Suroza v. Honrado | A.M. No. 2026; Dec.

19, 1981 | Language used on wills  Judge issued another order instructing a deputy sheriff to eject the occupants of
PETITIONER/S: NENITA DE VERA-SUROZA the house (including Nenita) and to place Marina in possession.
RESPONDENT/S: JUDGE REYNALDO P. HONRADO of the Court of First  This prompted Nenita and the other occupants to filed a motion to set aside the
Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch 25 and EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO, Deputy Clerk of ejection order, alleging that:
Court o Agapito was the sole heir and that he has a daughter, Lilia, and
DOCTRINE: o that Nenita was Agapito’s guardian and that
The mandatory provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code provides that every will o Marilyn is not Agapito’s daughter nor Marcelina’s granddaughter.
must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.  They questioned the probate court’s jurisdiction to issue the order.
 Notwithstanding this, Judge still issued an order probating the will wherein
FACTS: Marilyn was the heiress.
 Mauro Suroza, a corporal in the US Army (PH scouts) married Marcelina  Nenita filed an omnibus petition to set aside proceedings, admit opposition with
Salvador in 1923 and they had no kids. They reared a boy named Agapito who counter-petition for administration and preliminary injunction". Nenita in that
used the name Suroza and who considered them as his parents as shown in his motion reiterated her allegation that Marilyn was a stranger to Marcelina, that
1945 marriage contract with Nenita de Vera. He was only 5yo when Mauro the will was not duly executed and attested, that it was procured by means of
married Marcelina. undue influence employed by Marina and Marilyn and that the thumbmarks of
 1942: Mauro died and Marcelina became a pensioner of the federal government, the testatrix were procured by fraud or trick.
so she had cash in two banks.  These were dismissed by Judge Honrado. Instead of appealing, Nenita filed a
 Agapito and Nenita begot a child, Lilia, who became a medtech and went case to annul the probate proceedings but Judge Honrado dismissed it. The
abroad. Agapito was also a soldier. judge then closed the testamentary proceeding after noting that the executrix
 1953: He was disabled and Nenita was his guardian when he was declared had delivered the estate to Marilyn, and that the estate tax had been paid.
incompetent in a special proceeding.  Ten months later, Nenita filed a complaint before the SC, charging Judge
 Arsenia de la Cruz wanted to be his guardian and tried to prove that Nenita was Honrado with having probated the fraudulent will of Marcelina. She reiterated
living away from Agapito and that Nenita admitted being unfaithful. her contention that the testatrix was illiterate as shown by the fact that she
 Judge Tan confirmed Nenita’s appointment as guardian. Agapito stayed in the affixed her thumbmark to the will and that she did not know English, the
veteran’s hospital in San Francisco. language in which the will was written. She further alleged that Judge Honrado
 Sps. Antonio Sy and Hermogena Talan begot a child named Marilyn Sy who did not take into account the consequences of the preterition of testatrix’s son,
was entrusted to Arsenia de la Cruz (Agapito’s friend) and who was delivered to Agapito. Judge Honrado in his comment did not deal specifically with the
Marcelina Suroza who brought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapito and as allegations but merely pointed to the fact that Nenita did not appeal from the
her granddaughter. decree of probate and that in a motion, she asked for a thirty day period within
 Marilyn used the name Suroza. She stayed with Marcelina but was NOT legally which to vacate the house of the testatrix.
adopted by Agapito. She married Oscar Medrano, lived in Roxas Street, Makati,  Nenita subsequently filed in the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition
and was Marina Paje’s neighbor. against Judge Honrado wherein she prayed that the will, the decree of probate
 1973: Marcelina executed a notarial will, in English, and thumb-marked. She and all the proceedings in the probate case be declared void.
was illiterate. She bequeathed ALL her estate to her supposed granddaughter,  The CA dismissed the petition because Nenita’s remedy was an appeal and her
Marilyn. failure to do so did not entitle her to resort to the special civil action of
 1974: Marcelina died at Veteran’s Hospital, QC, and she was a resident of certiorari. Relying on that decision, Judge Honrado filed a MTD
Olimpia, Makati, Rizal. She owned a 150-sqm lot and house in that place the administrative case for having allegedly become moot and academic.
acquired in 1966.
 1975: Marina Paje alleged laundrywoman of Marcelina and the executrix in her ISSUE: WN disciplinary action be taken against respondent judge for having admitted to
will, filed in the CFI a petition for the probate of Marcelina’s will. This was probate a will, which on its face is void because it is written in English, a language not
assigned to Judge Honrado. known to the illiterate testatrix, and which is probably a forged will because she and the
 Judge commissioned his deputy clerk of court Yuipco to hear evidence. attesting witnesses did not appear before the notary as admitted by the notary himself 
Transcripts taken at the hearing are not in the record. Judge appointed Marina as YES!
administratrix.
 Judge issued 2 orders directing Merchants Banking Corp. and the Bank of HELD:
America to allow Marina to withdraw P10K from the savings account of  In this case, respondent judge, on perusing the will and noting that it was
Marcelina Suroza and Marilyn Suroza and requiring Corazon Castro, the written in English and was thumb-marked by an obviously illiterate testatrix,
custodian of passbooks, to deliver them to Marina. 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 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.