to Oppose Will: No. Failure to oppose the probate of a will does not constitute abandonment of a right or bar an interested party from opposing the probate of the codicil.

• Effect of Final Probate of Will: Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no will shall pass real or personal estate unless proved and allowed in the Court of First Instance or by appeal to the Supreme Court, and that allowance is conclusive as to due execution. The Court explained that probate is conclusive as to due execution and testamentary capacity but not as to the validity of the will's provisions; probate courts lack jurisdiction to determine questions concerning the validity of those provisions. A codicil is a written instrument by which one declares his last will to take from or add to the will or clarify its provisions, or an addition to or qualification of a will. Wills are essentially revocable under Article 737 of the Civil Code, subject to the formalities in Article 738. The final allowance of a will without opposition is not a bar to the presentation and probate of a codicil if the codicil complies with all necessary formalities for executing a will under Section 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 1934. The will and codicil need not be probated together; a codicil may be concealed and discovered after the will has been allowed, and they may be presented and probated one after the other. The purpose of probate is to determine extrinsic validity and compliance with statutory requirements, leaving the validity of provisions for further consideration. The lower court therefore erred in denying the petition on the ground that the codicil should have been presented at the same time as the will.
• Effect of Failure to Oppose Will: Failure to oppose the probate of the will does not prevent opposition to the probate of the codicil. The will may satisfy all external requisites for validity, but the codicil may not conform at the time of its execution. If the testator had testamentary capacity at the execution of the will and the will complied with all statutory requirements, opposition to its probate would not lie. If, however, at the execution of the codicil the testator lacked some subjective requisite legally capacitating him to execute it, or the statutory requirements were not complied with, opposition to the codicil would lie. The lower court therefore erred in dismissing Juana Gatmaitan's opposition.

• Probate Conclusive Only as to Due Execution and Testamentary Capacity — The allowance of a will is conclusive as to its due execution and the testator's testamentary capacity, but not as to the validity of its provisions; probate courts are without jurisdiction to determine questions concerning the validity of the will's provisions. The Court applied this to hold that the final probate of the will did not preclude later probate of the codicil.
• Separate Probate of a Codicil — A will and its codicil need not be probated together. The final probate of a will is not a bar to the presentation and probate of a codicil, provided the codicil complies with all the necessary formalities for executing a will required by Section 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 1934. A codicil may be concealed and discovered after the will has been allowed, and the instruments may be probated one after the other.
• Failure to Oppose Will Does Not Bar Opposition to Codicil — An interested party's failure to oppose the probate of a will does not constitute abandonment of a right and does not deprive her of the right to oppose the probate of the codicil. The will may satisfy external requisites, while the codicil may not conform at the time of its execution.
• Purpose of Probate Proceedings — Probate proceedings determine only whether the will and codicil meet the statutory requirements for extrinsic validity; the validity of their provisions is left for further consideration.
• Revocability of Wills — Wills are essentially revocable under Article 737 of the Civil Code, provided the partial or total revocation is made with the formalities required for making it under Article 738. A codicil is an addition to or qualification of a will and may take from or add to the will or clarify its provisions.

• "The fact that a will has been allowed without opposition and the order allowing the same has become final and executory is not a bar to the presentation and probate of a codicil, provided it complies with all the necessary formalities for executing a will required by section 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 1934." — This states the core rule allowing separate probate of a codicil despite a final will probate.
• "It is not necessary that the will and the codicil be probated together, as the codicil may be concealed by an interested party and it may not be discovered until after the will has already been allowed; and they may be presented and probated one after the other (40 Cyc., 1228), since the purpose of the probate proceedings is merely to determine whether or not the will and the codicil meet all the statutory requirements for their extrinsic validity, leaving the validity of their provisions for further consideration." — This defines the purpose of probate and explains why separate probate is permissible.
• "the fact that she failed to file opposition to the probate of the will does not prevent her from filing opposition to the probate of the codicil thereof, inasmuch as the will may satisfy all the external requisites necessary for its validity, but the codicil may, at the time of its execution, not be in conformity therewith." — This resolves the second issue, holding that failure to oppose the will does not bar opposition to the codicil.
• "In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so hold: (1) That the fact that a will has been probated and the order allowing the same has become final and executory is not a bar to the presentation and probate of a codicil, although its existence was known at the time of the probate of the will; (2) that the failure of the oppositor to the probate of a codicil to file opposition to the probate of the will, having knowledge of such proceedings, does not constitute an abandonment of a right, nor does it deprive her of the right to oppose the probate of said codicil." — This is the Court's formal holding on both issues.

• Castañeda vs. Alemany, 3 Phil. 426 — Cited in support of the doctrine that probate of a will is conclusive as to due execution and testamentary capacity but not as to the validity of its provisions.
• Pimentel vs. Palanca, 5 Phil. 436 — Cited for the same doctrine on the scope of probate.
• Limjuco vs. Ganara, 11 Phil. 393 — Cited for the same doctrine on the scope of probate.
• Austria vs. Ventenilla, 21 Phil. 180 — Cited for the same doctrine on the scope of probate.
• In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156 — Cited for the same doctrine on the scope of probate.
• Riera vs. Palmaroli, 40 Phil. 105 — Cited for the same doctrine on the scope of probate.

• Section 625, Code of Civil Procedure — Provides that no will shall pass real or personal estate unless proved and allowed in the Court of First Instance or by appeal to the Supreme Court, and that allowance by the court shall be conclusive as to due execution. The Court applied it to hold that the final allowance of the will did not bar the codicil's probate and that probate is conclusive only as to due execution.
• Section 614, Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Section 1 of Act No. 1934 — Sets the necessary formalities for executing a will. The Court held that a codicil may be probated separately provided it complies with these formalities.
• Article 737, Civil Code — Provides that wills are essentially revocable, provided the partial or total revocation is made with the formalities required for making it. The Court cited it to support the revocable nature of wills and the probate of a codicil.
• Article 738, Civil Code — Referenced as prescribing the formalities for revocation of wills. The Court noted that revocation must comply with Article 738.

Malcolm, Imperial, Butte and Goddard, JJ., concur.