Labrador v.

CA
184 SCRA 170

FACTS:

Melecio died leaving behind a parcel of land to his heirs. However, during probate
proceedings, Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the ground that the will has
been extinguished by implication of law alleging that before Melecio’s death, the land
was sold to them evidenced by TCT No. 21178. Jesus eventually sold it to Navat.
Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the TCT null and void. However,
the CA on appeal denied probate on the ground that it was undated.

ISSUE:

W/N the alleged holographic will is dated, as provided for in Article 810 of CC.

HELD:

YES. 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.

The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the
tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. It states that “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.” This clearly shows that this is a unilateral act of Melecio who
plainly knew that he was executing a will.