Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    MOLO VS. MOLO (1951) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Gabrielle Dayao
    Mariano Molo died in 1941 without any legal heirs. He left two wills from 1918 and 1939. His widow sought to probate the 1939 will but it was denied for not following legal procedures. She then sought to probate the 1918 will but the deceased's nieces and nephew opposed it. The court held that (1) the 1918 will was not revoked by the 1939 will since the latter was invalid, and (2) the 1918 will could still be admitted under the legal principle of dependent relative revocation since the testator likely destroyed the earlier will thinking the later one would take effect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MOLO VS. MOLO (1951) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Gabrielle Dayao
    16 views1 page
    Mariano Molo died in 1941 without any legal heirs. He left two wills from 1918 and 1939. His widow sought to probate the 1939 will but it was denied for not following legal procedures. She then sought to probate the 1918 will but the deceased's nieces and nephew opposed it. The court held that (1) the 1918 will was not revoked by the 1939 will since the latter was invalid, and (2) the 1918 will could still be admitted under the legal principle of dependent relative revocation since the testator likely destroyed the earlier will thinking the later one would take effect.

    Original Description:

    Succession Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation

    Original Title

    Molo v. Molo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mariano Molo died in 1941 without any legal heirs. He left two wills from 1918 and 1939. His widow sought to probate the 1939 will but it was denied for not following legal procedures. She then sought to probate the 1918 will but the deceased's nieces and nephew opposed it. The court held that (1) the 1918 will was not revoked by the 1939 will since the latter was invalid, and (2) the 1918 will could still be admitted under the legal principle of dependent relative revocation since the testator likely destroyed the earlier will thinking the later one would take effect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views1 page

    MOLO VS. MOLO (1951) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Gabrielle Dayao
    Mariano Molo died in 1941 without any legal heirs. He left two wills from 1918 and 1939. His widow sought to probate the 1939 will but it was denied for not following legal procedures. She then sought to probate the 1918 will but the deceased's nieces and nephew opposed it. The court held that (1) the 1918 will was not revoked by the 1939 will since the latter was invalid, and (2) the 1918 will could still be admitted under the legal principle of dependent relative revocation since the testator likely destroyed the earlier will thinking the later one would take effect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MOLO VS.

    MOLO (1951)
    FACTS:
    Mariano Molo died on January 24, 1941 without leaving any forced heir either in the descending or ascending line. He was survived, however, by
    his wife, the herein petitioner Juana Juan Vda. de Molo, and by his nieces and nephew, the oppositors-appellants, Luz Gliceria and Cornelio, all
    surnamed Molo, who were the legitimate children of Candido Molo y Legaspi, deceased brother of the testator. Mariano Molo left two wills, one
    executed on August 17, 1918 and another executed on June 20, 1939.
    On February 7, 1941, Juana Juan Vda. de Molo, filed in the CFI Rizal a petition, seeking the probate of the will executed by the deceased on June
    20, 1939. There being no opposition, the will was probated. However, upon petition filed by the herein oppositors, the order of the court
    admitting the will to probate was set aside and the case was reopened. After hearing, at which both parties presented their evidence, the court
    rendered decision denying the probate of said will on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the same was executed in accordance with
    law.
    In view of the disallowance of the will executed on June 20, 1939, the widow filed another petition for the probate of the will executed by the
    deceased on August 17, 1918, in the same court. Again, the same oppositors filed an opposition to the petition based on three grounds: (1) that
    petitioner is now estopped from seeking the probate of the will of 1918; (2) that said will has not been executed in the manner required by law
    and (3) that the will has been subsequently revoked.

    ISSUES:
    1. Was Molo’s will of 1918 subsequently revoked by his will of 1939?
    2. Assuming that the destruction of the earlier will was the necessary consequence of the testator’s belief that the revocatory clause
    contained in the subsequent will was valid and the latter would be given effect, can the earlier will be admitted to probate?

    HELD:
    1. NO. In the case of Samson vs. Naval, the court laid down the doctrine that “a subsequent will, containing a clause revoking a previous
    will, having been disallowed, for the reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of
    Civil Procedure as to the making of wills, cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will, inasmuch as said revocatory clause
    is void.
    Although American authorities on the subject have a pool of conflicting opinions perhaps because of the peculiar provisions contained in the
    statutes adopted by each State in the subject of revocation of wills, the court is of the impression from a review and the study of the pertinent
    authorities that the doctrine laid down in the Samson case is still a good law.
    In the case at bar, there was no valid revocation. No evidence was shown that the testator deliberately destroyed the original 1918 will because of
    his knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in the will executed in 1939.
    2. YES. The earlier will can still be admitted to probate under the principle of “dependent relative revocation”. The failure of a new
    testamentary disposition upon whose validity the revocation depends, is equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive condition,
    and hence prevents the revocation of the original will. But a mere intent to make at some time a will in the place of that destroyed will
    not render the destruction conditional. It must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will.

    You might also like