Scribd
Upload
150 views3 pages

Disciplinary Action Against Judge for Will

- Marcelina Suroza executed a will leaving her entire estate to Marilyn, who she claimed was her granddaughter. However, Marilyn was actually entrusted to Marcelina by a friend and was not legally adopted by Marcelina's supposed son Agapito. - The will was written entirely in English, despite Marcelina being illiterate. It was also thumbmarked rather than signed. Nenita Suroza, the guardian of Agapito, contested the will claiming Marilyn was not actually related and the will was invalid. - Despite issues with the language and validity of the will, Judge Honrado admitted the will to probate naming Marilyn as the sole heir

Uploaded by

Bluebells33
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
150 views3 pages

Disciplinary Action Against Judge for Will

- Marcelina Suroza executed a will leaving her entire estate to Marilyn, who she claimed was her granddaughter. However, Marilyn was actually entrusted to Marcelina by a friend and was not legally adopted by Marcelina's supposed son Agapito. - The will was written entirely in English, despite Marcelina being illiterate. It was also thumbmarked rather than signed. Nenita Suroza, the guardian of Agapito, contested the will claiming Marilyn was not actually related and the will was invalid. - Despite issues with the language and validity of the will, Judge Honrado admitted the will to probate naming Marilyn as the sole heir

Uploaded by

Bluebells33
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Suroza v.

Honrado

A.M. No. 2026-CFI, December 19, 1981

AQUINO, J.:

FACTS:

Mauro Suroza and his wife Marcelina Salvador reared a boy named
Agapito who used the surname Suroza. Agapito got married to Nenita and
begot a child named Lilia. Agapito became disabled and his wife Nenita was
appointed as his guardian when he was declared an incompetent.

Meanwhile, a couple entrusted their child Marilyn to Arsenia de la


Cruz (apparently a girl friend of Agapito). The child was later delivered to
Marcelina Suroza who brought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapito
and as her granddaughter. She stayed with Marcelina but was not legally
adopted by Agapito. Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will when she
was 73 years old. That will which is in English was thumbmarked by her.
She was illiterate. In that will, Marcelina bequeathed all her estate to her
supposed granddaughter Marilyn.

Upon learning of the existence of a testamentary proceeding for the


settlement of Marcelina's estate, Nenita and the other occupants of the
decedent's house filed a motion to set aside the order ejecting them. They
alleged that the decedent's son Agapito was the sole heir of the deceased,
that he has a daughter named Lilia, that Nenita was Agapito's guardian and
that Marilyn was not Agapito's daughter nor the decedent's granddaughter.
In spite of the fact that Judge Honrado was already apprised that persons,
other than Marilyn, were claiming Marcelina's estate, he issued an order
probating her supposed will wherein Marilyn was the instituted heiress.

In a motion for the consolidation of all pending incidents, Nenita V.


Suroza reiterated her contention that the alleged will is void because
Marcelina did not appear before the notary and because it is written in
English which is not known to her.
Judge Honrado in his order of June 8, 1976 "denied" the various incidents
"raised" by Nenita.

ISSUE:

Should disciplinary action be taken against respondent judge for


having admitted to probate a will, which on its face is void because it is
written in English, a language not known to the illiterate testatrix, and which
is probably a forged will because she and the attesting witnesses did not
appear before the notary as admitted by the notary himself?

HELD:

Yes. In this case, respondent judge, on perusing the will and noting
that it was written in English and was thumbmarked by an obviously
illiterate testatrix, could have readily perceived that the will is void. In the
opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a language
"understood and known" to the testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it
was stated that the will was read to the testatrix "and translated into Filipino
language". That could only mean that the will was written in a language not
known to the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is void because of the
mandatory provision of article 804 of the Civil Code that every will must be
executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.

Had respondent judge been careful and observant, he could have


noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will but also that there
was something wrong in instituting the supposed granddaughter as sole
heiress and giving nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive.
Furthermore, after the hearing conducted by respondent deputy clerk of
court, respondent judge could have noticed that the notary was not presented
as a witness.

In spite of the absence of an opposition, respondent judge should have


personally conducted the hearing on the probate of the will so that he could
have ascertained whether the will was validly executed.
Under the circumstances, we find his negligence and dereliction of duty to
be inexcusable.

You might also like