You're currently signed in as:
User

DY YIENG SEANGIO v. AMOR A. REYES

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2008-09-12
CORONA, J.
It is well-settled that in construing the provisions of a will, the intent of the testator is controlling.[7] In this case, had it been Lucia's intention to prohibit the disposition of all her properties (listed and residual alike), she could have easily said so, specially since, as pointed out by petitioner himself, the will itself was replete with limiting provisions allegedly pointing to the inescapable conclusion that she wanted the properties to remain in her heirs' hands until they reached 30.