- VOL. D{ - J:�o. 1 W A L . N IA P O HI T E JOURNAL . OF
eir tl1 of tio jec ob ce tan ns bs su on e th the h . th wi t ou C he t e b�for a appear r1ng ec n p n p res nts e d. n o tio ap ca bli pu [ ear ed h suc i to . n a u p s r u . d e 1fi our date spec t � a e . . . ,.d t · h -1· th I ey 1m c h a y too e T s y e n wer r o tt . . e a . . ir e th si b ed t n . e s r e p r s s h o ; m K be ge er En th mo y �h I ' e a ass sam e J th t at : : e e {d born to r 1r the t�e n1� t tha and n; ow th e dece hls of en ldr chi n� :J ase d': ��c�a:ed � d a11 , 1n ult res ord a acc as . anc t tha e d an wi·th the ad e d th , o b e er w r . � e h t fa . . t h · 1ey, oo, t ave I · a e, d rig h Co 1l t C1v to shar the of (2) S44 -- e in. • Art f o ns prov1s1o . . h er t ro b d _ e as c e e d r ei th f o y ._ rt e p ro the p . ,.. �ed e th i..;ea d de ce die sin l e aving a t tha d e tt ID1 sub ts can pli ap public . Counsel for �e t _ will of u�d sho rs ose opp be rejected. In the by d e c odu intr m clai 7 will the s on of 1s1 ov l p1 tic Ar the e 82 d ote qu he · �t e ) ?f the 9(3 um arg his of _ rt suppo . Civil Code, wh1.ch prov1des that only those peop le who are mentioned 10 the will can inhe rit 8. Counsel for oppon ents submitted in his reply that: . . (a) The instrument presented by the _applicants as const1tut1ng th� will of the deceased does not meet the requirements of form of a public will under the provisions of Art. 881 of the Civil Code in that it is nowhere stated that such instrument \Vas written, read and signed in the presence of four witnesses. (b) Half of the will was hand-written, while the other half was typewritten; it can therefore be said that the whole of the will was not written by the deceased in accordance witl1 the provisions of Art. 884(1) of the Civil Code. (c) Eve11 if the will was written by the deceased, it is open to invalidation wher e it is not d eposit ed with a notary or in a court registry within seven years after it has been made . On tl1e ha.sis of the above reasons, oppo11ents claimed that it be considered as though their deceased brother had left no will, a11d that they be allowed to participate in the succession und er the provisions of Art. 844(2) a11d 853 of the Civil Code. 9 • Counsel for applicants, in his counter-argument, said that the .facts as stated by their opponents were untrue and that they seen1ed desig11ed to pervert tht truth (a) that the will l eft by the deceased which was put in evidence was hand-wntten by t�e . testator in accordance wjtl1 the provisio11s of Arts. 880(b} and 9�3 of the c1v1l Code and was immediately deposited with a notary; �} . that since th� wil l was presented after it had bee11 .proved t.h,1t it ,vas made 1� a_ccord�nce with the law and as such wa co -, vi pro all ce, ev ide i1 s nc lus i.ve s ons _ cit�d by the opponents were irrele ed sta t wa s .it va nt ; (c) i11 conclusio11s, � t. at 10 view of the fact that the wi d a� ato r tes t ll e tl1 was. pr t ov of t11 ed at o be since accord.ing to Ar·t 939( 1 ) . . rd thi d , o f con t. h e e s C1v1l the Code of relatives . · . or t ou rlb r�lationsh1p were presumed . o 11a . to .·be tacitly left out ' opponents d n right to cla·im · in· .her1·tance tO the deceased's p ro p e rt y. In a · . . . e � r:�: . 00 January 25, 1972 01st under Prob11:te and Adnll File No. 1�1lf tl� �: ra J and invalidated the w·ii ; �ourt upheld the argt1ments raised by the 0 d n a t e dece sed by citing Article 881, 882, 884, ��� 903 of the Civil Code� 1� � _ g. n o Ill he a ld that tl1e opponents shot1ld also be included the deceased . 's heirs. · This is an appeal brough n. o isi dec t bY attorneys of th e applicants against the 0f bhe Awr· adja Court. Bee:sons fo� the appeal __ e w1[, 1 left by the testat irturt .li '!IOO o c or · w' h • ic dJ · a h . wa Awra s �,fr. �ilenGe p.F0:v�s filla.t: . presented to the .
'
.
-44-
I
1
]
l
f 1