Digests

The case challenges the long-standing interpretation of Article 992 of the Civil Code, known as the "iron curtain rule," which historically prohibited reciprocal intestate succession between the legitimate and illegitimate families of a parent. This rule was based on a presumption of animosity between the two lines. The petitioner, an illegitimate child of a legitimate son, sought to inherit from her grandfather, challenging the absolute bar imposed by Article 992 as discriminatory and contrary to modern constitutional and international standards on children's rights.

A nonmarital child can inherit from their direct ascendants (e.g., grandparent) by right of representation under Article 982 of the Civil Code, and Article 992's prohibition on intestate succession between legitimate and illegitimate families does not apply to bar this right of representation.

Alfonso Juan P. Olondriz, Sr. died, survived by his widow, legitimate children, and an illegitimate son. His surviving spouse and children sought intestate partition, but a claimant produced a will that named specific heirs but omitted the illegitimate son. The core dispute arose over whether the proceedings should continue as testate or shift to intestate due to the omission.

The preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line annuls the institution of heirs, and if the will contains no devises or legacies, results in total intestacy; a probate court may pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will when practical considerations demand it to avoid an idle ceremony.

Felicisima Udiaan died in 1972. In 1993, an impostor posing as Udiaan sold Udiaan's registered land to petitioner Andy Ang. After Ang took possession, Udiaan's grandchildren (respondents) demanded the land back, claiming the sale was void because Udiaan was already dead.

If plaintiffs are not real parties in interest, the proper judicial action is to dismiss the complaint; the court cannot proceed to resolve substantive issues or grant relief to non-parties.

The case involves a dispute over three parcels of land in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza. Upon Exequiel's death, the properties passed to his wife Leonor and only daughter Gregoria. After both died, Leonor's sister, Julia, adjudicated the properties to herself as the sole surviving heir. The descendants of Exequiel's brothers claimed the properties should return to the Mendoza line under the principle of reserva troncal.

Reserva troncal under Article 891 does not apply when the property holder is a collateral relative rather than an ascendant reservor, and the claimants are fourth-degree relatives (first cousins) rather than third-degree reservees.

The case involves the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Enrique S. Lopez, executed on August 10, 1996. The validity of the will is contested based on formal defects in the attestation clause, specifically the omission of the total number of pages and a discrepancy in the page count stated in the acknowledgment portion versus the actual document.

A will is invalid if its attestation clause totally omits the number of pages used, and a discrepancy between the stated number of pages in the acknowledgment and the actual number of pages cannot be remedied by substantial compliance under Art. 809 if it requires extrinsic evidence to explain.

Upon the death of Judge Dante Y. Romero in 1974, his widow Aurora was appointed legal guardian and administrator of his estate. Decades later, two of their sons discovered several Deeds of Sale registering purportedly conjugal properties in the name of their brother Vittorio, allegedly obtained through fraud and duress against their mother.

A probate court has provisional jurisdiction to determine ownership of properties and the validity of sales made by the estate administrator when all interested parties are heirs, and a separate civil action is barred by Section 3, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court if the properties are under administration.

The case involves the intestate estate of Angel N. Pascual Jr., who died leaving only his siblings as heirs. Before his death, he executed a Deed of Donation transferring a parcel of land to one of his siblings, Amelia. The dispute centers on whether this donated property must be brought back (collated) into the mass of the estate to equalize the shares of the surviving siblings.

Collation applies only when there are compulsory heirs; in the absence of compulsory heirs, a donation inter vivos made by the decedent is not subject to collation and is chargeable against the free portion of the estate.

Margarita S. Mayores died single and without ascending or descending heirs, survived only by collateral relatives (first cousins). She executed a notarial will bequeathing properties to her lifelong companion (respondent) and the companion's nephews, leaving nothing to her surviving first cousins.

A petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law; findings of fact by the CA are conclusive and binding on the SC. Furthermore, errors in the attestation clause regarding the number of pages do not invalidate a will if the pages are consecutively lettered and the will substantially complies with Article 805 of the Civil Code.

Decedent Margarita S. Mayores died single and without ascending or descending heirs, survived only by first cousins. Before her death, she executed a notarial will bequeathing properties to her lifelong companion (respondent) and respondent's relatives, and named respondent as sole executor. Petitioner, a surviving first cousin, contested the will's validity to claim the estate via intestate succession.

Findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the SC under Rule 45, unless specific exceptions apply.

A complainant filed a disciplinary complaint against a lawyer-notary public who notarized his deceased father's will, claiming the will was spurious, the witnesses' signatures were forged, and the notary blatantly disregarded the Notarial Law.

A notary public who fails to observe the mandatory formalities of notarization and will execution—such as allowing only two witnesses for a notarial will, failing to note the witnesses' residence certificates, and accepting an expired residence certificate from the testator—is guilty of professional misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

Siblings Bella A. Guerrero (petitioner) and Resurreccion A. Bihis (respondent) became embroiled a dispute over the estate of their deceased mother, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, specifically contesting the validity of the mother's last will and testament.

A notarial will acknowledged before a notary public acting outside his territorial jurisdiction is void for failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of Article 806 of the Civil Code.

Upon the death of Segundo Seangio, his heirs disputed the settlement of his estate. Some heirs sought intestate proceedings, while others presented a handwritten document by Segundo that explicitly disinherited his eldest son. The conflict centered on whether this document qualified as a will and whether the omission of other heirs constituted preterition, which would render the will intrinsically void and unworthy of probate.

A document containing only a disinheritance of a compulsory heir, without any institution of an heir, qualifies as a valid holographic will because disinheritance is an act of disposition mortis causa, and preterition does not apply when no heir is instituted.

Dispute between half-blood siblings over a 39-square meter lot in Manila registered in their deceased father's name. The father had executed two conflicting documents transferring the property to the petitioner: a deed of donation and a deed of absolute sale.

A donation is inofficious if it exceeds the portion the donor could freely dispose of by will and impairs the legitime of compulsory heirs; the 10-year prescriptive period to file an action for reduction of inofficious donations accrues from the death of the donor.

Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died intestate, leaving properties across several cities. He was survived by his legal wife and seven children (respondents), as well as his paramour and their three children (petitioners). The paramour's side executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate properties and mortgaged them, prompting the legal family to seek annulment of the settlement and the appointment of an administrator.

Heirs have legal standing to bring suit to recover property of the decedent's estate even after administration proceedings have commenced, provided no administrator has been appointed yet.

Parents sold several parcels of land to some of their children. The other children, feeling deprived of their future inheritance, filed a suit to nullify the sales and the resulting titles, arguing that the sales were simulated, lacked consideration, were grossly underpriced, and were designed to defraud them of their legitime.

Compulsory heirs have no legal standing to assail the contracts of sale executed by their living parents because their right to the legitime is merely inchoate and vests only upon the parents' death.

Descendants of Spouses Agatona Guevarra and Ciriaco Lopez dispute the ownership of a 152-square meter unregistered parcel of land in Las Piñas. Most of the descendants compromised and agreed to partition, but the Jumaquio sisters refused, asserting absolute ownership over their occupied portions based on a deed of sale executed by their grandmother, Justina Navarro, in favor of their mother.

A party claiming co-ownership to demand partition bears the burden of proving such co-ownership by preponderance of evidence, and a notarized deed of sale constitutes prima facie evidence of authenticity that cannot be overcome without clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence.

Dr. Arturo de Santos, having no compulsory heirs, executed a will naming the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc. as his sole legatee and devisee, and Pacita de los Reyes Phillips as his executrix. He petitioned the RTC to allow his will during his lifetime, which the court granted. Shortly after, he died, prompting the executrix to seek letters testamentary and the testator's nephew to attempt to intervene in the estate proceedings.

A probate proceeding initiated by a living testator terminates upon the allowance of the will; a subsequent petition for letters testamentary is a distinct action and does not constitute forum shopping. A collateral relative who is not a compulsory heir has no legal interest to intervene in the settlement of a testate estate where the will disposes of all properties.

Private respondents are the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes. Aniceta died in 1969 without her estate being settled. After Alejandro’s death, petitioner, claiming to have cared for him and to be his wife, filed a special proceeding for the probate of his last will and testament.

A final and executory order declaring a will intrinsically void can no longer be disturbed or reopened by a lower court, and the estate must be distributed via intestate succession.

The case involves the probate of a holographic will executed by Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal. Upon her death, respondents (devisees and legatees) sought to probate the will. Petitioners (the decedent's legally adopted children) opposed the probate, alleging the will was a forgery, illegible, and procured through undue influence and fraud.

The requirement in Article 811 of the Civil Code that at least three witnesses must explicitly declare the authenticity of a contested holographic will is mandatory, not permissive.

Lourdes Sampayo and Ignacio Conti (married to Rosario Cuario) were co-owners of a 539-square meter lot with a house in Lucena City. Lourdes died intestate and without issue in 1986. Her collateral relatives (siblings, nieces, nephews) sought to partition her half of the property. The Conti spouses resisted, claiming Lourdes had informally agreed to leave her share to them and challenging the respondents' status as heirs.

A prior settlement of the estate is not essential before heirs can commence an action for partition originally pertaining to the deceased co-owner, and baptismal certificates are admissible as proof of filiation by analogy to the Family Code, particularly when treated as entries in the course of business and corroborated by other evidence.

The case arises from the settlement of Rafael Nicolas's estate, complicated by the tragic deaths of his daughter Estrellita and her two daughters (the Vizconde massacre) which preceded Rafael's own death. The core dispute involves whether properties Estrellita acquired during her lifetime—specifically a property bought from Rafael and another bought from a third party using the sale proceeds—should be brought back into Rafael's estate for collation to protect the legitimes of Rafael's other heirs.

A probate court's determination of property ownership is provisional and cannot definitively resolve whether a transfer was gratuitous or for valuable consideration; furthermore, a surviving son-in-law is a stranger to his father-in-law's estate and cannot be compelled to collate properties that were not gratuitously given by the decedent.

The case involves the settlement of the estate of Annie Sand, who died on November 25, 1982, leaving behind a holographic will. The will named several devisees, including the petitioners and the private respondent. Disputes arose regarding the proper execution of the will and the testatrix's capacity to dispose of certain properties, specifically a house and lot in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte.

Non-compliance with Arts. 813 and 814 of the Civil Code does not invalidate the entire holographic will for probate; only the requirements of Art. 810 (entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator) are essential for its probate.

Brigido Alvarado, suffering from glaucoma, executed a notarial will and a subsequent codicil disinheriting his illegitimate son. Because of his poor eyesight, he did not read the documents himself; instead, his lawyer read them aloud. The disinherited son opposed probate, citing failure to comply with the formal requirements for blind testators.

A testator who is incapable of reading the will due to poor, defective, or blurred vision falls under the term "blind" in Art. 808, but substantial compliance with the double-reading requirement suffices if the purpose of making the contents known to the testator is achieved.

Mateo Caballero, a widower without children, executed a notarial will in 1978, leaving his properties to several non-relatives. He personally filed a petition for the probate of his will but died before the hearing could take place. His nephews and nieces, who would inherit intestate, opposed the probate and initiated separate intestate proceedings.

An attestation clause that omits the statement that the attesting witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another is fatally defective and cannot be cured by the substantial compliance rule under Article 809 of the Civil Code.

A father died in 1955, leaving an unliquidated estate consisting of valuable parcels of land. In 1977, his surviving spouse lost a civil case for rescission and damages and was ordered to pay P70,000. To satisfy this personal debt, the sheriff levied and sold at auction the entire estate properties—disregarding the co-ownership rights of the deceased's children.

Only the proportionate share of a debtor in a co-owned estate can be levied and sold on execution; the legitimes of compulsory heirs belong to them by their own right from the moment of the decedent's death and cannot be touched by the surviving spouse's personal creditors.

The case involves a dispute over the estate of Maria Lizares y Alunan, specifically 1/3 of 1/14 of Hda. Minuluan, which she willed to her niece Eustaquia Lizares. The will contained a substitution clause directing the property to go to Maria's brother if Eustaquia died single or without descendants. When Eustaquia died single years later, Maria's sisters claimed the property as substitute heirs, setting off a procedural battle over whether they could challenge the final probate decree in a separate civil suit.

A final decree of distribution in a probate proceeding vests title in the distributees and bars subsequent independent actions for reconveyance of the same properties under the principle of res judicata.

Getulio Locsin's estate was divided among his children, including Mariano. Mariano married Catalina Jaucian; they had no children. Being childless, the spouses allegedly agreed their properties would revert to their respective families after both died. Mariano died in 1948, leaving his entire estate to Catalina. Over the next decades, Catalina systematically transferred Mariano's properties to his Locsin relatives and her own properties to her Jaucian relatives.

Property validly disposed of by a decedent during their lifetime does not form part of their hereditary estate and cannot be impugned by collateral relatives who are not compulsory heirs.

Reserva troncal under Article 891 of the Civil Code requires an ascendant who inherits from a descendant property that the latter acquired gratuitously from another ascendant or sibling to reserve such property for relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. This case involves the sale of such reserved property by the reservor to third parties and the subsequent attempt of the reservees to recover the property after the reservor's death.

The reservor in a reserva troncal has the duty to annotate the reservable character of the property on the title, and a registered affidavit of self-adjudication stating the property was inherited from a descendant constitutes constructive notice to third parties, defeating a claim of innocent purchaser for value.

Dispute over the paraphernal property of Manuela Buenavista involving her six children and conflicting transfers of ownership, pitting earlier sales of individual shares against a later sale of the entire property and a subsequent last will and testament.

A parent may validly partition their estate by act inter vivos under Art. 1080 of the Civil Code, and such partition need not be in the form of a will; once property is assigned and shares transferred with the parent's consent, the parties are estopped from repudiating the partition.

A wealthy resident of Mabalacat, Pampanga named Venancio Rivera died on May 30, 1975. Two individuals laid claim to his estate: Jose Rivera, who claimed to be the sole legitimate son from a marriage to Maria Vital, and Adelaido J. Rivera, who claimed to be a legitimate child from a marriage to Maria Jocson and who presented two holographic wills left by the decedent.

A person who is not an heir or otherwise interested in an estate has no legal personality to contest a holographic will; consequently, their opposition does not require the presentation of three attesting witnesses under Article 811 of the Civil Code.

Esteban Javellana Jr., a novelist, died intestate and without descendants, ascendants, or siblings. His estate consisted entirely of properties inherited from his mother, Salustia. His nearest surviving relatives were his maternal aunt, Celedonia, and his paternal aunt, Concordia. During his lifetime, Esteban planned to place his estate in a foundation to honor his mother and fund scholarships, but died before executing it.

A separate action for partition or declaration of heirship cannot be filed while probate proceedings are still pending in a co-equal court; reserva troncal does not apply when the propositus is the descendant who inherited from an ascendant; and a judicial admission to contribute one's share to a foundation binds the heir to convey their share to that foundation.

Manuel Bautista owned a parcel of land inherited from his father. Upon the death of his first wife, her heirs executed an extrajudicial partition of her estate, which improperly included Manuel's exclusive property, effectively divesting him of ownership and prejudicing his daughter from a second marriage.

An extrajudicial partition is void ab initio if it includes property that does not belong to the decedent's estate, as this constitutes an illegal partition of future inheritance and deprives the lawful owner and their compulsory heirs of property without due process.

Adriana Maloto died leaving behind nieces and nephews as heirs. Initially believing she left no will, the heirs extrajudicially divided her estate. Years later, a will surfaced that disproportionately favored certain heirs and included legacies to third parties, prompting a legal battle over its validity and revocation.

A will is not revoked unless the physical act of destruction is coupled with animus revocandi and executed by the testator, or by another in the testator's presence and under their express direction; an intestate proceeding does not bar a subsequent probate proceeding due to lack of identity of cause of action.

The case involves the probate of a will that instituted universal heirs while completely omitting the testator's surviving spouse and legally adopted daughter, raising the issue of whether such omission constitutes preterition and how it affects the probate proceedings and the standing of the named heirs.

Preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line (such as a legally adopted child) annuls the institution of universal heirs and results in total intestacy, divesting the instituted heirs of legal standing to petition for the probate of the will.

When a compulsory heir succeeds with other compulsory heirs, they must bring into the estate mass any property received from the decedent by gratuitous title to compute legitimes and partition. An exception exists if the donor expressly prohibits collation. This case addresses what qualifies as an "express prohibition" in a deed of donation.

For a donation to be exempt from collation under Article 1062 of the Civil Code, the donor must expressly prohibit it; describing the donation as irrevocable or imputing it to the free portion does not constitute an express prohibition.

Vito Borromeo, a wealthy widower without forced heirs, died in 1952. A will was submitted for probate but was declared a forgery and disallowed. The proceedings converted to intestate, prompting multiple relatives to file claims asserting their heirship.

A waiver of hereditary rights requires a clear and convincing intention to relinquish such right; subsequent acts of the heirs contradicting the waiver render it ineffective. Additionally, attorney's fees of lawyers individually hired by heirs cannot be charged against the estate but must be paid by the hiring heirs.

The case involves a hereditary conflict concerning the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, who died in 1976. Her legitimate son, Pablo, predeceased her in 1973, leaving behind six illegitimate children. Because Pablo was already dead, the question of who would inherit Simona's estate pitted Simona's legitimate niece against Pablo's illegitimate children.

Illegitimate children cannot represent their deceased legitimate parent in the intestate estate of their legitimate grandparent because Article 992 of the Civil Code absolutely bars succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of their father or mother.

The case involves the interpretation of the right of legal redemption among co-heirs under the Civil Code, specifically the necessity and nature of the notice required to toll the 30-day prescriptive period. It highlights the tension between the strict letter of the law (requiring written notice) and the spirit of the law (ensuring redemptioners are informed), especially when a party uses a procedural technicality to revive an expired right.

Actual notice of the sale of hereditary rights to a stranger satisfies the written notice requirement of Article 1088 of the Civil Code when the co-heirs' knowledge is undeniable and the redemption period has long expired, preventing them from using the lack of written notice to unjustly delay redemption.

The case involves the settlement of the intestate estate of Petra V. Rosales, who died survived by her husband, two children, and a grandson (the child of a third son who predeceased her). The widow of the predeceased son claimed a share in the estate, asserting her status as a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law.

A surviving spouse is not an intestate heir of his or her parent-in-law, neither by own right nor by right of representation.

Martin Jugo was legally married to Rufina Gomez but had been estranged from her since 1952. From 1952 until his death in 1974, he lived with petitioner Sofia Nepomuceno as husband and wife. He even contracted a second marriage with Nepomuceno in 1952 while his first marriage remained subsisting. In his last will and testament, Jugo explicitly admitted his prior marriage, his legitimate children, and his concubinage with Nepomuceno, devising his entire estate to his legal family and the free portion to Nepomuceno.

Probate courts have the jurisdiction to pass upon the intrinsic validity of a will when practical considerations demand it, such as when the will's provisions are patently void on their face.

The death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus led to the settlement of their estate. A document purporting to be Bibiana's holographic will was submitted for probate, but an oppositor challenged its validity based on a defect in the date's completeness, prompting the lower court to strictly apply the formal requirements for holographic wills.

A holographic will bearing an incomplete date (e.g., month and year only) may be admitted to probate under the principle of substantial compliance if there is no evidence of fraud, bad faith, undue influence, or competing wills.

The case involves the probate of a holographic will executed by Natividad K. Kalaw, where the testatrix altered the dispositive provision to change her sole heir from her sister (Rosa) to her brother (Gregorio) without complying with the statutory requirement of authenticating the changes with her full signature.

When the sole substantial provision of a holographic will is altered without the required authentication by the testator's full signature, the entire will is voided because no valid provision remains; the original unaltered text cannot be given effect as doing so would disregard the testator's change of mind.

Adoracion C. Campos, a citizen and permanent resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., died while temporarily visiting her sister in Manila. She left a will executed in Pennsylvania, which was already probated there. Because she left properties in the Philippines, her sister sought the will's reprobate in a Philippine court to administer the local estate. Hermogenes Campos, Adoracion's father and sole compulsory heir under Philippine law, initially opposed the reprobate claiming forgery and nullity of the will's intrinsic provisions, but later executed a waiver and withdrew his opposition.

The intrinsic validity of a foreign national's will and the amount of successional rights are governed by the decedent's national law, which prevails over Philippine public policy on legitimes.

Edward M. Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died leaving two wills (one for his Philippine estate, one for extraterritorial estate) favoring his second wife and their children, while giving legitimes to his children from a first marriage. The wills were probated in Utah based on a compromise agreement among all heirs. Concurrently, a daughter from the first marriage initiated an intestate proceeding in Manila, which resulted in a partition of the estate that completely ignored the will. The second wife and her children subsequently sought to probate the will in the Philippines and annul the intestate partition.

Probate of a will is mandatory; a decedent's estate must be settled in a testate proceeding if they left a will, and any pending intestate proceeding must be consolidated with the testate proceeding.

Dr. Meliton Solano had children out of wedlock with different women during his lifetime. The Garcias were born to Juana Garcia while Solano was a widower. Zonia was born to Trinidad Tuagnon while Solano was still married to his second wife, Lilly Gorand. Solano obtained a divorce from Gorand in 1943, and subsequently executed a notarial document acknowledging Zonia as his "natural child." In 1969, he executed a will instituting Zonia as his universal heir and giving a usufruct to Trinidad. The Garcias filed an action for recognition, which eventually expanded into a contest over Zonia's status and hereditary rights.

Preterition of compulsory heirs annuls the institution of heir only insofar as it impairs the legitime of the omitted heirs; specific legacies and bequests in the will remain valid if not inofficious.

Francisca Reyes died intestate in 1942, survived by two daughters (Maria and Silvestra Cailles) and a grandson (Sotero Leonardo, son of her predeceased daughter Pascuala). Sotero died in 1944, and Silvestra died without issue in 1949. Petitioner claimed to be Sotero's son, asserting rights over properties left by Francisca, which were then in the possession of Maria Cailles.

Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are generally final and conclusive upon the SC in a petition for review on certiorari. Furthermore, an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of their parent under Article 992 of the Civil Code, precluding succession by right of representation.

Ricardo B. Bonilla died on May 13, 1976. He allegedly executed a holographic will on January 25, 1962. The original will could not be found after his death, prompting the petitioner to seek probate based on a photostatic copy.

A lost or destroyed holographic will may be probated by presenting a photostatic or xerox copy, as the copy allows the probate court to compare the testator's handwriting with standard writings to verify authenticity.

Probate proceedings for the last will of Dorotea Perez. The will was written in Cebuano-Visayan and consisted of two pages, but the placement of signatures and the contents of the attestation clause deviated from the strict literal requirements of the Civil Code, prompting the trial court to deny probate.

A notarial will is valid despite the attesting witnesses signing on the left margin instead of at the end, and despite the attestation clause omitting the number of pages, provided the purpose of the law (identification and prevention of fraud) is substantially complied with and the defect can be supplied by examining the will itself.

The case involves the conflict between testate and intestate succession following the death of Clemencia Aseneta, who left a holographic will explicitly favoring a non-relative (Soledad Maninang) and expressing negative sentiments toward her adopted son (Bernardo Aseneta), who then initiated intestate proceedings claiming preterition.

A probate court acts in excess of its jurisdiction when it dismisses a petition for probate based on the intrinsic validity of the will before ruling on its extrinsic validity.

Marcelina Salvador Suroza, an illiterate widow of a U.S. Army veteran, accumulated cash and property. Upon her death, a will surfaced bequeathing her entire estate to Marilyn Sy, a child raised as her granddaughter but who was not legally adopted by Marcelina's son, Agapito. Agapito's wife, Nenita, acting as his guardian, opposed the probate, arguing the will was forged, void for being in English, and that it illegally preterited Agapito.

A judge is administratively liable for inefficiency and inexcusable negligence for probating a will that is void on its face, specifically one written in a language unknown to the illiterate testatrix, in violation of Article 804 of the Civil Code.