Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.

Facts:
After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, petitioner
Simeon Roxas, brother of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, was appointed as their estate
administrator. After being appointed as such, he delivered to the lower court a notebook
purporting to be the holographic Will of Bibiana. He testified during the probate hearing
that he found a notebook belonging to Bibiana and that on pages 21 to 24 thereof, a
letter-will addressed to her children entirely written and signed in the handwriting of
Bibiana was found. It is dated FEB./61 and states: This is my will which I want to be
respected altho it is not written by a lawyer. His testimony was corroborated by the
testimony of the children of Bibiana, Pedro and Manuel, by positively recognizing the
handwriting and signature of their mother. They also testified that their mother
understood English, the language in which the Will is written, and that the date
FEB./61 was the date when said Will was executed by their mother.
Opposition to probate was filed by respondent Luz R. Henson, but having found by the
court that the Will had been executed in accordance with law, an order allowing probate
was issued. Luz Roxas de Jesus filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that the
holographic Will of Bibiana was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code.
She contends that the law requires the date to contain the day, month and year of
execution and such requirement must be strictly complied with. The order allowing
probate was set aside by Respondent Judge Colayco and disallowed the probate of the
holographic Will.
Issue:
Whether or not the date appearing on the holographic Will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is
a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code.
Ruling:
Yes, it is a valid and substantial compliance. This is not the first time when the Court
departs from strict and literal application of the statutory requirements regarding the due
execution of Wills. If the testator attempts to comply with all the requisites in executing
his Will, although compliance is not literal, it is sufficient if the objective or purpose
sought to be accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the form followed by
the testator. The purpose of the requisite is to close the door against bad faith and
fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and
authenticity. In the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue
influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established. Probate of the Will
should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.



Labrador vs. CA
Facts:
Melecio Labrador died on June 10, 1972 in Iba Zambales leaving behind a parcel of
land, and several heirs all surnamed Labrador, and a holographic will. Sagrado, Enrica
and Cristobal filed a petition for the probate of holographic will of Melecio.
Subsequently, Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the said petition on the
ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by implication of law, alleging that
before Melecios death, the latter executed a deed of absolute sale transferring and
conveying to Jesus and Gaudencio the lot subject of the Will. Sagrado filed an
annulment of the said Deed of Absolute sale on the ground that it was fictitious and
alleged that he already acquired the land on March 17, 1968 by virtue of the holographic
Will of Melencio. The trial court allowed the probate of the Will and declared null and
void the Deed of Absolute Sale. Upon appeal of the respondents, the CA denied the
allowance of probate of the will for being undated.

Issue:
Whether or not the holographic will of Melecio Labrador is dated as provided for in
Article 810 of the Civil Code.
Ruling:
The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with
Article 810. It is worthy of note to quote the first paragraph of the second page of the
holographic will, viz:
And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning
and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this
being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision
and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who
made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father.
(emphasis supplied) (p. 46,Rollo)
The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the
will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the
hand of the testator. These requirements are present in the subject will.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the holographic will of Melecio
Labrador is APPROVED and ALLOWED probate.





Rodelas vs. Aranza
Facts:

Azaola v. Singson
FACTS:
Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance died in Quezon City on September 9, 1957. Petitioner
submitted for probateher holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was made the sole heir
as against the nephew, who is thedefendant. Only one witness, Francisoco Azaola, was
presented to testify on the handwriting of thetestatrix. He testified that he had seen it
one month, more or less, before the death of the testatrix, as itwas given to him and
his wife; and that it was in the testatrixs h
andwriting. He presented the mortgage,the special power of the attorney, and the
general power of attorney, and the deeds of sale including anaffidavit to reinforce his
statement. Two residence certificates showing the
testatrixs signature were also
exhibited for comparison purposes. The probate was opposed on the ground that(1) the
execution of the will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on
the part of the petitioner and his wife, and(2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend
the instrument to be her last will, and that the same wasactually written either on the 5th
or 6thday of August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as appears onthe will.The
probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the
proponent mustpresent three witnesses who could declare that the will and the
signature are in the writing of the testatrix,the probate being contested; and because the
lone witness presented "did not prove sufficiently that thebody of the will was written in
the handwriting of the testatrix." Petitioner appealed, urging: first, that hewas not bound
to produce more than one witness because the will's authenticity was not questioned;
andsecond, that Article 811 does not mandatorily require the production of three
witnesses to identify thehandwriting and signature of a holographic will, even if its
authenticity should be denied by the adverseparty.
ISSUE:
W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory or permissive.
HELD:
Article 811
1
is merely permissive and not mandatory. Since the authenticity of the will was not
contested,petitioner was not required to produce more than one witness; but even if the
genuineness of theholographic will were contested, Article 811 cannot be interpreted to
require the compulsory presentationof three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the
testator, under penalty of having the probate denied.Since no witness may have been
present at the execution of a holographic will, none being requiredby law (Art. 810, new
Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing therequisite
qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For it is not merely a
question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses "who
know the handwriting andsignature of the testator" and who can declare (truthfully, of
course, even if the law does not so express)"that the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator". There may be no available witnessof the testator's hand; or
even if so familiarized, the witnesses may be unwilling to give a positive
opinion.Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may thus become an
impossibility.This is the reason why the 2
nd
paragraph of Article 811 allows the court to resort to expert evidence. Thelaw foresees
the possibility that no qualified witness may be found (or what amounts to the same
thing,that no competent witness may be willing to testify to the authenticity of the will),
and provides for resort toexpert evidence to supply the deficiency. What the law deems
essential is that the court should beconvinced of the will's authenticity. Where the
prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the courtis convinced by their
testimony that the will is genuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call for
expertevidence. On the other hand, if no competent witness is available, or none of
those produced isconvincing, the Court may still, and in fact it should, resort to
handwriting experts. The duty of the Court,in fine, is to exhaust all available lines of
inquiry, for the state is as much interested as the proponent thatthe true intention of the
testator be carried into effect.









Codoy vs Calugay

Facts: The deceased Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal executed a holographic will on August 30, 1978. Herein
respondents Eugenia Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas are devisees and legatees of the
holographic will of the deceased. They filed with the RTC of Misamis a petition for probate of the holographic will of
Matilde who died on 16 January 1990. Petitioners Eugenia Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an opposition to the
probate stating that the holographic will was a forgery and the same was illegible. Respondents however contend
that the deceased was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will and that no fraud or undue influence
and duress happened and that the will was written voluntarily. They presented six witnesses with various
documentary evidence. Petitioners on their part filed a demurrer to evidence claiming that respondents failed to
establish to establish sufficient factual and legal basis for the probate of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde
Seo Vda. de Ramonal. All the 6 witnesses that respondents presented expressed familiarity with the deceaseds
signature. But there was no mention of the fact that there were witnesses at the time Matilde executed the will. The
lower court denied the probate. On appeal, respondents again reiterated the testimony of the witnesses Augusto,
Generosa, Matilde Binanay, Teresita, Fiscal Waga, and Evangeline. The CA sustained the authenticity of the
holographic will and allowed the probate. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the provisions of Article 811 of the Civil Code are permissive or mandatory

Held. The Court ruled that it is mandatory. The article provides, as a requirement for the probate of a contested
holographic will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in the will is the genuine signature of
the testator. The word shall connotes a mandatory order. We have ruled that shall in a statute commonly denotes
an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word
shall, when used in a statute is mandatory. Fiscal Waga one of the witnesses expressed doubts as to the signature
of the deceased. Evangeline, on her part, testified that as to why she was familiar with the handwriting of the
deceased was because she lived with her since birth. She never declared that she saw the deceased write a note or
sign a document. In Matildes testimony, she saw
pre-prepared receipts and letters of the deceased, which she either mailed or gave to her tenants. She did not
declare that she saw the deceased sign a document or write a note. Furthermore, in her testimony it was also evident
that Ms. Binanay kept the fact about the will from petitioners, the legally adopted children of the deceased. The will
was also not found in the possession of the deceased when she died. Such actions put in issue her motive of
keeping the will a secret to petitioners and revealing it only after the death of Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated August 30, 1978,
[33]
and the signatures in several documents
such as the application letter for pasture permit dated December 30, 1980,
[34]
and a letter dated June 16, 1978,
[35]
the
strokes are different. In the letters, there are continuous flows of the strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation in
writing unlike that of the holographic will. We, therefore, cannot be certain that the holographic will was in the
handwriting by the deceased.