signed by the hand of the testator himself.
It is
SUCCESSION CASES
Batch 3
1. In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of
Andres G. De Jesus and
Bibiana Roxa de Jesus, Simeon R. ROXAS
and Pedro ROXAS de Jesus, petitioners
vs. Andres R. de JESUS, Jr.
G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985
FACTS:
After the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de
Jesus, a special proceeding was instituted by
Simeon, brother of Bibiana. Simeon was then
appointed administrator of the estate and
consequently, he delivered to the lower court a
document purporting to be the holographic will of
Bibiana which was then set for a hearing. Luz
Henson, one of the compulsory heirs filed an
opposition to probate assailing the purported
holographic Will of Bibiana was not executed in
accordance with law. However, the lower court
issued an order allowing the probate which was
found to have been duly executed in accordance
with law. A motion for reconsideration was then
filed by Luz assailing that the alleged holographic
will was not dated as required by Article 810 of the
Civil Code and contending that the law requires that
the Will should contain the day, month and year of
its execution and that this should be strictly
complied with. The court then reconsidered its
earlier order and disallowed the probate of the
holographic will on the ground that the word
“dated” has generally been held to include the
month, day, and year
ISSUE:
Whether or not the date (FEB/61) appearing on the
holographic will of the deceased Bibian Roxas de
Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the
Civil Code.
RULING:
ART. 810. A person may execute a holographic
will which must be entirely written, dated, and
subject to no other form, and may be made in or out
of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.
As a general rule, the “date” in a holographic will
should include the day, month and year of its
execution. However, when as 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 and the only issue is whether or
not the date “FEB/61” appearing on the holographic
will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil
Code, probate of the holographic Will should be
allowed under the principle of substantial
compliance.
2. Labrador v. CA
G.R. Nos. 83843-44, 5 April 1990, 184 SCRA 170
FACTS:
The deceased Melecio Labrador, left behind him a
parcel of land which was partitioned among his nine
heirs through a holographic will. Sagrado, therefore,
one of his heirs, filed a petition for the probate of
the alleged holographic will of the late Melecio
Labrador. However, Jesus and Gaudencio, also heirs
of the deceased, filed n opposition to the petition on
the ground that the will has been extinguished or
revoked by implication of law alleging therein that
before Melecio’s death, he executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying in
favor of Jesus and Gaudencio the parcel of land.
The trial court allowed the probate of the
holographic will and declared null and void the Deed
of Sale. Jesus and Gaudencio appealed to the Court
of Appeals which modified the decision of the trial
court. It denied the allowance of the probate of the
will being undated. The aggrieved party, therefore,
filed a petition to the Supreme Court alleging among
others that the CA erred in not allowing the probate
proceedings withstanding the fact that in the first
paragraph of the second page of the alleged
holographic will, which was written in Illocano, the
testator mentioned a date – “month of March, 17th,
1968.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the holographic is dated.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The will
has been dated in the hands of the testator himself
in perfect compliance of Article 810 of the Civil
Code.
The law does not specify a particular location where
the date must be placed in the will. The only
requirements are that the date be in the will itself
and should be executed in the hand of the testator.
These requirements are present in the subject will.
Hence, the probate proceeding should be allowed.
Federico Azaola v. Cesario Singson
G.R. No. L-14003; August 5, 1960
FACTS:
When Fortunata Vda de Yance died, Francisco
Azaola filed a petition for the probate of the
former’s will, whereby Maria Milgaros Azaola was
made the sole heir as against the nephew of the
deceased Cesario Singson. Francisco witnessed that
one month before the death of the testator, the
same was handed to him and his wife.
The opposition to the probate was 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 was actually
written either on the 5th or 6th day of August
1957and not on November 20, 1956 as appears on
the will.
The probate was denied on the ground that under
Article 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent must
present three witnesses who could declare that the
will and the signature are in the writing of the
testatrix, the probate being contested.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the proponent was bound to produce more
than one witness
2. WON 811 is mandatory
HELD:
1. No. Since the authenticity of the will was not
being contested. But even if the genuineness of the
holographic will were contested, we are of the
opinion that Article 811 of our present Civil Code
cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory
presentation of 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 required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it
becomes obvious that the existence of witness
possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter
beyond the control of the proponent.
It may be true that the rule of this article (requiring
that three witnesses be presented if the will is
contested and only one if no contest is had) was
derived from the rule established for ordinary
testaments. But it cannot be ignored that the
requirement can be considered mandatory only in
the case of ordinary testaments, precisely because
the presence of at least three witnesses at the
execution of ordinary wills is made by law essential
to their validity (Art. 805). Where the will is
holographic, no witness need be present (Art. 10),
and the rule requiring production of three witnesses
must be deemed merely permissive if absurd results
are to be avoided.
Again, under Article 811, the resort to expert
evidence is conditioned by the words “if the Court
deem it necessary”, which reveal that what the law
deems essential is that the Court should be
convinced of the will’s authenticity. Where the
prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the
court is convinced by their testimony that the ill is
genuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call for
expert evidence. On the other hand, if no
competent witness is available, or none of those
produced is convincing, 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 that the true intention of the
testator be carried into effect.
2. The rule of the first paragraph of Article 811 of the
Civil Code is merely directory and is not mandatory.
Considering, however, that this is the first occasion
in which this Court has been called upon to construe
the import of said article, the interest of justice
would be better served, in our opinion, by giving the
parties ample opportunity to adduce additional
evidence, including expert witnesses, should the
Court deem them necessary.
4. Codoy v. Calugay
G.R. No. 123486, 12 August 1999, 312 SCRA 333
FACTS:
Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia
Patigas, devisees and legatees of the holographic
will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal,
filed a petition for probate of the holographic will of
the deceased.
In the petition, respondents claimed that the
deceased was of sound and disposing mind when
she executed the will, that there was no fraud,
undue influence, and duress employed in the person
of the testator, and will was written voluntarily.
Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed
an opposition to the petition for probate, alleging
that the holographic will was a forgery and that the
same is even illegible. This gives an impression that
a “third hand” of an interested party other than the
“true hand” of Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal
executed the holographic will.
Petitioners argued that the repeated dates
incorporated or appearing on will after every
disposition is out of the ordinary. If the deceased
was the one who executed the will, and was not
forced, the dates and the signature should appear at
the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly done
and not after every disposition. And assuming that
the holographic will is in the handwriting of the
deceased, it was procured by undue and improper
pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiaries, or through fraud and
trickery.1âwphi1.nêt
Respondents presented six (6) witnesses and
various documentary evidence. Petitioners instead
of presenting their evidence, filed a demurrer to
evidence, claiming that respondents failed to
establish sufficient factual and legal basis for the
probate of the holographic will of the deceased
Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will can be probated..
RULING:
Art. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall
be necessary that at least one witness who knows
the handwriting and signature of the testator
explicitly declare that the will and the signature are
in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is
contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be
required.
It 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.1âwphi1.nêThe 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.
It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented
by the respondents testified explicitly that they
were familiar with the handwriting of testator.
We cannot eliminate the possibility of a false
document being adjudged as the will of the testator,
which is why if the holographic will is contested, that
law requires three witnesses to declare that the will
was in the handwriting of the deceased.
The will was found not in the personal belongings of
the deceased but with one of the respondents, who
kept it even before the death of the deceased.
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare
the signature and the handwriting of the deceased
with other documents signed and executed by her
during her lifetime. holographic will. A visual
examination of the holographic will convince us that
the strokes are different when compared with other
documents written by the testator. The signature of
the testator in some of the disposition is not
readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing and
erasures on the will.
5. Gan v. Yap
G.R. No. L-12190, 30 August 1958, 104:509
FACTS:
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.
Her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap opposed the
petition and asserted that the deceased had not left
any will, nor executed any testament during her
lifetime.
During the probate, the alleged will itself was not
presented. Petitioner tried to establish its contents
and due execution by the statements in open court
of Felina Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte
and Rosario Gan Jimenez who testified Felicidad’s
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.
After hearing the parties and considering their
evidence, the Hon. Ramon R. San Jose,
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.
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:
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?
HELD:
The SC 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 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.”
Holographic will is a radical departure from the form
and solemnities provided for wills. 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.”
“In the probate of a holographic will” says the New
Civil Code, “it shall be necessary that at least one
witness who knows the handwriting and signature
of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the
signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If
the will is contested, at least three such witnesses
shall be required. In the absence of any such
witnesses, (familiar with decedent’s handwriting)
and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony
may be resorted to.”
The witnesses need not have seen the execution of
the holographic will, but they must be familiar with
the decedent’s handwriting. Obviously, when the
will itself is not submitted, these means of
opposition, and of assessing the evidence are not
available. And then the only guaranty of authenticity
— the testator’s handwriting — has disappeared.
6. Rodelas v. Aranza Digest
Rodelas v. Aranza
G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982
Relova, J. (Ponente)
Facts:
1. 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.
2. 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. A photocopy of the lost or destroyed
holographic will may be admitted because the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can
be determined by the probate court with the
standard writings of the testator.
7. Kalaw v. RelovaG.R. No. L-40207 September 28,
1984Melencio-Herrera, J. (Ponente)Facts:1.
Gregorio Kalaw, the private respondent, claiming to
be the sole heir of sister Natividad, filed apeition for
probate of the latter's holographic will in 1968. The
will contained 2 alterations: a) Rosa's name,
designated as the sole heir was crossed out and
instead "Rosario" was written above it. Such was not
initialed, b) Rosa's name was crossed out as sole
executrix and Gregorio's ma,e was written above it.
This alteration was initialed by the testator.2. Rosa
contended that the will as first written should be
given effect so that she would be the sole heir. The
lower court denied the probate due to the
unauthenticated alterations and additions.Issue:
Whether or not the will is validRULING: No, the will
is voided or revoked since nothing remains in the
will which could remain valid as there was only one
disposition in it. Such was altered by the substitution
of the original heir with another. To rule that the
first will should be given effect is to disregard the
testatrix' change of mind. However, this change of
mind cannot be given effect either as she failed to
authenticate it in accordance with Art. 814, or by
affixing her full signature.
8. Gonzales v. Court of Appeals (CA) Digest
Gonzales v. CA
G.R. No. L-37453 May 25, 1979
Guerrero, J. (Ponente)
Facts:
1. Petitioner Rizalina Gonzales and Lutgarda
Santiago (Private respondent) are the nieces of the
deceased Isabel Gabriel who died a widow. A will
was thereafter submitted to probate. The said will
was typewritten, in Tagalog and appeared to have
been executed in April 1961 or two months prior to
the death of Isabel. It consisted of 5 pages including
the attestation and acknowledgment, with the
signature of testatrix on page 4 and the left margin
of all the pages.
2. Lutgarda was named as the universal heir and
executor. The petitioner opposed the probate.
3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground
that the will was not executed and attested in
accordance with law on the issue of the competency
and credibility of the witnesses.
Issue: Whether or not the credibility of the
subscribing witnesses is material to the validity of a
will
RULING: No. The law requires only that witnesses
posses the qualifications under Art. 820 (NCC) and
none of the disqualifications of Art. 802. There is no
requirement that they are of good standing or
reputation in the community, for trustworthiness,
honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony
is believed and accepted in court. For the testimony
to be credible, it is not mandatory that evidence be
established on record that the witnesses have good
standing in the the community. Competency is
distinguished from credibility, the former being
determined by Art. 820 while the latter does not
require evidence of such good standing. Credibility
depends on the convincing weight of his testimony
in court.
9. Maloto v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988
Facts:
1. Petitioners and respondents are the
neices/nephews or Adriana Maloto who died in
1963. The four heirs believed that the deceased did
not leave a will, hesnce they filed an intestate
proceeding. However, the parties executed an
extrajudicial settlement of the estate dividing it into
four equal parts
2. In 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, ex-associate of the
deceased's counsel allegedly discovered her last will
which was purportedly dated 1940, inside a cabinet.
Hence the annulment of the proceedings and a
probate petition was filed by the devisees and
legatees. The said will was allegedly burned by the
househelp under the instruction of the deceased
3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground
that the animus revocandi in the burning of the will
was sufficiently proven.
Issue: Whether or not there was valid revocation of
the will
RULING: No, there was no revocation. For a valid
revocation to occur,the 'corpus' and 'animus' must
concur, one without the other will not produce a
valid revocation. The physical act of destruction of a
will must come with an intention to revoke (animus
revocandi). In this case, there's paucity of evidence
to comply with the said requirement. The paper
burned was not established to be the will and the
burning though done under her express direction
was not done in her presence.
Under Art. 830, the physical act of destruction, in
this case the burning of the will, does not constitute
an effective revocation, unless it is coupled
with animus revocandi on the part of the testator.
Since animus is a state of mind, it has to be
accompanied by an overt physical act of burning,
tearing, obliterating or cancelling done by the
testator himself or by another under his express
direction and presence.
10. Gago vs. Mamuyac
G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927
Facts:
1. Previously, Francisco Gago filed a petition for the
probate of a will of Miguel Mamuyac executed on
July 27, 1918. The oppositors alleged that the said
will was already annulled and revoked. It appeared
that on April 16, 1919, the deceased executed
another will. The lower court denied the probate of
the first will on the ground of the existence of the
second will.
2. Another petition was filed to seek the probate of
the second will. The oppositors alleged that the
second will presented was merely a copy. According
to the witnesses, the said will was allegedly revoked
as per the testimony of Jose Tenoy, one of the
witnesses who typed the document. Another
witness testified that on December 1920 the original
will was actually cancelled by the testator.
3. The lower court denied the probate and held that
the same has been annulled and revoked.
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation
of the will
RULING: Yes. The will was already cancelled in 1920.
This was inferred when after due search, the original
will cannot be found. When the will which cannot be
found in shown to be in the possession of the
testator when last seen, the presumption is that in
the absence of other competent evidence, the same
was deemed cancelled or destroyed. The same
presumption applies when it is shown that the
testator has ready access to the will and it can no
longer be found after his death.
11. Molo vs. Molo
G.R. No. L-2538 September 21, 1951
Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation
Facts:
1. Marcos Molo executed 2 wills, one in August
1918 and another in June 1939. The latter will
contained a revocation clause which expressly
revoked the will in 1918. He died without any forced
heirs but he was survived by his wife, herein
petitioner Juana. The oppositors to the probate
were his nephews and nieces.
2. Only a carbon copy of the second will was found.
The widow filed a petition for the probate of the
1939 will. It was admitted to probate but
subsequently set aside on ground that the petitioner
failed to prove its due execution.
3. As a result, the petitioner filed another petition
for the probate of the 1918 will this time. Again the
oppositors alleged that said will had already been
revoked under the 1939 will. They contended that
despite the disallowance of the 1939 will, the
revocation clause is valid and thus effectively
nullified the 1918 will.
Issue: Whether or not the 1918 will can still be valid
despite the revocation in the subsequent
disallowed 1939 will
RULING: Yes.The court applied the doctrine laid
down in Samson v. Naval that a subsequent
will,containing a clause revoking a previous will,
having been disallowed for the reason that it was
not executed in accordance with law cannot
produce the effect of annulling the previous will,
inasmuch as the said revocatory clause is void.
There was no valid revocation in this case. No
evidence was shown that the testator deliberately
destroyed the original 1918 will because of his
knowledge of the revocatory clause contained in the
will executed in 1939.The earlier will can still be
probated under the principle of dependent relative
revocation.The doctrine applies when a testator
cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument
intended to revoke a will with the intention to
make a new testamentary disposition as substitute
for the old, and the new disposition fails of effect
for some reason.
12. Diaz v. De Leon Digest
Diaz v. De Leon
G.R. No. 17714 May 31, 1922
Facts:
1. Jesus de Leon executed 2 wills, the second will
was not deemed in conformance to the
requirements under the law. After executing his first
will, he asked it to be immediately returned to him.
As it was returned, he instructed his servant to tear
it. This was done in the testator's presence and his
nurse. After sometime, he was asked by his
physician about the incident wherein he replied that
the will has already been destroyed.
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation
of the will
RULING: Yes. His intention to revoke is manifest
from the facts that he was anxious to withdraw or
change the provisions he made in the first will. This
fact was shown from his own statements to the
witnesses and the mother superior of the hospital
where he was subsequently confined. The original
will which was presented for probate is deemed
destroyed hence, it cannot be probated as the last
will and testament of testator.