ALVARADO vs GAVIOLA

This is a beautiful Succession case. Which could not have been beautiful had the court not seen the beauty that is typically unseen with the naked eye.. the ESSENCE of the Law.

And well ehem!, credits also goes to the lawyer who had presence of mind, and the tenacity to go over the rudiments of it all never buckling down in his obligation in the preparation of the testamentary documents together with the substantial requisites that goes with it. Otherwise the failing old man's true intention and will of disinheriting his abusive illegitimate son would have amounted to nothing and have executed the complete opposite of his intent. 

The 79 year old testator was suffering from GLAUCOMA and therefore partially blind. He executed a notarial will and a subsequent codicil for that matter wherein he DISINHERITED HIS ILLEGITIMATE SON. 

Actually it happened this way.. He called up a lawyer who is most probably personally well known to him. (Here comes the lawyer walking in.. places his Armani leather satchel on the mahogany table, loosens up his collar "Vincenzo is that you?.. let me feel your face".. "Don Brigido" "It is you.. I have known this face ever since you were a little boy.. your face is so much that of your father's.. and I have missed him ever since he was gone.. my comrade and most trusted friend" ah ehem!.. I just made that up LOL sorry)

Now notice, what the lawyer did was this. He summoned 3 credible witnesses who are mostly known to the old man,  a notary public, and drafted the 8 page document giving each one (3 witnesses and notary public) a copy and read the same aloud, the 4 following the reading with their own respective copies, before the ailing testator.  

Thereafter a codicil was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will and said subsequent instrument was likewise not read by the testator but was read to the testator in the same manner as with the previously executed will. 

Now here comes the illegit son. When the will was submitted to the court for probation, the abusive illegitimate son, petitioner in this case (Alvarado) filed opposition saying that the will was not executed and attested as required by law.

ISSUE:

Was the will valid? Should it be admitted to probate despite allegations of defects in the execution and attestation as testator was allegedly blind at the time of its execution and the DOUBLE READING requirement under ART. 808 of the New Civil Code was not complied with? 

RULING:

IT'S VALID - The court never could have said it more beautifully and I quote "The spirit of the law was served though letter was not"  

You see the applicable provision ART. 808 speaks that "If the testator is BLIND, the will shall be read to him; once, by one of the (1.)SUBSCRIBING WITNESSES, and again, by the (2.) NOTARY PUBLIC before whom the will is acknowledged." This didn't happen here.

So here we see clearly the letter of the law was not strictly construed with regard to this case. It was the lawyer who read the testamentary will to the testator, and so the opposing party contradicted this as non-compliance to the applicable provision.

But the court said it doesn't matter. You see the essence of the law is that the testamentary will after its been completely drafted is MERELY REQUIRED to be sufficiently made known to the blind testator as to its content so that the testator may object and correct it upon hearing in order for it to conform to what his final intentions are. And CLEARLY in this case that requisite was COMPLIED WITH, even if it's the lawyer who rendered the reading.  

Furthermore, there was no evidence that contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator.  With four persons mostly known to him following the reading word by word with each having his own copy, it can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to him were terms in the document. 

This comes under one of those circumstances where formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which if taken to account may only defeat the testator's will. And it is clear this is a NON-FATAL DEFECT affecting the validity of the testamentary documents as to the execution of the provision. 

It's just OVER-ZEALOUSNESS on the part of the lawyer, that's my own take on this. He must have been aware of the circumstances prevailing since the testator is personally well known to him and only wanted to protect him and his estate making sure he is there in every step of the way.. never realizing he was over-doing it.

And he probably love what he's doing.."Hep hep! Ako na babasa. Tutal ako naman nagsulat eh. And.. maganda naman boses ko.. di ba?" :) 

Well, there's nothin' completely wrong with that. Hinde epal yon ah.. in fact that's considerably admirable. Sinong gusto ng tatamad-tamad na abugado? 

CIR vs. CA, CITY TRUST BANKING CORP.

I used to know a girl from Citytrust. I met her through telebabad. She'd ring our phone at night and not speak a single word. She just wanted to hear my voice. I'd pick it up "hello"..."helloow"...................... "helloooooooooooOOOOOOOO!!!! Ump!!!"  (ringtone) but before it ended I caught a girl chuckle.  That's how we got to know each other, damn it.

BTW theres no Citytrust anymore. No that's Citybank you're talking about. Citytrust I think have merged and is now BPI. Anyway. Here's the case...

Respondent corporation Citytrust filed a refund of overpaid taxes with the BIR by which the latter denied on the ground of prescription.

Citytrust filed a petition for review before the CTA. The case was submitted for decision based solely on the pleadings and evidence submitted by the respondent because the CIR could not present any evidence by reason of the repeated failure of the Tax Credit/Refund Division of the BIR to transmit the records of the case, as well as the investigation report thereon, to the Solicitor General.  

Tsk tsk tsk.  I think we have here a clear case of errors committed by the government it self through its agents. And I know what  you're gonna say... you'll say the government can't be estopped. I doubt that..  the government can still be estopped... but not in taxation I guess.. that's money matters were talkin' about  folks.

CTA rendered the decision ordering BIR to grant the respondent's request for tax refund amounting to P 13.3 million. 

ISSUE:

Failure of the CIR to present evidence to support the case of the government, should the respondent's claim be granted?

HELD:

Not yet. 

It is a long and firmly settled rule of law that the Government is not bound by the errors committed by its agents. In the performance of its governmental functions, the State cannot be estopped by the neglect of its agent and officers. 

Although the Government may generally be estopped through the affirmative acts of public officers acting within their authority, their neglect or omission of public duties as exemplified in this case will not and should not produce that effect. 

The court said "Nowhere is the afore stated rule more true than in the field of taxation. It is axiomatic that the Government cannot and must not be estopped particularly in matters involving taxes." 

I think it's the whole 'LIFEBLOOD balogny' somethin' somethin at work here again... 

Like they say right?.... Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation through which the government agencies continue to operate and with which the State effects its functions for the welfare of its constituents. 

And so the errors of certain administrative officers should never be allowed to jeopardize the Government's financial position, especially in the case at bar where the amount involves millions of pesos the collection whereof, if justified, stands to be prejudiced just because of bureaucratic lethargy. 

Thus, the court said, it is proper that the case be remanded back to the CTA for further proceedings and reception of evidence.

Tatamad-tamad kasi eh..

Alain Delon

Le prix d'Amour, c'est seulement Amour, ... Il faut aimer si l'on veut être aimé.

 The price of love is only love, ... one must love if one desires to be loved.

~ Honoré d' Urfé

 I woke up this morning with this French quote in my head.