Caneda v.

CA

Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the twilight years of his life, executed
a last will and testament at his residence before 3 witnesses.
He was assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio Lumontad. In the will, it was declared that the testator was
leaving by way of legaciesand devises his real and personal properties to several people all of whom do
not appear to be related to the testator. 4 months later, Mateo Caballero himself filed a case seeking
the probate of his last will and testament, but numerous postponements pushed back the initial hearing
of the probate court regarding the will. On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his petition
could finally be heard by the probate court. Thereafter one of the legatees, Benoni Cabrera, sought
his appointmentas special administrator of the testator’s estate. Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to
be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a second petition for intestate proceedings. They also
opposed the probate of the testator’s will and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate.
Benoni Cabrera died and was replaced by William Cabrera as special administrator and gave an order
that the testate proceedings for the probate of the will had to be heard and resolved first.

Issue: W/N the attestation clause in the will of the testator is fatally defective or can be cured under the
art. 809.

Held:

Attestation clause valid even if in a language not known to testator.—However, in the case of an
ordinary or attested will, its attestation clause need not be written in a language or dialect known to the
testator since it does not form part of the testamentary disposition. Furthermore, the language used in
the attestation clause likewise need not even be known to the attesting witnesses. The last paragraph of
Article 805 merely requires that, in such a case, the attestation clause shall be interpreted to said
witnesses.

The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which the will is written
is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any
increase or decrease in the pages; whereas the subscription of the signatures of the testator and the
attesting witnesses is made for the purpose of authentication and identification, and thus indicates that
the will is the very same instrument executed by the testator and attested to by the witnesses.

Further, by attesting and subscribing to the will, the witnesses thereby declare the due execution of the
will as embodied in the attestation clause. The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong legal
guaranties for the due execution of a will and to insure the authenticity thereof. As it appertains only to
the witnesses and not to the testator, it need be signed only by them. Where it is left unsigned, it would
result in the invalidation of the will as it would be possible and easy to add the clause on a subsequent
occasion in the absence of the testator and the witnesses.

What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that
while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three
attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not expressly
state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in
the presence of the testator and of each other. The phrase “and he has signed the same and every page
thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin,” obviously refers to the
testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words “as his Last Will
and Testament.” On the other hand, although the words “in the presence of the testator and in the
presence of each and all of us” may, at first blush, appear to likewise signify and refer to the witnesses,
it must, however, be interpreted as referring only to the testator signing in the presence of the
witnesses since said phrase immediately follows the words “he has signed the same and every page
thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin.” What is then clearly
lacking, in the final logical analysis, is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page
thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. It is our considered view that the absence of
that statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the
disallowance of the will that is here sought to be admitted to probate.

We stress once more that under Article 809, the defects or imperfections must only be with respect to
the form of the attestation or the language employed therein. Such defects or imperfections would not
render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was really executed and attested in compliance
with Article 805. In this regard, however, the manner of proving the due execution and attestation has
been held to be limited to merely an examination of the will itself without resorting to evidence aliunde,
whether oral or written.

Gan v. Yap
104 P 509

Felicidad Yap died of a heart failure, leaving properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in Manila.

Fausto E. Gan, her nephew, initiated the proceedings in the Manila CFI with a petition for the probate of
a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased.
The will was not presented because Felicidad’s husband, Ildefonso, supposedly took it. What was
presented were witness accounts of relatives who knew of her intention to make a will and allegedly
saw it as well. According to the witnesses, Felicidad did not want her husband to know about it, but she
had made known to her other relatives that she made a will.

Opposing the petition, her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the deceased had not left any
will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime.
After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the Judge refused to probate the alleged will
on account of the discrepancies arising from the facts. For one thing, it is strange that Felicidad made
her will known to so many of her relatives when she wanted to keep it a secret and she would not have
carried it in her purse in the hospital, knowing that her husband may have access to it. There was also no
evidence presented that her niece was her confidant.

In the face of these improbabilities, the trial judge had to accept the oppositor’s evidence that Felicidad
did not and could not have executed such holographic will.
ISSUE:

1. May a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and
who declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator?
2. W/N Felicidad could have executed the holographic will.

HELD:

No. The will must be presented.

1. The New Civil Code effective in 1950 revived holographic wills in its arts. 810-814. “A person
may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of
the testator himself. It is subject to no other form and may be made in or out of the Philippines,
and need not be witnessed.”

This is a radical departure from the form and solemnities provided for wills under Act 190, which
for fifty years (from 1901 to 1950) required wills to be subscribed by the testator and
three credible witnesses in each and every page; such witnesses to attest to the number of
sheets used and to the fact that the testator signed in their presence and that they signed in the
presence of the testator and of each other. Authenticity and due execution is the
dominant requirements to be fulfilled when such will is submitted to the courts for allowance.
For that purpose the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses would be sufficient if there is
no opposition (Sec. 5, Rule 77). If there is, the three must testify, if available. From the
testimony of such witnesses (and of other additional witnesses) the court may form its opinion
as to the genuineness and authenticity of the testament, and the circumstances its due
execution.

2. With regard to holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth and veracity are demanded, since
as stated, they need no witnesses; provided however, that they are “entirely written, dated, and
signed by the hand of the testator himself.”

Court ruled that ‘‘the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not
be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will
itself must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document
itself as material proof of authenticity.’’ But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that “Perhaps
it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy;
or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased
may be exhibited and tested before the probate court.” Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy
of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the
handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.

Rodelas v. Aranza
G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982

The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla in 1977. The
petition was opposed by the appellees on the ground that the deceased did not leave any will,
holographic or otherwise. The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the
original will was lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the original.

Issue: Whether or not a holographic will can be proved by means of a photocopy

RULING: Yes. However, if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available,
the will cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said
will. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator
and the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed
because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator.

Labrador v. CA
184 SCRA 170

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 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.” (italics 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.

Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will
is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was
not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he was executing
was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning was the testator’s
instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature of the
estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means to control the
disposition of his estate.