Suroza v. Honrado
110 SCRA 388
FACTS:
Spouses Mauro Suroza and Marcelina Salvador, who were childless, reared a boy named Agapito. Agapito and his wife Nenita de Vera had a daughter named Lilia. Nenita became Agapito’s guardian when he became disabled. A certain Arsenia de la Cruz also wanted to be his guardian in another proceeding but it was dismissed. Arsenia then delivered a child named Marilyn Sy to Marcelina who brought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapito. Marilyn used the surname Suroza although not legally adopted by Agapito. When Marcelina (who was an illiterate) was 73 years old, she supposedly executed a notarial will which was in English and thumbmarked by her. In the will, she allegedly bequeathed all her properties to Marilyn. She also named as executrix her laundrywoman, Marina Paje. Paje filed a petition for probate of Marcelina’s will. Judge Honrado appointed Paje as administratrix and issued orders allowing the latter to withdraw money from the savings account of Marcelina and Marilyn, and instructing the sheriff to eject the occupants of testatrix’s house, among whom was Nenita. She and the other occupants filed a motion to set aside the order ejecting them, alleging that Agapito was the sole heir of the deceased, and that Marilyn was not the decedent’s granddaughter. Despite this, Judge Honrado issued an order probating Marcelina’s will.
Nenita filed an omnibus petition to set aside proceedings, admit opposition with counter-petition for administration and preliminary injunction, and an opposition to the probate of the will and a counter-petition for letters of administration, which were dismissed by Judge Honrado. Instead of appealing, Nenita filed a case to annul the probate proceedings but Judge Honrado dismissed it. The judge then closed the testamentary proceeding after noting that the executrix had delivered the estate to Marilyn, and that the estate tax had been paid.
Ten months later, Nenita filed a complaint before the SC, charging Judge Honrado with having probated the fraudulent will of Marcelina. She reiterated her contention that the testatrix was illiterate as shown by the fact that she affixed her thumbmark to the will and that she did not know English, the language in which the will was written. She further alleged that Judge Honrado did not take into account the consequences of the preterition of testatrix’s son, Agapito. Judge Honrado in his comment did not deal specifically with the allegations but merely pointed to the fact that Nenita did not appeal from the decree of probate and that in a motion, she asked for a thirty day period within which to vacate the house of the testatrix. Nenita subsequently filed in the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Judge Honrado wherein she prayed that the will, the decree of probate and all the proceedings in the probate case be declared void. The CA dismissed the petition because Nenita’s remedy was an appeal and her failure to do so did not entitle her to resort to the special civil action of certiorari. Relying on that decision, Judge Honrado filed a MTD the administrative case for having allegedly become moot and academic.
ISSUE:
W/N 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. 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.
The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is repeatedly referred to as the “testator” instead of “testatrix”. 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 the 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.
